G.R. No. L-14675 - People vs. Tengyao

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14675)

Factual Background and Events Leading to the Killing

On the afternoon of 17 February 1956, Sergeant Bartolome Dipalog assigned Tengyao and another guard, Walter Casiwen, to watch prisoners Villamor Pagarigan and Pais Palaoay, who had been instructed to cut grass (zacate) for feed of the carabaos owned by the provincial government in Cholao, Bontoc, Mountain Province. After Pagarigan cut and bundled some grass, he asked Tengyao’s permission to defecate, which Tengyao granted. Pagarigan went to a point about seven or eight meters away where he could be seen up to his upper body (bust up), and from there Tengyao could observe him while he defecated. During the episode, Tengyao passed water, then took out his match to light a cigarette. He noticed that Pagarigan had disappeared from sight. Tengyao called Pagarigan’s name, approached the place where he had been defecating, and found that Pagarigan was no longer there.

Tengyao then again called Pagarigan’s name and moved toward an irrigation ditch nearby, where he saw footprints. He followed the footprints and observed Pagarigan running away. Tengyao ordered him to stop. When Pagarigan refused, Tengyao fired a warning shot in the air while about seven meters away. Pagarigan still did not heed the warning, and Tengyao fired another shot, which misfired. Tengyao reloaded his gun. As Pagarigan jumped to the lower part of the rice paddies, Tengyao aimed and fired at Pagarigan’s leg, hitting him. At that time Tengyao was about four meters away. Pagarigan attempted another jump while on the lower part of the rice paddies at a distance of about seven meters from Tengyao. Tengyao aimed and fired at Pagarigan’s back, though he was not sure whether he hit him. When Tengyao finally caught up with Pagarigan, he found that he had hit him on the back. Tengyao called for his companion Casiwen and instructed him to report the incident to the provincial warden. Casiwen complied.

Investigation, Statements, and Medical Findings

Captain Juan M. Duyan, commanding officer of the 12th P.C. Company, and Dr. Sotero A. Torralba, chief of the provincial hospital, received the report. Captain Duyan ordered Sergeant Martin C. Cabigas and private William David to investigate. Dr. Torralba dispatched Dr. Lucio Mendoza in an ambulance to the scene. Upon arrival, Sergeant Cabigas examined the area and found in the vicinity four empty shells and two live ammunitions of a .30 caliber rifle. After securing custody, Sergeant Cabigas took Tengyao into custody and brought him to the Philippine Constabulary headquarters in Bontoc. On the same day, 17 February 1956, Tengyao freely and voluntarily narrated to Sergeant Cabigas how he shot and killed Pagarigan. On the following day, 18 February 1956, Tengyao subscribed and swore before Judge Jerome Fakat, Justice of the Peace of Bontoc, the statement reflecting what he had given, marked as Exhibit C. On 22 February 1956, Captain Duyan interrogated Tengyao, and Tengyao then subscribed and swore before Bernabe de Castro, deputy clerk of the Court of First Instance, a statement marked as Exhibit F.

In the afternoon of the incident date, the cadaver of Pagarigan was brought to the provincial hospital. At about 5:00 or 6:00 in the afternoon, Dr. Torralba conducted a post mortem examination. The medical findings showed gunshot wounds: (a) a through-and-through wound, middle third, medial aspect, right thigh; and (b) a through-and-through wound at the inter-scapular region with exit at the right side of the chest below the right nipple. There was also a lacerated wound on the thorax, right lateral side. Dr. Torralba opined that the point of entry of the first wound was on the back of the thigh and the point of exit was on the front middle part of the thigh. He also found that the point of entry of the second wound was on the middle of the back about a specified distance below the nape of the neck, with exit about a short distance below the right nipple. He concluded that the assailant must have followed the victim from behind. He stated that internal hemorrhage caused death and that it could have been instantaneous.

Defense Theory and Trial Testimony

Tengyao did not deny that he shot and killed Pagarigan. His defense was justification based on duty, asserting that he acted to fulfill his duty as a provincial guard to prevent escape. He further claimed he acted under “impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury,” asserting that if Pagarigan escaped, Tengyao would be imprisoned. During his testimony, Tengyao claimed that when he saw Pagarigan at a distance of about 120 meters, Pagarigan was running away without clothes and swinging his bolo. Tengyao asserted he shouted for Pagarigan to stop, that Pagarigan refused, and that Tengyao first fired warning shots. He said the second shot misfired. He stated that at about 80 meters, he aimed and fired at the leg, not sure if he hit. He added that Pagarigan ran and hid in thick and tall grass (zacate). He testified he pursued and fired two or three times into the thicket, and later saw Pagarigan lying flat on his belly. The Court observed that Tengyao deviated from his earlier statement in Exhibit C given immediately after the incident.

