576 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
No. L-27973. October 23, 1978. *

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERASMO

CUADRA, accused-appellant.
Evidence; Character of witness may be considered for determining his credibility.
It is understandable why appellants counsel lays stress on the alleged bad character of
the above-named prosecution witnesses for as a rule, the character of a witness may be
considered by the trier or finder of facts, such as the trial judge, for purposes of
determining the credibility of the witness. However, the determination of the character
of a witness is not a prerequisite to belief in his testimony, and equally valid is the
statement that the alleged bad character of a witness even if true should not sway the
court in the evaluation of the witness veracity, for there are other important factors to
be considered such as his manner and behaviour on the witness stand, the general
characteristics, tone, tenor and inherent probability of his statements.
Same; Receipt by witnesses of small sums of money for food and cigarettes not a
measure that they will thereby perjure themselves.The defense capitalizes on the
admission during cross-
_____________

* EN BANC.

577

VOL. 85, 5
OCTOBER 23, 1978 77
People vs. Cuadra
examination of Edumundo Javelona and Rogelio Pancho that they received some
amount of money from a brother of Celso Tan. As We look at it, such an admission is an
indicia of the sincerity and truthfulness of these persons for while they could have
denied having received money they nevertheless admitted that fact with frankness. But
what is important is that whatever amounts were received by these witnesses were, as
explained by them, meager sums for cigarettes and food, and as reasoned out by the
Solicitor General in his brief for the People, it has not been shown by the defense that
without that meager assistance from a brother of the deceased said witnesses would not
have testified.
Same; Mere relationship with victim of homicide not a justification for throwing
aside witness testimony.It is also claimed by the defense that Edna Javelona is a
biased witness because of her relationship with the deceased. Mere relationship to or
intimacy with the victim is no justification however for throwing aside the testimony of
a witness. There must be a showing that the testimony is false or incredible in itself
independent of the fact of relationship between the victim and the witness.
Same; Mere fact that the names of certain prosecution witnesses were not listed in
the information where it was filed is no ground for assailing their credibility.It is true
that when first questioned by the police investigators these two witnesses disclaimed
any knowledge about the incident and did not volunteer any information concerning the
plan of Erasmo Cuadra and his companions to liquidate Celso Tan. It was only several
weeks later when both witnesses finally agreed to testify upon being interviewed by Lt.
Ernesto Nava of the Philippine Constabulary and were then brought to Manila and
investigated at the NBI headquarters. These two witnesses however, explained that
they were reluctant to give the facts known to them immediately after the incident
because they were afraid of being killed by the members of the Manong Gang, and that
it was only after they were assured by the Philippine Con-stabulary authorities of
protection for their personal safety that they decided to come out in the open and testify
for the prosecution.
Same; Mere fact that prosecution witnesses were placed under the protection of the
Philippine Constabulary not a valid ground to discredit then testimony.Moreover, the
fact that Edmundo Javelona and Rogelio Pancho were placed under the protection of the
Philippine Constabulary authorities or that General Raval interven-
578

5 SUPREME
78 COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
ed in one way or another in the investigation of the case should not likewise affect
the credibility of said witnesses. The protection given to them is not to be construed as
an exertion of undue pressure and influence upon them but merely as a precaution to
insure their personal safety and forestall the possibility of any untoward incident
happening to them especially since the persons accused of killing Celso Tan were
reputed to be members of a gang operating illegal activities in the city.
Same; Criminal law; Self-defense; Circumstances which show weakness in
appellants plea of self-defense.Coming now to the case before Us, We agree with His
Honor, Judge Fernandez, that the narration of the appellant manifests certain weak
points which render it incredible. First of all, the presence of an unlicensed firearm in
the car of appellant gives credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that
Erasmo Cuadra was set out to kill or liquidate Celso Tan on that particular evening of
May 1, 1966. According to appellant, the gun was usually kept inside a compartment of
his vehicle but on that night he brought out the firearm and placed it on his seat to give
way to some canned goods he had bought earlier that evening. The idea appears to Us
preposterous for it is hard to believe that appellant would choose to safely store away a
handful of canned goods in place of a dangerous object like a gun. x x x Secondly, the
narration of appellant as to how he shot Celso Tan is vague and uncertain and it fails to
convince Us. x x x Thirdly, the number of wounds inflicted by appellant belies the plea of
self-defense. Not only did Cuadra shoot the victim once but twice directed towards the
abdomen of the latter. x x x Fourthly, appellants conduct in speeding away from the
scene of the crime, hiding the pickup in a repair shop, and throwing away the gun used
instead of reporting the matter to the police authorities, are indicia of a guilty
conscience, inconsistent with a claim of innocence or justification of the shooting.
Same; Judges; Trial judge may propound questions to witnesses to clarify certain
points.In addition, appellants counsel charges the trial judge for having browbeaten
the defense witnesses. We have gone over the transcript and although it appears that
there were occasions when the trial judge propounded questions to the witnesses, it is
clear to Us that his only purpose was to clarify or stress certain points in the testimony
of the witness concerned. We agree with the Solicitor General that the absence of
prejudice or bias of the trial judge is best attested to by the acquittal of all the accused (7
of them) except for the herein appellant, Erasmo Cuadra.
579

