VOL.

224, JULY 5, 1993 319

People vs. Cordova

*
G.R. Nos. 83373-74. July 5, 1993.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

REYNALDO CORDOVA @ “REY” CORDOVA, EDUARDO
CORDOVA @ “SULI” CORDOVA, ISIDRO CORDOVA, JR. @
“DROBAT,” FREDDIE BUENCONSEJO @ “ODONG,” and
ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR., accused. REYNALDO CORDOVA
@ “REY” CORDOVA, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ “SULI”
CORDOVA and ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR., accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Evidence; Credibility of Witnesses; The Court will not

interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility
of opposing witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted.—A rule of long standing in
this jurisdiction, the respect for which remains undiminished, is that this
Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon
the credibility of opposing witnesses unless there appears in the record some
fact or circumstance of weight and influence

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

320

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been

misinterpreted. This is due to the fact that the trial court is in a better
position to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Such
deference, however, may be withdrawn if it is shown that the trial court has
plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered,
might affect the result of the case.
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Court reached the inevitable conclusion
that the exception to the foregoing rule must be applied for facts and
circumstances of great weight and value have been overlooked and
misinterpreted by the trial court.—After a careful and painstaking
evaluation thereof, we have reached the inevitable conclusion that the
exception to the foregoing rule must be applied for, as hereinafter
expounded on, facts and circumstances of great weight and value have been
overlooked and misinterpreted by the trial court. At the outset, we find the
prosecution’s evidence insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants
with moral certainty or rebut the presumption of innocence accruing in their
favor. In short, proof beyond reasonable doubt is wanting in this case.
Same; Same; Same; It is settled that delay or vacillation in making a
criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness
if such delay is satisfactorily explained.—It appears that Teresita revealed
the assailants’ identities only on 11 June 1986. It is of course settled that
delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily
impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In
the instant case, we find Teresita’s explanation to be insufficient and
inadequate.
Same; Same; Accessory; For one to be held liable as an accessory, it is
essential that he must have knowledge of the commission of the crime.—The
trial court convicted Estorque as an accessory. By so doing, therefore, it
assumed that at the time he was seen by Norberto Javier, the crimes in
question had already been committed. No proof was offered to support this
assumption. Nevertheless, even if we are to concede to such a hypothesis, it
will likewise be observed that the prosecution presented no proof to show
that Estorque had known of the commission of the crimes. For one to be
held liable as an accessory, it is essential that he must have knowledge of the
commission of the crime.
Same; Same; Circumstantial evidence; Requisites for circumstantial
evidence to be sufficient for conviction.—Nor could it be assumed that even
if a conspiracy had existed among the assailants, Estorque

321

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 321

People vs. Cordova

could be considered a part thereof for at most, his having been seen together
with the other accused in the motorboat is purely circumstantial evidence
which, standing alone—for there is no evidence of any other circumstance
—does not sufficiently link him to such a conspiracy. For circumstantial
evidence to be sufficient for conviction, the following requisites must
concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
 Same; Same; Conspiracy; It is settled that conspiracy need not be
shown by direct proof, it may be shown by acts and circumstances from
which may logically be inferred the existence of a common design or may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.—
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct
evidence is not necessary to prove the same for such schemes are usually
hatched in secrecy, with witnesses other than the conspirators themselves
proving to be extremely difficult to find. Moreover, it is settled that
conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof; it may be shown by acts and
circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a
common design or may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated. As regards the act or declaration of a conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, the law on evidence
provides that such acts and declaration may only be given in evidence
against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
Same; Same; Entries in police blotters should not be given undue
significance or probative value for they are usually incomplete and
inaccurate sometimes from either partial suggestion or for want of
suggestion or inquiries.—It is true that entries in police blotters should not
be given undue significance or probative value, for they are usually
incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for
want of suggestion or inquiries. However, in the instant case, considering
that the first entry (Exhibit “4-B”) was made on the basis of the report given
by Sevilla immediately after being informed by Rodolfo Maguad about the
killings and, considering further that Jessie Sevilla was not even called to
the witness stand by the prosecution to testify on what he had reported, the
said entry cannot just be disregarded. On the matter of the second entry
(Exhibit “4-C”), it is to be noted that no less than the team leader himself,
Pfc. Contreras, prepared the same at a time when the occurrences he had just
investigated—even if preliminarily—were still very fresh in his mind.

322

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

Same; Same; Aggravating circumstance; Requisites for evident

premeditation to exist.—Finally, we are not persuaded by the trial court’s
thesis that appellants Reynaldo and Eduardo Cordova killed Marcelo
Barruela out of vengeance because the latter purportedly killed their
mother’s uncle, Lucio Barruela, in 1953. Evident premeditation is thus
suggested. For evident premeditation to exist, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2)
an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination, and (3) a
sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
 Same; Same; Insanity; Since insanity is in the nature of a confession
and avoidance, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.—The law
presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is improper to presume that acts
were done unconsciously. The quantum of evidence required to overthrow
the presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since insanity
is in the nature of a confession and avoidance, it must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Moreover, an accused is presumed to have been sane at
the time of the commission of the crime in the absence of positive evidence
to show that he had lost his reason or was demented prior to or during the
perpetration of the crime.

APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas

City.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Fredicindo A. Talabucon for all accused-appellants except R.
Cordova.
          Belo, Abiera & Associates for accused-appellant Reynaldo
Cordova.
     Roger B. Patricio for all accused.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad were killed in Barangay

Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz in the evening of 29 May 1986. Upon
the complaint of the former’s widow, Teresita Barruela, Criminal
Case No. 705 for Double Murder was filed against the accused and
Clarita Cordova with the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Pontevedra-Panay in the Province of

323

OL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 323

People vs. Cordova

1
Capiz by the Station Commander of Pontevedra on 16 June 1986.
After conducting a preliminary examination, the MCTC ruled that a
probable cause existed
2
against all the respondents with the exception
of Clarita Cordova. Thus, on 25 June 1986, the Station Commander
3
filed an Amended Criminal Complaint against the accused. 4In due
course, a warrant for the arrest of the accused was issued. Upon
their arrest, the accused moved for the immediate transmittal of the
records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the
purpose of filing the5 appropriate information if a prima facie case
warranted the same. After undertaking a reinvestigation of the case,
Acting Provincial Fiscal Claro A. Arches of Capiz recommended the6
filing of two separate and distinct informations for murder;
consequently, two cases were filed on 29 January 1987 with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City which were docketed as
Criminal Case No. C-2422 and Criminal Case No. C-2423. Both
cases were raffled off to Branch 16 of the said court.
 The accusatory portion of the Information in Criminal Case No.
C-2422 states:

“That on or about the 29th day of May, 1986, at Barangay Bantigue,

Municipality of Pontevedra, Province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together, and mutually helping one another, armed with long
and short high-powered firearms and with deliberate intent to kill one
Marcelo Barruela, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously,
with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, shoot, and wound with
such weapons said Marcelo Barruela in different vital parts of his body, thus
inflicting upon him the following gunshot wounds, to wit:

1. Gunshot wound with entrance at level of 3rd rib anterior chest wall
left side 1 cm. x 1 cm., 3 cms. from sternum laterally;
2. Probable wound of exit at level of mid-clavicle 5 cms. x

_______________

1 Original Records (OR), Crim. Case No. C-2422, 1.

2 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 35.
3 Id., 36.
4 Id., 43.
5 Id., 45.
6 Id., 66-79; Id., Crim. Case No. C-2423, 4-17.

