THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LI BUN JUAN ALIAS BUN HUAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, LI BUN JUAN ALIAS BUN HUAN AND SY TOP, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

In connection with the killing of Dr. Yu Kiatming on the evening of
March 13, 1946, an information for murder (Criminal Case No. 24342) was
filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 27, 1953
against Li Bun Juan, alias Bun Huan, Sy Top, Ong Tong To and John Doe,
of whom only Li Bun Juan had been arrested at that time. The other
defendants were arrested subsequently, and on January 8, 1954 the case
was jointly tried with Criminal Case No. 24530, also for the murder of
Dr. Yu Kiatming, the accused therein being Go Kim Pak, Alfonso Go, Lao
Chong Ban, Lao Bon Gan and Co Pak, they having allegedly induced the
defendants in the first case to commit the crime for a promise of
reward.

After the prosecution had rested its case, the defendants in
Criminal Case No. 24530 and the defendant Li Bun Juan in Criminal Case
No. 24342 filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of
insufficiency of the prosecution evidence. The motion filed in the
first case was granted and, as a consequence, the defendants therein
were acquitted, while the motion filed by Li Bun Juan was denied.
Thereafter, he and the other defendants in Criminal Case No. 24342
submitted their evidence, and after due trial, the court rendered
judgment convicting Li Bun Juan and Sy Top of the offense charged, but
acquitting the other defendant Ong Tong To, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, this court hereby finds the accused Li
Bun Juan and Sy Top guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and hereby
sentences each of them to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the costs. The said accused shall be entitled to one-half of
their preventive imprisonment. The accused Ong Tong To alias Tan Boon
is hereby acquitted of the crime charged, and his bail bond is hereby
cancelled.”

Li Bun Juan and Sy Top appealed, but the latter’s appeal was later
dismissed upon his own motion (Resolution of November 12, 1956).

Appellant contends, in support of his appeal, that the evidence upon
which the trial court based its judgment of conviction is insufficient
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that said court erred
in not taking into account, in the imposition of the penalty, the fact
that, at the time of the commission of the offense on March 13, 1946,
appellant was only fourteen years, nine months and nine days old.

The prosecution evidence conclusively shows that at about seven
o’clock in the evening of March 13, 1946, while Dr. Yu Kiatming,
hereinafter referred to as Dr. Yu, was standing, with his back near the
door of his house located at 554 Alvarado St., Int. 6, Manila, he was
fired upon. Taken to St. Luke’s Hospital, he expired that same night as
a result of the gunshot wounds inflicted upon his person.

Ong Hoc, Dr. Yu’s wife, saw a small man running away right after the
first shot. Ah Chuy, the couple’s five-year old daughter, approached
her wounded father who had fallen on the floor of the house. At that
point another shot was fired at Dr. Yu, but the assailant was himself
hit on the head with a chair thrown against him by Ong Hoc. Although
this blow caused the assailant to stumble, he immediately recovered
from its effect and retaliated by firing at Ong Hoc and Ah Chuy, who
were hit, respectively, on the stomach and on the arm. Despite her
wound, however, Ong Hoc ran after the assailants who headed for a jeep
parked at the corner of Alvarado St. and a callejon. After boarding the
same they fled towards the direction of Reina Regente street .

Ong Hoc and her daughter were also taken to and treated at St. Luke’s Hospital where they were confined for about one month.

According to Ong Hoc, the man who fired the second shot was the same
person who had come to their house one night asking that Dr. Yu visit a
patient, but due to threats against Dr. Yu’s life, the stranger was not
allowed to see him.

Due to the circumstances under which the crime was committed, the
police virtually faced a blank wall and the murder remained unsolved
until Det. Nestor Ponce and Pat. Alejandro Orpiano arrested Li Bun Juan
on October 22, 1953 for acting suspiciously at the corner of Soler and
Reina Regente streets. After his statement had been taken at the police
headquarters, he was booked for concealing in his person a deadly
“balisong” six inches long.

According to the prosecution evidence, a search of Li Bun Juan’s
body also resulted in the discovery of a note in chinese characters
which they submitted to the NBI for translation. At first Li Bun Juan
claimed that he did not know anything about it, but later on he told
the policemen that the note was about his indebtedness to another
chinese. As translated by the NBI it is now in the record as Exhibit
F-1 (p. 12, folder of exhibits). It appears to be a note addressed to
Li Bun Juan on September 11, 1953 by one who signed himself as Top
concerning the .45 caliber pistol allegedly used in the murder of Dr.
Yu.

