G.R. Nos. L-6085-86. June 11, 1954

On April 28, 1950, at about 11:00 p.m., the dead body of Ong Tin Hui
was found gagged and blindfolded is. the Oxford Shoe Emporium, at No.
325 Carriedo Street, Manila, where he was working, with his wrists tied
and a cord around his neck. The medical examiner found, on said body,
the following:

“Lacerations, auricular and occipital arteries and veins.

Lacerations, superficial, cerebral veins, basal portion, brain.
Marked congestion and edema, lungs, bilateral.
Old pleural adhesion’s, lungs, right. Congestion, spleen. Congestion, pancreas.
Congestion, kidneys, bilateral.
Hemorrhages, diffuse, hubdural and subarachnoid, specially base, brain.

Fracture, cribiform plate, ethmoid bone of cranium.
Wounds, lacerated, multiple (2) forehead. Wound, lacerated, temporal region, left.
Wound, lacerated, slitting, external ear, pinna, left.
Wounds (2) lacerated, with extensive contusion, scalp, posterior occipital region, head, left.

Wounds, lacerated, multiple (2) extensive, scalp, with contusion hematoma, occipital-parietal region, posterior head, right.

Tight-gag, mouth, and tight blind fold (piece of cloth), face. Strangulation by cord, neck.
Tight cord around both forearms and wrist joints.
Cause of Death: Asphyxia and diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage specially
over the base of the brain due to suffocation by tight gagging of the
mouth and whole face with cloth, and multiple laceration injuries by
blows on the head and face.” (Appellants’ brief, p. 31).

The peace officers who investigated the matter were tipped that Ong
Tin Hui had an enemy by the name of Go Tay, whose brother-in-law, Ong
Ing, had the reputation of being a tough guy and was unemployed. Upon
questioning, Ong Ing, who, sometime latter on, was seen loitering
around Carriedo Street, stated that, at about the time of the
occurrence, he had seen Alfredo Torres, one Antonio Tan and a Filipino
whose name he did not know, coming from the Oxford Shoe Store. Hence,
Alfredo Torres, whose whereabouts were located with the assistance of
Ong Ing, was arrested. Upon investigation, Torres, in turn declared
that Ong Ing had participated in the commission of the crime. When Ong
Ing and Alfredo Torres were made to face one another, they mutually
recriminated and incriminated each other. Moreover, Torres, Ong Ing alias
Cresencio Ong and Go Tay made their respective statements in writing,
Exhibits X, W and Y, implicating one Tony. Upon examination of the
pictures of police characters in the files of the Police Department,
Ong Ing and Torres identified the picture of one bearing the name of
Antonio Tan, as that of Tony. Antonio Tan turned out to be known, also,
as Antonio Samaniego, alias Sy Liong Bok, who, on June 15,
1950, was arrested in Magarao, Naga, Camarines Sur, where he went late
in May, 1950. Upon being questioned by the police, Samaniego declare
substantially, that he was merely posted, as guard, at the door of the
Oxford Shoe Emporium, during the commission of the crime charged, and
that, thereafter, he received from Alfredo Torres a certain sum of
money as his share of the loot. Samaniego, likewise, signed the
statement Exhibit CC.

As a consequence, three criminal cases for robbery and homicide were
instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila, namely: Case No.
12734, against Ong Ing and Alfredo Torres y Sagaysay; Case No. 12941,
against Antonio Samaniego; and Case No. 13031, against Ang Tu alias
Go Tay. After entering a plea of “not guilty,” which was subsequently
withdrawn, Ong Ing was allowed to plead, in lieu thereof, and, after
being carefully informed by the court of the serious nature of the
charge and of the possible consequences of his contemplated step, did
plead, “guilty,” with the understanding that he would introduce
evidence on the presence of some mitigating circumstances. Upon the
presentation of said evidence, Ong Ing was sentenced to life
imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ong Tin Hui in the sum of P5,000,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
one-half of the costs—which sentence is now being served by him. In due
course, the Court of First Instance subsequently rendered a decision
convicting Alfredo Torres and Antonio Samaniego, as principal and as
accomplice, respectively, of the crime charged, and sentencing the
former to life imprisonment, and the latter to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal,
with the accessory penalties provided by law and to jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ong Tin Hui in the sum of
P5,000 and the Oxford Shoe Emporium in the sum of P104, and, Alfredo
Torres to pay one-half of the costs in case No. 12734, and Antonio
Samaniego the costs in case No. 12941, and acquitting Ang Tu alias
Go Tay upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence, with costs de
oficio in case No. 13031. Torres and Samaniego have appealed from said
decision.

