PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO MITRA, ADRIANO CARPIO AND PAULINO MANSIT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Jose Oliva, Francisco Mitra, Juan Malabanan, Adriano Carpio and
Paulino Mansit were charged before the Court of First Instance of
Batangas with the crime of murder under the following information:

“That on or about the 25th day of January, 1950
during nighttime purposely sought to better accomplish impunity, in the
Municipality of Santo Tomas, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
conspiring and confederating together, and helping one another, three
of whom being armed with firearms, with evident premeditation and
treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with the deliberate intent to kill Maximino Maloles, and without any
justifiable motive, shoot the latter several times with a carbine,
thereby inflicting upon him fatal gunshot wounds on his chest, which
directly caused his death; that the said offense was committed with the
following other aggravating circumstances, to wit: (1) the use of motor
vehicle to facilitate the commission of the crime, and (2) that said
crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise.”

Juan Malabanan was discharged from the information upon motion of
the prosecution so that he might be a state witness. During the trial,
Jose Oliva died, and upon the proper petition, the lower court ordered
the dismissal of the case as against him.

As to the other accused, the court rendered judgment, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Paulino Mansit
and Francisco Mitra guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals and
Adriano Carpio as an accomplice of the crime of murder, with evident
premeditation as the qualifying circumstance and considering that the
crime was perpetrated by using a jeep and with treachery without any
mitigating circumstance to offset any one of them, pursuant to Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentences Paulino Mansit and Francisco
Mitra to suffer Reclusion Perpetua and in relation to Article
52 of the same code, Adriano Carpio to suffer an indeterminate
imprisonment of not less than Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor but not more than Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal,
to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Dr. Maximino Maloles in
the sum of P6,000.00, to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by
law and each to pay 1/5 of the costs.”

Not satisfied with the decision, accused Mitra, Mansit and Carpio interposed the instant appeal.

The State has sufficiently established that on the night of January
25, 1950, at around 7:00 o’clock, while Dr. Maximino Maloles and his
wife Rufina Vda. de Maloles, were taking their supper inside their
store and restaurant located in the poblacion of Santo Tomas, Batangas,
a person entered to buy apples. Shortly after the person left the
store, successive gunshots were fired directed at the doctor. Mrs.
Maloles instinctively turned her gaze towards the window where the
firing came from, and from that position, she saw two armed persons,
who afterwards ran towards the back part of the store. Dr. Maloles was
heard to have exclaimed moments after the shooting, “support me because
I am fatally hit, declaring further that he was shot by his political
enemies. Dr. Maloles expired from his wounds while on the way to the
hospital at Tanauan, Batangas. An autopsy performed on the body of the
victim, by Dr. Rosalino V. Reyes of the National Bureau of
Investigation the following day, revealed that the cause of death was
profuse hemorrhage due to the gunshot wounds sustained on both lungs by
the deceased.

The Philippine Constabulary authorities, having failed to overtake
the culprits, conducted an investigation that same evening of the
incident and also the following morning, at the scene of the crime, the
investigators found empty shells, but failed to ascertain the identity
of the killers. On January 26, 1950, agents of the National Bureau of
Investigation conducted a similar investigation wherein certain
suspects, including Jose Oliva, were investigated. However, no
sufficient evidence against them was established because, as stated in
the progress report of the National Bureau of Investigation, “many of
the residents interviewed were reluctant to give all the information
they know about the case because of fear of reprisal and bodily harm.”

On January 19, 1952, the National Bureau of Investigation was
informed by Benjamin Maloles that Mrs. Maloles received a letter from
one Pacifico Calinawan, a prisoner of Muntinlupa penitentiary, pointing
to Leon Malabanan and Ruben Torres as the killers of Dr. Maloles. A new
investigation was conducted but, again, failed to produce results.

Some time in November, 1954, Lt. Emilio N. Cea received a
confidential information from an informer in Muntinlupa that a
prisoner, named Paulino Mansit, knew something about Dr. Maloles’
killing. In the early part of December, 1954, Lt. Cea with his men went
to Muntinlupa to interview Mansit, but failed to see him because he was
then in the Iwahig Penal Colony. On December 14, 1954, Lt. Cea returned
to the National Penitentiary and this time, he met Paulino Mansit.
After the interview, Mansit admitted participation in the murder of Dr.
Maloles, and revealed the identity of others who had taken part in the
perpetration of the crime. Mansit’s revelations are contained in his
extra-judicial confession (Exhibit K, Rec. pp. 5-6). On the basis of
said confession and Lt. Cea’s report, a complaint in the Justice of the
Peace Court of Santo Tomas, Batangas, was filed on March 29, 1955,
charging Jose Oliva, Francisco Mitra, Juan Malabanan, Adriano Carpio
and Paulino Mansit with murder for the killing of Maximino Maloles.

