THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PAINTIFF-APELLEE, VS. GILBERTO LLAMOSO Y ORTACIO, DOMINADOR AGUILAR Y DAYAO, OSCAR PADILLA, AND LAGIM LAGUNERA, DEFENDANTS. GILBERTO LLAMOSO Y ORT…

Automatic review of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch XVIII, in Criminal Case No. 69139, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“Premises considered, the Court acquits defendant Oscar
Padilla, with costs de oficio and his immediate
release is hereby ordered.  With respect
to defendants Gilberto Llamoso and Dominador Aguilar, the Court finds and so holds that their
guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.  In the commission of the crime, the
aggravating circumstances of use of motor vehicle and nighttime were attendant,
without any mitigating circumstance to offset any of them.  The Court also considers against the said
defendants that the crime of direct assault against an agent of a person of
authority was committed.  While this
Court is adverse at imposing the capital punishment, nevertheless, in view of
the circumstances of the case
and the express and mandatory provisions of the second paragraph of Article 5
of the Revised Penal Code, the Court finds itself compelled to comply with the
law and imposes upon each of them the
maximum penalty prescribed by law – death. 
They are also sentenced to indemnify jointly and severally, the
government in the sum of P23,778 and the heirs of the deceased Pat. Domingo Daracan in the amount of P5,000.00, and to pay the
costs.”

Accused Gilberto Llamoso y Ortacio, Dominador Aguilar y Dayao, Oscar Padilla and Lagim Lagunera, together with others still unidentified, were
charged with the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide, according to the
Information, as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of February, 1963, at nighttime
which was purposely sought to better accomplish their ends and with the use of
a motor vehicle, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit:  by using a United Taxi with Plate No. 125 Mla. ’62 to convey them to their destination and armed with
guns, entered the MVO Branch on Dakota St., Malate,
in said City, and pointing their guns at the employees therein and shooting
Pat. Domingo Daracan y Solayao
with a carbine and .45 caliber pistol, thereby inflicting upon him mortal
wounds which were the direct cause of his death thereafter, take, steal and
carry away cash money in different denominations amounting to P23,778.00 and
several non-negotiable checks of undetermined amount payable to said office, to
the damage and prejudice of the Motor Vehicle Office (Manila Branch) in the
aforesaid sum of P23,778.00, Philippine Currency.”

The
case against Lagim Lagunera
was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence after the prosecution had closed
its evidence.  Oscar Padilla was
acquitted by the trial court.

On September 21, 1965, appellant Gilberto Llamoso,
through counsel, filed before this Court a Motion for New Trial on the grounds
that:  (1) errors of law or
irregularities had been committed during the trial prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the herein appellant; and (2) new and material evidence
had been discovered which the accused could not, with reasonable diligence,
have discovered at the trial, and which if introduced and admitted, would
probably change the judgment.  In a
Minute Resolution dated November 2,
1965, this Court resolved to take up this matter when this case is
considered on its merits.

Concerning the first ground, the motion failed to show any such
error or irregularity that may be the ground for a new trial.  We have noted that the arguments contained
therein are not new.  They have been
raised during the hearing and disposed of in the decision of the trial court.

With respect to the second ground, the alleged new evidence, to
wit:  the expected testimony of Romeo
Canary, a fellow convict, exculpating appellant Llamoso,
is not a ground for new trial.  According
to the decision of the trial court, this appellant was aware of this evidence
but made no effort to produce the same. 
In order that this Court, before whom an appeal is pending, may receive
and properly consider new and material evidence, it must be shown that the
evidence was discovered after trial; could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; is material and
not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and is of such weight that
it will probably change the judgment.^[1]
A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, supported by an
affidavit of a fellow prisoner already convicted of a serious offense
exculpating appellant and assuming with others full responsibility for the
crime, had often been denied as coming from a polluted source and not worthy of
consideration in view of clear evidence of guilt of the appellant.^[2]

On June 30, 1971,
this Court received from the Bureau of Prisons a certified true copy of the
Certificate of Death of appellant Dominador Aguilar,
showing that said appellant died on March
28, 1971, of undetermined cause. 
In view of the death of the aforesaid appellant during the pendency of the automatic review of the judgment of
conviction, his criminal liability, meaning his obligation to serve the
personal or imprisonment penalties, and his liability to pay the fines or
pecuniary penalties, is extinguished.^[3]

