homework help,online homework help,online tutors,online tutoring,research paper help,do my homework, https://www.homeworkping.com/

1. Get Homework/Assignment
Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 91260 July 25, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
EDWIN BELIBET, MANNY BANOY and RONNIE ROSERO, accused-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellants.
REGALADO, J.:p
Accused-appellants, having beenconvictedof murder byBranch47 of the Regional Trial
Court of Masbate for the killing. ofone GracitoHatulan, have come to us onappeal, seeking
a secondchance to prove their professedinnocence which theyclaim shouldhave been
declaredbythe court a quo.
In contra, the trial court inits decision datedSeptember 14, 1989 heldthat the guilt of said
appellants wasdulyestablishedbythe prosecution withthe requisite quantum of evidence
showing that theycommittedthe felony"employing superior strengthqualified bytreachery
in the process, which aggravatingcircumstance is not offset byanymitigatingcircumstance."
Consequently, it renderedjudgment sentencing each ofthe appellants "to the extreme
penaltyof reclusion perpetua;to indemnifythe heirs of GracitoHatulaninthe sum of
P30,000.00 without subsidiaryimprisonment incase of insolvency;to suffer the accessory
penalties providedfor bylaw;andto proportionatelypaythe costs." Appellants were
credited withfour-fifths (4/5) ofthe periodof their preventive imprisonment. 1
The transcript of the stenographic notes takenat the trial of this case andthe findings ofthe
court below sustainthe following summarysubmitted bythe People of the factual
antecedents of this case:
MannyBanoy, Ronnie Rosero, EdwinBelibet, ErustoCos. and Gracito
Hatulanwere among those whoattended a dance at Sitio Nipa, Barangay
Bolo, Municipalityof Masbate, on June 3, 1987. As the dance progressed,
Gracito Hatulan confrontedMannyBanoyabout the former's pair of
pants which he lost claiming that it was stolen bythe latter. Manny
Banoygot madat GracitoHatulanstatingthat he hadnothing to dowith
it. Later, on the dance floor, ErustoCos heardEdwinBelibet, Manny
BanoyandRonnie Roserohatcha plan to kill GracitoHatulan (pp. 3-5,
tsn, May24, 1988).
At about 2:00 o'clock in the morning ofJune 4, 1987, Erusto Cos, Edwin
Belibet, MannyBanoyandRonnie Rosero left the dancing hall and
passingthroughthe seashore, theysaw GracitoHatulansleepingina

2. banca. ErustoCos triedto wakenhim but was preventedfromdoing so
byhis companions. Thereafter, Edwin Belibet stabbed GracitoHatulan
with a "machete", hitting him inhisleft upper nipple. Gracito made stir
but Ronnie Roserotookhis turninstabbingGracitoHatulanin the breast
with the same weaponwhile MannyBanoyheldGracito's hands. Erusto
Cos pleaded to his companions not to harm Gracito Hatulan but his plea
fell on deaf ears. Engulfed byfear, he ran away(pp. 5-7, tsn, Ibid).
Thereafter, onthat same morning ofJune 4, 1987, Erusto Cos informed
the mother of Gracito Hatulan about the deathof her son(p. 8, tsn, Ibid).
The postmortem report (Exh. "A") of Dr. EmilioC. Quemi shows that the
victim sustained(1) stab wound, measuringabout aninch, locatedat the
left aspect of the middle, of the sternum, and (2) stabwound, measuring
about 3/4 inchlocatedat the right aspect of the middle thirdof the
sternum (pp. 36-42, tsn, Dec. 7, 1988). 2
On August 11, 1987, an informationcharging appellants withthe crime ofmurder wasfiled
alleging that on June 4, 1987, at SitioNipa, BarangayBolo, Masbate, Masbate, "the said
accusedconfederatingtogether, andhelpingone another with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treacheryandsuperiorityof strength, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniouslyattack, assault andstabwith knife "Matchete"(sic) one Gracito Hatulan while
the latter wassleeping, hitting him onthe chest, therebyinflictingwounds whichdirectly
causedhis instantaneous death."3
At the arraignment, appellants entereda plea of not guilty 4 and after trial onthe merits, the
appealeddecisionwas rendered bythe lower court.
Not satisfiedtherewith, appellants filed their present petitionfor review on certiorari faulting
the court a quo as having allegedlycommitted grave errors oflaw (1) inrelying onthe
testimonyof prosecutionstar witness ErustoCos which, aside from beinginsufficient to
convict appellants was indubitablyfabricated;(2) inconvicting appellants bycapitalizing on
the infirmityof the evidence ofthe defense rather thanon the strength ofthe evidence for
the prosecution;and (3) inconvicting appellants despite failure of the prosecutionto
establishtheir complicity, muchless their guilt, byproof beyondreasonable doubt. 5
The resolution ofthe foregoing assignment of errors palpablyhinges onthe sufficiencyof
evidence presentedbythe prosecution to establish appellants' guilt beyondreasonable
doubt.
On the issue of whether or not the degree ofproof required incriminal cases has beenmet,
the credibilityof witnesseswhoappeared incourt becomes a foremost matter. It is
doctrinallyentrenchedthat onthe questionof credibility, this Court will not disturb the
findings of the trialjudge unless he has plainlyoverlooked certainfacts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 6 The reasonis the opportunity
available to the trialcourt — but not to the appellate court — to observe the witnesses on
the standandto assesstheir credibilitynot onlybythe nature of their testimonybut alsoby
their demeanor under questioning. 7
Expectedly, appellants vigorouslyassail the credibilityof prosecution eyewitness ErustoCos.
Theycontend that the testimonyof saidwitness shouldnot be acceptedin all respects since
it appears to be caught ina snare of inconsistencies, andthat the same does not jibe withthe
declarationof the victim's mother. Theypoint out that when Cos allegedlyoverheard
appellants hatching a plot to kill Hatulan, he neither triedto curb murderous plannor
premonished the victim. We have takendue note ofappellant's assertions but we are
constrained to reject the same.
It is of commonknowledge that the complexityandintensityof interrogationandthe
atmosphere of the courtroom duringthe trialwill naturallyaffect the capabilityand
deportment of a laymaninansweringquestions. This is especiallytrue of Cos whoreached
onlythe thirdgrade inschool and hadthe inexperience of a simple 18-year oldfarmer.
However, despite his lack of educationandsocialexposure, he remained unflinchinginhis
testimonythat appellants were the ones who killedHatulan. His testimonyonhowthe
wounds ofthe victim were inflictedare confirmedbythe locationthereof as reflectedin the
autopsyreport and expert testimonythereon. 8
Moreover, the Court has time andagainheldthat inconsistenciesand contradictions
referring to minor details donot destroythe credibilityof the witness. 9 The most candid
witness oftentimes makesmistakes but suchhonest lapses donot necessarilyimpair his
intrinsic credibility. 10 Minor inconsistencies donot affect the veracityand testimonyon
material points. 11 Rather thanaffect the credibilityof the witness, theyare badgesof their
truthfulnessandcandor. 12
Appellants wouldcapitalize on the fact that Cos allegedlymade anadmissioninopencourt
that he was testifying out of sheer fear of beingimplicatedinthe crime. Yet, as easilygleaned
from the transcripts, the defense made it a point to confuse the witness onthis score bya
line of questioning withrepeatedresort to leading questions. A leading questionis one which
suggests to the witness the answer desired. 13 Thus, it is correct to saythat a leading question
propounded to a witness may, byreactingto aninference inhismind, cause him to testifyin
accordance withthe suggestionconveyedbythe question andthat his answer maybe
merelyan echoof the question.
The evidence onrecord shows that Cos andappellants were together inthe dance andon
their wayback home thereafter. While theywere walking alongthe seashore, theysaw
Hatulansleeping ona boat. It was thenthat appellants executedtheir planandattackedthe
helplessvictim in the presence of Cos who tried to stop them.
Undoubtedly, when Cos positivelyandcategoricallyidentified appellants as the killers of
Hatulan, he couldnot possiblybe mistakenas to their identities for he hadpersonallyknown
them since childhood. Neither is there anyshowingthat he hadanymotive to testifyfalsely
against appellants with whomhe was apparentlyon goodterms.
With respect to appellants, it has long beenestablishedthat motive becomes essentialonly
when there is doubt as to the identityof the assailants. It becomes immaterial whenthe
accusedhave been positivelyidentified. 14 With regardto Cos, there is nothinginthe records
which wouldshow a motive or reasononhis part to falselyimplicate appellants, hence his

3. identification shouldbe givenfull credence. Whenthere is no evidence indicatingthat the
principal witness for the prosecutionwas movedbyimproper motive, the presumptionis
that be was not somoved, andhis testimonyis entitled to full faithandcredit. 15
Appellants vehementlydenied the commissionof the crime imputedto them. On cross-
examination, Roseroaverredthat althoughhe knows Belibet whom he sawat the dance,
theydid not talk witheachother at that time.16 On the other hand, Banoydeniedthe
testimonyof Cos that while the dance was in progress, he hadanaltercation withthe victim
whose Identitywas supposedlynot even knownto him. He further allegedthat he didnot
have a chance to converse withBelibet. 17 Belibet, on his part, testifiedthat he did not know
the victim personally, but he saidthat the victim was"staringbad" at him, which fact
promptedhimto go home
early. 18
The positive identification ofappellants bythe prosecutionwitness shouldprevail over the
former's denials ofthe commissionof the crime for which theyare charged, since greater
weight is generallyaccorded to the positive testimonyof the prosecutionwitness thanthe
accused's denial. 19 Denial, like alibi, is inherentlya weakdefense andcannot prevail over the
positive andcredible testimonyof the prosecutionwitness that the accusedcommittedthe
crime. 20
Furthermore, the defense of alibi was properlyrejectedbythe court a quo. Appellants claim
that BanoyandRosero hadgone together to andarrived at the dancing hallinthe eveningof
June 3, 1987. Belibet also supposedlyarrived at about the same hour but, whenhe
discoveredthat he was beingstaredat byHatulan, he went home alone at about 11:00
o'clock that evening, passingthrougha trail fromthe dancinghall. Banoyand Rosero
allegedlyalso went home muchlater passingthrougha trail leading to BarangayBolo. 21
Assuming arguendo the veracityof their foregoing avowals, still for alibi to prosper it must be
established byclear and convincingevidence that the accusedwere at some other place and
for such a periodof time as to negate their presence at the time whenandthe place where
the crime wascommitted. 22 It was not denied that the seashore, the situs of the crime, is
onlyfifty(50) meters awayfrom the dancing hallandeven fromthe residences of appellants,
the farthest beingthat of Belibet which is four (4) kilometers away. The aforesaid distances
could not complywith the requirement of "physicalimpossibilityon their part to have access
to the situs of the crime,"thus obviating any favorableconsideration oftheir defense. 23
WHEREFORE, the judgmentofthecourt a quo is AFFIRMED, with the modification thattheindemnityto
the heirs of theVictimis increased toP50,000.00, 24 for whichappellants shallbesolidarily liable.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento,JJ., concur
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-47411 January 18, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EUFEMIO CAPARAS y PAEZ and PATRICIO DIAMSAY y GREGORIO, defendants-appellants.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE CASTRO, J.:
Before Us are two separate motions for reconsideration ofOur decision dated February20,
1980 convicting the twoabovenamedappellants, one filed bytheir counselof record in
behalf ofbothof them;the other, filedbya new counsel of Caparasonlyin his behalf.
The motionfor reconsideration, filedbyappellants'counsel ofrecord, seeks the re-
examination ofthe decisioninsofar as it rejects the pleaof self-defense ofappellant Diamsay.
As in the appellants'brief, appellant Diamsayin his present motionfor reconsideration failed
to prove the justifyingcircumstance withclear andconvincing evidence. As he had himself
admitted to be the actual killer, the burdenof proof is shifted to himto establishall the facts
necessaryto prove his plea of self defense. The motionfor reconsideration, insofar as
Diamsayis concerned, hasnothing newwith whichto discharge thisburden, and must
consequentlybe denied.
As regards appellant Caparas, the motions for reconsideration seekthe review of the
testimonies of the twoprincipalwitnesses, LaureanoSalvador andLydia Posadas, uponwhich
said appellant was convicted, ongroundof conspiracybetweenhim and Diamsay. Caparas
points out some facts andcircumstanceswhichare alleged to impair the credibilityof the
aforesaidwitnesses andtherebyleaves the fact of conspiracyunproven beyondreasonable
doubt as it shouldbe.
Thus, Caparas points out that Laureano's testimonywas extracted throughleading questions,
and he quotes:
Q Do you know the purpose ofCarlos Gregorio in
coming to your house?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was his purpose?
A Regarding the landholding I was farming andhis
helpI requested.

4. Q Did you go to anyplace withCarlos Gregorioafter
that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where?
A To his house.
Q You are referring to the house of Carlos Gregorio?
A Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you arrivedat the house of Carlos Gregorio,
who were withyou?
A Carlos Gregorio, sir.
Q Who were the persons, ff any, that you have seen
at the house of Carlos Gregorio?
A EufemioCaparas and Diamsay, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, whenyou arrivedinthat house, what
happened?
A We talkedregarding the landholding, sir.
Q You said, 'we' to whom are you referring?
A EufemioCaparas, sir.
Q What did youtalkabout that landholding?
A Regarding the landholding which he saidwouldbe
given to me. He saidthere is alreadyone.
Q And what didyou answer when this was saidto you
byEufemioCaparas?
A I said, 'if there is, I give thanks', but he said that the
landhe was giving me hadsome trouble.
Q And what didyou say?
A I said' that seems hard',but he said,'that is easy'.
Q What else transpired?
A I asked him what he meant byeasyand he said'it is
easyunder this condition', and I askedhim what
condition, andhe saidyou kill him.
Q Duringallthat time, whowere present inside that
house?
A TisioDiamsay.
Q Who else?
A EufemioCaparas, sir.
Q Anybodyelse?
A Carting Gregorio, sir.
Q And you?
A I was present.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, in the vernacular, inTagalog Language that
you have been testifying, yousaid, 'Patayinn'yo,
means plural, doyou know to whomthis word 'n'yo'
referredto?
A He was orderingme, Carling, andTisioDiamsay,sir.
Q Ordering to what?
A To kill.
Q To kill Simeon Paez?

5. A Yes, sir.
We are constrained to agree that the testimonyof Laureano onthe supposed conspiracywas
elicited bymeans of leading questions, the probative value of which, accordingto accepted
legal authorities, is thus diminishedor lessened.
The probative value of a witness'testimonyis verymuch lessened where
it is obtainedbyleading questions whichare soput that the witness
merelyassents to or dissents from a statement or assertionof an
examiningconsul put withsuchvocal inflectionas to be question. 1
Appellant Caparas alsopoints out several inconsistenciesandimprobabilitiesinthe
testimonies of the twowitnesses. While this Court has constantlyadheredto the rule that
conclusions ofthe trial court on the matter of evaluations of the truth ofdeclarations of
witnesses and their credibilitycarrygreat weight and commandfavorable
considerations, 2 the instant case cannot come under this rulefor, as pointedout inthe
motionfor reconsideration, the judge who rendered the decision wasnot the judge who
heard the testimoniesandobservedthe de or of witnesses LaureanoSalvador andLydia
Posadas. 3 This being the case, andconsidering the gravityof the crime charged, their
testimonies must be subjected to a strict scrutinyto leave noroomfor doubt as to the guilt
of Caparas whose complicitywas basedonlyonconspiracywhich, according to settled
doctrine, must be shownto exist as clearlyand convincinglyas the commissionof the offense
itself. 4
After a careful and conscientious review ofthe evidence, We are now convincedthat the
testimonies of the twoaforementioned petitionedwitnesses were accorded more than what
theydeserve bywayof credence andveracity. Doubts as to the truthof their testimonies
assailthe mindof the Court, occasionedbymanyimprobabilitiesintheir testimonies, andin
the case ofLydia, bydirect contradiction byhis own sister, Priscilla Posadas.
To beginwithLaureano Salvador, it is not without significance that he wasnot listedinthe
informationto be amongthe prosecutionwitnesses. Onlyduringthe trialon June 2, 1973,
and after more than twoyears after the commissionof the crime, that he surfaced and
testifiedon what he allegedlyknew about the crime. Fromhis testimony, it wouldappear
that he didnot inform the authorities nor his relatives what he knew about the crime, and
that it was onlyto PabloPaezthat he toldhis storyabout the crime, but onlyafter almost
two years after its commission. Thisfact initself is contraryto humanexperience because
the natural reactionof one whohas knowledge ofthe crime is to reveal it to the authorities,
except onlyifhe is the author thereof. Indeed, as heldinPeople vs. Basuel, 5 the silence of the
witnesses for about two years detracts from their trustworthiness.
This witness, of course, explainedthat his silence was due to his fear for his life, for which
reasonhe went intohiding in Dupax Nueva Viscaya, where he allegedlyworkedat Diplong
Sawmill. We cannot, however, give credence to this explanation, since counsel for appellant
was not giventhe opportunityto cross examine Salvador Laureanoon thismatter. It appears
that this witnesstestifiedthat while hiding in Dupax he workedin "Diplong Sawmill." But
upon investigation bycounselfor appellant, it was found out that there is no Diplong Sawmill
and because of this, counsel for appellant movedto cross examine further the witness. But
said witnessfailedto appear inthe hearing despite summons, until the court, after a third
failure to appear, issuedan order for his arrest. Whenthe said witnessfinallyappeared,
counselfor appellant requestedto postpone the crossexamination ona veryvalidground
that he hadanother case which wasearlier scheduledon the same date. The trial court,
however, refused to postpone the crossexamination. This, inOur opinion, is a prejudicial
error on the part of the trial court, whichshouldhave grantedthe postponement. As it is, his
testimonycannot but create some doubts inOur mind, speciallyas onhisownadmission, he
never went to the Office of the ProvincialFiscal to inform the government prosecutors that
he wouldbe a witnessinthis case.
In the case ofPeople vs. Maisug, 6 this Court held that the conduct such as shownbythe
witness is unnatural and contrary to ordinaryexperience. Lawyers donot usuallypresent
witnesses without informing themselves regarding the facts that theywouldprove bythe
testimonies theywould present in court.
The other witness, Lydia Posadas, a sister-in-law of the deceasedhadto wait for four (4) days
after the shooting, and about two (2) weeks after she allegedlyoverheard the supposed
conspiracy, to execute a joint statement withher sister, Priscilla, before the ProvincialFiscal.
It defies one's credulitythat bothof them, especiallyLydia, whois a sister-in-lawof the
deceasedwouldnot immediatelyexpose Caparas as the manbehindthe perpetrationof the
crime. This stultifiedsilence casts grave doubts as to their veracity. 7 These doubts deepen
when she testified that she didnot revealevento her husbandthe plot to killhis brother.
The reasongivenbythe lower court is that her father-in-law to whomshe toldof Caparas'
planto liquidate the deceased advised her not to inform anybody, as Atty. Pedro Paez would
arrive on February6, 1971 to settle the conflict. The explanationis not persuasive. No wife
who heardof a plot to killher brother-in-law wouldnot tell her husbandof sucha dreadful
plan. Her explanation whyshe didnot tell her husbandis simplypreposterous. Uponbeing
told of the plot, anyone, especiallya father, wouldnot let even a daypassbefore taking
measures to avert the plot against his son's life. Lydia Posadastestifiedthat she heard the
plot on January27, 1971. To wait until February6, 1971 to reveal it to the authorities would
be taking so much risk, not dictated bythe gravityof the events that criedfor instant action
to prevent its occurrence.
Aside fromthe inherent incredibility, as shownabove, of Lydia's testimony, it was directly
contradictedbyher sister, Priscilla, whodenied having gone to the haystack withher sister,
Lydia, on January27, 1971. Priscilla declared that she executed the swornstatement which
tendedto implicate Caparasbecause she and her sister were instructedto dosobyPedro
Paez who from all indications exertedmoral ascendancyover themas theywere staying with
the familyof PedroPaez. Andbeing thenonly17 years old, she didnot realize the serious
implications of what she haddone.
In Our decisionsubject of the present motionfor reconsideration, We brushedaside Priscilla
Posadas'testimony, stating:
... Lydia Posadas declared inCourt on July14, 1973 while PriscillaPosadas
took the standonMarch 27, 1974. Between these dates, as the cliche

6. goes, much water hasgone under the bridge. There is everypossibility
for overtures to have takenplace bywayof saving appellant Caparas at
least, whois after all, closelyrelatedto the victimandthe Paezes, from
complicity. For if the two sisters were made to jointlyexecute a false
affidavit byPedroPaez, Priscillacould at least have been prevailed upon
not to take the standjust so her sister Lydia wouldnot be unmasked as a
liar. If she tookthe standas a defensewitness, it must have been
because the Paezes, realizing what a terrible fate would befall a close
relative, appellant Caparas, whocouldhave soothedtheir aggrieved
feelings withmore thanjust anemptysupplication for pity, were induced
to save Caparasfrom the grave punishment that he would suffer for the
serious offense with whichhe was charged.
We realize the foregoing ratiocinationgoes more intothe realmof conjecture thanreality,
upon consideration ofthe fact that as the records show, the prosecutionthrough a private
prosecutor, presentedrebuttal evidence to disprove the evidence given byPriscilla Posadas,
thus negatingwhat thisCourt surmised wasthe reasonfor Priscilla's testimonyso favorable
to appellant Caparas. It maybe because the Solicitor Generalmade noattempt to explainthe
damaging testimonyof Priscilia, fromthe prosecutionstandpoint, that the Court was pushed
to doingit, andregrettablyso, for as just statedit didsowith nobetter thanmere
speculationandsurmise.
WhyPedro Paez involved the twosisters at the time the joint affidavit was executed was
probablybecause Laureano wasstill in hiding and PedroPaez thought that convictionof
Caparas wouldbe more sure if twowitnesses couldcorroborate eachother.
Moreover, PedroPaez's letter datedJune 23, 1980 addressed to the President of the
Philippines andforwardedto this Court byhis office requesting for earlyresolutionof this
case and another letter datedJune 17, 1981 praying for execution ofthe decisionof this
Court in this case showno pityon Pedro Paez's part Lo want appellant Caparassavedfrom
punishment, contraryto this Court's mere surmise.
The trial court alsoinferredconspiracyfrom its finding that appellant Caparas, inordering
the killingof the deceased, was motivated byresentment against the deceasedas a result of
a conflict betweenthem over proprietaryrights involvinga portionof agricultural land:and
that the gunusedinkilling the deceasedwas owned byCaparas.
While conspiracymaybe establishedbycircumstantial evidence providedthat it is
competent and convincing, inthe instant case, the evidence withwhich to link Caparasina
conspiracywithDiamsayto kill the deceased does not rest onsolid ground. The records do
not showthat Caparas harbors intense resentment against the Paezesas to goto the extent
of liquidatingthem. On the contrary, it was the Paezeswhohadallthe reasonto be angry
with Caparaswho, accordingto them, was defrauding themof their rightful rights. In the
case of Diamsay, he apparentlyactedon his own. Diamsayhatedthe Paezesbecause of the
latter's "insulting attitude" toward him, as maybe gleanedfrom the decision ofthe trialcourt
when it states:
When SimeonPaez ,was about to have the same landplanted, Diamsay
stoppedthe planters. This angeredthe former causing himto utter
slanderous remarks against Diamsay. PedroPaez alsoresentedthe
actuations of Diamsayin (sic) stoppingof the land.
As regards the finding that the gunusedbyDiamsayin killing SimeonPaezwas ownedby
Caparas, thisis easilyexplained bythe fact that as overseer ofCaparas, Diamsaywas
authorized to carrythe gun. Pedro Paez himself admittedthat whenhe was stillthe overseer
of Caparas, he also used to carrya gun givenhim byCaparas.
In the light ofthe foregoing discussion, We cannot but entertain doubts as to the veracityof
the testimonies of the two witnesses which alone providedthe basis for the finding of
,conspiracyagainst Caparas. These doubts nowdisturb the mindof the Court as to his
culpability, andmust accordinglybe resolvedinfavor of appellant Caparas it beingpreferably
to acquit a guiltypersonrather thanconvict all;innocent one. 8
WHEREFORE, the decisionof February20, 1980 is herebyaffirmedwithrespect to appellant
Diamsay, but reversedwith respect to appellant Caparas who is herebyacquitted, onground
of reasonable doubt, ofthe crime charged. Withcosts de oficio as to appellant Caparas.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Barredo (Chairman), J., I vote to give the movant the benefit of doubt.
Aquino, J.,see dissent below.

7. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 82882 February 5, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CRISTINA DE LEON & JOHN DOE at large, accused.
CRISTINA DE LEON, defendant-appellant.
GANCAYCO, J.:p
Before anaccusedis convictedof a crime, hisguilt must be provedbeyond reasonable doubt
and until provedguilty, he is presumedinnocent. The burdenof proofrests upon the
prosecutionandunless the State succeeds inproving his guilt, the presumptionof innocence
in favor of the accused applies. These are the principles that guidedthe Court in reversing
the decisionof the trial court wherein the defendant-appellant was convictedof the very
serious crime of kidnapping and sentencedto serve the penaltyof life imprisonment.
The facts as foundbythe lower court whichfoundthe storyof the prosecutionmore reliable
is simplyput as follows:
Delia Lacson, the complainant inthiscase, comes from a well-off familywhich owns several
stores andtwo houses, one locatedat BagongSilang, CaloocanCityand the other in
Novaliches, QuezonCity. Defendant-appellant Cristina de Leon, onthe other hand, was living
with her common-law husbandalso at Bagong Silang. The two met andbecame friends in
1987 when Delia wasonly15 years old and a third-year highschool student.
Sometime in June 1987, Delia was introducedto Boy, the brother of defendant-appellant,
who was then19 years of age. Boywas the former live-in partner of anentertainer who left
for Japanandwas renting anapartment near the house of defendant-appellant Cristina. By
July1987, Boyand Delia became sweethearts andinthe same month, theyeloped and
starteda live-in relationship. During the short spanof time that theystayedtogether, Delia
learnedhowto smoke marijuana andtake "prohibited" drugs like Corex andColagin. Later,
BoystartedbeatingDelia. Realizing her mistake, Delia decided to leave Boyandthus she
went awaywithher mother when the latter fetchedher on July21, 1987.
Delia testified incourt that onAugust 18, 1987 at about 3:30 in the afternoon, she went to
buybreadat a bakerywhich was about 150 to 200 meters awayfrom their house at Bagong
Silang. She said that on her wayhome, a private jeep stoppedinfront of her from whichthe
defendant-appellant alighted. Defendant-appellant, along withthe driver, allegedlyseized
her and tiedher arms from behind and gaggedher mouthwitha handkerchief. It is also
allegedthat withthe assistance of twoother men, theyforcedher intothe jeep. She was
allegedlybrought to the house ofthe aunt of defendant-appellant inNovalichesanddragged
into a room where Boywas havinga drug sessionwith twomen. She allegedthat she was
also forced to take drugs, and that not long thereafter, she felt dizzyandfell asleep.

8. When Delia awoke about one hour later, she allegedlysaw defendant-appellant Cristina and
two men still inside the room. Defendant-appellant made her take a bathafter whichone of
the men forcedher to have sex with him.
After the incident, Deliawas locked upinthe same room for about three days. On the fourth
day, defendant-appellant finallytalked to her andtoldher that she will have her employedin
a beer garden. The following day, defendant-appellant, before bringingDelia to the beer
garden, forcedher to take a glassful of Corex and ColaginThis happened for several
consecutive days. She wouldbe forced to take drugs, brought to the beer gardenand
brought backto the same house at 3 o'clockinthe morning to be locked upagainin the
same room. According to Delia, she couldnot escape because defendant-appellant always
kept a watchful eye onher.
On August 27, 1987, narratesDelia, a man who seemed to be a familiar face from Bagong
Silang went to the beer house. The man, named MarceloMateoJr., testified incourt that
while passinghis time awayat the beer house, a girl whom he recognizedas someone from
BagongSilang approached him andtoldhim ofher plight. She pleaded to himto helpher get
out of the place as she couldnot doit all byherself. Mateofurther testified that since the girl
was obviouslydrugged, he harboreddoubts as to the truthfulness of her narration.
Nonetheless, he saidthat he promised her that he will be back soon.
After conducting his owninvestigation, Mateo went backto free Delia. Without anyone
noticing, Delia passedthroughthe backdoor of the beer house while Mateo got a taxi to
transport themto his parents' house.
The informationchargingdefendant-appellant Cristina de Leonwith the crime of kidnapping
was filedwith the RegionalTrialCourt of CaloocanCityandafter due trial the court rendered
a decision onFebruary3, 1988 with the followingdispositive portion:
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the hereinaccusedCRISTINA
DE LEON, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of KIDNAPPING,
as definedand penalizedinArticle 267, paragraph(4), of the Revised
Penal Code, and herebysentencesher to reclusion perpetua. 1
Hence thisappeal therefrom.
In her defense, defendant-appellant contends that at the time of the alleged kidnapping, it
could not have been possible for her to be at the site of the crime because she was ina
funeral parlor. Inother words, her defense consists ofalibi. She completelydenies all the
charges imputed to her byDelia and insists that the girl ranawayfrom home instead.
Defendant-appellant's aunt testified inher favor inthat there are onlythree rooms inher
house for 21 people andthat there is nosuchroom thereinwitha built-inbathroom where
Delia wassupposedto have been detained as she had testified. She alsostates that the only
time that Deliawent to stayin her house was when she eloped withher nephew, Boy, to live
together as husbandandwife for a couple of days.
It is clear from a readingof the appealeddecision that inchoosing whichversion to believe,
the lower court reliedon the credibilityof the witnesses and their respective
testimonies. 2 This is because there is noconcrete proof as to the fact of kidnapping andthe
versions of the partiesare directlyopposed.
We are well-aware of the numerous decisions that entrenchthe principle ofreliabilityof the
trial court's findings regarding the credibilityof witnesses. Havinghadthe opportunityto
meet the witnesses face to face, the trial court is deemedto be ina better positionto
ascertain whether or not theyare tellingthe truth.
However, after conducting a thorough studyof the records of this case, the Court arrivedat
the conclusionthat the lower court disregarded some details which, if takenintoaccount,
should change entirelythe court's opinionas to the credibilityof the prosecutionwitnesses
and their testimonies, particularlythat of the complainant. There are glaring inconsistencies
in the saidtestimonies which are damaging to the cause ofthe prosecution. Questions and
arguments presentedbythe appellant inher brief were left unanswered. There are
uncertainties as to howthe kidnapping actuallytookplace. All these combinedledthisCourt
to the conclusionthat the judgment ofconvictionof guilt for the crime ofkidnapping in this
particular case has no cogent basis.
By merelyglossing over the facts, one wouldfind it mind-boggling how the lower court
arrived at the opinionthat the alleged victim was a credible witness describing her as "a girl
of no previous exposure to the wildandharshways of the world." 3 The facts clearlyshow
otherwise. Delia was only15 anda mere third-year highschool student whenshe met Boy.
Yet, just a few days after, she alreadyhad sexual relations withhim. What is worseis that she
left her home and familyto have a "live-in" relationship withthe 19-year oldboyandlater on
became involved inprohibiteddrugs. The affidavit she executedbefore the barangaycaptain
shows that she went withhimfreely, to wit:
Q What were you investigatedabout byMrs. Liwagat
the barangay?
A She askedme if I voluntarilywent, sir.
Q With whom? A With Boy, sir.
Q What was your answer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Bythat answer ofyours, you meanyou voluntarily
stayedwith Boy?
A Yes, sir. 4

9. Undeniable alsois the fact that she was employedina beer garden until she voluntarily
resigned.
Next, the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" executedbyDelia before the police authorities is clearlyin
conflict withher testimonyincourt. The said"Sinumpaang Salaysay" includes the following:
T Pagkatapos na ikaw aymaihatidsa Beer House,
hindi ka na niya sinusundo sa pag-uwi?
S Hindi na po. Ako na lamang mag-isa ang umuuwi at
pagdating nghaponaydumarating siya sa R.P. at
kanyang kinukuha andiba kong kita mula sa Beer
House (Emphasis supplied.) 5
The foregoing is a clear admission onthe part of Delia that there was noactual confinement
or restriction onher person. She hadeveryopportunityto escape,yet she didnot. On the
contrary, she, all byherself, kept on returning to the supposed detentionplace. Withthis
circumstance, the element of deprivation oflibertywhichis essential inkidnappingappears
to be absent.
The fact that Delia later ondenied that she was in her proper senses when she executedthe
sworn statement before the police authorities andgave a different storyin court does not at
all work inher favor. First of all, the Court cannot believe that at the time she gave her
statement to the police she was stillunder the influence of the drug that was supposedto
have been given to her byappellant more than 24 hours earlier. Secondly, withtwo
conflicting stories both made under oath, the Court cannot assume one or the other as the
truth.
In Mondragon v. Court of Appeals, 6 this Court heldthat whenone witnessmakestwo sworn
statements andthese twostatements incur inthe gravest contradictions, the Court cannot
accept either statement as proof. The witness byhisownact of giving falsetestimony
impeacheshis owntestimonyand the Court shouldexclude it fromallconsideration. The
above-mentionedruling shouldguide thisCourt inthis case where the witnessmakesa
sworn statement before the police authorities that is contradictoryto her testimonyincourt.
The lower court, havingbeenapprisedof the same, shouldhave been more circumspect in
adoptingsaid testimony. It is also apparent that thiswas completelydisregardedbythe
lower court inits assessment regarding the credibilityandreliabilityof Deliaas a witness.
Going throughthe records verycarefully, the Court finds other circumstancesthat work
against the theoryof the prosecution aside fromwhat waspreviouslydiscussed, andtheyare
as follows:
1. The kidnapping wassupposedto have beenconductedin broaddaylight andina
busystreet where Delia's familyis well-known.
2. Not even a single eyewitness was presentedin court to testifythat he witnessed
the abduction.
3. Deliadid not evenattempt to shout or callfor help.
4. When orderedto take a bath, Delia immediatelyfollowedwithout evenasking
whyshe was beingaskedto do so.
5. Deliadid not tryto escape whenever appellant brought foodto her room.
6. When informedbyappellant that she will be employedas a receptionist ina
beer garden, Delia asked the former that she be employedas a singer instead. 7
7. Delia, who was supposed to be a kidnapvictim, was made to work ina public
place andride public transportation for one whole week.
8. Deliawas giventhe libertyto talk to strangers andcustomers of the beer garden
from whom she couldeasilyaskfor help.
9. Deliawas able to escape soeasilybyjust passing throughthe backdoor of the
beer garden. 8
10. Delia admittedthat she voluntarilyresigned fromher job as a receptionist in
the beer garden.
The version ofthe defendant-appellant that what actuallyhappenedis that Delia ranaway
from home and was scaredto go backbecause of her brothers is bolsteredbythe
testimonies of the prosecutionwitnessesthemselves, to wit:
TESTIMONY OF PAT. ALFREDO ANTONIO:
Q Where didyou allow her to rest?
A At the house near the detachment because she
could not go yet to their house inasmuch as she was
in fear. It took her sometime before she couldgo
home becauseshe was afraid of her
brothers. 9
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:Where did she sleep?
A In the house near the detachment where her
statement might be taken because she might leave. 10