324

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

2.5 cms.;
3. Gunshot wound, entrance 1.5 cm. at level arm fracturing
midhermerus with wound of exit 9.5 cms. x 7 cms. at opposite side;
4. Probable wound of entrance 45 cms. x 2.5 cms. located 5 cms.
below the left axilla;

which wounds directly caused the instantaneous death of said Marcelo

7
Barruela.”

On the other hand, the accusatory portion of the Information in

Criminal Case No. C-2423 reads as follows:

“That on or about the 29th day of May, 1986, at Brgy. Bantigue,

Municipality of Pontevedra, Province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together, mutually helping one another, and armed with long
and short high-powered firearms, with deliberate intent to kill one Segundo
Maguad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
treachery and evident premeditation attack, shoot, and wound said Segundo
Maguad with such weapons in the vital parts of his body, thus inflicting
upon him a gunshot wound with entrance below the left side of the neck 1
cm. x 11 cm. at the right scapular area and shattering the scapular bone,
8
which wound caused his instantaneous death.”

At their arraignment on 119

March 1987, each of the accused pleaded
not guilty to the charges.
During trial, the prosecution presented as its evidence in chief six
witnesses, viz., Rodolfo Maguad, son of Segundo Maguad; Teresita
Barruela, the spouse of Marcelo Barruela; Norberto Javier; Dr.
Salvador Billones, the doctor who autopsied the victims; Pat. Rafael
Dipon; and Pfc. Allan Contreras. Its rebuttal witnesses were Nemia
Besana, Allan Contreras and Angel Belalo. For its part, the defense
presented as its witnesses all of the accused and thirteen other
10
persons.

_______________

7 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 63-64.

8 Id., Crim. Case No. C-2423, 1-2.
9 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 113; OR, Crim. Case No. C-2423, 36.
10 Leopoldo Barrios, Enrico Galapin, Dominador Buenavista, Pat.

325

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 325

People vs. Cordova

Prosecution witness Rodolfo Maguad testified that at around 7:00

o’clock on the night of the killing, he was at the fishpond dikes near
the house of the Barruelas at Barangay Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz
inspecting the fishpond gates. While there, he suddenly heard the
voice of Marcelo Barruela who was at the second floor of the said
house; Barruela was conversing with some men who were outside
the house. Rodolfo proceeded towards the house but hid from the
men because in the many years that he has stayed with the
Barruelas, no one has visited the latter at that time of the night.
Rodolfo recounted that when Marcelo Barruela asked who these
men were, one of them—a person whom he (Rodolfo) recognized as
Eduardo or Suli Cordova—introduced himself as Richard de la
Torre. Rodolfo observed Eduardo Cordova request Marcelo to bring
them to Pontevedra in Marcelo’s motorboat; Marcelo, however,
replied that he did not have enough gasoline for the trip. Eduardo
Cordova thereupon insisted that they be brought instead to Barangay
Quiawa, also in Pontevedra. When Marcelo asked Eduardo how
many they were, the latter replied that they were four. Marcelo then
instructed his farm help, Segundo (Godo) Maguad—Rodolfo’s
father—to prepare a torch (“moron”). After so instructing Segundo,
Marcelo beamed a flashlight at the group and asked Eduardo where
his companions were. When Eduardo replied, “They are here,” two
persons appeared, one of whom Rodolfo recognized as Reynaldo
Cordova. The latter, who had a long firearm with him, immediately
fired six shots in rapid succession at Marcelo. Thereafter, Reynaldo
fired two more shots at Marcelo’s house. Rodolfo then ran for safety
and proceeded to the house of one Alex Acolentaba where he related
to Alex what had happened. After sometime, both of them went to
the Barruelas’ house where Rodolfo saw his father lying dead on the
first floor with a gunshot wound in his neck; on the second floor,
both discovered the lifeless body of Marcelo Barruela. The latter’s
wife, Teresita Barruela, who was also there, told Rodolfo to report
the incident to the police authorities in Pontevedra, Capiz.

_______________

Rafael Dipon, Alfonso Bediones, Ildefonso Bernales, Edwin Bergancia, Eduarda

Doluso, Lydia Buenconsejo, Juan Besana, Clarita Cordova, T/ Sgt. Frankie Andion
and P/Lt. Romeo Hervias.

326

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

Instead of doing so, Rodolfo and Alex proceeded to the house of

Marcelo’s nephew, Jessie Sevilla, and narrated the tragedy to the
latter. Jessie then told them to promptly head for Roxas City to
inform Marcelo Barruela, Jr. (Toto) about the incident. Upon being
so informed, Toto Barruela, Rodolfo and Alex returned to Jessie
Sevilla’s house where they met three policemen, namely, Pfc. Allan
Contreras, Rolando Alcazaren and John Dipon. Upon being
questioned by the policemen, Rodolfo disclosed that his father’s and
Marcelo’s killers were the accused Eduardo Cordova, Reynaldo
Cordova and two other men whom he did not recognize. After this
preliminary inquiry, the entire group proceeded to the scene of the
11
crime in Barangay Bantigue.
Witness Teresita Barruela narrated that at about 7:00 o’clock in
the evening of 29 May 1986, she was praying in their house in
Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz. With her at that time were her husband
Marcelo, Segundo Maguad, Gloria Maguad and Rodolfo Maguad.
She said that she then heard someone calling for her husband thus:
“Tay Seloy, Tay Seloy, Tay Seloy.” When Marcelo asked the caller
who he was and where he was going, the latter identified himself as
Richard de la Torre and requested Marcelo to conduct them to
Pontevedra in his motorboat because they were benighted. Marcelo
replied that he did not have enough gasoline for the trip. Thereupon,
the man insisted that they be brought instead to Barangay Quiawa,
which is also in Bantigue. Marcelo then told Segundo Maguad, their
farm help who was at the first floor of the house, to prepare a torch
for their use during the trip. At this point, Teresita said that she
stopped praying and whispered to her husband that the intentions of
the men outside were not good. Marcelo merely replied, “It seems,”
and forthwith got a flashlight. Teresita then peeped through the
window and saw two men—Suli (Eduardo Cordova) and his
younger brother, Isidro Cordova. According to her, she was able to
recognize both of them because of the light emanating from the
petromax on the ground floor of the house. When her husband
approached the window, beamed the flashlight at the man who called
on him and asked the latter how many they were, the man replied
that they were four. Suddenly, Reynaldo Cordova emerged with
another

