1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; SUFFICIENCY OF INCRIMINATORY PROOF. — After a careful analysis of the proof adduced in behalf of both the prosecution and the defense the judgment of the lower court convicting the six appellants of the crime of homicide is affirmed.

2. ID.; ID.; CASE FOR PROSECUTION. — The case for the prosecution was to the effect that the deceased had been fatally stabbed by Proceso Bustos at a circus performance at a time when the other accused were collaborating in the assault in various ways, some holding the deceased, others beating him with cudgels or closed fists, and others menacing him with pistols. The four principal witnesses for the prosecution whose testimony is relied upon to fix the direct perpetration of the crime on Proceso Bustos consist of the notary public of the municipality (a person friendly to both parties), the postmaster, the justice of the peace, and the fourteen-year old son of the deceased, their testimony being corroborated by an ante mortem statement of the deceased which had been reduced to writing by the justice of the peace and signed by the deceased four hours after the fatal encounter.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SIGNATURE TO "ANTE MORTEM" STATEMENT OF DECEASED. — The signature of the deceased appearing on his ante mortem statement is held to be authentic not only because of its manifest genuineness, upon comparison; with other admittedly genuine signatures made by him, but because of the testimony of credible witnesses who declare that they saw him sign the document.

4. EVIDENCE; QUESTIONED SIGNATURE; CRITERION FOR DETERMINATION OF AUTHENTICITY. — The authenticity of a questioned signature, so far as dependent upon the features of the script, depends upon a general characteristic resemblance to admittedly genuine signatures, coupled with specific differences due to the infinite variety of minute conditions controlling the muscles of the writer at each separate effort in writing his name.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; POINTS OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN QUESTIONED AND AUTHENTIC SIGNATURES AS NOTED IN OPINION. — Among the characteristic points of similarity between the questioned and authentic signatures relied upon as establishing the authenticity of the questioned signature in this case the following are noted by the court: (1) The similar general effect of all the signatures taken in their entirety; (2) the similarity between the questioned signature and one of the genuine signatures as to the alignment of the word "Liborio Bustos;" (3) the similarity of all the signatures in respect to the inclination of the letters, and especially as regards the slight inclination to the left of the letter B in the name Bustos; (4) the manifest confidence exhibited by the writer of the questioned signature as regards sequence of effort, there being no indication at any point of hesitation or lack of confidence as to the next stroke to be made; (5) the similarity of all the signatures in respect to certain combinations of letters made after the muscles of the hand had become free and automatic as "ibori" in Liborio, and "ust" in Bustos; (6) the similarity of the formation of other particular letters, notably the B in Bustos, the small "b" throughout, and the characteristic mode of connection between Bustos and Zabala; (7) the notable similarity of pen-pressure in curves lying at similar angles. (See plate, p. 27.)

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUESTIONED AND AUTHENTIC SIGNATURES NOTED AS DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. — Among points of difference between the questioned signature and the genuine signatures noted by the court as due to special conditions and which do not detract from the authenticity of the questioned signature are these: (1) The irregular formation of "Zabala" in the questioned signature; and (2) the absence of the period which the deceased customarily placed after his name. These differences are due to manifest weakness in the muscles of the hands of the writer, who had been suffering from extreme nausea and was lying in bed at the time the questioned signature was written.

7. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF; CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. — As against the case for the prosecution the testimony of certain witnesses for the defence tended to show that the deceased had been killed by one Pablo Ocampo after the assault occurred and near the circus entrance, as the deceased was passing out.

Among the circumstances noted by the court as clearly demonstrating the falsity of this narration are these: (1) The irresponsible character of the witnesses claiming to have seen Ocampo strike the fatal blow, said witnesses consisting without exception of peddlers and cockpit habitues; (2) the demonstrated fact that at least two of these witnesses were not present at the circus when the homicide was committed; (3) the unreasonableness of the facts as thus narrated, having in view undisputed proof to the effect that no commotion occurred at any time at or near the entrance to the circus; (4) the inconsistency between the testimony of different sets of witnesses for the defence with respect to the place at which the fatal blow was struck; (5) the manner in which the proof on this point was varied to meet the exigencies of the defence; and (6) the absence of sufficient motive on the part of Ocampo for the commission of the crime thus imputed to him.

8. ID.; ID.; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF SINGLE CONSPIRATOR. — The only proof tending to show evident premeditation consisted of the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness who admitted his complicity in the conspiracy to take the life of the deceased. Held: That having in view the character and antecedents of said witness, corroboration on the point mentioned was necessary, and that evident premeditation was not sufficiently established.

9. ID.; ID.; "ALEVOSIA." — Although the proof for the prosecution tended to show that the deceased had been stabbed by one of the accused while the deceased was firmly held by three others of the accused, the court abstained from finding the qualifying circumstance of alevosia to be present, observing that the treacherous conditions under which the fatal blow was given were sufficiently appreciated in the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pampanga, finding the appellants, Proceso Bustos, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, Filomeno Sunga, Donato Benosa, and Irineo Cailao, guilty of the offence of homicide, committed on June 19, 1920, in the municipality of Macabebe, in the Province of Pampanga, upon the person of Liborio Bustos, with the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of superior strength, and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for seventeen years, four months and one day, reclusion temporal; to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000; and to pay each the one-ninth part of the costs.

Three other individuals, to wit, Alejandro Ronquillo, Francisco Reyes, and Roman Bondoc, were named in the original information as joint authors of the same crime with the six appellants; but these three were acquitted by the trial judge, and they are not concerned in the present appeal.

A somewhat peculiar turn has been given to the case by the circumstance that after the six appellants had been convicted in the court below for the crime of homicide committed upon the person of Liborio Bustos, an independent prosecution was instituted against one Pablo Ocampo as author of the same homicide, and upon his conviction of the same offence, he also appealed to this court.

