G.R. Nos. L-19149-50. August 16, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BEN PAREDES, ET AL, DEFENDANTS, BEN PAREDES, MANUEL MAMURI AND PROTASIO A. SANTOS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. THE PEOPLE OF TH…
ANGELES, J.:
This is an appeal by Ben Paredes, Protasio Santos and Pascual Bartolome from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Isabela finding them, along with Conrado de Leon, Ruben Concepcion
and Manuel Mamuri, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing them to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalty of the law, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of
the deceased Chua Nai Su in the sum of P6,000.00 and
the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation in the sum of
P10,000.00, the cash money robbed by the accused, and to pay the costs
proportionately.
It
appears that on April 26, 1960, Chua Nai Su, was accosted and shot inside a pick-up
truck belonging to the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation, shortly after the said vehicle had left the Company warehouse and crossed the gate of its
compound at Barrio Palattao, Naguilian, Isabela. Apparently
terrified, the driver of the pick-up
truck immediately got off the vehicle, ran back to the warehouse, and escaped from the place unharmed. The Chinaman Chua Nai
Su, then critically wounded, tried to follow his driver; but unlike the
latter, he did not make good his escape – he fell dead a short distance from the guard
house of the company near the gate.
And soon afterwards, the perpetrators of the crime were seen hurriedly leaving
the place, using in their flight the
very same pick-up truck previously ridden by Chua Nai Su and his driver.
Upon some unexpected turn of events, the details of which We shall herein discuss
later as We review the evidence, accused Conrado
de Leon was picked up for investigation by officers of the
Philippine Constabulary at his
place of residence in Minanga, Naguilian,
Isabela, in the morning of April 27, 1960. He was brought to the PC headquarters at Ilagan at about noon time of the same day where he was questioned about the
incident that led to the death of Chua Nai Su. The
statement he gave then to the
investigating officers led to
the subsequent arrest of accused Ruben Concepcion and Aurelio Tattoc
in Solano, Nueva
Vizcaya, their place of residence, on April 28, 1960, and the apprehension of accused Ben Paredes in the morning of April 29, 1960.
Ruben Concepcion, Conrado de Leon and Aurelio Tattoc
then admitted their respective
participation in the incident that brought about the death of Chua Nai Su on April
26, 1960; and on the strength of the extra-judicial confessions they
executed, an Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against them on the same day, including accused Ben Paredes and Manuel Mamuri whom Concepcion, de Leon and Tattoc had implicated. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2702.
On
June 9, 1960, a separate Information was filed by the
Provincial Fiscal of Isabela against
accused Protasio Santos,
Chief of Police of Naguilian, for the same crime of
Robbery with Homicide of which the other above-named accused had been previously charged. This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2718
of the same court. When both Criminal
Cases Nos. 2702 and 2718 were later called for hearing on June 23,
1960, the Provincial
Fiscal filed an Amended Information for the purpose of consolidating the two
cases for the reason that the charge in both informations
was identical. The Amended Information was admitted by the
trial court which allowed the consolidation of the said cases to be henceforth known as Criminal Case
No. 2702. Thereafter, the prosecution moved for the discharge of accused Aurelio Tottoc in order to utilize him as state witness. The petition was granted by the court on the
same day, June 23, 1960.
All the accused, except
Manuel Mamuri who was then still at large, entered pleas of “not guilty” when
they were arraigned under the Amended Information. Trial on the merits began immediately thereafter. Accused Manuel Mamuri
later gave himself up to the authorities.
Governor Jose Espino of Nueva
Vizcaya delivered the person of this accused to
Governor Melanio Singson of Isabela, who, on the same date, July 14, 1960, turned over the custody of
Manuel Mamuri to the Philippine Constabulary Command
at Ilagan. He, likewise, pleaded “not guilty” to
the charge when he was later arraigned.
On
September 14, 1960, the Provincial Fiscal of Isabela
filed another information charging Pascual Bartolome
with the same crime of Robbery with Homicide.
This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2773. Pascual Bartolome
was arraigned
on September 22, 1960, whereupon, said accused also entered a plea of
“not guilty”. Upon petition of the prosecution and without
objection on the part of counsel for accused
Pascual Bartolome, Criminal
Cases Nos. 2702 and 2773 were
tried jointly. On the same occasion,
counsel for accused Ruben Concepcion made manifest
before the court the desire of his client to withdraw his
previous plea of “not guilty”.
Said accused then pleaded guilty to the charge. He was allowed to present evidence to prove
the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and intoxication he
invoked. In the afternoon of the same
day, he was accordingly sentenced.
Sometime thereafter, Ruben Concepcion was utilized as witness for the prosecution.
After a long but speedy trial of the cases against the five
remaining accused, the trial court handed down its joint decision in the two
cases under which, as earlier mentioned, Ben Paredes,
Conrado de Leon, Manuel Mamuri,
Protasio Santos, and Pascual
Bartolome now stand convicted of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide with which they were charged.
Ben Paredes, Protasio
Santos and Pascual Bartolome
have appealed from the decision; Manuel Mamuri, likewise
gave notice of his appeal, but withdrew the same on December 7, 1961; and Conrado de Leon did not
appeal from the decision.
Our own examination of the record revealed the following account
of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime of which herein
appellants now stand convicted.
On April 17, 1960,
accused Ruben Concepcion, a native of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, went to the town
of Santiago, Isabela,
for some personal business. He met there
accused Conrado de Leon of Naguilian,
Isabela, a good friend he had known since 1957. Conrado broached
out the idea that they could make money for themselves by effecting the
hold-up of a wealthy Chinaman, a leaf tobacco dealer in his hometown of Naguilian. Ruben did
not readily give assent to Conrado’s idea; so, the
former was given time by the
latter to think it over. Before they
parted, however, Conrado de Leon suggested that Ruben
Concepcion should bring some companions to help them
carry out the hold-up should he finally agree to the aforesaid
proposition. It did not take him long tho to make up his mind after his return to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, for a few days
later, Ruben Concepcion decided to look for his friends in Naguilian, taking along with him accused Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc, his
cohorts from Solano.