It is not disputed that the Oxford Shoe Emporium was burglarized and
Ong Tin Hui killed therein by the thieves in the evening of April 28,
1950. The only question for determination in this case are: (1) whether
appellants formed part of the group that perpetrated the offense, and
(2) in the affirmative case, the nature of their participation therein.
The evidence thereon consists of the following :

(a) Ong Ing, alias Cresencio Ong, testified that, pursuant to instructions of Ang Tu, alias
Go Tay, who begged him to look for thugs to kill Ong Tin Hui, he (Ong
Ing) sought appellants herein; that Ong Ing gave Samaniego the sum of
P200, which had come from Ang Tu; that, upon hearing of the latter’s
plan, Samaniego remarked that Ong Tin Hui should really be killed, he
being his (Samaniego’s) creditor; that both appellants agreed to go to
the Oxford Shoe Emporium in the evening of April 28, 1950; that on the
way thereto, said evening, Samaniego suggested the advisability of
finding a good excuse to knock at the door, in order that his
companions could enter the store; that upon arrival there, Samaniego
knocked at the door, which was opened by Ong Tin Hui; that, thereupon,
Torres, another Filipino and one Chinese, whose name was not given,
entered the store; that the unnamed Filipino expressed the wish to go
to the toilet, for which reason Ong Tin Hui led him to said place;
that, thereupon, the former struck the latter, from behind, with a
piece of wood; that Torres tied the hands of Ong Tin Hui, whom Torres
and the other Filipino dragged to the kitchen; that when Torres and his
companions left the store, they stated that Ong Tin Hui was dead
already; and that, soon later, they went to the house of Torres at
Grace Park, where the loot of P104 was divided.

(b) Nazario Aquino and Apolinario Ablaza, watchman and
inspector, respectively, of the PAMA Special Watchmen Agency, declared
that, on April 28, 1950, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., Aquino saw
Torres at Bazar 51 in Carriedo Street, whereas Ablaza met said
appellant near the Alcazar Building, in the same street; that Aquino
chatted with Torres, who said that soon he could buy whatever he
needed, for he would get his backpay; that Torres was perspiring and
his hair was ruffled when Ablaza saw him; that, that evening, Aquino,
likewise, saw appellant Samaniego, with four companions, at the corner
of Carriedo and P. Gomez streets, and this was admitted by Samaniego;
and that Samaniego greeted him on that occasion.

(c) In his extra judicial statement (Exhibit C), Torres
declared that, pursuant to a previous understanding, he, Samaniego, Ong
Ing, and others gathered at the Cliners Restaurant, where it was agreed
that Torres would dissuade the special watchman from patrolling the
vicinity of the Oxford Shoe Emporium; that Samaniego knocked at its
door at about 10:45 p.m.; that while Samaniego and Torres stood on
guard outside, Ong Ing, the unnamed Filipino, and another Chinaman,
entered the store; that after leaving the store, the group proceeded to
the house of Torres, where the stolen money was divided; and that the
blood stains found in his trousers and coat (Exhibits M and N), must
have been caused by the unnamed Filipino, who had blood in his hands.

(d) Detective Lieutenant Enrique Morales and Detective
Corporal Jose Sto. Tomas, testified that upon investigation, Samaniego stated that he was merely posted at the door of the Oxford Shoe
Emporium during the occurrence.

