THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO OTADORA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. HILARIO CARREON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANT.

In August, 1947, in the court of first instance of Leyte, Antonio
Otadora and Hilaria Carreon were charged with the murder of the spouses
Leon Castro and Apolonia Carreon. Otadora pleaded guilty, and was
sentenced to life imprisonment. Denying her guilt, Hilaria Carreon was
tried, found guilty and sentenced to death and other accessory
penalties. The court declared that with promises of monetary reward,
she had induced Antonio Otadora to do the killing. Motive for the
instigation was the grudge she bore against the deceased spouses on
account of disputes with them over inherited property. This woman
convict appealed in due time.

Her attorney filed here a voluminous brief wherein he attempted
painstakingly to break down the position of the prosecution and to
expound the theory that Antonio Otadora is the only person responsible
for the slaying, and that Hilaria Carreon is just “the unfortunate
victim of a vicious frame-up concocted against her.” She necessarily
had to offer a satisfactory explanation for the conduct of Otadora, who
has pleaded guilty and has declared for the prosecution against her,
explaining the circumstances under which she had promised to him
compensation for liquidating the unfortunate couple.

There is no question about these facts:

Early in the morning of June 16, 1947, Leon Castro and his wife
Apolonia Carreon were shot dead in their house in the City of Ormoc,
Leyte. In the afternoon of June 21, 1947, Antonio Otadora was arrested
in Ormoc City while preparing to escape to Camotes Islands, Cebu. The
next day he confessed in an extra-judicial statement (Exhibit 1)
wherein he implicated the herein accused-appellant Hilaria Carreon
asserting that, with offers of pecuniary gain, the latter had induced
him to commit the crime. On June 25, 1947, a complaint for double
murder was filed against both defendants in the justice of the peace
court of Ormoc, Leyte. Preliminary investigation was waived and the
record was forwarded to the court of first instance, where on September
3, 1947, Otadora pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel. Hilaria
Carreon pleaded not guilty, and asked for a separate trial, which was
immediately held, with Otadora as the first witness for the prosecution.

The evidence presented on behalf of the People proved that:

(1) Apolonia Carreon was the sister of Hilaria. Due to a family
quarrel, Apolonia filed in August, 1946 a criminal complaint for
serious threats against Hilaria and her husband Francisco Galos
(Exhibit P-1). These were arrested and had to file a bond. The case was
later withdrawn by Apolonia upon the advice of friendly mediators.

In December of 1946, Leon Castro as guardian ad litem of
some minors surnamed Carreon filed a civil complaint for partition of
real property and damages against Hilaria Carreon. This suit was set
for hearing on June 24, 1947.

(2) Antonio Otadora met Hilaria Carreon sometime in April, 1947,
through Amando Garbo. Thereafter they conversed on several occasions.
In the early part of May, 1947, she saw him going to barrio Matica-a
and then she told him that if he would liquidate the spouses Leon
Castro and Apolonia Carreon she would give him P3,000. He did not
agree. In the last week of May he was invited to Hilaria1s house. The
proposal was renewed, better conditions being offered. (1/3 of P10,000
plus carabaos, plus P300}. He must have demurred alleging that he had
no adequate weapon, because Hilaria is reported to have engaged to
supply it.

(3) Around the first week of June, 1947, Hilaria Carreon sent for
Otadora« She gave him the revolver Exhibit A; but the revolver turned
out to be defective so he handed it back to Hilaria. The latter ordered
it repaired by Benigno Baltonado who had previously sold it to her.
Three days later Baltonado returned the gun in good condition with more
than ten bullets, and appellant in turn delivered the weapons to
Otadora who was then in her house, advising him at the same time to
carry out soon their plan so that Leon Castro may not attend the
hearing of the civil case. Appellant also gave Otadora the bolo Exhibit
B, a pair of trousers of her husband Francisco Galos (Exhibit C), a hat
Exh. D and a flashlight Exh. E.

(4) Otadora set out to do hi3 part in the morning of June 14; but
Apolonia was not in her residence. He reported to appellant the next
day and the latter urged him to execute it that day, giving him P6.50
for transportation. That night, at about one o’clock, Antonio climbed
up the house of the Castros, passing through the window. He saw them
sleeping side by side. He opened the door of the kitchen to prepare his
exit. Returning to the place where the couple lay, he stumbled on Leon
Castro, who exclaimed, “who are you?”. Otadora replied, “I am” “I don’t
have any purpose except you, get up and fight”. As Castro was about to
stand up, Otadora fired. Apolonia was awakened, and embraced her
husband who meantime had fallen. Otadora shot her too. The couple died
immediately of shock and hemorrhage,

(5) After committing the murders, Otadora returned to barrio
Matica-a intending to go to Hilaria’s home; but as he was nearing the
kitchen, Francisco Galos signalled him to go away. (He was seen,
crossing the cornfield near Hilaria Carreon’s house by Juanita Garbo,
who so testified in court). Otadora went to his home in Sitio Hubas. On
June 20, at a dance, he received word from Hilaria through her husband
Galos, that he was wanted by the police, and that he should decamp. The
next morning he passed by the residence of Hilaria, and the latter gave
him P5, plus two packages of cigarettes, adding that he should not
attempt to visit her further, because she was being watched. The next
day, she again sent him P45 through Amando Garbo, who delivered the
money at the back of the house of Menes Tahur in Canangca-an. After
receiving the money, Otadora prepared to escape to Camotes Islands. But
he was caught before he could run away.