On April 25, 1960,
accused Ruben Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri
and Aurelio Tottoc boarded a Rural Transit bus in
Solana, Nueva Vizcaya,
bound for Naguilian, Isabela. The bus they took made a stop at the town of Santiago,
and the trio had their lunch there; thereafter, they boarded the same bus again and proceeded to Naguilian. They
alighted at the Minanga-Minallo junction on the
national highway to the town proper of Naguilian. For reasons not clear in the record, the trio
from Solano saw at the junction, waiting
in a parked
rig, the accused Conrado de Leon who, upon seeing
them, welcomed the newcomers and brought them along with him to his place of residence
in the Barrio of Minanga. Conrado did not
receive his visitors in his own house however; he left them on the side of the
road and brought home some bread he was then carrying; and thereafter, the four
of them hiked to the centro of Naguilian, arriving at the house of accused Ben Paredes near the municipal building at about 6:30 o’clock
in the evening of that day. Conrado de Leon introduced the trio from Solano to Ben Paredes saying “here are the guys”. To this, Ben Paredes
answered “let us talk later on”.
He immediately had the table set first for supper – his dwelling house
being a small
restaurant in which Conrado de Leon, Ruben Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri,
Aurelio Tottoc and the accommodating host ate together. Later, Ben Paredes told his guests that they should rest for the night in
the municipal building nearby to which
he accompanied Conrado de Leon and the trio from
Solano after eating. The policeman on
duty allowed the group to sleep in one of the rooms on the second floor of the
municipal building, Ben Paredes who had brought them
along, being a former Sergeant of Police of Naguilian. Once upstairs, Ben Paredes, Conrado de Leon and Ruben Concepcion
had a conference about their plan to rob the rich Chinaman while Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc were
lying on the mat
on the floor nearby listening to them.
They finally agreed to go to Barrio Palattao
on the following morning to view and familiarize themselves with the location of the warehouse of the Insular-Yebana
Tobacco Corporation where the wealthy tobacco leaf dealer, Chinaman Chua Nai Su, held
office. Ben Paredes
returned to his house nearby that evening while the trio from Solano, together
with Conrado de Leon, stayed and slept overnight in the municipal building.
Very early the following
morning, April 26, 1960, Conrado de Leon
brought back the trio from Solano to the house of Ben Paredes
where they had their breakfast. And as
previously agreed upon the night
before in the municipal building, Ben Paredes, Corrado de Leon, Ruben Concepcion and Manuel Mamuri
left for Palattao immediately after eating. Before reaching the place of the warehouse of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco
Corporation, however, the foursome made a short stop at a “kiosko” near the junction of the national highway and
an old road. Ruben Concepcion
and Manuel Mamuri were left there for a while by Ben Paredes
and Conrado de Leon who passed by the house of accused Pascual Bartolome some thirty meters away. When
they returned, they had with them an old man, Pascual Bartolome. Ben
Paredes introduced
Ruben Concepcion and Manuel Mamuri to
the old man at the “kiosko“, referring to them as the
“persons called by Conrado de Leon”. The old man was pleased to see the “hatchetmen”
brought by Conrado de Leon to liquidate the Chinaman
whom accused Pascual Bartolome
referred to as a “boastful and arrogant” man. Pascual Bartolome then promised to give them a reward of P500.00 provided they
would kill the Chinaman, and if they could not rob any amount from him, they
would receive P1,000.00. Scarcely after
the old man had given the aforesaid inducement, the Chinaman Chua Nai Su passed by in the pick-up of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation, heading towards the place where
the company warehouse was located; so the group hurriedly went to the house of
the old man where other matters relative to the robbery were taken up. Pascual Bartolome reiterated his promise to make good his
commitment to the group. Then the old
man left ahead for the town, leaving word that they shall meet again in the
Office of the Justice of the Peace. Ben Paredes hitched a ride
from an overloaded passenger bus that passed by the place, telling his
companions to follow him to the appointed place of the ware horse. Conrado de Leon,
Ruben Concepcion and Manuel Mamuri
hiked on the national highway until they reached the gate of the compound of
the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation. Ruben Concepcion
and Manuel Mamuri viewed the place from under the
shade of a big acacia tree outside the fence of the company, while Ben Paredes walked to and fro on the national highway passing
twice in front of the compound of the warehouse. After sometime, the group returned to Naguilian in the restaurant of Ben Paredes.
In the house of Ben Paredes, Ruben Concepcion, Conrado de Leon,
Manuel Mamuri and Ben Paredes
found Chief of Police Protasio Santos waiting for them. The latter informed them that the Justice of
the Peace of the town was calling for them; so, Ben Paredes,
Ruben Concepcion, Conrado
de Leon and Manuel Mamuri followed the Chief of
Police to the municipal building where they met with Judge Domingo Garcia, Mayor Serafin
Garcia and the old man Pascual Bartolome. The three municipal officials, namely, the
Justice of the Peace, the Mayor and the Chief of Police, gave further
inducement to the other conspirators.
They gave the promise
that should they succeed in killing the Chinaman, they would sell the lot where
the warehouse of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Company
is situated and divide the
proceeds of the sale among themselves.
The lot referred to was formerly owned by accused Pascual
Bartolome who sold the same to the Insular-Yebana
Tobacco Corporation. The said town officials
gave further assurance that nothing shall happen to them for, anyway, they
should be “the ones to investigate the case.”
After the conference in the office of the Justice of the Peace in
the municipal building of Naguilian, Ben Paredes,
Ruben Concepcion, Conrado
de Leon, Manuel Mamuri and Chief of Police Protasio Santos want back to the house of Ben Paredes. Ruben Concepcion asked for the firearms to be used. Accused
Protasio Santos gave his nickel-plated
revolver Cal. 38 to Ben Paredes who in turn gave it
to Conrado de Leon together with his own black
revolver Cal. 38. Conrado de Leon then called Ruben Concepcion
and Aurelio Tottoc to the back of the house, where he
gave the black revolver of Ben Paredes to
Ruben Concepcion, and delivered the nickel-plated revolver of the Chief of Police Protasio Santos to Aurelio
Tottoc for them to use in the hold-up. Then
Ruben Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri
and Aurelio Tottoc
boarded a bus to Palattao which they reached before 10:00 o’clock.
They alighted in front of the big acacia tree about 20 meters from the gate of the warehouse which they had viewed earlier that same
morning and waited for the Chinaman Chua Nai Su to come out of the warehouse where he had his office. As expected, the trio from Solano saw Chua Nai Su board the company pick-up which was then parked in front of
the warehouse. Soon the vehicle moved backwards and out of the gate of the fence, turning towards the
south on the road to Cauayan, Isabela. At this precise time, Ruben Concepcion rushed forward and caught up with the vehicle at
a point about four meters from the gate.
