On automatic review are the eight (8) death sentences imposed on accused Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid by the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, for eight (8) separate crimes of murder^[1] com­mitted, according to the evidence of the prosecution, which is here­under fully quoted as recited in the People's brief, together with relevant facts subsequent thereto, as follows:

"This tragic incident which occurred on August 23, 1971 at Sapad, Lanao del Norte was one of the major highlights of the intense and bitter, and we might say even ruthless, conflict between Christians and Muslims.  The Muslims, who at that time seemed to have had the upperhand, were on a rampage causing thousands of Christians to flee to safety.  On that fate­ful day, about twenty Christians boarded Atlantic Bus No. 10 at Buriasan, Lanao del Norte bound for the town of Kapatagan, of the same province.  For some of them, it would be a journey they would never forget.  But for others, it was a trip they never lived to tell.

 "Atlantic Bus No. 10 is a closed type bus with one door at the right side (tsn p. 44, July 24, 1972).  As it left Buriasan, Lanao del Norte, it was fully loaded with passengers as well as cargoes and whatever little earthly possessions these evacuees could bring with them (tsn p. 49, ibid).  Upon reaching Sapad (formerly a barrio of the municipality of Kapatagan), Atlantic Bus No. 10 was hailed to a stop by five (5) armed men, four of whom were identified to be Andam Langi, Penorac Macabebe, Macapanton Arimpo and accused Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid (tsn pp. 10-11, ibid).  When the bus stopped, Andam Langi ordered the male passengers to stand and raise their shirts and at the same time asked them if they were carrying firearms (tsn pp. 11, 12, 56, ibid).  Seeing no firearms in the possession of the male passengers, Andam Langi peremptorily ordered:  "Fire".  Hell broke loose as the five armed men lined up along the right side of the bus indiscrimi­nately fired upon the bus with their weapons (tsn pp. 12-­14, ibid).  Not contented with just raking Atlantic Bus No. 10 with bullets, one of the five armed men shot the gas tank, filled a basin with gasoline, poured it upon the bus and lighted it (tsn pp. 22-23).  Some of the passen­gers scampered out to safety as the bus turned into a burning inferno (tsn p. 16, ibid).  However, Anselmo Sugang, Virgilio Abecia, Evangeline Abecia, Herculo Retis, Primitivo Retis, Renato Imborong, Hernando Pepito and Venancio Abecia never had a chance to es­cape, and they died on the spot (tsn pp. 16-17, ibid).  The bodies of Virgilio Abecia and Evangeline Abecia were not recovered because they were burned with the bus (tsn p. 28, ibid).

"Two priests belonging to the parish of Kapa­tagan, Fathers Sullivan and Diamond together with Father Galensoga, who was then visiting Kapatagan at that time, went in two jeeps towards Sapad and stopped one kilometer away from the scene of the ambush (tsn p. 191, Sept. 21, 1972).  There they picked up some survivors fleeing from the scene of the incident, namely:  Felisa Abecia, Juanito Abecia, Jr., Daylinda Abecia, Pablita Pepito and Romeo Pepito (tsn pp. 29-30, 82-83, July 24, 1972).  The wounded were brought to the Gonzales Clinic at Maranding for treatment, then to Tubod, Lanao del Norte, and finally taken by a pump boat to Ozamis City (tsn p. 31, ibid).

"Juanito Abecia, Jr. a ten-year old boy was wounded through and through in the right knee and suffered linear fracture on the right femur (Exhibit "A", p. 6, Rec.).  Pablita Pepito suffered a through and through gunshot wound on the left leg (Exhibit "B", p. 3, Rec.).  Daylinda Abecia suffered a compound fracture on the right forearm secondary to gunshot wound, a compound fracture on the left leg, a through and through gunshot wound on the right leg and multiple powder burns on the left upper extremity and the face (Exhibit "C", p. 4, Rec.). Felisa Abecia suffered an abrasion with contusion on the right tempral region, multiple gunshot wounds on the right upper thigh, and a lacerated wound on the left upper thigh (Exhibit "D", p. 5, Rec.). Romeo Pepito likewise suffered gunshot wounds (tsn p. 157, August 23, 1972)."^[2]

Appellant admitted that he was appointed as helper-mechanic in the provincial motor pool by Vice-Governor Malamit Umpa; and state witnesses Felisa Abecia, Juanito Abecia, and Romeo Pepito testified that they had seen appellant many times in the company of Jimmy Umpa, son of the Vice-Governor, when the former ran for mayor of Buriasan town.  Being beholden to the Vice-Governor, Malamit Umpa, and his son, Jimmy Umpa, appellant obviously was only too glad and willing to and did join the ambushers upon being told to go with them.