The above statement of principal facts is a condensation of the
testimonies of Antonio Otadora, Benigno Baltonado, Amando Garbo,
Alejandro Bensig, Macario Bensig, Juanita Garbo, and others. It is
substantially in accord with the findings of His Honor, the trial
judge. Of course, it is founded mainly upon the declarations of Antonio
Otadora that necessarily are persuasive inasmuch as he himself admits
his direct participation and his assertions are fully corroborated by a
series of circumstances competently established.

Hilaria denied any connection with the assassination. And naturally
the defense exerted effort to discredit Otadora’s version, by
submitting the following theory:

Antonio Otadora planned a revenge upon Castro because the latter as
a spy caused the death of his father Sergio Otadora at the hands of the
Japanese. He, however, found himself in the necessity of eliminating
Apolonia Carreon because the latter was a witness to his deed. On the
other hand, Antonio Otadora (and the other witnesses who are his
relatives) also desire to take revenge upon Hilaria Carreon because the
latter, during the Japanese occupation, saved Leon Castro from death at
the hands of the guerrillas. The defense says that to those who had
been prejudiced by the espionage activities of Leon Castro, Hilaria
Carreon appears to be just as responsible as Leon Castro.

The theory can not be lawfully accepted. Firstly, Otadora denies
that his father died at the hands of the Japanese. Secondly, the
alleged “saving” of Leon Castro was not sufficiently established.
Loreto Micabel, the superior officer of the guerrillas, who ordered the
release of Leon Castro, did not mention Hilaria as one of those who
interceded for the prisoner (p. 286, stenographic notes). Thirdly,
nobody in his right senses holds Pedro criminally responsible for the
crime of Juan simply because a few days before the crime Pedro saved
Juan from drowning.

On the other hand, the grudge which Otadora supposedly held against
Castro, readily explains why for a consideration he undertook to kill.
It is likewise probable that knowing such desire for vengeance, Hilaria
selected him to carry out the dangerous and delicate job. And if it is
true that Hilaria saved Leon Castro during the Japanese occupation, it
is very likely that she hated her “ungrateful” brother-in-law and
sister, (who on two subsequent occasions brought her to court), so much
that she hired Otadora to eliminate them.

The assertions of Otadora are decisively ratified by Benigno
Baltonado who swore that it was Hilaria who had purchased the murderous
gun from him for P55, and who ordered him to fix it; that on the third
day he returned the gun to her in her home with rounds of ammunition;
and that Otadora was there on that occasion. The remarks and arguments
of counsel on pages 87-92 of his brief do not, in our opinion, destroy
Baltonado’s credibility.

Then there is the witness Amando Garbo, whose brother Esteban is
married to the sister of Hilaria, and whose sister married a younger
brother of Hilaria. Amando Garbo declared that he was on friendly terms
with Hilaria, taking care of her fighting cock; that in December, 1946
in the fiesta of Palompon, she tried to persuade him to kill the
spouses Castro; that he declined; that she asked him to look for
another whom she could hire; that he introduced Hilaria to Antonio
Otadora; that it was he who, at the request of Hilaria secretly
delivered P45 in paper bills of different denominations to Antonio
Otadora after the crime was committed.

And Juanita Garbo, niece of Hilaria Carreon, confirmed the various
meetings of Otadora and Hilaria in the latter’s house. And there is the
witness Macario Bensig who swore that in May, 1947, at Tabogocon, Ormoc
City, during the wedding of his brother Benito with Luisa Pilapil in
May, 1947, Hilaria Carreon told him that if he would kill Leon Castro
and Apolonia Carreon he would be given money as a reward.

Again there is the witness Sgt. Tomada who said that when the
accused Hilaria Carreon was arrested in June 25, 1947, she was
committed to his custody because there was no adequate place in the
municipal jail for her; that she requested him confidentially to get a
lock of hair of Antonio Otadora explaining to him that if that hair is
burned Otadora would become insane, and therefore would not be able to
declare against her.

Further corroboration of appellant’s criminal connection with the
bloody affair is the undisputed possession by Otadora of the pant of
Francisco Galos (Exhibit C) and his hat Exhibit D. It appears that when
Francisco Galos denied ownership of the pant he was ordered to put it
on; and the judge found that it fitted him perfectly. This incident
gave the defense opportunity for extended argument that the
constitutional protection against self-incrimination had been
erroneously disregarded. But we discover in the record no timely
objection upon that specific ground. And it is to be doubted whether
the accused could benefit from the error, if any. Furthermore, and this
is conclusive, “measuring or photographing the party is not within the
privilege” (against self-incrimination). “Nor is the removal or
replacement of his garments or shoes. Nor is the requirement that the
party move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.”
(Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 4, p. 878, quoted in Beltran vs. Samson and Jose, 53 Phil., 570, 576).

In conclusion, we are fully satisfied from a reading of the whole
expediente that the appellant induced Antonio Otadora to commit the
double murder, and furnished him with the deadly firearm. She is just
as guilty as if she herself had perpetrated the murderous assaults. The
slaying is qualified by the circumstance of treachery. It is aggravated
by evident premeditation; but for lack of sufficient votes the
appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for each murder,
(not exceeding 40 years, Art. 70, Rev. Penal Code), and to indemnify
the heirs of the Castros in the sum of P4,000.00. The appealed judgment
will be thus modified.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.