He stepped on the running board on the right side of the pick-up;
simultaneously, Manuel Mamuri dashed towards the left
side of the vehicle, while Aurelio Tottoc posted
himself behind the rear of the pick-up. Ruben Concepcion
then poked his revolver on the Chinaman inside
the pick-up. Chua Nai Su tried to parry off the gun held by Ruben Concepcion, but the latter fired at him twice in
succession. Apparently terrified,
the driver of the pick-up got off the vehicle on the left side and ran towards
the warehouse; he escaped unharmed. The
Chinaman tried to follow suit by
moving to the left door of the pick-up where the driver got off. Ruben Concepcion,
however, also moved over to other side of the vehicle ad met Chua Nai Su there after firing one shot in the
air. The Chinaman pushed Ruben Concepcion aside and ran towards the gate, but the latter
fired another shot at the running Chua Nai Su
who full dead before teaching the company guardhouse near the gate of
the compound. Then and there, Ruben Concepcion ordered Manuel Mamuri
to take the wheel of the pick-up which the latter drove away towards
Ilagan with Ruben Concepcion,
occupying the seat formerly had
by the Chinaman, and Aurelio Tottoc seated just
behind Manuel Mamuri.
Upon reaching a small
concrete bridge within the territorial jurisdiction of Naguilian,
Ruben Concepcion ordered Manuel Mamuri
to swerve the pick-up to the right into a nearby ravine with bushes, and the
vehicle came to a halt. Forthwith the trio ransacked the seat of the
pick-up and found the portfolio of the Chinaman which they took away with them
passing thru the fields. At a place
where there was a thick growth of cogon grass, they counted the money inside
the portfolio and found that it contained P400.00 in different denominations. Ruben Concepcion
took the money and told Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc to go ahead to the house of Ben Paredes
where he met them later. He had to pass by a river to wash out the stains of blood
on his clothes. Ben Paredes
was not in his house when the trio came, so Ruben Concepcion,
Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc
had to tarry a
while and wait for him. It was
already 3:00 p.m. when Ben Paredes and Conrado de Leon
showed up, followed by the Chief of Police Protasio
Santos still a
little later. The latter immediately ordered the trio to
change their clothes which Ruben, Manuel and Aurelio followed. Aurelio Tottoc
placed the nickel-plated gun he carried on the floor under a pillow which, Ruben Concepcion
picked and returned to Chief of Police Protasio
Santos.
Ruben Concepcion, on the other hand, returned the black
revolver he used in shooting the Chinaman to Ben Paredes. Thereafter, Ruben Concepcion
brought out the P400.00 they found inside the portfolio of Chua Nai Su and gave
P200.00 to Ben Paredes who gave P50.00 to Conrado
de Leon as his share in the booty.
Protasio Santos refused to get the remaining amount of the P200.00 when Ben Paredes offered it to him, saying “I am going to investigate if that was really the amount they got.”
Reminded by Ruben Concepcion about the monetary reward promised by Pascual Bartolome, Chief of Police Santos advised the trio to come
back some other day with the promise that he would take care of the collection of the money. Immediately thereafter,
the trio from Solano,
accompanied by Ben Paredes and
Conrado de Leon
boarded a bus bound for Ilagan where they
all ate supper in a restaurant. From there, Ruben
Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri and
Aurelio Tottoc left for Solano, Nueva
Vizcaya, while Ben Paredes
and Conrado de Leon returned to Naguilian,
Isabela, arriving thereat at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
Meanwhile, news about the
killing of Chinaman Chua Nai Su near the warehouse of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation in Barrio Palatao,
Naguilian reached the authorities of the town
before noon time on that same day of the incident. In the afternoon, Chief of Police Protasio Santos repaired to the premises of the said company
and conducted an on-the-spot investigation of the case. The then Barrio Lieutenant of Malapyap, San Mariano, Isabela,
also reported the incident to the PC Command at Ilagan,
same province,
and Capt. Fonacier and Capt. Manalo
appeared at the scene of the crime that same afternoon and conducted their own
investigation. They were followed still later on by Capt. Achanzar. These PC officers were informed by the
employees of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation
that the triggerman wore a slight brown checkered polo shirt with long sleeves, upon
which information, Captains Fonacier and Manalo left the place to look for the robbers-killers. Shortly, thereafter, Chief of Police Protasio Santos also left the place, taking along with him
to the municipal building, Hermenegildo Cabucan, the driver of the pick-up ridden by the victim at
the time of the robbery, and a carpenter of the company, Andrea Domingo. On the same day, the body of the victim, Chua
Nai Su, was autopsied at the very scene
of the crime by the Assistant Provincial Health Officer of Isabela. He found in the body of the Chinaman a gunshot
wound about one centimeter in diameter, directed downward from the point of
entry about three inches from thee right nipple, fracturing the 8th rib and
damaging the liver. The slug was
recovered between the skin and the soft tissue at the left back near the angle
of the left costal arch where a
dark swollen area was noted. Another
gunshot wound was found to have penetrated the right forearm of the victim
through and through. The doctor
testified that the cause of death was internal hemorrhage due to the
involvement of some vital organs of the body.
From the scene of the crime, Captain Manalo
went to Naguilian to look for the robbers, with only
the description of the polo shirt worn by the triggerman as described by the
eyewitnesses to guide him. On his way,
he met by chance Hilario Tomines
who was then wearing a polo
shirt which he figured answered the description given by employees of the
Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation; and with the
suspicion that he might be the triggerman, he picked him up for
questioning. Hilario
Tomines denied any knowledge about the robbery when
he was brought and questioned by Capt. Manalo in the house of Ernesto Yap in Naguilian. He recounted, however, that he saw a man who
rode on the same bus that he
took from Reina Mercedes to Naguilian
in the afternoon of April 25, 1960, wearing a checkered polo shirt similar in appearance to the one he was wearing;
that he saw this man with companions get off the bus they were riding at
the Minanga-Minallo
junction on the national highway in Naguilian where
he also alighted; that he saw this man and his companions talked for sometime
with Conrado de Leon, after which he saw them leave
the place together going to Naguilian; and that he
saw the same man early in the morning of April 26, 1960, walking on the road
going to Palattao with Ben Paredes. With this new information as a lead, Capt. Manalo left the place to report the matter to Capt. Achanzar.
