RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L47388October22,1940
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
MARIANOR.MARCOS,ETAL.,defendantsappellants.
Thedefendantsandappellantsintheirownbehalf.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralOzaetaandSolicitorGuerreroforappellee.

LAUREL,J.:
In the elections of 1934 in which Mariano Marcos and Julio Nalundasan, both of Batac, Ilocos Norte, were rival candidates for the office of
representativefortheseconddistrictofsaidprovince,Nalundasanwaselected.Thetermforwhichthelatterwaselectedwas,however,cut
shortasaresultoftheapprovaloftheConstitutionofthePhilippinesunderthegeneralelectionsformembersoftheNationalAssemblywere
bylawsetforSeptember17,1935.InthesegeneralelectionsJulioNalundasanandMarianoMarcosresumedtheirpoliticalrivalryandwere
opposingcandidatesforassemblymaninthesamedistrict.InthestrifeNalundasanagaincameouttriumphantoverMarcos.Intheafternoon
ofSeptember19,1935,incelebrationofNalundasan'svictory,anumberofthisfollowersandpartymenparadedincarsandtrucksthrough
the municipalities of Currimao, Paoay and Batac, Ilocos Norte, and passed in front of the house of the Marcoses in Batac. The parade is
described as provocative and humiliating for the defeated candidate, Mariano Marcos. The assemblymanelect, Julio Nalundasan, was not,
however,destinedtoreapthefruitsofhispoliticallaurelsforonthenightofSeptember20,1935,hewasshotandkilledinhishouseinBatac.
VeryintensiveinvestigationofthecrimebytheGovernmentauthorities,particularlythePhilippineConstabulary,followed,asaconsequenceof
which an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte charging one Nicasio Layaoen, a businessman of Batac, Ilocos
Norte, with having committed the murder of Nalundasan. After trial, however, Layaoen was acquitted. This acquittal resulted in another
protracted investigation and detective work by the Governmental agencies, particularly the Division of Investigation of the Department of
Justice, with a view to solving the Nalundasan murder. On December 7, 1938. or more than three years after the death of Nalundasan,
MarianoMarcos,PioMarcos,FerdinandMarcosandQuirinoLizardowereprosecutedforthecrimeofmurderintheCourtofFirstInstanceof
IlocosNorteunderthefollowinginformation:
Que en o hacia la noche del 20 de septimbre de 1935, en el Municipio de Batac, Provincia de Ilocos Norte, Filipinas, y dentrio de la
jurisdiccion de este Honorable Juzgado, los acusados arriba nombrados, armados con armas de fuego, puestos de acuerdo y
conspirandoseentresi,voluntaria,elegalycriminalmente,conalevosiaypremeditacionconocidayconintenciondematar,dispararon
contraJulioNalundasan,entonceselectoDiputadoporelSegundoDistritodeIlocosNorte,tocandoleensucostadoderechohabiendo
la bala interesado organos vitales internos, lesionandolos, las cuales lesiones causaron la muerte instantinea de dicho Julio
Nalundasan.

Hecho cometido con infraccion de la ley y con las circunstancias agravantes de nocturnidad y de haberse cometido el delito en la
moradadelocciso.
