G.R. No. L-562 - People vs. Pardo

Jose Pardo was prosecuted by the People of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga for the crime of “double murder.”
Agapito de la Cruz and Tomas Pesario were charged alongside Pardo; however, de la Cruz and Pesario were discharged and subsequently used as state witnesses.

The incident occurred on March 27, 1946, between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening at the Galley Building in Isabela de Basilan, City of Zamboanga, which was a former U.S. Army mess hall converted into a show-house.
A vaudeville show was in progress with numerous spectators, including the victims and the accused.

During the show, Pardo engaged in a conversation with his friend, Agapito de la Cruz, regarding an altercation involving Captain Berthram Burchfield and a disruptive individual, Miguel Nunal.
Pardo abruptly seized a .45 caliber automatic pistol from de la Cruz—said to be stuck between de la Cruz’s shirt and pants—and declared his intent to shoot the Captain.
An exchange of firearms occurred when Pardo, possessing his own .25 caliber pistol, handed it to de la Cruz as he took the automatic pistol.

Afraid of the threat, Agapito requested Tomas Pesario, who was present and had overheard the conversation, to keep watch over Pardo.
Outside the theater, Tomas Pesario observed Pardo peering through a slit in the side galvanized iron wall to verify the position of Captain Burchfield, who was seated near the door.
Shortly thereafter, Agapito saw Pardo bearing a firearm firmly in his right hand and firing two shots in rapid succession.

The first shot hit Captain Burchfield, a U.S. Army officer, fatally wounding him; the bullet lodged in Burchfield’s left leg before causing his death at 9:30 o’clock that night at Zamboanga General Hospital.
The second shot missed the intended target and struck Francisco Canete, a Filipino, killing him shortly after.
Following the shooting, Agapito re-entered the theater, discovered the wounded victims, and tried to locate Tomas Pesario, while Pardo and Pesario fled the scene.

Evidence presented by Agapito de la Cruz and Tomas Pesario detailed Pardo’s deliberate approach, identification of the target from a vantage point, and the clear separation in the execution of both shots.
Forensic evidence (such as the two distinct holes in the wall and the locations of the bullets) supported that two separate shots were fired from the automatic pistol.

Pardo claimed he had been intoxicated and that he was forced by de la Cruz to shoot under duress, further asserting that his own weapon had been taken and replaced with de la Cruz’s .45 caliber pistol.
Defense testimonies, including those from individuals in the dressing room where Pardo was allegedly engaged in conversation with show performers, attempted to corroborate his version.

Pardo’s subsequent behavior—hiding the firearm and remaining reticent about its location—was interpreted as indicative of a guilty conscience.
Pardo’s extrajudicial confession, taken by Detective Pedro Basilio (translated into Chavacano), was later disputed on the grounds that it might have been obtained under a promise of immunity.

Whether the testimony and physical evidence presented by the prosecution—especially the accounts of Agapito de la Cruz and Tomas Pesario—are more reliable than Pardo’s narrative.
The inconsistency and improbability inherent in the appellant’s version of events compared to the orderly and corroborated eyewitness accounts.

Whether the admission by Pardo, obtained allegedly under a promise of immunity by Detective Pedro Basilio, was voluntary or coerced.
The legal sufficiency of a non-oath-bound confession and the procedures followed in translating and recording the statement.

Whether the two fatal shootings constitute a single complex crime (as defined by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code) or two distinct acts of murder.
Whether the presence (or absence) of aggravating circumstances such as treachery, public authority, and nocturnity applies to elevate or mitigate the severity of the crimes.

The significance of the roles played by Agapito de la Cruz, Tomas Pesario, and the alleged involvement of Miguel Nunal in the orchestration of the shootings.
Whether the arrangement as depicted by the parties implies that Pardo was merely an unwilling tool or the principal mastermind.