It appears that Captain Achanzar
had left the compound of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco
Corporation at the time and gone to the municipal building of Naguilian, where he found accused Protasio
Santos (Chief of Police) interrogating Cabucan, the
driver of the pick-up where the Chinaman was shot. Upon seeing the PC Captain, Andres Domingo,
the other man picked up by the Chief of Police at the scene of the crime for
questioning, approached him (Captain Achanzar) and
complained that Chief of Police Protasio Santos had
been trying to force them into admitting that the killing of Chua Nai Su was an inside job; and that Ben Paredes
had shrugged his shoulders advising them to admit the fact that they were the
authors of the crime. So much so,
that Captain Achanzar had to warn
Chief
of Police Protasio Santos not to add anything or make
alterations in their statements. As
Captain Achanzar made the warning to Chief of Police
Santos, he noticed that Ben Paredes had
surreptitiously left the investigation room.
He immediately followed Ben Paredes down the
municipal building. But just then, Capt.
Manalo appeared and informed Capt. Achanzar about the information given by Hilario
Tomines; and forthwith, the two PC officers left the
municipal building to see Hilario Tomines
in the house of Ernesto Yap.
While Hilario
Tomines was being investigated by Capt. Achanzar in the house of Ernesto Yap, Chief of Police Protasio Santos proposed to Hermenegildo
Cabucan and Andres Domingo that if they could not
admit their involvement in the commission of the crime, he would release them
and be amenable if they could state in their affidavits that they did not
recognize the perpetrators of the crime and could not identify them even if
they should see them again; and
that they did not hear any gun reports.
To this, the two employees of the Insular-Yebana
Tobacco Corporation acceded; so, their respective affidavits where taken down,
containing their own declarations and the facts above-stated which the Chief of
Police required them to admit. As
promised by the said Chief of Police, Cabucan and
Domingo were allowed to go home
after they had signed their respective affidavits.
Relying upon the information given by Hilario
Tomines that Conrado de
Leon was with the three unknown
men who rode with Tomines in a bus in the afternoon of April 25, 1960, Captain Achanzar
proceeded to the house of Conrado de Leon that same
evening of April 26, 1960. He arrived at the house of Conrado de Leon in Barrio Minanga
between 6:00 or 7:00 o’clock. Conrado de Leon was then out of the house. His wife informed Captain Achanzar
and his companions that her husband left for Santiago
about a week before. Capt. Achanzar, however, decided to stay for about 20 minutes
hoeing that Conrado de Leon might return to the house
that evening. Capt. Achanzar
was not mistaken in his expectation, for shortly thereafter, Conrado de Leon showed up with a bag in each hand, one made
of buri and the other made of canvas. From the answers given by Conrado
de Leon to the questions propounded by Capt. Achanzar
then and there, the latter suspected that the wife had lied to him with a
desire to mislead the authorities as to
the whereabouts of her husband; so, Capt. Achanzar
decided to search the bags Conrado de Leon had then
which yielded men’s clothings, one of which was a checkered light brown polo shirt
with long sleeves. And as the appearance
of the polo short coincided with the description of the one worn by the person
seen with Conrado de Leon in the afternoon of April
25, 1960, as described by Hilario Tomines and also
with the color of the shirt worn by the triggerman at the time of the
robbery as described by eyewitnesses to the killing of the Chinaman, Capt. Achanzar took special interest in the said polo
shirt. His suspicion was further aroused by the fact that as
against the claim of Conrado de Leon that the clothings
in the canvas bag belonged to him, Sgt. Bruno who was then with Capt. Achanzar found out
that the shirts and pants were of different sizes. These circumstances prompted Capt. Achanzar to seize the checkered polo shirt with long
sleeves with the promise to return the same later, and for which he caused Conrado de Leon to sign a receipt.
From Minanga, Capt. Achanzar brought the polo shirt to
Palattao and had it identified by the employees of
the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation who readily
declared that the said polo shirt was similar to the one used by the
triggerman. Upon further examination of
the seized polo shirt in the following morning of April 27, 1960,
the captain discovered that the
shirt contained blood stains on the right sleeve which he failed to notice the
night before while in the house of Conrado de Leon
because of the poor light. With these
findings, Capt. Achanzar and Capt. Fonacier with some soldiers returned immediately to Barrio Minanga
and arrested Conrado de Leon. The latter was brought to the PC headquarters
at Ilagan about noon time of the same day. Upon being questioned about the killing of
the Chinaman, Conrado de Leon readily admitted his
participation in the robbery, mentioning at the same time that his companions
in connection with the hold-up of Chua Nai Su were
Ben Paredes, Ruben Concepcion,
Aurelio Tottoc, Manuel Mamuri,
Jose Talambas and Benny Alamadrid. His written statement to this effect was taken down by the PC officers late in the afternoon of that same day. This statement (Exhibit NN), however, remained unsigned; for when Sgt. Bruno
accompanied Conrado de Leon to the Office of the Justice of the Peace of Ilagan,
on the following morning of April 28 to have it signed and sworn to by him, Conrado de Leon revealed to Judge Mina that the names Jose Talambas and Benny Alamadrid he had mentioned
in his statement were fictitious
persons. And when Judge Mina questioned him why he had mentioned the said fictitious persons,
Conrado de
Leon claimed
that he had been maltreated by
Capt. Fonacier of
the PC and his soldiers. This
revelations of accused Conrado de Leon
prompted Judge Mina to call for the Municipal Health Officer of the town, Dr.
Jose Valdez, and had him examined in his office. The latter, however, informed Judge Mina
after conducting a physical examination
on the body of Conrado de Leon that there was no sign of violence on his body; and
accordingly, Judge Mina wrote on
the reverse side of Conrado de Leon’s written statement that such proceedings
took place
before him. This hand written notation (Exhibit NN-1) was
identified
by Judge Mina during the
trial. Sergeant Bruno also attached to
the unsigned statement of Conrado de Leon, the
certification of the Municipal Health Officer of Ilagan
to the effect
that he did not find any signs of physical violence on the body of Conrado de Leon. Dr.
Valdez later identified his certification (Exhibit MM) when he testified for
the State.