OnJune10,1939,beforetheconclusionofthetrial,MarianoMarcos,PioMarcos,FerdinandMarcosandQuirinoLizardofiledeightseparate
complaintsbeforethejusticeofthepeaceofLaoag,IlocosNorte,chargingCalixtoAguinaldo,theprincipalwitnessfortheprosecution,who
was still under crossexamination in the trial against Lizardo, with the offense of false testimony allegedly committed in the preliminary
investigation of December 7, 1938, and during the trial. The defense had not yet completed the presentation of its evidence, and the
prosecution was preparing its rebuttal testimony. Upon motion of the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte, the trial court ordered the provincial
dismissalofthecomplaints.FiscalHiginioMacadaegalsomovedsaidcourttofindtheMarcosesandLizardoguiltyofcontemptofcourt,by
virtueofwhichthelatterwereorderedtoshowcausewhythemotionshouldnotbegranted.Aftertheconclusionofthetrial,theCourtofFirst
InstanceofIlocosNorterenderedjudgmentthedispositivepartsofwhichreadasfollows:
En su virtud, el Juzgado halla a los acusados Quirino S. Lizardo y Ferdinand E. Marcos culpables, fuera de toda duda recional, del
delitodeasesinato,conagravantedemorada,perocompensadaporlaatenuantedeprovocacionenelcasodeQuirinoS.Lizardo,y
por la circunstancia adicional de minoria de edad en el caso de Ferdinand E. Marcos, y condena al primero a la pena de resolucion
perpectua,alasaccesoriasdeley,yalpagodeunacuartapartedelascostasprocesalesyalsegundo,alapenaindeterminadade
diezanoscomominimaadiecisieteanosycuatromesescomomaxima,alasaccesoriasdeley,yalpagodeunacuartapartedelas
costas procasales y ambos a indemnizar mancomunada y solidtriameiite a los herederos del occiso en la cantidad de mil pesos
(P1,000), pero sin prision subsidiaria en caso de Insolvencia y se absuelve a los acusados Mariano R. Marcos y Pio Marcos, con la
mitaddelascostasprocesalesdeoficio,yconlacancelaciondelafianzaquehanprestadoparasulibertadprovisional.
Porloexpuesto,elJuzgadodeclaraalosacusadosenelincidentereosdedesacato,ylescondenaacadaunoapagarunamultade
P200,oasufrirlaprisionsubsidiariacorrespondienteencasodeinsolvenciaofaltadepago.
FromthisjudgmentthedefendantsFerdinandMarcosandQuirinoappealed,assigningthefollowingerrors:
1.Thetrialcourterredinaccordinggreatercredibilitytotheprosecutionwitnesses.
2.Thetrialcourterredinconvictingtwoandacquittingtwoaccuseduponthesameevidence.
3.ThetrialcourterredinconsideringthecharacterofQuirinoLizardoagainsttheaccused.
4.Thetrialcourterredinnotcreditingtheelectoralcenso,Exhibit84forthedefense,withanyprobativevalue.

la w p h il.n e t

5.Thetrialcourterredindenyingthemotionsoftheaccusedforareopeningandanewtrial.
6.Thetrialcourterredinfindingthefouraccusedappellantguiltyofcontempt.

1 a w p h il.n t

The defendants Mariano Marcos and Pio Marcos have also appealed, but only from so much of the judgment as found them guilty of
contempt.AthreevolumebriefwasfiledbytheappellantsandacomprehensivebriefsubmittedbytheGovernment.Bothbriefsare,however,
morevalueablefortheirliteraryvalue.Oralargumentwashadanddoubtfulpointseliminated.
InviewoftheimportanceofthecaseandthefactthattheGovernmentasksfortheextremepenaltyofdeathforthedefendantsappellants,
FerdinandMarcosandQuirinoLizardo,wehavetakenoverthecaseonappealwithutmostcautionandsearchingscrutinyoftheevidence

presentedbothbytheprosecutionandbythedefense.Asageneralrule,thiscourtwillnotinterferewithjudgmentofthetrialcourtinpassing
upon the weight or credibility that should be attached to the testimony of witnesses but this court may determine for itself the guilt or
innocenceofthedefendantandmaymodifyorreversetheconclusionsoffactlaiddownbythetrialcourtifthereissomefactorcircumstance
ofweightandinfluencewhichhasbeenoverlookedorthesignificanceofwhichhasbeenmisinterpreted.