VOL. 85, 5
OCTOBER 23, 1978 79
 People vs. Cuadra
Same; Treachery; Treachery may be appreciated even if the shooting of victim was
frontal where it was unexpected.Treachery is present although the shooting was
frontal because the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim was not a
position to offer an effective defense. The witness Edna Javelona testified that when
Celso Tan approached the driver of the pickup, Tan was met with gunfire and she heard
him cry out Dios Ko and this was followed by two more successive shots, after which
the pickup speeded away. Under these circumstances Celso Tan was wholly unprepared
for the attack and had no opportunity or chance to defend himself. There is no truth to
appellants claim that Tan had raised his gun for although the latter had a gun at the
time it was found by Sgt. Pablo Bacong who was among the first to arrive at the scene,
that Tans revolver was tucked at the left side of his waistline.
Same; Use of motor vehicle as a means to commit the crime and facilitate escape is
aggravating.The findings of the trial court show that in the evening of May 1, 1966,
Cuadra was decided to realize his plan of liquidating Celso Tan. He drove his pickup
with his companions, conducted a surveillance of the victims whereabouts and trailed
him on the road to Sum-ag where Tan was residing. Cuadra then gave Tan an on-and-off
chase until Cuadra suddenly stopped. Sensing that the pickup driver was needling or
goading him, Tan likewise stopped his car and approached the pickup presumably to ask
for an explanation but no sooner had Tan reached the pickup when Cuadra without any
warning suddenly fired upon the latter. Under these circumstances the pickup played an
important role in the accomplishment of Cuadras plan. Not only that, appellant also
made good his escape by speeding away in his vehicle, and to avoid discovery of his
identity, he drove the vehicle to a repair shop, and then walked home only to find the
police waiting for him.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.

Fernandez, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Dominador
L, Quiroz and Solicitor Rosalio A. de Leon for appellee.
Pedro A. Delfin for appellant. (D)
580
580 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra

PER CURIAM:

In the year 1966, in Bacolod City, the Sampaguita Broadcasting System, SBS for
short, was located at Rodriguez Avenue and maintained two radio stations
identified as DYRL and DYWX. Celso Tan was a sales manager of the SBS and
at the same time its newscaster and commentator. At around 8:30 oclock in the
evening of May 1, 1966, Celso Tan and his common-law-wife Edna Javelona,
went to the Globe Theatre to see a movie. After the show, the couple rode in their
Opel car with Celso Tan at the wheel, stopped by DYRL radio station for around
fifteen minutes, and then proceeded home to Barrio Sum-ag at the outskirts of
the city. Celso Tan did not however reach his home alive because on the way he
met with a violent death from gunshot wounds which caused severe
intraabdominal hemorrhage. Not long after the shooting of Celso Tan, Erasmo
Cuadra was arrested that same evening by the local notice as the suspected
triggerman.
On the 11th day of May, 1966, the Office of the City Fiscal of Bacolod City in
collaboration with State Prosecutor Dominador T. de Guzman who was assigned
to assist in the prosecution of the case, filed an Information for Murder against
Erasmo Cuadra and eight others, namely: Rodolfo Memoria alias Rudy,
Florentino Casas alias Bodoy, Alex Garcia, Romeo Nessia alias Mimi, Ernesto
Blancaflor alias Erning, Oliva Abong, Milagros Reston and William Doe. On
October 13, 1966, the Information was amended so as to identify the accused
named William Doe as Salvador Macainan, an assistant fiscal of the city. The
amended Information reads:
The undersigned City Fiscal and State Prosecutor accuse Erasmo Cuadra, Rodolfo
Memoria alias Rudy, Florentino Casas alias Bodoy Alex Garcia, Romeo Nessia alias
Mimi, Ernesto Blancaflor alias Ernesto Tugaff alias Erning, Oliva Abong, Milagros
Reston and Salvador Macainan, of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of May, 1966, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this honorable Court, the above-named accused who are
members and/or sympathizers of an aggrupation of persons known as the MANONG
581
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 581
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
GANG, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding and helping one
another, with evident premeditation and treachery, and abuse of superior strength, with
the use of a motor vehicle and during nighttime which was purposely sought to facilitate
commission and afford impunity and with Erasmo Cuadra one of the predetermined
gunmen being armed with a .45 caliber pistol, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously and with intent to kill suddenly, treacherously and without warning or
provocation, attack, assault and shoot with the said firearm one Celso Tan, thereby
inflicting upon the latter the following wounds and injuries to wit:

1. 1.Wound gunshot, 1.5 cm. in diameter with contusion collar circular in outline
level 8th costal cartilage 6 cm. from midline left fracturing the same cartilage
directed anteroposteriorly and slightly downward, penetrating subcutaneous
tissue with point of exit measuring .5 by 1.0 cm. in diameter lateral lumbar
region, left.
2. 2.Wound gunshot, 1.5 cm. in diameter with contusion collar circular in outline,
level right hypochondrium just below costal margin, 6 cm. from midline,
directed anteroposteriorly and slightly downward, penetrating abdominal
cavity, penetrating and rupturing liver and penetrating posterior abdominal
wall with point of exit 1.5 by 1.0 cm. level of 2nd lumbar vertebra 3 inches from
the midspinal line, left.
3. 3.Hemorrhage, intra-abdominal, severe, sec.
4. 4.Wound gunshot, 1.5 cm. in diameter circular in outline with contusion collar,
thigh, left lateral aspect middle 3rd, directed to the right and downward with
point of exit, measuring 1.5 cm. and bullet penetrated the right thigh junction
distal and middle 3rd measuring 1.0 in diameter, fracturing comminuted distal
3rd of the femur and bullet lodged with the fragments of the bone.
which primarily and directly caused the instantaneous death of the said victim. (pp.
278-279, CFI record)

