Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-29832 March 25, 1929
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CANUTO ASINAS, ET AL., defendants.
CANUTO ASINAS and EUGENIO ASINAS, appellants.
A. P. Escareal for appellants.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
STATEMENT
Canuto Asinas and his brother Eugenio were charged in the justice of the peace court of Catubig, Province of Samar, with the crime of parricide of their father Aniceto Asinas by and with the aid of Leon Ogacho and Felipe Credo. As a result of the preliminary investigation, the cause was certified to the Court of First Instance of Samar where the following information was filed:
That on or about the night of the 4th of October, 1927, and in the barrio of Tagabiran, municipality of Catubig, Province of Samar, Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the defendant brothers, Canuto Asinas and Eugenio Asinas, through conspiracy and mutual help, with evident premeditation and treachery, did willfully, unlawfully and criminally enter the house of Aniceto Asinas, father of said defendants, held him while he was asleep, and the accused Canuto Asinas beat on the nape of his neck, pressing his neck strongly until Aniceto Asinas died, while the other accused Eugenio Asinas was holding the feet assisted by his other companions named Leon Ogacho and Felipe Credo, who also held the deceased by both hands or arms to prevent him from making any defense, that after killing said Aniceto Asinas, the two defendants, together with their two companions, built a fire outside of the house and put the dead body on the fire with the intention of reducing it to coal, contrary to article 402 of the Penal Code.
The said Leon Ogacho and Felipe Credo are charged with murder in this same case.
Based upon the same alleged facts, another information was also filed by the fiscal against Felipe Credo and Leon Ogacho charging them with the crime of murder. On motion of the fiscal the defendant Ogacho in the murder case was discharged, so that he could be used as a witness for the Government. On their motion, Asinas brothers were granted a separate trial both of whom entered a plea of not guilty, as did Felipe Credo. As a result of their separate trial both Canuto and Eugenio Asinas were found guilty of parricide as alleged in the information, and each was sentenced to the death penalty, and jointly and severally to pay P1,000 to the other heirs of the deceased, and each to pay one-fourth of the costs. On appeal they assign the following errors:
I. The lower court erred in believing the testimony of Leon Ogacho and of corporal Marcelo Relampagos of the Constabulary, and in not holding that the said corporal Marcelo Relampagos had been trying to induce Eugenio Asinas to declare falsely against Canuto Asinas.
II. The lower court erred in not rejecting the opinion of Dr. Juan Rivera.
III. The lower court erred in admitting and in believing the testimony Nazario Opinion, Visitacion Golondrina and Cirilo Mercader.
IV. The lower court erred in holding that the members of the family of the deceased Aniceto Asinas were either indifferent as to the crime or interested in the acquittal of the accused.
V. The lower court erred in allowing the proof as to the supposed marital troubles of the deceased and his wife to influence him in his decision convicting the Asinas brothers.
VI. The lower court erred in holding that 'the court was convinced' that the motive for the crime 'must have been the desire on the part of the accused to end the practice of their father in disposing of his property which the accused and other members of the family expected to inherit'
VII. The lower court erred in not accepting the defense of alibi presented by the defendants-appellants Asinas brothers, and the testimony of Francisco Golondrina.
VIII. The lower court erred in convicting the appellants Asinas brothers.
JOHNS, J.:
If the theory of the prosecution is true, it was one of the most foul and brutal murders in the annals of crime, for which no penalty could be too severe. In its final analysis, the guilt or innocence of the Asinas brothers must largely depend on the evidence of Ogacho, who was at least accomplice if not principal, in the commission of the crime. A result of an investigation by the Constabulary, Ogacho on Oct. 17, 1927, made and signed the following confession:
I, Leon Ogacho, of age, resident in the place called Maglolo, within the jurisdiction of the Barrio of Tagabiran, Municipality of Catubig, Samar, P.I., after being duly sworn, state as follows:
That on Tuesday evening, 4th day of the month of October, 1927, I was in my house where Felipe Credo came calling for me; when I heard him calling me, I stood up immediately, and went to the window to see. Then Felipe said "let us go to Canuto because the order given to me is urgent order," then we went to the house of Canuto. When we arrived at Canuto's house we then went to the house of Aniceto Asinas and when we arrived at Aniceto's house, we found Aniceto sleeping in the hammock, Canuto immediately put out the lamp and held the neck of Aniceto, and Eugenio Asinas held the foot of Aniceto, then Canuto Asinas ordered us to hold one of Aniceto's hands each one of us, while Canuto Asinas was holding Aniceto strongly by the neck and did not loosen him until Aniceto was dead. After Aniceto Asinas, their father, had died, then Canuto Asinas made a bonfire on the ground, when then the fire was already burning, we four lifted the dead body, carried it and placed in the fire.