The theory of the prosecution, stripped of nonessentials, is that Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were
prompted to conspire against the life of Julio Nalundasan by the latter's electoral victory over Mariano Marcos, father of Ferdinand and
brotherinlaw of Lizardo, on September 17, 1935 that Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, was a trusted and loyal
attendantandbodyguardofQuirinoLizardothatthesaidCalixtoAguinaldowaspresentinvariousconferenceoftheMarcosesandLizardo,in
thelastofwhich(thatheldonSeptember20,1935)itwasdecidedthatNalundasanmustbekilledthatFerdinandwasselectedasthetrigger
manbecausehewasamarksmanandbecause,ifdiscoveredandconvicted,hewouldonlybesenttoLolomboyreformatoryschoolinview
of his age, and that Mariano Marcos, father of Ferdinand, would in the meantime be in Laoag that about nine o'clock in the evening of
September 20, 1935, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, the first armed with an automatic pistol and the second with a police positive
revolver,andaccompaniedbyCalixtoAguinaldo,leftforthefatalmissionand,uponreachingNalundasan'syard,theypostedthemselvesata
pointwheretheycouldnotbedetectedbutwheretheycouldgetafullviewoftheintendedhumantargetthatCalixtoAguinaldowasaskedto
watch while his two companions, Ferdinand and Lizardo, were to execute the act that would put an end to Nalundasan's life that Calixto
Aguinaldo,afterwaitingforafewminutes,wasseizedbyfearasaresultofwhichheproceededtoreturntothehouseoftheMarcoses,but
thatonhiswayheheardthefatalshotfromthedirectionofNalundasan'shomethatFerdinandfiredthefatalshotatNalundasanwhilethe
latter'sbackwasturnedtowardsFerdinandandLizardo.Ontheotherhand,thedefenseisoneofcompletedenialofparticipationbyanyof
thehereindefendantsinthecommissionofthecrime.Itisatonceapparentthatthevalidityofthetheoryoftheprosecutionrestsuponthe
weightthatshouldbeaccordedtothetestimonyofCalixtoAguinaldo,theprincipalwitnessfortheprosecutionandtheallegedcompanionof
thedefendantsappellants,QuirinoLizardoandFerdinandMarcosonthenightofthekillingofJulioNalundasan.
Itisimportanttoobservethat,asstated,immediatelyafterthedeathofNalundasanandasaresultoftheeffortsexertedbytheagentsofthe
Government,particularlythePhilippineConstabulary,NicasioLayaoen,abusinessmanofBatac,IlocosNorte,wasprosecutedforthemurder
ofNalundasan.Inthatcasethestarwitness,GasparSilvestre,identifiedLayaoenasthemanwhofiredthefatalshotatNalundasanonthe
night in question, and the prosecution, with the same earnestness and vehemence exhibited in the case, prayed for the imposition of the
extremepenaltyofdeathupontheaccusedLayaoen.InthatcaseitwasclaimedthattheaccusedLayaoenwasseenonthenightinquestion
witharevolverunderthehouseofthedeceasedandthatinahouseimmediatelyadjoiningthatofLayaoenandunderthecareandcontrolof
his wife, the Constabulary agents discovered eightyone rounds of ammunition of the 22 long Lubaloy Western rifle, the brand and class of
bulletwhichwasallegedinthatcaseandisallegedinthepresentcasetohavekilledNalundasan.NeverthelesstheaccusedLayaoenwas
acquittedbythecourtofFirstinstanceofIlocosNorte.
According to Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, he was present in the various stages of the conspiracy to murder
Nalundasanand,asnotedabove,hewaspresentatthetimeofthecommissionofthemurderonthenightofSeptember20,1935.Aguinaldo
alsoallegestohavebeenpresentatthemeetinginthehouseoftheMarcosesinthemorningofSeptember15thaswellasatthemeetingsin
themorningandintheafternoonofSeptember20th,TheveryevidencefortheprosecutionthereforeshowsthatCalixtoAguinaldowasa
coconspirator. His testimony accordingly comes from a polluted source and should be received with a great deal of caution and, for this
reason,shouldbecloselyandcarefullyscrutinized.Apainstakingreviewoftheevidencerevealsseveralimportantconsiderationsleadingto
theinescapableconclusionthatthetestimonyofCalixtoAguinaldodoesnotdeservethecreditthatwasaccordedbythetrialcourt.
