G.R. No. L-5386. May 28, 1954

Under the original information in this case, charging robbery in band
with homicide, the only defendants were Benigno Valenzona, Angel
Torion, Francisco Hinampas and Dionisio Togonon. By an amended
information, Giriaco Olarte, Ariston Padel and Manuel Odron were
included as defendants. Subsequently, Hanuel Odron was discharged from
the information to be used as witness for the prosecution. In due
course, decision was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
convicting Benigno Valenzona, Angel Torion, Francisco Hinampas and
Dionisio Togonon, of the crime of robbery with homicide, and sentencing
each to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties provided by law,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Tan Hi Ty in the sum of
P6,400.90, and to pay the proportionate part of the costs? and
acquitting defendants Ciriaco Olarte and Ariston Padel, upon the ground
of Reasonable doubt, with the proportionate part of the costs de
oficio Said convicted defendants have appealed from this decision.

The following facts have been duly established and are not denied:
The deceased Tan Ni Ty had a store in Awayon, municipality of Silago,
Province of Leyte, where he lived with his wife, Soledad Dy, their child
Maximo Tan, a niece, Visitacion Dy, and the maid5 Teoctora Mafclling.
In the evening of May 20-21, 1951, soon after midnight, they were
awakened by the noise caused by several men, armed with rifles, who were
trying to break into the house. Upon the advise of his wife, Tan
started beating a can in order to attract the attention of their
neighbors and get Some assistance from them, but, [forthwith, the
malefactors replied with a volley of shots, evidently to discourage any
intervention. As they persisted in entering the premises, Soledad
escaped therefrom through the kitchen door and headed towards the house
of the barrio lieutenant. Meanwhile, three members of the gang succeeded
in getting into the house by making an opening in the door, whereupon
they ransacked the premises—while a fourth man stood on guard outside –
until they located Tan Ni Ty—hidden behind a pile of boxes in a small
compartment near the kitchen—who, at the point of their guns, was
compelled to reveal the whereabouts of his money, aggregating which was
taken by the malefactors. Then, his hands were tied behind him and, with
two cans of sardines costing P0.90, which the outlaws got from his
store, he was placed on “board a “baroto” in the shore nearby. Thus Tan
Ni Ty sailed away with three of the thieves, one of whose companions was
left ashore. Nothing was heard about Tan until May 24, 1951, when his
torso, devoid of both legs, the entire right upper extremity and a
portion of the left upper extremity, was seen floating and recovered
near the barrio of Bangcas, Hinunangan.

The only question for determination in this case is the identity of
the culprits. It appears that, on May 20, 1951, the barrio of Awayon
formed part of the municipality of Silago, which had been established
only a few days before and did not have, as yet,” the facilities of the
municipality of Hinunangan, to which thenceforth it had belonged. Hence,
early in the morning of May 21, 1951, Hermenegildo Cabig, Mayor of
Hinunangan was prevailed upon to repair to the scene of the occurrence,
which came to his knowledge through information given by a barrio
lieutenant, evidently because of the report of Soledad By. Upon arrival
at the victim’s house, Mayor Cabig investigated Soledad By (who had
returned sometime before), Visitacion Dy and Teodora Makiling. Soledad
declared that upon leaving the kitchen, she saw one of the thieves, whom
she recognized as appellant Francisco Hinampas. Visitacion and Teodora,
in turn, asserted, that, in addition to said defendant, they
recognised, also, the other appellants, namely: Benigno Valenzona, Angel
Torion and Dionisio Togonon. These statements were reiterated by said
witnesses to F. Balagon, Municipal Mayor of Silago, who came soon later
and before whom they made the affidavits Exhibits JJ, KK and LL (see
translations Exhibits JJ-1, KK-1 and LL-1).

