THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONRADO SAN MIGUEL, JESUS BUENAVENTURA, GONZALO PEREZ, ALIPIO PEREZ, RICARDO PEREZ AND RAUL MENDOZA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Conrado San Miguel, Jesus Buenaventura,
Raul Mendoza, Gonzalo Perez, Alipio Perez and Ricardo
Perez appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated
May 30, 1969, finding them guilty of murder, sentencing San Miguel and
Buenaventura to death and Mendoza and the three Perez defendants to reclusion
perpetua and ordering them to pay solidarily an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the
heirs of Remigio Tan (Criminal Cases Nos. 91198,
91217 and 91306).

In the same decision, San Miguel was convicted of murder in
connection with the killing of Maximo P. Dacer, the alleged triggerman in the killing of Tan.  For that separate offense, San Miguel was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was
ordered to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to Dacer’s
heirs (Criminal Case No. 90942).

Buenaventura and San Miguel
died in prison on September 26, 1971
and August 16, 1978,
respectively.  The cases against them
were dismissed as to their criminal liability in this Court’s resolutions of December 14, 1971 and November 16, 1978.

Only the criminal responsibility of Mendoza, the brothers Gonzalo
and Alipio Perez and Alipio’s
son Ricardo for Tan’s murder has to be adjudicated in this appeal.

This case is about an assassination in Mafia or gangland style
where the triggerman, after accomplishing his mission, is rubbed out
immediately in order to silence him (Exh. SS).

At about five-thirty in the afternoon of September 3, 1968, Remigio Tan y Valdez, 47, a resident of 40 Cuneta Avenue, Pasay City (a
brother of Alejandro Tankeh), was shot by Maximo P. Dacer, 27, with a .38
caliber revolver on the sidewalk of T. Pinpin Street
near the Walkover Shoe Store (Natividad Building) or
at the northwest corner of Pinpin and Escolta Streets, Manila (Exhs. P, S and U-1).  The
bullet entered Tan’s nape near the right ear and exited through his left jaw or
malar region of the face.  He died of shock due to the mortal gunshot
wound (Exh. E).

After the shooting, Dacer walked along
the sidewalk of Escolta
Street fronting the Ding Velayo
and Yatco stores. 
On reaching the sidewalk in front of the vacant lot between the J.
M. Tuason
Building and the Lyric Theater, Dacer was shot by Conrado San
Miguel, 31, a Manila policeman.  The
time:  about five-forty.  Dacer sustained
three gunshot wounds one of which was a fatal wound in the chest.  The wounds lacerated his heart, liver,
diaphragm and lung (Exh. 1).

The main issue is whether Mendoza and the three Perez appellants
conspired and cooperated with Dacer, San Miguel, Buenaventura
and Ricardo de la Cruz in perpetrating Tan’s murder.  De la Cruz, 41, married,
a driver and a native of Santa Maria,
Bulacan, like the Perez brothers, was discharged as a
defendant and was the star prosecution witness. 
The trial court based its judgment of conviction principally on his tes­timony.

According to the prosecution, on August 11, 1968 Gonzalo Perez,
46, went to the house of his boyhood friend, De la Cruz, located at 7379 J. B. Roxas Street, Makati, Rizal and, in the presence of Dacer,
a jobless neighbor and friend of De la Cruz, residing at 7374 San Maximo Street, Olimpia, Makati, offered to them the mission of killing Remigio Tan in consideration of a reward of twenty thousand
pesos.  Dacer was an ex-convict and a
member of the Sigue-Sigue-Sputnik gang.

Gonzalo said that the persons interested in the liquidation of
Tan were Captain Jesus Buenaventura and Detective Corporal Conrado
San Miguel, 31, of the Manila Police Department.

A few days later, Gonzalo brought De la Cruz and Dacer to the house of his brother Alipio
located at 1067 Vizcaya
Street, Barrio Obrero, Tondo where they conferred with
Ricardo Perez, Raul Mendoza, Buenaventura
and San Miguel.

Buenaventura assured De la Cruz, Mendoza and the Perez kinsmen
that in addition to the reward of P20,000, to be paid
by some rich Chinese, they would be employed as police agents or informers,
that Tan was allegedly an alien communist who collected “tong” from
Chinese businessmen and that the assassination could be consummated with
impunity because it had the blessings of Mayor Antonio Villegas, Majors Enrique
Morales, Felicisimo Lazaro
and Tamayo and Captain Crame.