Back
at the PC barracks in Ilagan, Conrado
de Leon was interrogated once again as to who were his real companions in the
perpetration of the hold-up of Chua Nai Su, and Conrado de Leon reiterated his previous statement that his companions were Ben Paredes, Ruben Concepcion, Manuel
Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc,
this time eliminating the names of Jose Talambas and Benny Alamadrid. An arresting party headed by Capt. Fonacier was then
sent to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya,
to arrest Ruben Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc who
were then all residents of the place. The party returned to Ilagan
on the following day with the arrest of Ruben Concepcion and Aurelio
Tottoc. Manuel
Mamuri eluded arrest; he fled to Manila the day before
the coming of the PC soldiers to Solano.
Accused Ben Paredes was, likewise, arrested in Naguilian, Isabela, early in the
morning of that same day, April 29, 1960, barely three days after the robbery.
Confronted with the
statement of Conrado de Leon at the PC barracks in Ilagan,
Isabela, shortly after their arrival at the place, Ruben Concepcion
and Aurelio Tottoc readily admitted their participation in the hold-up of Chua Nai
Su in Naguilian on April
26, 1960. They named Ben Paredes, Manuel
Mamuri and Conrado de Leon
as their
companions in the commission of the crime, in the presence of the
latter. The statement of Ruben Concepcion (Exhibit K) and that of Aurelio Tottoc
(Exhibit CC) were then taken and sworn to by them before the Assistant
Provincial Fiscal of the
province. Sgt. Bruno, in the presence of Conrado de Leon and the PC
officers copied the contents of the unsigned statement (Exh.
NN) of Conrado de Leon eliminating therefrom the names of Jose Talambas
and Benny Alamadrid previously pointed to by
de Leon as fictitious persons. The said re-written statement (Exhibit M) was
thereafter voluntarily signed by
Conrado de Leon and sworn to by him before
the same Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Isabela on the same day.
Accused Ben Paredes, Protasio Santos and Pascual Bartolome (herein appellants) offered separate defenses
of
alibi, to overthrow the
foregoing evidence for the prosecution.
Ben Paredes
presented evidence tending to show that he never left his restaurant (his
house) near the municipal building of Naguilian, Isabela, from 5:00 to 7:00 of o’clock in the evening of
April 25, 1960; that the only persons present in his place then were he and his wife, his
sister-in-law and a helper named Florencio Labatique; that he never had any visitors that evening, much less, Conrado
de Leon, Ruben Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri
and Aurelio Tottoc;
that he neither saw these
persons that evening nor accompanied them to sleep in the municipal building;
that he never saw these persons take their breakfast In his restaurant in the
morning of April 26, 1960, for he was there the whole morning of that day and
remembered that only Attorney Pascual of Reina Mercedes with three companions went to his restaurant and stayed there at the time up to
11:00 o’clock; and that he never left his restaurant also in the afternoon of
that day. He claimed further that upon his arrest in the morning of April 29, 1960, he
was brought
to the PC headquarters at Ilagan there
he was mercilessly tortured. Capt. Fonacier slapped his ears; Capt. Sarmiento punched his stomach; and
the PC
soldiers hit him with the butts of their guns. Be testified that Capt. Achanzar
joined the group of his tormentors
the following evening. They altogether
slapped and kicked him, then hit him several times with the butts of their guns
after taking him to a place between the buildings at the PC barracks.
According to him, he was given
such “works” in the
desire of the PC officers to secure from him the gun used by
the triggermen
in the killing of Chua Nai Sue and a confession from
him admitting his participation in the commission of the robbery. He alleged that he never acceded to
such demands; and upon such refusal of his, they molested him further by charging certain telephone wires with electricity coming from
a battery box which they connected to his ears and his private
parts; that they gave his additional maltreatment by pouring water into
his mouth and 7-Up beverage into his nostrils; that the PC officers continued the barbarous treatment from April 29 to 30, during which
time he missed three successive meals; and that only after he had continuously refused to admit any
participation in the commission of the robbery,
was he committed to the provincial jail
late in the afternoon of April 30.
For his defense, accused Protasio Santos adduced evidence and tried to prove that in the morning of April 26, 1960, he was in his
office in
the municipal building of Naguilian; that between the hours of 8:00
and 10:00 in the morning of that day, he was busy investigating a case against Inocencio
Ramirez who had allegedly threatened the wife of Juan Bumanlag;
that immediately thereafter, he attended to the preliminary investigation of a murder case against Baltazar Pasion in the office of
the Justice of the Pace of Naguilian which lasted up to about 11:00 o’clock in the morning of
that day; that he never met with accused Ben Paredes
that morning; that upon receipt of the news about the robbery-killing in Palattao, he took along Patrolman Cauilan and repaired to the
scene of the crime between 12:00
and 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon; that
after conducting his own investigation of the case in the premises of the Insular-Yebana
Tobacco Corporation, he brought the
driver of the Chinaman, Hermenegildo
Cabucan and the carpenter
of the
company, Andres Domingo, to the municipal building of Naguilian for their questioning at about 4:00 o’clock; and that
he personally directed the questioning of these employes
of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation whose
statements were taken that same afternoon.
He recalled that in the afternoon of April 27, 1960, he received
information that the pick-up belonging to the said company which was allegedly used by the
robbers in their flight from the place of the robbery had been found near a
bridge in one of the outer barrios of the town, upon which information he
immediately went to the place indicated to investigate; and that he rendered
thereafter a “spot report” of his findings to the PC Command in Ilagan. He claimed
further that on May 15, 1960, Capt. Achanzar had gone
to his house and induced him, either to surrender the revolver that was used in the
commission of the crime or to get any other firearm and put it near the
vicinity of the house of accused Ben Paredes so that
it will be used as evidence against the latter.
According to him, he turned down Capt. Achanzar’s
proposition.