All the accused, except for Salvador Macainan who was at large and remained so
till the end of the trial, pleaded not guilty.
After a lengthy trial of the case during which thirteen witnesses testified for
the prosecution and eleven for the
582
582 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
defense, and numerous documents were submitted consisting of Exhibits A to
S-3, inclusive, for the People and Exhibits 1 to 12 for the accused, the Court
of First Instance in Bacolod City presided then by Judge Jose F. Fernandez,
rendered on July 24, 1967, a decision finding accused Erasmo Cuadra guilty of
murder qualified by evident premeditation and sentencing him to suffer the
extreme penalty of death in view of the presence of two aggravating
circumstances, to wit: treachery and use of motor vehicle. All the other accused
were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. 1

The case is now before Us on automatic review.

The trial courts findings of fact based on the testimony of prosecution
witness, Edna Javelona, follow:
In the evening of May 1, 1966, shortly before midnight, Celso Tan, a radiocaster, left
the DYRL Station, otherwise known as the Sampaguita Broadcasting System, located at
Rodriguez Avenue, Bacolod City, in his Opel Cadet Car with his girl friend, Edna
Javelona, bound for home in Sum-ag, Bacolod City. On the National Highway
somewhere in Barrio Pahanocoy, Bacolod City, Edna noticed a green pickup cruising
leisurely in front of their car, so Celso sounded his horn and overtook the vehicle, which,
in turn, overtook its former position, and thereafter Celso was to trail behind the pickup.
Whenever Celsos car was within overtaking distance the driver of the pickup stepped on
the gas and dashed ahead only to slacken its pace until Celso caught up close to its rear.
Once the pickup stopped abruptly without warning and Celso almost crushed against its
rear if he missed his brakes on time thereby causing his wheels to screech noisily to a
sudden stop. Annoyed, Celso switched on the siren of his car until the approaches of
Sum-ag bridge, but after crossing the bridge Celso stepped on his brakes and opened his
front door to silence his siren, to avoid unnecessary questions from a policeman in a
nearby outpost.
Edna Javelona stated that the green pickup that was about five meters ahead made
a full stop, so Celso approached the driver and demanded an explanation, but instead of
an answer Edna who was standing behind Celso, heard a sudden gunfire and Celso
exclaimed: Dios ko! Two other shots sounded successively, after
_______________

1 pp. 656-671, CFI record

583
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 583
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
which Edna impulsively moved towards the driver of the pickup whereupon two men
dropped from the rear of the pickup and pulled her aside, after which the pickup
speeded ahead leaving Edna alone in the middle of the road with Celso wounded and
lifeless.

An automobile passed by but hurried off for fear of getting involved, and then the green
pickup reappeared speeding for Bacolod City. Edna asked a policeman to rush Celso to a
hospital but he refused to move the body. Instead, the policeman took Edna in Celsos
car to inform his brothers, Rene and Salvador Tan, of the occurrence. A prowl car of the
Bacolod Police Department was soon to take the body of Celso to Negros Occidental
Provincial Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival (pp. 657-659, CFI record)

On the other hand, appellant Cuadra gives another version of the incident, thus.
At about 6:00 oclock of that evening of May 1, he, Cuadra, was at the BBB
Refreshment Parlor at the corner of Justicia Street and BBB Avenue, Bacolod
City, with his co-accused Ernesto Blancaflor, Florentino Casas, Rodolfo Memoria,
Alex Garcia and Oliva Abong, where they stayed till about 9:30 in the evening.
From there, they proceeded to Salem Restaurant to get some food, and the group
was joined by another coaccused, Milagros Reston. Beer was ordered while the
girls had sandwiches and soft drinks; later in the evening, the other accused,
Romeo Nessia, joined them. Leaving Salem Restaurant, Cuadra and his
companions rode in a green 6-cylinder Ford motor vehicle described as a
pickup, and proceeded to Barrio Sum-ag to conduct Romeo Nessia who lived in
that locality. Cuadra drove the vehicle and next to him were seated Oliva and
Milagros while the rest were at the back. On the way to Sum-ag as they passed
the bridge at Pahanocoy a car which was directly behind Cuadra blew its horn.
As Cuadra was on his proper lane and there was enough space for the other
vehicle to pass, he did not give way but rather he increased his speed so that for
some time he lost sight of the car. Upon reaching the bridge of Sum-ag, Cuadra
slowed down because of the rough condition of the road. After passing the bridge,
Romeo Nessia told Cuadra to stop in front of the public market as he would buy
cigarettes, and so after passing a police out
584
584 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
post Cuadra stopped the car by the roadside. While the pickup was al a stop and
Cuadra was conversing with Nessia, the same car which was behind them earlier
and which was now blowing its siren also stopped, and the driver of the car got
out, and went to the pickup and opened the door. At first Cuadra thought that
the man was a PC soldier who was going to arrest him. The man in question,
pointed his finger at Cuadra and, with his hand on the handle of a firearm
tucked in his waist, said What kind of men are you, you seem to be kings of the
road when you drive your vehicle. Cuadra answered that he had not committed
anything wrong. The man kept on repeating that Cuadra and his companions
seemed to be kings of the road and when Cuadra tried to explain that he and
his companions were in a hurry as they were conducting a friend to Sum-ag and
they had to go back to Bacolod, the man angrily said so what, so what, and at
the same time stepped backward and when the man was about to shoot Cuadra
the latter shot him first. Alter Cuadra had tired several shots, he switched on the
engine of his vehicle, made a turn and drove back to Bacolod City. Cuadra left
the pickup in the repair shop of Alex Garcia and went home but upon reaching
his house he saw a police patrol car waiting for him and he was brought to the
Police Station. 2