Buenaventura also
assured De la Cruz that he and San Miguel would be present at the killing of
Tan and so nothing would happen to them. 
Buenaventura instructed
Gonzalo Perez to take De la Cruz and Dacer to the
Morocco Hotel on Raon Street,
Manila, which was owned by Buenaventura’s
son Jaime, so that they would be available during surveillance operations.

De la Cruz and Dacer stayed in the
Morocco Hotel for two weeks.  Upon
instruction of Buenaventura,
Gonzalo and Alipio Perez gave them from time to time
pocket money ranging from twenty pesos, thirty pesos and fifty pesos.  Gonzalo gave to Dacer
the .38 caliber revolver to be used in the killing (Exh.
N).

 Dacer
and De la Cruz during their stay in the hotel joined Buenaventura,
San Miguel, Mendoza and the Perez kinsmen in the surveillance operations
intended to locate Tan and assassinate him.

During the first surveillance trip, Dacer
and De la Cruz rode in the jeep driven by Gonzalo Perez.  Buenaventura
drove his jeep with Alipio Perez, Ricardo Perez and
Mendoza as his companions, while San Miguel drove a Ford Galaxy belonging to
Major Lazaro.

They went to Cuneta
Avenue, Pasay
City where Tan resided.  Gonzalo Perez
parked his jeep on Cuneta
Avenue near the ABS (CBN) broadcasting station on Roxas Boulevard.  Buenaventura
and San Miguel parked their vehicles on the street next to Cuneta Avenue.  Tan was expected to pass them on his way to Manila
but although the surveillants kept watch up to five o’clock in the afternoon, Tan did not
appear.

The second surveillance operation was conducted in the Morning
and afternoon until Tan in his Fiat car passed Cuneta Avenue on the way home
from Manila and was pointed to De
la Cruz.  Nothing was accomplished on
that day because Tan did not leave his home.

During the third surveillance operation, held on August 30, 1968, Buenaventura
and his companions again stationed themselves at Cuneta Avenue.  Tan and his son riding in
the Fiat car passed by at six o’clock in the evening.  It was Friday.  The car went to Quiapo,
trailed by Buenaventura and his
companions in their respective vehicles. 
Tan and his son entered the church. 
De la Cruz, Dacer, Buenaventura
and San Miguel also entered the church while Gonzalo Perez, Ricardo Perez and
Mendoza remained in the jeep.

De la Cruz and Dacer did not consider
it proper to kill Tan inside the church. 
After Tan had kissed the Black Nazarene, he boarded his car and proceeded
to the Gaiety Theater on M. H. del Pilar
Street, Ermita.  Tan entered the theater.  His son and driver left him there.  De la Cruz, Dacer
and Gonzalo Perez also entered the theater but, although they waited up to midnight when the theater was closed, they
missed Tan.

The fourth surveillance operation was held on Tuesday, September 3, 1968.  Gonzalo Perez, with Dacer
and De la Cruz, drove his jeep to Cuneta
Avenue at eight
o’clock in the morning in the expectation that, as told to them by Alipio Perez, Tan would bring his children to school.  Later, Buenaventura
and San Miguel, both in civilian clothes, arrived in a jeep together with
Ricardo Perez and Mendoza.  Buenaventura
and his companions left after lunch. 
They instructed Gonzalo Perez to phone them if he saw Tan heading for Manila.

At about three o’clock
in the afternoon, the Fiat car, with Tan and his driver inside, left Tan’s
residence.  Gonzalo Perez, with Dacer and De la Cruz, drove his jeep and followed the Fiat
car on Roxas Boulevard.  Tan’s car emerged on P. Burgos Street leading
to the City Hall, proceeded to Jones Bridge and turned right on Escolta Street.  It
stopped in front of the J. M.
Tuason Building.  Tan alighted and entered that building.  His office was at Room 303 (Exh. FF).

Gonzalo Perez parked his jeep on the opposite side in front of Botica Boie where he dropped Dacer and De la Cruz, informing them that he would alert
their other companions.  Dacer and De la Cruz stationed themselves near Yatco’s haberdashery store and waited for Tan.

