G. R. No. L-8298. May 29, 1957

Found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced by the Court  of First Instance  of  Nueva Ecija to suffer the penalty  of reclusion perpetua with the  accessories of the law, to  indemnify the heirs  of  the deceased in the amount of P5,000 and to pay the sum of P89, the value of the palay stolen,  and the costs, Francisco Garcia appealed from the decision contending that the lower court erred:  (1)  in holding that the  defendant failed to nullify by  evidence of  duress,  force and  intimidation  the confession Exhibit  “D”; (2) in  admitting in  evidence said confession Exhibit “D”; (3) in finding the accused guilty, beyond reasonable  doubt, of the  crime of  robbery with homicide as defined and  punished under Article 294, paragraph 1,  of the Revised  Penal Code; and  (4) in not absolving the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The evidence on record conclusively shows that on Jauary 20, 1954, Mamerto Valino and his daughter Pascuala Valino went to barrio Sapang-Buhay to thresh their palay and after threshing it, at about four o’clock in the afternoon, Mamerto Valino placed  13 cavanes of the threshed palay in a bull cart and left the place bound for his home in Pagas.  On his way home, upon reaching the Diversion Road, within  the  city of Cabanatuan, province of Nueva Ecija, he was held up and attacked by a person who left him in  an unconscious state and ran away with the bull cart and the IB sacks of  palay.  Early in the morning  of January 21, at about six o’clock, Sgt. Hernando of the P. C. headquarters in Nueva Ecija, received  a report that  on said road a person was lying dead in a pool of blood.  He relayed  it to his Commander and the latter  ordered  him to get some companions and go to the scene of the crime  to investigate  same.   When  Sgt.  Hernando arrived  at the place, he  found Mamerto Valino lying  on  the road but still breathing and, about 15 meters away, he found a blood-stained piece of wood  (Exhibit “A”) which he picked up.  Valino was immediately  taken to  the Nueva  Ecija Provincial Hospital where, despite  medical attention,  he died at about  5:30 in the afternoon of that day.  The cause of his death, according to Dr. Lorenzo J.  Santarina who examined the body  of the  deceased, was “extensive and severe contusions  of the face  (eyes, lips and temporal region), nape and  base of the left lateral  aspect  of the neck; Multiple lacerated wounds,  forehead, face and occipital region; Avulsion  of one upper lateral incisor.”  From the autopsy performed on the deceased, Dr. Santarina also found that  the deceased  suffered:

“(1) Fracture, linear, frontal bone, left, extending:  to the left orbital plate; temporal-parietal bone, left.
(2) Intracraneal hemorrhage, extensive.
(3) Avulsion of one upper  lateral incisor.”

The evidence likewise shows that in the evening of June 21, the 13 sacks of palay were  sold  in  the  ricemill  of Cheung Kiat Tuy by a person whom ha did not recognize; that Cheung Kiat Tuy paid for the 13 sacks P89 which were received  by the seller; that the latter left the cart and  the empty  sacks at the store,  saying that he was going to the market and would come back for them, but did not  show up again;  and  that, early the following morning, Cheung Kiat Tuy discovered some bloodstains  on the empty sacks and immediately reported the matter  to the police, surrendering  said sacks at the same time.