The trial judge did not give credence to the foregoing testimony of appellant.
We agree with His Honor, the trial judge, that there is strong evidence to
show that the shooting of Celso Tan was apart of a preconceived plan to silence
him in view of his persistent radio broadcasts and commentaries concerning the
activities of certain gangs in Bacolod City one of which was the so-called
Manong Gang.
Col. Arcadio Lozada, Chief of Police of Bacolod City, testified that as early as
July, 1964, the Secret Service Division of the Bacolod Police Department was in
possession of confidential reports on the existence of certain gangs operating in
Bacolod City, one of which was the Manong Gang and that it was generally
known that accused-appellant
______________

2 tsn, Vol. 1, pp 204-230.

585
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 585
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
Erasrno Cuadra and another accused Rodolio Memoria were among the members
of the Manong Gang whose activities were for some time the object of the radio
commentaries of Celso Tan. 3

Two witnesses, Edmundo Javelona and Rogelio Pancho who were both within
the inner circle of the Manong Gang, declared on the plot to kill Celso Tan
because of the latters radio broadcasts.
Edmundo Javelona testified inter alia as follows: about four days after the
Holy Week of that year 1966 at the Carlings Carinderia he heard Fiscal
Salvador Macainan (the accused who remained at large during the trial of the
case) tell his companions among whom were Cuadra, Alex Garcia, Junior
Buricat, and Calvo, the following: Linti Celso, it seems he is running after me,
someday he will have his day; on another occasion, he saw Fiscal Macainan at
the parking space of Bascon Hotel talking with Erasmo Cuadra, Rudy Memoria,
Alex Garcia, and Ernesto Blancaflor, and he heard Fiscal Macainan say We will
kill Celso Tan because it seems that I will be convicted in my case.
4

Rogelio Pancho in turn declared: Erasmo Cuadra and Rodolfo Memoria were
the leaders of the Manong Gang, while he was a member since 1963 when he
started residing in Bacolod City. Sometime in the months of March and April,
1966, Celso Tan lambasted in his radio broadcasts the activities of the Manong
Gang especially after Fiscal Salvador Macainan bailed out one of the members
of the gang. In the month of April Cuadra told Pancho of a plan to liquidate
Celso Tan and asked him to be the triggerman. Pancho was assured of protection
inasmuch as the gang had powerful connections as shown by the fact that none
of the gang was ever arrested or imprisoned because the case was always
quashed right at the city hall. Although Pancho agreed to cooperate in carrying
out the plan he was not able to do anything about it. In the evening of May 1,
1966, Pancho was called by Cuadra to pro-
________________

3 see Exhibits A and A-1; tsn. Vol. III, Sept. 12, 1966, pp. 3 to 15; Vol. 1; Sept. 13, 1966, pp. 2 to 39.
4 tsn. Vol. III, Sept. 30, 1966, pp. 78-87.

586
586 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
ceed to Salem Restaurant as they were going to proceed with the plan to
liquidate Celso Tan, but Pancho did not leave his house as he had some visitors.
Later in the evening Pancho came to know that Celso Tan was shot in Sum-ag. 5

A witness by the name of Teresa Tahotay who worked as a waitress at the

Salem Restaurant testified that in the evening of May 1, 1966, Cuadra and his
co-accused, except for Romeo Nessia, drank beer with pulutan in the
restaurant and she was the one who served them; the men did not stay long and
it was Cuadra who paid the bill. 6

Accused-apellant, in his brief, assails the veracity of the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses principally Edna Javelona, Edmundo Javelona, and
Rogelio Pancho. According to appellant, the declarations of these three witnesses
are fabricated and come from a polluted source, because Rogelio Pancho is a
confirmed pimp and swindler, Edmundo Javelona, a confessed liar, and Edna
Javelona is a person totally devoid of moral scruples. Appellant states further
that said persons had ulterior motives and were pressured in testifying falsely
against him. 7

It is understandable why appellants counsel lays stress on the alleged bad

character of the above-named prosecution witnesses for as a rule, the character
of a witness may be considered by the trier or finder of facts, such as the trial
judge, for purposes of determining the credibility of the witness. However, the 8

determination of the character of a witness is not a prerequisite to belief in his

testimony, and equally valid is the statement that the alleged bad character of a
9

witness even if true should not sway the court in the evaluation of the witness
veracity, for there are other important factors to be considered such as his
manner and behaviour on the witness
______________

5 tsn. Vol. II, pp. 2-43.

6 tsn. Vol. III, pp. 150-158.
7 Third & Fourth Assignment of Errors, pp. 35 & 48, et seq. of brief.

8 58 Am. Jur. Sec. 870, 498.

