THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO RIPARIP ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Enrique Roldan, ex-mayor of Bayambang, Pangasinan, and a lieutenant
in Ramsey’s guerrilla outfit, was, on December 27, 1944, kidnapped and
on the following day killed by members of other guerrilla units
operating in that region. For this killing three informations for
murder were filed after liberation: one against Hilario Ambat, one
against Genaro Bato, and one against Alfredo Riparip, Carlos Lauson,
Florencio Ilagan, Federico Alcantara, Loreto Bravo, and Ernesto Flores.
The case against Hilario Ambat is not before us, but according to one
of the briefs, that case was, upon motion of the prosecution, ordered
dismissed. The other two cases were, upon petition of the parties,
heard jointly, although the defendants were granted separate trials “on
condition that the evidence of the prosecution would be considered as
presented against each and every one of said defendants without need of
reproducing it in every individual case.” Ernesto Flores, one of the
defendants in the third case, was ordered discharged before trial so
that he could be used as Government witness.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that the said Enrique Roldan
was the holder of a license issued by the Occupation authorities for
the exploitation of a fishpond in Bayambang. The products of this
fishpond he shared with the men of his guerrilla unit. But, apparently,
some leaders of Hunter’s ROTC and the Allied Intelligence Bureau
guerrillas also wanted the fishpond for themselves, for in November,
1944, a group of men from both outfits, headed by Hilario Ambat and
appellant Genaro Bato, went to see Roldan and demanded possession of
the fishpond, and when the demand was refused, they told him that
“someday he would pay for his refusal.” Some time thereafter, the group
returned and made another attempt to get possession of the fishpond,
but as Roldan would not yield, they came back later in the night and
tried to lay hands on him. He was, however, able to escape. But
finally, on December 27, 1944, a group, composed of Ernesto Flores (the
accused who turned state witness), Carlos Lauson, Florencio Ilagan,
Federico Alcantara, Lereto Bravo, and the appellant Genaro Bato,
succeeded in capturing Roldan in his country house. Taking him to the
barrio of Lagari, Bayambang, they surrendered him to the appellant
Alfredo Riparip, a ranking guerrilla officer, and then left. But on the
following day, the appellant Bato, accompanied by Alcantara and Flores,
returned to Lagari and from there proceeded to the nearby barrio of
Nagsang where Riparip had his headquarters. There Alcantara dug a pit.
Brought to the edge of the pit by Bravo and a companion, Roldan, who
had his hands tied behind his back, asked for mercy from Riparip, who
was then present. Bub ignoring the plea, Riparip turned to Bravo and
gave him the order “Go ahead, kill him,” whereupon, Bravo gave Roldan
two bayonet thrusts, killing him. Falling into the pit, Roldan’s body
was covered with earth by Ernesto Flores. With the assistance of
Alcantara, this pit was located after liberation and Roldan’s remains
exhumed and identified.

After the execution of Roldan, Daniel Bato Hilario Ambat a nd the
two appellants herein took possession of the fishpond in question and
exploited the same by selling its products.

Testifying in his own defense, appellant Riparip tried to establish an alibi,
declaring that it wa.s not true, as testified to by Ernesto Flores,
that he had ordered the killing of Roldan, for he was at the time in
the barrio of San Francisco, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac. He said that Roldan
was a compadre of his father-in-law, and when he learned of
his arrest he hastened to his rescue, but it was too late, for when he
got to the place of execution appellant Bato and Alcantara told him
that Roldan had already been killed. He would attribute his inclusion
in this case to his refusal to pay a bribe to Roldan’s brother, the
chief of police, Antonio Roldan, who, he said, had offered to release
him if he would give him P3,000 from his back pay. He admitted that he
had worked for Roldan as watchman of his fisheries for three months;
that Roldan was giving some of the fish from his fisheries to his
guerrilla unit; that he had no personal knowledge that Roldan was a
Japanese spy and that it is true, as reported in his affidavit Exh. I,
that when he asked Bato and one Iding (probably Federico Alcantara) why
they killed Roldan, they answered that it was “because of the
fisheries.”

