THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO MADLANGBAYAN Y BONET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Antonio Madlangbayan y Bonet was accused of the crime of robbery with homicide,
committed according to the information as follows:

“That on or about December 27, 1970 in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with three
others whose true names, identities and whereabouts are still unknown, and
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with intent of gain, and by means of violence, take away from the pocket of
Enrique Fallarme one black leather wallet containing
cash in different denominations amounting to P300.00 and one Seiko wrist watch
valued at P300.00, or a total value of P600.00, Philippine currency, to the
damage and prejudice of said Enrique Fallarme, owner
thereof, in the said sum of P600.00; that on the occasion of the said robbery
and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said
articles and money, the herein accused, in pursuance with his conspiracy with
the others still unknown, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior
strength, treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the said
Enrique Fallarme by then and there stabbing him
several times with bladed weapons on different parts of body, thereby inflicting
upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death
thereafter.”

After trial, he was sentenced thus:

“WHEREFORE, accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime of robbery with homicide and there being proved
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength without any
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the Court sentences him to DEATH;
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of
the latter, the sum of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages, the sum of
P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; to return to the heirs of the victim
the articles and cash taken from the latter or to indemnify them the sum of
P600.00 representing the total value thereof if he fails to do so; and to pay
the costs.”

In the afternoon of December
27, 1970, Enrique Fallarme and his son, Elywelyn Fallarme went to their
grocery store at Quiapo Central Market, where Elywelyn took P300.00 in various denominations and handed
the money to his father who placed it in his leather wallet.  Thereafter, Elywelyn
brought his father to Canonigo
St. in Paco, where a road
construction was being undertaken.

Enrique Fallarme, as a supervising
engineer in the City Engineer’s Office of Manila, supervised the road
construction.  Between 7:00 and 7:30
o’clock in the evening, Enrique Fallarme
was stabbed to death by unknown assailants at the corner of San Gregorio and Canonigo streets.

Abelardo V. Lucero, Medical Examiner of
the Manila Police Department, who autopsied the body of Enrique Fallarme testified that there were
five stab wounds on his chest, stomach and at the back.  Death was attributed to shock and hemorrhage
due to the multiple stab wounds.

Elywelyn Fallarme,
who repaired to the scene, found his father sprawled on the ground, dead.  He discovered that his father’s wallet containing the P300.00 as well as his Seiko wrist watch
worth P300.00 were missing.

During the wake at Lourdes
Church in La Loma, Quezon City, the following
evening, Patrolmen Rafael Carag and Asterio Santos of the Manila Police Department brought the
accused Antonio Madlangbayan to view the cadaver of
Enrique Fallarme. 
The accused identified the remains as the person he had stabbed on December 27, 1970.

It appears that Antonio Madlangbayan
was arrested by the police at his house in Kahilom, Pandacan, by Patrolmen Eduardo Cuevas and Reynaldo Pimentel
both of the MPD on information furnished by a police informer.  Upon investigation, he disclosed his
participation in the hold-up stabbing of the deceased, together with a certain
“Boy Marino”, “Imping” and “Rody“.  In
answer to a question, he stated that he could recognize and identify the man
they stabbed at the corner of San Gregorio and Canonigo
streets.  It was for this reason that the
police officers brought Antonio to view the deceased.

Thereafter, Patrolman Rafael Carag
embodied Antonio’s statement in writing in the usual question and answer form,
in Tagalog, at the end of which the accused affixed
his thumbmark for he did not know how to read and
write.  The statement (Exhibit E) was
then sworn to before Manila inquest Fiscal Mariano
Chavez on December 29, 1970,
at 12:50 in the morning.  It stated in substance that:  Late in the afternoon of December 27, 1970,
the accused Antonio Madlangbayan was with a certain
“Boy Marino”, “Imping” and “Rody“.  The four
converged near the Public Highway Barracks near the Manila Railroad Station in Paco, intending to have a drinking spree.  They walked along Canonigo St. towards Manuel
Roxas High
School. 
They stopped at Golden Taxi Restaurant and Antonio Madlangbayan
gave “Boy Mariño” twenty centavos to buy
“Champion” cigarettes.  In
front of Manuel Roxas High School,
they saw Enrique Fallarme standing near a pine
tree.  That was past 7:00 o’clock in the evening.  What happened next is narrated by the accused
in Exhibit E as follows:

“Nilapitan naming apat at pinaligiran namin.  Tinutukan ko
ang MAMA ng kutchiliong stainless na pangkusina, sa kaliwang tagiliran, si BOY MARIÑO ay tinutukan ang MAMA ng patalim
na double blade sa parteng leeg sa
kanan.  Ang si “IMPING” at si “RODY” ay nasa likuran.  Ang sabi ng MAMA
ay ganito “ANO ANG KASALANAN KO”.  Ang sabi ni
BOY MARIÑO ay ganito “WALA, ITAAS MO ANG KAMAY
MO”, sabay kapkap sa likurang bulsa
ng MAMA at ang ipinangapkap ay kaliwa niyang kamay.  Nakuha ni BOY MARIÑO ang
perang papel at pitaka.  Yong Mama na nakataas
ang kamay ay biglang ibinaba ang kanyang mga
kamay.  Akala ko
ay manglaban kaya ko naman siyang
sinaksak at naramdaman ko na tinamaan
ko sa parteng
taguiliran niya.  Sinundan ko pa siya ng
saksak sa likod at inabot ko kay “IMPING” ang aking kutchilio
at kinuha naman niya at tumakbo na ako, na patungong HIWAY.”