_______________

11 TSN, 3 April 1987, 4-17.

327

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 327

People vs. Cordova

person from the dark and fired about six “rapid shots” at her husband
with the long firearm he was carrying. Teresita lay down on the floor
and her husband fell beside her.
While still in the same position, she heard two more shots fired in
the direction of their house. She then remained prostrate on the floor
with her fallen husband until Rodolfo Maguad and Alex Acolentaba
arrived. Rodolfo told her that his father, who was downstairs, was
dead. She then asked Rodolfo to report the incident to the police
station at the poblacion. At about 2:00 to 3:00 o’clock in the
morning of the following day, policemen arrived to investigate the
killing. Although they interviewed Rodolfo Maguad, they could not
get Teresita’s statement because she was crying profusely. It was
12
only on 11 June 1986 that she gave her sworn statement.
Teresita further testified that her family and the Cordovas had not
been in good terms because her husband “was against their fish trap
near our fishpond.” Moreover, Marcelo had told her that when he
was still single, he had killed the uncle of Clarita Cordova—mother
of accused Reynaldo, Eduardo and Isidro Cordova, Jr., mother-in-
law of accused Freddie 13
Buenconsejo and grandmother of accused
Ernesto Estorque, Jr.
Prosecution witness Norberto Javier declared that at about 7:00
o’clock on the night of the incident, he was fishing with his son
along the Pontevedra river when he noticed a motorboat carrying
five men approach them. He identified the men as Eduardo Cordova,
Reynaldo Cordova, Isidro Cordova, Jr., Freddie Buenconsejo and
Ernesto Estorque, Jr., the “driver” of the boat. With a gun pointed at
him, Eduardo asked him to put out his torch while Reynaldo asked
for his gasoline. Norberto got the container of gasoline in his banca
and handed it over to Isidro. The group then proceeded in the
direction of Pontevedra. Later, while he was across that same place
where he had encountered the group, he saw the motorboat return,
this time with only three men on board. He no longer recognized
14
these men.
Pfc. Allan Contreras of the Integrated National Police (INP) in

_______________
 12 TSN, 19 May 1987, 3-28.
13 Id., 31-33.
14 TSN, 1 April 1987, 34-41.

328

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

Pontevedra testified that at around 1:30 o’clock in the morning of 30

May 1986, Jessie Sevilla appeared in the police station and reported
that Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad had been shot by four
persons in Barangay Bantigue. Together with Pat. Rafael Dipon and
Rolando Alcazaren, he proceeded to Sevilla’s house where they
waited for Rodolfo Maguad who had gone to Roxas City to inform
Toto Barruela of his (Toto’s) father’s death. When Rodolfo arrived,
Contreras asked him if he knew who shot the victims; the former
answered that the killers were “Drobat” (Isidro Cordova, Jr.) and
“Suli” (Eduardo Cordova). Thereafter, they headed for Barangay
Bantigue and conducted an investigation at the scene of the crime.
Pat. Dipon made two sketches of the crime scene, marking the spots
where the assailants allegedly fired at the victims, the place where
Rodolfo Maguad hid and other important points at the crime scene.
Contreras also asked Teresita Barruela if she knew the identities of
the assailants but the latter could not answer his questions as she
kept on crying. After concluding the investigation, they brought the
bodies of the victims to Pontevedra. At Pontevedra, somebody
whispered to him that Ernesto Estorque, Jr. had ferried some NPAs
on his grandmother’s motorboat on the night of 29 May 1986.
Contreras thus sought, and eventually found, Estorque. The latter
revealed that the group which commandeered his grandmother’s
motorboat was led by a Commander Jojo. Estorque then voluntarily
agreed to give a written statement, which was accomplished on 30
May 1986 (Exhibit “M”). A second informer told Contreras that the
same men got some gasoline from someone who was fishing by the
river that same night. The latter turned out to be Norberto Javier.
Contreras likewise questioned Norberto Javier who revealed that the
persons who procured gasoline from him were Reynaldo and
Eduardo Cordova. Norberto, however, refused to give a statement at
that time because he was afraid; he nevertheless promised to prepare
15
one upon the arrival of his brother “from the army.”
With the exception of Ernesto Estorque, Jr. who admitted having
seen Norberto Javier in the evening of 29 May 1986, all of the
accused denied having been in Barangay Bantique on the

_______________

15 TSN, 20 May 1987, 28-47.

329
 VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 329
People vs. Cordova

night of the murder. All, however, disclaimed having killed the

victims.
Accused Reynaldo Cordova declared that he was in the house of
Vice-Mayor Ildefonso Bernales in Punta, Tabuc, Roxas City on the
night of the incident. Claiming that he and his family were residing
in the said house, he further recounted that between 7:00 and 7:30
o’clock that night, Roberto Makato and Ildefonso Bediones, Jr.
arrived to fetch the vice-mayor and take him to a meeting of the
Kiwanis Club. After having been served some beer, the duo left with
the vice-mayor at about 8:00 o’clock. Reynaldo claims that he never
left the vice-mayor’s house that night. In fact, when the vice-mayor
arrived at around 12:00 o’clock midnight, he was there to open the
16
door for the latter. Reynaldo Cordova’s testimony was corroborated
by Vice-Mayor Bernales who added that the distance between Punta,
Tabuc and Bantigue is about twenty-one kilometers; Bernales claims
that it takes him forty minutes by car to get to Pontevedra. From
Pontevedra, one17 had to take a one-hour motorboat ride to finally
reach Bantigue.
On the other hand, accused Eduardo Cordova stated that he was
at his mother’s house at Barangay Agbalo, Pontevedra, Capiz, on the
night of the killing. He likewise claimed that he never left the said
18
house that evening. His testimony was corroborated by his sister,
Lydia Buenconsejo, who happens to be the wife of accused Freddie
19
Buenconsejo.
Accused Isidro Cordova maintained that on 29 May 1986, he was
in Banica, Roxas City attending the last day of the novena for the
barangay fiesta. He averred that he spent the night in the house of a
certain20 Eduarda Doloso and that he did not leave the said house21that
night. Isidro’s testimony was corroborated by Eduarda Doloso.
Presenting a similar defense, accused Freddie Buenconsejo
testified that he was in his parents’ house in Sangkal, President

_______________

16 TSN, 17 September 1987, 4-10.

17 TSN, 23 June 1987, 12-15.
18 TSN, 23 September 1987, 2.
19 TSN, 10 July 1987, 9.
20 TSN, 13 August 1987, 16-19.
21 TSN, 23 June 1987, 24-28.

330

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

Roxas, Capiz on the night of the shooting. He admitted, however,

that his wife resides in his mother-in-law’s house in Barangay
22
 22
Agbalo, Pontevedra, Capiz. Buenconsejo’s testimony was
corroborated
23
by Lydia, his wife, and Edwin Bergancia, a resident of
Sangkal.
For his part, accused Ernesto Estorque, Jr., who was thirteen
years old at the time of the killing, did not deny his presence in
Bantigue in the evening of 29 May 1986. Nor did he contradict
Norberto Javier’s statement that he (Estorque, Jr.) piloted his
grandmother’s motorboat that night. Estorque, however, narrated
that on the said night, while both he and his grandmother, Clarita
Cordova, were harvesting the fish in their fishtraps adjoining the
Barruelas’ fishpond, they heard gunshots coming from the direction
of the latter’s house—a mere twenty meters from their fishtraps.
After about fifteen minutes, a group of men headed by a certain
Commander Jojo “Commandeered” his grandmother’s motorboat
and ordered him, at gunpoint, to ferry them to Binangig. After
reaching Binangig,
24
he returned to Bantigue to fetch his
grandmother.
Rebuttal witness Angel Belalo testified that Lucio Babela, Clarita
25
Cordova’s uncle, was shot to death by Marcelo Barruela in 1953. 26
On 11 March 1988, the trial court promulgated its decision
finding accused Reynaldo Cordova, Eduardo Cordova and Ernesto
Estorque, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The two
Cordovas were held liable as principals while Estorque was found to
be an accessory after the fact. Accused Isidro Cordova and Freddie
Buenconsejo, on the other hand, were acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding the killings to have been committed with the use of
a motorized banca and illegally possessed firearms at

_______________

22 TSN, 13 August 1987, op. cit, 2-9.

23 TSN, 10 July 1987, 5; TSN, 23 June 1987, op. cit., 20.
24 TSN, 14 August 1987, 2-12.
25 TSN, 13 October 1987, 30-31.
26 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 770-793; Rollo, 34-57. The decision is dated 4 February
1988.