ItisnoteworthythatAguinaldoclaimstohavebeenpresentatthevariousstagesoftheconspiracyandtohaveparticipatedinthecommission
oftheoffensehereinchargedtotheextentadmittedbyhim.Neverthelessheremainedsilentforapproximatelythreeyears,itappearingthatit

wasonlyinNovember,1938,thathebrokehissilence.ThereasongiventheprosecutionisthathisloyaltytothedefendantQuirinoLizardo
prevented him from betraying the latter's confidence, and in this connection it was admitted in the argument by the representative of the
prosecution that it was only when Aguinaldo was approached by the Constabulary agents that he decided to speak out the truth. The
pretendedloyaltyofAguinaldoisconspicuouslydisprovedbythecircumstancethat,astheprosecutionitselfadmits,althoughhewasaskedto
watch, he returned to the house of the Marcoses before Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo has executed the alleged fatal act. But
whatevermighthaveAguinaldo'sreason,thefactisthathislongcontinuedsilencecreatesseriousdoubtsinthemindofthisCourtastohis
motivesforbreakingthatsilence.Thechangeofattitudecouldnothavebeenduetoadesireableimpulsetoservetheinterestofjusticeand
proves,ifitprovesanythingatall,thetardyrevivalofstultifiedcivicconsciousness.
Accordingtothetheoryoftheprosecution,Ferdinandwasselectedasthetriggermanfortworeasons,namely:becauseheisexperiencedin
pistol shooting, having been cadet major in the University of the Philippines, and because he was below eighteen years of age and, if
discoveredandconvicted,wouldbemerelysenttoLolomboyreformatoryschool.Withreferencetothefirstreason,itisevenrepresentedthat
MarianoMarcos,fatherofFerdinand,notonlyacquiescedinthearrangementbutapparentlyencouragedhissontoperformthefoultask,with
thesimpleremarkthatanassurancebemadethatthetargetwasnotmissedand,ifwemaybelievefurtherthetestimonyofCalixtoAguinaldo,
thathe(MarianoMarcos)wastogointhemeantimetoLaoag,IlocosNorte,therebyleavinghissontoaccomplishthedirtyjobwhilehe,the
personmostaffectedbytheelectoraltriumphofNalundasan,wastostayawaysafeandsound.Thisissomethingextraordinaryforafatherto
feelandtodo,andweinclinetorejectthetestimonyofAguinaldoandtheinferencesdeducibletherefrom,becausethestoryis,whilepossible,
devoidofreasonableprobabilityandopposedtothelessonsofcommonexperienceandtheteachingsofexperimentalpsychology.Asregards
thesecondreason,itappearsthatboththeprosecutionandthedefenseagreethatFerdinandMarcoswasatthetimeofthecommissionof
theallegedoffensealreadyovereighteenyearsofage.Asamatteroffact,oneofthegroundinvokedbytheSolicitorGeneralinaskingforthe
modificationofthejudgmentofthelowercourtandimpositionofthedeathpenaltyuponthisappellantisthathewasmorethaneighteenyears
oldatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.Itisofcoursereasonabletoassumethatatleasthisfatherandtheinterestedpartyhimself,if
nothisunclePioMarcosandQuirinoLizardo,knewthisfact.ThetheorythatFerdinandwaschosentobethetriggermanbecauseofminority
mustthereforebedecidedlyfalse.