9 Re-Mayberry, 105 A.L.R. 976, 984.

587
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 587
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
stand, the general characteristics, tone, tenor and inherent probability of his
statements. 10

Thus, even if it may be true that prosecution witness Rogelio Pancho was
maintaining a house of prostitution or that Edmundo Javelona was a regular
visitor in that place and was keeping a mistress, or that Edna Javelona was the
common-law-wife of the victim Celso Tan, the fact is that all these
circumstances were not considered by the trial judge sufficient to destroy the
credibility of said witnesses on the facts or incidents testified to by them.
The defense capitalizes on the admission during cross examination of
Edmundo Javelona and Rogelio Pancho that they received some amount of
money from a brother of Celso Tan. As We look at it, such an admission is an
indicia of the sincerity and truthfulness of these persons for while they could
have denied having received money they nevertheless admitted that fact with
frankness. But what is important is that whatever amounts were received by
these witnesses were, as explained by them, meager sums for cigarettes and
food. and as reasoned out by the Solicitor General in his brief for the People, it
11

has not been shown by the defense that without that meager assistance from a
brother of the deceased said witnesses would not have testified. In People vs. 12

Rafael Lacson, et al., 1961, where it was charged by the appellants that the
prosecution witnesses were being supported during the trial by political enemies
of the accused, this Court held that assuming that to be true, it is no evidence
that for such trifling sums the witnesses would agree to perjure themselves and
falsely charge the appellants with a capital offense. 12-a

It is also claimed by the defense that Edna Javelona is a biased witness

because of her relationship with the deceased. Mere relationship to or intimacy
with the victim is no justification however for throwing aside the testimony of a
witness.
______________

10 Opinion of Justice Tuazon in People vs. Barcena, et al., L-1079, Nov. 28, 194745 O.G. 2068.
11 tsn, Vol. III, p. 112, Oct. 11, 1966.
12 p. 11, appellees brief.

12-a 1 SCRA 414, 449.

588
588 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
There must be a showing that the testimony is false or incredible in itself
independent of the act of relationship between the victim and the witness.
Thus, in People vs. Corpuz, 1961, this Court had occasion to state that the
13

mere fact that a prosecution witness is related to the victim should not
necessarily convert him into a biased witness for it cannot be assumed that in
seeking justice and the punishment of the assassins, he would indiscriminately
point to the wrong parties, and, therefore, in the absence of evidence of an
improper motive, his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. 14

What is significant on that score is that certain material points in the

testimony of Edna Javelona are confirmed by undisputed circumstances extant
in the case, such as: (1) the description of the vehicle used by the killer which
was given by Edna to the police led to its recovery from a repair shop that very
same night of the incident, and (2) the identity of the person who shot Celso Tan
as given by Edna was confirmed when appellant himself admitted that he was
the one who shot Celso Tan although he claimed it was in sell-defense.
Furthermore, whatever contradictions there were between the contents of the
affidavits of Edna Javelona and her testimony in court were satisfactorily
explained by her and are not sufficient to destroy the veracity of her testimony
on the material points of the case.
Omissions in the pretrial affidavits of matters testified to in court by the affiants do not
necessarily impair their credibility where the witnesses were illiterate, ignorant or
untrained. (1 SCRA pp. 414, 415, People vs. Rafael Lacson, et al.)

Another matter concerning the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to which

Our attention is being called by the
_____________

131 SCRA 33.

14See also People vs. Gonzalez, 76 Phil. 473; People vs. Macalindong, 1946, 76 Phil. 719; People vs.
Villalba, 1966, 17 SCRA 948; People vs. Constantino, 1967, 20 SCRA 940; People vs. Alcantara,
1970, 33 SCRA 812, among others.

589
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 589
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
defense is that Edmundo Javelona and Rogelio Pancho were not listed in the
Information at the time the case was filed with the Court of First Instance on
May 11, 1966.
It is true that when first questioned by the police investigators these two
witnesses disclaimed any knowledge about the incident and did not volunteer
any information concerning the plan of Erasmo Cuadra and his companions to
liquidate Celso Tan. It was only several weeks later when both witnesses finally
agreed to testify upon being interviewed by Lt. Ernesto Nava of the Philippine
Constabulary and were then brought to Manila and investigated at the NBI
headquarters. These two witnesses however explained that they were reluctant
to give the facts known to them immediately after the incident because they were
afraid of being killed by the members of the Manong Gang and that it was only
after they were assured by the Philippine Constabulary authorities of protection
for their personal safety that they decided to come out in the open and testify for
the prosecution. 15

This is not the first time that individuals who witnessed the commission of a
crime have either desisted from volunteering information or disclaimed
knowledge of the incident for fear of reprisal from the culprits, and this is true
not only of ignorant or unlettered persons but of those with education. In People
vs. Villamin, 1937, the accused Dionisio Villamin was charged with murder and
from a judgment of conviction rendered by the Court of First Instance of Laguna,
he appealed to this Court and invoked among others the fact that two
prosecution witnesses did not give the true happenings when first investigated
by the authorities. The Court through then Justice Antonio Villareal found the
explanation of the witnesses concerned satisfactory and said:
Taking into consideration the ignorance of the witnesses for the prosecution Cecilio
Flores and Felicidad Socorro, and the psychological and social phenomenon observed not
only among the ignorant people but also among the educated ones, of refusing to
______________

15 tsn Vol. III, Sept. 30, 1966, pp. 78-130; tsn Vol. II, Dec. 7, 1966, pp. 2-43; tsn Vol. III, Jan. 17, 1967, pp.