Interrogated anew in view of the contents of the note, Li Bun Juan
broke down and confessed that he was one of the killers of Dr. Yu in
1946.

Three different written statements were made by Li Bun Juan, the
first on October 24 (Exhibit G), the second on November 7 (Exhibit
G-2), and the third on November 8 (Exhibit G-3), all of the year 1953,
in which he disclosed his guilty participation in the commission of the
crime. The first was subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public
Herminio R. Noriega and the others before Notary Public Lucito
Santiago.

As stated heretofore, Sy Top was arrested on October 27, 1953. After
the arrest of Li Bun Juan the police had made arrangements for a tape
recording of whatever conversation he would have with Sy Top – if the
latter was arrested – the moment they met. So a microphone was
conveniently installed near the window of the cell where they were to
meet, and their conversation in chinese was thus taken and preserved in
tape. The same appears to corroborate what had already been disclosed
to the police authorities by Li Bun Juan.

Sy Top also signed three different statements or extrajudicial
confessions (Exhibits I, I-2 and I-3) executed on October 28, November
7 and November 8 of the year 1953, respectively, but We need not
discuss them in detail now, not only because Sy Top has withdrawn his
appeal but also because, as against Li Bun Juan, they can only be
considered as corroborative evidence.

Appellant now claims that the trial court erred in convicting him on
the basis of the aforesaid confessions extracted from him by patrolmen
Ponce and Orpiano whose testimonies were discredited by the same trial
court with respect to the criminal liability of his co-defendant, Ong
Tong To alias Tan Bun, and further claims that the court erred in not
taking into consideration the fact that, at the time of the alleged
commission of the crime on March 13, 1946, he was only fourteen years,
nine months and nine days old.

After a careful consideration of the contents of appellant’s
confessions and the testimony of the prosecution and defense witnesses
in relation thereto, the trial court found that the same are sufficient
to warrant appellant’s conviction of the offense charged and that the
only question remaining to be resolved was whether or not said
confessions had been voluntarily and freely made. Said court’s
conclusion on this matter was that they were. It is settled in this
jurisdiction that a trial court’s conclusions of this nature will not
be disturbed unless said court had overlooked, misunderstood or
misconstrued some facts or circumstances of weight and influence
sufficient to justify a reversal or modification either of the
conclusion or of the decision appealed from. Due to this and the
gravity of the offense charged, We re-examined the evidence concerning
the circumstances under which said confessions were made.

The prosecution witnesses on the voluntary character of the
extrajudicial confessions in question were Patrolmen Nestor D. Ponce
and Alejandro Orpiano, besides Notaries Public Herminio R. Noriega and
Lucito C. Santiago.

Ponce – who took down the statements aforesaid and acted, with
Orpiano, as witness to their execution – testified substantially to
this effect: that in the early morning of October 22, 1953 he and
Orpiano arrested Li Bun Juan at the corner of Soler and Reina Regente
streets for acting suspiciously and that upon making a search of his
person they found him in possession of a deadly weapon and of a wallet
containing a residence certificate, three one-peso bills and a note in
chinese characters; that when confronted with the translated contents
of the note, Li Bun Juan broke down and confessed that he was one of
those who killed Dr. Yu on March 13, 1946; that in the course of the
investigation they took down Li Bun Juan’s statement now in the record
as Exhibit G in the city jail; that the questions were propounded to
him in Tagalog and his answers were likewise given in the same dialect;
that Li Bun Juan read the contents of the statement before he signed
each and every page thereof in the presence of Ponce and Orpiano who
also signed the last page thereof as witnesses; that thereafter Li Bun
Juan was brought before Notary Public Noriega who, after reading the
contents of the statement to Li Bun Juan, asked him if the same were
true, to which he gave an affirmative answer and again signed his name
immediately below his typewritten name, after which the same notary
ratified the statement; that following the lead they had obtained
through the confessions of appellant they eventually arrested Sy Top
early in the morning of October 27, 1953 at 101 Pinagtipunan,
Mandaluyong, Rizal; that the police engaged the services of a
technician of the Radiowealth Inc. for the installation of a tape
recording set at compartment No. 3, cell No. 5 of the City Jail where
they planned to have Li Bun Juan meet Sy Top, once the latter had been
arrested, in furtherance of their plan to tape record any conversation
between them; that they were, in fact, able to carry out said plan and
the conversation between Li Bun Juan and Sy Top was tape recorded, the
box containing the printed words “Panacoustic Brand Magnetic Sound
recording tape” now being in the record as Exhibit H and the tape
recording spool as Exhibit H-1; that these exhibits were thereafter
sent to the NBI for appropriate translation of the conversation carried
in chinese, said translations now being in the record as Exhibit N and
O; that on October 28, 1953 they took down the first statement of Sy
Top marked as Exhibit I following substantially the same procedure
followed in the taking of the statements of appellant, except that Sy
Top’s statement Exhibit I was subscribed and sworn to before Notary
Public Santiago.

