G.R. Nos.

110991-92 February 24, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA, accused-appellant.

PADILLA, J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment * of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan,
Branch XI, which found accused-appellant Melchor dela Iglesia guilty of the crime of
murder on two (2) counts for the alleged brutal killing of Manuel P. Baquiran and his
son Johnson Baquiran.
The two (2) informations docketed as Crim. Case No. 330-T and Crim. Case No. 331-T,
respectively, read as follows:
Crim. Case No. 330-T
That on or about November 2, 1990, in the municipality of Sto. Nino,
province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, Melchor dela Iglesia together with three (3) John Does who
were not identified, armed with guns, conspiring together and helping one
another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
one, Manuel P. Baquiran, inflicting upon him gunshot wounds on the
different parts of his body which caused his death.
Contrary to law.
Crim Case No. 331-T
That on or about November 2, 1990, in the municipality of Sto. Nino,
province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused Melchor dela Iglesia, together with three (3) John Does who
were not identified, armed with guns, conspiring together and helping one
another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
one, Johnson Baquiran, inflicting upon him gunshot wounds on the different
parts of his body which caused his death.

Contrary to law. 1
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty in both cases. He waived pretrial and the trial court heard both cases jointly inasmuch as they arose from the same
incident and involved the same witnesses.
The prosecution's case revolved mainly on the testimonies of alleged eyewitness,
Bartolome Baquiran and his mother Rosalinda Baquiran, together with the stipulated
evidence with respect to the cause of death of the victims Manuel Baquiran and
Johnson Baquiran. The prosecution's version may be synthesized as follows:
On 2 November 1990, at around nine o'clock in the evening, Manuel Baquiran and his
two (2) children, namely, Johnson Baquiran and Bartolome Baquiran, together with a
relative named Nelson Panaga were at Barangay Cabayu, Sto. Nino, Cagayan. They
were then staying in the farm owned by Manuel to guard their harvested palay stored
inside a small nipa hut in the farm.
At that time, the Baquirans and Panaga were already inside the hut when armed men
appeared from nowhere and surrounded the hut. One of the armed men shouted,
"Umulug cayo" and thereupon, Manuel Baquiran came out of the hut followed by
Johnson and Bartolome Baquiran as well as by Nelson Panaga.
According to Bartolome, his father (Manuel) noticed the presence of the accusedappellant outside the hut which prompted Manuel to come out of the hut and face the
unexpected visitors.
Once outside the hut, Bartolome claimed that he saw accused-appellant carrying a
rifle over his left shoulder. He did not recognize the other armed men dressed in
military uniforms who by then surrounded the place.
Bartolome averred that accused-appellant did not say anything to his father nor did his
father ask what brought accused-appellant to their place. Rather, Bartolome observed
that accused-appellant and the armed men called his uncle, Nelson Panaga, and
brought the latter beyond hearing distance and he (Nelson) and the armed men started
conversing among themselves for about thirty (30) minutes.
Nelson Panaga was eventually escorted back inside the hut after which, accusedappellant allegedly ordered his (Bartolome's) father and elder brother (Johnson) to
come and follow him (accused-appellant). Bartolome further related that he did not
observe any adverse reaction from his father nor brother as they were taken along by