On January 21, 1954, at eight  o’clock, Paacuala Valino  went to see her father in  the hospital and  found him already unable to talk.  At about eleven of the  same morning, she saw the appellant approach the bed of her father, accompanied by somebody whom she did not know, and then appellant asked his companion: Mabuhay pa KAYA? (Will he survive?), a question which showed great concern over the condition of Mamerto Valino,  for which reason suspicion fell on him. He was then arrested by the police of Cabanatuan City for questioning in the afternoon  of January 22, 1954, but was released that  same afternoon for no  evidence was found  against him.   At about 9:30 in the evening of the same day, he was again arrested and brought  to  the  Constabulary  headquarters  for further questioning.  He at first professed ignorance of the killing, but nearing midnight he indicated to Sgt. Arturo Salvador that the man who killed Valino was one Manolito  Santiago. He was then  subjected to further investigation and his statement, Exhibit “G”  was typewritten, wherein he declared that at about 6:30 in the evening of January 20,1954, Manolito Santiago and one companion held up Valino and robbed  him of  his bull cart and palay which  Manolito Santiago and companion took away.  Then Sgt.  Salvador sent for Manolito and confronted him with the appellant. Manolito denied any participation in the robbery and stated that he was being pointed to by Francisco  Garcia because the latter had a grudge against him on account of a certain lady both  were  courting.   Manolito was then released and appellant  retained  in the  barracks.  Early  at  dawn  of January 23,  1954,  Garcia  called  Sgt.  Salvador  and  told him that he was,ready to confess the truth.  His statement. Exhibit “D”  was then taken.   It reads as follows:

“Ako  si FRANCISCO  E..  GARCIA, alias “Kiko”, may 21 taong gulang,  binata, magsasaka at naninirahan sa  Diversion  dito sa lun- sod ng Cabanatuan, matapos na makapanumpa ng ayon  sa batas  ay malaya  at kusang’-loob na nagsalaysay ng  mga  sumusunod:
 
“Na, nuong magiika 5:00 ng hapon,  (araw ng Miyercoles) ika 20 ng Enero, 1954, ako  ay umalis sa  aming bahay  sa Diversion, at ako ay nagtungo sa  may Out-Post ng  Pulis sa panulnkan ng Highway Road  at  kaisadang bago na patungong Papaya.
 
“Na, nang dumating ako sa n&sabing panulukan  ng  daan ay nakakuha ako ng  kaputol na kahoy  (kamatsili),  at yaon  ay aking tinungkod-tungkod ko habang altofy naglalakad sa bagong kaisadang patimgoiig Papaya.
 
“Na, nang dumidilim na, sa  aking; paglalakad ay  nakasalubong ako ng  nagkakariton  sa  makalampas ng tubig humigit kumulang ay may  layong  mga apat na unat  auga sa highway.  Ang nasabing. nagkakariton ay  isang matandang  lalaking nagiisa lamang.
 
“Na, ang  sadyang layunin ko mion ay lumabaa sa bukid, nguni’t ng makita kong nagiisa  zing matandang’ lalaki ay naisipan kong: harangin iyon,  kaya’t  sa  sandaling makalampas ng kauiiti sa akin “ang nasabing karitoii  at  maagapay sa akin ang  matandang lalaki, ang ginawa ko  ay hinampas ko ng aking dalang kahoy at siya ay tinamaan sa batok, Ang matandang lalaki y  nahulog  sa  karifcoli.  Ang ginawa ay pinangko ko siya  at  aking dinala sa bukid sa may gawing kanan kung mang-gagaling rito.  Nang mailayo  ng humigit kumulang sa mga daiawangpung   (20)  unat  sa  kalsada sa aking palagay,  ay  muli ko siyang pinalo  sa mukba ng may sampung ttlit.
 
“Na nang inaakala  kong  mamatay na ang nasabing matanda, ang ginawa ko  ay iniwan ko  na siya at sinakyan ko ang  kariton. Idinaan ko sa highway at itinuloy ko sa puno ni Tecson sa daang Melencio.  Ipinagbili ko roon  ang labing-tatlong (13) kabang palay, at nang matanggap ko  na ang kabayarang walongpu at isang piso (P81),  ako ay umalis at  sinabi kong may pupuntahan lamang ako sandali, sapagkat ang kalabao at  karitort ay iniwan ko  na roon.

“Na, ako nuon ay nagtuloy sa bayan at ako ay kumain  sa isang restaurant (City  Cafe).  Matapos po iyon  ay nmuwi  na ako sa aniin at  ako’y natulos1 na.

“Na, kaya ko doon dinala sa kono ni Tecson ang palay ay sapagka’t mayroon akong kakilala roong kargador at ito ay si Pablo na hindi Uo alam ang upelyido.

NA SA  KATOTOHANAN NG LAHAT, ako  ay  malaya at kusang-loob na lumagda sa ibaba  nito  na  wala sino mang pumilit sa akin o Jiangako kaya ng ano mang uring gantingpala.

(Sgd.)  Francisco K.  Garcia

After  signing this statement, he was  brought  to the Special Counsel Filomeno F.  Soto before whom said statement was sworn to by him.  He was asked by the Special Counsel  if. the statement was his and he answered in the affirmative.  He was also asked if he had been threatened, or promised any  reward or  remuneration  before  signing the  same and  he answered in the  negative.   He affirmed before the  Special  Counsel the  truth of  the  contents of said  statement.

In the case  at  bar there is  no direct eyewitness to the perpetration of the crime.   The only  evidence linking the accused  with  the crime is  the confession which  he claims was obtained from him  by means  of  threat, violence and intimidation.   On  the witness  stand,  he repudiated  Exhibit “D”, alleging  that it  was the result of maltreatment inflicted upon  him by Sgt. Marania of the P.  C.  and that he  had signed it to avoid being killed.  He also  testified that at  the time the  crime  at  bar was  perpetrated,  he was at the store  of Laura Martin in the Diversion Road where he  was  eating halo-halo  and conversing with one Pedro, and that he remained, in that store up to ten o’clock in  the evening.

The question therefore revolves  about the proper valueand weight of the aforequoted  confession marked Exhibit “D”.  It was  evaluated by  the trial  judge,  clearly  and exhaustively,  and we make our own such evaluation which is expounded in the following portion of the  decision:

“Explaining the circumstances surrounding the taking and signing of the statement marked Exhibit “D”, he  declared that he was picked Tip  by the police of Cabanatuan  at about 4:30 in the afternoon of January 22, 1954, far  investigation, but  he was later released when they could not  find  any evidence against  him. However, he was; picked up again by Sgt. Marania of the P. C. at about  9:30 that evening of the same day.  After Ms arrival at the P. C. headquarters,. Sgt. Marania sailed for one  Salvador, who asked him why he was accused of having comrn itted the robbery  at the extension  of  A. Mabini street.  He said he knew nothing  about  it.  He  was then taken  by two  soldiers outside  the; barracks  near  the kitchen and maltreated by them.  He  was  hoxed  on the  stomach many times and ho lost  consciousness.   They  then forced him to  admit his guilt and  when he refused they continued maltreating him.  After that  he was asked again if he would admit it, but he again refused.  Sgt.. Torres brought him some  papers on January 23,  1954, at  about 5:00 p. m.   This appears to be  Exhibit “D” which he  was asked to sign.  He asked him to read  the  same  to  him,  but he refused* so he  refused to  sign it and they maltreated him  again. He lost consciousness and when  he came  to, he was asked to sign it  otherwise he  would  die,  Again he refused.  They then pointed their guns  on  his back and asked him again to sign in order that  he would  be  released, which he did.   After signing the said  statement  they stopped maltreating him.

He was then warned by the soldiers to maintain  what he had  signed, otherwise  he would  he killed. He was then  brought in a jeep to the  City Hall before Special  Counsel Filomeno J. Soto,  who read to him his statement.   When asked  if he  admitted the truth  of the  same, he answered  in the affirmative, because of the warning given him by the P. C. Soldiers. From there he went back to the  Philippine Constabulary headquarters where  ho stayed  for five  days.   He  was  later examined  by Dr, Ronqirillo, City  Health Officer,  for physical injuries.

The  whole  case, therefore, revolves around  the  admissibility  of the sworn statement signed by the defendant and marked  Exhibit “D” in this  case.  The defendant claims  that the same was extorted from him by means  of  force, violence and  intimidation.   Since the presumption  of  law is in favor  of the spontaneity and voluntariness of the  statement given by the defendant, it  becomes incumbent upon him  to destroy  the said presumption.  There is no evidence of a higher quality than a confession.  It represents the  outward  manifestation of the guilty conscience of a man.  Unless, therefore, the confession  is nullified by  evidence of  duress,  which is  denied  by the investigators,  the same is admissible as  an evidence of guilt  of a high quality.  This, the Court believes, the defendant failed to do. He offered nothing tangible to support  his  claim.  It is  true that Dr. Ronquillo declared that he found a tender portion’ in the abdomen of the defendant  about the size of a santol fruit, yet it had no visible sign of  reddening or bulging. ” It  is  very strange, however,

 that if  what the defendant described is  true, the physician should have  found not  only one  but  several  contusions  and traces  of violence of a more serious  nature,  since according to him he had been so severely beaten  that he  even lost consciousness.
 
With respect  to  the sworn  statement signed by  the defendant, it must  be noted that he executed another statement marked Exhibit “G” in this case when he was first investigated by the P. C. agents. In this statement he was imputing the commission of this  crime  to  another person  by the  name of  Manolito  Santiago.  When  this party was contacted, it turned out that there  was a grudge between them  and  so  the  imputation made by the defendant was not given any significance.  He  cannot claim that he was given fist blows and other  forms of maltreatment  when he executed Exhibit “G”.  He denies having executed the same  voluntarily, but his denial becomes absurd  when  we consider that  the  investigators did not even know the  party  whom the defendant was  accusing  to be the true author of the crime.  And Exhibit “G” is not even a  confession on his part. It is clear, therefore,  that the  defendant had  been  trying  to  fool or mislead the investigators in order to divert their attention away from him.
 
On  the  other hand, when  he was before  the  Special  Counsel, he  was  asked  if he had  been  influenced in  any way to  sign the statement, his  answer was in  the  negative,  When asked if he signed the same voluntarily, he said  “Yes”.  He had the best opportunity in his  life to denounce those who had used third degree in making him sign a confession, which is not true, but he missed  this opportunity by  saying nothing  but,  instead,  affirming the  truth of . the  contents  of the  said exhibit.  Moreover,  hs  was  visited  by his uncle,  a  very responsible public official, being  the principal of the Central Luzon  School of Arts and.Trade, shortly after  he  had  signed the statement before the P. C. investigators, which according to him was done through violence and intimidation, but he never told his  uncle  about it.  When  asked why he  failed  to do so, he said he was  afraid  and yet he stated that he  told him later after he had already  sworn  to  the statement before the Special  Counsel  while still under the custody of  the soldiers, which appears to be .an  afterthought.
 
Moreover, there is evidence  that on the afternoon when  the deceased was  still  confined  in  the  hospital  the defendant  looked inside  and asked someone this question: “Mabuhay pa kaya?” This question is very significant  in the sense  that—not being a relative of the deceased  nor even  a friend, the  defendant wondered if the patient was going to survive. Why should he be interested in the’ survival of  the  said  patient?  He has no explanation  to offer for this remark, but only a  mere denial,  which the Court cannot accept as valid. The effect of this attempt of the defendant to explain the circumstances surrounding the taking of his statement is only to show that he has failed altogether to destroy the validity of the said statement.

As to the defense of alibi offered by the appellant, suffice it to say that it cannot be entertained in view of his con- fession Exhibit “D”, which  is corroborated by the testi- mony of Cheung Kiat Tuy alias Tecson with regard to the , sale of the palay in question at his store and the fact that the seller of said palay left the empty sacks and the cart with bloodstains in  that  store. Wherefore, finding no error in the  decision  appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in toto,  with costs against the appellant.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes, A., Bautista  Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,  J. B.  L.,  and Felix, JJ., concur.