331

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 331

People vs. Cordova

nighttime at the dwelling of the victims where there was no provocation

from the latter, qualified by the circumstances of evident premeditation and
treachery, this Court pronounces guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals of the crime of Murder in both the above cases accused Reynaldo
Cordova, alias Rey Cordova, and accused Eduardo Cordova, alias Suli
Cordova, and only as accessory after the fact accused Ernesto Estorque, Jr.,
accordingly sentencing them, to wit:
 Reynaldo Cordova and Eduardo Cordova in Criminal Case No. C-
1. 2422, for the death of Marcelo Barruela, in contemplation of Art.
111, Section 19(1), 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, there not
being any mitigating circumstance, each to imprisonment of thirty
(30) years of reclusion perpetua (Arts. 27, 248—Revised Penal
Code) and the payment by each jointly and severally of indemnity
in the sum of P25,000.00, and Ernesto Estorque, Jr., with
discernment having committed the crime as an accessory,
appreciating the special mitigating circumstance of minority, with
no aggravating circumstance offsetting this, to the straight penalty
of imprisonment of four (4) months (Art. 68 No. 2, RPC, in relation
to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended by PD 1179, Art. 192,
last paragraph) and the payment of P2,000.00 as indemnity to the
deceased’s heirs;
2. Reynaldo Cordova and Eduardo Cordova in Criminal Case No. C-
2423, for the death of Segundo Maguad, in contemplation of Art.
111, Section 19(1), 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, there not
being any mitigating circumstance, each to an imprisonment of
thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua (Arts. 27, 248, Revised Penal
Code) and the payment jointly and severally by each in the sum of
P15,000.00, and Ernesto Estorque, Jr., with discernment having
committed the crime as accessory, appreciating the special
mitigating circumstance of minority without any aggravating
circumstance offsetting this, to a straight penalty of four (4) months
imprisonment and the payment of P1,000.00 as indemnity—in both
cases to the deceased’s heirs, and with all the accessory penalties of
the law. Accused Reynaldo Cordova and Eduardo Cordova are
given the benefit of Article 29, as amended, of the Revised Penal
Code, being in detention.

Accused Isidro Cordova, alias Drobat, and accused Freddie

Buenconsejo, alias Odong, their guilt in both cases not having been proved
beyond reasonable doubt are hereby acquitted of the crimes charged in the
27
two informations.”

_______________

27 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 792-793; Rollo, 56-57.

332

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

The judgment of conviction is based primarily on the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses Rodolfo Maguad, Teresita Barruela and
Norberto Javier. The trial court rejected the defense of alibi because
it was satisfied that the accused were positively identified by the said
witnesses and that the latter had no motive to falsely implicate the
former. Taking into account treachery and evident premeditation, the
court said:
“x x x What more pretensions and treachery than the calling of Marcelo
Barruela as ‘Tay Seloy’, meaning Father Seloy, and variously as Richard de
la Torre and Commander Jojo. Taking revenge for the death of an uncle at
the hands of Marcelo Barruela in 1953, among others, the accused could
only have planned their strategy much, much before physically executing
28
the killing, including the procurement of their lethal firearms.”

From the judgment of conviction, accused Reynaldo Cordova,

Eduardo Cordova and Ernesto Estorque, Jr., hereinafter referred to
as the Appellants, filed a notice of appeal manifesting their intention
29
to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Thereupon, the trial court
ordered the transmittal of the30 records of both cases to the Court of
Appeals on 28 April 1988. However, in view of the penalties
imposed, the appellate
31
court forwarded the records to this Court on
16 May 1988.
The appellants filed their Brief on 27 October 1988 while the
People filed the Appellee’s Brief on 14 February 1989.
On 26 April 1989, the law firm of BELO, ABIERA and
ASSOCIATES filed a notice of appearance as counsel for appellant
Reynaldo Cordova. On 7 July 1989, said new counsel filed a
separate brief for Reynaldo Cordova with a manifestation that the
same was being submitted in support and/or amplification of the
brief submitted by Atty. Roger Patricio, counsel of record for all the
appellants. Consequently, on 19 July 1989, Atty. Patricio filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel in view of his appointment as
Presiding Judge of Branch 38 of the RTC of Iloilo City. On 4
October 1989, Atty. Fredicindo A. Talabucon entered his appear-

_______________

28 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 792; Rollo, 56.

29 Id., 803.
30 Rollo, 3.
31 Id., 2.

333

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 333

People vs. Cordova

ance as counsel for the appellants in substitution of Atty. Patricio. In

their common brief, the appellants assign the following errors:

“I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING

CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF TERESITA
BARRUELA, RODOLFO MAGUAD, AND NORBERTO
JAVIER.
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
APPRECIATING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE
POLICE BLOTTER REPORT (EXHS. “4”, “4-A”, “4-B,”
“4-C,”) AND THE SPOT REPORT OF THE INP
STATION COMMANDER OF PONTEVEDRA, CAPIZ
 TO THE PC DISTRICT COMMANDER OF CAPIZ.
(EXHS. “5”, “5-A”, “5-C”) AS WELL AS THE SWORN
STATEMENTS OF CLARITA CORDOVA AND
ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR. (EXHS. “1”, “1-A”, “1-B”,
“1-C”, “1-C”); EXHS. “N”, “N-1”), AND EXHS. “2”, “2-
A”, “2-B”, “2-C”, “2-D, (EXHS. “M”, “M-1”),
RESPECTIVELY.
III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF
LEOPOLDO BARRIOS, RADIO ANNOUNCER OF
RADIO STATION DYVR IN ROXAS CITY, AND OF
ENRICO GALAPAN.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONIES OF ALFONSO
BEDIONES, JR. AND VICE-MAYOR ILDEFONSO
BERNALES, WITH RESPECT TO THE
WHEREABOUTS OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT
REYNALDO CORDOVA DURING THE TIME WHEN
THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION OCCURRED.
V. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONIES OF BARANGAY
CAPTAIN JUAN BESANA AND DOMINADOR
BUENAVISTA.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
FINDING ACCUSED EDUARDO CORDOVA AS A
MENTALLY DERANGED PERSON.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS REYNALDO
CORDOVA AND EDUARDO CORDOVA AS CO-
PRINCIPALS AND ACCUSED-APPELLANT ERNESTO
ESTORQUE, JR. AS ACCESSORY
NOTWITHSTANDING THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
32
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.”

In the separate brief filed by the law firm of BELO, ABIERA and
ASSOCIATES for appellant Reynaldo Cordova, the follow-

_______________

32 Brief for Accused-Appellants, 1-2; Rollo, 63, et seq.

334

334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

ing errors are imputed to the trial court:

“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT REY CORDOVA
WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE

OF ALIBI OF REY CORDOVA.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE

UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY (sic) OF ERNESTO ESTORQUE,
JR. AND CLARITA CORDOVA AS TO WHAT TRANSPIRED ON THE
33
NIGHT OF MAY 29, 1986.”