Inasmuch as appellants were personally known to Mayor Cabig, the
latter and Mayor Balagon, with members of the police force, immediately
apprehended said appellants in the barrio of Balagawan, Hinunangan—about
a kilometer from Awayon—where, with the exception of Dionisio Togonon,
who was there temporarily, they resided and were neighbors, for Mrs.
Kinampas is a sister of appellant Valenzona, whose wife, in turn, is the
aunt of Mrs. Torion, a grand-daughter of the father of appellant
Hinampas. After their arrest, appellants were taken to the municipal
jail of Hinunangan (there being none yet in Silago) where they signed
the joint confession, Exhibit Y, in which it was revealed that, upon
reaching the open sea, Tan Ni Ty was thrown into the water, with a stone
or rock tied to his neck. On May 22, appellants were investigated by
members of the constabulary, who, the next day, took Hinampas and
Valenaona to their respective houses in Balagawan, where said peace
officers confiscated the rifle, Exhibit N, and the shotgun, Exhibit N-1.
Moreover, hidden in the trunk of a dead tree in the yard of Hinampas,
near his house, they found, also, the carbine, Exhibit N-2, the shotgun,
Exhibit N-3, and several bullets. Exhibits N-4 and N-5. On May 25,
appellants were brought before the Justice of the Peace of Cabalian,
Feliciano S. Nombrado, with their statements Exhibits Z, AA, BB and CC
(see translations Exhibits Z-1, AA-1, BB-1 and CC-1) describing, in
detail, how they committed the crime charged. The Justice of the Peace
took them to the office of the municipal treasurer, where there were
several employees and other persons transacting business, and bade the
peace officers who escorted appellants to leave the room, which they
did. After directing appellants to be attentive, he read said
statements, sentence by sentence, and inquired about the truth of each,
to which appellants answered in the affirmative1. Likewise, Judge
Nombrado inquired whether the statements had been freely made, with the
same result. Thereupon, appellants subscribed said statements under
oath. Later that same day, they were taken first to Balagawan and then
to the scene of the crime, which they reenacted in the presence of
several persons. Pictures of said reenactment were taken and introduced
as Exhibits E, F, HH, HH, 00 and 7.

On June 5, Togonon made an affidavit (Exh, EE) implicating, also,
Giriaco Olarte and two others. This led to the apprehension and
investigation of Giriaco Olarte, Ariston Padel and Manuel Odron and to
the filing of the amended information including them as defendants. As
above stated, Odron turned state witness, and, accordingly, was
discharged from the inf orraation, whereas Olarte. and Pad el were
acquitted for insufficiency of the evidence, none of the members of the
family of the deceased Tan Ni Ny, who were eye-witnesses to the
commission of the crime, having implicated said defendants immediately
after the occurrence or at any time thereafter.

Referring now particularly to the issue involved in this appeal, it
is not claimed that the witnesses for the prosecution or the peace
officers who participated in the investigation of the case had any
particular motive to falsely incriminate appellants herein. Upon the
other hand, Soledad Dy, Visitacion Dy and Teodora Makiling could not
have been mistaken in identifying appellants herein for:

1) Appellants were well-known to them. Togonon was a resident of
Awayon. Again, Valenzona and Torion had resided therein prior to the
occurrence. Besides, Torion was an old customer of Tan Hi Ty. In front
of the store of the latter, there was another store, where Hinampas used
to deliver tuba, apart from the fact that lie played volley ball in
Awayon, on Sundays. Togonon used to eat in the store of Tan Mi Ty and
even to cut his hair. He was, furthermore, a “compadre” of Teodora
Makiling’s father, who, in turn, was a friend of Valenzona.

2) Although the culprits wore masks, the same consisted merely of
carbon papers, which covered poorly the lower part only of their
respective faces.

3) Before sailing away “with Tan Ni Ty in the evening of the
occurrence, the malefactors took off their masks and Visitacion Dy, who
followed them to the seashore, saw their uncovered faces by the light of
the full moon which was shining brightly at that time.

4) The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is confirmed
by appellants’ joint confession, Exhibit Y, made in the municipality of
Hinunangan; by their individual confessions Exhibits Z, AA, BB and CC,
sworn to before the Justice of the Peace of Cabalian; by the reenactment
of the crime made, in the scene thereof, on May 25, 1951; and by the
plea of guilty entered by them In the course of the preliminary
Investigation before the Justice of the Peace Court (see Exhibit NN, pp.
52-52, Record of Exhibits).