Canuto Asinas is the one who took the money from the baris (a kind of bamboo trunk), the money being kept in a sack. Then after Canuto have taken the money, we immediately went away, and then Canuto told us not to reveal it to anybody, if there is anyone asking about it or investigating, otherwise he would shoot us.
And he said that our debts to him were not to be paid anymore in compensation of our keeping quiet.
At the same time, another and similar confession was made by the defendant Credo. But for many and different reasons, Credo was not called and did not testify as a witness for or against in the trial of Asinas brothers, and his confession was not used or introduced in that trial. In the trial of the Asinas brothers, the evidence of Ogacho as a witness for prosecution in the main corroborated his confession.
The body of the deceased Aniceto Asinas was found on the morning of October 5, 1927, in a camarin which he occupied in the sitio of Maglolo, of which the defendant Eugenio Asinas, the son, who was living nearby, was notified, who promptly went to the scene, and the sight moved him to tears. The body was lying face downwards, the front part of the body burnt. The deceased did not wear any clothing, except for a pair of short drawers which were also partly burnt. After looking over the body, the son got a blanket and covered it. After telling the people who were assembled, among whom was his wife, to watch over the body of the deceased, he went to notify the authorities in the barrio. The other defendant was also notified and with others, including a rural policeman, promptly went to the scene. Upon his arrival, he exclaimed: "God, God, what must have happened to this old man !" And he also broke down and cried.
The crime having been committed in an outlying district, the first and only medical examination or autopsy of the deceased was made by Dr. Juan Rivera five days after the crime was committed, who on Oct. 10th made the following official certificate:
1. There has been a real death, which must have occurred some four days back.
2. That the corpse belongs to an old man, about 70 or 80 years of age.
3. That death was caused by asphyxia due to occlusion (closing or shutting up) of the nasal and bucal orifices.
4. That the burn is only of the first degree stage and is incapable of causing death except after several days.
5. That the burn took place while the dead man was unconscious or in his agony.
6. That the contusions noted in the face and forehead were produced by blows from a hard object.
And that it may so appear to whomsoever it may concern, I sign the present certificate at the instance of the justice of the peace of Catubig, Samar, on this 10th day of October, 1927.
(Sgd.) Dr. Juan Rivera
President, Sanitary Division
Laoang, Samar, P.I.
As a witness for the prosecution, he testified in substance, that since 1920, he was been president of the Sanitary Division comprising Laoang, Palapag, Catubig and Pambujan.
I examined the body of Aniceto Asinas on October 8, 1927, because the justice of the peace of Catubig telegraphed me to go to Catubig to do so. When I examined the corpse, it was in a coffin. I had it taken out of the coffin. The body was somewhat bent (flexionado); the limbs (miembros inferiores) were also flexed , and so with the arms (miembros superiores); the fingers were contracted; the face was swollen (abultada); the tongue was protruding and a little blood was flowing out of the nose and the mouth; the front part of the body was burned and the back part showed cadaveric lividity; on the forehead and on the right cheek there were contusions of about half a peso in size; the parts of the body that were burned were the neck, the breast, the abdomen and parts of the thigh. The burning was only slight but towards the border (partes experiores), it was more or less serious because the blisters (flictenas) had appeared. Performing an autopsy, I did not find anything extraordinary except in the lungs which were congested. I know it because of the color. I think that this congestion was due to asphyxia. I found "enfisema intersticial o burbujas de aire" in the lungs. The tongue was protruding. This condition must have been caused by strangulation. The strangulation must have been caused at the level of the larynx to produce the effect of the tongue hanging out. The strangulation would cause the exclusion of air from the lungs and would cause, as a consequence, the "enfisema intersticial." In my opinion, the cause of the death of Aniceto Asinas was asphyxia by strangulation. I think that the deceased was between 70 and 80 years old.
On cross-examination, he admits that at least 1/3 of the area of the body of the deceased was burnt, but he denies that the burns may have caused the death of Aniceto Asinas. There were no signs of violence on the neck, the doctor saying they are not necessary, but he says he found a positive sign of strangulation in the fact that the tongue was protruding. As to the two contusions, the blows that caused them could not render the deceased unconscious because on opening the cranium there was no fracture in the same. The doctor admits that asphyxia may be caused by the accident. (t. s. n., p. 98).