The foregoing errors merely supplement those set forth in the

common brief.
Under the first assigned error in the common brief, the appellants
brand the principal prosecution witnesses as “unreliable, as they are
untruthful,” and consider their testimonies as “highly improbable
34
and incredible.” Claiming that the same should have been rejected
by the trial court, they then attack Teresita Barruela’s declaration—
which they find unbelievable—that Marcelo Barruela had still asked
Eduardo Cordova to identify himself when the Cordova brothers
were personally known to the Barruelas, and point out
inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the sequence of events
after one of the Cordovas had introduced himself as Richard de la
Torre. While she had testified on direct examination that the men
outside their house and her husband had a running conversation
before the latter directed Segundo Maguad to prepare a torch for the
trip, she later contradicted herself by stating that Segundo Maguad
was given the said instruction as her husband was fetching a
flashlight.

_______________

33 Rollo, 92.
34 Brief for Accused-Appellants, 9.

335

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 335

People vs. Cordova

Appellants likewise challenged Teresita’s claim that she had

recognized her husband’s assailants; appellants cite her failure or
refusal to reveal their identities when the police conducted an
investigation after the killing. When Pfc. Contreras repeatedly
questioned her about the identities of the assailants in the course of
his six-hour investigation at the scene of the crime, she did not offer
any answer.
 The appellants similarly assail the credibility of Rodolfo
Maguad. As in Teresita Barruela’s case, they claim that Rodolfo
allegedly failed to immediately reveal to the authorities the identities
of the assailants. Even during his interview over radio station DYVR
the day after the killing, he asserted that he did not recognize the
assailants.
On the other hand, witness Norberto Javier is described by the
appellants as a “perjured witness” presented by the prosecution “in
its frantic desire to corroborate by circumstantial evidence the highly
incredible, improbable and concocted testimonies of Teresita
35
Barruela and Rodolfo Maguad.”
Amplifying on their second assigned error, the appellants fault
the trial court for refusing to appreciate in their favor (a) the police
blotter of the Pontevedra police station which very clearly records
the fact that four “unidentified” persons killed Marcelo Barruela and
Segundo Maguad; (b) the spot report which discloses that “5
unidentified persons” were the perpetrators; and (c) the sworn
statements of Ernesto Estorque, Jr. and Clarita Cordova which
declare that the appellants were not responsible for the killing.
For the third assigned error, the appellants insist that the trial
court should have appreciated in their favor the testimony of
Leopoldo Barrios, a radio announcer at station DYVR, to the effect
that in the evening of 30 May 1986, Rodolfo Maguad went on the air
to inform his brothers and sisters in Mindoro about their father’s
death. When asked by Barrios about the details of the incident,
Maguad categorically stated that a group of men, the members of
which he could not recognize, shot his father. Enrico Galapan, a
resident of Sitio Kalipayan, Punta Tabuc, confirmed that he had
heard Maguad’s statements over the

_______________

35 Brief for Accused-Appellants, 36-37.

336

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

36
radio.
In the fourth and fifth assigned errors, the appellants take to task
the trial court for not according full faith and credit to the
testimonies of Alfonso Bediones, Jr., Vice-Mayor Bernales,
Barangay Captain Besana and Dominador Buenavista.
In support of the sixth assigned error, the appellants question the
trial court’s refusal to acquit Eduardo Cordova on the ground that as
testified to by his mother, he is “mentally defective.” As a matter of
fact, in his cross-examination of Eduardo, Fiscal Claro Arches asked
only one question because he (Arches) knew that he could get
37
nothing from a “mentally-deranged” person.
 In the last assigned error, appellant Reynaldo Cordova claims
that if he were indeed guilty, he would have escaped. On the
contrary, however, he even visited the Barruela family to pay his last
respects to the deceased Marcelo Barruela whom he and his family
fondly called ‘Tay Seloy.”
Appellants then end their arguments by insisting that although
alibi is a weak defense, it must be believed in this case since the
testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses are unreliable,
uncorroborated and inconclusive.
At the center of these assigned errors is the issue of the
credibility of the opposing witnesses. A rule of long standing in this
jurisdiction, the respect for which remains undiminished, is that this
Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in
passing upon the credibility of opposing witnesses unless there
appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence which has been 38
overlooked or the significance of which
has been misinterpreted. This is due to the fact that the trial court is
in a better position to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard
the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying. Such deference, however, may be withdrawn if it is
shown that the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance39 and value which, if considered, might affect the result of
the case.

_______________

36 Brief for Accused-Appellants, 48.

37 Id., 53-54.
38 U.S. vs. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. 295 [1910]; People vs. Cabilao, 210 SCRA 326
[1992].
39 U.S. vs. Pico, 15 Phil. 549 [1910]; People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA

337

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 337

People vs. Cordova

We have, in the course of the resolution of this case, meticulously

pored over the voluminous transcripts of the stenographic notes of
the testimonies of the witnesses for both parties. After a careful and
painstaking evaluation thereof, we have reached the inevitable
conclusion that the exception to the foregoing rule must be applied
for, as hereinafter expounded on, facts and circumstances of great
weight and value have been overlooked and misinterpreted by the
trial court. At the outset, we find the prosecution’s evidence
insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants with moral
certainty or rebut the presumption of innocence accruing in their
favor. In short, proof beyond reasonable doubt is wanting in this
case.
1. There was absolutely no direct evidence presented to show
how the killing of Segundo Maguad was consummated and who
were responsible therefor since soon after the firing of the initial six
shots at Marcelo Barruela—who was standing by the window of the
second storey of his house—Teresita Barruela fell face down on the
floor while Rodolfo Maguad ran away to hide. Neither of them saw
Segundo Maguad’s exact position at the time these shots were fired.
As to the next two successive shots, neither of them saw where these
shots were aimed at. There is as well no showing that the gunshot
wounds sustained by Segundo were caused by bullets fired from the
firearm used in the killing of Marcelo.
2. None of the prosecution witnesses saw appellant Estorque at
the scene of the crime. It was only Norberto Javier who declared that
he saw the latter at 7:00 o’clock in the evening of 29 May 1986
“driving” Clarita Cordova’s motorboat with Eduardo and Reynaldo
Cordova, Isidro Cordova, Jr. and Freddie Buenconsejo as
passengers. The trial court convicted Estorque as an accessory. By
so doing, therefore, it assumed that at the time he was seen by
Norberto Javier, the crimes in question had already been committed.
No proof was offered to support this assumption. Nevertheless, even
if we are to concede to such a hypothesis, it will likewise be
observed that the prosecution presented no proof to show that
Estorque had known of the commission of the crimes. For one to be
held liable as an acces-

_______________

535 [1991]; People vs. Lee, 204 SCRA 900 [1991]; People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA
148 [1992]; People vs. Garcia, 209 SCRA 164 [1992].

338

338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

sory, it is essential that he must have knowledge of the commission

of the crime. Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code defines
accessories as:

“x x x those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and

without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take
part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the

effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal
of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.”
Nor could it be assumed that even if a conspiracy had existed among
the assailants, Estorque could be considered a part thereof for at
most, his having been seen together with the other accused in the
motorboat is purely circumstantial evidence which, standing alone—
for there is no evidence of any other circumstance—does not
sufficiently link him to such a conspiracy. For circumstantial
evidence to be sufficient for conviction, the following requisites
must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances 40
is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
There is a further obstacle that stands in the way of Estorque’s
conviction. While it has been proven that he was only thirteen years
old at the time of the incident, there are no allegations in both
informations that Estorque had acted with discernment. And even if
we are to consider the allegations that he had committed the imputed
acts 41“with intent to kill” as sufficient compliance—as we have in the
past —he would still not be held liable as no proof was offered
during trial that he had so acted with discernment. Accordingly, even
if he was indeed a co-

_______________

40 Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.

