THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SERAPIO TORRES AND BERNARDO DE LOS SANTOS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

In the afternoon of January 17, 1950, about five o’clock, General
Mariano Castaneda of the Philippine Army, accompanied by his aide,
Colonel Valentin Salgado and his orderly Sgt. Manadao were returning on
horseback from V. Luna Hospital in Kamias District to Camp Murphy, both
places in Quezon City. Riding along a winding trail until they reached
Kamias Road, they turned towards Highway 54. Colonel Salgado rode
abreast with the general on the left side, the orderly following them
slightly to the right. The party had just passed the corner when they
were suddenly fired upon, with a burst of an automatic rifle whizzing
from the direction of some bamboo clumps about fifteen meters distant.
Mortally wounded in the left armpit, Colonel Salgado dropped from his
mount; and General Castaneda, sensing grave peril galloped away to the
City Hall, narrowly missing another hail of bullets. His orderly
hurried away too, proceeding to Camp Murphy and leading Colonel
Salgado’s horse.

Captain Andres Bambao of the Quezon City Police and his men
immediately repaired to the scene of the crime, brought Colonel
Salgado’s lifeless body to a hospital, and began the search for the
sniper or snipers who had decamped in the meantime.

People living or found around the vicinity were naturally
questioned. Jose Ramos, a stone-cutter in nearby quarries was picked up
several times for investigation. He was finally released after he had
promised to assist in tracking down the guilty persons. Upon returning
to work he noticed that two stone-cutters, co-workers of his, Bernardo
de los Santos and Serapio Torres, had disappeared since the afternoon of
January 17. He so informed Captain Bambao and both agreed upon a
definite plan of action. Ramos pretended he was hiding in Kamias
district from the authorities, and the police conducted feigned searches
for him. Meanwhile he endeavored and was able to contact Bernardo and
Serapio then also lying low. These at first refused to believe Ramos
was a fugitive. But when informed of raids conducted by the police to
apprehend Ramos, they fell for the trick, and gave him their confidence.
And one day when the three were in conversation partaking a “merienda”
with Eusebio Santos, Ramos casually remarked to Santos that he wished
he had a gun for protection against the police. Completely taken in,
Serapio Torres volunteered the information that he knew where a gun
could be obtained, but it was a fatal weapon (delinquente) because it
had been used in killing (Col.) Salgado. Serapio further revealed that
he had concealed that gun in the creek nearby. Soon Ramos secretly
relayed the hot tip to Captain Bambao.

(The police at that time already knew the kind of firearm used,
because in the morning of January 18, 1950 Detective Rosauro Alcantara
discovered 28 empty shells fired from a carbine caliber .30, near the
bamboo grove and the postmortem showed the bullet that finished Col.
Salgado was of that kind.)

Serapio was arrested, and search for the firearm in the creek
started. For two days laborers dived, with no result. The fire
department was even requested, and began to pump the water from the
creek. The record does not say so, but probably when Torres was told
and realized that sooner or later the gun would be recovered from the
creek, he finally confessed to Captain Bambao that he hid it there after
the shooting because he was forced to do it by Nick Pamintuan. Then he
plunged into the water and retrieved the murderous weapon — an
automatic carbine, which, because of its cut butt, Ramos immediately
identified as the gun he had seen in the hands of Bernardo de los Santos
a month before. Two magazines were also retrieved by him near the
carbine — from the bottom of the creek.

Torres was kept in custody after that, but a few days later he
escaped and was recaptured by the Manila Police, whose Lieutenant
Enrique B. Morales took charge of his investigation, in the course of
which Serapio revealed the existence in Kamias of a group called
Samahang Sandatahan (Society of Armed Men) the purpose of which was to
overthrow the government and to liquidate high government officials. He
mentioned names in the list Exh. H-1 written by himself (Serapio). In
that group Serapio was the consultant and Bernardo de los Santos,
member. Other names disclosed by him were those of Nick Pamintuan and
Pabling. Thereafter he indicated Bernardo de los Santos “as one of the
companions of Nicasio Pamintuan and Pabling” responsible for the death
of Colonel Salgado. (Jose Ramos had also revealed the existence of such
organization, with the significant detail that Nick (Pamintuan) and
Pabling were the “trigger men” thereof.)

Lt. Morales reported the news to Captain Bambao; and Bernardo
de los Santos was apprehended in Longos, Laguna where he had fled,
according to Serapio Torres. Quizzed by Sgt. Leones of the Detective
Division, Bernardo de los Santos declared that afternoon of January 17
he was at the window of the house of Eusebio de los Santos (near the
scene of the shooting) and saw Nick (Pamintuan) and Pabling going to the
bamboo grove; that later he heard a volley of shots and say Nick and
Pabling hurrying to the creek; that he also ran and overtook them in the
field; that before they parted Nick gave him a pistol, and then handed
to Pio (Serapio) a carbine.

