Title
People vs. Banayad
Case
G.R. No. L-2623
Decision Date
Apr 26, 1950
Arsenio Banayad confessed to murdering Gregorio Reyes Uy Un, corroborated by physical evidence and witness testimony, despite his alibi. Conviction upheld.
murder
conviction
confession

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2623)

Factual Background

The evidence showed that between nine and ten o’clock in the evening of October 14, 1946, Uy Un was killed by two carbine shots fired from outside the house. One bullet entered the right side of his abdomen near the navel and exited below the right clavicle. The other bullet’s entrance was about an inch below the navel and its exit was above the left nipple. The trial evidence described the bullets’ trajectory as being almost parallel to the body. Other inmates heard the shots and were awakened but did not see the shooter.

A police investigation began the following morning. On the mat near the cadaver, the investigators found two .30 cal. slugs. Under one of the sidings of the house, a police sergeant picked up two empty .30 cal. carbine shells. During the investigation, the chief of police sighted Jose Carbido carrying a carbine and questioned him. Carbido stated that, by order of his brother Antonio, he had borrowed the weapon from appellant.

When the chief of police examined the carbine, he found a piece of dried coconut leaf stuck between the barrel and the tip of the stock. Noting its similarity to dried coconut leaves used as sidings where Uy Un was killed, he inspected the sidings of the house and found a small opening into which the barrel of a gun might have been inserted. Because the carbine was unlicensed, it was confiscated. Appellant was also summoned for investigation.

Initially, appellant submitted a statement (identified as Exhibit 1) in which he claimed that the carbine had been given to him by Gaudencio Medinilla (mayor of San Narciso) in May 1946 for hunting purposes, but that he had later been “borrowed” of it by Carbido on the morning of October 15, 1946. He denied going out on the night of the crime and asserted that he was at home in Tala, a barrio adjoining the place where Uy Un was killed. On the strength of that declaration, he was ordered released.

Shifting Narratives During Investigation

The municipal police’s investigation did not satisfy the authorities. The military police of Quezon province took over and questioned appellant on November 2, 1946. Appellant then gave another statement (identified as Exhibit 2). He claimed that at about nine o’clock in the evening of October 14, 1946, he went hunting in the coconut grove of Medinilla in Tala, where he met Leoncio Hanabaab, who allegedly told him not to inform anyone because Hanabaab had shot Uy Un.

After further questioning five days later, appellant gave a still different story (Exhibit 5). He narrated that at about five o’clock in the afternoon of October 14, 1946, the Pabon brothers—Bernardo, Antonio, and Lucio—had him accompany them to Uy Un’s coconut grove to hunt wild boars. He stated that while they waited for the moon, they informed him their real object was to kill Uy Un, whom they intended to shoot using the carbine that they allegedly forced appellant to lend. He said the motive was to get even with Uy Un because Uy Un had prosecuted them for theft of his carabao. According to him, he was made to go to the house where Uy Un was, which had lights on. He claimed that two of the Pabon brothers placed a large rock under a window to get a good view. He further stated that Antonio stood on the rock, poked the muzzle into the siding under the window, then adjusted and reinserted the barrel into the siding opening, took aim, and fired twice, killing Uy Un while asleep. He also said that the Pabon brothers warned him not to divulge what he had seen on pain of death.

Appellant’s Final Confession and Verification by the NBI

Later, appellant was questioned by Capt. Pedro Alcantara, the new provincial commander of the MPC of Quezon province. At that time, appellant repudiated his prior stories except the first, and he admitted that he was the one who shot Uy Un. He asserted that he did so by order of Mayor Gaudencio Medinilla, who allegedly had a grudge against the deceased, and who promised to reward appellant with P300 and to maintain his family if he should be caught.

Appellant described the shooting in a narrative confession written in Spanish and reduced into writing as Exhibit H. The confession described how he approached Uy Un’s house carrying the carbine, used a large stone as a support to stand and reach the window, opened an opening in the tabique to allow him to see people inside, verified that Uy Un was there and asleep, inserted the carbine through the opening, aimed at Uy Un, and pulled the trigger twice. Appellant further stated that he later left quickly and withdrew to his own home.

