G. R. No. L-3509. August 24, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEON SEGURO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
REYES, J.:
del Rosario, were prosecuted for robbery with homicide in the Court of
First Instance of Rizal. Alfonso Munar pleaded guilty. But Leon Seguro
claimed innocence and went to trial despite his previous plea of guilty
at the preliminary investigation. The trial, however, resulted in
conviction and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, indemnity and
costs. From this sentence he has appealed.
The evidence shows that in the afternoon of October 5, 1948, the
dead body of Bernardo Marquez, a security guard of the Rizal Cement
Factory, was found sprawled on the ground alongside the road leading to
the factory quarry in Binafigonan, Rizal. Near the cadaver were also
found three stones smeared with blood, part of a toy gun, and a bayong
containing, among other things, a hammer and a buri hat. With numerous
lacerated wounds on the head and a fractured frontal bone, the deceased
must have been, according to medical verdict, beaten up with some hard
object, dying as a result of brain concussion.
It also appears that earlier that day the deceased had collected
his salary from the factory paymaster and received, in addition, the
sum of P195.47 with which to pay off the laborers in the quarry. But
only P21.62 was found on his person, tucked in the hind pocket of his
trousers.
With no eye-witnesses to the crime, the assailants were not known
at once. But, as chance would have it, about ten days after the
perpetration of the crime, appellant came upon his acquaintance Pablo
Parayno outside the latter’s place of work on General Luna Street in
Manila. Appellant was then accompanied by his co-accused Alfonso Munar
and two others and looking for one Gorio. Parayno informed him that the
man was no longer in that place. As appellant said that he had
something to confide to Gorio, Parayno was curious to know what it was
all about, and with a little questioning got from appellant the
information that the latter and Alfonso Munar had killed somebody in
the quarry in Binangonan who was entrusted with the money for the
laborers’ wages.
The revelation was welcome news to Parayno who, unknown to
appellant, happened to be by affinity a near relation of the victim and
must have been for that reason well informed of the circumstances of
his death, especially because he had attended his funeral. But
powerless at the moment to do anything in the way of bringing the
criminals to justice, Parayno betook himself to the chief of police of
Binangonan and obtained from him a warrant of arrest. He then waited
for his quarry. He did not have to wait very long, for toward the end
of that month, while buying cigarettes in a store at the corner of
Herran and General Luna Streets, he was accosted hy Alfonso Munar, who
asked him to help him get a job. Laying a trap for Munar, Parayno
invited him to his house for lunch and then secretly instructed his
wife to notify the police and call for detectives. The detectives came
on time and put Munar under arrest, and then guided by the latter, they
went to appellant’s residence and arrested him also.
Investigated by the chief of police of Binangonan, both appellant
and Alfonso Munar admitted their guilt and signed confessions to the
effect that, having been informed that the deceased was to take money
to the quarry that day, they held him up on the road, hitting him with
a toy gun and stones on the head until he died, and then relieved him
of his money. Appellant even pleaded guilty before the justice of the
peace.
Testifying in his own defense, appellant denied having had anything
to do with the killing of the deceased and repudiated his confession on
the ground that the same had been extracted through force and violence.
Fumbling for alibi, he declared that on the day the crime was
committed he was in Pasay working, that he was also in Manila, and
lastly that he was in Quezon City where he worked the whole day. His
co-accused, Alfonso Munar, who, as already stated had entered a plea of
guilty, also tried to save him by testifying that it was one Simplicio
Para and not the appellant that was with him in the killing.
After going over the record, we find that the judgment appealed from is fully justified by the evidence. Appellant’s alibi
is shaky and cannot be allowed to prevail over his signed confession.
Moreover, appellant’s presence in Binangonan on the day of the killing
is testified to by two apparently disinterested and credible witnesses,
Simplicio Rayoos and Basilio Costales, in whose company he had been
earlier that day, it further appearing that, when they separated,
appellant took or borrowed Rayoos’ bayong and put his own hammer in it and that it was this bayong and hammer that were found at the scene of the crime.
Appellant’s claim that his confession was involuntary is denied by
the justice of the peace, who, before allowing him to sign it, took
pains to make sure that it had not been forcibly obtained. Moreover, it
was not only in this confession that appellant revealed his
participation in the crime, for the same revelation was made by him to
Pablo Parayno.
Alfonso Munar’s last minute effort to exculpate appellant by
testifying that it was somebody else who was with him in the killing is
unworthy of belief. It was Munar himself who guided the detectives when
they arrested the appellant, while in his confession he named no one
else but appellant as his confederate.
The judgment appealed from being in conformity with law, the same is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellant.
Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Jugo JJ., concur.