41 People vs. Nieto, 103 Phil. 1133 [1958].

339

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 339

People vs. Cordova

conspirator
42
or an accessory, he would still be exempt from criminal
liability.
3. The evidence for the prosecution clearly shows that appellant
Eduardo Cordova was not the person who fired the shots. Hence, his
liability would depend entirely on the existence of a conspiracy
among the assailants. The trial court ruled that conspiracy existed
between Eduardo and Reynaldo Cordova who, as prosecution
witnesses Rodolfo Maguad and Teresita Barruela claimed, both fired
the shots. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement43concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. Direct evidence is not necessary to prove the same for
such schemes are usually hatched in secrecy, with witnesses other
than the conspirators themselves proving to be extremely difficult to
find. Moreover, it is settled that conspiracy need not be shown by
direct proof; it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which
may logically be inferred the existence of a common design or may
be deduced 44from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated. As regards the act or declaration of a conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, the law on
evidence provides that such acts and declaration may only be given
in evidence against the co-conspirator after the45conspiracy is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration. Of course, it would
be an entirely different matter if any of the conspirators who are
charged with
46
the commission of an offense are utilized as state
witnesses.
In the instant case, if we are to believe the testimonies of Teresita
Barruela and Rodolfo Maguad, we would not hesitate to rule that
conspiracy was duly established. It was Eduardo who, introducing
himself as Richard de la Torre, called Marcelo Barruela to request
that he (Eduardo) and his companions be ferried in the latter’s
motorboat to Pontevedra. It was also Eduardo who, upon being
informed by Marcelo that the motor-

_______________

42 Article 12(3), Revised Penal Code.

43 Article 8, Id.
44 People vs. Tingson, 47 SCRA, 243 [1972]; People vs. Alonzo, 73 SCRA 484
[1976]; People vs. Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285 [1976].
45 Section 30, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.
46 Section 9, Rule 119, Id.

340

340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

boat did not have enough gasoline, insisted that they be brought to
barangay Quiawa instead. Thereupon, one of Eduardo’s companions,
whom the said witnesses identified as Reynaldo Cordova,
immediately fired six shots at Marcelo.
Considering the testimonies of Teresita and Rodolfo in
conjunction with the declaration of Norberto Javier that at about
7:00 o’clock that same evening, he saw Eduardo and Reynaldo
together with their co-accused Isidro Cordova, Jr. and Freddie
Buenconsejo at the Pontevedra river aboard Clarita Cordova’s
motorboat then being “driven” by appellant Estorque, it would
appear logical to conclude that Eduardo and Reynaldo were together
either before the shooting, if Norberto saw them before such
shooting, or after the incident, if he saw them after the killing. As
earlier observed, there is no evidence to show that Norberto saw the
appellants and the other accused either before or after the shooting.
Since the foregoing disquisitions are based on the assumption
that the statements of witnesses Rodolfo Maguad and Teresita
Barruela are true, it behooves us to determine whether such
testimonies, particularly with respect to the presence of appellants
Eduardo and Reynaldo Cordova at the scene of the crime, are indeed
credible. On direct examination, Rodolfo maintained that he was not
inside the Barruela’s house when he saw Eduardo and Reynaldo. He
claimed to be at the fishpond dikes near the said house 47
when he
heard Marcelo Barruela conversing with Eduardo. Yet, during
Teresita Barruela’s direct examination, it was categorically stated
that when someone—identifying himself as Richard de la Torre—
called for her husband, she was praying inside their home and her
companions at that time were Segundo Maguad, Gloria Maguad,
Rodolfo Maguad and Marcelo Barruela. Thus:

“ATTY. ALOVERA:
  xxx
Q Mrs. Barruela, where were you on the night of May 29, 1986?
A I was at barangay Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz.
Q Why were you there?

_______________

47 TSN, 3 April 1987, 4-6.

341

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 341

People vs. Cordova

A Because we have a fishpond there.

Q At around 7:00 that night of May 29, 1986, what were you
doing?
A I was praying.
Q At the time you were praying will you please tell the court if you
have any companion?
A Yes, sir, I have companions.
Q Who?
A Segundo Maguad, Gloria Maguad, Rodulfo (sic) Maguad and my
48
husband, Marcelo Barruela.”

It is clear that Rodolfo Maguad’s declaration that he was out of the

house is unreliable as it has been shown that, on the contrary, he was
inside the house when the assailants allegedly arrived and Marcelo
Barruela was shot. While we have arrived at such a conclusion,
however, we cannot help but observe that Rodolfo was quite
categorical in asserting that upon seeing Teresita Barruela in the
second floor of the house with the body of Marcelo, the latter told
him “to report to the police authorities at the poblacion of
Pontevedra, Capiz”; thus, he and Alex Acolentaba immediately left.
They, however, proceeded to the house of Jessie Sevilla, Marcelo’s
nephew, where they related what had happened to Marcelo and
Segundo Maguad. It is logical to presume that if he had truly seen
and recognized the assailants, Rodolfo would have forthwith
revealed their identities to Jessie Sevilla. And since it was Jessie
Sevilla who proceeded to the Pontevedra police station to report the
incident, it is likewise logical to presume that the basis of his report
would be what was narrated to him by Rodolfo. Jessie’s report was
49
entered by Pfc Allan Contreras in the police blotter as entry no.
1000002 at 1:30 o’clock in the morning of 30 May 1986. It reads:

“Jessie Sevella (sic) of legal age, married, res. of Brgy Tabuc, this mplty,
reported that on or about 292000 May 86, Mr. Marcelo Barruela, fishpond
optr and res of Roxas City, and his fishpond caretaker, Godo Maguad were
shot by 4 unidentified persons while at his fishpond at Brgy Bantigue, this
mplty. Immediately, INP Team led by Pfc Contreras, AC, with Pat Alcazarin
RB, and Dipon, RR, Jr., were dispatched to

_______________

48 TSN, 19 May 1987, 3-4. Italics supplied for emphasis.

49 TSN, 13 October 1987, 2-3.

342

342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

50
investigate the reported case.”

Now, if Rodolfo had indeed told Jessie Sevilla who the assailants of
Marcelo and Segundo were, it would have been unlikely for Jessie
not to have revealed the same to the police authorities as he (Jessie)
immediately proceeded to the station. Nor would have been merely
satisfied by informing the police that the authors of the crime were
four “unidentified persons” considering that his own uncle, Marcelo,
was a victim. Thus, the only plausible reason why Jessie described
the assailants as “unidentified” is because his source—Rodolfo,
whose own father was killed—was not in fact able to identify them.
51
Upon his team’s return, Pfc Contreras himself made the
following entry in the same police blotter. Entry number 1000003,
recorded at 7:00 o’clock in the morning of 30 May 1986, reads:

“Team led by Pfc. Contreras, AC, return Station with info that the victims
were Marcelo Barruela y Diva, 58 yrs old, married, fishpond optr/Radio
Announcer, and res of Dorado Sub-division, Roxas City, and Segundo
Maguad y Macabiling, 70 yrs old, res of Brgy Bantigue, this mplty, which
(sic) were shot by unidentified persons at Brgy Bantigue, this mplty, victims
sustained gunshot wounds in the deff (sic) parts of the body which caused
their instantanious (sic) death (sic). Five (5) empty shells and five (5) live
ammos of 5.56 caliver (sic) were recovered at the crime scene. Case under
52
investigation.”