In Exhibit C, Tengyao had stated that when he saw Pagarigan running away he ordered him to stop, and that when Pagarigan refused, Tengyao fired a warning shot while about seven meters away and then fired another shot which misfired. He also stated that he reloaded and, when Pagarigan jumped to the lower part of the rice paddies at a distance of about four meters, he aimed and fired at the leg, hitting the victim. He further stated that when Pagarigan attempted another jump at a distance of about seven meters, Tengyao fired at Pagarigan’s back, though he was not sure he hit him.

Appellate and Trial Court Proceedings on Motion to Dismiss

After the Provincial Fiscal filed the information on 11 May 1956, the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded. After the prosecution rested, Tengyao’s counsel moved for dismissal, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and requesting a period of twenty days from 4 March 1958 to file a supporting memorandum. The Provincial Fiscal waived a reply. The Court granted the requested period to file the memorandum. On 26 March 1958, Tengyao sent his memorandum by registered mail, received by the Court on 28 March 1958. On 24 April 1958, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On 23 June 1958, Tengyao filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on 28 June 1958. The trial then resumed, with Tengyao presenting evidence and the prosecution presenting rebuttal.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance

On 31 October 1958, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment. It held that there was “no imperative need” for Tengyao to shoot Pagarigan. It found the shooting unjustified. It declared Tengyao guilty of the charged crime and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000, and to pay the costs. Tengyao appealed.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Justification, Credibility, and the Shooting Circumstances

The Supreme Court treated Tengyao’s status and duty as a guard as relevant but not determinative. The Court acknowledged it was Tengyao’s duty to prevent escape, but it agreed with the trial court that the killing was unjustified. It stressed that Tengyao had already wounded Pagarigan on the thigh while at a distance of about four meters. According to the Court, that wound would have made it difficult for Pagarigan to run fast. It reasoned that it could have been easy for Tengyao to recapture Pagarigan without firing additional shots. It further considered that probability of escape was remote because Pagarigan was running toward a steep cliff of 50 yards high. It also noted that Pagarigan had less than five months remaining in jail, having been expected to be released on 20 July 1956, and thus would not have been expected to attempt escape.

The Court rejected Tengyao’s claim of exemption from criminal liability under “impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury.” The Court found the asserted fear unwarranted in light of the first wound’s effect and the improbability of escape. It therefore denied the defense theory.

Evidentiary Evaluation of Exhibit C and the Alleged Defects in the Statement

Tengyao assailed the accuracy and voluntariness of Exhibit C, raising concerns about the use of “unintelligible and faulty language,” the possibility of inaccurate interpretation, his emotional tension, and his state of mind when the affidavit was being taken. The Supreme Court found these objections unpersuasive. It relied on the testimony of Judge Jerome Fakat, before whom Tengyao subscribed and swore Exhibit C. Judge Fakat testified that when Tengyao came to him on 18 February 1956, Exhibit C had already been prepared. Judge Fakat stated that he read to Tengyao the questions propounded by the investigating officer and Tengyao’s answers, one by one, in the Bontoc dialect, which Tengyao understood. Judge Fakat also testified that Tengyao acknowledged the truth of the answers, did not show doubt about the meaning or import of the answers, did not indicate compulsion, and did not complain about any pressure when signing.

The Supreme Court considered these observations of a disinterested witness sufficient to render unassailable the trial court’s conclusion that Exhibit C was more believable than Tengyao’s testimony on the witness stand, because Exhibit C was made when the accused still had no chance to “concoct or weave a fanciful yarn.”

Mitigating Circumstances Considered and Reclassification of the Crime

Tengyao claimed four mitigating circumstances: (1) voluntary surrender, because he gave himself up to the Philippine Constabulary authorities for investigation; (2) lack of instruction, asserting that he was unschooled, illiterate, and a member of the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14675)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Agustin Tengyao for murder for the killing of a prisoner, Villamor Pagarigan.
The complaint was subscribed and sworn to on 25 February 1956 by sergeant Martin C. Cabigas of the Philippine Constabulary.
After preliminary investigation, the Justice of the Peace of Bontoc bound the accused over on 5 March 1956 to the Court of First Instance.
On 11 May 1956, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information charging murder under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Upon arraignment, Tengyao pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, and the trial court denied the motion on 24 April 1958.
The defense filed a motion for reconsideration on 23 June 1958, which the trial court denied on 28 June 1958.
The trial court convicted the accused on 31 October 1958, and Tengyao appealed.