By way of defense, appellants set up their respective alibis.
Moreover, appellants declared that nothing was written on Exhibit Y
when they signed thereon and that their affidavits, Exhibits 2, AA, BB
and CC? had been obtained through duress.

Said alibis were carefully analyzed in the decision appealed
from, in the following language:

“Los acusados Francisco HInarapas y Benigno Valenzona alegaron que
ambos estubieron en sus resriectivas casas en toda la noche del 20 de
Mayo y no salieron de ellas, y fueron presentadas para corroborar este
hecho solo sus respectivas esposas Feliza Valenzona y Maxima Jualo.

“Angle Torion dijo que mientras estaba en su casa en las prlneras
horas de la noche del 20 de Mayo fue llamado por su araigo y vecino
Porfirio Ganot porque la esposa de este iba a dar a luz y por tal motive
el y su esposa fueron a casa de Ganot a eso de las ocho de la noche y
alii se quedaron. A eso de las 12 de la noche Porfirio Ganot salio de la
casa para llamar a una comadrona y su muer dio a luz a eso de las 2 de
la madrugada y el acusado Torion y su esposa prepararon comida para la
esposa de Ganot y despues se acostaron en la casa de este y solo
salieron al despertarse a eso de las 5:00 de la mañana para ir a casa de
sus suegros y despues a su ifrabajo en el campo. Porfirio Ganot declare
corroborando la coartada del acusado Torion. Prescindiendo ya de que el
acusado Torion y su testigo Porfirio Ganot son amigos y vecinos,
notamos en los testimonios de ambos ciertos detalles que crean fuertes
dudas en cuanto a su veracidad. Segun Ganot y el acusado Torion, el
primero llamo al segundo para que fuera con su esposa a casa de Ganot a
eso de las 8:00 de la noche porque la esposa de este ya sentia en
aquella hora los dolores previos al parto. Sin embargo, ambos
adrnitieron que Ganot solo fue a liamar a la comadrona que iba de
asist.tr al parto a eso de las 12 de la noche, y esto resulta increible
ya que lo primero que un esposo debe hacer cuando su esposa esta
sintiendo los dolores preyios al parto es liamar inmediatamente a la
comadrona que ha de asistir al parto? sobre todo cuando la comadrona
vive algo lejos, como en este caso en que, segun. el testigo Ganot, ell
tuvo que emplear una hora desde que salio de su casa hasta que volvi6
con la comadrona. Ademas, despues del parto y de haber preparado la
comida para la parturienta, el acusado Torion y su esposa se quedaron
aun en la casa de los Ganot para dormir cuando su casa solo distaba unos
15 metros y ya no habia necesidad;de su presencia porque el parto fue
feliz.

“Debe llamarse la atencion tarabien que el testigo Porfirio Ganot
declaro en repreguntas que los acusados Francisco Hinampas y Benigno
Valenzona, que’son tambien vecinos suyos, ipues las casas ambos solo
distan de la suya 20 y 25 metros respectivamente, estuvieron tambien en
casa del testigo Ganot en la noche del 20 d.e visita permaneciendo por
bastante tiempo. Esta declaracion de Ganot contradice la coartada de los
acusados Hinampas y Valenzona de que no salieron en toda la noche del
20 de sus respectivas casas, ni mentaron del parto.