The records show that at about 6:30
o’clock in the evening of February
28, 1963, while Raul Empedrado was driving
a taxi with Plate No. TX-125, Manila (62) along Felix Huertas,
two men hailed his taxicab near the corner of Gov. Forbes and Laon­-laan Streets and when he stopped, they asked him if
he could take in five passengers.  Upon
an affirmative reply, one of the men beckoned the three other companions and
they approached the cab.  All the five
boarded the cab, with three passengers at the back, while the other two sat at
the front seat.  Raul drove his taxicab
through Dakota St. on instruction
of his passengers who said they were looking for women.  Upon reaching the corner of Dakota and Vito
Cruz Streets, the taxi turned left and entered
Sagan Street.  Raul
inquired from the group where they were going but one of the passengers
answered that they know where they could find women.  Raul continued driving.  Upon reaching the Holiday Motel at Pasay City,
one of the men at the front seat said they might find some women there but ano­ther
passenger ordered Empedrado to proceed.  When the taxicab reached Dakota
Street, Raul was made to turn right and as they
were near the gate of the Motor Vehicles Office one of the passengers poked a
gun at Empedrado’s side and told him to stop the car,
which he did.  Empedrado
looked at the man who poked the gun and he identified him at the trial to be
Gilberto Llamoso. 
In the meantime, the other passenger at the front seat alighted and
after shoving Empedrado, he took the wheel and drove
towards the Motor Vehicles Office at Dakota Street.  Upon reaching the place, the car was parked
in the compound at about five (5) meters from the gate.  Thereafter, the passenger who took the wheel
and the other passengers at the back alighted, while Llamoso
kept the gun pointed at Empedrado’s head.  After a lapse of two minutes, during which Llamoso continued pointing his gun at Empedrado’s
forehead, Llamoso grabbed Empedrado
by his collar, and using him as a shield, pulled him out of the cab, at the
same time firing his gun.  Other shots
followed while Llamoso pulled Empedrado
to the counter of the Motor Vehicles Office. 
Upon reaching the same, Llamoso suddenly
pushed Empedrado to one side of the counter.  Shortly thereafter, he heard someone shouted:
“Pasok, dapa.” While thus lying flat on their bellies, Empedrado heard several shots.  After the shooting had ceased, Raul got up
and noticed that his taxicab was gone.

The evidence of the prosecution further shows that at the time
the malefactors arrived at the Motor Vehicles Office, Tirso
Atanacio, driver-examiner, one Mr. Varona and Mr. Lanuza, were
playing chess inside their division.  All
of a sudden, they heard someone shout: “This is a holdup, do not
move.” Atanacio stood up only to find him
staring at a carbine being pointed at him. 
Immediately after, the man shot the policeman who was then by the main
door about five (5) meters away.  Atanacio also saw other persons pointing carbines at the
fallen officer.  Atanacio
immediately crawled under the table and while there he heard someone shout:
“Doming, dali ka na.”
While these were taking place, Jose B. Rigor, the Acting Cashier, was called by
his superior and went out of the cashier’s cage.  While with his superior, they heard a
commotion at the main door about fifteen (15) meters away, and when they looked
up in that direction, they saw a man, with his back towards them, holding a
carbine pointed at the other employees. 
Thereafter, they heard gun reports. 
Rigor and his superior then went into the bodega for cover.  In the meantime, the other employees had
dropped to the floor.  Minerito Giman, who hid under the
Registrar’s table, was grabbed by the collar by someone who asked where the
money was.  Giman
replied he did not know as they were not in charge.  The man then pushed him inside the cashier’s
cage and again asked where the money was. 
Then he saw that the cash register was opened and when he found no money
inside, he ordered Giman to open the drawers.  Giman did so and
when he opened the center drawer of the Cashier’s table, the man saw that it
contained money.  The man then ordered Giman to turn around. 
Giman obeyed. 
Shortly after, the gunman fired two shots to the floor.  When silence returned, Giman
turned around but the man was gone.  He
saw that the drawer was on the floor, but the money was gone except some bills
that were scattered on the floor.  Then
other shots followed.  The evidence shows
that P23,778.00 in cash were taken by the robbers.