As Ocampo had been used as a witness for the prosecution in the trial against Bustos and his associates (the present appellants), and the two prosecutions are otherwise intimately related, it became important that this court should have before it the record in both causes before determining either appeal; and although the case to be disposed of in this opinion (People v. Bustos Et. Al., G. R. No. 17763) was submitted to us a short while before the second case (People v. Ocampo, G. R. No. 18869) 1 reached the calendar, the voluminous record in the two causes have been examined together.

Proceso Bustos is an influential resident of the municipality of Macabebe, in the Province of Pampanga; and at the time of the homicide in question was holding the office of president of said municipality. Felipe Bustos is a cousin of Proceso Bustos and at the time of the homicide was the municipal secretary of Macabebe; while Donato Benosa appears to have been an amanuensis in the office of the president. Filomeno Sunga was chief of police of the municipality. Irineo Cailao, Francisco Reyes, and Roman Bondoc were members of the police force under Filomeno Sunga; and Alejandro Ronquillo was a domestic servant of Proceso Bustos. Liborio Bustos, the deceased, was a prominent resident of the same municipality of Macabebe and a cousin of Proceso Bustos. At the time of his death Liborio Bustos was vice president of the municipality.

For some months prior to the date of the homicide, Proceso Bustos had entertained the belief that his cousin Liborio Bustos had been guilty of improprieties with the former’s wife; and this conviction, whether rightly or wrongly entertained, engendered in the bosom of Proceso Bustos a feeling of deep resentment against Liborio Bustos, calling for vengeance. At the same time, owing to political differences, animosity existed between Jose Blanco and Liborio Bustos. As a result of the antagonisms above-mentioned Liborio Bustos was not in friendly relations with Jose Blanco, and the relations between Liborio Bustos and Proceso Bustos were so strained that the two did not speak to each other even in the meetings of the municipal council.

On the night of June 19, 1920, an exhibition was given in Macabebe by a traveling circus; and upon that occasion, in the circus tent, an assault was made upon Liborio Bustos which cost him his life. The details of this affair, as related by credible witnesses, are substantially these: After the first act of the performance had commenced, Liborio Bustos came in, accompanied by his wife, a son (Felicisimo) of the age of fourteen years, and two small nieces, together with a house girl or nurse. Upon entering the tent, he conducted his family around towards the right of the ring used by the performers and placed them on the first row of seats to the right of the central aisle. After the members of the family had been thus accounted for, it appeared that no chair was there available for Liborio himself; and in order to provide himself with a seat it was necessary to go around to the left side of the ring. Upon passing around in that direction, he found a vacant chair between Irineo Cailao and Alejandro Ronquillo, and he accordingly took possession of this seat. Proceso Bustos at the same time was sitting near by on; the left of Irineo Cailao, who in turn was seated at the immediate left of Liborio Bustos. Filomeno Sunga was seated in a chair behind the one taken by Liborio Bustos, and others of the nine persons named as defendants in the original information were sitting in close proximity. Liborio Bustos, apparently thus led by chance rather than design, had planted himself squarely in a nest of his personal and political enemies surrounded by their dependents or partisans.

After Liborio Bustos had been thus seated for a few minutes and the circus act then under way had been concluded, a number of spectators indicated their approval of the performance by applause; and Liborio Bustos himself joined in this manifestation by clapping his hands. As he lowered his hands after thus applauding, his right arms was seized by Alejandro Ronquillo who was on his immediate right, and at the same instant his left arm was seized by Irineo Cailao; while Filomeno Sunga approached from behind and with his right hand caught Liborio by the hair, at the same time passing his left arm around Liborio’s neck. Others belonging to the same gang immediately swarmed around and blows began to fall upon various parts of the victim’s body, including his chest, face and back. In this assault Felipe Bustos and Jose Blanco took a conspicuous part. One or both of these individuals were armed with a revolver and Jose Blanco either struck Liborio in the forehead with the barrel of his revolver or pointed the weapon at his head in a threatening manner. The policemen meanwhile used their clubs on the deceased, and Donato Benosa struck him either with brass-knucks or with his fist. As the assault proceeded Felipe Bustos called aloud more than once "kill him."cralaw virtua1aw library

The commotion which had thus arisen around Liborio Bustos of course attracted the immediate attention of the spectators of the circus, and its significance was not lost upon the elder members of Liborio’s family who, as already stated, were sitting almost directly across the circus ring from the point where the assault had occurred. Among these observers was Felicisimo, the fourteen-year old son of Liborio Bustos, whose eye had caught the first signs of trouble, and who bounded across the ring, now vacated by the performers, and placed himself at a point near the assailants, from which he would be able to see whatever might happen. To this spot the boy was followed by his mother.

Meanwhile Proceso Bustos, with a dagger in hand, approached the circle where Liborio Bustos was standing engaged with the individuals who had seized and were still holding him. Seeing this act on the part of Proceso Bustos, and comprehending the danger with which her husband was threatened, the wife of Liborio Bustos threw herself in front of Proceso and besought him to do her husband no harm. Proceso Bustos, however, gave the woman a shove which caused her to fall to the ground, and he then made his way into the circle where Liborio Bustos now stood erect and with an upward movement of the right hand Proceso Bustos stabbed Liborio in the left epigastric region with a dagger. The wound thus inflicted appears to have been several inches deep, and it resulted in the perforation of the stomach in two places. This injury having been inflicted by Proceso Bustos, the assailants desisted from the attack; and the wife of Liborio Bustos, assisted by Julian Mendoza, were able to approach the injured person and take him in hand. Weakened by the wound and exhausted no doubt in part by the numerous blows which he had received on various parts of the body, Liborio Bustos quietly left the circus, supported on either side by his wife; and Julian Mendoza, by whom he was conducted to the residence of his mother, situated about one hundred and fifty meters away.