accused-appellant and his companions. He (Bartolome) and Nelson Panaga were left
behind in the hut.
Manuel and Johnson Baquiran (father and son) did not return to their hut on the same
night nor did they return to their house in Cabayu, Sto. Nino, Cagayan. Three days
later, their decomposing bodies were found floating on a distant river. Their bodies
were later examined at the Piat District Hospital by Dr. Silverio Salvanera. The autopsy
revealed that Manuel and Johnson sustained multiple gunshot wounds as they were
both shot at the abdomen. 3
Rosalinda Baquiran, widow of the deceased Manuel Baquiran, testified that her son
Bartolome went home to tell her that his father and brother were taken away by armed
men from their hut in Cabayu, and they had not returned ever since. Bartolome also
told here that accused-appellant was among the armed men who took away his father
and brother and that it was the accused-appellant who killed the two (2) Baquirans.
Rosalinda further asserted that only the accused-appellant had the strong motive to kill
her husband. This was allegedly brought about by accused-appellant's claim of
ownership over a parcel of land in Cabayu, Sto. Nino, Cagayan the same land
where her husband and son were abducted on 2 November 1990. This land dispute
resulted in bad blood between the parties even as her husband sought legal means to
have the dispute adjudicated before the barangay hall until it finally reached the PAO
office in Tuao, Cagayan. 4
The prosecution also presented Recto Baquiran, another son of the deceased
Manuel, to corroborate Rosalinda's claim of accused-appellant's strong motive for
killing his father. He testified that sometime in May 1990, while he and his father were
busy preparing their ricefield in Cabayu for the planting season, he saw accusedappellant together with five (5) other men arrive and confront his father on whether they
could plow in the said field. While he was not able to overhear the exact exchange of
words between his father and accused-appellant, he noticed that his father became
very angry with accused-appellant because of the latter's claim of ownership over the
said land.
The last time Recto saw accused-appellant was on 28 October 1990, when they were
in the PAO office discuss the land dispute. Accused-appellant allegedly wanted an
amicable settlement but his father did not agree, so nothing was settled. Five (5) days
later, or on 2 November 1990, his father and brother Johnson were killed. 5
On the other hand, the defense anchored its case on denial and alibi.

Nelson Panaga, who was with Manuel, Johnson and Bartolome Baquiran on the night
of the alleged abduction, testified that he was already asleep when Johnson Baquiran
woke him up because of the orders for them to go down, and thereafter Manuel and
Johnson were investigated by a part of the group outside the hut. While this was going
on, some armed men also approached him and allegedly asked for the direction in
going to Minanga, Cagayan, to which he replied that he did not know. He also testified
that there were additional armed men in the vicinity but that only five (5) armed men
approached them. He alleged that he did not recognize any of the five (5) armed men
who approached them.
Subsequently, Manuel and Johnson Baquiran were taken by the armed group who
allegedly told Nelson not to worry for they (Manuel and Johnson) would come back
after a while. They however, never did.
Nelson Panaga alleged that he executed an affidavit on 4 November 1990 before a
certain SPO3 Domingo Ruiz, wherein he stated that he did not recognize any of the
armed men. However, said document was not subscribed nor sworn to before any
officer authorized by law to administer oaths. He was never subpoenaed during the
preliminary investigation of the case. He admitted though that it was accused-appellant
who requested him to testify in his favor.
The next defense witness, Mateo Relos, testified that on 2 November 1990, he and
accused-appellant were at the Iglesia ni Kristo chapel in Tabang, Sto. Nino, Cagayan
where both rendered guard duty. He averred that he never left the chapel while on
duty. He averred further that he never left the chapel the whole night of 2 November
1990, until the following morning when he and the accused-appellant went home at
about 5:00 a.m. When questioned by the court, he stated that there was no logbook to
record those who rendered guard duty at the chapel. 7
Vioquelin Villena, deacon (pangulong diakono) of the Iglesia ni Kristo at Sto. Nino,
Cagayan, testified that a logbook was kept inside the said INK chapel to record the
attendance of members rendering guard duty. He maintained that on 2 November
1990, he personally went to the INK chapel at around 6:00 p.m. and noted the
presence of the accused-appellant and Mateo Relos. He left before 7:00 p.m. and
came back at 5:00 a.m. the following day to check on the two (2) guards whom he
found to be on their assigned posts. 8
Accused-appellant reiterated the deacon's story when he testified in his own behalf. He
stated that 2 November 1990, was his assigned "guard day and prayer day", so that he
rendered guard duty from 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. of the next day (3 November 1990)