Secondly, appellant's testimony that he was merely brought to the scene of the incident by Jimmy Umpa, Andam Langi, Penorac Macabebe, and others whom he did not know, and made to witness, without parti­cipating in, the brutal slaying of the passengers of the ill-fated Atlantic Bus No. 10 at Sapad, is highly improbable if viewed in the light of common human experience.  On this point, the observations made by the Solicitor General are hereby quoted with approval:

"Finally, Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid's assertion that he merely witnessed the incident, but did not in any way participate in it is mani­festly a very shallow defense and typifies a last ditch effort to counteract the positive identifica­tion by the People's witnesses of appellant.  Common experience has time and again shown that persons plotting to commit a crime plan it with utmost secrecy, not only to assure success but primarily to hide their identities and escape criminal responsibility.  Yet, appellant Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid would want to impress upon this Honorable Court that the malefactors fetched him from his house, brought him with them against his will, coerced him to witness the bloody incident and afterwards warned him not to reveal the identities of the perpetrators of the crime.  However, if the assailants were apprehensive about the possibility of their identifi­cation, would it not be more logical that they should not have brought with them the accused appellant at all?  What possible motive could the malefactors have in taking along with them the accused appellant?  Is it just to make the latter a wit­ness to their dastardly deed?  And having witnessed the massacre of his Christian brothers and having escaped from his alleged captors a few hours after the incident, why did appellant not report to the authorities the identities of the assailants?  The defense has offered no explanations.  We find none."

If the appellant were not a co-conspirator in the ambuscade, his two armed escorts and the other armed members of the group would have pursued him to his hide-out only about two kilometers away from his house, where he hid for a few days before he allegedly fled to a town in Zamboanga.  The armed group would have easily captured and liquidated him, if he did not freely join them from the very beginning.  As a matter of fact, his alleged escape as described by him was too easy.  He merely told his two armed escorts that he was going to change his dirty clothes, and he was allowed to go.  After having gone upstairs, he jumped out of the window and ran towards their land at Pinamparan about two kilo­meters from his residence, and from there left for Mahayag after a few days.

II

The main opinion puts so much significance on the failure of the prosecution witnesses namely, Juanito Abecia, Jr., Romeo Pepito and Pablita Pepito, to mention the name of appellant in their respective affidavits as one of the ambushers notwithstanding their testimonies that they knew him even before the incident.  The discre­pancy pointed out, however, is inadequate to weaken and destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified the appellant during the trial as one of the perpetrators of the dastardly act.  Aside from the positive identification of appellant by said state witnesses, appellant himself admitted that he was present at the scene of the crime.  Moreover, the records do not disclose, and neither did appellant suggest, any improper or evil notice which could have impelled the prosecution witnesses to make any malicious imputation against herein appellant.

Finally, the main opinion harps on the alleged improbability of the testimony of witness Felisa Abecia.  However, the testimony of this witness is not at all impaired or vitiated if taken in the light of the pecu­liar situation she was in at the time of the commission of the crime.  Having with her two sons (one of whom died), a daughter-in-law, a grandson, and a nephew in the same bus (all of whom died), this witness could have been impelled by a strong desire to take a look thru that hole on the wall of the bus and see what was actually done by the armed men.  This was a natural reaction on her part knowing that her life and the lives of several members of her family were at stake.  Thus, her testimony that she saw appellant fired his gun should have been afforded weight in the absence of clear showing that this particular witness committed falsehood.

Furthermore, this issue being one of credibility, the rule is well-settled that the same be left to the discretion of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witness during the trial.

His being a Christian does not render impossible his joining a Muslim band of outlaws who apparently were protected by a Muslim Vice-governor, who was his employer.  Renegades, Benedict Arnolds, Quislings, traitors, opportunists can be found also among Chris­tians.  Doubtless, appellant is one of them.

Hence, the judgment of conviction imposed by the lower court should be affirmed.

With the foregoing conclusion, the other assigned errors need not be discussed.

WHEREFORE, for failure of the evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and appellant, acquitted with cost de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concurs J. Makasiar in his dissenting opinion.

---

^[1] pp. 48-70, Rollo.

^[2] pp. 4-6, Appellee's Brief, p. 124, Rollo.

tags