At the trial, Juan Malabanan, turned state’s witness, revealed in
detail the plot to liquidate, and the killing of Dr. Maximino Maloles.
He testified as follows: In the morning of January 23, 1950, he was
invited by Francisco Mitra and his companions to go with them to a
certain hut in barrio San Pablo, Santo Tomas, Batangas. While resting
inside the hut, Paulino Mansit and Jose Oliva arrived. Whereupon, Mitra
and Malabanan were told to come out and confer with Oliva. At this
moment, the latter sought the aid of those around him in the
liquidation of Dr. Maloles, who, according to Oliva, was an enemy of
the Huks and his own political enemy. The date designated for the
commission of the crime was January 25, 1950. Oliva gave Paulino Mansit
P250.00 as advance partial payment for the execution of the intended
crime, with the assurance that the balance would be paid later. After
advising that they would meet again on January 25, Oliva left. Out of
the P250.00, Malabanan received P50.00. The rest of the group then
proceeded to barrio Santa Elena, Santo Tomas, Batangas where they
agreed to stay until January 25. In the morning of the fateful date,
Malabanan, Mitra and Mansit, all fully armed, went to San Pablo where
they waited for Oliva. The latter arrived in due time and during the
conference, Oliva was heard to state that in the afternoon a jeep
driven by Adriano Carpio would fetch the party from behind the barrio
chapel of San Pablo to the town of Santo Tomas. As planned, the jeep
arrived, the party boarded it, and they proceeded in the direction of
the town. Stopping at the railroad crossing at the outskirts of the
municipality (town proper), Mitra and Mansit alighted from the vehicle
and both proceeded to the house of Dr. Maloles, while Malabanan was
instructed to remain. Not long after the duo had left, Malabanan heard
bursts of rapid gunfire. Soon, Mitra and Mansit arrived, boarded the
jeep and hurriedly returned to San Pablo. During the trip, Mitra
boasted that he was the one who fired at Dr. Maloles. They spent the
night in San Pablo, and in the following morning, they separated. After
three days, Malabanan returned to the same place and again met Mansit
and Oliva. After Oliva conferred with Mansit, Malabanan asked Mansit
about the promised money, but he was told that Oliva had no money at
the time; however, Mansit assured Malabanan that he would take care of
it. Malabanan visited the place several times thereafter, but failed to
contact any one of his companions, and it was only in May, 1955 when
they saw each other again at the Constabulary Headquarters.

Malabanan’s testimony is claimed by appellants to be biased and
suffering from gross inconsistencies and improbabilities. It is argued
that what really prompted him to testify the way he did was the promise
of his discharge, from the information. It is true that this witness
admitted in the trial that he might get free and be relieved from
criminal responsibility, if he would be utilized as a state witness; it
is equally a fact, however, that even before he consented to be
discharged and before testifying in court for the prosecution, he had
already executed an affidavit, dated March 30, 1955 (Exhibit “R”),
owning his participation in the foul deed and implicating the
appellants herein. The records show that his testimony in the trial was
just a reiteration of the material facts contained in his affidavit.

The claim that Malabanan was made to sign a “ready prepared
affidavit” and that the contents thereof were concocted by the
Philippine Constabulary investigators through the intercession of Mrs.
Maloles is unfounded and unsupported by the evidence. No proof was
offered why the prosecution should be bent in implicating these
particular appellants. In fact, Malabanan vehemently denied such
assertion and explained that it was he who related the contents of his
affidavit after admitting his guilt. On the other hand, this affiant’s
omission in the affidavit (Exhibit 1-Oliva) of the reasons for the
killing of Dr. Maloles; the P10,000.00 consideration for the
consumption of the foul act; the fact that three (3) days after the
killing, he, Mitra, Mansit and Oliva met again at barrio San Pablo; the
amount of P50.00 he received from Mansit; the ten (10) huk companions
of Mitra; and the amount of P2,000.00 which was to be his total share,
details now advanced by the appellants as casting strong suspicion on
the veracity of his statements, in our opinion, do not materially
impair the credibility of his testimony, considering that his affidavit
was prepared on a question-and-answer basis, and it does not appear
that inquiry was made on those points by the interrogating officer
(People vs. Tumbang, 74 Phil., 299).

It is also noteworthy that Malabanan’s testimony is replete with
details on how the crime was planned and executed which could not have
been the product of mere imagination, and more so, because it was
corroborated in all its significant parts by the extrajudicial
declarations of accused Mansit and Carpio.

Appellants consider as unlikely the claim of Malabanan that in the
early morning of January 23, 1950, Francisco Mitra, having ten (10)
armed huk companions, should pick him as one of those to kill Dr.
Maloles. They argue that Mitra could have indiscriminately chosen any
one of his men, instead of Malabanan. The preference for Malabanan may
be explained by the fact that both Mitra and Malabanan are from the
same town of Malvar, Batangas and they were good friends. As a matter
of fact, on some occasions, Mitra even recommended to his huk
companions not to bother Malabanan because he is a good man and that he
gives anything they wanted as long as it is within his means. The
failure of Malabanan to actively join the conversation and make
suggestions during the conference between him, Oliva, Mansit and Mitra
in barrio San Pablo, also assailed as improbable, may be attributed to
the fact that he was not intimate with the group and not personally
known to Oliva.