WefindtheclaimofCalixtoAguinaldothathewaspresentattheallegedvariousconferencesheldinthehouseoftheMarcosesasamere
bodyguard of Quirino Lizardo to be incredible, in view of the absence of a valid reason for the latter, admitted by the prosecution to be "a
domineering,blusteringgiantofaman"andbythetrialcourttobe"unhombrederebustaconstitucionfisica,decaracterimplusivo,valientey
decidido," to employ as his bodyguard Calixto Aguinaldo, who is only about onehalf of Lizardo in size and who has not been shown to be
capable, either by experience or by nature, to discharge such office. More incredible still is alleged participation of Aguinaldo in the actual
conspiracy to kill Julio Nalundasan, especially in view of the fact that, notwithstanding the attempt of the prosecution to show that he was a
trusted man of Quirino Lizardo, there is evidence to prove that the relationship between the two could not be said to be of the best, it
appearing,accordingtotheadmissionofAguinaldohimself,thathelosthisjobintheGovernmentbyorderoftheUniversityofLaboruponthe
strengthofthefindingsinanadministrativeinvestigationinwhichLizardotestifiedAguinaldo.ItishardtobelievethateithertheMarcosesor
QuirinoLizardowouldallowthemselvestocommitthestupidityofpermittingCalixtoAguinaldo,whowasastrangertotheMarcosesandwho,
as already stated, had reason to be antagonistic to Lizardo, to know their alleged plan to kill Nalundasan and of later asking Aguinaldo to
merelyplaytheinsignificant,nayunnecessary,roleofwatcher,unlessitwastheintentionofthedefendanthereintofacilitatethediscoveryof
theallegedcrimeandtopreservetheonlymeansoftheirconviction.Since,accordingtothetheoryoftheprosecution,FerdinandMarcoswas
selectedtobethetriggerman,QuirinoLizardo,MarianoMarcosorPioMarcoscouldeasilyhavepersonallydonetheallegedwatching.
Calixto Aguinaldo testified that when he and Quirino Lizardo arrived at noon in Batac, Ilocos Norte, Ferdinand was in the house of the
Marcosestowhomhewasintroduced.Itisafact,however,thatFerdinandwasastudentoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesandleftManilain
themorningofSeptember15,1935,arrivinginBataconlyat8:30p.m.ofthatday.Aguinaldothereforedeclaredfalselywhenhestatedthat

hemetFerdinandinthehouseoftheMarcosesatthetimehe(Aguinaldo)andLizardoarrivedinBatacatnoonofSeptember15,1935.
TheprosecutionhaspicturedQuirinoLizardoasapersonmoreinterestedandenthusiasticthanhisbrotherinlaw,MarianoMarcos,inseeing
the latter win in the elections of September 17, 1935, against Julio Nalundasan at all costs. Thus it is represented that when Pio Marcos
informedLizardopriortotheelectionsabouttheimminentdefeatofMarianoMarcos,Lizardoisallegedtohaveimpulsivelyexclaimed"Esono
puedeser!!Sivamosaperderlaeleccionganaremosenotracosa,yes...mataraNalundasan!Conunabalavoyaterminarlapoliticaen
Ilocos!"InthisconnectionitiswelltorecallthataftermarriageofQuirinoLizardotoMariaMarcos,sisterofMarianoandPioMarcos,animosity
and ill feeling arose between the Marcoses and Lizardo as a result of family questions, which culminated in the filing in court of a criminal
complaint against Lizardo for attempted homicide in which the offended party was the mother of the Marcoses. In the light of this
circumstance,wecannotalignourselveswiththetheorythatLizardocouldthereafterhaveshownsuchinterestinthecandidacyofMariano
MarcosastotaketheinitiativenotonlyofsuggestingbutofparticipatinginthemurderofJulioNalundasan,evengrantingthatpreviousfamily
differenceshadbeenpatchedup.
ThetrialcourtwasoftheopinionthattheMarcosesandLizardoconceivedtheideaofkillingNalundasanwithsomeseriousnessonlyinthe
morningofSeptember209,1935,aftertheprovocativeandhumiliatingparadeheldbyNalundasan'sfollowersandpartymenintheafternoon
of the preceding day. But while the defeat of Marcos, followed by such insulting parade, might have irritated the herein defendants, the
existenceofamotivealone,thoughperhapsanimportantconsideration,isnotproofofthecommissionofacrime,muchlessoftheguiltofthe
defendantsappellants.