together with his companion, Mateo Relos. Thereafter, they turned over the premises
to KA Vioquelin (Villena).
Accused-appellant admitted that there was an existing land dispute between him and
Manuel involving the land on which Baquiran was then farming. Hence, he engaged
the services of a lawyer who advised him that he had a meritorious claim. Thereafter,
he brought the matter to Manuel Baquiran's attention who however refused to amicably
settle with him despite the intercession of their relatives. Eventually, he brought the
problem before the PAO office, where he and Manuel Baquiran both appeared, but to
no avail.
Accused-appellant denied that he attempted to plow in the disputed land in May 1990
although this happened way back in May 1987. He was also seriously considering filing
a formal complaint against Manuel Baquiran to recover part of the land when he
learned that Manuel and his son Johnson were abducted and murdered on 2
November 1990.
Accused-appellant categorically professed his innocence in regard to the charges
against him and claimed that he was being implicated in the crime solely because of
the aforestated land dispute. Beyond that, no other motive could be ascribed to him.
Besides, accused-appellant contended, how could he be at the crime scene when he
stayed and guarded the INK chapel the whole night of 2 November 1990? 9
On 13 April 1993, the court a quo rendered its judgment, the dispositive part of which
states:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Melchor dela Iglesia guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder (2 counts), in Criminal Case No.
330-T for the death of Manuel Baquiran and in Criminal Case No. 331-T for
the death of Johnson (Jenison) Baquiran, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
two (2) life imprisonments.
He is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Manuel Baquiran in the
amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos and the heirs of Johnson
(Jenison) Baquiran in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos,
and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 10

Before this Court, the accused-appellant assigns the following errors allegedly
committed by the lower court:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONY
OF NELSON PANAGA.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NELSON PANAGA IS A
BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN NOTHING
APPEARS TO BE SO IN THE RECORDS OF THE CASE.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
THE CRIME CHARGED BASED IN EFFECT IN (SIC) CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. 11
The trial court's ratio decidendi focused on the well-entrenched principle that the
defense of alibi is a weak defense that can easily be fabricated and cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the accused. It found no unworthy motive on the part of
prosecution witness Bartolome Baquiran to falsely testify against the accused,
rationalizing that a thirteen (13) year old boy would not deliberately concoct a tale and
falsely charge an innocent person with so heinous a crime as double murder.
Bartolome Baquiran's consistency, according to the trial court, in pointing to his uncle
(accused-appellant) as being with the armed group that took away his father and
brother on the night of 2 November 1990, both in the preliminary investigation and
more so during the trial of the case, led it (the trial court) to conclude that accusedappellant "presumably killed his father and brother" and that he knew his uncle
(accused-appellant) very well as not to have mistaken him for another person.
On the other hand, the trial court evaluated the evidence for the defense in this wise:
One factor which militates against the alibi of the accused is the fact that,
admittedly, Tabang, Sto. Nino where the accused claims to have been
present the whole night of November 2, 1990 is, by his own admission, only
three kilometers away from Cabayu, Sto. Nino. It is not enough to prove
that the accused was not at the scene where the crime was committed, he
must also prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene

of the crime at such time (People vs. Martinez, 127 SCRA page 260;
People v. Beneraba, 129 SCRA 266.)
xxx xxx xxx
The testimony of the defense witness Nelson Panaga does not persuade
the Court as to its reliability and truth for the reason that the said witness is
the brother-in-law of the accused, his wife being the sister of the accused.
While the relationship is not necessarily a ground to disregard the
testimony of the witness, in this case, the Court finds the testimony of
Nelson Panaga to be unreliable. If indeed he denied before the police
investigator that the accused was one of armed men who took away the
victims from Cabayu, Sto. Nino, Cagayan, why is it that he did not
immediately do so why did he not see to it that the same be subscribed and
sworn to before a duly authorized officer? As to the testimony of Mateo
Relos, the Court is not likewise convinced that it is sufficient to establish the
alibi of the accused for the reason that when subjected to clarificatory
questions by the Court, he gave conflicting answers. Neither could he
categorically state that he was awake the whole night of November 2,
1990. He never stated that Melchor dela Iglesia did not leave the vicinity of
the INC Chapel the whole night. In fact the said witness admits that he and
Melchor dela Iglesia does (sic) not always sleep whenever they both
performed guard duty in the chapel. Nor can the Court accept the testimony
of witness Vioquelin Villena. He only identified the alleged logbook (Exhibit
"2"). The Court however observes that the entries for the month of
November are topsyturvy and some portions thereof, particularly those
referring to November 11 up to November 30 are inserted after the entries
for the month of August and before the entries for the month of September
while those pertaining to November 1 to November 10 are found after
October, 1990 and January, 1991. The said log book is not a very reliable
document. Another reason why the Court has decided to disregard the said
log book (Exhibit 2-a) is the fact that the said document contains spaces
where the absent guard did not sign. The accused could very well have
signed the empty spaces after his name long after November 2, 1990. At
any rate, witness Mateo Relos himself testified that there was no such log
book. 12