In the same confession, appellant insisted that it was not true that he had earlier implicated the Pabon brothers and Hanabaab as the killers, and he explained that he had implicated them only because he bore them a grudge. The confession alleged that one of them had abducted his sister before the war.

Because of the alleged complicity of Mayor Medinilla, the Secretary of Justice sent two NBI agents to Lucena to check appellant’s latest statement. Using a signed carbon copy of Exhibit H—referred to as Exhibit C—the agents questioned appellant in the provincial jail on February 3, 1947. Before questioning, the agents took precautions: they removed the provincial guards and the son of the deceased from the cell, and they told appellant that he could rely on them because they represented the Department of Justice and that he was free to speak if what he said was not true. After the agents read to him the signed carbon copy and reassured him not to be afraid, appellant admitted that the statements in the document were truly his and that they were true and correct. He acknowledged his signature and admitted that he affixed it freely and spontaneously before the Clerk of Court of Quezon, Gregorio L. Gonzales.

Additional Evidence: Presence of Appellant Near the Scene and Prior Conviction

Apart from appellant’s confession, the evidence included eyewitness testimony on appellant’s presence. Simeona Montero, who lived in the same barrio as appellant, testified that before nine o’clock on the night in question, while weaving a mat in her kitchen, she heard her dogs bark. She looked out and saw, in clear moonlight, appellant passing by mounted on a carabao, heading south toward the scene of the crime.

It also appeared that in a prior case, appellant had been convicted of theft of large cattle by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas in November 1938, a conviction that the Court of Appeals affirmed in August 1940, upon complaint of the deceased, Uy Un.

Trial Court Proceedings

Appellant testified in his defense and denied that he was the shooter. He claimed that he was forced, through violence and threat, to confess. He argued that his earlier identification of Hanabaab and the Pabon brothers as the killers was intended to prevent the MPs from maltreating him. He maintained that the “truth” was contained in his first statement where he denied involvement.

To support his denial and alibi, appellant presented Maximo Espinosa and Anacleto Requeron, who stated that they passed the night of October 14, 1946 in appellant’s house, and that appellant did not leave that night.

The trial court rejected appellant’s defense and found him guilty of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and ordering him to pay indemnity and costs.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, appellant persisted in the claim that his confession was not voluntary. He alleged that threats and violence coerced him into confessing and repudiating the version that he earlier gave. He also relied on his alibi and on testimony that he was at home on the night of the killing. The People, through the prosecution below, relied on the confession’s reliability, its corroboration by physical circumstances, and the weakness or discrediting of the claimed alibi.

Appellate Court’s Ruling and Reasoning

The Court held that it found no sufficient reason to disturb the judgment of conviction. It stated that the Court should be slow in revoking a judgment of conviction based on confession. The Court addressed appellant’s theory that the confession was wrung from him by threats and violence, and found the claim unsupported by corroboration. The Court noted that the testimony offered by appellant on coercion was denied by the agents of the law. It also observed that appellant did not report maltreatment to anyone and that no signs of violence were found on his person.

The Court further noted that appellant, when the confession was presented to him for signing, informed the clerk of court who read the confession to him that it was voluntary and spontaneous. The Court also relied on appellant’s later statement to the NBI agents after they assured him that he could tell the truth without fear because they represented the Department of Justice. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the trial judge did not err in giving weight to the confession in which appellant admitted personally killing Uy Un and retracting his earlier statements implicating others.

The Court also found corroboration for key aspects of the confession. It pointed to the direction of the bullet wounds on the body of Uy Un, the presence of a hole or opening produced by inserting the barrel into the house’s siding where Uy Un was shot, and the discovery of a piece of dry coconut leaf captured between the carbine’s barrel and stock tip. The Court further observed that the carbine used in the killing was in appellant’s possession on the night of the crime. This was consistent with appell

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms