THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FLAVIANO FLORES ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DOMINGO SORATOS AND ELEUTERIO PASCUA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

At
about 10 o’clock in the night of June 27, 1931, a band of robbers
attacked the house of Juan Amiscua in Rosales, Pangasinan. Besides
wounding Juan Amiscua with bolos, they robbed the house of money and
property valued at P840. Some sixteen persons were arrested and charged
with the crime of robbery in band with less serious physical injuries.
The case against five was dismissed for lack of evidence, the remaining
eleven were found guilty and sentenced each to suffer twelve years and
one day of reclusion temporal and to indemnify Amiscua in the sum of P840. From this judgment Domingo Soratos and Eleuterio Pascua appealed.

The principal assignment of error is that the lower court “erred in
admitting and giving weight to the alleged confessions of the
accused-appellants and in basing its judgment of conviction upon said
alleged confessions.”

The appellants are illiterate,
ignorant men of humble station in life. They placed their thumb marks
on their confessions while under arrest. Two days thereafter, upon
arraignment, they pleaded not guilty before the justice of the peace.
At the trial they repudiated said confessions and stoutly maintained
their innocence of any participation in the crime. Pascua testified
that he passed the night in question at home in Umingan and Soratos
testified that he was in Alcala on the night of the robbery. Referring
to his confession, the appellant Pascua stated that he was arrested and
taken to the municipal building at Rosales where the chief of police
asked him to1 sign a document which had already been prepared; he asked
the chief of police to read it to him, which request was denied; when
he refused to sign, two policemen took his manacled hand and made him
stamp his thumb mark thereon; that the notary public, Navarro, who
signed the jurat, promised that he would testify in his
favor. The testimony of the appellant Soratos is to the same effect as
regards his confession.

On rebuttal, the chief of police of
Rosales denied that he made the appellants sign documents which were
already prepared; he stated that their contents were read to and
understood by the appellants before they affixed their thumb marks
thereto. The notary public denied that he promised the appellant Pascua
to testify in his favor. He also testified that while the chief of
police was asking the questions of the accused, he wrote down the
answers thereto, after which he read the document to Pascua and the
latter placed his thumb mark thereon. The same procedure was followed
with regard to the confession of Soratos.

Counsel for the
appellants recognize that the question as to whether these confessions
were free and voluntary, turns largely on the credibility of the
witnesses. We can find no reason for impeaching the credibility of the
chief of police and the notary public in this case. It is true we are
dealing here with illiterate and ignorant men who doubtless never heard
of that provision of the Bill of Rights of the fundamental law of these
Islands to the effect that “no person * * * shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.” They doubtless never
heard of the provision in the same Bill of Rights: “That in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, * * * to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to compel the attendance of the witnesses in his
behalf. That no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law; * * *.” (Section 3, Act of Congress, August
29, 1916, 39 Stat. L., page 545.)

As against counsel’s
earnest appeal that the appellants acted in ignorance of their
constitutional right to keep silent and to demand that they be
confronted with the witnesses against them, we are faced with the
stubborn fact that they signed these confessions and, according to
evidence which we must accept, understood them. The corpus delicti
is clearly established and there is direct corroboration of an
impartial eyewitness as to Pascua and some, though slight,
corroboration as to Soratos.

In the majority of all the
criminal cases which have come before us on appeal this term, the
accused have made extrajudicial admissions or confessions under
circumstances which their counsel thought questionable. It may not be
amiss to suggest that instead of burdening this court with appeals of
that sort, a campaign of education of our “little men”, carried on by
the bar—perhaps through community assemblies—as to their constitutional
rights, might serve them more effectively than appeals to this court.

We concur with the Attorney-General that these appellants should have
been sentenced under article 503 (5) of the Penal Code. The same
penalty is contained in article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, with
the only difference that the penalty under the latter is prision instead of presidio. The sentence imposed is reduced to six years, ten months and one day of prision mayor, and with this modification, the judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Ostrand, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.