G.R. No. L-1913 - People vs. Atienza

On April 28, 1948, Lucio Balmes was murdered in Caguray, municipality of Bulalakaw, Mindoro.
The accused/appellants are Jose Atienza, Ceferino Dagohoy, Hilarion Birador, and Francisco Oyando.

At about 10:00 in the morning, Lucio Balmes and Antonio Contreras, accompanied by Mangyans Simon and Ontoy, visited the pasture land of Filemon Atienza.
Upon reaching the barbed wire fence near the Caguray river, they found the gate closed. Antonio ordered Simon to open it, and as soon as it was opened, Antonio Contreras and Lucio Balmes entered the property.

The group then observed, from a distance of around 30 brazas, seven persons—including the four accused—positioned near the area.
Antonio Contreras allegedly shouted “Pepe,” prompting Jose Atienza to fire a shot.
Immediately, Antonio fell face down; Balmes was seen lying on the ground, later confirmed to be bloody and fatally injured.
The accused allegedly continued firing for approximately forty minutes.

After the prolonged shooting, Antonio Contreras crawled to Balmes’ body, found him “bathed in blood,” and then proceeded to report the incident to the local Chief of Police around 10:00 in the evening.
The lower court, on the basis of this narrative, found the accused guilty, sentencing Jose Atienza and Ceferino Dagohoy to reclusion perpetua, and Hilarion Birador and Francisco Oyando to an indeterminate period of punishment (from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal).
Additionally, the accused were jointly and severally ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000.

The defense maintained that none of the accused was present at the scene when the crime was committed.
It was asserted that the accused had no personal relationship or dealings with Lucio Balmes.

The defense argued that Balmes had come to Bulalakaw for the purchase of cattle, presumably carrying a considerable sum of money, a fact known only to Antonio Contreras and his relatives.
It was contended that on April 27, 1948, Balmes was lured by Antonio Contreras and others to a Contreras family pasture at Curanga to inspect cattle that were allegedly for sale.
Upon discovering that no cattle were present, Balmes may have uttered strong words, precipitating his murder by Antonio Contreras and his companions.

According to the defense, one of the conspirators shot Balmes at his left breast while another struck him on the right lower jaw with a blunt force.
After the killing, the corpse was moved inside the barbed wire fence of Filemon Atienza’s property to mislead authorities into believing that the Atienza group was responsible.

Prior to arraignment, the lower court had already dismissed the inclusion of Filemon and Aniceto Atienza in the information.
Both the defense counsel and the Solicitor General jointly prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
The defense additionally requested that the provincial fiscal of Mindoro be directed to prosecute Antonio Contreras and his accomplices for the murder of Balmes.

Whether the evidence on record adequately established that the accused actively participated in the killing of Lucio Balmes.
Examination of whether the presence of contradictory physical and testimonial evidence undermined the prosecution’s narrative.

Whether the forensic findings (i.e., the two distinct wounds) are consistent with the theory of continuous firing over forty minutes.
Whether the testimony of witnesses such as Antonio Contreras and Mangyan Simon accurately corresponded with the physical evidence observed in the post-mortem examination.

Whether the alleged continuous volley of gunfire realistically aligns with the observed behavior of the accused.
Whether the abandonment of the corpse is indicative of a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the identity of the murderer rather than being an act by a culpable party.

Whether it is proper for a petition to be filed against the provincial fiscal regarding the prosecution of Antonio Contreras and others.
Whether such administrative remedies should be exhausted before judicial recourse is appropriate.