The testimony of Pat. Orpiano in relation to the execution of the
extrajudicial confessions of appellant and Sy Top corroborates that of
Pat. Ponce.

To overcome the probative value of his confessions, appellant relies
on the following propositions: (a) that they were obtained from him
through violence and intimidation; and (b) that the trial court having
discredited the testimony of Patrolmen Ponce and Orpiano in relation to
the alleged guilt of Ong Tong To, alias Tan Bun, their testimony should
have been disregarded also in connection with the matter of appellant’s
alleged guilt of the same offense.

Anent the alleged violence and intimidation, the affirmative
prosecution evidence shows that the confessions in question were made
freely and voluntarily by appellant and that before he signed them in
the presence of the notary public mentioned heretofore, he was given
ample opportunity to tell the latter that he had been forced and
intimidated in signing the same, and yet, far from doing so, he
re-affirmed the truth of the statements contained therein and signed
them again in the presence of the notary public.

On the other hand, appellant’s story as to the circumstances under
which he and Sy Top made their respective extrajudicial confessions is
so complicated and artificial that one is necessarily led to mistrust
it. This must have been an important factor that induced the trial
court to make the following considerations in the appealed judgment:

“From the version of the defense of Li Bun Juan and
Sy Tap regarding the alleged circumstances under which they signed
their main statements Exhibits G and I, respectively, which version is
above summarized and set out at some length, this Court cannot bring
itself to believe that the said statements had been signed by them
through violence, force, intimidation, threat, promise of leniency or
reward, or any other improper method. While it is true that by their
said version, Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap would have this Court believe that
they had been threatened or intimidated by Jimmy Young, or even boxed
by Ponce, into signing Exhibits G and I, this claim is transparently
inconsistent with and given the lie by other circumstances recounted by
said accused, as will in a moment be shown.

“In the first
place, it appears from the said version of Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap,
which version was also corroborated by Ong Pai who testified for them,
that the said accused went to the house of Ong Pai not less than five
times, where they met and were introduced to Jimmy Young and his
companions; that the said accused then and there came to know from Ong
Pai and Jimmy Young that the latter wanted them to testify as
government witnesses against four wealthy Chinese whom Jimmy Young
wanted to implicate in the killing of Dr. Yu Kiat Ming for the purpose
of getting money from the said four Chinamen; that despite this
knowledge of Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap, and their alleged protestation
that they refused to accede to Jimmy Young’s proposition because they
did not know anything about the said killing, the said accused accepted
an invitation of Jimmy Young to dine downtown, which they in fact did
at Mac’s Restaurant on Ongpin Street; that after the said dinner, these
two accused joined Jimmy Young and the latter’s companions in the house
of a certain Major Duque behind the Pepsi-Cola plant in Quezon City,
where they took to drinking and where the said accused were again told
by Jimmy Young about his plan to open up a case against the four
wealthy Chinese and to utilize them (Li Bun Juan, Sy Tap, and Tan Bun)
as government witnesses; that the said two accused, Tan Bun, Jimmy
Young and his companions went to the said house of Major Duque not less
than four times, slept there one evening and took their meals there;
that members of the same party also went to Li Bun Juan’s house at
Grace Park at least twice, and to Sy Tap’s house at Mandaluyong also
twice, and that in going from one house or place to the other, they
rode in Army jeeps driven by Captain Hombrebueno, in the company of
Captain Polvorosa, Patrolman Orpiano, and Atty. Mores. From these
circumstances, testified to by Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap themselves, it is
plain to see that they freely associated and fraternized with Jimmy
Young and his companions, from which it is not unreasonable to deduce
that they were knowingly in league with the said Jimmy Young in the
latter’s criminal purpose of implicating four wealthy Chinese in the
killing of Yu Kiat Ming.