134-149.

590
590 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
testily on a criminal incident witnessed by them or of which they have knowledge, for
fear of being implicated or, at least, of being molested with inquisitorial investigations,
besides being the object of vengeance on the part of the criminal or of his relatives, it is
not strange that, upon being investigated in the midst of the excitement caused by the
shot and by the news of Victor Titans death, said witnesses have not given the names of
the persons they had seen going down the stairs of the house of the deceased,
particularly since the accused-appellant is among the prominent persons as well as a
councilor of the municipality of Cavinti. (64 Phil. pp. 880, 885. See also People vs.
Delfin, et al., 1961, 2 SCRA 911)

Moreover, the fact that Edmundo Javelona and Rogelio Pancho were placed
under the protection of the Philippine Constabulary authorities or that General
Raval intervened in one way or another in the investigation of the case should
not likewise affect the credibility of said witnesses. The protection given to them
is not to be construed as an exertion of undue pressure and influence upon them
but merely as a precaution to insure their personal safety and forestall the
possibility of any untoward incident happening to them, especially since the
persons accused of killing Celso Tan were reputed to be members of a gang
operating illegal activities in the city. In People vs. Rafael Lacson, et al., 1961,
this Court held, inter alia, that protection given by the Armed Forces for the
prosecutors and their witnesses is no indication of subornation of perjury by the
military as that was a precaution plainly called for under the circumstances of
the case. 16

The only issue left to be discussed is the appellants plea of selt-defense. As 16-a

earlier indicated the trial court did not find appellants testimony credible.
The defense of ones person or rights has from very old times been considered
as a cause for exemption from liability under conditions provided for in the
domestic law. In this jurisdiction, there is legitimate self-defense it the person
17

acted under
_______________

16 Supra at p. 449.
16-aFifth and sixth Assignment of Errors, pp. 87-112 of brief.
17 G.B. Guevara, Penal Sciences and Criminal Law, 1974 Ed., p. 82.

591
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 591
 23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
the following circumstances, to wit: (1) he was the object of an unlawful
aggression; (2) there was reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel that aggression; and (3) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his
part. If all the foregoing are present, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, the
18

rationale being that his act is justified. That which anyone should do for the
safety of his own person is to be adjudged as having been done justly in his own
favor. However, one who admits having caused the injury has the burden to
19

prove the presence of the three circumstances men tioned above and failure to
carry out that burden to the satisfaction of the court renders him criminally
liable for his act and all its consequences. 20

Coming now to the case before Us, We agree with His Honor, Judge
Fernandez, that the narration of the appellant manifests certain weak points
which render it, incredible.
First of all, the presence of an unlicensed firearm in the car of appellant gives
credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that Erasmo Cuadra was
set out to kill or liquidate Celso Tan on that particular evening of May 1, 1966.
According to appellant, the gun was usually kept inside a compartment of his
vehicle but on that night he brought out the firearm and placed it on his seat to
give way to some canned goods he had bought earlier that evening. The idea
appears to Us preposterous for it is hard to believe that appellant would choose
to safely store away a handful of canned goods in place of a dangerous object like
a gun. It appellant Cuadra had the gun under his buttocks as he claimed it was
because he was prepared to use it pursuant to his plan to kill Celso Tan. 21

Secondly, the narration of appellant as to how he shot Celso

_______________

18 Article II, par. I, Revised Penal Code.

19 People vs. Boholst-Caballero, November 25, 1974, 61 SCRA 180, per Muoz Palma, J., 1 Viada p.
172, 5th Ed. cited.
20 People vs. Bautista, et al., 1962, 6 SCRA 522; People vs. Jamero, et al., 75 SCRA 137; per

Concepcion Jr. J.; People vs. Verzola, et al., 80 SCRA 601, per Antonio, J.; People vs. Cagod, et al.,
1978, 81 SCRA 110, per Aquino, J.
21 tsn, Vol. I, July 7, 1967, pp. 229-230.

592
592 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
Tan is vague and uncertain and it fails to convince Us. In his direct testimony,
he testified as follows:
ATTY. DELFIN:

xxx xxx xxx

Q. At that moment what did that driver of the car do?

A. He got angry at me and said Nano, nano (So what, so what) and then he stepped
backward and was about to shoot me, so I shot him ahead because I was scared.
A. That he might kill me by shooting me. Reform. (tsn Vol. 1, July 7, 1967, p. 210)
 Q. What were you scared about?
Q. At that moment when that man stepped backward holding his firearm and was
about to draw please inform the Court why you shot him?
A. Because I was getting scared for I have not committed any wrong.
Q. At that moment when that man stepped backward and tried to pull out his gun
which was visible to you, were you fearing for your life?

PROSECUTOR DE GUZMAN:

The question is leading.

COURT:

On cross-examination he gave the following narration:

PROSECUTOR DE GUZMAN:

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Will you demonstrate how you pulled your gun and shot Celso Tan?
A. I was sitting in the front and as I was explaining that we have not committed any
wrong.
Q. How did you pull the gun and fire it at Celso Tan?
A. I was the one driving the pickup and I was sitting on my pistol and when I was
facing him explaining that I have not committed any wrong he stepped back and said
You fool! and he said So what? and he was about to pull his gun from his waist so I
shot him first.