On December 31, 1970,
the crime was re-enacted by the accused and pictures were taken, namely
Exhibits G, G-1 to G-9.

The extrajudicial confession served as the principal evidence
linking the accused to the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide,
for which he was convicted and sentenced as above stated.

The accused who admitted to being a member of the Bahala Na Gang,
now maintains that his extrajudicial confession was coerced from him.  He claims that when he refused to affix his thumbmark to Exhibit E, he was boxed by Patrolman Cuevas
and his companions.  But it is to be
noted that while Patrolmen Cuevas and Pimentel were the ones who arrested the
accused in Kahilom, Pandacan,
at which time the accused gave his name as Rudy only to admit later that he was
Tony because Cuevas noticed a tattoo on his arm reading “Tony”, it
was Patrolman Carag who took and witnessed his
extrajudicial confession together with Patrolman Asterio
Santos.

A confession has a high evidentiary value.  For according to the Rules of Court:  “The declaration of an accused expressly
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be
given in evidence against him.” 
(Sec. 29, Rule 130.) And a confession is presumed to be voluntary until
the contrary is shown.

The presumption has not been overcome in this case where, except
for appellant’s testimony repudiating his confession, no other evidence was
adduced to show that the statements in the confession were obtained through
force or intimidation.  On the contrary,
appellant’s claim is belied by the abundance of evidence showing that his
confession was voluntarily given.  First,
the confession is replete with details which the accused alone could have known
and which could not have been concocted by the police.  The movements of the accused prior to the commission
of the crime which are narrated above are from his
confession.  Second, Fiscal Mariano
Chavez who administered the oath in the confession of the appellant testified
that he first asked him whether he gave his statement and affixed his thumbmark thereon voluntarily and the appellant answered in
the affirmative.  Fiscal Chavez further
testified that the accused did not complain to him of any maltreatment nor was
the accused maltreated by the police in his presence.  Third, the accused re-enacted the commission
of the crime where he reiterated the statements he had made in his
confession.  The re-enactment, according
to Patrolman Carag, was voluntary and this must be so
because it was made in a public place thus negating any suggestion of violence
employed on the accused.  And fourth, the
accused did not present any medical certificate to show that he suffered injury
at the hands of the police.

The more crucial question is whether the extrajudicial confession
is sufficient to sustain the conviction. 
The Rules of Court provide that “An extrajudicial confession made
by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.”  (Sec. 3, Rule 133)

Corpus delicti means the substance of
the crime, the fact that a crime has actually been committed.

The evidence of corpus delicti must be
independent of the extrajudicial confession. 
However, it does not mean that every element of the crime must be made
out apart from the confession, but merely that there should be some evidence
apart from the confession tending to show that the crime has been
committed.  (See People vs. Batangan, 54 Phil. 834)

In this case, from the evidence of the prosecution, apart from
the extrajudicial confession of the appellant, the fact of the commission of
the crime of robbery with homicide, is well and
sufficiently established.  Said fact,
which is the corpus delicti of the offense charged
has been proved by the uncontradicted testimonies of Elywelyn Fallarme and the police
officers assigned to this case, as well as by the testimony of Dr. Abelardo Lucero, the police medical examiner, as to the
death of Enrique Fallarme, together with the
documentary evidence of the necropsy report stating the post-mortem findings,
including the cause of death.

On the presumption that no person of normal mind will
deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime unless
prompted by truth and conscience, (U.S. vs. de los Santos,
24 Phil. 329), said extrajudicial confession when considered together with
evidence of the perpetration of the crime, is worthy of belief as proof of
commission by the confessant of the crime to which the confession refers.

Meanwhile, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the
defense that the accused was at the residence of his uncle Atty. Juan Blancaflor in Kahilom, Pandacan, between 7:00
and 9:00 o’clock in the evening of December 27, 1970, which was the
latter’s birthday.  Considering that the
residence of Atty. Blancaflor was barely 500 to 600
meters away from the scene of the crime, it was not impossible for the accused
to have gone there between the hours mentioned. 
Moreover, as there were some guests at the residence of Atty. Blancaflor, the possibility that he could not have noted
the exact time the accused arrived at his house cannot be discounted.

Hence, our painful task of sustaining the conviction of the
accused.

Finally, it is manifest that the accused together with his
co-assailants who unfortunately have not been apprehended, took advantage of their
superior strength, when the four of them, two of whom were armed with bladed
weapons surrounded and stabbed the unarmed, helpless and unsuspecting
victim.  The aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated by the trial court.

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide, the judgment under review is
hereby affirmed in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., and Teehankee, J., no part.