Accused
Pascual Bartolome,
on the other hand, sought to prove that he never left his residence on that
fateful day of April 26, 1960. The evidence presented in his defense tended
to show that he and his friend, Irineo Calilao, made wood floaters for his fishing net near the
door of his house during the whole day of April
26, 1960. Both claimed that prosecution
witnesses Alberto Ibarra and Vicente Banang never came to or near the house of Pascual Bartolome early in the morning; and neither did they see
accused Ben Paredes, Conrado
de Leon, Ruben Concepcion and Manuel Mamuri in the said house of Pascual
Bartolome in the same morning. He admitted tho
that he had been investigated several times by the PC officers in connection
with the robbery, first by Sgt. Santos and later by Capt. Achanzar;
but these investigations according to him, amounted to nothing because he
really knew nothing about the killing of Chua Nai
Su. He testified that when CIS Agent Aslarona picked him up still later on, said official even took him
in his jeep all along the road from Palattao to San Mariano and stopped at various sheds on the way, conducting an
“off and on” investigation of him, before he was finally brought to
the Office of the Provincial Warden at Ilagan. He alleged further that it was while he was in the said office
that the CIS agent ordered him to sit down on a chair, after which he called
for Ruben Concepcion and instructed the latter to
point at him; that it was at that precise moment that another PC soldier took
their pictures (Exhibits X, X-1, X-2 and X-3); and that it was also on that
occasion that he saw Agent Aslarona draw a prepared
document from his portfolio which he later asked Ruben Concepcion
to sign.
From our own examination
of the evidence of record as above set forth, We find that the perpetration of
the crime at bar is beyond dispute.
Persuasive are the plea of guilty of accused Ruben Concepcion,
by accused Manuel Mamuri’s subsequent withdrawal of
his appeal, and by the implied admission of guilt of accused Conrado de Leon who did not appeal from the decision. The only question, therefore, for this Court
to determine is whether or not herein appellants Ben Paredes,
Protasio Santos and Pascual
Bartolome had any hand in the commission of the crime
of which they now stand convicted.
Appellants
contend that the court below had fallen into error in giving credence to the
testimonies of witnesses for the prosecution; specifically, they assail the
reliance placed by the trial court upon the declarations of state witness Aurelio Tottoc
and accused Ruben Concepcion who testified for the
prosecution after his plea of guilty to the charge, claiming, that these
witnesses, being original parties to the crime, are “polluted
sources” of evidence; and their testimonies should have been subject to
grave suspicion.
We
do not find any merit in this claim.
There should be no disagreement that the testimony of an accomplice
should be received with extreme caution – this is well settled by decisional dicta.[1] But when the testimony of one who has taken
part in the commission of a crime
is corroborated by other witnesses for the prosecution, the same should be
given weight and credence.[2] And this is exactly the situation in this case.
State witness Aurelio Tottoc and
accused Ruben Concepcion who pleaded guilty to the
charge were unanimous in their declaration that in the afternoon of April 25, 1960, they boarded
a bus with accused Manuel Mamuri in Santiago, Isabela, bound for the town of Naguilian,
said province; that upon reaching Naguilian, they
alighted at the Minanga-Minallo junction to meet accused
Conrado de Leon; and that after greeting each other,
accused Ruben Concepcion inquired from de Leon where
they could have the guns to be used in the robbery. These declarations were substantially
corroborated by the testimony of witness Hilario Tomines who said that he was in the same bus ridden by Ruben
Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc that afternoon in coming home to Naguilian
from Reina Mercedes; that he also alighted at the same junction of the
road
in Naguilian where the trio got off the bus; that
while he was waiting for a rig at the junction to go home to his barrio, he
overheard Ruben Concepcion ask Conrado
de Leon, “Could we get this?”, which question of Ruben Concepcion was accompanied by the
sign with his hand showing the
holding of a gun and the pulling of its trigger with the forefinger; and that
to the said inquiry of Concepcion, de Leon prompt answered,
“In town.”
Concepcion and Tottoc
declared with unanimity that from the Minanga-Minallo
junction, they went with Conrado de Leon to his place of residence in Barrio Minanga, then left together for the town proper of Naguilian to the house of accused Ben Paredes
where they were served supper; that after eating, Ben Paredes
accompanied them to the municipal building nearby where they slept that
evening; that it was there where certain
details of their plan to rob Chua Nai Su were discussed before Ben Paredes
returned to his house; and that the following morning, they went back to the
house of Ben Paredes with the mat he had supplied and took their breakfast there. Said testimony was
corroborated by witness Loreto Remigio, a
detention prisoner in the municipal building at the time, who declared that he
saw Ben Paredes, Conrado de
Leon, Ruben Concepcion, Manuel Mamuri
and Aurelio Tottoc in the municipal building that
evening; that he saw them talking togehter in one of
the rooms on the second floor before
Ben Paredes returned to his house; that he saw Conrado de Leon, Ruben Concepcion,
Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc leave
the municipal building the next morning, with the latter carrying the mat they used the previous night; and that he saw them going to
the house of Ben Paredes shortly thereafter.
Both
Ruben Concepcion and Aurelio Tottoc
testified that they took their
breakfast in the house of Ben Paredes that morning of
April 26, 1960, after which they
left for the Barrio of Palattao. Ruben Concepcion
narrated that they first stopped at the “kiosko”
in the said barrio where he and Manuel Mamuri were left by Ben Paredes
and Conrado de Leon for a short while; that when Paredes and de Leon returned, they were already accompanied
by Pascual Bartolome to
whom he and Mamuri were introduced by Ben Paredes as the “persons brought by Conrado
de Leon”; that Pascual Bartolome
then made a promise to give them a reward of P500.00, if they could kill Chua Nai Su with the additional remark that he would make it
P1,000.00 should they get no money from the Chinaman during the robbery; that
shortly thereafter, Chua Nai Su
passed by the road in front of the “kiosko”
in his pick-up, and Pascual Bartolome
pointed to him saying,
“there is the wagon of the boastful Chinaman”; and that later they all
decided to proceed to the
place of the warehouse of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco
Corporation after a short stay in the house of Pascual
Bartolome. He
was corroborated on this point by witness Vicente Banang
who testified that he saw the group that morning conversing at the kiosko; that he saw Pascual Bartolome point to the Chinaman with the sarcastic
remark above-mentioned when the latter passed by in his pick-up; and that he
also overheard Pascual Bartolome
make assurance “that he
would comply with his promise” before they left for the house of Pascual Bartolome near the said kiosko. According to
Ruben Concepcion, Pascual Bartolome reiterated his promise to give them the reward
should they be able to rob and kill the Chinaman, after which he changed his
clothes and told them that he would go ahead to the town and meet them later in the
office of the Justice of the Peace.