The appellant Genaro Bato, on his part, while admitting
participation in the apprehension of Roldan, disclaimed responsibility
therefor. He testified that on the night of December 27, 1944, while he
was with Flores and Alcantara, the three of them being unarmed, they
met a force of 7 or 8 men armed with sub machine guns, carbines, and
pistols and headed by Riparip and Lauson, whose names at the time
struck terror in that locality; that this group at gunpoint compelled
them to go with them to arrest Roldan but sent them home after Roldan
had been arrested and was being brought to Riparip’s headquarters; that
the following day Riparip sent for them and informed them that Roldan
had already been executed; that he knew Riparip and Roldan to be
partners in the fishery business and that when he asked Riparip why
Roldan was arrested, Riparip told him that it was because Roldan had
cheated him in that business; and that he and his men had been told by
Ambat to keep an eye on Riparip who had a reputation for lawlessness
for taking fish out of fishponds that did not belong to him.

The lower court acquitted Carlos Lauson and Florencio Ilagan, but
found the remaining defendants guilty. From the judgment of conviction,
Alfredo Riparip, Genaro Bato, and Loreto Bravo appealed, but Bravo’s
appeal was later allowed to be withdrawn. The sentence against Riparip
and Bato reads’ as follows:

“(1) Declaring the defendant Alfredo Riparip guilty,
as principal, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for having
ordered the killing of Enrique M. Roldan by Loreto Bravo under
treacherous circumstances and imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
with the accessories of the law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Enrique M. Roldan, Jointly and severally with his co-accused convicted
in these cases, in the sum of P8,000; and to pay 1/5 of the costs.

“(1) Declaring the defendant Genaro Bato, alias Arong, guilty, as principal, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
with the accessories of the law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Enrique M. Roldan; (,) jointly and severally with the accused convicted
in Criminal Case No. 17191, in the sum of P8,000 and to pay the costs.”

The killing of Enrique Roldan at the time and place and in the
manner above narrated is beyond dispute, the same being admitted by the
executioner himself, the accused Loreto Bravo, who, acting under orders
from a superior, gave Roldan two bayonet thrusts which caused his
death. The only question is whether these appellants have had anything
to do with the crime»

The appellant Riparip would wash his hands of the whole affair by
denying having given the order to kill Roldan, declaring that he was in
the province of Tarlac when Roldan was killed. But considering that the
killing took place at Nagsang, where Riparip had his headquarters, it
is not likely that it could have been done without his authority,
specially in view of Bato’s testimony that it was Riparip who ordered
Roldan’s arrest. Riparipis explanation that he teas included in the
complaint because of his refusal to pay a bribe to Roldan’s brother is
denied by the latter and is unsupported by reliable proof. Anyway, we
have the testimony of Ernesto Flores that Riparip was present at
Roldan’s execution and was, as a matter of fact, the one who gave the
order to kill.

Counsel for Riparip tries to impugn Flores testimony as coming from
a polluted source, the same being supposedly given in consideration for
his discharge. But as the Solicitor General observes in his brief,
“Flores’ version at the trial was but a reiteration of his affidavit
and his testimony during the preliminary, investigation before the
justice of the peace * * *, both of which were subscribed by him prior
to his discharge.” It is true that the testimony of an accomplice
should be scrutinized with care as it is properly subject to grave
suspicion. But such testimony is competent and may warrant conviction
if corroborated to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes
manifest. (U.S. vs. Remigio, 37 Phil. 599). In the present
case, Flores’s testimony finds ample corroboration. His account
of Roldan’s arrest on the night of December 27 is confirmed by the
defendants Carlos Lauson and Federico Alcantara as well as by Roldants
paramour, Felisa Arenas, and his son, Agaton. His statement that
Roldan, on being arrestdd, was taken to Riparip?s headquarters finds
support in the testimony of defendant Loreto Bravo, and his declaration
that while there Roldan was hit and felled by Florencio Ilagan alias
Little Boy, is likewise corroborated by the defendant Carlos Lauson.
Finally, his assertion that when about to be killed Roldan was pleading
for mercy and that he was killed by two bayonet thrusts administered by
the defendant Bravo is corroborated by the latter, except that, to save
Riparip, who was his commanding officer, Bravo named Bato, who belonged
to a different guerrilla unit, as the one who gave the order to kill.
In the circumstances, it would not be reasonable to believe that
Flores’ story was a pure invention conceived with the idea of pleasing
the prosecution at the expense of his co-accused.