Notably absent from the above-quoted discussion of the court a quo is a categorical
pronouncement that on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution, it
was rendering a judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence.
One thing is certain in this case. No one among the prosecution witnesses had
actually witnessed the killing of the two (2) victims. While Bartolome Baquiran
maintained that he identified the accused-appellant as one of the armed men who
"ordered" his father and older brother to follow them, Nelson Panaga, the other
eyewitness, declared that he did not recognize any of the five (5) armed men who
came to the nipa hut.
The trial court gave no weight or credence to the testimony of Nelson Panaga based
on the following reasons: (1) that Nelson Panaga is the brother-in-law of the accused;
and (2) that Nelson's statement before the police investigator wherein he denied that
the accused was one of the armed men was not subscribed and sworn to before an
officer duly authorized to administer oaths.
In his brief, accused-appellant maintains that "there is nothing in the records which
showed that Nelson Panaga is the brother-in-law of the accused-appellant." 13 While
ordinarily, this Court defers to the findings of fact of the trial court, a careful
examination of the transcripts of stenographic notes reveals that indeed, Nelson's
relationship with accused-appellant has not been duly established during the trial.
Instead, we find that such alleged "relationship" was averred by witness Rosalinda
Baquiran during the preliminary investigation of the case. 14
Corollarily, we find no order of the court a quo, whether on its own motion, or by
positive move on the part of the prosecution, to introduce such testimony of Rosalinda
during the preliminary investigation as evidence, in order that such "fact" may form part
of the record of the case. 15
But, even assuming that Nelson Panaga is indeed related to accused-appellant, the
records also indicate that he is a relative of the victims. In fact, in his testimony, witness
Bartolome referred to him (Nelson) as his "uncle." 16
Be that as it may, the office of the Solicitor General argues that Nelson Panaga's
testimony does not contradict that of Bartolome Baquiran's positive identification of
accused-appellant since the former "simply declared that he did not recognize the
armed men, but he did not categorically state that appellant was not one of them." 17
On this matter, we quote Nelson Panaga's testimony:

Q How about those armed men do (sic) you recognize these

people ?
Fiscal Objection, leading your honor.
Court Witness may answer.
A NO.
Q All of them?
A Yes. 18 (Emphasis supplied)
Nelson Panaga's negative answer may have been equivocal if one assumes that what
the question wanted to elicit was whether or not accused-appellant was one of the
armed men. But that would be bordering on conjecture. After all, it would be equally
logical to argue that his negative answer meant that he did not know the identities of
the armed men, and that accused-appellant was not there, consistent with the purpose
for which his testimony was being offered.
As to the reason why Panaga's alleged affidavit was not subscribed before an officer
duly authorized to administer oaths, the Court finds no immediate relevance of such
circumstance considering that Nelson Panaga was presented as an eyewitness by the
defense and was available for cross examination by the prosecution. The relevant
inquiry should have been as to the credibility of his allegation vis-a-vis that of
prosecution eyewitness Bartolome Baquiran. It is also a curious circumstance why, as
the other key eyewitness, he (Nelson) was never subpoenaed by the investigating
judge during the preliminary investigation. 19
With respect to the trial court's appreciation of accused-appellant's alibi, the Court
agrees with the trial court's observation that it was not physically impossible for
accused-appellant to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed,
considering that by his own admission, the said place is only about three (3) kilometers
away from the Iglesia ni Kristo chapel where supposedly accused-appellant stayed as
guard from 6:00 p.m. of 2 November 1990 up to 5:00 a.m. of 3 November 1990.
Similarly, the testimonies of Mateo Relos and Vioquelin Villena may have been
equivocal to the point that accused-appellant could have left the chapel for some time
on the night of 2 November 1990 and come back the following morning when
Villanuena noted his presence. The alleged logbook (Exhibit 2-A; defense) offers no
clue whether or not such is the case, save for the fact that it corroborates to a limited