It bears stressing that Contreras made this entry upon meeting

Rodolfo at Jessie Sevilla’s house—after the latter had made the
report summarized in the first entry (Exhibit “4-B”)—and after
having verbally investigated him and completed the inspection of
the crime scene in his and Teresita and Toto Barruela’s presence.
Upon being questioned by the trial court, Contreras admitted that
53
this entry was based “on my investigation from Brgy. Bantigue,”
i.e., the investigation he conducted in the barangay where the
killings took place. It is thus obvious that

_______________

50 Exhibit “4-B.”
51 TSN, 13 October 1987, op. cit, 13; 15.
52 Exhibit “4-C.”
53 TSN, 13 October 1987, 13.

343

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 343

People vs. Cordova

despite all these, Pfc. Contreras and the members of his team were
unable to ascertain the assailants’ identities as their names were not
entered in the police blotter.
It is true that entries in police blotters should not be given undue
significance or probative value, for they are usually incomplete and
inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of
suggestion or inquiries. However, in the instant case, considering
that the first entry (Exhibit “4-B”) was made on the basis of the
report given by Sevilla immediately after being informed by
Rodolfo Maguad about the killings and, considering further that
Jessie Sevilla was not even called to the witness stand by the
prosecution to testify on what he had reported, the said entry cannot
just be disregarded. On the matter of the second entry (Exhibit “4-
C”), it is to be noted that no less than the team leader himself, Pfc.
Contreras, prepared the same at a time when the occurrences he had
just investigated—even if preliminarily—were still very fresh in his
mind. Being an experienced investigator, he certainly knew what to
enter in the police blotter. He would therefore not have written that
the assailants were unidentified if such was not the fact.
Teresita Barruela’s courtroom testimony is likewise unreliable.
Our evaluation of it strongly indicates that she was unable to see the
assailants, much less identify them. She claims that she peeped
through the window and saw Eduardo Cordova and his younger
brother Isidro because of the 54 light emanating from the petromax
which was under their house. If there was indeed a petromax
illuminating the place where the persons who called Marcelo
Barruela were positioned, we find it difficult to understand why the
latter still had to look for his flashlight and beam it towards the
former. Moreover, the team of Pfc. Allan Contreras conducted a
thorough investigation of the crime scene and meticulously prepared
sketches which indicate the relative locations of the victims, the
empty shells and the other objects which the members saw there,
such as the bed, tables, chairs, jars, a box, a dirty kitchen stove and
55
the sink. It is to be observed that no petromax appears in the said
sketches. So vital a piece of
_______________

54 TSN, 19 May 1987, 9-11.

55 Exhibits “G” and “H.”

344

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

evidence could not have entirely escaped these investigators’

attention. Both Pfc. Allan Contreras and Pat. Rafael Dipon, Jr., the
person who prepared the said sketches, never mentioned, while
testifying, that there was a petromax in the house of the Barruelas or
at any other place at the scene of the crime. Finally, from the
testimony of Teresita Barruela, it may also be gathered that her
husband did not recognize the person who addressed him as ‘Tay
Seloy” and requested to be brought, together with his companions,
to Pontevedra. Thus, Marcelo was only able to answer “It seems”
when Teresita whispered to him that the intention of such men were
not good. If indeed Marcelo knew the identity of the person who
called for him, he would not have just said “It seems.”
What is more unusual about Teresita’s actuation was her failure
to disclose the identities of the assailants to Pfc. Contreras or any
other member of his team during the entire time they were in her
house. The said policemen stayed with her from early dawn to 7:00
o’clock56
in the morning of 30 May 1986 or, according to her, for six
hours. We find her explanation—that she was unable to furnish
such information because she was crying—to be unacceptable. Her
answers during cross-examination do not at all suggest that it was
impossible for her to have answered the questions intended to elicit
the identities of the assailants. Thus:

“ATTY. PATRICIO:
  xxx
A They investigated Rudy Maguad.
Q How about you?
A They asked questions from me but I could not answer those
questions because I was crying heavily at that time.
Q You did not tell them that the one (sic) who shot your husband
and Segundo Maguad were Suli Cordova and his companions?
A No, because they could not talk to me.
Q Why, what happened to you?
A Because I felt bad and I was crying.
Q How long did those policemen stayed (sic) in your house?
A In my estimate maybe about 6 hours, up to the morning.
Q During that period of six (6) hours, you kept on crying so
_______________

56 TSN, 19 May 1987, 17.

345

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 345

People vs. Cordova

  much so that you did not tell the policemen who were the
perpetrators of the crime?
A Because they were talking also with Rudolfo (sic) Maguad.
Q But there was an occasion that Pat. Allan Contreras attempted to
ask you who shot your husband?
A He asked questions from me on the 11th already.
Q During the time that the policemen were there they did not ask
you who were the persons who were with your husband at the
time he was shot?
A They were also talking with Rudy Maguad.
Q How about you, did not PFC Contreras ask you what exactly you
were doing at the time he was shot?
A He also asked me but I did not answer because I kept on
57
crying.”

It appears that Teresita revealed the assailants’ identities only on 11

June 1986. It is of course settled that delay or vacillation in making a
criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of a
58
witness if such delay is satisfatorily explained. In the instant case,
we find Teresita’s explanation to be insufficient and inadequate.
There is no evidence to show that she was hysterical at the time the
policemen were in her house; that she was so distraught as to
preclude her from answering any question; or that she was afraid of
revealing the names of the assailants for fear of reprisal. Considering
the fact that it was no less than her husband who was killed, the
most natural thing for her to have done was to have, despite the
tears, identified the Cordovas as the authors of the heinous crime if
indeed they were.
In the light of the foregoing exposition on the testimonies of
Teresita Barruela and Rodolfo Maguad, it is obvious that the
culpability of both appellants have been placed in serious doubt.
Even the testimony of Norberto Javier did not save the day for
the prosecution as the same is inherently improbable. On direct
examination, he testified that Reynaldo Cordova pointed an armalite
at him. Thereupon, after transferring to his (Norberto’s) boat,
Reynaldo asked where the gasoline was kept; when Norberto told
Reynaldo that the gasoline was at the rear of the engine

_______________
 57 TSN, 19 May 1987, 67-68.
58 People vs. Obngayan, 55 SCRA 465 [1974]; People vs. Roxas, 73 SCRA 583
[1976]; People vs. Elizaga, 73 SCRA 524 [1976].