The voluminous proof contains many details which, when understood in their proper relations, enable one to visualize the scene more clearly, but for the most part these details are either unnecessary to an understanding of the real nature of the assault or are not established with sufficient certainty to justify a court in attaching much weight to them. For instance, one of the prosecuting witnesses says that before Alejandro Ronquillo began the assault by seizing the right arm of Liborio Bustos, Alejandro Ronquillo glanced towards Proceso Bustos, who had his eyes fixed on Ronquillo, and who then with an approving nod gave the signal to Ronquillo to proceed. Several witnesses further say that as Proceso Bustos entered the group which surrounded Liborio Bustos, preparatory to stabbing the latter, Proceso Bustos said, "Make way, let me pass" (Den me paso, den me paso). Another circumstance, accredited by many witnesses, is that when the scuffle started some one called aloud "Liborio Bustos is drawing a revolver." Alejandro Ronquillo says that he was the person who made this exclamation; and his testimony, as well as that of other witnesses examined in behalf of the defendants, is to the effect that Liborio Bustos had a revolver on his person and attempted to draw it. Other proof, however, shows that in all probability Liborio Bustos was unarmed on this occasion; and the exclamation emitted by Alejandro Ronquillo was without doubt a mere ruse, intended to mislead the bystanders as to the true nature of the commotion.

When Liborio Bustos, with the assistance of his wife and Julian Mendoza, arrived at the home of his mother, he was at first placed in a chair in front of the house, but a little later he was taken inside and placed on a bed in the front room.

At about 9 p.m., two physicians arrived, namely Jose Talag and Lazaro Yambao. Upon casual examination of the wound in the side, it was at once seen to be of a serious nature; and though nothing was said to excite the injured man, Dr. Yambao told the family that the first symptom of nausea and vomiting would be a danger signal, as it would indicate the existence of peritonitis resulting from perforation of the intestines. In such eventuality, he told them, it would be necessary to carry the patient at once to Manila where an operation might be performed with some hope of saving life. Later in the night this symptom of nausea and vomiting manifested itself in violent form, and arrangements were at once made to take the patient to Manila. To this end an automobile was procured; and the patient left Macabebe at between 1 and 2 a.m. on the morning of June 20, accompanied by a physician and other persons.

After a journey of several hours, made tedious from the necessity of going very slowly, owing to the condition of the sufferer, the party arrived in Manila; and at about 8 a.m. he was placed in the Philippine General Hospital. An operation was there performed, but the patient began to sink during the day and died in the evening, about twenty-four hours after the injury had been inflicted.

Upon examining the body of the deceased, both at the time of the surgical operation and upon the subsequent occasion of the post mortem autopsy, the physicians found that the wean used had perforated both the anterious and posterior walls of the stomach of the deceased. In addition to this wound, which was necessarily fatal, various bruises were found on the breast, back, and forearms of the body, as well as on the face, one considerable bruise being found immediately between the eyebrows. Neither physician was able to say with certainty whether the instrument used in making the wound had two cutting edges or only one, but the stroke had been evidently made in a direction from below upwards.

The proof shows conclusively that from the beginning Liborio Bustos believed he had received a fatal injury and that death was certain. While he was still sitting in the chair in front of his mother’s house, the justice of the peace of the municipality, Aureliano Dizon by name, came up. Seeing Dizon, the deceased said: "Judge, I am going to die," at the same time observing that he had been attacked by Proceso Bustos, Felipe Bustos, and the policemen. The son, Felicisimo Bustos, was then crying; and the deceased said to him, "my son, do not cry, for you will not be poor. Your uncle Marcelino will not desert you, and you can continue your studies better. Call the priest, I want to confess." In response to the request for spiritual assistance, Father Guevara, the parish priest, was sent for; who presently came, and finding the deceased prostrated in bed, took his confession and administered the last sacrament in conformity with the rites of the Church. Another circumstance which shows that the deceased fully realized the fatal nature of the wound he had received, is that he objected to being taken to Manila, on the ground that it would be of no use. Furthermore, in the ante mortem statement signed by himself, to which more particular reference will be made hereafter, the deceased declared that his declaration was given in contemplation of approaching death and the consequent necessity of soon presenting his soul before the Almighty Creator. Immediately before this statement was signed, the deceased had been vomiting blood; and some of the material ejected from his stomach was at that time scattered over the floor. Even Dr. Talag, who testified as a witness for the defendants, admits that the deceased said he was going to die, though neither nervous nor unquiet, and he remained throughout in the full possession of his mental faculties.

When Aureliano Dizon, the justice of the peace, encountered Liborio Bustos at the house to which the latter had been carried, he was not at first impressed with the idea that the injury would necessarily prove fatal, although even then Liborio Bustos said he was going to die. Dizon therefore did not at once make any preparations for the taking of an ante mortem statement from Bustos; but as the night advanced and alarming symptoms developed, Dizon determined to procure a written statement from the injured man. To this end he caused his typewriting machine to be brought to the house and, placing it upon a table at the bedside of the sufferer, he proceeded to reduce to writing in the Pampanga dialect a narrative of the occurrence substantially in the form in which it was dictated by the declarant. This statement is in evidence as Exhibit B of the prosecution. It fills a single sheet of ordinary legal-cap paper and in addition to being signed by Liborio Bustos Zabala, as declarant, it bears the signature of Dr. Jose Talag, as witness.

The testimony shows that this statement, after being reduced to writing by Aureliano Dizon, was read over to the declarant and signed by him while in bed. Dr. Talag, the attesting witness, admits his signature, and though evidently hostile to the prosecution, he virtually admits that the document was signed by the deceased in his presence; since he says that he saw the deceased with pen in hand preparatory to the act of signing, in which instant he turned away to the light to examine the material in a pan into which the deceased had just vomited. Antonio Garcia, of the age of twenty-nine years and a school teacher by profession, happened to be in the house at the time. He says he saw Liborio Bustos sign the paper in question as well as Dr. Talag, and that after Liborio Bustos had read and signed the paper himself, he handed the pen to Dr. Talag in order that the latter might sign. Other testimony with reference to the same incident shows conclusively that Liborio Bustos was fully informed of the contents of this paper and signed the same with his own hand while in the full possession of his mental faculties.

