GR L 1913; (May, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1913; May 28, 1948
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ATIENZA, CEFERINO DAGO-OY, HILARION BIRADOR and FRANCISCO OYANDO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Appellants were convicted by the lower court for the murder of Lucio Balmes on April 28, 1946, in Caguray, Bulalakaw, Mindoro. The prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Antonio Contreras, testified that he and Balmes, accompanied by two Mangyans, went to a pasture land owned by Filemon Atienza. Upon opening a gate, they saw appellants and others about 30 brazas away. After Contreras shouted “Pepe,” Jose Atienza fired, and a continuous volley of shots ensued for about forty minutes. Contreras claimed he lay face down, saw Balmes also lying down, and after the firing stopped, found Balmes dead and bathed in blood. He then crawled away and reported the incident. The defense presented an alternative theory: that Balmes was actually murdered by Contreras and his companions elsewhere after a dispute over a cattle purchase, and his body was later placed inside the Atienza property to frame the appellants.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants are guilty of the murder of Lucio Balmes.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted all appellants. The prosecution’s theory was found inherently improbable and inconsistent with the physical evidence. The post-mortem examination revealed two wounds: a gunshot wound to the left breast and a heavy blow fracturing the lower jaw. The broken jaw was incompatible with the prosecution’s story of a remote shooting incident, as no one present could have inflicted such a blow after the alleged forty-minute volley. Furthermore, the conduct attributed to the appellants—firing continuously for forty minutes yet only hitting the neutral Balmes while missing their alleged enemy Contreras, and then abandoning the body in an open area instead of concealing it—was deemed illogical and contrary to human experience. The evidence suggested the body was “planted” to incriminate the appellants. The Court granted the joint prayer for acquittal by both the defense and the Solicitor General. The defense counsel’s additional prayer to order the provincial fiscal to prosecute Contreras and others was denied, as that matter is within the fiscal’s discretion and subject to administrative remedies.
AI Generated by Armztrong.