G.R. No. L-18770 July 30, 1965
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eugenio Pasilan, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the morning of December 14, 1944, in barrio Dibuluan, Jones, Isabela, Justina Miguel was in her house when a long-haired guerrilla, later identified as Eugenio Pasilan, arrived. After she gave him oil, he cleaned his gun. When Ciriaco Abarra passed by, Pasilan called him, ordered him to discard his bolo, questioned him about surrendering a rifle to the Japanese, and then, without allowing an answer, slapped and stabbed him twice in the chest. Abarra fled, bleeding, and was later seen running by Anicia Uao. Sometime later in 1944, a decomposing body identified as Abarra’s was found and buried. After the war, Pasilan married a relative of Justina Miguel, who was a wedding sponsor. In 1954, Sgt. Diego Morales investigated wartime crimes. Pasilan, in an affidavit, admitted being present when Abarra was stabbed by another guerrilla, Pvt. Miguel Padayao, after Abarra confessed to aiding the Japanese. The remains were exhumed, and the skull was identified by Abarra’s widow, Perpetua Andaya, based on a distinctive tooth. Pasilan was charged with murder. During trial, eyewitness Justina Miguel initially identified Pasilan but later, under cross-examination, expressed uncertainty. Pasilan repudiated his affidavit, claiming he did not understand it, and presented an alibi that he was not in Dibuluan in December 1944. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the appellant, Eugenio Pasilan, was sufficiently identified as the assailant of Ciriaco Abarra; (2) whether the death of Abarra was proven to be a result of the stabbing; (3) whether the corpus delicti was established; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence (recantation of witness) and amnesty under Proclamation No. 8.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. (1) The identification of Pasilan as the assailant was sufficient. Justina Miguel had ample opportunity to observe him during the incident and later learned his name. Her initial positive identification was credible, and her subsequent uncertainty was viewed as a reluctant recantation to protect a relative. Pasilan’s own affidavit, which he understood as explained by the justice of the peace, placed him at the scene and implicated him in the confrontation with Abarra, contradicting his alibi, which was uncorroborated and weak. (2) The death of Abarra from the stab wounds was proven by the eyewitness account of the stabbing, the sighting of him bleeding and fleeing, the subsequent discovery of his decomposing body, and the lack of evidence of any other cause of death. (3) The corpus delicti was sufficiently established through the identification of the deceased by those who buried him and the identification of the skull by the widow based on a distinctive dental characteristic. (4) The motion for a new trial was properly denied. The alleged newly discovered evidence (recantation of Justina Miguel) was unreliable and had already been considered by the trial court. Amnesty under Proclamation No. 8 could not be invoked as it was not newly discovered and was inconsistent with Pasilan’s plea of not guilty, as amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime. The qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were present, as Pasilan had a motive from prior events, announced an “exhibition,” and disarmed the victim to ensure the attack without risk. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the indemnity was increased to P6,000.00.