Shortly thereafter, Gonzalo Perez returned to Escolta Street with Ricardo
Perez and Mendoza in a white Impala car which he parked near the Walkover Shoe
Store.  San Miguel and Buenaventura
also arrived in a jeep which stopped in front of the Madrigal and the old
Philippine National Bank Buildings.  Buenaventura,
San Miguel, Gonzalo Perez, Ricardo Perez and Mendoza
stationed themselves near the sidewalk in front of Botica
Boie (Exh. S).

When Tan came out of the J.
M. Tuason
Building and walked hurriedly to
the northwest corner of Escolta and T. Pinpin Streets, Dacer and De la
Cruz followed him.  They caught up with
Tan as the latter turned left at the corner. 
Dacer drew his revolver, which was tucked in
his waist and was covered by a newspaper, and shot Tan in the nape.  Dacer fired two or
three shots.  Tan fell on the street near
the sidewalk with a bloody head (Exh. O).

Dacer covered the revolver with a
newspaper.  He berated De la Cruz, who
was behind him, for not taking the wallet and watch of Tan which was the role
assigned to De la Cruz by Buenaventura.

Dacer retraced his steps and returned
to Escolta Street,
followed by De la Cruz.  Dacer passed by the Walkover, Velayo
and Yatco stores and the J.
M. Tuason
Building.  When he reached the sidewalk in front of the
vacant lot adjacent to the Lyric Theater, he was grabbed from behind by
Patrolman Julian Gatmaitan who was patrolling on Escolta Street, looking for
call girls frequenting the Botica Boie,
and whose suspicion was aroused by Dacer’s behavior
and deportment.  While Gatmaitan was holding Dacer, San
Miguel arrived and pushed Dacer, elbowed out Gatmaitan and shot Dacer.

Dacer fell on the vacant lot.  He was brought by Buenaventura
to the Philippine General Hospital.  His
gun was taken by Buenaventura and
delivered to the police (Exh. N).

The prior agreement was that Dacer and
De la Cruz would escape in the jeep of Gonzalo Perez parked on Escolta Street which would pass Soda Street and Muelle del Banco Nacional and go to the house of Alipio
Perez on Vizcaya Street, Barrio Obrero
where the conspirators would rendezvous after the killing.

Sensing that he might be killed also, De la Cruz fled to Plaza
Sta. Cruz and then to Echague
Street.  He
hid in Sta. Maria, Bulacan.  He surrendered on September 27, 1968 in Malolos,
Bulacan to Congressman Teodulo
Natividad.  The
reward of P20,000 was not paid (p. 23, Exh. U).

San Miguel followed Buenaventura
to the hospital.  He confessed to
Corporal Eladio Diego that he shot Dacer because he thought that Dacer
might shoot Gatmaitan and his companion, Patrolman
Jose Pasco (Exh. BBB and CCC).

Mendoza and the three Perez appellants contend in this appeal
that (1) conspiracy had not been proven, (2) that the testimony of De la Cruz,
upon which the judgment of conviction was based, was not corroborated, (3) that
the trial court totally disregarded their evidence, (4) that Mendoza’s failure
to testify should not be taken against him and (5) that appellants’ guilt was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Gonzalo Perez interposed an alibi as his defense.  He testified that he was in Sta. Maria, Bulacan when Tan was killed.  He admitted that San Miguel, the assassin of Dacer, was the compadre of
his nephew Ricardo Perez.

Gonzalo testified that De la Cruz had a grudge against him
because he (Gonzalo) instigated the filing of an estafa
case by his cousin Mario Perez against De la Cruz and that, notwithstanding the
request of De la Cruz, Gonzalo did not ask Mario to withdraw the case.

Gonzalo also testified that De la Cruz was his political enemy
because he (Gonzalo) worked for the election of his cousin, Alfredo Perez as
vice-mayor, whose opponent was Conrado Ignacio.  De la Cruz was Ignacio’s bodyguard.  More over, Gonzalo intervened in behalf of
the complainant in the theft of a pig which De la Cruz was suspected of having
stolen.

Gonzalo also attacked the character of De la Cruz by presenting
two witnesses who testified on the involvement of De la Cruz in an extortion
case and on his attempt to blackmail Gonzalo and Alipio
by threatening to implicate them in this case if they did not pay De la Cruz
P15,000.