“In the second place, if it is
true, as also testified to by Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap, that they had
nothing to do with, and knew nothing about, the killing of Yu Kiat
Ming; that for this reason they at first refused to consider and accede
to Jimmy Young’s criminal proposition, and that they even blamed Ong
Pai for introducing them to Jimmy Young, who is a bad man, why did they
repeatedly join and keep the company of the said Jimmy Young and the
latter’s companions? If said Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap were peace-loving
and law-abiding, their natural reaction to Jimmy Young’s evil overtures
would have been to detest the man, Jimmy Young, and to avoid him as
much as possible — instead of consorting, dining, drinking and
sleeping with him. Being free men, there was absolutely no reason why
Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap did not shake off Jimmy Young’s company and
influence, or report him to the proper authorities if he should persist
in his felonious purpose. The admitted fact therefore that the said
accused freely associated with, instead of avoiding, the said Jimmy
Young clearly indicates that they were in on Jimmy Young’s unlawful
plot, and that they just as freely aided and abetted in the furtherance
thereof. It will be noted that Jimmy Young’s attempt to implicate the
four rich Chinese and his alleged coercion of Li Bun Juan and Sy Top
into falsely testifying against said Chinese are both reprehensible and
unlawful acts. Yet the said two accused apparently teamed up with,
instead of keeping away from, said Jimmy Young — a circumstance which
goes a long way to show that the alleged intimidation is a farce.

“In
the third place, Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap had hardly any reason to be
afraid of Jimmy Young or to yield to the latter’s alleged intimidation,
since Jimmy Young was and is a prisoner serving sentence in
Muntinglupa, and the kidnapping case in which the said accused were
allegedly to be implicated was one that had long been solved and
terminated. Moreover, the confessions signed by Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap
have to do with the crime of murder, and it is simply unbelievable that
they would falsely confess to this grave crime because of the vague
fear that, if they did not do so, they might be implicated in a
kidnapping case, which is like saying that they wittingly and knowingly
jumped from the frying pan to the fire, so to speak. For this reason,
the alleged intimidation becomes a tremendous strain on rational
belief, let alone the fact that if it were true, Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap
would not have consorted and held repeated confabs with Jimmy Young on
the matter of incriminating four wealthy Chinese in the Yu Kiat Ming
killing. Needless to state, one keeps away from and does not associate
with another bent on doing the former harm.

“In the fourth
place, from the demeanor, behavior, manner of testifying and resulting
testimonies of Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap, this Court has observed and
noticed that they are not the illiterate or gullible type who could be
intimidated into admitting a crime — least of all, the grave crime of
murder — that they have not committed. The said accused appear to be
intelligent, young and cocksure; as a matter of fact, there is
intimation of record that Li Bun Juan has had previous minor brushes
with the law. And certainly Jimmy Young would not utilize dullards as
witnesses who would be called upon to testify falsely, but convincingly
and with a semblance of truth, against four moneyed Chinese whom he
wanted to fleece.

“In the fifth place, Li Bun Juan and Sy
Top would have this Court believe by their concurrent testimony that
they had absolutely no hand in the preparation of their respective
statements, Exhibits G and I, because it was Jimmy Young and Ponce
alone who fabricated the same. This testimony, however, is discredited
by the fact that Exhibit G contains three pages, while Exhibit I
contains four pages, both of which are typed single space in fine type.
They are so full of details which the authors alone of the subject
matter of the confessions could have furnished and supplied, and this
Court cannot believe that the said details could all be drawn from the
imagination of Ponce and Jimmy Young, without the aid of Li Bun Juan
and Sy Top.

“In the sixth place, aside from Exhibit G, Li
Bun Juan also subsequently executed two other statements, Exhibits G-2
and G-3, wherein he also confessed having taken part in the killing in
question. This court has noted that the circumstances under which
Exhibits G-2 and G-3 were executed were not touched upon in Li Bun
Juan’s direct testimony, hence, he had not carried the burden of
overcoming and disproving the evidence for the prosecution that the two
documents last mentioned had been voluntarily executed by him.

“In
the seventh place, aside from Exhibit I, Sy Tap also subsequently
executed two other statements, Exhibits I-2 and I-3, wherein he also
confessed having taken part in the said killing. Of course, he claims
that he was beaten and maltreated by Ponce in Pateros, Rizal, into
executing these two last statements. This Court, however, cannot place
any stock on this claim for the good reason that, inasmuch as Sy Tap
had already made a full confession in Exhibit I, there was hardly any
need for torturing him into executing Exhibits I-2 and I-3, which are
only partly confirmatory of the statements appearing in Exhibit I.
Neither was there any necessity for Ponce to take Sy Top to Pateros,
Rizal, for the purpose of executing Exhibits I-2 and I-3, since they
could have been conveniently executed in the City Jail or in Quezon
City as was allegedly done with Exhibit I.