As to the appellant Genaro Bato, it is admitted that he was with
the arresting party on December 27, although he claims that he was made
to join that party under duress. This claim, however, is not
believable, not only because it is contradicted by Ernesto Flores, but
also because according to Roldan1s son, Agaton, this appellant was with
the group that about a month before had asked Roldan to surrender his
fishpond and later tried to kidnap him and threatened him with death
because of his refusal to accede to their demand. His presence at the
execution is testified to not only by the state witness, Ernesto
Flores, but also by the defendants Carlos Lauson and Loreto Bravo, and
is also made probable by his own admission that he went to the place of
execution on the date it took place although he claims that the killing
was over when he arrived.

The defense claims amnesty for appellants on the pretense that the
deceased was a spy. The proof on that point, however, is far from
satisfactory. Neither appellant has affirmed that Roldan was really a
spy. The most that Bato could say in that connection was that Riparip
told him that Roldan was a spy. But not even Riparip himself could be
sure of this accusation, for he admitted that he had no personal
knowledge that Roldan was a spy. The accused Loreto Bravo testified
that when he asked Bato the reason for the killing of the deceased,
Bato told him that the deceased was a Japanese spy and was the one who
pointed out his brother, a guerrilla, to the Japanese. This is,
however, hearsay, and not even Bato himself would affirm it on the
witness stand.

It is true that Hilario Ambat, a commanding officer of the ROTC
guerrillas, testifying as a witness for some of the accused, declared
that the deceased was in the wanted list of his intelligence officer.
But asked why the deceased happened to be included in that list, his
only explanation is that his intelligence officer “reported to me
(witness) that Enrique Roldan was often going to the Japanese officers
and, aside from that, he was in charge of the fisheries under the
supervision of the Japanese.” And it should be taken into account in
this connection that this witness, at the time he was testifying, was
himself an accused, charged with the murder of the same victim, Enrique
Roldan, although in a separate case. It is, therefore, understandable
that he should try to justify the killing for which he was also being
made responsible. Furthermore, according to the evidence for the
prosecution, he was among those who had asked Roldan to surrender the
fishpond and took possession of it and sold its products after Roldan’s
death.

On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that Roldan was himself a
guerrilla and was supplying fish to the other guerrillas. In fact,
according to his widow, he was once caught by the Japanese, detained in
the garrison for half a day and maltreated because they took him for a
guerrilla.

The real motive for the murder is not far to seek. It may be
gleaned not only from the evidence for the prosecution but also from
the testimony for the defense. There is clear proof that when Roldan
refused the demand for the surrender of the fishpond those who were
making the demand got angry and told him, “If you don’t give the
fishpond, then your life will answer, so prepare yourself.” On his
part, the appellant Riparip admitted on the witness stand having stated
before the justice of the peace that “the fishery was one of the causes
for the killing;” while appellant Bato testified that he knew that
Riparip and Roldan were partners in the fishery business and that
Riparip had told him that he had Roldan arrested for having cheated him
in that business. Furthermore, the accused Carlos Lauson declared that
during the investigation of Roldan by Bato, he heard the latter ask the
former this question: “Why don’t you give us the fisheries?” When it is
recollected that appellants and their confederates did in fact take
possession of the fishpond after Roldan’s death, it is but reasonable
to infer that that was their real purpose in eliminating him. In
carrying out that common purpose, appellants were acting in concert so
that each was responsible fiot only for his own acts but also for those
of the other.

The record, in bur opinion, fails to show that the deceased was
really regarded by the appellants as a Japanese collaborator or spy and
that his execution was in furtherance of the resistance movement.
Rather, the evidence shows that all this hue and cry about the deceased
being a spy was a mere cloak to hide the real intention of the killers,
which was to possess themselves of the fishpond administered by the
deceased, as in fact they did after his death.

After going-over the evidence, we see no reason for disturbing the
findings of the trial court, and as the sentence against the two
appellants herein is in accordance with law, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against them.

Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.