Key Factual Allegations

Tengyao was a guard in the provincial jail of Bontoc, Mountain Province.
On the afternoon of 17 February 1956, sergeant Bartolome Dipalog assigned Tengyao and Walter Casiwen to watch the prisoners Villamor Pagarigan and Pais Palaoay while they cut zacate for feed of the provincial carabaos.
After Pagarigan cut and bundled grass, he asked permission to defecate, which Tengyao granted.
Pagarigan moved to a place about seven or eight meters away and used stone boulders as cover, where Tengyao could see him from the bust up.
While Pagarigan was defecating, Tengyao passed water and later took out his match to light a cigarette, after which he noticed Pagarigan had disappeared from sight.
Tengyao called Pagarigan’s name, approached the defecation site, then moved to an irrigation ditch after no trace was found.
Tengyao observed footprints, followed them, and saw Pagarigan running away.
Tengyao ordered the prisoner to stop, fired a warning shot in the air at about seven meters, and then fired again when Pagarigan did not heed the warning, with the second shot misfiring.
Tengyao reloaded the gun, aimed and fired at Pagarigan’s leg at about four meters, and the victim was hit.
After Pagarigan attempted to jump to the lower rice paddies, Tengyao aimed and fired at his back at about seven meters, though he was not sure he hit him at that moment.
When Tengyao eventually caught up, he found that he had hit Pagarigan on the back and called Walter Casiwen to report the incident.
Captain Juan M. Duyan ordered sergeant Martin C. Cabigas and private William David to investigate, and Dr. Sotero A. Torralba dispatched Dr. Lucio Mendoza by ambulance.
Upon investigation, sergeant Cabigas found four empty shells and two live ammunitions of a .30 caliber rifle.
Tengyao was taken into custody, and on the same day 17 February 1956, he freely and voluntarily narrated to sergeant Cabigas how he shot and killed Pagarigan.
On the next day 18 February 1956, the accused subscribed and swore to the statement before Judge Jerome Fakat, Justice of the Peace of Bontoc, identified as Exhibit C.
On 22 February 1956, he was interrogated by Captain Duyan and subscribed and swore before Bernabe de Castro, deputy clerk of the Court of First Instance, the statement identified as Exhibit F.
A post mortem examination conducted the afternoon of 17 February 1956 found two gunshot wounds and opined that internal hemorrhage caused death, which could have been instantaneous.
Tengyao did not deny the shooting, but pleaded justification based on duty to prevent escape and claimed an impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury if the prisoner escaped.

Evidence and Testimonial Narrative

The trial court relied on Exhibit C, treating the sworn statement as more credible than the accused’s version on the witness stand.
The sworn statement was given on the day of the incident when the accused had allegedly no chance to fabricate a story.
In court, Tengyao described a different narrative emphasis, including the claim that Pagarigan was running at a distance of about 120 meters “without clothes and swinging his bolo.”
In court, the accused testified to firing a warning shot and then firing at the leg at about 80 meters, after which Pagarigan hid in thick grass.
Tengyao testified that he pursued and fired two or three times into the thicket, and later saw Pagarigan lying on his belly.
The decision highlighted that the accused’s in-court account deviated from Exhibit C, which stated that after refusing to stop, he fired warning shots and later, upon reloading, fired at the leg and then at the back.
The prosecution’s physical and medico-legal evidence supported a conclusion that the assailant followed the victim from behind.

Statutory Framework

The information charged murder under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court, however, ultimately treated the offense as homicide under article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
The decision applied article 64 of the Revised Penal Code on the effect of mitigating circumstances.
The decision applied paragraph 5, article 64 to determine the proper penalty when mitigating circumstances existed without aggravating circumstances to offset them.
The decision applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law to set minimum and maximum terms based on the applicable penalty range.
The judgment included the imposition of civil indemnity and costs as part of the affirmed conviction.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused argued for dismissal on the asserted ground that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case.
The accused contended that he was exempt from criminal liability because he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury if the prisoner escaped.
The accused challenged the reliability and accuracy of Exhibit C, citing alleged unintelligib