10. xxx xxx xxx
Q You said that Delia Lacson seems to be afraid, did
you come to knowwhyshe was afraid?
A From what I gathered, Ma'am, she seemedto be
afraidof her brothers. 11
TESTIMONY OF MARCELO MATEO, JR.:
Q What did Delia dowhenshe stayed in your house
during that time?
A I let her sleep withmysister andtoldmysister to
keep watchon her because she was in the influence
of drugs andshe might escape,
sir. 12
Indeed, it is surprising that after having rescuedDelia, Mr. Mateodidnot bringher
immediatelyto her houseand familyandinsteadbrought her to hisparent's house. Later,
the policemenwhofetchedher brought her to the police detachment andlet her sleepina
house at the backof the saidpolice detachment whichwas verynear Delia's ownhouse. If
Delia wastrulykidnapped, her familyshouldhave been veryeager to see her againto find
out if she was unharmed. The onlyplausible reasonfor Mr. Mateo's actionis, as contended
byappellant andtestifiedto bythe other witnesses, that she was scared to go back to her
house because of her brothers whowere angryat her for running awayfrom home.
It maybe true that defendant-appellant has a veryweak defense whichis alibi. Yet, thisdoes
not at all allow the prosecutionto escape from its responsibilityto prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction. With all the serious doubts attendant to
the case, the Court is constrainedto acquit the defendant-appellant of the crime of
kidnapping Delia Lacson.
WHEREFORE, the questioneddecisionof the RegionalTrialCourt is REVERSED and
defendant-appellant is herebyACQUITTEDwithcosts de officio.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-38790 November 9, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FEDERICO RELUCIO @ "PEDRING", EDRIPINEDA, ROSENDO VELASCO @ "MANGYO", DANTE
ARIOLA, MIGUEL ESPEJO PADRONES @ "EGI", PETER DOE, and RICHARD DOE, accused,
ROSENDO VELASCO @ "MANGYO", accused-appellant.
J. G. Lapuz & E. F. David for appellant.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez Jr. and
Trial Attorney Windalino Y. Custodia for appellee.
BARREDO, J.:
Appeal from the judgment of convictionagainst appellant Rosendo Velasco ofthe crime of
murder bythe Circuit CriminalCourt of the Fourth Judicial District datedJanuary4, 1974, the
dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court, findingthe accusedFedericoRelucioand
RosendoVelasco guiltybeyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
as chargedinthe information, andin the absence ofanymodifying
circumstance, herebysentencesthem to reclusion perpetua; to indemnify
jointlyand severallythe heirs of the hereindeceased victim Gonzalo
Talastasinthe amount of P12,000.00 without, however, subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvencybyreason ofthe nature ofthe
sentence, andto paythe proportionate costs.
It appears that the other accusedFederico Reluciowithdrew his appeal upon the filingof a
motionfor new trial but pending the resolutionof saidmotion, saidaccusedbroke out of the
Nueva Ecija ProvincialJailtogether withtwo other inmates namedMarioDavidandAmante
Villasenor for whichreasonthe trial court declared the decision final as to him. (Order of the
trial court of June 4, 1974.)
Appellant was chargedwithmurder inthe court below, together withFedericoRelucio, alias
"Pedring", Edri Pineda, Dante Ariola, Miguel Espejo Padrones. alias "Egi" Peter Doe and
Richard Doe, inaninformation dated May29, 1972 readingas follows:
The CityFiscal accuses Federico Relucioalias "Pedring", Edri Pineda,
RosendoVelasco alias "Mangyo", Dante Ariola, Miguel EspejoPadrones
alias "Egi", Peter Doe andRichardDoe, the true Identities ofthe last two-
namedaccusedbeing presentlyunknown, of the crime of Murder,
committed as follows:

11. That on or about the 23 rd dayof June, 1971, in the Cityof Cabanatuan,
Philippines andwithin the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, the above-
namedaccused, conspiring, confederating andmutuallyaiding and
abetting one another, withtreachery, did thenandthere, willfully,
unlawfullyand feloniouslyattack, assault anduse personal violence upon
the personof one GonzaloTalastasbyshooting the latter on different
parts of his bodywith guns therebyinflicting uponhimserious physical
injuries which directlycaused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the generic aggravatingcircumstances of
evident premeditation andcruelty.
Cabanatuan City, May29, 1972.
FOR THE CITY FISCAL:
SGD.) MARIO M. DEL ROSARIO Special Counsel
The trial beganonNovember 16, 1972 and endedon November 5, 1973, the court holdingno
less thantwenty-four sessions. Four witnesses, PatrolmanJose E. Garcia, CrispinAngeles,
Dra. MeliciaC. de Guzman and Miguel Padrones,testifiedfor the prosecutionduring the
presentation ofthe direct evidence andfour witnesses, Jose Serafica, Inday Tinio, Benito
CustodioandagainMiguel Padrones were presentedas rebuttal witnesses. The defense had,
aside from the accusedRelucioandVelasco, the followingwitnesses:Eduardo Mangahas,
Jose Aguilar, Ligaya Velasco, Elias Estrella, judge AlfinVicencio, SegundinoGabriel, Pablo
Padilla, EusebioMendiolaandDr. Emiliano Perez. Later, Velascotestifiedagaininrebuttal.
The transcript of the stenographic notes of the testimonies ofall the witnesses consist of
over 930 pages.
Of the four witnessesin chief presentedbythe prosecutiononlytwo, CrispenAngeles and
Miguel Padrones, canbe saidto have givenincriminatoryevidence against appellant.
- 1 -
According to Angeles, (pp. 18-115, t.s.n.), onthe dayinquestion, June 23, 1971, he met the
deceasedGonzalo Talastas (Along) near the entrance to the CapitalTheater inCabanatuan
Cityat about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. He invited Talastas to see the movie. The latter said
he was waiting for a woman. Whenthe woman namedAmanda arrived, she had a female
companion, andthe four of themwent in. After a while Amanda left anddid not go back
anymore. So, Angeles invitedTalastasto leave but the latter saidhe wouldwait for Amanda
to return. A little later, however, he acceded just the same, but Angeles "left aheadof him."
As Angeles wasgoing out, he met the accusedFedericoRelucio and another personunknown
to him going inside the theater. After the two went in, Angelesheardshots, after whichhe
saw Talastas goingout of the theater withblood on hisshoulder. (He couldnot saywhether
left or right. 'At that moment, he (Angeles)was "in the place opposite the Capital Theater
near the Avenue Theater" (across Burgos Street ). He saw "someone followingandshooting
him" (Talastas),'somebodywhowas chasing him. ... He was firingshots," but he didnot say
clearlywho firedthe shots. His vague testimonyon thispoint is as follows:
Q Where were you whenyou saw GonzaloTalastas
going out of the theater?
A I was there infront ofthe Avenue theater, sir.
Q What happened if youknow when yousawGonzalo
Talastasgoing out the theater?
A There was somebodywhowas chasinghim, sir.
Prosecutor
Q What was that one chasing him doing while chasing
him?
A He was firing shots, sir.
Q To whom was he firingshots?
A GonzaloTalastas, the one who died.
Q Do you know that one chasing Gonzalo Talastas?
A Yes, sir. The one chasing himI knowhim byface
and the other one I knowhim byname only, sir.
Q How manywere chasing GonzaloTalastas?
A There were manybut I recognizedonlyfour, sir.
Q You said that you know the name of one of them,
will you please tell the Honorable Court the name of
one of them whomyou know byname?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is his name?
A Ige, sir.

12. Q If Ige is in thiscourtroom, canyou point to him?
A Yes, sir.
Atty. Abesamis
We object to the questionfor it lacks basisbecause
the witness categoricallystated that he onlyknewthe
name. He didnot state that he knows the personwho
carries the name of Ige, your Honor.
Court
But he saw the man. Ifhe didnot see, I wouldnot
insist. I wouldsustainyou easilybut he sawthe face.
Atty. Abesamis
I submit, your Honor.
Court
Witness mayanswer.
Witness
A Yes, sir. Prosecutor
Q Please point to him?
A (witnesspointingto a person wearinga white shirt
when askedof hisname answeredthat he is Miguel
Padrones).
Q You said yousaw four persons, besides Miguel
Padrones, can youtell if anyof the three is in this
courtrooms.
A Yes, sir.
Q Please point to them?
A (witnessgoing downfromthe witnessstandand
pointingto somebodysitting handsome andwith
curlyhair who, whenaskedof hisname, answered
that he is RosendoVelasco).
Q Who else ifthere are still in this courtroom?
A I have alreadypointedthree. The other one is not
here, sir.
Q You said that you recognizedfour menamong
those chasing the deceasedGonzaloTalastas andyou
pointedto Ige whois Miguel Padronesand nowyou
pointedto Mangyo whois Rosendo Velasco, whois
the other one?
Atty. Abesamis
Alreadyanswered, he alreadypointed three
accordingto him, your honor.
Court
Q You onlypointed twoas far as the Court
remembers. You saidfour were there other still
present inthe courtroom?
A Yes, sir. This is the thirdone (witness pointingto
somebodywhois usedto be Identifiedto be Federico
Relucio), andthe fourth one is not here.
Prosecutor
Q You said that theywere chasingGonzaloTalastas,
what happened withthat chasing?
A He was hit and he fell down, sir.
Q Where didhe fall ?
A In front of the TiwagCollege, sir.
Q How far is that point fromthe theater where
Gonzalo Talastas came?

13. A It was quite far, sir, I cannot estimate but he came
from the Capital theater, andhe fell downinfront of
the Liwag College.
Court
Q Can the parties determine as to the distance from
the Capital theater upto the Liwag College?
(Make of record that the distance approximatedby
the parties is more or less 150 meters).
(t.sn., pp. 37-42, hearingof November 16, 1972.)
Explaining further, he testifiedthat Talastas wasrunning towards the east and that "those
chasing him, some were inthe jeepandothers running. " Amongthose inthe jeepwas
appellant RosendoVelasco, the onlyone he recognized, andamong those onfoot he
recognizedonlyMiguelPadrones. After Talastasfell, the witness went to the municipal
building "lookingfor a policemanwhom I know because I will tell him that GonzaloTalastas
was shot", but he could not findanyone he knew, sohe went home.
On cross-examination, however, he identifiedPadrones as the onlyone chasingGonzalo
thus:
Atty. Pablo
Q Now, you saw Ige chasing him onfoot whenhe was
going out of the theater or whenhe was already
running alongthe street?
A When he was alreadyrunning inthe street sir.
Q He was alone chasing himwhenhe was proceeding
along the LiwagCollege?
A I onlysaw one. He was alone Ige only, sir. (t.s.n., p.
60, hearing of November 16, 1972.)
Moreover, whatever frailindication mayappear in the testimonyof this, witness linking
appellant to the offense chargedwas virtuallyshatteredbyExhibit 17, the swornstatement
of the same witnessgivento Detective JustinianoE. Fernandez of the CabanatuanCityPolice
on January11, 1972, which the defense presented for impeachment purposes, strangely
without objectiononthe part of the prosecution notwithstanding that the defense failedto
laythe predicate therefor. (t.s.n., p. 388.) In saidstatement, Angeles gave practicallya
different storyfrom beginningto end - from the reference to the time place and reason how
he andTalastasandAmanda came to be together that fateful afternoonup to the
Identificationof Ige or Egi (MiguelPadrones) as the one whoshot Talastas) — from that
relatedbyhim onthe witness stand. Exhibit 17 reads as follows:
CCPD-Bilang 1356-71
SALAYSAY NI CRISPINANGELES Y SANTIAGO NA KUHA SA PAGTATANONG
NI TIKTIKJUSTINIANO P. FERNANDEZ NG PANGKAT NG TAGATUGAYGAY
NG HIMPILAN NG PULISYA NG LUNGSOD NG KABANATUAN NGAYONG
IKA-11 NG BUAN NG ENERO 1972, SA GANAP NA IKA-4:00 NG HAPON.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
01. TANONG:-Ito'yisang pagsisiyasat, ikawba'y
handangmagbigayng isang malaya at kusang loobna
salaysayna angiyong sasabihin dito aypawang
katotohananlamang.?
SAGOT:-Opo.
02. T-Sabihinmo angiyongpangalan at bagayna
maaring pa sa iyong pagkataoat sabihinmo din kung
saan ka kasalukuyang naninirahan?
S-CRISPIN ANGELES Y SANTIAGO po, 22 taong may
asawa, magsasaka at sa kasalukuyangnaninirahan sa
Bo. Pamaldan, Lungsodng Kabanatuan.
03. T-Ano angdahilanat ikaw aynaririto ngayonsa
Tanggapanng Pulisya at ikawaynagbibigayng isang
malaya at kusangloobna salaysaydito?
S-Dahilanpo sa akoynagpapatunaysa isang
pangyayari na naganap.
04. T-Ano ba angpangyayaringitona ayonsa iyo ay
naganapna nais mongpatunayandito?
S-Ganitopoiyon. Nuong ika-2:00 ng haponng ika-23
ng buanng Hunyo 1971, samantalang kami nitong si
GONZALO TALASTAS aynanduonsa isangbahayna
aming tinutuluyansa Bo. Aduas, dito sa Lungsodng
Kabanatuan, aydumating itong si MANDA at ang
isangbabae na sinabi niyang kanyangpinsanat kami
aykanilang inamuki na samahansila na manood ng
Cine. Amin namanpong sinamahanang dalawang