This testimony of Ruben Concepcion was corroborated
by witness Alberto
Ibarra who testified that in the morning of April 26, 1960, on his way to the house of Pascual Bartolome on some
personal business, he met Ben Paredes in the
vicinity; that
the latter asked him then where he was going, and upon his answer that
he wanted to see Pascual Bartolome, Ben Paredes remarked that he had been there for quite a long time but had not seen the old man;
that he decided to go into the house despite the information given by Ben Paredes, and contrary to the insinuation given by the
latter, he found
Pascual Bartolome on the
ground floor of the house conversing with Conrado de
Leon, Ruben Concepcion and Manuel Mamuri;
that he did not stay long with them and left as soon as Pascual
Bartolome informed him that he could not as yet
return the gasoline he had
borrowed; and that from there he passed by the store under the same house to
buy cigarettes, where he heard Pascual Bartolome advise Conrado de Leon to
finish his coffee and proceed to the warehouse of the Chinaman with the
assurance that “the P500.00 he had promised shall be ready anytime”. The said meeting in Palattao
was also confirmed by the testimony of accused Manuel Mamuri
who declared that he went to Palattao with Ruben Concepcion and “another man” that morning
of April 26, 1960, and there Ruben Concepcion talked with Pascual Bartolome for about twenty minutes.
Ruben
Concepcion testified that from the house of
Pascual Bartolome, they went to the place
where the warehouse of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation is situated
in Palattao for the purpose of familiarizing
themselves with the compound and determine the various points at which each of
them would post himself during the robbery. His
testimony on
this point was corroborated by witness Hilario Tomines who declared that he saw Ben Paredes with Ruben Concepcion and Manuel Mamuri
near the kiosko in Palattao
in the morning of April 26, 1960, walking towards the direction of the Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation; that as the passenger bus he was riding then
passed by the said kiosko, Ben Paredes
managed to get a ride on the running board of the overloaded bus; and that as
the bus left, Ben Paredes told his companions
“to follow him”.
Ruben Concepcion
testified further that immediately after their survey of the premises of the
warehouse in Palattao, they all returned to Naguilian to the house of Ben Paredes; that they found there Chief of Police Protasio Santos who informed them that the Justice of the
Peace was calling for them; that
they followed the Chief of
Police to the municipal building where
they met with Justice of the Peace Domingo Garcia, Mayor Serafin Garcia and the old man Pascual Bartolome; that these officials, including Chief of Police Protasio
Santos, gave them further inducement to commit the robbery with their
promise that they would have the land occupied by the warehouse of the Chinaman
and divide the proceeds among themselves after they shall have robbed and
killed the said
Chinaman; and that they all promised them immunity with the assurance
that nothing shall be done to them, for any way, they should be the very
officials who should
investigate the case. This is partly
corroborated by
the testimony of accused Manuel Mamuri who, in
spite of his attempt to exculpate himself from any liability for the crime
during the trial, admitted that upon their return to the centro
of Naguilian from Palattao,
Ruben Concepcion went to the municipal building; that
shortly after Ruben Concepcion had gone up the
building, he also noticed the arrival of the Mayor and the Justice of the
Peace; and that Ruben Concepcion stayed inside the
municipal building for about half an hour.
Aurelio Tottoc and Ruben Concepcion were
unanimous in their testimonies that the guns used in the robbery were supplied by Protasio
Santos and Ben Paredes in the house of the latter
shortly before they returned to Palattao that same morning to effect the hold-up of
Chinaman Chua Nai Su; that the same weapons were
returned to them immediately upon their return to the house of Ben Paredes after the commission of the robbery; that half of
the P400.00 they found inside the portfolio of the victim went to Ben Paredes and Conrado de Leon,
however, Chief of Police Protasio Santos refusing to
receive his share thereof because he
would not believe that the sum of
P400.00 was the only amount they got from the hold-up, and for which reason he
told Ben Paredes to hold the share pertaining to them
first until he shall have conducted his own investigation of the case; and that
it was Protasio Santos who advised them to change their clothes before their flight to
Ilagan that same afternoon, advising them to return
to Naguilian some other day or the reward of P500.00
promise by Pascual Bartolome, with the assurance that he would “take
care” of its collection.
Both Aurelio Tottoc and Ruben Concepcion were
also agreed in their declarations before the court that they left the house of
Ben Paredes in Naguilian
bound for Ilagan at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of that day, April 26, 1960, along with Manuel Mamuri, Conrado
de Leon and Ben Paredes; and that they ate together
in a restaurant upon reaching Ilagan, Isabela where they parted ways, their group taking a
bus bound for their hometown of Solano, Nueva Viscaya, while Ben Paredes and Conrado de Leon returned to Naguilian. This was partly corroborated by the testimony
of accused Manuel Mamuri who admitted that Ruben Concepcion, Aurelio Tottoc and he
fled from Naguilian in the afternoon of the day they
committed the robbery-hold-up of Chinaman Chua Nai
Su, accompanied by Conrado de Leon and “another person”
who boarded the same bus with them up to Ilagan where
they separated. All these affirmations
in court, indeed, constitute a
great avalanche of evidence against herein appellants, and militate against
their claim that the testimonies of state witness Aurelio Tottoc
and accused Ruben Concepcion who pleaded guilty to
the charge are incredible, simply because they took part in the commission of
the robbery in question.
Appellants Protasio Santos and Pascual Bartolome, however, would try to make capital of the
circumstance that they were charged in court for the same offense imputed to
the other accused much later than the rest, pointing out, that while the Information against Conrado
de Loon, Ruben Concepcion, Aurelio Tottoc, Ben Paredes and Manuel Mamuri was
filed on April 29, 1960, the separate Informations
against them (Protasio Santos and Pascual
Bartolome) for the same offense were filed only on
June 9 and September 14, 1960, respectively.
Hence, they claim that the imputation of the crime against them was but
an attempt on the part of accused Ruben Concepcion to
drag them into the quagmire he was
already in, after the failure of
the latter to extort money from them.
We are not impressed with this argument either. Appellants Protasio
Santos and Pascual Bartolome
had tried hard to prove during the trial
that accused Ruben Concepcion had tried to extort
money from them but did not succeed in their attempt for, on the contrary, the
evidence tends to show that they were the ones who tried their best to be good to the said accused, giving rice and
provisions to his family even after Ruben Concepcion
had changed his plea from “not guilty”
to “guilty”, apparently,
in their hope that he would somehow try to exhonerate
them from any liability. And above all,
the evidence is clear that they were not included in the original Information
for the simple reason that when
the same was filed on April 29, 1960,
the prosecution did not as yet have the necessary evidence against them to
warrant their inclusion in the said Information.