Mainly on the strength of the above facts, the city attorney of
Quezon City filed on March 21, 1950 an information for attempted murder
and murder against Nick Pamintuan, Serapio Torres, Bernardo de los
Santos and Pabling “Doe”.

The case proceeded against Serapio and Bernardo because the
other two had not been arrested. During the trial held in the months of
April and May, 1950 before the Hon. Demetrio Encarnacion, General
Castaneda, Capt. Andres Bambao, Jose Ramos, Rosauro Alcantara, Enrique
B. Morales, Sgt. Leones and others testified to the events herein set
forth.

There was also evidence that the newly-found carbine and the
magazines, together with the 28 empty shells picked on January 18 near
the bamboo trees were submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation.
And Edgar Bond, Chief of the Ballistics & Questioned Documents
Section of that Bureau declared in court that the 28 shells had been
fired from the identical carbine.

Furthermore, Eusebio Santos, who lived near the bamboo trees
testified that afternoon of January 17, he was sick in bed in his house
near the site of the ambuscade; that startled by the volley of shots
fired from the bamboo grove, he got up, looked and saw Nick and Pabling
hurrying to the creek, the first with a carbine in hand, followed by
Serapio Torres and Bernardo de los Santos; that a little later Pabling
returned to enjoin him under pain of death not to report to the
authorities, threat which was repeated three weeks afterwards by Nick
and Pabling.

The trial judge gave full credit to the evidence of the
prosecution in his decision of May 29, 1950, and declared that Serapio
Torres, Bernardo de los Santos, Nick Pamintuan and Pabling, being
members of the Samahang Sandatahan conspired to ambush and did ambush
General Castaneda and Colonel Salgado, slaying the latter, and
imperilling the life of the former. He consequently sentenced them to
life imprisonment and to pay jointly and severally, the sum of P6,000.00
to the heirs of the deceased.

The two defendants promptly appealed, and the expediente
was forwarded to the Court of Appeals, wherein their counsel of record,
by his communication dated July 7, 1950, gave notice that they were
“withdrawing our intention to appeal”. The Court of Appeals, however,
required “counsel to submit a petition to said effect signed by all
appellants in person”. Thereafter, the appellate tribunal forwarded the
record to this Supreme Court, because the penalty imposed by the trial
judge was reclusion perpetua.

Here the appellants submitted a printed brief vigorously
maintaining their innocence. Obviously they changed their minds about
withdrawing their appeal. However, inasmuch as the penalty meted out to
them by the court a quo was less than they deserved, maybe
someone committed a tactical error.

There is no doubt in our minds that the proofs presented by the
prosecution hereinbefore described sufficiently establish the
participation of these two appellants in the murder of Colonel Salgado
and the attempt upon the life of General Castañeda.

The evidence for the defense consisted only of the
uncorroborated, contradicted and incredible testimony of the two
defendants themselves.

Having been tricked into disclosing the whereabouts of the
murderous weapon and realizing its implications, Serapio Torres related
the unlikely story that on said afternoon he was cutting stones in the
quarry; that immediately after the shooting two men “came to the place
where he was working and ordered him to hide a gun in the creek, with
the threat that he should follow the said order, otherwise he would be
killed.” We say unlikely because, as the prosecution says, it is
ridiculous to believe that a criminal would entrust the disposal of the
weapon used in the ambuscade to one who was not a co-conspirator — even
to a total stranger, Serapio Torres having asserted that he was not
acquainted with Nick.

Bernardo de los Santos claimed, and swore before the court,
that at the time of the shooting he was asleep in the house of his
sister. Yet he did not present her in corroboration, nor did he explain
his failure to do so. That sister again could have confirmed his
allegation that afternoon he escaped from Kamias and went into hiding
because she informed him the authorities were arresting all the men in
the district. This wholesale arrest was of course an improbable story;
but it was intended to counteract the logical inference of guilt from
his having escaped and hidden for some time until his capture in Laguna
province. And Eusebio Santos who testified to having seen him running
away from the scene of the crime together with Nick, Pabling and Serapio
Torres was his close relative, his brother having married Eusebio’s
sister. (P. 189, t.s.n.)

In our considered opinion the judgment of conviction rested on
sufficient evidence. Two crimes were perpetrated: murder and attempted
murder. The appealed decision imposed on these appellants the correct
penalty for the murder (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code). But they should
also atone for the attempt on the life of General Castañeda with an
additional imprisonment of not less than four years and 2 months of
prision correccional nor more than eight years of prision mayor, i.e.,
the medium period, because although the offenses was committed in
disregard of rank, they are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
lack of instruction.

Wherefore, thus modified, the appealed decision is affirmed,
with costs against appellants. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo
and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Bautista Angelo, J., no part.