For the prosecution, corporal Marcelo Relampagos testified how and in what manner he obtained the confession of Ogacho.
Visitacion Golondrina, over the strenuous objection of the defendants, testified that in May last, 1927, the defendant brothers tied their father to a papaya tree in the sitio of Maglolo. That she was then in a house 25 meters distant from the place where it occurred. On cross-examination she could not give the day or the date, and said that there were other houses near the papaya tree.
Nazario Opinion testified that about 3 years ago Canuto Asinas tried to drown his father in the river in Maglolo. On cross-examination he said he never told anybody about it until the present trial. He also admitted that he was doing business in the same sitio of Inoman where the defendant Canuto Asinas has a store, and that they were business rivals.
Cirilo Mercader testified that about 2 years ago in Canuto's house in Inoman, Canuto got hold of his father and wanted to throw him in the pool. He admitted that he was indebted to Canuto Asinas in the sum of P69.
In its analysis of the evidence, the trial court said:
As may be inferred from the record, the testimony of the principal witness of prosecution, Leon Ogacho, is corroborated by the following facts and circumstances:
(a) Actual possession of shotguns on the part of the accused Canuto Asinas and Eugenio Asinas;
(b) The result of the examination or the autopsy of the body of the deceased made by health officer Dr. Juan Rivera;
(c) The admission on the part of the accused Canuto Asinas that he really ordered Leon Ogacho and Felipe Credo to tresh abaca in the plantation of Uy Dinto in the sitio of Himaanion;
(d) Actual existence of enmity between the deceased and the mother of the accused Asinas;
(e) The fact that on three previous occasions the accused Canuto Asinas, once together with the accused Eugenio Asinas, had attempted or done violence on the body of the deceased;
(f) The fact that the two brothers Canuto and Eugenio had shown cold indifference and lack of any warm manifestation of filial regard or affection for the deceased upon learning the death of their father, especially the former, who, upon learning the news, did not go to the place unless accompanied by an old man and a rural policeman.
It is elementary law that a defendant in a criminal action cannot be convicted on the evidence of the accomplice only, and that to sustain such a conviction, there must be other evidence corroborating with the accomplice, which tends to show the guilt of the defendant. It may be well doubted whether anyone of the six facts or circumstances relied upon by the lower court, as corroborating evidence, are legally sufficient for that purpose. (a) The actual possessions of shotguns by defendants is not evidence of their guilt, for the simple reason the deceased was not killed with a shotgun, and it appears that each of them has a license for possession of the shotguns. Neither is (b) the result of the medical examination any evidence of their guilt. The same thing is true to (c) and (d). As to (e) that evidence was admitted through strenuous objection of the defendants and was flatly contradicted and that it is admitted that no complaint was ever made, and that nothing was ever said or done about any of such matters until after the defendants were arrested on the present charge. It must be conceded that such evidence is not clear or convincing.
Upon the question of inadmissibility of evidence to the commission of other crimes as tending to prove the guilt of the defendants of the crime in question, Ruling Case Law (vol. 10 sec. 109), says:
The general rule is that the evidence is not admissible which shows, or tends to show, that the accused in the criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he would likely commit the crime charged in the indictment. A man may be a notorious criminal, but this fact may not be shown to influence a jury in passing upon the question of his guilt or innocence for the particular offense for which he is on trial. To permit proof of other crimes would naturally predispose the minds of the jurors against the defendant. One who commits one crime may be more likely to commit another; yet, logically, one crime does not prove another, nor tend to prove another, unless there is a relation between them that proof of one tends to prove the other. Unless such a relation exists, it is illegal and manifestly unfair to require a man, who, is charged with specific crime in the indictment, to prepare a defense against other crimes that the state may prove against him, but which are not charged in the indictment. The general rule, should, therefore, be strictly enforced in all cases where applicable.
That is good law, and the only theory upon which the testimony of Visitacion Golondrina, Nazario Opinion, and Cirilo Mercader is admissible that the relation as to the matter about which they testified tends to prove the commission of the crime in the manner in which it was committed, and unless there is such a relation, their evidence is illegal and manifestly unfair to the defendants. As stated we very much doubt the truth of the testimony of those witnesses, and we have a serious doubt about the admissibility of their evidence for any purpose. As to (f) in which the lower court says the defendants were cold and indifferent and did not aid or assist in the investigation, that finding is not sustained by the record. Hence, in the final analysis, the evidence of the accomplice Ogacho is not corroborated in a manner which tends to prove the guilt of the defendants.