(e) In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit CC), Samaniego
declared that he had known Ong Tin Hui since August 1949, because the
Oxford Shoe Emporium was behind the store where said appellant used to
work; that he was not inside the Oxford Shoe Emporium, but merely stood
on guard at its door when the crime was committed; that Ong Ing gave
him P200, which came from Ang Tu, in order to induce him to kill Ong
Tin Hui; and that, after the occurrence, he received P23 or P24 as his
share of the loot.

(f) In his extrajudicial statements (Exhibit W and AA), Ong
Ing said that, in addition to agreeing to participate in the commission
of the crime, Samaniego had suggested that it be perpetrated on a
Friday; that it was Samaniego who knocked at the door of the Oxford
Shoe Emporium in order that his companions could enter the store; and
that Torres was one of those who participated in the commission of the
crime charged.

(g) In Exhibits X and BB, the extrajudicial confessions of
Torres he stated that besides knocking at the door of the Oxford Shoe
Emporium, Samaniego received F26 as his share of the stolen money.
Torres likewise identified Samaniego’s picture, Exhibit J.

(h) The sales book Exhibit S, and the cash slip booklet and
cash slips of the Oxford Shoe Emporium (Exhibits S, T, T-1 to T-16, U
and U-l to U-13), show that the sales made in said store on April 28,
amounted, at least, to P104, thus1 corroborating the foregoing evidence
on the amount of money taken from said store and divided among those
who perpetrated the offense charged.

Appellants claim that the aforementioned statements were secured
from them by members of the police department through duress. In the
language, however, of His Honor, the Trial Judge, this pretense cannot
be sustained, for:

“First, the written statements of Torres and
Samaniego, taken by question and answer, are too rich in details which
only they themselves could furnish. It will be readily seen that in
their respective statements each of these two defendants attempted as
best he could to minimize the gravity of his participation in the
crime. This is specially true in the case of Samaniego—the more
intelligent of the two—who had finished the second year course in
Commerce. If really the Police officers tortured the two defendants and
manufactured their statements, the court has no doubt that the
responsibility of the latter would have been placed in black and white
in their respective statements.

“Second, another proof of weight against the claim of torture is the case of defendant Go Tay alias Ang Tu alias
Kiko. The known theory of the police is that Go Tay was the instigator
of the crime. In the eyes of the police, he was the whale; Torres and
Samaniego, compared to Go Tay, were but mere winnows. A written
statement of Go Tay Exhibit Y was taken. The statement Exhibit Y
reflects all that Go Tay really stated to the investigator. Go Tay said
so in court. No inculpatory answer appear therein. This shows that the
police officers did not inject into that statement facts which would
bring about the conviction of this principal defendant. Yet, when Go
Tay afterwards changed his mind and refused to sign the statement, no
force was exerted against him— it remained unsigned.

“Third,
in the case of Torres, he himself stated in court that he did not sign
a document presented to him whenever he did not want to. (Tr. pp.
1077-1079).

“Fourth, in the case of Samaniego, the court
observed that he speaks Tagalog rather fluently. (Tr. p. 1309). He
reads and writes English. He cannot say that he did not know the
contents of his own statement, because if he reads English and he
speaks Tagalog, undoubtedly he could read Tagalog words.” (Decision,
pp. 50-51, appellants’ brief). (Brief of the Solicitor General, pp.
10-11).

Appellants insist that the testimonies of Lieutenant Morales and
Detectives Sto. Tomas, Walker, Alday and Gorospe, to the effect that
said statements were made freely and voluntarily, do not deserve
credence, said peace officers having testified for the prosecution in
other criminal cases which were eventually dismissed upon the ground
that the confessions obtained by them, in connection with those cases,
were tainted with irregularities. But, the evidence sought to be
introduced by the defense, in support of its aforementioned pretense,
was not admitted by the lower court, and the ruling thereof is not
assailed in appellants’ brief. At any rate, what those witnesses did or
said in relation to other cases is res inter alios acta and, as such, irrelevant to the case at bar.