The evidence also discloses that a mobile patrol notified the
Theft and Robbery Section of the Detective Bureau about the incident.  Detective Diosdado Lumanog, together with Sgt. Espiritu,
proceeded to the Motor Vehicles Office and saw near the main door the body of
the deceased officer, identified as Pat. Domingo Daracan,
riddled with bullets.  His service pistol
was missing.  Beside the officer, they
found carbine and .45 caliber pistol empty shells.  At about the same time, the Homicide Section
was notified and Det. Romulo
Gorospe and Det. Jesus Senen responded. 
They took possession of the sixteen (16) empty shells that were gathered
by Pat. Gorospe – ten (10) empty shells of .30
caliber carbine and six (6) shells of .45 caliber pistol.  These were later turned over to the ballistic
expert for examination.  The shells were found
in the lobby near the office of the Cashier, others were near the main door and
others were near the Trafcon car parked in front of
the office.  Photographs of the scene of
the crime were taken.  From the police
informants, the police learned that the robbery was committed by known police
characters from Sampaloc.  Search for the suspects was conducted.  In the meantime, during the police
investigation at the scene of the crime, Bonifacio
Marcelo, Fingerprint Expert of the Manila Police Department was summoned.  Upon arrival thereat, Marcelo found one of
the technicians looking for latent prints, but up to that time, he had not
found any.  Soon Marcelo was summoned to Mendoza
(should be Mendiola) Street.  It turned out that the taxi used by the
culprits was found abandoned in front of the Centro
Escolar University.  Marcelo examined the taxi for latent prints
and found one on the outside of the door and another one on the inner side of
the windshield (Exhibits “D” and “E”).  He lifted the latent prints.  At the back of the car, they found pieces of
rope (Exhibit “B”), a carbine stock (Exhibit “A”), a bullet
(Exhibit “C”).  After lifting
the latent fingerprints, Marcelo compared them with the fingerprints on file
with the Detective Bureau.  He discovered
that the latent prints lifted from the inner face right side of the windshield
(right glass window) (Exhibit “E-1”) tallied with the print of the
middle finger of appellant Dominador Aguilar.  Subsequently, after the arrest of Aguilar,
Marcelo took the impressions of his fingerprints (Exhibits “F” and
“G”), and com­pared them with the latent fingerprints lifted and
found that the impressions of the right middle finger (Exhibit “F-1”)
tallied with the latent prints (Exhibit “E-1”).  Marcelo’s findings are contained in the
report (Exhibit “J”).  Of the
accused, Dominador Aguilar was first apprehended and
brought on March 2, 1963 to
the office of the Theft and Robbery Section by Campillanes.  Aguilar was questioned but at first denied
participation.  Subsequently, on March 6,
1963, Det. Lazarte
questioned Aguilar and this time, he admitted his participation and gave a
written statement (Exhibit “P”), wherein he identified his companions
during the commission of the crime as Llamoso
(Exhibit “P-3”) and Padilla, (Exhibit “P-1”), but both were
not present.  In the morning of the same
day, Aguilar gave an additional statement (Exhibit “Q”), claiming
among others things that he was about to separate from his companions but
Padilla called him (Exhibit “Q-1”). 
He identified Raul Empedrado as the taxi
driver (Exhibit “Q­2”).  The
additional statement was sworn to by him before Assistant Fiscal Alfonso
Francisco.  Three days later, upon the
arrest of Padilla, accused Aguilar was confronted with Padilla and he gave
another statement (Exhibit “R”), identifying Oscar Padilla (Exhibit
“R-1”).

Appellant Gilberto Llamoso, who was picked up on implication by Aguilar, was
likewise questioned and his statement (Exhibit “V”) was taken at 11:50 a.m. March 2, 1963.  He
admitted participation and he identified Aguilar as one of his companions.  When shown photographs of Padilla taken from
the files, Llamoso also identified him (Exhibits
“V-1” and “V-2”).  At
7:00
p.m. on March 2,
1963, Llamoso again executed a statement elaborating the details
of his previous confession.  This was
sworn to before the Assistant City Fiscal on the same date (Exhibit
“Z”).  Subsequently, on March 9,
1963, Det. Lazarte took his additional
statement (Exhibit “S”) when he was confronted with Padilla and he
identified the latter (Exhibit “S-1”).  Llamoso also
affirmed that before going to the Motor Vehicles Office, he and his companions
met at the Santal Arcade at the cor­ner of Castaños and Manrique
Streets.  He affirmed under oath the
veracity of his statements before the Assistant City Fiscal on March
31, 1963.