In this case, if the defendants are guilty, the death penalty should be imposed. There is not and cannot be any compromise. They are either guilty or they are innocent, and it is devolved upon the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are some features about Ogacho's testimony that make it very hard to believe that his story was true.
It is conceded that the defendants are men of affairs, ordinary intelligence and of substantial means. If it be a fact that they formed a design to take the life of their own father, they could very easily have done that without the aid or assistance of Ogacho or Credo, and there is no valid reason why they should ever be called to assist in the commission of the crime. By his statement, Ogacho never did anything more than to trail along the heels of his master through the dark and stormy night through the scene of the crime until after the father have been strangled to death by his own son, four of them took his body and placed it on fire which has been built for that purpose. The evidence shows that the father was between 70 and 80 years old, and that for five years he had lived alone in the camarin. The point is that, if the defendant brothers have really conspired to commit the crime, as Ogacho says, why and for what purpose would they call their aid and their assistance to irresponsible men like Ogacho and Credo? They could easily commit the crime without them, and Ogacho's own evidence shows that his services were of no value to the Asinas brothers in the commission of the crime. Again, it was committed on the night of October 4th.
It appears from the almanac of that date, that the moon was then in its first quarter, and the evidence shown that it was a rainy, stormy night, and yet Ogacho said that the very first thing they did on entering the room of the deceased was to put out the light which was burning low. The crime was committed in the camarin, and without any light and in the very nature of things, everything must have been dark, and yet this situation Ogacho testified that immediately after the light was put out, Canuto Asinas held his father's neck, and that Eugenio held his feet, and that Canuto told me to hold one of his hands, and that Canuto did not loosen his hold upon the neck until Aniceto was dead, and that during all of this time, Aniceto trembled.
Upon Ogacho's own testimony, the father must have died from strangulation, yet the autopsy did not reveal, and there is no claim or pretense, that there were many marks of violence found on the neck of the deceased.
Upon that question, Taylor, Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence (vol. 1 p. 729), says:
. . . In the absence of all marks of violence around the neck, we should be cautious in giving an opinion which may affect the life of an accused party; for it is not probable that homicidal strangulation could be accomplished without the production of some appearances of violence on the skin over the larynx or windpipe. It is doubtful whether strangulation can ever take place without some mark being found on the neck indicative of the means used. The bare possibility of death being caused on this manner, without leaving any appreciable trace of violence, must be admitted; although the admission scarcely applies to those cases which require medico-legal investigation. Suicides and murders generally employ much more violence than is necessary for the purpose of destruction. But if a soft and elastic band were applied to the neck with a gradually regulated force, it is possible that a person might die strangled without any external sign being discovered to indicate the manner of his death. . . .
The state of the countenance alone will scarcely warrant the expression of an opinion, for there are many kinds of death in which the features may become livid and distorted from causes totally unconnected with the application of external violence to the throat, unless accompanied by other well marked signs of this mode of death. So again, the eyes and tongue may be protruded as a result of putrefactive changes.
If the deceased died from strangulation, as Ogacho testified, it is hard to conceive that there would not have some evidence of the strangulation on the neck, and yet no one claims to ever have seen or found any such marks of violence. As stated, a most brutal murder has been committed, and someone is guilty of a very serious crime. But the question before us is the guilt or innocence of the defendants, and we cannot say as a matter of law, as we analyze the evidence for prosecution, that it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt. It is far better to acquit a man of such serious crime upon the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to prove his guilt, even though he may be guilty, than to invoke the death penalty upon a man who may be innocent. The defendants stoutly maintain their innocence and there is nothing inconsistent or unreasonable in their testimony. The evidence shows that the day before the crime was committed, the defendant Canuto and his father met and had friendly dealings with each other, and that Canuto left his work to assist his father to catch his carabaos and put rings in their noses.
The trial court found that the motive for the crime was robbery, upon that point the evidence is not clear or convincing, and is more or less conjecture or speculation. Much more could be said about the evidence for the prosecution, but giving the defendants the benefit of a reasonable doubt, as we must, in the final analysis, the proof is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the defendants, Canuto Asinas and Eugenio Asinas, are acquitted of the crime charged, with costs de oficio. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