Alipio Perez denied that he had any
complicity in the conspiracy to kill Tan. 
He denied that there was a conference in his house where the conspiracy
was hatched and finalized, that he gave money to Dacer
and De la Cruz and that he took part in one surveillance mission.  Alipio denied that
he was acquainted with De la Cruz.

However, Alipio admitted that Buenaventura
was his compadre, being a sponsor at his
daughter’s wedding, and that San Miguel was the compadre
of his son, Ricardo, being the godfather of Ricardo’s son (61-62 tsn March 5, 1969;
55-56 tsn March
12, 1969).

Ricardo Perez, like his father Alipio,
denied having conspired with his co-accused to kill Tan.  He corroborated his father’s testimony as to
the attempt of De la Cruz to extort P15,000.  He denied having taken part in the four
surveillance operations.  He said he was
not on Escolta Street
when Tan was killed.  He was in the South
Harbor doing his job as manager of
the family trucking business.

Raul Mendoza, the driver of the family of Alipio
Perez, did not present any evidence.

The trial court characterized the alibi of Gonzalo Perez as a
fabrication.  Gonzalo mentioned the
birthday of his son as a reason for his alleged presence in Santa
Maria, Bulacan on the day
when Tan was killed but because he could not tell the dates of birth of his
wife and other children, the trial court did not believe his alibi.

The trial court also disbelieved the alibi of Ricardo Perez.  It reasoned out that from the South Harbor
Ricardo could have gone to Escolta
Street in a short time.

As to the defense of Alipio Perez, the
trial court observed that his denials cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of De la Cruz.  It noted that
there was no showing that Alipio desisted from having
any further participation in the implementation of the conspiracy.  It also noted that the plan was for the conspirators
to meet in Alipio’s house after the
assassination.  A fertile imagination is
not required to surmise that the purpose of that last rendezvous would be the
payment of the reward and its apportionment among the conspirators.

Appellants Perezes and Mendoza assail
the trustworthiness of the testimony of De la Cruz because it came from a
“polluted source” and was not entirely corroborated.

The testimony of De la Cruz is a confirmation of his 24-page
extrajudicial confession (Exh. U and U-1) made to
Congressman Natividad and Fiscal Francisco C. Burgos
on September 27, 1968 (24
days after the killing) and before he was discharged as defendant in the trial
court’s order of October 18, 1968.

His confession and testimony contain details that would be
difficult to fabricate.  He was utilized
as a State witness because the prosecution had no evidence on the conspiracy.

The testimony of a co-conspirator should be received with caution
because, as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing a crime, is
likely to put the blame as far as possible on others and thus minimize his
culpability.

However, the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator may be
sufficient for conviction when it is shown to be sincere in itself, because
given unhesitatingly and in a straight-forward manner, and in replete with
details which, by their nature, could not have been the result of a deliberate
afterthought or concoction (People vs. Sarmiento, 69
Phil. 740, 742).

The trial court found the testimony of De la Cruz to be
satisfactory and convincing.  He had not
been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.  He testified at eight hearings between
October 21 and November 29, 1968.  He withstood the rigorous cross-examination
of able defense lawyers.

Two bellboys of the Morocco Hotel, Tan’s driver and an
eyewitness, Jesus Pallan, corroborated portions of
the testimony and confession of De la Cruz. 
No error was committed by the trial court in giving credence to his
testimony and written ad­missions.

Appellants argue that there was no motive for them to conspire to
kill Tan.  That contention cannot be
taken seriously.  There was the reward to
be paid for the killing of Tan.  If those
interested in the liquidation of Tan were willing to pay P20,000 to the
triggerman, it stands to reason that they would pay another amount to the Perezes and their driver, Mendoza, who cooperated in
looking for the triggerman and who took part in the surveillance operations in
order to enable the triggerman to consummate the assassination.

There can be no doubt that Buenaventura
and San Miguel were the two persons contacted by the enemy or enemies of Tan to
encompass his death.  The two strove hard
to fulfill their commitment.  They sought
the assistance of the Perez family.  The
Perez appellants cooperated with them because Alipio
was a compadre of Buenaventura
while Ricardo was a compadre of San Miguel.