14. babae na ito at ang kanilang pinilingpasukin na Cine
ayiyong Capital sa maydaang Burgos. Ng kami'y
nanduon na sa loobng sine, hindi pa gaanong
nagtatagalkami sa aming pagkakaupona
magkakatabi duonsa hulihangupuansa ibaba sa
gawing kaliwa aynagpaalam ang dalawang kasama
namingitona sila'ydi umano'ypupunta sa kasilyas ng
mga babae at sila'yiihi. Ng mayruonng humigit
kumulang na kahalating oras angnakakaraanang
dalawang babae na itoayhindi pa nagbabalik sa
kanilang upuansa tabi namingdalawa aynainip kami
at aminsilang hinanap subalit hindi na naminsila
nakita. Sa pangyayaring itoaynagusapkami nitong si
GONZALO TALASTAS at napagkasunduannaming
dalawa na kami'ylumabas na din, angginawa koay
nagpatiuna na akosa paglabas na sumusunoditong is
GONZALO TALASTAS at siya aynaghintosa maytapat
ng takilya. Ng ako'ymalapit ngmakaratingduonsa
mga bungadng pasilyo aynapansin kona mayruong
tatlong tao na mayruong mga dalang baril ang
naduonsa magkabilang gilidat sa aking palagayay
mayruong silanginaabangan. Ng ako'ymakalagpasna
sa mga taong ito, iyong isa sa kanilangtatloay
humiwalayat pumasok duonsa loob. Sa napansin
kong ito ang ginawa koaynagbalikako at sa aking
pagpasokaybigla na lamangmayruong pumutok na
baril at ng aking tingnanang pinangalinganng putok
aynakita koitongsi FEDERICO RELUCIO na mayruong
palayawna "PEDRING "na binabaril itong si GONZALO
TALASTAS na tinamaansa kanyang kaliwang balikat.
Nakita ko dinna gumanti itong si GONZALO TALASTAS
at tinamaan din itong si PEDRING na hindi koalam
kung saang parte. Nakita kodinpo na itongsi
GONZALO TALATAS aytumakbong papalabas ng sine
na naiwananitong si PEDRINGduonsa loob. Sa
ginawang paglabasnitong si GONZALO TALASTAS ay
sumunodna din akoat nakita ko na iyong ibangmga
kasamahannitongsi PEDRING na nagaabangsa labas
at nakasakayduonsa jeepna di pasaheros na kasama
na duoniyongdalawang kasamahannitong si
PEDRING na nakita kongnakatayo sa magkabilang
gilidng pasilyo ngCine Capital. Nakita ko na bumaba
itong si PEDRINGna hinabol itong si GONZALO
TALASTAS na kasalukuyannuong nagtatakbo
napatungo duon sa maygawi ngCine Broadwayna
binabaril namannitongsi IGE ngisangbaril na
Carbine, subalit hindi tinamaanitong si GONZALO
TALASTAS. Nakita kodinpo na itongsi EDRI ay
nagbalik at kanyang kinuha ang isangjeepna army
type at kanyang iminanehoitona kasama itong
dalawa na sina MangyoVelascoat si Dante Arriola at
kanilang pinulot itong si IGE Natapos na maisakay
itong si IGEaykanila ngsinundanitong is GONZALO
TALASTAS at kanilang inabutan duon sa may
panulukanng daangBonifacio at Burgos na
sumasakaysa tricycle. Inihintoponitong si EDRI ang
jeep na armytype at bumaba itong si IGEat kanyang
binaril itong is GONZALO TALASTAS ngdala niyang
Carbine. Tinamaanitongis GONZALO TALASTASat
nakita kong nabuwal at habangito'ynabubuwalay
binabaril ito ngmga kasamahanni EDRI na naiwanan
duon sa jeepna tumatama namansa katawannito.
Matapos ang maramihang pagpapaputok na ginawa
ng mga naiwanansa jeep, itong si IGE aylumapit dito
sa kinabuwalannitongsi GONZALO TALASTASat
kanyang itinaasang ulonitoat pinaputukanng
kanyang baril na mahigsi sa maygawinglikuranat
pagkatapos aykinuha niya ang barilna dalanitong si
GONZALO TALASTAS. Pagkatapos nuon aysumakay
na itong si IGE duonsa jeepna nakahinto at sila'y
tumakas na.
05. T-Ayon sa iyo aysinundanmo itongmga taongito
at iyong sinubaybayan angmga nagaganapna
pangyayari, saan lugar ka namanlumagaynuon?
S-Duon poakonanduonat nakakubli sa bangketa
bago dumatingsa Mobil GasStationsa gawingkanan
ng daangBurgos.
06. T-Ilanbang magkakasama itong mga taongitona
pumatayditokayGONZALO TALASTAS?
S-Sa akinpong pagkakakita sila'ymayruong pito ang
bilang.
07. T-Binangit mo ditosila, FEDERICO RELUCIO @
PEDRING, EDRI PINEDA, @ IGE, @ MANGYO VELASCO
at DANTE ARRIOLA, lumilitaw o lumalabasna
mayruon na itonglima angbilang, iyong dalawa na
hindi mo nabangit dito dahilsa ayonsa iyoaypitoang
magkakasamahan na ito. Sino pa iyong dalawa kung
nakikilalamo?
S-Hindi kopo silakilaladahilansa nuonko lamang sila
nakita.

15. 08. T-Ayon sa iyo ditona nuonglumabasitong si
GONZALO TALASTAS sa loob ngCine Capital na
mayruon ng tama ng baril upang tumakas aynakita
mo na iyong mga kasamahan nitong si PEDRING
RELUCIO na siyang pumasok ditosa loobng sine at
binaril si GONZALO TALASTAS aynanduonsa isang
jeep na di pasahero na parada sa tapat ng bowling
alley, at ng tugisinnilaitong si GONZALO TALASTASay
sakayna sila ngisang jeepna armytype angibigmo
bang sabihin dito aydalawa ang sasakyanna ginamit
ng mga taongito?
S-Opo.
09. T-Alammo ba kunganoang mga Plaka ng
dalawang sasakyang itona ginamit ng mga taongito
na pumatayditokayGONZALO TALASTAS?
S-Hindi dahilsa hindi kona napagruonan ngpansinito
at ang hinahabol ko ayiyong nagaganapna
pangyayari tungkol sa pagkapatayditokayGONZALO
TALASTAS.
10. T-Ito bang mga taong binangit moditolibandito
sa dalawa na hindi mo kilala, aydati mo ngkilala?
S-Opo iyong tatlo na sina, FEDERICO RELUCIO
PEDRING, @ EDRI PINEDA at @ IGE na pawang mga
taga Bo. Talipapa, dito sa Lungsodng Kabanatuan, at
itong dalawang sina MANGYO VELASCO at DANTE
ARRIOLA ayhindi pa gaanongnagtatagal.
11. T-Ano ba namanang relasyon ninyong dalawa
dito sa dalawang babae na sumundosa inyo duonsa
inyong tinuluyang bahaysa Bo. Aduas, na humimok sa
inyo na sumama sa kanila na manood ngCine?
S-Wala pokaming relasyon, subalit hindi katagalang
magkakilala.
12. T-Sinosa dalawang itoangkakilalaninyo?
S-Iyon pong MANDA.
13. T-Saan ba namannagtitira itong si MANDA at ang
kanyang kasama na isang babae din?
S-Sa Bo. Dalampang po.
14. T-Hindi mo ba alam kungano ang kanilangmga
apilyedo?
S-Hindi kona pomaalala ang kanilang mga apilyedo
subalit silaaymaituturoko kung sila'yakingmakitang
muli.
15. T-Simula ng pangyayaring iyon, nagkita ba kayong
mull ng dalawang babae na ito?
S-Hindi na ponapakita silasa akin.
16. T-Sa iyong pagaaral o pagkakaalamanoang
motibong ginawangpagpatayditokayGONZALO
TALASTAS ng mga taong binangit mo dito?
S-Ang pagkakaalam kopo aydahilansa ginawang
pagbarilnitong si GONZALO TALASTAS dito kayVITO
RELUCIO na kapatidnitongsi PEDRING RELUCIO na
pamangkinnamannitongsi EDRI PINEDA.
17. T-Alammo dinba kungbakit binaril nitong si
GONZALO TALASTAS itong si VITORELUCIO?
S-Opo.
18. T-Ano namanang pagkakaalam mo?
S-Dahil sa nasabi posa akinng personal nitong si
GONZALO TALASTAS na iyondaw pongkanyang
asawa aysiniraangpurl nitong si VITO RELUCIO at
ito'ynagsumbong dito.
19. T-Ayon saiyo ditona ng mangyari angpagpatay
dito kayGONZALO TALASTAS aynuongika-23 ngbuan
ng Hunyo 1971 ng bandanghapon, bakit ngayon ka
lamang nagbigayng isang malaya at kusang-loobna
salaysayditobilang pagpapatunayna pangyayari
naiyonna paganap?
S-Dahil po sa ako'ynatatakot sapagkat panahonnila
ng panunugis.

16. 20. T-Ito ba lang angdahilankungkaya ngayonka
lamang nagkaruon nglakasng loobupang
magpatunaysa naganap na patayannaitona ang
nagingbiktima ditoaysi GONZALO TALASTAS?
S-Mayroon pa po, walanamang nagpunta sa akinna
investigador upangako'ytanungin tungkol sa
naganapna pangyayaring ito.
21. T-Dito ba sa pagbibigaymo ng isangmalaya at
kusangloobna salaysaydito sa Himpilang ito ay
walang tumakot saiyookaya nangakongikaw ay
bibigyanng pabuya upang sabihinmo ditoanglahat
ng mga binangit mo na salaysaymongito?
S-Wala poang lahat ng mga sinabi kodito sa harap
ninyo aykusang-loobko at walang pumilit sa akino
tumakot dili kaya aynangakona ako'ybibigyanng
ano mangpabuya, bagkus ito ayakingkarapatan
bilang isangmamamayangPilipinoat tungkulinko din
pong makipagtulungansa mga ahensya ngbatas lalo
na sa ganitong uri ngkrimenginanapna nagdamaypa
ng iba.
22. T-Nasabi mong nagdamaypa ng iba, bukod dito
kayGONZALO TALASTAS, mayroonpa bang ibangmga
taong nagingbiktima ngpangyayaringito?
S-Mayroon po.
23. T-Sinonaman angmga taong ito kung mayroon
kang nalalaman?
S-Sa akinpong pagkakaalamayiyong mayari ng
dating tindahanna isang babae na asawa ng manager
ng isang bangkoditosa Lungsodng Kabanatuanna
napagalaman koang pangalanna GINANG LUISA
MONDELO.
24. T-Ano namanang naging pinsala nitokung
nalalaman mo?
S-Ayon po sa akingpagkakaalam aytinamaanito ng
ligawna bala sa kanyang baraso hindi kopo malaman
kung kaliwa o kanan.
25. T-Tutuo bang lahat ang mga sinabi mongitoat
handa mong panumpaansa harapng Hukumankung
sakaling ikawaykailanganin na magpatutuosa
pagpapatunaysa pangyayaring iyonnasaksihanng
ayon sa iyo?
S-Opo.
(Lumagda) CRISPIN S. ANGELES(Pp. 369-372, Recordof Lower Court.)
As maybe seen, the materialdiscrepancies between the contents of the above-quoted
statement, on the one hand, and the testimonyof Angeles inopen court, on the other, are so
irreconcilable that evenif the proper predicate had beenlaiduponproper objectionof the
fiscal it is doubtful, ifanybelievable reconciliationcould have beengivenbyhim. Inopen
court, he testified that inthe afternoonof June 23, 1971, it was at the entrance of the Capital
Theater that he met Talastas andinvitedhim to see the movie but the latter saidthat he was
waiting for Amanda. It turned out, accordingto Exhibit 17, that he andTalastas were still in
Barrio Aduas, where theywere staying, whenManda arrived witha woman companionand
invited themto go to the "cine". In his testimony, he saidthat it was Amanda wholeft and
did not goback anymore, while inthe above statement, he declared that bothof their two
female companions toldthem theywouldonlygo to the comfort roombut eventually
disappeared. Incourt, he saidthat whenManda didnot return, he invitedTalastasto leave
but the latter answered he would wait for Manda's return. InExhibit 17, it appears that he
and Talastasagreedto followandlook for their ladycompanions andthat he went aheadand
Talastasstoppedbythe ticket booth. Whereas in court, he testifiedthat he was alreadyin
the middle or acrossBurgos Street near the Avenue Theater whenhe heard shots inside the
Capital Theater where Talastashadreturned, as theymet FedericoReluciowith a
companion, unknownto him, whowere goinginside, hence, he didnot see whofiredthe
shots, inthe above swornstatement, he categoricallystatedthat upon seeing Relucio, who
had separatedfrom his two armedcompanions andgone inside, he (Angeles)went back
inside the theater andactuallysawRelucio firing at Gonzalo and the latter retaliating withhis
own gun. Incourt, he saidthat whenTalastas came out of the theater alreadywounded and
running towards the east, the twocompanions of Relucio, referring to VelascoandPadrones,
chasedTalastas, withRelucioriding ina jeep and Padronesgoing onfoot. InExhibit 17-A, he
said:
04. S-Nakita kodinpo na itong si GONZALO TALASTAS
aytumakbong papalabas ngsine na naiwananitong si
PEDRING duonsa loob. Sa ginawangpaglabas nitong
si GONZALO TALASTASaysumunod na din akoat
nakita ko na iyong ibang mga kasamahan nitong si
PEDRING na nagaabang sa labas at nakasakayduon sa
jeep na di pasaheros na kasama na duon iyong
dalawang kasamahannitong si PEDRINGna nakita
kong nakatayosa magkabilang gilidngpasilyo ng Cine
Capital. Nakita kona bumaba itong si EDRI na ang
kanyang apilyedoayPINEDA at itong si IGEat
kanilang hinabol itong si GONZALO TALASTAS na ,