It also appears from the
evidence that on March 3, 1963, Servillano David
made a paraffin test on Dominador Aguilar and
Gilberto Llamoso, and on March 9, 1963, he also made a similar test on Oscar
Padilla.  His findings on the test are
set forth in Exhibit “Y” wherein the dorsal part of the right and
left hands of Aguilar (Exhibits “X-1” and “X-2”) and Llamoso (Exhibits “X-3” and “X-4”) are
sketched and blue spots indicating the presence of nitrates marked with letter
“S”.  As to Padilla, the test
also gave positive reaction and the sketch of the dorsal of his right
hand showing the spot was also made (Exh­ibit “Y-1”).  The investigating officer submitted the
reports of the investigation (Exhibit “U”).

The evidence further shows that the body of Pat. Domingo Daracan was examined by Dr. Angelo Singian
whose findings are set forth in the Autopsy Report (Exhibit
“K”).  According to said
report, the victim sustained three (3) gunshot wounds, described in said
Autopsy Report and indicated in the diagram (Exhibit “M”), and the
cause of death was shock and profuse hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot
wounds (Exhibit “L”). 
Appellant Gilberto Llamoso denied any
participation in the commission of the crime and tried to prove that the
robbery was committed by other persons. 
He claimed that he signed Exhibits “S”, “V” and
“Z” but without knowing their contents.

The issues raised by appellant Llamoso
are:  (1) the admissibility of his
extrajudicial confessions; and (2) the credibility of Raul Empedrado.

Appellant Llamoso contends that his
extrajudicial confessions were given under duress.  Appellant claims that the details in his
alleged confessions were supplied by the police from the information gathered
from the taxi driver, Raul Empedrado, and Motor
Vehicles Office employees Tirso Atanacio,
Varona, Lanuza and Giman, and that he was forced to sign his declaration after
being tortured.

It should be noted, however, that the extrajudicial confessions
of appellant Llamoso (Exhibits “V” and
“Z”) described the events relative to the planning of the robbery,
the actual holdup and the flight of the culprits.  Thus, appellant Llamoso
stated:

“16.
T. Maaari mo bang sabihin sa amin kung kailan,
saan at papaano mo narinig ng planuhin
na holdapin ang tanggapan ng
MVO na nasa Dakota?

S.
Hindi ko na po natatandaan ang pecha pero
mayroon na hong mga isang
buwan ngayon.  Doon
po sa Santal
Arcade na nasa canto ng Manrique at Castaños ho narinig kong pinlano.  Naabutan na po nila
ako doon sa canto ng Manrique
at Castaños na umiinom sa tindahan.  Bumile ho si Conrado Valdez ng alak sa
kabilang tindahan doon kay Tomas pagkatapos niyaya niya akong mag-inuman
doon sa Santal
Arcade.  Sumama
po ako.  Ng nagiinuman na kami, narinig
ko si Conrado
Valdez na
sinabi kay Oscar Padilla,
‘Padre may lalakarin tayo.’
Ang sagot ho naman ni Oscar, “Baka small time lang yan.’ Ang sagot
ho ni Conrado Valdez,
‘Hindi padre may contact tayo sa
lakad na ito.’ Sinabi pa ni Conrado doon
daw sa registrohan
ng mga jeep.  Pumayag naman sina Sixto
Posadas, Jose Perez, Dominador
Aguilar at si Lagim Lagunera na sasama
sa lakad na pinaplano ni
Conrado Valdez. 
At bago sila umalis, sinabi nila magkita na
lang sila uli.  Alam na raw nila
kung saan sila magkikita.  Tinanong din ho ako ni Conrado Valdez
kung gusto kong sumama sa lakad.  Sinabi ko titignan ko.  Ngayon sinabi niya sa
akin kung sasama raw ako basta’t dadaanan na nila ako
kung lalakad na.  Mula noon hindi na kami nagkita.  Mayroon pang sinabi sa akin si Sixto Posadas
na baka raw makarating pa sa iba ang pinagusapan
nila.  Ikaw ang bahala
sa akin.” (Exhibit “V-1”)

* *                  * * *                  *
* *

“6.   T. Dati mo na bang silang kakilala?  At kung ganoon ay ano ang
iyong tawag sa kanikanilang mga pangalan?

