THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO CANDAVA AND TEOFILO DE LA PEÑA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Defendants Lorenzo Candava and Teofilo de la Pena are accused of
murder. After due trial, under a plea of not guilty, the Court of First
Instance of Oriental Mindoro rendered a decision convicting them as
charged and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment, with the
corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased, Melecio Manebo, in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs.
Said defendants seek & review of this decision by appeal.

The record shows that on December 1, 1957, at about 10:00 p.m.,
Melecio Manebo died in the road of the barrio of Bungahan, Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro, in consequence of a gunshot wound he sustained in the
right temporal region. The evidence for the prosecution, apart from the
testimony of the municipal health officer who examined the body of the
deceased, consists mainly of the appellants’ confessions Exhibit A and
B and the testimony of the Justice of the Peace of Calapan before whom
said confessions were subscribed and sworn to.

In his confession Exhibit A, dated March 31, 1958, defendant De la
Pena stated, that on December 1, 1957, at about 7:00 p.m., his friend
Lorenzo Candava went to his (De la Pena’s) house in the barrio of Pajo,
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, and invited him to go somewhere; that, while
they were walking past the schoolhouse in Canubigan, Calapan, Candava
revealed that he intended to kill a bigger man who had bested him in a
love affair and beaten him in a fist fight; that, upon reaching
Bungahan, Calapan, at about 10:00 p.m., they saw Eligio Manebo coming
in the opposite direction; that thereupon Candava told him that this
was the man he was angry at, and then, placing himself beside Manebo,
forthwith drew out his (Candava’s home-made gun (paltik) and fired at
him (Manebo); that as Manebo fell down, Candava placed the gun beside
him( Manebo) and then they ran away; and that, at the time of the
occurrence, they were being followed by Quirino de la Pena, Engracio
Ceasar, Leonardo Luzon, Benito Aruyo and Felix Fallaria, although these
five (5) persons were not near Candava and the affiant.

Said Exhibit A, corroborated substantially Candava’s confession
Exhibit B, dated March 29, 1958, except that Candava denied having been
a rival of the deceased for the love of a woman and asserted that he
merely acted out of spite, because the deceased had quarelled with him.

Upon the other hand, appellants contend that their respective
confessions had been obtained through duress, and have set up alibis.

De la Pena testified that on March 26, 1958, at about 2:00 a.m., he
was arrested in a hill of Pajo, Calapan, by local policemen, who beat
him with coconut midribs, the end of which were afire, because of which
his shirt and body were burned in many parts; that, upon arrival at the
municipal building, he was maltreated, in the office of the chief of
police, by other policemen, who kicked him, gave fist blows on his
abdomen, and then poured water into his nose; that when he could no
longer endure further suffering, he yielded to their demands and on
March 31, 1958, he subscribed the statement Exhibit A and swore to the
truth thereof, before the Justice of the Peace of Calapan, whom he did
not inform of the maltreatment visited upon him; that from November 29
to December 4, 1957, he was in the barrio of Labunan, Bongabon,
Oriental Mindoro, where he had gone with his Barents to make the
necessary arrangements for his forthcoming marriage to his fiancee;
that said barrio is over 100 kilometers away from that of Bungabon,
Calapan, where Melecio Manebo was killed; and he is innocent of the
crime charged.

Likewise, defendant Candava pleaded innocence, and asserted that he
was arrested on March 26, 1958, at midnight, in the house of his
landlord Apolonio Sandoval, in Balingayan, Calapan; that since his
arrival at the municipal building of Calapan, he was “continuously
maltreated”, at night time, by policemen and members of the
Constabulary, who wanted him to admit his participation in the
commission of several offenses, including the killing of Melecio
Manebo; that said peace officers ordered him to drink water from a
ditch and even submerged his head into said water; that they, also,
gave him fist blows and placed bullets between his fingers and then
pressed the same; that, moreover, they slapped, boxed and kicked him on
the ears and gave him fist blows on the abdomen, sometimes in the
presence of the barrio lieutenant; that having thereby suffered extreme
pain and sustained several contusions, he eventually agreed to do what
he was told, and accordingly, Exhibit B was subscribed and sworn to by
him before the Justice of the Peace of Calapan; and that, from November
2, to December 23, 1957, he was in the municipality of Gamao (although
he did not know that the same is in the province of Batangas), in
connection with the partition of a land inherited by his father and a
brother of the latter, Alfonso Candava, and the execution of a deed of
partition which he (defendant Candava) signed on behalf of his father.

However, De la Pena did not introduce any evidence whatsoever in
corroboration of his alibi, not even the testimony of his parents who,
he said, were with him in the barrio of Labunan, Bongabon, Oriental
Mindoro, in connection with his projected wedding, or that of Mabini
Firmalo, in whose house they allegedly stayed in Labunan, or the
testimony of Alberto Almazon and Braulio de la Pena, who, according to
said defendant, accompanied him when he allegedly returned home, coming
from Labunan, on December 4, 1958.

Similarly notwithstanding the fact that Alfonso Candava with whom
defendant Candava claims to have been in Gamao, Batangas, when Melecio
Manebo was killed in Bungahan, Calapan, on December 1, 1957—was in the
courtroom during the trial of defendants herein, the defense did not
put him (Alfonso Candava) on the witness stand. The alibi of defendant
Candava could have been strongly corroborated by the deed of partition
he allegedly executed in Gamo, but said instrument was not produced by
the defense.

As a consequence, defendants’ alibis are devoid of any
corroboration, despite the fact that ample corroborative evidence could
have been availed of by the defense, if its contention were true.

Again, defendants’ testimony regarding the duress allegedly used to
secure their respective confessions is, also, ancorroborated. What is
more, none of the persons who visited them during their detention saw
any of the contusions they allegedly sustained, in consequence of the
terrific beating they claim to have taken from the peace officers who
investigated them, and who denied the truth of such claim. In this
connection, we note, also, that, in his affidavit Exhibit A, De la Pena
said that one of the reasons given by Candava for his determination to
kill Manebo was that he (Candava) had lost to the latter in a given
love affair, whereas Candava denied in his confession Exhibit B that he
had such issue with Manebo, although he (Candava) confirmed De la
Pena’s statement that he (Candava) wanted to kill Maiiebo because of a
fist fight they had had before. It seems clear that, had the
extrajudicial confession been obtained thru violence and intimidation,
those who prepared said documents would have seen to it that each
devetailed fully with the other.

WHEREFORE, we are satisfied that said confessions were voluntarily
made and that the lower court did not err in giving no credence to the
uncorroborated and incredible testimony of defendants herein, and that,
accordingly, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby,
affirmed, with costs against said defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., took no part.