COURT:

Q. So he has not pulled his gun when you shot him?

593
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 593
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
A. He was about to pull it out but I shot him first.
Q In other words, he has not pulled his gun?
A. He has already raised it and about to shoot me.
Q. And you felt he was really going to shoot you so you shot him?
A. Because he was already in an angry mood.
Q. So you drew ahead of him?
A. Yes, sir. (tsn Vol. 1, July 7, 1967, p. 228)

From the above, it is apparent that the accused was not clear as to the manner
he shot Celso Tan. At first Cuadra declared that Tan was only holding the end of
the gun that was tucked in his waist and was just about to draw when he shot
him, while on cross-examination in answer to a question of the Judge he stated
that Tan had already raised the gun and was about to shoot him.
Thirdly, the number of wounds inflicted by appellant belies the plea of self-
defense. Not only did Cuadra shoot the victim once but twice directed towards
the abdomen of the latter. All the shots travelled in a downward
direction, which indicated that appellant was on a higher plane than the victim.
22
This was so, because Cuadra was in the drivers seat of the pickup when he
suddenly fired on Celso Tan while the latter was standing on the road. In People
vs. Constantino, et al., this Court held inter alia that the nature, number, and
location of the wounds inflicted by an assailant are important factors which
disprove a plea of self-defense. 23

Fourthly, appellants conduct in speeding away from the scene of the crime,
hiding the pickup in a repair shop, and throwing away the gun used instead of
reporting the matter to the police authorities, are indicia of a guilty conscience,
inconsistent with a claim of innocence or justification of the shooting.
In People vs. Pelago, 1968, similar circumstance were present, e.g., accused
Pelago did not surrender to the authorities
_____________

22 Exhibit G-1, p. 43 CFI record.

23 20 SCRA 940.

594
594 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
after the stabbing, but on the contrary he escaped to his house and threw away
the weapon used in the commission of the crime. This Court through Fernando,
J., disbelieved Pelagos version and stated that such is not the behaviour of one
who kills another in self-defense. 24

Coming to another point raised by the defense it is claimed that the trial
judge was prejudiced against the appellant and in fact played the role of a
prosecutor. Appellants counsel made reference to the use of the word murder
25

in questions propounded by His Honor to the prosecution witness, such as:

COURT:

xxx xxx

Q. Do you remember having investigated a CRIME OF MURDER that supposedly

occurred within the jurisdiction of Bacolod City on the night of May 2, 1966?
A. Yes, Your Honor, with the cooperation of the PC and the NBI.
Q. Who was MURDERED on that occasion?
A. Celso Tan, a radiocaster.
Q. How did you come to know of the MURDER of Celso Tan?

xxx xxx xxx

In addition, appellants counsel charges the trial judge for having browbeaten
the defense witnesses. We have gone over the transcript and although it appears
that there were occasions when the trial judge propounded questions to the
witnesses, it is clear to Us that his only purpose was to clarity or stress certain
points in the testimony of the witness concerned. We agree with the Solicitor
General that the absence of prejudice or bias of the trial judge is best attested to
by the acquittal of all the accused (7 of them) except for the herein appellant,
Erasmo Cuadra.
 With respect to appellants final assignment of error wherein he claims that
he was deprived of his constitutional right to a preliminary investigation We find
26

the same to be
_______________

24 24 SCRA 1027, 1033.

25 First and Second Assignment of Errors, pp. 23-35 of brief.
26 pp. 113-115, appellants brief.

595
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 595
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
without basis considering that the investigating fiscal who filed the Information
and the amended Information certified on his oath of office that he had
conducted the required preliminary investigation which is presumed to have
been regularly done in the course of performance of a duty. Moreover, this
particular point was never raised below and consequently, appellant is deemed
to have waived the same. 27

Having discarded appellants defense, We find that the trial court correctly
adjudged him guilty of MURDER qualified by evident premeditation with two
aggravating circumstances attendant to the case, viz: treachery and the use of a
motor vehicle.
Treachery is present although the shooting was frontal because the attack
was so sudden and unexpected that the victim was not in a position to offer an
effective defense. The witness Edna Javelona testified that when Celso Tan
approached the driver of the pickup, Tan was met with gunfire and she heard
him cry out Dios ko and this was followed by two more successive shots, after
which the pickup speeded away. Under these circumstances Celso Tan was
wholly unprepared for the attack and had no opportunity or chance to defend
himself. There is no truth to appellants claim that Tan had raised his gun for
although the latter had a gun at the time it was found by Sgt. Pablo Bacong who
was among the first to arrive at the scene, that Tans revolver was tucked at the
left side of his waistline. 27-a

In the early case of U.S. vs. Cornejo, 1914, this Court through then Chief
Justice Cayetano S. Arellano held that though the victim was face-to-face with
his assailant, nevertheless, there was treachery for the attack was sudden and
unexpected and was not preceded by a dispute and the deceased was unable to
prepare himself for a defense. So also in People vs. Ventura, 1977, this Court
28

found that the killing of the victim was attended with treachery because Ventura
made an unexpected assault on the victim which insured the killing
_______________

27 See appellees brief, p. 15.

27-atsn January 26, 1967, p. 208, Vol. III.
28 Phil. 457, 461.