S.
Ang tawag ko po sa
kanila ay ang mga sumusunod:  kay Oscar Padilla
ay Oscar; kay Sixto Posadas ay Esto;
kay Dominador Aguilar ay
Doming; kay Jose Perez ay minsan
ay Peping o Pingoy at kay Cesar Pagsibigan ay Cesar.

7.    T. Sa mga binanggit mong limang (5) katao sa itaas nito
na kasama mo sa pagnanakaw sa
MVO sa Dakota, Maynila, ay sino ang pinakautak
sa pagnanakaw doon?

S. Si Cesar Pagsibigan ho.”
(Exhibit “Z-1”).

* *                  * * *                  *
* *

“13.
T. Mula noong kayong magkausapusap sa Panciteria sa
Bustillos ay kailan muli kayo nagkitakita?

S.
Nagkitakita ho kaming muli noong magiika-alas
5:00 nang hapon, a 28 nang Febrero, 1963, sa kanto nang
Manrique at Castaños sa Sampaloc, Maynila,
at naglakad po kaming anim (6) at pagkatapos ay sumakay sa Jeepney na
ang viaje ay Lealtad at kami ay bumaba sa may Lealtad
na malapit sa bahay ni
Mayor Lacson at lumakad kami uli hanggang
sa kanto nang Gov. Forbes at España at doon sa calle
Gov. Forbes na hindi ko na matandaan
kung saan lugar doon ay tumawag nang isang Taxi si Doming at kaming anim ay sumakay.

14.   T. Mula doon sa kanto
nang Manrique at Castaños hanggang kayo ay tumawag nang Taxi ay daladala na ba
ninyo ang mga armas?

S.
Si Cesar ho at si Doming ay
may nakasukbit na armas sa kanilang
bewang at si Oscar naman ay may bitbit na balutan na
mahaba at may tali.

15.  T. Ano ang laman nang
mahabang balutan bitbit ni Oscar?

S.
Nang kami ay makasakay na sa
loob nang Taxi ay binuksan ni Esto
ang mahabang balutan at nakita ko ang dalawang
(2) Carbine at binigyan niya
(Esto) ako nang isang automatic na baril, kalibre
.45.

16.  T. Sino-sino pa ang binigyan ni
Esto nang baril na kalibre
.45?

S. Si Pingoy.” (Exhibit
“Z-2”).

* *                  * * *                  *
* *

“30.
T. Ngayon, sa inyong paglabas na sa hinoldup
ninyong opisina ng MVO, papaano ang nangyari?

S.
Kami ni Doming at ng hawak kong
choper ang unang lumabas, ngunit ang choper
ay hindi bumangon sa pagkakadapa kaya kami na
lamang ni Doming ang tumuloy na
lumabas.  Ako ay nahuli pa rin kay Doming sa paglabas at iniwan ko na
ang driver o choper sa kanyang pagkakadapa
at kasunod ko sina Cesar, Oscar, Esto at si Pingoy.  Nagkaniya-kanya kami nang sakay
sa taksi at ako ay napasakay sa hulihan sa
pagitan ni Do­ming at
Oscar.  Ang nagmamaneho nang taksi ay si Cesar, si Pingoy sa
gitna sa unahan at si Esto
ay nasa tabi sa unahan.

31.   T. Nang kayo ay nakasakay nang lahat sa taksi
hanggang sa kayo ay dumating sa lugar
na iniwanan ang sasakyan, ano
ang inyong napag-usapan kung mayruon?

S.
Nang tumatakbo na ang taksi
nang malayo-layo, ay sinabi ni Cesar na ‘Tinamaan ko
ang pulis.’ Pagkatapos nang tumatakbo na kami
nang papalapit na sa aking
binabaan ay sinabi uli ni Cesar na
‘Saka na tayo magkita-kita uli.’

32.   T. Ngayon, papaano ang nangyari sa
mga baril na ginamit ninyo
sa Hold-up na iyan?    

S.
Kami ni Doming
ang magkasabay na bumaba sa
taksi pagkat sinabi ni Cesar na una kaming
bumaba sa may kanto nang Tuberias
at Mendiola at kami raw ay maghiwahiwalay.  Sinabi ni Oscar bago kami bumaba
na iwanan namin ang baril
namin at inabot namin kay Esto
sa unahan nang taksi.