17. kasalukuyannuong nagtatakbo na patungo duon sa
maygawi ng Cine Broadwayna binabaril naman
nitongsi IGE ngisangbaril na Carbine, subalit hindi
tinamaanitong si GONZALO TALASTAS. Nakita ko din
po na itongsi EDRI aynagbalikat kanyang kinuha ang
isangjeepna armytype at kanyang iminaneho itona
kasama itong dalawa na sina Mangyo Velascoat si
Dante Arriola at kanilang pinulot itongsi IGE Natapos
na maisakayitong si IGE aykanilang sinundan itongsi
GONZALO TALASTAS at kanilang inabutanduonsa
maypanulukan ngdaang Bonifacioat Burgos na
sumasakaysa tricycle.
In court, Angeles intimatedthat Padronesor Egi did not fire at Talastas, leavingthe inference
that it was appellant Velascowhowas shooting the deceased. In the above statement, he
positivelysaid:
Inihinto ponitongsi EDRI angjeepna armytype at bumaba itong si IGEat
kanyang binaril itong si GONZALO TALASTASng dala niyang Carbine.
Tinamaanitong si GONZALO TALASTAS at nakita kong nabuwal at habang
ito'ynabubuwalaybinabaril ito ngmga kasamahanni EDRI na naiwanan
duon sa jeepna tumatama namansa katawannito. Matapos ang
maramihang pagpapaputok na ginawa ng mga naiwanan sa jeep,itongsi
IGE aylumapit dito se kinabuwalannitong si GONZALO TALASTAS at
kanyang itinaasang ulonitoat pinaputukanng kanyang barilna maiksi sa
maygawinglikuranat pagkatapos aykinuha niya ang baril na dala nitong
si GONZALO TALASTAS. Pagkatapos nuonaysumakayna itong si IGEduon
sa jeepna nakahinto at sila'ytumakasna.
In brief, in court, Angeles' account ofthe participationof appellant inthe shooting ofTalastas
was vague andinconclusive; inhis statement, Exhibit 17, nothing points definitelyand
specificallyto appellant as having firedanyshot at all;importantlythe one clearlyand
categoricallyreferred to as having shot Talastas is Egi or Padrones
It results, therefore, that at least insofar as herein appellant Velascois concerned, the
testimonyof Angeles hasbeen completelyimpeachedor discredited.
It is a basic postulate in the lawon evidence that everywitness is presumed to be truthful
and perjuryis not to be readilyinferredjust because apparent inconsistencies are evincedin
parts of his testimony. Everyeffort to reconcile the conflicting points shouldfirst be exerted
before anyadverse conclusioncanbe made therefrom. These considerations he at the base
of the familiar rule requiring the layingof a predicate, whichis essence means simplythat it
is the dutyof a partytrying to impugn the testimonyof a witnessbymeans of prior or, for
that matter, subsequent inconsistent statements, whether oralor in writing, to give the
witness a chance to reconcile hisconflicting declarations, such that it is onlywhenno
reasonable explanationis givenbyhim that he shouldbe deemedimpeached. Thus, Section
16 of Rule 132 provides:
Section16. How witness impeached byevidence of inconsistent
statements. — Before a witness can be impeached byevidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent withhispresent
testimony, the statements must be relatedto him, with the
circumstances ofthe times andplacesandthe persons present, andhe
must be asked whether he made suchstatements if so, to explainthem.
If the statements be inwritingtheymust be to the witness before any
question is put to him concerningthem.
In United States vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil 385, at pp. 406-407, the Court made a clear expositionof
the universal rule of layinga predicate as follows:
In order that we maynot be misunderstood,as wenas for the purpose of
clarifyingthe practice insuch matters, a fewwords mayhere be properly
said inrespect to the proper mode of proceeding ina case where a party
wishes to get before the court contradictorystatements made bya
witness whois testifying for the adversaryparty. For instance, ifthe
attorneyfor -the accused had informationthat a certainwitness, say
Pedro Gonzales, hadmade andsigned a swornstatement before the
fiscal materiallydifferent fromthat giveninhistestimonybefore the
court, it was incumbent uponthe attorneywhencross-examining said
witness to direct his attentionto the discrepancyand to askhim if he did
not make suchandsuchstatement before the fiscal or ifhe did not there
make a statement different fromthat delivered incourt. Ifthe witness
admits the makingof suchcontradictorystatement, the accused has the
benefit of the admission, while the witnesshas the opportunityto explain
the discrepancy, if he can. On the other hand, if the witness denies
making anysuch contradictorystatement, the accusedhas the right to
prove that the witness didmake suchstatement;andif the fiscalshould
refuse upon due notice to produce the document, secondaryevidence of
the contents thereof wouldbe admissible. This process ofcross-
examininga witness uponthe point of prior contradictorystatements is
called inthe practice of the Americancourts 'laying a predicate' for the
introduction ofcontradictorystatements. It is almost universally
acceptedthat unless a groundis thus laid uponcross-examination,
evidence of contradictorystatements are not admissible to impeach a
witness;thoughundoubtedlythe matter is to a large extent inthe
discretionof the court.
We wish to addthat ina case of thiskind, if the accusedhad, byaffidavit
or otherwise, made it appear to the satisfactionof the court that the
witnesses namedhadmade statements intheir declarations before the
fiscal materiallyat variance withtheir statements in court andthat the
productionof saiddeclarations was necessaryor even desirable, inthe
interests ofjustice, the court wouldhave had ample power to order their
production.

18. This doctrine has beenreiteratedconsistentlyin subsequent cases. (Moran, Comment on the
Rules of Court, Vol. 6, 1970 ed., P. 92, citing People vs. Resabal, 50 Phil. 780;People vs.
Quingsy, 54 Phil. 88;People vs. Lara, 75 Phil. 786;andPeople vs. Escusura, 82 Phil. 41.)
But it, as inthe instant case of the witness Angeles, the prosecution did not object to the
presentation ofExhibit 17 whichwas offeredexpressly for impeachment purposes,
notwithstanding that the defense did not give the witnessthe opportunityto give hisown
explanationof the apparent contradictions inhistestimony, the trialjudge andthe appellate
courts have noalternative but to determine, if theycan, possible reconciliationonthe basis
alone of logic andcommonexperience. The omission to object onthe groundof failure to lay
the predicate is waivedbythe omission to interpose the same when the impeaching
contradictorystatement is offered. (Evidence, [Rules ofCourt] Vol. VII, 1973 ed. byVicente
Francisco, p. 398.) On this score, We findthe inconsistenciesinthe two versions of Angeles
utterlybeyondpossible rational explanation. The various discrepancies We have pointedout
above - andthere are still others We have not mentioned — are sodisparate that there can
be no other conclusionthanthat the witness must have lied ineither of them. Accordingly,
We have to reject bothof them.
- 2 -
The testimonyof the other witness MiguelPadrones, one of appellant's co-accused, cannot
be viewedin better light.
After PatrolmanGarcia andCrispen Angeles had testified, at the hearing onJanuary4, 1973,
the prosecutor, District State Prosecutor MarianoD. Copuyoc, askedfor resolutionof his
motionto discharge the accused Miguel Padrones inorder to be utilized as a state witness,
evidentlybyvirtue ofSection9 of Rule 119, on the groundthat "thisrepresentation has
found absolute necessityof the testimonyof saiddefendant because the prosecutionhas no
other direct evidence available for the prosecutionof the offense committed except the
testimonyof saidMiguelPadrones;that the saidtestimonyof the defendant Miguel
Padrones couldbe substantiallycorroboratedinits material points bythe testimonyof the
other prosecutionwitness Crispin Angeles;that the saidaccusedMiguelPadrones appears to
be the least guiltyandthat he hasnever beenconvictedof anycrime involving moral
turpitude." No notice was given to the defense of the motion;it turned out it was filedas
earlyas December 14, 1972, after Angeles had alreadyfinishedtestifying onDecember 6,
1972. Counsel for RelucioandVelascoprotestedtheyhadno notice of the motion and
objectedto it contendingthat fromthe testimonyof Angeles, Padrones did not appear to be
the least guiltyandthat the prosecution hadnot shownthat Padroneshad beenpreviously
convictedof a crime involvingmoralturpitude, but the trial court overruled them.
Briefly, the testimonyof Padroneson direct examination(pp. 427-453, t.s.n.) wasas follows:
Between4:00 and 5:00 p.m., June 23, 1971, while he wasinthe residence of Atty. Perez (in
Cabanatuan City), "aninformationwas received" ... from a personnamed Og that Gonzalo
Talastaswas inside Capital Theater alsoin CabanatuanCity. The "information" wasaddressed
to the accusedFedericoRelucio whowas then present together withAtty. Perez andtwo
other persons not knownto the witness. Thenappellant Mangyo Velasco andtwo others
unknown to the witnessarrived. After these three arrived, "they(referring to "Relucio,
Mangyo andthe other two whom I do not knowandI went to the CapitalTheater". They
went there "because GonzaloTalastas was reallyto be killed." This, he was toldbyRe lucio,
for "according to FedericoRelucio, GonzaloTalastas was the one whokilled his brother." He
did not mention anything about anyconversation among those present from whicha
conspiracycouldbe deduced.
Upon arrivingat the CapitalTheater, Pedring(Relucio) went inside, while the witness and
Mangyo andthe twoothers were infront of the bowlinghall. Padrones saidtheywere all
armed, Reluciowith a.45, Mangyo witha.38 caliber anda carbine, the other two with
armalite andhe (Padrones) witha.45, but there was nosuggestionthat theydid sowiththe
intent to kill anyone. Not longafter Federico(Relucio)entered the theater, there were shots
(he does not know how many). "Not long after, the late Gonzalo Talastas went outside of the
theater with a wobbling motion(susuray-suray), andwounded. . in his chest portion (where
there was) blood."Gonzalorangoingtowards "hulo" (east). Not long thereafter, Federico
Relucio followedalsowounded.
Then, Mangyo (Velasco), the other twounknowns and Padrones "boarded a jeepand...
followed them(Talastas andRelucio) withus inside the jeep. " Theyfollowedthemup to the
Old Republic Telephone CompanyBuilding. Gonzalo "wasrunning" and Relucio"boarded a
tricycle, sir, followingGonzaloTalastas. " And when the witnessand his companions were
alreadyinfront of the Republic building, "Doonnga popinagbabaril(si) GonzaloTalastas. ...
Mangyo andthe other two whom I do not knowandalso Pedring, (Relucio) because Pedring
arrived,"were the ones who shot him, andGonzalo died.
After the cross-examinationof Padrones, the prosecutionrestedits case, asking for and
securing at the same time, the dismissal of the case against the accusedDante Arriola as to
whom the prosecutor didnot unexplainedlypresent anyevidence. At this point, it maybe
stated relatedlythat Our reviewof the records of this case hasrevealeda number of other
loose ends inthe proceedings whichwarrant specialattention. Indeed, what must have been
a preconceivedplanof the prosecution to save Padrones andto pindownappellant instead
is quite evident. Andworse, it was not without significant, if perhaps unwitting, assistance
from the court.
Thus, having inviewthe testimonyof Angeles We have discussedearlier, whichhadonlya
hazyreference to the supposedparticipationof appellant inthe offense charged, and taking
into account Exhibit 17, which the prosecution couldnot have beenignorant of, pointing to
Padrones insteadof saidappellant as the one whochasedandshot the deceasedas the
latter came out of CapitalTheater, it is to be wondered howPadrones was selectedas state
witness. Moreover, from Padrones' ownaccount, readilyavailable beforehandto the
prosecutor, he was with Relucio, whowas the one whohadthe motive to doawaywith
Gonzalo, earlier thanappellant Velascoin the house of Atty. Perez, andthere is no indication
at all that before the groupwent to CapitalTheater, appellant knew, unlike Padrones, that
Gonzalo was to be killed. To reiterate, there is noevidence that the killing of Talastas was
ever talked about in the house of Atty. Perez.