extent the fact of accused-appellant's presence at the chapel at 6:00 p.m. of 2

November 1990.
According to the trial court, since Mateo Relos could not categorically state that he was
awake the whole night of 2 November 1990 and that he was not really sure whether
accused-appellant never left the premises of the chapel, therefore, accused-appellant
could have really left the chapel to perpetrate the heinous crimes some time during the
evening of 2 November 1990.
Accused-appellant may not have presented an air-tight alibi. Nevertheless, the more
important consideration in the case at bench is whether accused-appellant could have
left the chapel in Tabang, Sto. Nino not the whole night of 2 November 1990 but
sometime between 6:00-9:00 p.m. of that day in order that he could physically be at
Cabayu at about 9:00 p.m. on 2 November 1990, as alleged.
The testimony of Vioquelin Villena established that he left the chapel after noting the
presence of accused-appellant and Mateo Relos sometime at 7:00 p.m. of 2 November
1990. Hence, the relevant inquiry which the trial court failed to appreciate was whether
there was proof that accused-appellant left the chapel at such time, leaving Mateo
Relos alone, then proceeded to Cabayu with armed companions to abduct Manuel and
Johnson Baquiran, in plain sight of eyewitness Bartolome and Nelson Panaga, kill
Manuel and Johnson, dump their bodies in a distant river, then return to the chapel
where he was again seen by Vioquelin Villena at 5:00 a.m. of 3 November 1990. It
appears that there is no such proof.
In the case at bench, the only other circumstance that could link accused-appellant as
the perpetrator of the crimes is the alleged existing land dispute between him and
Manuel Baquiran. This land dispute, as admitted and established by both parties, had
even reached the mediation stage wherein no amicable settlement was reached. To
the mind of the prosecution, this circumstance furnishes enough strong motive for
accused-appellant to kill. This Court notes however, that prior to the killing, there
is no evidence on record that accused-appellant had made threats on the life of
Manuel or his family or similar manifestations to the effect that he was so desperate
to recover an alleged successional right to the land, so as to eventually hatch a murder
plot against his relative. 20
All that was established is a bare allegation that Manuel Baquiran had no "known
enemy except (that of) accused-appellant." 21 Hence, not only is there a marked
absence of an unbroken chain of circumstances, but that in essence, there is only one
circumstance to speak of and that is, accused-appellant's alleged positive

identification by witness Bartolome Baquiran, which is in turn negated by the testimony

of Nelso Panaga. The Court is not unmindful of the rule that the issue of assigning
values and weight to the testimonies of witnesses is at best the province of the trial
court. However, the exception should be applied to this case where certain facts of
substance have been overlooked and misappreciated and which have given rise to a
hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Moreover, when the alleged
eyewitnesses contradict themselves, then the element of reasonable doubt is injected
and cannot be lightly disregarded. 22
The inference made by the trial court that Mateo Relos could have slept on the night in
question or that the accused could have left the Iglesia ni Kristo chapel the whole night,
has lost sight of the fact that the crimes happened at 9:00 p.m. of 2 November 1990.
Therefore, the inference should be obviously limited to between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m.
where the testimonies of Vioquelin Villena and Mateo Relos have established that
accused-appellant was in the Iglesia ni Kristo chapel. To hold otherwise would logically
infer either of two (2) things, that Mateo Relos slept even before 7:00 p.m. (the
approximate time Villena left the premises), or that he lost visual contact with accusedappellant as early as that time a fact that has not been duly proved by the
prosecution.
It is axiomatic in criminal law that the quantum of evidence required for conviction of an
accused is that which produces moral certainly in an unprejudiced mind that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is susceptible of two (2)
interpretations, one inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
inconsistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted. 23
Accordingly, circumstantial evidence would only be sufficient if there is a concurrence
of the following elements: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from
which the inference was derived are proven and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The
circumstances must be "an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion, which points to the defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person." 24 The Constitution demands no less than "proof beyond reasonable doubt",
consistent with the demands of justice and due process.
In sum, we rule that while accused-appellant's alibi may have been weak, the evidence
presented by the prosecution was much weaker. A broken chain of circumstances
cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused
which entitles him to an ACQUITTAL.

WHEREFORE, WE REVERSE the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court

against accused-appellant. He is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged, based on
reasonable doubt and the Court orders his RELEASE from detention unless he is held
for some other legal cause or ground. Costs de oficio.