* * *               * * *                  *
* *

43.   T. Papaano naman ang nangyari
sa mga ‘carbine’ na baril na
ginamit nang iyong mga kasamahan?

S.
Hindi ko po malaman pagkat ako at si Doming ay unang bumaba at habang tumatakbo ang taksi pagkagaling
sa Hold-up ay pinag­tatanggal
iyon ni Doming, at ang mga partes
ay inilalagay sa loob nang bag nang
kuwarta na hawak ni Oscar.

44.   T. Pagkababa ninyo ni Doming sa taksi sa
kanto nang Mendiola at Tuberias, saan kayo nagtuloy ni Doming?

S. Naglakad
ho kami ni Doming sa Legarda at sa
may Labanderos ay naghiwalay
na kami at ako ay tumuloy na sa aming
lugar.” (Exhibit “Z”).

Only a participant to the conspiracy could have vividly related
the sequence of events from the commencement of the plan to commit the crime
prior to the group’s boarding the taxicab and the perpetration of the crime
itself at the Motor Vehicles Office.  It
cannot be said that the source of these details was Raul Empedrado
because the latter was with the group only from the time they boarded his
taxicab up to the actual holdup at the Motor Vehicles Office.  It cannot be claimed also that they
originated from the Motor Vehicles Office employees because their knowledge of
the robbery was only limited to what transpired at the Motor Vehicles Office
building.

When the accused-appellant Llamoso
testified, he claimed that he was given fist and karate blows by the policemen
who investigated him and he was forced to sign the extrajudicial
confessions.  It is not denied, however,
that when he appeared before Assistant City Fiscal Isip
to affirm under oath the veracity of his confessions, he did not complain to
the latter that he did not know the contents of the document and that he was
compelled to execute the same under duress, much less did he file any complaint
against the police officers who allegedly maltreated him.

It is important to note that many of the facts in Llamoso’s statements were affirmed later by Dominador Aguilar’s extrajudicial confession.  As correctly observed by Solicitor General,
now Associate Justice of this Court, Hon. Antonio P. Barredo,
“it is absurd to say that Llamoso’s confessions
were copied from Aguilar’s because except one whose contents only identified
Oscar Padilla, the former were executed earlier.” Llamoso’s
confessions were made on March 2, 1963
(Exhibit “V”), while Aguilar’s were made on March 6, 1963 (Exhibits “P”,
“Q”) and March 9, 1963
(Exhibit “R”).

Appellant Llamoso, in impugning his
identification by Raul Empedrado, claims that it is
highly improbable that the latter, due to fear, could have remembered the face
of the man who poked a gun at his forehead, considering that the persons inside
the Motor Vehicles Office who were confronted with the same situation were not
able to identify any of the culprits.  On
this point, We agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that Empedrado, unlike the Motor Vehicles Office employees,
stayed for sometime in the company of Llamoso.  Empedrado and Llamoso were together from the time the former picked up
the group in his taxi, throughout their journey along the streets of Manila,
and they stayed behind in the taxicab while the rest of the group entered the
Motor Vehicles Office.  During this time
that they were together, Llamoso acted as Empedrado’s guard. 
It was also Llamoso who pointed a gun at Empedrado shortly before dragging and using him as his
shield when he started firing as they entered the building.  Under these circumstances, Empedrado had all
the opportunity to look at Llamoso and to remember
his face.

Empedrado, in his testimony, clearly
and positively identified Llamoso as one of the five
men who boarded his taxicab and who pointed a gun at him shortly before Llamoso and his companions entered the Motor Vehicles
Office.

Appellant Dominador Aguilar’s defense
is alibi.  He testified that in the
evening of February 28, 1963,
he was performing his duties as security guard at Sampaloc
market.  At about 7:05 in the evening, a boy was apprehended stealing by a
fellow watchman and this boy was endorsed to him.  He and three other companions brought this
boy to Manila Police Department Precinct No. 6 where he stayed up to 9:20 in the evening.  From Precinct No. 6, he and Det. de los
Angeles took the boy to the Youth
Center at Arroceros Street where he
stayed for ten minutes, and after that Det. de los Angeles drove him to Sampaloc market, arriving thereat at about 9:45, and thereafter he continued to make
rounds.