596
596 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
 People vs. Cuadra
without risk to himself since the victim had no chance to retaliate. 29

The shooting of Celso Tan is also aggravated by the use of a motor vehicle as a
means of committing the crime and facilitating the escape of the killer. 30

The findings of the trial court show that in the evening of May 1, 1966,
Cuadra was decided to realize his plan of liquidating Celso Tan. He drove his
pickup with his companions, conducted a surveillance of the victims
whereabouts and trailed him on the road to Sum-ag where Tan was residing.
Cuadra then gave Tan an on-and-off chase until Cuadra suddenly stopped.
Sensing that the pickup driver was needling or goading him, Tan likewise
stopped Ms car and approached the pickup presumably to ask for an explanation
but no sooner had Tan reached the pickup when Cuadra without any warning
suddenly fired upon the latter. Under these circumstances the pickup played an
important role in the accomplishment of Cuadras plan. Not only that, appellant
also made good his escape by speeding away in his vehicle, and to avoid
discovery of his identity, he drove the vehicle to a repair shop, and then walked
home only to find the police waiting for him. In People vs. Espejo, the use of a
motor vehicle was considered by this Court as an aggravating circumstance
because the jeep was used by the accused in going to the place of the crime, in
carrying away the stolen articles and in facilitating the escape of the culprits. 31

In view of the fact that the killing of Celso Tan is qualified by evident
premeditation and attended with treachery and the use of a motor vehicle, the
trial court correctly imposed the extreme penalty of DEATH.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision under review, We
affirm the same with modification that ap-
________________

29 per Aquino, J., 80 SCRA 515.

30 Article 14, par. 20, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Laxamana, et al., 70 Phil. 517; People vs. de la
Cruz, 100 Phil. 624; People vs. Tan, 89 Phil. 647, 660.
31 36 SCRA, 400, 418. See also People vs. Jaranilla, et al., 55 SCRA 563.

597
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 597
23, 1978
People vs. Cuadra
pellant is directed to indemnify the heirs of Celso Tan in the amount of Twelve
Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00). With costs against appellant Cuadra in both
instances.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Muoz Palma, Concepcion
Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., did not take part.
Castro, C.J., and Aquino, J., in the result.
Antonio,* J., took no part.

Decision affirmed with modification.

Notes.Payments made to witnesses in order that they will testify will
render their testimonies suspicious. (People vs. Alviar, 59 SCRA 136).
 A delay in the filing of a criminal case is excusable where the same was due to
the fact that the sole witness was struggling for his survival from a stab wound.
(People vs. Boduso, 60 SCRA 60).
A direct testimony as to the fact of stabbing overcomes the absence of real
evidence as to resulting wounds. (People vs. Jovellano, 56 SCRA 156).
A failure to report immediately the occurrence of a crime will adversely affect
a witnesss credibility. (People vs. Beltran, 61 SCRA 246).
The non-presentation of all prosecution witnesses does not necessarily give
rise to a presumption of innocence of the accused. (People vs. Genoguin, 56 SCRA
181).
A mere fear of reprisal will not justify ones failure to tell the truth to the
police authorities. (People vs. Villar, Jr., 58 SCRA 512).
The mere fact that the principal prosecution witnesses were related to the
victim does not prove that they were prejudiced or biased, considering that their
testimonies are clear and con-
_____________

*Justice Felix Q. Antonio was then the Solicitor General who filed the brief for the People in this
Court.

598

598 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Cuadra
vincing and corroborated by other witnesses. (People vs. Miranda, 10 SCRA
385; People vs. Dajay, 10 SCRA 385; People vs. Asmawil, 13 SCRA 497; People vs.
Libed, 14 SCRA 410; People vs. Villalba, 17 SCRA 948; People vs.
Constantino, 20 SCRA 940; People vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 813.)
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not affect their credibility if
they refer to minor details on which persons witnessing the same occurrence are
likely to disagree in the ordinary course of event. (People vs. Verzo, 21 SCRA
1403: People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235.)
More significant, however, are the undisputed physical facts of the case, such
as the nature, character and location of the wounds sustained by the deceased
and the presence of the blood-stains on the beddings of the victim. These facts
and circumstances belie the claim of the appellant that he clubbed the victim in
self-defense. On the contrary, they sufficiently indicate that the fatal injuries
were he inflicted upon the victim when the latter was lying defenseless on the
floor as he was either sleeping or was just beginning to wakeup. (People vs.
Verzola, 80 SCRA 600.)
The contention of one of the appellants that he fought the deceased face to
face is belied by the fact that deceased sustained at least two serious wounds on
the back part of his body. (People vs. Reyes, 17 SCRA 309.)
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is, not to have a full dress
investigation that would delay unnecessarily the disposition of judicial
proceedings, but, no more than to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from an open and public
accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and
also, to protect the state from useless expensive trials. (Santos, Jr. vs. Flores, 5
SCRA 1137; People vs. Figueroa, 27 SCRA 1239.)
It is the existing statute and not the Constitution that requires the holding of
the preliminary investigation and when such right is absent and however, not
waived, may amount to denial of due process. (San Diego vs. Hernandez, 24
SCRA 110; Luna vs. Plaza, 26 SCRA 311.)
599

VOL. 85, OCTOBER 599

23, 1978
Torio vs. Fontanilla
A preliminary investigation marks the commencement of a criminal prosecution,
unless waived, defendant may not be brought to trial on the merits without
compliance with the statutory requirement of preliminary investigation.
(Bermejo vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764.)

o0o