People v. Abendan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eugenio Abenda, the chief of police of Manaoag, Pangasinan, during the Japanese occupation, was accused of murder along with Pedro de Guzman. The prosecution alleged that Abenda ordered Roberto Delfin and Olegario Samson to bring Enrique Doria from the municipal jail. When Doria resisted, Abenda and de Guzman entered the jail, tied Doria's hands, took him out, and boarded him in a carretela bound for the cemetery. At the cemetery, Abenda and de Guzman tied Doria to an acacia tree, had a grave dug, and pushed Doria into it. As Doria was still alive, they bound his feet, forced him to lie in the grave, struck him with a crowbar, stepped on him, and chopped off his ears before filling the grave. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicted Abenda of murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day of prision mayor to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and costs. The case against Pedro de Guzman was provisionally dismissed before trial as he was still at large. The Petition: Abenda appealed his conviction, denying his involvement in Doria's death and claiming that Doria was taken to the Japanese garrison upon Abenda's receipt of a written order from the Japanese. He alleged that the Japanese intended to liquidate Doria and that he left the garrison without knowing Doria's fate, later being informed by de Guzman that de Guzman had killed Doria. Abenda also presented evidence of his past resistance against the Japanese and his continued contact with guerrillas, suggesting his actions were related to his guerrilla activities and potentially covered by amnesty.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant's participation in the killing of Enrique Doria, if any, is covered by the Amnesty Act.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, acquitting the appellant Eugenio Abenda with costs de oficio. The Court found the defense's theory more credible and noted that the prosecution failed to present conclusive evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the theory of the defense to be more credible than that of the prosecution. The appellant, Eugenio Abenda, presented evidence that he was a member of the USAFFE, had escaped from the Capas Concentration Camp, and continued to resist the Japanese, while maintaining contact with guerrillas. The defense presented testimony from Liberato Pablo, the driver of the carretela used by Abenda, who corroborated Abenda's claim that Doria was taken to the Japanese garrison and that Abenda returned to the municipal building. The Court also cast doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses (Simeon Arzadon, Olegario Samson, and Roberto Delfin) due to their potential hostility towards Abenda, stemming from criminal charges and investigations initiated by Abenda. The disappearance of Pedro de Guzman, implicated as a co-principal, further supported the probability that he was responsible for Doria's death. The Court reiterated the principle that when there are two likelihoods, the one consistent with the presumption of innocence will be adopted. On the issue of amnesty: Even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the appellant was responsible for the death of Enrique Doria, the Court reasoned that his participation must have been connected with his undisputed guerrilla activities, as Enrique Doria was also wanted by the guerrillas. Therefore, his actions would properly come under the benevolent provisions of the Amnesty Act. The Court noted that Abenda had previously applied for amnesty, and his failure to obtain it was due to his refusal to accept the condition of admitting the killing of Enrique Doria. The Court concluded that his actions, if any, were in furtherance of resistance movements and thus potentially covered by amnesty.
Main Doctrine
The Court acquitted the appellant, Eugenio Abenda, finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence, and that the defense's theory, supported by corroborating testimony, was more credible. The Court also noted that even if the appellant participated in the killing, his actions might be covered by the Amnesty Act due to his guerrilla activities.