The trial court correctly rejected this defense of alibi of said
appellant.  As carefully analyzed by the
trial judge, Hon. Ruperto Kapunan,
Jr., Agui­lar’s presence at the scene of the crime was clearly established by Bonifacio Marcelo, the Manila Police Department Senior
Fingerprint Expert, when he testified that the latent print lifted from the
inner face right side glass window of the abandoned getaway taxi (Exhibits
“E-1” and “I”), tallied with the fingerprints of Aguilar’s
middle finger (Exhibits “F-1”, “H” and “J”).  This positive declaration of an expert witness
stands unrefuted by any competent proof.  This appellant also failed to present Det. de los
Angeles, his alleged companion, or any official of
Precinct No. 6, or anyone from the Youth
Center where the boy was
subsequently taken, to corroborate his alibi.

Aguilar, however, claims that his fingerprints were planted by
the police in order to apprehend and bring to the custody of the law the
killers of one of its members.  If this
were true, the police should have also planted the fingerprints of Oscar
Padilla, Gilberto Llamoso and Lagim
Lagunera.  Besides,
the taxicab used by the malefactors was examined by Bonifacio
Marcelo in the same evening of February 28, 1963, shortly after the police had
been notified of the robbery, and he lifted the latent prints from the same
taxicab at 12:55 a.m. of March 1, 1963, while appellant Aguilar was brought to
the police headquarters and his fingerprints taken on March 2, 1963 (Exhibit
“F”).

Appellant Aguilar also contends that his extrajudicial
confessions were obtained through force, yet he did not file any complaint
against the police officers who allegedly maltreated him or complain to the Fiscal before whom his confessions
were sworn.  The confessions contain
details which are confirmatory of the events narrated in Llamoso’s
extrajudicial statements.  And, like Llamoso’s extrajudicial confessions, appellant’s statements
contain informations which only he could have known.

We, therefore, hold that the trial court committed no error in
refusing to accord credence to the allegations of appellant that his
extrajudicial confessions were extracted through force, violence and
intimidation.  Such a claim is rendered
incredible by the following:  (a) the
testimony of Alfredo Lazarte and Domingo Gomez on the
voluntary manner in which the extrajudicial declarations were made by the declarants and the circumstances currounding
their affirmance under oath by appellants before the
Fiscal; (b) the profusion of details contained therein on the planning,
execution of the crime and flight of
the culprits which can only be given by the very person who has experienced the
same or taken part in the execution of the crime; (c) the failure of the
appellants to complain to any of the duly constituted authorities of the
alleged maltreatment before the testimony of Llamoso
on January 15, 1964 and Aguilar on April 17, 1964; and (d) the circumstance
that many of the facts contained in the aforementioned extrajudicial
confessions were confirmed and corroborated by the other evidence.

Recapitulating, Gilberto Llamoso
confessed his participation of the robbery where a policeman was fatally
shot.  He was positively identified by
Raul Empedrado as one of the culprits.  His hand was found positive for gunpowder
residue.  As regards appellant Dominador Aguilar, he too confessed being a member of the
holdup gang who was responsible for the robbery and killing in the Motor
Vehicles Office.  His fingerprints were
found on the instrument of the crime and his hand was found positive for
gunpowder residue.

In view of the foregoing, We hold that the trial court did not
commit any error in finding appellants guilty of the offense charged.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction and sentence of
death imposed on appellant Gilberto Llamoso is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the modification that the amount due to the heirs of the victim,
Pat. Domingo Daracan, should be increased to
P12,000.00.  The case against appellant Dominador Aguilar is hereby DISMISSED insofar as his
criminal liability is con­cerned, with proportionate costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

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

Fernando, C.J., and Barredo, J., took no part.

^[1]
People v. Mangulabnan, L-8919, Sept. 28, 1956, 99 Phil. 992.

^[2]
People v. Amboloquio, L-1991, April 29, 1950.

^[3]
People v. Sendaydiego, L-33252-54, Jan. 20,
1978, 81 SCRA 120, citing Article 89 (1), Revised Penal Code, and 1
Viada, Codigo Penal, 4th
Ed., 565.