EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 323
January
28, 1946
-versus-
LUCIO
PANOPIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
PERFECTO,
J :
On
January 15, 1942, a
mare with the brand "ER" belonging to Emilio Mauhay disappeared in
Bauan,
Batangas, while it was under the care of Fortunato Panopio.
Upon being informed
on the day following of the loss of the mare, Mauhay began immediately
searching for it.
In March, Mauhay
delivered
to accused another mare to be taken care of.
In May, Atanasio
Abarquez
and Angel Talain told Emilio Mauhay that they saw a mare, with the same
color as the one which disappeared in January, in possession of
accused,
although, according to Talain, it bore the brand "EM."
Upon this information,
Mauhay denounced accused for the theft of the lost mere.
The accused, an
octogenarian,
was arrested with his son Juan Panopio. The Mayor of Bauan said to
accused
when the latter was brought in his presence: "You should admit the
offense
imputed to you in this case, otherwise, I will shoot you," at the same
time taking his pistol and pointing it at him.
During the period of
their detention, the accused and his son were taken one Sunday from
their
place of confinement by police officers. Once outside, they were
handcuffed
and later brought to the town market. There they were hanged by the
hands
up to 4 p. m., and deprived of food and water. The following morning,
father
and son were brought to a cement tennis court where they were kept in
squatting
position with their handcuffed hands attached to an iron bar. The
tennis
court was located in the middle of the town plaza, without any shade to
protect it from the burning sun. This torture lasted only for three
hours,
the son having advised his father to admit the imputation, which the
latter
did, although it was false, "because I am afraid and might die, and
your
life is very precious to me."
The accused and his
son were brought to the municipal building, in the presence of the
Mayor,
the Chief of Police, and a sergeant. Then an affidavit or statement was
prepared and later signed by the accused, who did not know the contends
there. He did not read the document nor was it read to him. The
document
purports to be a confession; but, although it appears to have been
sworn
to on May 26, 1942, before Chief of Police Venancia Giman, the latter
did
not sign it for unknown reason.
Several months later,
that is, on September 1, 1942, a complaint was filed before the Justice
of the Peace of Bauan; and on September 5, the accused filed a bail in
the amount of P2,500. As to whether he was ever allowed to enjoy his
personal
freedom since his detention and torture in May until about four months
later when he was able to put the bail, the record is silent.
The accused waived
his right to offer evidence in the Justice of the Peace Court and the
case
was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Batangas where, after
trial,
he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of not less than one year,
eight months and twenty-one days, and not more than six years, eight
months
and one day.
After an analysis of
the evidence in this case, We arrived at the conclusion that the guilt
of the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
While the offense
charged
in the Complaint was alleged to have been committed on January 15,
1942,
and Emilio Mauhay so states in his testimony, in the affidavit signed
and
sworn to by him before the Justice of the Peace on September 2, he
declared
that the mare in question disappeared in March. It is true that he
tried
to explain the contradiction by attributing his alleged error in the
affidavit
to haste, but the explanation holds no water, considering that the
affidavit
was taken, not through a stenographer, but written in a typewriter, and
experience has shown that the process of taking testimony by typewriter
is necessarily slow. Not only that. It appears that Mauhay enjoyed full
opportunity of reading and revising the affidavit before signing it,
this
being shown conclusively by the fact that he made in his own
handwriting
an amendment thereon, by adding at the end of the affidavit the
following
words: "buan ng Mayo, 1942 ako naghabla sa alkalde," which
besides
bear flagrant errors in grammar and orthography, that cannot be
attributed
to the one who wrote the paper in the typewriter, much less to the
Justice
of the Peace before whom the affidavit was sworn to.
If Mauhay, at the time
he made the amendment, neither corrected the month [March] during which
the mare in question disappeared, nor attempted to correct it during
the
weeks and months that followed, it is because the month of March was
the
one in his mind then. The same Justice of the Peace who conducted the
preliminary
investigation and received the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
must
have entertained some doubts as to Mauhay's veracity when, in his
resolution
remanding the case to the Court of First Instance of Batangas, although
he related the facts testified to by the witnesses, he abstained from
mentioning
therein the month or date of the disappearance of the mare as testified
to by Mauhay.
With respect to the
affidavit of Angel Talain, it appears that the brand of the mare he saw
in accused's possession was "EM," and not "ER" which, according to
Mauhay,
was the brand of his lost mare. It is evident that the two brands
belong
to two different mares.
With respect to the
testimony of Atanasio Abarquez, it is evident that the mare which he
saw
accused tie and leave near his house and later take, must have been the
mare that the same Mauhay had entrusted to accused in March, and not
the
one which disappeared in the possession of Fortunato Panopio. It is
inconceivable
that accused, if he really had stolen the mare, would ask Abarquez to
watch
it, and leave it tied in an open place, exposed to the public, as the
one
described by Abarquez himself.
If the testimonies
of Abarquez and Talain were enough to identify the mare in accused's
possession
as the one which disappeared on January 15, and not the one which
Mauhay
himself delivered to the accused in March, and therefore enough to
convict
him, what was the purpose of submitting an octogenarian to the infamy
of
inhuman tortures to exact an unnecessary confession? Furthermore,
besides
the accused, why was his son Juan Panopio arrested and subjected to the
same brutalities?
In absolving the
accused
under the facts proved in this case, We cannot help stating that
instead
of accused, the ones who should have been prosecuted are the heartless
persons who were responsible for the tortures perpetrated on a sickly
octogenarian,
in open defiance of the laws and the Constitution and of the primary
principles
of humanity.
From all the foregoing,
the Decision of the lower court is revoked, the accused-appellant is
absolved
from all responsibility for the offense charged in the Information, and
his bail bond ordered cancelled. With costs de oficio.
Ozaeta, De Joya, Hilado
and Bengzon, JJ., concur. |