The compadre relationship is a
strong bond of loyalty and friendship which binds a person to his compadre. 
That circumstance plus the opportunity to make money on the side is the
motive which impelled the Perezes and Mendoza, Alipio’s driver, to take part in the liquidation of Tan.

The record does not disclose who instigated Buenaventura
and San Miguel to stultify themselves and engineer the
killing of Tan.  De la Cruz in his
confession said that he was not aware of any person surnamed Tankeh nor any employee of the Ace Line (p. 23, Exh. U) who, as intimated in the
questions of Fiscal Burgos, might be involved in Tan’s killing.

The trial court took an unfavorable view of Mendoza’s
failure to take the witness stand.  The
rule is that a defendant’s “neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not
in any manner prejudice or be used against him” (Sec, 1[d], Rule 115,
Rules of Court).

What the trial court meant was that Mendoza
did not present any evidence at all to controvert De la Cruz’s testimony that
he was a co-conspirator who took part in the surveillance missions and was
present at the scene of the crime and, therefore, had community of design with Dacer and De la Cruz. 
Mendoza’s failure to present
evidence means that the testimony of De la Cruz against him remains unrebutted or uncontradicted.

We hold that the complicity of the Perez brothers and of Ricardo
Perez and Mendoza in the killing of Tan was proven beyond reasonable
doubt.  (See Resolution
of January 29, 1969 in Perez vs. Robles, L-30089-90, sustaining the trial
court’s order denying bail to the herein four appellants).

The trial court correctly characterized the killing of Tan as
murder qualified by evident premeditation. 
The aggravating circumstance of treachery is offset by the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities.  Hence, the trial court imposed reclusion
perpetua on Mendoza, Gonzalo Perez, Alipio Perez and Ricardo Perez.

As to Gonzalo Perez, there is ample justification for convicting
him as a co-principal of San Miguel and Buenaventura
and for sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.  Gonzalo was very active in planning the killing
and implementing the conspiracy to liquidate Tan.  He contacted the triggerman and his
collaborator, De la Cruz.  He took part
in the surveillance missions, using his jeep for that purpose.  He was present at the scene of the crime,
having brought thereto Dacer, De la Cruz, Ricardo
Perez and Mendoza.

As to the other three appellants, it is true that they were
co-conspirators and had community of design with Dacer,
San Miguel and Buenaventura.  At first blush, they should be re­garded as
co-principals.  Once conspiracy is
established, the act of a co-conspirator is the act of all.

The three appellants must have been induced to take part in the
conspiracy because of the promised reward. 
It is reasonable to assume that they must have received already some advance
payment, like Dacer and De la Cruz.

Nevertheless, the stubborn fact remains that their participation
in carrying out the conspiracy was not very indispensable.  Alipio Perez was
not present at the scene of the crime. 
His house was used as a meeting place of the co-conspirators.  He took part only in the first surveillance
operation.  There is testimony that he
suggested surveillance in the morning at Cuneta Avenue because Tan
would bring his children to school.  Alipio allegedly gave money to Dacer
and De la Cruz.

Ricardo Perez, the son of Alipio, was
drawn into the conspiracy because he was San Miguel’s compadre.  On the other hand, Mendoza
was the family driver of Alipio.  That circumstance explains why he was
embroiled in the conspiracy.

It is doubtful whether the roles of Alipio
Perez, Ricardo Perez and Mendoza in the assassination of Tan are sufficient to
justify their conviction as co-principals. 
We hold that the rule in People vs. Tamayo, 44
Phil. 38, that in case of doubt the courts lean to the miner form of criminal
responsibility, applies to this case. 
Those three appellants should be regarded as accomplices.  (See People vs. Nierra, L-32624, February 12, 1980, 96 SCRA 1).

WHEREFORE, the judgment as to Gonzalo Perez is
affirmed.  The lower court’s judgment as
to Mendoza, Alipio Perez and his son Ricardo Perez is
modified.  As accomplices, they are each
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision
mayor as minimum to fourteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum,
to pay solidarily to the heirs of Remigio
Tan an indemnity of eight thousand pesos, as their quota, with subsidiary solidary responsibility for the sum of four thousand pesos
which is part of the civil liability of Gonzalo Perez.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Fernandez,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., concurs in the partial dissent of J. Makasiar.

Concepcion, Jr., J., no part.