19. In other words, the prosecution couldeasilyhave chosenother witnesses, evenfrom among
the other alleged participants inthe affray, whoappeared to have hadminor parts therein, if
not from the tricycle drivers who, from Padronesownaccount, must have seenwhat
happened, andyet Padrones hadto be the one allowed to goscot-free. Withal, the repeated
references to unknownparticipants is unnatural. How couldthere be a conspiracyof the
character chargedinthe information where four ofthe participants were not supposedly
known to anyof the witnesseswhothemselves are allegedto have beeninthe conspiracy?
Whywas Dante Ariola includedinthe information when there was absolutelyno evidence
against him? Whywas Edri Pineda who wasmentioned byAngeles in Exhibit 17 or Dante
Ariola, who wasalso charged, not choseninstead?For that matter, whywas Atty. Perez in
whose house andinwhose presence the plot to kill Talastas is alleged to have originated not
among the accused?
All these questions andmanymore are intriguing, but the most mystifying circumstance
extant inthe record was the attitude of boththe prosecutionandthe trial judge in regard to
what appears clearlyto be a statement givenbyPadronesto the Cabanatuan Citypolice in
the personof a certain PatrolmanCorporalJ. S. Viloria on October 5, 1972 immediatelyafter
he was arrested. This is the same statement, Annex A, on whichthe defense motion for
reconsiderationand/or new trial, the denial ofwhichis the plaint in the fourthassignment of
error of appellant's brief.
Counsel for accused Reluciostarted his cross-examinationof Padronesbyinquiring about the
circumstances surrounding his arrest and detentionwhichincontestablytookplace on
October 5, 1972. The witnessreadilyrevealedthat:
ATTY. ABESAMIS
q Immediatelyafter your arrest you were placedin
jail?
D.S. PROSECUTOR
Answeredalready, Your Honor.
COURT
Answer the question.
WITNESS
a No, sir.
ATTY. ABESAMIS
q Where were youfirst brought bythe apprehending
officers immediatelyafter you were arrestedinthe
afternoonof October 5, 1972?
a An investigationwas made, sir, on anyperson.
q Who investigated you?
a Viloria, sir.
q Where?
a At the cityhall, sir.
q In what part ofthe cityhall didViloria investigate
you, please tellthe Court?
a Downstairs at his table, sir.
COURT
(To witness)Speak louder.
ATTY. ABESAMIS
q This Viloria is alsoa member of the CabanatuanCity
police force?
a Yes, sir.
q Who were present whenyou were investigatedby
Viloria?
a The two of us, sir.
q He was asking youquestions?
a Yes, sir,
q And you were giving answers to the questions
propounded byViloria to you?
a Yes, sir.

20. q And Viloria wastyping the questions propounded
and the answers givenbyyou?
a Yes, sir.
q And Viloria investigatedyou in connection withyour
anti-government activities?
a No, sir.
q In what connectionwere you investigated by
Viloria?
a Regarding the case of GonzaloTalastas, sir.
q Did you signthat written investigation?
a Yes. sir, I signed it.
q Also onOctober 5, 1972?
a I was brought before the presence of Judge
Vicencio, sir.
q But you have not answered myquestion, Mr.
Witness. Myquestionto you was, did yousign that
typewritten investigationconductedbyViloria alsoon
October 5, 1972?
a Yes, sir, I signedit before the judge.
q On October 5, 1972?
a Yes, sir.
q You were escortedbyarmedpolicemenof
Cabanatuan Citywhenyou were brought in
connectionwiththat writteninvestigation before
Judge VicencioonOctober 5, 1972?
D.S. PROSECUTOR
It is veryimmaterial andirrelevant, Your Honor.
COURT
Answer the question.
WITNESS
a Yes, sir.
ATTY. ABESAMIS
q Who were those policemen who brought you to
Judge Vicencioon October 5, 1972?
a Theywere two, sir.
q I am not asking you about the number;I amasking
you who theywere?
a One of them is Viloria andI donot knowthe other
policemenwhois old.
q Now, couldyou tell the Honorable Court the time
when Viloria started investigating youon October 5?
a I cannot remember, sir.
q But it was night time?
a No, sir.
q But the investigationwas conducted several hours
after you were alreadyapprehendedbythe three
policemenheadedbyPat. Adriano?
D.S. PROSECUTOR
It is vague, Your Honor.
ATTY. ABESAMIS
To obviate the objection, I willmodifythe question.
q How manyhours after you were arrestedwere you
investigated onOctober 5?

21. a The moment we arrived at the cityhallI was
investigated, sir. (t.s.n., pp. 66-70, hearingof January
4, 1973)
On the basis of suchclear and categorical testimonyabout a statement signed byhim before
Judge Vicencioof the CityCourt on that date October 5, 1972, the defense counsel asked
"the Honorable District State Prosecutor to produce the written investigationof thiswitness
on October 5, 1972, if he has it inhispossession." (p. 70, Id.) And to addto the basisfor such
request, there wasthe followingmanifestationof Atty. Pablo, counsel for Velasco:
ATTY. PABLO
Mayit please the Honorable Court.
Atty. Taguiam wouldbe a witness to this statement ofmine that inthe
first hearing of this case, Your Honor, Atty. Taguiam requestedthe
District State Prosecutor to lendhimthe two affidavits executedbythis
witness andI reiterate that the first affidavit was datedOctober 5, and
the second, October 20, 1972. After Atty. Taguiamhas read this affidavit I
was able to take holdof this affidavit andto readit. It was the District
State Prosecutor wholent these twoaffidavits to Atty. Taguiamduring
the first hearing of this case.
(pp. 71-72, Id.)
Surprisingly, the reactionof the state prosecutor was negative, andthe followingexchange of
words tookplace:
ATTY. ABESAMIS
Your Honor please, I wouldlike to make it appear on
record that when the recess was calledbythe
Honorable Court inorder to afford the District State
Prosecutor to lookover his records, he Wassorting
out his records inconnection withthiscase inorder
to look for the affidavit demandedof him to be
produced bythe defense. Maywe know fromthe
Honorable District State Prosecutor what is the
answer.
D.S. PROSECUTOR
I do not have anyaffidavit datedOctober 5, but with
respect to the affidavit theywant me to produce I
want that that affidavit be describedwhat is that.
ATTY. ABESAMIS
But Your Honor, it is alreadysufficientlydescribed,
the affidavit executed bythis witnesson October 5.
COURT
How about onOctober 20?
ATTY. PABLO
And December 14, Your Honor.
D.S. PROSECUTOR
I wouldnot answer that, Your Honor, unless it is
described.
ATTY. ABESAMIS
We would like to make it appear on record, Your
Honor, bythe actuationof the Honorable District
State Prosecutor construes a suppressionof the
evidence, a suppression ofa veryvital evidence which
the defense hasbeen demandingpursuant to the rule
on discoveryas sanctionedunder our rules of court.
We will proceed, Your Honor.
D.S. PROSECUTOR
MayI state also a manifestation that it could not be
suppression if it came from the mouthof thiswitness.
The witness is present. Youcanask him, soit could
not (be) suppressionof evidence. (pp. 73-75, Id.)
Then came the inexplicable ruling of the court:
COURT
Well those are manifestations onlyof counsel. You
give the basis for the Court to compelthe Fiscal to
produce such document. Up to now there is no basis.
I think, the Fiscal wouldwant to describe that

22. affidavit. He doesnot like to fish. All right, continue.
(pp. 76,Id.)
Not onlythat, inits decision, the trial court reasonedout thus:
But it is not all rosywith the testimonyof Miguel Padrones. Like all other
witnesses ofthe same capabilities he suffers froma poor memoryas
regards remembering datesof events andfaces of persons whom he
occasionallysaw andmet. The records is replete ofincidents showing the
poor memoryof the witnessas regards the exact datesof events andthe
faces of persons he met. The following instanceswill show that whilein
the witness standhe was askedthe following:'Do youremember where
were you on June 23, 1971 between the hours of four o'clock inthe
afternoon?' His answer was:'I was in the residence ofAtty. Perez.' It may
be notedthat June 23, 1971 was the date of the commissionof the crime
and the same date was includedinthe question. But whenhe was asked
againon crossexamination the date ofthe commissionof the crime, he
answered that he couldnot remember but ifhe wouldbe allowed to
refer to his affidavit he couldanswer the same. It wasonlywhen he was
snowedto refer to his affidavit that he came to know that the crime was
committed onJune 23, 1971. Again, he was askedwhen onOctober 5 he
was arrested, andhe answeredthat he didnot know other than that it
was after lunch. There was much confusionwithregardto the execution
of the affidavit of Padrones onOctober 5. The Court believes that there
was nosuchaffidavit executedonOctober 5, 1971. The confusioncame
up onlywhenPadrones wasaskedwhenhe was arrested and he
answered onOctober 5. In answer to the subsequent questions he
answered that he wasbrought before Judge AlfinVicencio, the cityjudge,
now the Honorable Judge of the Court of First Instance of Masbate. Then
the defense assumedin the following questions that the investigation
took place onOctober 5 and that this affidavit wastaken onthe same
date, to which the accused answeredinthe affirmative. Whether the
accusedrealizedthe truth of his answer or not, the Court hasits doubts,
upon whichit basedits conclusionthat thiswitness has a poor memory
as to dates of events. Capitalizingon thisweaknessof the witness, the
defense confinedits crossexamination onthe several affidavits
supposedlyexecuted byMiguel Padrones onOctober 5 and 20. But
Padrones deniedvehementlythat after that investigationof October 5 he
made anyaffidavit except that given byhimto CorporalViloriaon
October 20, 1971, which the latter offered to showto the defense
(referring to the affidavit of December 14, 1972). The District State
Prosecutor also deniedpossessionof the affidavit of October 5 of Miguel
Padrones. The defense, to strengthenits position, manifested that the
affidavit of October 5 was lost and that this couldbe confirmedbyAtty.
Fidel Taguiam, counsel of one of the defendants;but Atty. Taguiam was
never presentedincourt to confirmor denythe same. The Court
honestlybelieves that there was nosuch affidavit ever executedon
October 5, 1971 and that the witnessmight be referring to the affidavits
executedbyhim onOctober 20, 1971 (Exhibit "2" Relucio) and on
December 14, 1972 before the District State Prosecutor. To further Justify
their actuations, the defense calledonto the witness standthe former
Cabanatuan CityJudge AlfinVicencio, now the presidingjudge of one of
the branches ofthe Court of First Instance ofMasbate. His Honor
testifiedthat he remembers one Miguel Padronesto have executedan
affidavit before him onOctober 5, 1971, but that he had onlya general
Idea of its contents. The defense got what it wantedto get from the lips
of His Honor, Judge AlfinVicencio and i.e., that it wasonlyaccused
Miguel Padrones whoshot andkilledthe deceased victimGonzalo
Talastaswhenthe latter caught up withhim near the Retelco building. As
a whole, His Honor wantedthis Court to believe that onlyMiguel
Padrones shot andkilled GonzaloTalastas andthat hisco-accused
FedericoRelucio and Rosendo Velascowere not withPadrones whenhe
killedsaiddeceasedvictim. To this testimonyof His Honor, it is
regrettable to state that he failed to state at least, allthe substantial
contents ofthe said affidavit, assuming that there was reallyanaffidavit
of October 5 executedbyMiguel Padrones. Humanas we all are, it is
unavoidable for our minds to slip, particularlyas regards the dates,
consideringthe lengthof time andthe workthat confrontedHis Honor,
the Honorable Alfin Vicencio. (Pp. 107-110, Appendix A, Appellant's
Brief.)
Such ratiocinationis strange, to saythe least. The record shows that His Honor himself asked:
COURT
q Do you know the date when the statement was
made?
a It was on the 5th, sir.
q Of October?
a Yes, sir.
COURT
Proceed. (t. t.s.n., p. 77, hearing of January1973)
As can be seen, seeminglythere was a deliberate andconcertedintent to prevent the
impeachment ofPadrones, except that the prosecutor failedto realize that withhis omission
to object to the testimonyof Judge Vicencio, all histransparent moves to suppressthe
presentation ofthe statement of saidwitness of October 5, 1972 wouldcome to naught. The
record reveals onlytooplainlythat several recesses were allowedbyHis Honor at critical
stages ofthe cross-examination for the obvious purpose of affordingthe witness opportunity