“Finally, if it
is true, as testified to by Li Bun Juan and Sy Tap, that their
understanding with Jimmy Young was that they were only going to be
witnesses for the Government against the four rich Chinese and that
they had nothing to worry because no harm would befall them, then it
goes without saying that they must have been greatly surprised when
Jimmy Young and Ponce allegedly prevented them from reading the
contents of Exhibits G and I before signing the same, Ponce even going
to the extent of boxing them. And their surprise and rude awakening
must have been multiplied when they were put to jail, where they were
still confined up to the present time, after signing the said Exhibits
G and I. In these circumstances, their natural impulse must have been
to protest vigorously the trickery that was allegedly foisted upon them
by Jimmy Young and Ponce through intimidation and force, not to mention
their being thrown to jail. Yet there is nothing of record to show that
they registered such a protest, either verbally or in writing, or that
they have lodged any complaint against Jimmy Young and Ponce for the
alleged intimidation and maltreatment, a circumstance that goes to show
that the alleged intimidation and maltreatment have no factual basis.

“In
the light of the foregoing considerations, viewed singly or
collectively, this Court finds from the very evidence and version of Li
Bun Juan and Sy Tap–let alone the evidence for the prosecution
elsewhere set out in this decision — that their main extrajudicial
confessions Exhibits G and I, respectively, had been voluntarily
executed by them. In view of this finding, it also appears evident that
Li Bun Juan’s subsequent statements marked Exhibits G-2 and G-3 and Sy
Tap’s subsequent statements marked Exhibits I-2 and I-3 were likewise
voluntarily executed, since the four statements last mentioned were
taken down only for the purpose of having the said accused identify, as
they in fact identified, two persons mentioned in their main
confessions Exhibits G and I, namely, Go Kim Pac and Alfonso Go.”

We also find appellant’s contention that the testimony of patrolmen
Ponce and Orpiano should be disregarded completely to be without merit.
While it is true that upon considering the evidence bearing on the
execution of the extrajudicial confession of Ong Tong To (Exhibit J)
the trial court expressed some doubts as to the voluntariness of its
execution, this can not be taken to mean that said court completely
discredited the testimony of said police officers including the
portions thereof that had reference to appellant’s own extrajudicial
confessions. As a matter of fact, it appears no where in the decision
of the trial court that both or either one of said police officers had
knowingly perverted the truth in any particular respect. To the
contrary, the fact that their testimony in relation to the execution of
appellant’s extra-judicial confessions was accepted as truthful goes to
show that, in the opinion of the trial court, said policemen were
credible witnesses. In this connection it must be borne in mind that
the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an
absolute one, and that it is perfectly reasonable to believe the
testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it
with respect to other facts (People vs. Dasig et al., 49 O. G. No. 8,
p. 3338). In People vs. Keller 46 O. G. No. 7 pp. 3222-3223, the
following was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeals from 1 Moore
on Facts, p. 23:

“18. Testimony May Be Partly Credited and Partly
Rejected.- Triers of facts are not bound to believe all that any
witness has said; they may accept some portions of his testimony and
reject other portions, according to what seems to them, upon other
facts and circumstances, to be the truth. xxx xxx xxx xxx Even when
witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material
particulars, the jury are not required to reject the whole of their
uncorroborated testimony, but may credit such portions as they deem
worthy of belief.”

Lastly, with respect to the trial court’s failure to take into
account, in relation to the imposition of the penalty, the fact that at
the time of the commission of the offense appellant was only fourteen
years, nine months, and nine days old, the Solicitor General (Brief,
pp. 23-24) agrees that such error was committed and recommends the
corresponding modification of the penalty imposed upon appellant. As a
consequence of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance
of minority, the penalty to be imposed upon appellant should be the
penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal in its maximum period to Death – which is the penalty for murder. This penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
in its medium period. As the killing was obviously attended by evident
premeditation and treachery, either of which necessarily raises the
crime to murder, the other shall be considered merely as a general
aggravating circumstance. Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty imposed upon appellant is, therefore, reduced
to an indeterminate penalty of not less than ten years of prision mayor, nor more than twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.

Modified as above indicated, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., on leave.