But said appellants point
out the fact that when accused Conrado de
Leon, Ruben Concepcion and Aurelio Tottoc executed
their extra-judicial confessions on the same date, April 29, 1960 (three days after the
commission of the robbery), said
accused made no mention whatsoever of their participation in the perpetration of the robbery. Again, We have to declare that this is not
entirely correct. For it is significant to note that
in the extra-judicial confession (Exh. M) executed by
accused Conrado de Leon on the said date, it was already revealed that the guns to be used in
the robbery would be borrowed from herein appellant Protasio
Santos. Be that as it may,
however, the fact still remains that during
the continuation of the preliminary
investigation of the case by the
Assistant Provincial Fiscal on May 12, 1960, accused Ruben Concepcion, without being asked, decided to make a clean breast of it all and
revealed the participation of Chief of Police Protasio
Santos and “an old man” in the perpetration of the robbery. The statement he gave then (Exh. L), became the basis
of the separate Information filed against him on June 9, 1960.
As against appellant Pascual Bartolome, he was not included in the two Informations already mentioned because it was only
after the surrender of accused Manuel Mamuri on July 14, 1960, that the said accused
described the role played by herein appellant Pascual
Bartolome in his extra-judicial confession (Exh. DD)
which he reaffirmed later in another statement (Exh. JJ) he
executed on July 18, 1960, before another investigator sent
over to the place by higher
authorities. To top it all, when the said
investigator brought herein appellant Pascual Bartolome to the office of the Provincial Warden in Ilagan on July 28,
1960, for confrontration with accused Ruben Concepcion,
the latter readily pointed to him as the “old man” referred to
by him in his previous statement (Exh. L) he executed on May 12, 1960; and even as the investigator took
down another statement (Exh. FF) of Ruben Concepcion on that occasion
wherein the said accused narrated all the participation of herein appellant Pascual Bartolome in his very
presence, the latter did not say anything.
This circumstances explained further the reason why the Information against herein appellant Pascual Bartolome was filed much
later. At any rate, Aurelio Tottoc and Ruben Concepcion explained during the trial why no mention
about Protasio Santos
and Pascual Bartolome
appears in their extra-judicial confessions – one explaining that he did not mention
the name of Protasio Santos because he was not asked by the investigator about it, and the other expressing surprise
why nothing appears in his statement about their participation in spite of the
fact that he allegedly mention them
during the said investigation. These
explanations may not sound convincing
enough, but after examining their
straightforward declarations in court about the participation of Protasio Santos and Pascual Bartolome in the perpetration of the robbery, We are more
than convinced in the credibility of their assertions.
Moreover, it may reasonably
be presumed that said accused deliberately concealed the part played by said
appellants in the robbery; and the reason behind such attempt is not difficult
to explain. From the facts and circumstances proven at the trial, We may conclude that Tottoc and Concepcion had done so
under the belief that even after their arrest, the Chief of Police of Naguilian and the other municipal officials of the town who
had previously promised them immunity, would come to their aid, and Pascual Bartolome who had
promised monetary reward would make good his commitment. They must have realized later, however, after
the case against them was filed in the Court of First Instance of the province,
that the protection and reward promised by herein appellants were not
forthcoming, that is why they soon made up their minds to reveal everything.
Appellant Pascual Bartolome pleads further
that he had been denied his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine
the witnesses against him during the proceeding in the court below. He anchors his claim upon the circumstance that three witnesses for the prosecution testified
long before his arrest and subsequent indictment. We find no merit in this claim, however, for
after examining the testimonies of the witnesses referred to, We found nothing
in their declarations which touched upon his participation in the robbery; and
while it is true that he was convicted by the trial court, the said conviction
was based upon facts established by other evidence of record. Suffice it to say, in this connection, that
the great weight of the evidence tends to show that he was in fact a prime
mover in the commission of the robbery with homicide, for it had been
conclusively proven that he had the greatest motive for its commission which
must have been engendered by the resentment he harbored against the Chinaman
who filed against him and his son, the two criminal complaints (for grave
coercion and malicious mischief) then pending trial in the Justice of the Peace
Court of Naguilian at the time of the robbery.
Conspiracy among the
accused in this case, including herein appellants, has been proven conclusively
by the
evidence of record. The guilt of Ruben Concepcion,
Conrado de Leon and Manuel Mamuri
appears indubitable; and the fact that they effected the hold-up and killing of Chinaman Chua Nai Su in pursuance of that conspiracy, has been shown and
demonstrated by the evidence beyond per adventure of doubt. It is, therefore, of no moment that herein appellants did not participate in the actual commission of the robbery, for
once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all.
Having arrived at the foregoing conclusions, We do not find it necessary to
discuss the individual merits of the alibis proffered by herein
appellants. Bearing in mind the inherent
weakness of alibi as a defense,[3] and considering, too, the existence of the
extra-judicial confessions of the other accused, which on their faces and as corroborated by other evidence bespeak the true sequence of events, as
a circumstance in passing upon the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution, We find no cogent reason to disturb the finding
of the
lower court that herein appellants are guilty of the crime of which they now stand convicted.
It
has been shown that appellant Protasio
Santos is a public officer, but it does not appear that he had taken
advantage of his official functions in the commission of the robbery. The evident else shows that there was an
offer of a reward by appellant Pascual Bartolome, and a promise by appellant Santos, but the
evidence is not conclusive that herein appellant Ben Paredes
had participated in the commission of the robbery by reason of such reward or promise,
it appearing that even before the other accused met with Pascual
Bartolome and the other municipal officials of the
town who made the promise, the other accused were already decided in the commission
of the robbery. No doubt, the reward and the promise
aforementioned must have given the other accused, including appellant Ben Paredes, further inducement in the commission of the robbery, however, in our
opinion, for this
aggravating circumstance to be considered against the person induced,
the said inducement must be the primary consideration in the commission of a
crime or felony.[4]
Consequently, no aggravating circumstance may be considered against any of herein
appellants, and finding the conclusion of the trial court in accordance with the law and the
evidence, the same must be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellants.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Riuz Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
U. S. vs. Remigio,
et al., 37 Phil. 599; People vs. Marcos, et al., 70 Phil. 469.
[2]
People vs. Aranua, et al. 98 Phil. 912.
[3]
See People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. L-26103, January
17, 1968, and cases therein cited.
[4]
See Art. 14, par. 11, Revised Penal
Code.