346

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

room, the latter ordered him to get it. Norberto then complied with
59
the command. And yet, during cross-examination, Norberto
declared that on 3 June 1987, when Reynaldo Cordova came to his
house, asked him whether the gasoline obtained by Marcelo
Barruela’s killers was taken from him and told him that it was good
that nothing happened to him (Norberto), the latter did not bother to
confront Reynaldo about what he (Reynaldo) allegedly did in the
evening60 of 29 May 1986 simply because Reynaldo “was in a
hurry.” If indeed Reynaldo Cordova pointed an armalite at
Norberto Javier and demanded gasoline, Norberto’s natural reaction
should have been to immediately confront Reynaldo about the
episode.
4. Adding further doubt to the culpability of the appellants is the
candid admission of Pfc. Contreras that the police authorities had in
fact suspected two groups as being responsible for the deaths of
Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad, viz., that of Commander
Jojo of the NPA and that of the Cordovas. Contreras’ informer
revealed that the victims were killed by the NPAs led by
Commander Jojo. The former gave the following statements on
rebuttal:

“COURT:
A What were the report (sic) of the informer who have hinted you
(sic)?
A The reports of my informer were different what (sic) Rudy
Maguad told me because Rudy Maguad told me that the suspect
he saw were (sic) Rey Cordova and alias ‘Suli’, and the reports
of my informer was (sic) that the one (sic) who shot Marcelo
Barruela were NPAs and was lead (sic) by Commander Jojo and
the one that transported them from Brgy. Bantigue in a barrio of
Panay was Ernesto Estorque Jr.
  xxx
ATTY. ALOVERA:
Q Did you ask your informers where they based their informations?
  xxx
A Yes, sir.

_______________

59 TSN, 1 April 1987, 38-39.

 60 Id., 51-52.

347

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 347

People vs. Cordova

ATTY. ALOVERA:
Q And what did they tell you?
A They answered that they based their reports through informations
61
that was disseminate (sic) inside the public market.”

It is to be likewise noted that Pfc. Contreras had earlier declared that

he investigated Estorque on 30 May 1986. Estorque supposedly
averred that he was the one who “conducted” the banca used by the
NPAs who were led by Commander Jojo. Estorque’s sworn
statement was immediately taken on that date and subsequently
62
offered by the prosecution in evidence as Exhibit “M.” Needless to
say, the prosecution is bound by said 63
Exhibit “M” which is also
marked as Exhibit “2” for the defense.
5. Finally, we are not persuaded by the trial court’s thesis that
appellants Reynaldo and Eduardo Cordova killed Marcelo Barruela
out of vengeance because the latter purportedly killed their mother’s
uncle, Lucio Barruela, in 1953. Evident premeditation is thus
suggested.
Reynaldo Cordova was only twenty-nine years old when he
64
testified on 17 September 1987 while Eduardo Cordova was
65
twenty-three years old when he testified on 23 September 1987. In
other words, Reynaldo and Eduardo were born in 1958 and 1964,
respectively—long after Lucio Barruela’s death. There is no
evidence on record to show how Lucio was killed and whether
Marcelo Barruela was convicted or acquitted for such an act. It was,
as well, not established whether appellants Reynaldo and Eduardo
Cordova had determined to kill Marcelo in retaliation for the death
of Lucio and had clung to such a determination. For evident
premeditation to exist, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an act
manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination, and (3)
a sufficient lapse of time between the

_______________

61 TSN, 13 October 1987, 11-12.

62 TSN, 20 May 1987, 44-45; TSN, 22 May 1987, 46.
63 TSN, 13 October 1987, op. cit, 35; Rollo, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 329.
64 TSN, 17 September 1987, 5.
65 TSN, 23 September 1987, 2.

348
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Cordova

determination and execution

66
to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. None of these requisites are present in this
case.
We are not convinced that the prosecution was able to discharge
its burden of overcoming, by proof beyond reasonable doubt—or
that degree of proof which produces a conviction in an unprejudiced
67
mind —the presumption of innocence which appellants Eduardo
and Reynaldo Cordova are entitled to. Short of this, it is not only the
appellants’ right to be freed; it is, even more, the constitutional duty
68
of the court to acquit them. It must always be remembered that an
accusation is not synonymous with guilt and that an accused’s
freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary
for conviction be in existence. The proof presented against the
accused must survive the test of reason;
69
the strongest suspicion must
not be permitted to sway judgment.
The foregoing disquisitions render unnecessary further
discussion regarding the other issues raised in the assignment of
errors, save for the claimed insanity of Eduardo Cordova under the
sixth assigned error. We shall now consider this ascribed error.
The law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is improper
70
to presume that acts were done unconsciously. The quantum of
evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof
71
beyond reasonable doubt. Since insanity is in the nature of a
confession
72
and avoidance, it must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Moreover, an accused is presumed to have been sane at the
time of the commission of the crime in the absence of positive
evidence to show that he had lost his reason or

_______________

66 People vs. Buka, 205 SCRA 567 [1992].

67 Section 2, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
68 People vs. Pido, 200 SCRA 45 [1991], citing People vs. Maisug, 27 SCRA 742
[1969].
69 People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59, 64 [1971].
70 People vs. Dungo, 199 SCRA 860 [1991].
71 People vs. Dungo, supra.; People vs. Danao, G.R. No. 96832, 19 November
1992.
72 People vs. Danao, supra.

349

VOL. 224, JULY 5, 1993 349

People vs. Cordova

73
was demented prior to or during the perpetration of the crime.
Eduardo’s mother was already making a conclusion when she stated
that Eduardo had no work because he was insane. More concrete
acts showing the mental condition of the person alleged to be insane
need to be shown in order that insanity may be appreciated in his
74
favor. In People vs. Dungo, we held:

“Thus, insanity must be shown by surrounding circumstances fairly

throwing light on the subject, such as evidence of the alleged deranged
person’s general conduct and appearance, his acts and conduct inconsistent
with his previous character and habits, his irrational acts and beliefs, and his
improvident bargains.”

The neuro-psychiatric evaluation report for appellant Eduardo

Cordova dated 4 September 1987 and which states the following:

“Impression-Neuro-psychiatric and psychological evaluation shows that the

subject is suffering from a mental disorder called schizophrenia Paranoid
75
Type.”

is not relevant at all as it concerns his mental condition at the time of

trial. The inquiry into his mental condition should relate to the
period immediately before or at the very moment the crime was
76
committed.
Moreover, appellant Eduardo Cordova did not even ask for the
suspension of his arraignment on the ground that he was suffering
from insanity. Paragraph (a), Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that the arraignment of an accused who
appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against
him and to plead intelligently thereto, shall be suspended. In the case
at bar, Eduardo Cordova even took the witness stand to testify.
The records, however, disclose that in April of 1988, when
Eduardo showed signs of mental abnormality, the Provincial

_______________

73 People vs. Rafanan, 204 SCRA 65 [1991].

74 Supra, at 867.
75 Exhibit “6”; OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 614.
76 People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851 [1990].

350

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cordova

77
Warden of Capiz reported the matter to the trial court which in turn
directed the latter’s confinement at the National Center for Mental
78
Health at Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. On 5 October 1989, his
discharge from the center was recommended by a resident physician
thereof because he had improved and was already competent to
79
stand trial. It was only on 26 March 1992, however, that Eduardo
was discharged from the center 80
and transferred to the National
Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa.
 WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision in Criminal Case No. C-
2422 and Criminal Case No. C-2423 of Branch 16 of the Regional
Trial Court of Roxas City is hereby REVERSED. The accused-
appellants REYNALDO CORDOVA @ Rey Cordova, EDUARDO
CORDOVA @ Suli Cordova and ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR. are
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. Their immediate
release from detention is hereby ordered, unless any other lawful
cause would warrant their further detention. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

     Feliciano (Chairman), Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Challenged decision reversed. Accused-appellants acquitted.

Note—Conspiracy has for an essential ingredient the alleged

association of all the accused in the planning and commission of the
double murder, killing (People vs. Ablab, 192 SCRA 698).

——o0o——

_______________

77 OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 829.

78 Id., 838.
79 Rollo, 130.
80 Id., 159.

351

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.