“Dionisio Togonon aseguro que en las primeras 4 de la noche del 20
de Mayo el asistio a la procesion de la Santa Cruz del barrio de Bancas A
donde se encontraba entonces dirigiendo un drama titulado
‘Walingwaling’ para la fiesta del barrio que iba de calebrarse el 27 del
mismo mes; que despues de la procesion, llamo a los particinantes
deidrama y ensayo el drama durando el ensayo hasta las 12 de la noche y
despues se retiro a casa de su madre Ana Ilip;an donde se hospedaba,
pues residla entonces en el barrio de Awayon y su esposa y familiase
habia quedado en este barrio, y se echo dormir sin salir de la casa
hasta la manana siguiente. La madre del acusado, Ana Iligan, trato de
corroborar a su hi jo.: Sin embargo, el testigo Paulino Gamolo
presehtado por el acusado Togonon para corroborar so coartada atestiguo
que el y el acusado Togonon acompañaron a la procesion religiosa que
termino a eso de las 8:30 de la noche y despues comenzo el ensayo del
drama, siendo el testigo uno de los actores, que se termino una hora
despnes porque el drama se ensayaba por partes, ya que no se habia
terminado aun de oopiarse el original; y despues del ensayo todos se
retiraron. La distancla entre la poblacion de Kinunangan y Balagawan es
de 7 kilometres, segun el alcalde Gabig de Hinunangan, y Bancas A dista
un kilometro y medio de la poblaoion de Himmangan, La ciistancia, por
tanto, entre Bancas A y Balagawan es solo de unos 5 kilometros y se
puede facilinente cubrir a pie en un poco mas de una hora. De modo que
el acusado Dionisio Togonon tenla tiempo mas que suficisnte para llegar a
Balagawan antes de la me-dianoche del 20 de Kayo para reunirse con sus
coacusados.

“La coartacla apoyada por pruebas orales, sobre todo cuando la
soportan meramente testimonies de parientes y amigos, debe recibirse con
riucha cautela, pues la prueba oral facilmente se fabrica, y la prueba
de la coartada debe ser clara, satisfactoria y convincente. La coartada
no puede prevalocer soUre testimonios terzninantes y claros de los
testigos de cargo merecedores de entero credito. Tales son las repetidas
cioctrinas do nuestro Tribunal Supremo.” (Record, pp. 45-47)

Needless to say, we fully agree with the conclusions thus reached by
His Honor, the Trial Judge.

As regards the allegation of duress, suffice it for us to quote from
the pertinent portion of said decision, which we adopt as ours:

“Es bastante dificil de creer en la version de los acusados, pues
si efectivamente fueron” castigados tan dura y cruelmente como
relataron, habrian tenido que guardar cama por algun tiempo o sufrido
lesiones mucho mas serias que meras contuslones e inflamaciones y no
pudieroii haber tenido fuerzas bastantes para hacer la que, segun ellos,
fueron obligados a ejecutar eni el viaje del 26 de Kayo para la
investlgacion preliminar y, segun el teniente Margate, reconstitucion
del crimen. Cuando comparecieron ante el juez Nombrado para firmar y
jurar sus respectivas declaraciones juradas Exhibitos Z, AA, BB y CC
estarian aun patentes las huellas de los castigos y hubieren sldo
notadas por el referido cues de pas, y este aseguro que no vio nada en
las facciones de los cuatro acusados. Cuesta creer que la palma de coco,
teniendo en cuenta su consistencia, se desmenuzara de modo que
apareeiera oomo una escoba debido a los golpes dados a los acusados,
pues para que tal ocurriera, los efectos de los golpes habrian
necesariamente sldo mas serios. Ademas, si los acusados Hinarapas y
Valenzona tenlan sus caras bastante hinchadas, los constabularios no
habrian permitido que las personas, incluyendo las esposas de los
citados acusados, les vieran al salir del dispensario publico, pues el
que inflige tales castigos procura ocultarlos.” (Record, p. 49)

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that
the lower court has not erred in accepting the theory of the prosecution
and in finding that appellants’ guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.

Although the commission of the crime charged was attended by several
aggravating circumstances (nocturnity, dwelling, assistance of armed
men, and killing in an uninhabited place) which would legally warrant
the Imposition of the extreme penalty, the same cannot be meted out
owing to the lack of the number of votes necessary therefor.

With the only modification that appellants shall be jointly and
severally liable for the payment of the indemnity provided for in the
decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all
other respects, with costs against the appellants.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista
Angelo, and Labrador JJ., concur.

Mr. Justice Padilla took no part.