By and large, we find the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. For this
reason,wedeclinetogivehimanycredit.Inviewofthisconclusion,wefinditneithernecessarynorprofitabletoexaminethecorroborative
evidencepresentedbytheprosecution.Wheretheprincipalandbasicevidenceuponwhichtheprosecutionrestsitscasefails,allevidence
intendedtosupportorcorroborateitmustlikewisefail.
Inpassingwemaystatethattheprosecutiondeservescommendationfortheindustryandzealithasdisplayedinthiscase,althoughitsfailure
toobtaintheconvictionofNicasioLayaoeninthefirstcaseitisnotnecessarilyvindicatedbytheinstantefforttosecureajudgmentagainstthe
hereindefendantsappellants,unlessthelatter'sguiltisshowntothepointofacertaindegreeofmoralcertaintyandthejudicialmindissetat
easeastotheirculpability.
Thejudgmentofthelowercourt,hereinappealedfromisaccordinglyreversed,andthedefendantsappellants,FerdinandMarcosandQuirino
Lizardo,acquittedofthechargeofmurderandforthwithliberatedfromimprisonmentanddischargedfromthecustodyofthelaw,withcostsde
oficio.
Withreferencetotheincidentofcontempt,itappearsthatonJune10,1939,thefouraccusedbelowfiledeightseparatecomplaintswiththe
justice of the peace of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, charging the principal witness for the prosecution, Calixto, Aguinaldo, with the crime of false
testimonybecauseofallegedfalsedeclarationmadebythelatterinthepreliminaryinvestigationofDecember7,1938,andduringthetrialof
the aforesaid four accused. When the several complaints for false testimony were filed, it appears that Calixto Aguinaldo was under cross
examinationintheseparatetrialagainstQuirinoLizardo,andthetrialoftheotherthreeaccused,Mariano,PioandFerdinandMarcos,hadnot
yetcommenced.ThejudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstancewhowastryingthemurdercase,uponmotionoftheprovincialfiscalofIlocosNorte,
ordered the provincial dismissal of the various complaints filed in the justice of the peace court of Laoag against Calixto Aguinaldo and,
thereafter,amotionwaspresentedaskingthattheMarcosandLizardobedeclaredincontempt.LizardoandtheMarcoseswereorderedto
showcausewhytheyshouldnotbepunishedforcontemptand,simultaneouslywiththejudgmentontheprincipalcaseformurder,Quirino
Lizardo, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos were adjudged guilty of contempt and sentenced each to pay a fine of two
hundredpesos,withcorrespondingsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.

Itisevidentthatthechargesforfalsetestimonyfiledbythefouraccusedabovementionedcouldnotbedecideduntilthemaincaseformurder
wasdisposedof,sincenopenaltycouldbemetedouttoCalixtoAguinaldoforhisallegedfalsetestimonywithoutfirstknowingtheextentofthe
sentence to be imposed against Lizardo and the Marcoses (Revised Penal Code, art. 180). The latter should therefore have waited for the
terminationoftheprincipalcaseinthelowercourtbeforefilingthechargesforfalsetestimonyagainstCalixtoAguinaldo.Factsconsidered,we
are of the opinion that the action of the Marcoses and Lizards was calculated, or at least tended. directly or indirectly to obstruct the
administrationofjusticeandthat,therefore,thetrialcourtproperlyfoundthemguiltyofcontempt.(InreGomez,6Phil.,647U.S.vs.Jaca,26
Phil., 100.) In view of the result, however, arrived at in the principal case, and considering that the inherent power to punish for contempt
shouldbeexercisedonthepreservativeandnotonthevindictiveprinciple(Villavicenciovs.Lukban39Phil.,778),andonthecorrectiveand
notontheretaliatoryideaofpunishment(InreLozanoandQuevedo,54Phil.,801),itisourviewthatthispurposeissufficientlyachievedand
theprincipleamplyvindicatedwiththeimpositionuponeachofthefouraccusedabovementionedofafineoffifty(50)pesos,withsubsidiary
imprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.Soordered.
Avancea,C.J.,Imperial,DiazandHorrilleno,JJ.,concur.