It appears that Aureliano Dizon began the work of typewriting this statement possibly before midnight, and the final clause recites that it was signed by the declarant on June 20, 1920, at 1:40 a.m. In the original document, however, the figures indicating the day of the month (20) appear to be printed over the figures "19." Dizon explains this by saying that, as he was conscious that the affair at the circus had occurred on the nineteenth of June, he at first wrote this date, but immediately noticing that the clock then showed the hour of 1:40 a.m., he changed the date by writing the figures "20" over the "19." The explanation of this error is so entirely reasonable and natural that its truthfulness cannot be doubted.

The following additional circumstance in connection with the signing of this document is also in evidence; and we think it of some value as showing the scrupulous exactitude of the declarant, as well as the sense of responsibility exhibited by Aureliano Dizon in the matter of taking the declaration. In this connection it appears that in the course of reducing the declarant’s statement to writing the declarant had said that while the chief of police was holding him, Jose Blanco was pointing at him with a revolver. In putting this statement on paper Aureliano Dizon had caused the declarant to say that while the chief of police was holding declarant, Jose Blanco was "pointing," omitting to add the words "at me with his revolver." The sentence as thus written, while intelligible, was nevertheless incomplete; and when the statement was read over to Liborio Bustos, or by him, his attention was attracted by the omission of the quoted words. He thereupon requested Aureliano Dizon to add the words "at me with his revolver." Dizon thought it inadvisable to make the correction by inserting the words on the typewritten sheet, and probably in view of the approaching departure of the declarant for Manila, he did not attempt to copy the statement off again. He therefore wrote the words "at me with his revolver," or their equivalent in the Pampanga dialect, on a separate slip of paper and attached it with a clip to the declaration itself, with marks indicating the point at which the words should be inserted. As thus amended the statement was approved by the declarant.

The statement shows on its face that it was made in contemplation of approaching death; and the narrative contained therein covers not only circumstances connected with the act of homicide, but certain facts relating to the history of the trouble between the declarant and his assailants and the motive for the killing. Now, it is a well-recognized rule that an ante mortem statement made under the requisite conditions by the victim of a homicide is admissible in a trial against its author, or authors; but it is equally well settled that such a declaration is admissible only in so far as it relates to the homicide itself. So far, therefore, as this statement relates to past history, its contents are inadmissible, and to that extent the court must exclude it from consideration. But this does not make such statement inadmissible in so far as it is confined to the immediate act of homicide.

Upon examining the declaration in the light of this consideration, it will be found to contain substantially the following competent facts, namely, that while the declarant was sitting on a stool at the circus on the night in question, he was approached by Proceso Bustos, Filomeno Sunga, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, and Donato Benosa. Felipe Bustos struck him without provocation; and Sunga placed his arm firmly around the declarant’s neck. While the declarant was in this position, Proceso Bustos stabbed him with a dagger, inflicting the wound below the ribs in the left side. In addition to this the policeman Irineo Cailao struck the declarant with his club. While Sunga was holding the declarant, Jose Blanco pointed at him with his revolver.

We have been careful to state with precision the facts relating to this written statement of Liborio Bustos exactly as they are revealed in the record by what appears to us to be the overwhelming weight of the evidence; and this for the reason that the defence in this case is largely planted upon the proposition that this document is a fabrication concocted by Aureliano Dizon and that the signature of Liborio Bustos thereto is a forgery. In view of this imputation upon the honesty of the justice of the peace and the good faith of the case of the prosecution in general, we deem it important to collate from the record certain other circumstances which corroborate this document in a most emphatic manner.

In the first place, we note that Dr. Lazaro Yambao who was introduced as a witness for the defendants and who exhibited manifest hostility to the case for the persecution, admits having had a conversation with Liborio Bustos while in attendance upon him on the night of the homicide. Dr. Yambao says that in this conversation Liborio Bustos told him that Proceso Bustos and his companions were the ones who had assaulted him, or as the deceased said, "Proceso Y compania," mentioning in this connection the names of Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, and Filomeno Sunga, in addition to that of Proceso Bustos, as being among those who were engaged in the assault. When this conversation between Dr. Yambao and Liborio and Bustos is viewed in connection with the proof relating to the condition of the deceased and his state of mind during the whole evening, we see no reason to doubt that it is itself independently admissible as an ante mortem declaration and competent evidence against the four persons therein mentioned. Though the declarant did not attempt to go into details to Dr. Yambao, the statement made to him corroborates the written declaration fully upon the point that said four individuals participated in the assault; and these four are precisely the ones who were chiefly responsible for the killing, the others being mere tools dependents.

Further corroboration of the truthfulness of the ante mortem statement is found in the testimony of Telesforo Martinez, a captain of the Constabulary and a resident of the Province of Pangasinan, who was in Macabebe on the night of the homicide. This witness that hearing of this affair, he went between 12 and 1 o’ clock a. m. to the house of Liborio Busto’s mother, in company, with the acting governor of the acting governor of the province, the fiscal, another upon arriving in the house at the time stated, he found Liborio Bustos lying in bed, and the latter related to the witness what had occurred that night. Of this conversation Captain Martinez made certain notes in writing , in conformity with his duty and practice as an officer of the Constabulary. These notes were produced in court by the witness and introduced in evidence as Exhibit Z. which is of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"VICE PRESIDENT. — Entered circus with family. Took seats on right side for wife. Opposite this place on other side of ring saw an empty chair and chair and occupied it. Sat between Irineo Cailao and president’s muchacho Ronquillo. After first act a few minutes after the he saw down felt held by Ronquillo and Cailao. Saw striking him, F. Bustos struck him on nose (pointing on bridge). Filomeno Sunga, C. of P., held him from behind on the neck and head. Jose Blanco struck him with muzzle of revolver on his forehead (pointing just above bridge of nose). These part of face show contusions, and just above bridge of nose shows about 13 part of circle like scratch slightly bleeding. Proceso Bustos stabbed him in abdomen. Surrounded and held by other policemen, among whom he mentioned Roman Bondoc and Policronio Bondoc.

"(The above taken in V.P.’s own house while in his bed June 19’20. V. P. fearing death; as from his answers and statements to me and fiscal.)"