Appellants have set up their respective alibis. Torres said that he
was sick at home, when the offense charged was committed. Obviously,
his uncorroborated testimony cannot offset the incriminating evidence
already adverted to, particularly considering the positive testimony of
Aquino and Ablaza, who saw him at Carriedo Street, near the scene of
the occurrence, at about the time of the perpetration of the crime. As
regards Samaniego’s alibi, we fully agree with the view of the lower
court thereon, which we quote from the decision appealed from:

“Weaker still is the alibi of defendant
Samaniego. Samaniego testified in court that he went to Quiapo Church
at around 8:30 in the evening of April 28, 1950; that after a few
minutes there he went out and passed by Caile Carriedo; that he then
proceeded to Avenida Rizal where he purchased a newspaper and
thereafter went to Cine Capitol; and that he left the show shortly
before 11 o’clock in the evening. This admission of Samaniego by itself
alone is sufficient to overcome his defense of alibi. The reason is
that he could have been in the scene of the crime at the time of the
commission thereof.1″ (Appellants’ brief, p. 50).

It is clear from the foregoing that the lower court has not erred in
rejecting said alibis and in convicting appellants herein as above
stated.

In a motion filed before this Court, during the pendency of the
present appeal, appellants pray for a new trial upon the ground of
newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimony of Narciso de la
Cruz and Enrique Mojica, whose joint affidavit is attached to said
motion as Annex C. Affiants declare therein that they are serving
sentences, De la Cruz, of imprisonment for 20 years, for the crime of
robbery with homicide, and Mojica of imprisonment for 17 years, for
robbery; that they are the assassins of Ong Tin Hui; that no other
persons have committed said crime; and that they perpetrated the same
at the instigation of Ang Tu alias Go Tay.

Upon careful consideration of said motion for new trial, we are
clearly of the opinion, and so hold, that the same should be, as it is
hereby, denied, for:

(1) The allegedly newly discovered evidence is
merely corroborative of appellants’ alibis. It merely tries to
strengthen appellant’s evidence to the effect that they were not
present at the scene of the crime and could not have participated,
therefore, in its commission.

(2) Even if introduced in
evidence, the testimony of Narciso de la Cruz and Enrique Mojica would
not, in all probability, affect the result of the case. Considering the
source of said testimony; the fact that the presence of appellants at
the place of the occurrence, at about the time of the perpetration of
the offense charged, has been positively established by the testimony
of two unbiased witnesses, Nazario Aquino and Apolinario Ablaza, who
were partly corroborated by the testimony of appellant Samaniego; and
the circumstance that credence cannot be given to the testimony of said
affiants without assuming that Ong Ing had pleaded guilty of, and is
willingly serving sentence for, a crime he had not committed, the
allegedly newly discovered evidence is, to our mind, insufficient to
offset the evidence for the prosecution, or even to create a reasonable
doubt on appellants’ guilt. Moreover, as we said in case G. R. No.
L-5849, entitled “People vs. Buluran”, decided May 24, 1954:

“*
* * for some time now this Court has been receiving, in connection with
criminal cases pending before it, a number of motions for new trial,
similar to the one under consideration, based upon affidavits of
prisoners—either serving sentences (like Torio and Lao) or merely under
preventive detention, pending final disposition of the charges against
them—who, in a sudden display of concern for the dictates of their
conscience—to which they consistently turned deaf ears in the
past—assume responsibility for crimes of which others have been found
guilty by competent courts. Although one might, at first, be impressed
by said affidavits—particularly if resort thereto had not become so
frequent as to be no longer an uncommon occurrence—it is not difficult,
on second thought, to realize how desperate men—such as those already
adverted to—could be induced, or could even offer, to make such
affidavits, for a monetary consideration, which would be of some help
to the usually needy family of the affiants. At any rate, the risks
they assume thereby are, in many cases, purely theoretical, not only
because of the possibility, if not probability, of establishing (in
connection with the crime for which responsibility is assumed) a
legitimate alibi—in some cases it may be proven positively
that the affiants could not have committed said offenses, because they
were actually confined in prison at the time of the occurrence— but,
also, because the evidence already introduced by the prosecution may be
too strong to be offset by a reproduction on the witness stand of the
contents of said affidavits.”

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, the same
being in accordance with the facts and the law, with costs against the
appellants.

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