23. to adjust histestimonywith the help of the prosecutor — that withhis being already
released after hisdischarge onJanuary4, 1972 — so much sothat after the spirited
skirmishes betweendefense counsel andthe prosecutor whenthe sessionof January4, 1972
was to end, the significance of whichcouldnot have been lost to him, at the resumptionof
the trial on February12, 1972, the witness triedto sing a different tune. As to be expected,
he came out withthe theorythat the statement givenbyhim before PatrolmanCorporal
Viloriaon October 5, 1972 was actuallysignedbyhim onOctober 19 or 20, 1972 before Fiscal
del Rosariothus:
COURT:
Q Are you sure that your statement was takenon the
5th of October?
A Yes, sir.
Q So Sgt. Viloria has takentwo affidavits from you?
A It was onlyonthe 5th, sir.
Q How manytimes didthat Sgt. Viloria takenyour
statement?
A It was onlythe time whenI wasapprehended, sir.
Q And whenwas that time when you were
apprehended?
A On the 5th, sir.
Q Whyis there nowanaffidavit subscribedandsworn
to before Fiscal Del RosariodatedOctober 19?
A It was there at the CityCourt where I was made to
signmystatement, sir.
Q When was that?Refer to your affidavit to refresh
your memory,
A (Witnessreads Exhibit" 2-A.") Maylaska question.
Q Readit all.
ATTY. PABLO:
Maywe make of record that the State Prosecutor is
instructing the witness to readthe contents of the
statement before the witnesscould be guided bythis
Honorable Court that he readthe saidaffidavit.
COURT:
Now what is your question, Mr. Padrones?
A Because, thismorningI was beingaskedbythem
whether I was made to signbefore Viloria, but they
are not asking me whether I have signedbefore the
Fiscal, sir.
Q What do you mean? Explainfurther.
A Onlyabout that question whether I wasmade to
signbefore Viloria that is whyI answeredyes. But it
was not askedof me whether I was made to sign
before Fiscal Del Rosario, sir.
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
Q So you mean to tell the Honorable Court is that
your affidavit datedOctober 5,1972 was signed
before Police Cpl. Viloria?
A It was onlybefore the cityhallthat I affixedmay
signature, sir.
Q Preciselythat affidavit of yours datedOctober 5,
1972 was signedbyyou before Judge Vicencio, is that
correct?
A Before Del Rosario, sir.
Q So the affidavit dated October 5, 1972, for
purposes of clarificationonly, Your Honor, wassigned
byyou before Fiscal Del Rosario?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is that affidavit whichyou signedbefore
Judge Vicencioandthat is includedinyour cross
examination before onJanuary4, 1973?

24. A It came fromthe CityCourt, sir.
Q That was not onOctober 5, 1972?
A I do not know, sir, whether it wasthe one.
COURT:
Q The questionis what is that affidavit that you
subscribed and swore to before Judge Vicencio, if you
have any?
A I do not remember that affidavit, sir. What I
remember I onlysignedbefore Fiscal Del Rosario, sir.
Q So you do not recallhavingsigned anystatement
before Judge Vicencio?
A In the CityCourt I donot remember havingsigned
anyaffidavit before Judge Vicencio, sir.
Q In anyother place do you remember having signed
anyaffidavit before Judge Vicencio?
A None, sir.
Q You are sure?
A I remember nothing, sir.
Q You do not remember or you do not even recall
that you were presented before Judge Vicencio by
Police Cpl. Viloria?
PROSECUTOR:
We request that the witnessbe shownany statement
to that effect, ifthere is any.
COURT:
He is testing the credibilityof the witness.
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
Q When you testified here onJanuary4, 1973 you
said followingwhichI am reading from the transcript
of the stenographic notes takenduring January4,
1973 hearing ...
PROSECUTOR:
It seems the witnessis confusedabout his affidavit.
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
The witness, Your Honor, is not confused;the witness
is lying.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
I will read from your testimonyduring the trial of
January4, 1973, specificallythe questions and
answers foundonpage 68, whichI quote:
In what connectionwere you investigatedbyViloria?
A. Regarding the case of GonzaloTalastas, sir.
Q. Did you signthat written investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Also onOctober 5, 1972?
A. I was brought before the personof Judge Vicencio,
sir.
Q. But you have not answered myquestion. My
question to you was, didyou signthat typewrittenof
Viloriaalso onOctober 5, 1972?
A. Yes, sir, he signedit before the judge.
Q. On October 5, 1972?

25. A. Yes, sir.
And Your Honor, on page 76, 1 read the following
questions andanswers:
Q. Who was carrying the typewritteninvestigation
when you were brought before the judge on October
5,1972?
A. Viloria, sir.
Q. After coming from the place of Judge Vicenciowho
was carrying that statements?
A. Viloria also, sir.
Q My questionnow, Mr. Witness, is will youinsist
that you were never brought before Judge Vicencioin
order to swear, to signandto subscribe your
statement inconnection with thiscase since the
beginning?
A I do not remember, sir. What I remember is I signed
it before Fiscal Del Rosario, sir.
COURT:
Q Then whydidyou assure counsel for the defense
before the court that you were presented before
Judge Vicencio, during our hearingof January4,
1973?
A I do not remember having beenaskedthat
question, sir.
Q It was askedof you andthe court alsoremembers
that question askedof you. Will younowinsist that
you were never brought before Judge Vicencio in
connectionwith thiscase?
A I cannot comprehendthe question, sir.
Q What do you not comprehend?
A Regarding that point that I wasbrought before the
judge, sir.
Q But when youwere asked bycounselabout that
fact on January4, 1973 your mind wasclear then, is it
not?
A I do not remember whether I wasbrought before
Judge Vicencio, sir.
Q You know verywell Judge Vicencio before that
date?
A I know himto be inthe CityCourt, sir. He was being
pointedto me bythe police, sir.
Q My questionis doyou know Judge Vicencio
personallybefore that date'!
A Yes, sir.
Q What about Fiscal Del Rosario, you know him also
personally
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Continue.
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
We request also, Your Honor, that pages 68 and 69 of
the transcript of the stenographic notes of the trial
datedJanuary4, 1973 be markedas Exhibit '3
Impeachment-Relucio' andthe bracketedportion be
markedas Exhibit '3-A-Impeachment-Relucio.'
COURT:
Mark it. (t.s.n., pp. 23-31, hearingof February12,
1973)
His Honor continuedasking questions as the witness wasalreadyfaltering, until finally, to
save him, the sessionwas adjourned:

26. Q What daywere you arrested?
A On a Friday, sir.
Q That was on October 5, 1972?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, that coming Mondayyou were brought before
Fiscal DelRosario?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you sure ofthat?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember if you signedthis affidavit before
Fiscal DelRosario?
A It was onlythe statement which I swore to that I
remember, sir.
Q Did you see Fiscal DelRosario signhisname?
A Yes, sir.
Q You do not remember if yousignedthe affidavit
before Fiscal Del Rosario?
A I signed, sir.
Q What pendidyou use? The penof Fiscal Del
Rosario or some other kindof pen?
A I do not remember whether I used the same pen
usedbythe Fiscal, sir. I remember onlythat I
borroweda ball penplacedonthe table of the Fiscal,
sir.
Q But you said yousignedthat statement ofyours
before PolicemanViloria, doyou recallthat now?
A I do not remember whether I wasable to signthat
or not, sir.
Q Are you tired already?
A My headis aching, sir.
COURT:
All right, we will adjourn this hearing andcontinue
tomorrow, as previouslyscheduled. At anyrate it is
alreadytwelve o'clock noon. (pp. 35-36, Id.)
At this point, it must be notedthat Exhibit 2-A, the statement which Padrones claimed above
to have been admittedlytaken byViloria on October 5, 1972 but, supposedlysigned byhim
later and not onthe same daybefore Judge Vicencioas he hadpreviouslystated, bears the
following heading:
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI MIGUEL PADRONES yESPEJO SA
PAGTATANONG NI P/CPL J. S. VILORIA DITO SA HIMPILANNG PULISYA NG
KABANATUAN NGAYONG IKA-19 NG OKTUBRE 1972 SA GANAPNA IKA
5:15 NG HAPON...
and ends with the following jurat:
NILAGDAAN AT PINANUMPAAN sa aking harapngayong ika 20 ng
Oktubre 1972, ditosa Lunsodng Kabanatuan.
With the datesOctober 19 and 20 thus appearinginthis statements, howcouldthere be any
proximityto the truthinthe assertionof Padrones that his statement was first takenby
Viloriaon October 5, 1972 and that it was signed byhimbefore Fiscal del RosarioonOctober
19, 1972 and that it wasthe verystatement he hadbeen referring to earlier as having been
signed byhim before Judge Vicencio?
And then, at the session ofFebruary13, 1972, he tried to foist upon the court another
theory:
COURT:
I was the one askingquestions yesterdayto the
witness. Let me finishmyquestioningof thiswitness.
Q So that the court understands fromyou that you
have onlyexecuted twoaffidavits inconnection with
this case, one was takenfrom you byCpl. Viloriaof

27. the Cabanatuan Citypolice department;andthe
second wastaken before District State Prosecutor
Copuyoc, is that right?
A No, sir, it is onthe 19 th;the third is onthe 4th.
Q So you have three affidavits taken inconnection
with this case, is that it?
A The one takenbyViloria which wassubscribed
before Fiscal Del Rosario, sir.
Q Yes, andthe other one takenis that one takenby
Fiscal Copuyoc?
A Yes, sir.
Q I did not mentionanydates, remember.
A Yes, sir.
Q I repeat again. Your mind is not yet confusedthis
morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q The first affidavit was taken before Cpl. Viloria of
the citypolice andsubscribed and sworn to before
Fiscal DelRosario?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the second was the one executedbefore
District State Prosecutor?
A Yes, sir.
Q You have not executedanyother affidavit in
connectionwiththiscase before anyadministering
officer?
A None, sir.
COURT:
Continue.
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
Q In answer to a questionpropounded bythe
Honorable Court you saidthat your thirdaffidavit was
on the 4th, do you remember havingsaid that?
A It was here that I swore, sir.
Q To an affidavit?
A Being a witness, sir.
Q So when youexecuteda third affidavit on the 4th
you merelyrefer to your declarationmade in open
court on January4, 1973?
A I cannot comprehendverywell what is affidavit, sir.
Q Did you make a written statement inconnection
with this case on the 4th?
COURT:
Fourth of what?
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
Q On the 4th of your testimony?
COURT:
Fourth of what month? Be specific, let us be fair with
the witness, especiallywith his kind ofmentality.
(t.s.n., pp. 38-41, hearingof Feb. 12, 1973.)
Onlyto fall backat the trial onFebruary19, 1973 on his original versionthat Viloria
accompaniedhim before Judge Vicencio:
ATTY. ABESAMIS:
q You havingstatedbefore this Honorable Court on
January4, 1973 under oaththat you were