After Captain Martinez had concluded his conversation with Liborio Bustos, he asked the fiscal if it were not necessary to take his formal declaration. The fiscal replied that the declaration had already been taken. The witness then asked Liborio Bustos if he had made such declaration, and answered and he answered that he had, that he had signed it. The witness then saw the declaration itself (Exhibit B) in the hands of the fiscal.

The statements of the deceased in this conversation with Captain Martinez fully corroborate the formal declaration (Exhibit B) in respect to the complicity of Proceso Bustos, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, Filomeno Sunga, and Irineo Cailao; and said statement was also given under circumstances that make it independently admissible as an ante mortem statement. Barring the reference to Policronio Bonduc, whose complicity does not appear by other sufficient evidence, the statement made by Liborio Bustos to Captain Martinez conforms in all material particulars with the account given of the killing in the opening statement in this opinion.

But this is not all. The authenticity of Exhibit B as a veridical declaration of the deceased is further corroborated by the testimony of Augusto Reyes, who, at the time of the commission of this homicide, was the provincial fiscal of Pampanga. On the right of the homicide he went between 12 and 1 o’ clock a. m., to the house of the mother of Liborio Bustos, entering at about the same time as Captain Martinez. The witness approached the bed where the deceased was lying and listened to the conversation which passed between the deceased and Captain Martinez. While the two were conversing, the justice of the peace (Dizon) came and handed the witness the ante mortem statement (Exhibit B) of the deceased, saying that it had been signed by Liborio Bustos and attested by Dr. Jose Talag. The witness then asked Liborio Bustos if the signature appearing thereon was his, and he replied that it was. The witness then asked Liborio Bustos how it had happened, and the latter told the witness of what occurred at the circus. afterwards, upon causing the signed statement of the deceased to be translated to him, the witness recognized that the narrative given to him by Liborio Bustos coincided with the declaration contained in said document.

In the light of all this testimony it is impossible to entertain any doubt whatever that the Exhibit B was signed by Liborio Bustos in the full possession of his faculties and that it contains an authentic statement by Liborio Bustos of the facts regarding the homicide, as he understood them.

But there still remains to be considered the evidence afforded by an inspection of the questioned signature itself. In this connection it should be observed that after the case had been heard in the lower court and the six appellants there convicted, and after the cause had reached this court upon appeal, a petition was here filed in behalf of the appellants, asking that the case reopened for the reception of the newly discovered evidence; and certain affidavits were exhibited which tended to show that expert evidence were exhibited which tended show that expert evidence could be procured to the effect that the signature of Liborio, Bustos Zabala to the Exhibit B is a forgery. Upon the presentation of said request this court at first withheld its approval, reserving, however, the right to act favorably upon the petition, if the interest of justice should so require, at the tine when the cause should come on to be heard. At a later date, in view of developments in the related case against Pablo Ocampo, and particularly in view of the attitude of both the Attorney- General and of the attorneys for the present appellants, this court ordered that the record (G. R. No. 17763) should be returned to the lower court for the taking of additional proof. (Order of March 23, and March 28, 1922.) Pursuant to this authority, additional proof was submitted by the defence. The purpose of which was to impeach the authenticity of the ante mortem declaration (Exhibit B); and in rebuttal thereto additional proof was submitted by the fiscal to establish the authenticity of the same document. All of this additional testimony, having been incorporated in the record with the consent of all parties, and with the prior approval of this court, is competent to be here considered; and it has been duly weighed by us in connection with all the other proof, Its general effect may be stated in a few words to be this, that, far from bearing out the imputation of forgery with respect to the signature of Liborio Bustos Zabala to the statement in question, it completely refutes that imputation and demonstrates the authenticity of said statement beyond a shadow of doubt. In other words, the opening of the case of additional proof has produced the complete collapse of the attack made by the appellants upon the authenticity of the document in question. In partial confirmation of this we point to the circumstance that it was by this means that the testimony of Captain Telesforo Martinez, Augusto Reyes, and Antonio Garcia, relating to the conditions under which the statement in question was signed by Liborio Bustos, was first brought into the record. But inasmuch as the substance in this opinion, no further comment will be made thereon, and we confine ourselves at present to a consideration of the evidence supplied by the questioned signature itself and the testimony of the single "expert" examined with reference thereto.

In order to supply a basis of comparison, three signatures of Liborio Bustos Zabala, but appearing once in the form Liborio Z. Bustos, have been brought before us. These three signatures are taken from official documents and about their authenticity no question is made. For our own satisfaction, and in view of the importance of the point at issue, we have caused a photograph to be made of these three genuine signatures in company with the disputed signature; and as the four signatures were photographed together upon the same card-board backing, all are necessarily upon the same scale.

(Insert picture)

Upon examining these signatures together, the uninformed person would, we think hesitate some time before hazarding a conjecture as to which one of the four may be the questioned signature, so strong would be the conviction that all four sere made by the same hand. We may state, then, that signature photographed at the bottom of the plate is the one that has been questioned; and upon careful comparison with its companions it will be found to differ from them chiefly in the circumstance that as the pen proceeds to the formation of the last word in the name, i, e, Zabala, there is a growing uncertainty of movement and a consequent irregularity in the shape of the letters, as compared with "Zabala" in the first and second of the authentic signatures. Then there is lacking the period at the conclusion of the same, which the period at the conclusion of the name, which the writer placed after each of the three admittedly genuine signatures. For the rest, all four of the signatures are so clearly the work of the same hand that it is almost superfluous to attempt to point out the numerous minor resemblances and differences which prove the identity of authorship.

Doctor Warren D. Smith, who assumed the role of handwriting expert in behalf of the defendants and undertook to maintain that the questioned signature is a forgery, admits that he has had little technical instruction in the art, or science, of judging handwriting; and his practical experience as an expert witness in such matters seems to have been limited to appearances in the Court of First Instance of Manila in two cases mentioned by him.

In beginning his exposition of the matter now under consideration, Dr. Smith admonishes the court that no handwriting expert would wish for his testimony to be received as unquestionable authority, the idea being rather that it is the function of the expert to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion. We admit the propriety of this observation, especially as related to the case in hand, and we commend the diffidence which the witness exhibits with respect to the conclusion advanced by him.

The first proposition which the doctor advances is that the questioned signature is altogether too well formed to be genuine, considering the conditions under which it is supposed to have been made. This signature, the doctor suggests, is about what it might have been if it had been written under normal conditions, and it cannot be supposed that a person lying stretched upon a cot and suffering from a mortal wound of the character of that inflicted on Liborio Bustos could sign his name as well as this. In this connection we quote the following passage verbatim from the testimony of Dr. Smith, as it appears in the transcript:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The main thing is that the script is too well formed for a man who was dying of hemorrhage caused by a mortal wound. There should be much more difference than that which actually appears. The trouble is that the difference is not the true difference that should appear between the two signatures" (i.e., Between the questioned signature and one of the authentic signatures). "There should be indications of shaking or signs of a trembling of the hand when a man writes under the stimulus of powerful pain there should be signs of it, characteristic of his condition. And it is the duty of a handwriting expert to know what those signs are For the reasons stated I am sure, according to my judgment, that a man placed in there conditions could not have written this signature," (i. e., the questioned signature) "in the form in which it is written."cralaw virtua1aw library

The doctor hastens to add that he is not testifying on this point as a physician; and it should be stated that he is not a doctor of medicine. He is speaking, so he says . rather in the light general knowledge and common sense, since it is known that the state of the nerves and the condition of blood pressure leave their traces in the character of their writing.

It results, according to the witness’ own statement, that the criterion upon which he pronounces the signature a forgery has no relation to the specialized knowledge with which experts in handwriting should be conversant; and the circumstance will not pass unperceived that his argument rests upon an hypothesis of fact totally at variance with the facts revealed of record. The defendants’ own witness, Dr. Jose Talag, testifies, as we have already stated, that Liborio Bustos, while appreciating fully his precarious condition, was neither nervous nor unquiet at the time he signed the document in question and that he was then in the full possession of his faculties. Moreover, it must be remembered that this signature was made only three of four hours after the injury had been inflicted and about twenty hours before death supervened. The assumption that the injured man ought not to have been able to make as good a signature as this at the time he signed the questioned document is, therefore, wholly gratuitous and unwarranted.

But of course there is truth in the general proposition that the physical and nervous condition of a writer should be reflected to some extent in his script; and we point to the irregular formation of the word "Zabala" in the questioned signature and absence of the customary period after the signature as indicative of increasing weakness as the hand of the writer over the paper.

We have been at pains to exhibit clearly the principal argument used by this witness not only to expose its weakness but in order to exhibit with greater clearness the inconsistency between his main proposition and his subsequent comment upon the signatures before us. In this connection it will be observed that, after planting his attack upon the proposition that the signature in question is too well formed, the witness proceeds to enumerate twelve points wherein the questioned signature differs from one or more of the three admittedly genuine signatures. In other words, the witness would first have us believe that the questioned signature is so much like the others that it can not be genuine and again that it differs from them in so many features that it must likewise be pronounced a forgery. This is absurd. The twelve points of real or imaginary difference to which the witness refers are in our opinion rather twelve reasons for believing the questioned signature to be genuine.

It is a first principle in writing that exact coincidence between two signatures is absolute proof that one or the other is a forgery. There must be some difference before authenticity can be admitted; and the general rule is that authenticity reposes upon a general characteristic resemblance, coupled with specific differences, such as naturally result from the infinite variety of conditions controlling the muscles of the writer at each separate effort in forming his signature.

In the case before us we may point to the following points of similarity between the questioned signature and one or more of the genuine signatures as indicative of unquestionable authenticity: (1) The similar general effect of all the signatures taken in their entirety; (2) the similarity between the third and fourth signatures as to the alignment of the word "Liborio Bustos;" (3) the similarity of all the signatures in respect to the inclination of the letters, and especially as regards the slight inclination to the left of the letter B in the name Bustos; (4) the manifest confidence exhibited by the writer of the questioned signature as regards sequence of effort, there being no indication at any point of hesitation or lack of confidence as to the next stroke to be made; (5) the similarity of all the signatures in respect to certain combinations of letters made after the muscles of the hand had become free and automatic as "ibori" in Liborio, and "ust" in Bustos; (6) the similarity of the formation of other particular letters, notably the B in Bustos, the small "b" throughout, and the characteristic mode of connection between Bustos and Zabala; and (7) the notable similarity of pen-pressure in curves lying at similar angels. thus, it will be noted that in the small "b" in both Liborio and Zabala, the pressure is invariably on the right nib of pen.

Our conclusion, then, after a careful comparison of the questioned signature with the genuine signatures of Liborio Bustos, must be that the signature attached to his ante mortem statement (Exhibit B) was undoubtedly made by him and by no other person. This is in comformity with the credible testimony of persons who were present when the statement in question was signed, which testimony has not been contradicted by any witness. It results, as already suggested, that the attack upon the authenticity of this document must be considered to have completely collapsed.

We have now arrived at a point where it is desirable to make comment upon the personality and character of the principal witnesses for the prosecution, as well as their opportunity to know the facts about which they speak, and particularly with reference to the circumstances immediately connected with the stabbing of Liborio Bustos in the circus. But by way of preface to what is now to be said, an observations or two may be justly made concerning the conditions with which the prosecuting officials were apparently confronted when conducting their investigations in this case.

In this connection it appears that after the homicide was committed, a rumor began propagated in the municipality of Macabebe to the effect that anybody giving information with respect to the killing would be joined as an accused person in the prosecution which was presently to begun. Witness after witness for the defendants have testified to the fact of this rumor; and although the same witnesses have, as we well know, testified falsely as to the identity of the immediate perpetrator of the homicide, we see no reason why their statement with respect to the currency of this rumor might not be accepted as true. Of course such a rumor could not possibly have been put out by the investigating officers, for what they were after was information; and naturally it was desirable from their point of view that every person knowing anything should reveal it. Such a rumor, in the nature of things, could only have from the accused or persons acting in their behalf. However, whether due to that rumor or to the ramifications of wealth power, and kinship enlisted in behalf of the accused, the mouths of some persons who might have been supposed to know something about the killing were mysteriously sealed; and it is noteworthy that even the two physicians who attended Liborio Bustos on the night he received the fatal injury were examined as witnesses for the accused and both showed a marked bias in their favor. Rarely indeed has a case come before this court in which the administration of justice has been so manifestly imperilled by influences deriving from the potency of an accused person.

The witnesses who testified in court with reference to facts occurring in the circus at the time the homicide was committed, and as to whose truthfulness we entertain no doubt, are four in number. Two of these, to wit Julian Mendoza and Felicisimo Bustos, saw Proceso Bustos at the time he made the fatal stroke was shut off from the view of this witness, and hence the fatal blow was not seen by him, he saw practically everything else, including the knife in the hands of proceso Bustos after the stabbing was over. The fourth of the witnesses referred to is Aureliano Dizon, the justice of the peace, who saw the beginning of the assault; but who, believing, with good reason, that his own life was in danger, immediately withdrew from the circus.

Julia Mendoza is a notary public in the municipality of Macabebe, of the age of 34 years. At the time of the homicide he was upon friendly relation both with Liborio Bustos and the accused; and on the night in question he had gone with Aureliano Dizon to circus, the latter being accompanied by members of his own family. They arrived at the circus a few minutes before the family of Liborio Bustos appeared; and passing around to the right, they took seats in the front row, adjacent to those taken a few minutes later by the family of Liborio Bustos when the latter arrived at the circus. The witness noted the arrival of the family of Liborio Bustos and observed that Liborio Bustos had to go over to the other side of the ring to find a seat for himself, there being no other seat in the place where his family had been bestowed. The witness further saw Liborio Bustos seat himself between Ireneo Cailao and Alejandro Ronquillo, under the circumstances already described in this opinion. The instant the assault on Liborio Bustos began, the witness hurried across the ring , believing that as a friend of both parties he could safely intervene and put an end to the disturbance. He saw the various accused participating in the assault substantially in the manner already set forth in this opinion; and in particular he saw Proceso Bustos making his way into the circle, and heard him at the same time say "Make way; let me pass," as testified to by Felicisimo Bustos. The witness said that he was at the distance of about one meter from Poceso Bustos when the latter stabbed Liborio Bustos with a dagger ten or twelve inches long; and he demonstrated the manner, i.e., form below upwards, in which the stroke was delivered by Proceso Bustos.

A careful perusal of the testimony of this witness fails to reveal the slightest reason to doubt the substantial truthfulness of any part of it. The circus was at the time well lighted by four large and bright lights. When the trouble began the witness was about ten meters distant. trouble began the witness was about ten meters distant, being seated in the front row on the right; while Liborio Bustos was seated in the front row on the left, and almost immediately opposite. At the same time the ring had just been vacated by the performers; and there was nothing whatever to obstruct the view of a person placed as was this witness, or to prevent him from seeing the assault from the moment of its inception. When he crossed the ring, as he at once did, to separate the contending parties his opportunity for seeing what occurred was improved; and, as already stated, he was only one meter away from Proceso Bustos when the latter delivered the fatal blow. To believe that this intelligent witness, who is friendly to all concerned, has perjured himself in order to convict nine innocent men on a charge of murder is preposterous.

Felicisimo Bustos, at the time of this homicide, was about fourteen years of age and was then a student in the seventh grade or the Burgos Institute in the City of Manila. On the night in question he was seated near Julian Mendoza at the circus and had the same opportunities for observation as the latter. He says that he knew that a state of enmity existed between his father and Proceso Bustos, but he was ignorant of the cause. This witness, as already stated in this opinion, saw the first movement of Alejandro Ronquillo as the latter grabbed the hand of Liborio Bustos; and the witness immediately crossed over to a point near the place where the disturbance had arisen and was there able to see perfectly every important movement made. A careful examination of his testimony is convincing to the effect that he speaks with candor, and we believe that he has described the scene exactly as he saw it.

Doctor Hans Gross, a celebrated Austrian jurist and expert in criminology has made an observation as to the weight to be attached to the testimony of youths, which we here quote as pertinent to the point of the weight to be conceded to the testimony of Felicisimo Bustos. Says this learned author:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to be found. The world begins to take him by storm with its thousand matters of interest: what the school and his daily life furnish cannot satisfy his overflowing and generous heart. He lays hold of everything new, striking, strange; all his senses are on the stretch to assimilate it as far as possible. No one notices a change in the house, no one discovers the bird’s nest, no one observes anything out of the way in the fields; but nothing of that sort escapes the boy; everything which emerges above the monotonous level of daily life gives him a good opportunity for exercising his wits, for extending his knowledge, and for attracting the attention of his elders, to whom he communicates his discoveries. The spirit of the youth not having as yet been led astray by the necessities of life, its storms and battles, its factions and quarrels, he can freely abandon himself to everything which appears out of the way; his life has not yet been disturbed by education, though he often observes more clearly and accurately than any adult. Besides, he has already got some principles; lying is distasteful to him because he thinks it mean; he is no stranger to the sentiment of self-respect, and he never loses an opportunity of being right in what he affirms. Thus he is, as a rule, but little influenced by the suggestions of others, and he describes objects and occurrences as he has really seen them. We say again that an intelligent boy is as a rule the best witness in the world." (As quoted in Moore on Facts, vol. II, pp. 1055, 1056.)

Florencio Coquia is a native and resident of the Province of Pangasinan, but for some time prior to the homicide in question he had acting as postmaster of Macabebe. He happened to be at the circus in Macabebe on the night when Liborio Bustos was slain, having taken a seat in the front row to the left of the entrance. The seat occupied by him appears to have been about three meters distant from the disturbance began he directed his attention to the scene and at the same time moved out to a point somewhat more in front of the actors and about one meter farther away. He saw the various assailants engaged substantially in the manner already explained in this opinion; and in particular we note that he mentions Felipe Bustos as one who struck the deceased in the face and he also describes the act of Jose Blanco in placing his revolver against the forehead of the deceased . He saw the wife of Liborio Bustos catch Proceso in her arms as the latter hurled himself at Liborion Bustos, and saw Proceso push the woman to the floor. He did not see Bustos stab Liborio Bustos, but as already stated, he saw the dagger in the hand of Proceso Bustos when the assault was over and Liborio Bustos had been carried out. This witness also states that he did not observe the presence of the boy, Felicisimo Bustos, until the boy was helping his mother and Julian Mendoza. as they conducted the deceased out of the circus.

A careful examination of the testimony of this witness fails to reveal any sufficient reason for doubting the substantial truth of his testimony; and no motive is apparent or imaginable why he should have testified as to these facts against the accused, supposing them to be innocent of the crime charged. In weighing his testimony it should be noted that since the commission of this homicide this witness has returned from Macabebe to live in his native province of Pangasinan, and he is therefore separated from the local prejudices and local influences that might operate to create a bias in the mind of a resident of Macabebe.

Aureliano Dizon, the justice of the peace, at the time the trouble arose was sitting near Julian Mendoza and Felicisimo Bustos; and he had equal opportunity with them of seeing the beginning of the disturbance, which he describes substantially as narrated by others. Indeed, this witness testifies to a fact which, if is occurred, was not observed by either of the three witnesses already mentioned. We refer the approving not given as a signal by Proceso Bustos to Alejandro Ronquillo when the latter first seized Liborio Bustos. While it is not impossible that such a signal may have been given, there is a possibility that the witness may have misinterpreted the movement attributed to Proceso Bustos, and we pass the incident as unimportant.

Aureliano Dizon recounts that in December, 1919, or several months prior to the homicide, Proceso Bustos confidentially told him to keep away from Liborio Bustos, adding at the end. "Take care, if you do not mind my advice as a brother and a friend." It was upon this occasion that Proceso Bustos told Dizon that Liborio Bustos had proved a traitor, referring to the matter of improper relations proved between Liborio Bustos and a woman Dizon thereupon tried to soothe Proceso Bustos, saying that he believed the rumor was groundless and pointing furthermore to the fact that Liborio Bustos had valiantly supported Proceso Bustos in his candidacy for the office of president. This effort of Dizon to quiet the feelings of Proceso Bustos was ineffectual; and as Dizon continued in friendly relations with Liborio recognized that he himself had incurred the enmity of Proceso Bustos. Accordingly when he saw the beginning of the assault upon Liborio Bustos. Accordingly when he saw the beginning of the assault upon Liborio Bustos, he naturally believed that, if he attempted to interfere, he himself would be slain. For this reason he left the circus at once and hastened to the municipal building to report the trouble by telephone to the Constabulary. From this point he directed himself towards home, passing on the way the house to which Liborio Bustos had been conveyed; and, as already stated, he there found Liborio Bustos sitting in a chair in front of the house, and Dizon remained with him practically until the time of the departure of Liborio Bustos for Manila.

As Aureliano Dizon took the dying declaration of Liborio Bustos, and has otherwise manifested interest in the prosecution of the present appellants, his personality has been made a target in the attacks of the defence; and his activities have thus been subjected to considerable criticism. We find little or nothing in the record to justify these criticisms; and we believe he has acted throughout with the commendable purpose of assisting in the administration of justice, a duty incumbent upon a person in the office of justice of the peace.

In closing our observations upon the testimony of the more important witnesses for the prosecution upon whom full reliance is placed by this court, we should not omit to mention Aquilino Silva, a cousin not only of the deceased but of Proceso Bustos and Felipe Bustos as well. This witnesses testifies to the deep feeling of enmity with which Proceso Bustos regarded Liborio Bustos, due to the fact that Felipe Bustos had told Proceso Bustos of improper relations between Liborio Bustos and Proceso’s wife; and the witness says that upon a certain occasion (December 22,1919) he had sought an interview with Proceso Bustos in the hope of bringing about a reconciliation. He found Proceso Bustos highly inflamed towards Liborio, and the friendly efforts of the witness were unvailing. The testimony of this witness, apart from being wholly uncontradicted in the record, bears every appearance of truth, and no motive appears that would have impelled him to testify falsely against his two cousins and their associates in this case.

We now proceed to consider the testimony of Pablo Ocampo, the last of the witnesses for the prosecution requiring particular mention; and we have designedly reserved this subject for comment at the end, not only because of his relation to the defence but because his antecedents and character are such as to require a court to accept his relation to the defence but because his antecedents and character are such as to require a court to accept his statements with reservation.

It appears, then, that a few months prior to the homicide, Pablo Ocampo emerged from prison, after having extinguished a sentence of seventeen years for a homicide committed by him many years ago while serving in the Philippine Constabulary in the Province of Albay, Upon the termination of this long period of incarceration Ocampo naturally turned his steps in the direction of the municipality of Macabebe, having been there brought up as a child upon the estate of Felix Bustos, the grandfather of Proceso Bustos. With no present means of support, he applied to Proceso Bustos for employment; and the latter accepted him as a cropper, placing at his disposal three cavans of land located near the home of Proceso Bustos in Saplat, Macabebe. As the land thus let to Ocampo contained no house it in which the renter could live, Proceso Bustos took Ocampo into his own house, and Ocampo thus became virtually a member of the household of Proceso Bustos. This relation was established in April, 1920. Very soon thereafter, according to the witness, Proceso Bustos approached the witness with a proposition that the witness should assist in putting Liborio Bustos and Aureliano Dizon out of the way. The motive which impelled Proceso Bustos to this step, as stated by Bustos to the this step, as stated by Bustos, was that Liborio Bustos had been intimate with Proceso’s wife. As against Aureliano Dizon, the grievance was that Dizon was a friend of Liborio Bustos and otherwise obnoxious to Proceso Bustos. The witness says that Proceso Bustos promised him, in case should slay Liborio Bustos, to