Mrs. Rufina Vda. de Maloles established the following: While taking
supper with her husband in the evening of January 25, 1950, she heard
successive gunshots. She immediately looked towards the window where
the shots came from and saw two persons whose names she did not know.
Describing their relative positions, she stated that one was bending
over the window sill and had the muzzle of his gun lifted upward, while
the other had his back towards her, but that, before running away, this
person first turned sideways and, in that moment, she saw and
recognized his face. During the trial, she pointed to accused Mitra as
the person who had his gun lifted from the window sill and Mansit as
the one whose back was towards her. Mitra was the man she saw before
the actual shooting when he bought apples from her store and it was
then that she first recognized his face. On the other band, she was
familiar with the face of Mansit because he used to go now and then to
her stare during the Japanese occupation to buy things. She said she
was able to see their faces by the bright electric lights in and
outside the store, aside from the one at a post in a nearby store.

In an attempt to impeach Mrs. Maloles’ testimony, appellants claim
that it was only during the trial that the witness was able to identify
the assailants with remarkable certainty; and that, in fact, during the
1950 and 1952 investigations conducted by the Philippine Constabulary
and the National Bureau of Investigation authorities, she only declared
that her husband was killed by “unknown assailants”. Mrs. Maloles,
however, satisfactorily explained that what she meant was that, while
she was able to recognize the faces of the killers, she did not know
them by name, so that she had to be confronted with the persons of the
appellants before she could point to them with certainty as the
assailants. Assailing further her credibility appellants would like us
to believe that in her affidavit, dated February 22, 1952 (Exhibit
“2-Mansit”), she pointed to a certain Ruben Torres and Leon Malabanan
as the killers of her husband. This is not true; her affidavit only
reveals that she merely attested to the execution of an affidavit by
Pacifico Calinawan, pointing to Torres and Malabanan as the assailants.
In fact, she maintained in her statements therein that her husband was
shot by “unknown assailants”, who remained up to that time unidentified.

Jose Magcalas, a cashier in the gasoline station of the Maloles,
attested to the following: In the evening of January 25, 1950, at
around 7:00 o’clock, while on his way to the store-restaurant of Mrs.
Maloles in order to hand over the day’s sale to the latter, he saw two
persons, who came from underneath a chico tree, going at the direction
of the window of said store. Noticing the suspicious movement of these
armed persons, he took cover behind the wall of the arch leading to the
cemetery which stood west of the store. The duo proceeded directly
towards the window, and then one of them bent, directed his firearm
inside the store, and fired his gun at an instant. This witness
declared that he was able to recognize the faces of the two assailants.
The next time he saw them was around the end of May, 1955, when he was
taken along by a Philippine Constabulary sergeant to the Philippine
Constabulary camp at Alangilang, Batangas. There, he singled out Mitra
from eight detained prisoners who were lined up before him as the
person who bent and pointed his gun inside the store, and Mansit as the
person who had his gun pointed towards the street.

This testimony of Jose Magcalas is urged to be unworthy of belief
because it is allegedly improbable for Mansit and Mitra to have
executed the crime when Magcalas was only 10 meters away from the two,
whose presence could have been easily noticed by the assailants; that
he never told anybody about what lie saw except to the Philippine
Constabulary investigators; that he only described the height and
stature of the killers and not their faces; and that, inspite of his
suspicion that the assailants were going to do something, wrong, he did
not call for help to his companion who was only 5 meters away from him.
We cannot give much weight to the above assertions. It was not at all
improbable for Mitra and Mansit not to have noticed Magcalas, who,
seeing that the two gun wielders were lurking suspiciously around the
store, immediately sought cover near a wall leading to the cemetery
west of and opposite the store of Mrs. Maloles. Relying the assertion
that this witness failed to tell anybody except the Philippine
Constabulary investigators about what he saw, Magcalas declared on
cross-examination that he narrated and revealed what he witnessed to
Mrs. Maloles. And although this witness only described the height and
stature of the bodies of appellants Mitra and Mansit, he declared that
he could recognize their faces (“Namumokhaan”). He assured the
Philippine Constabulary investigator Captain Colocado that if he would
be confronted with these persons, he could identify them right away,
stating further that “he could not forget the memory of (sic) their
faces because, that was the only incident of the kind he had ever seen
in his life”. Mistaken identity of the appellants becomes more remote
if we consider the fact that when Magcalas was asked to identify the
appellants at the Philippine Constabularly camp at Alangilang,
Batangas, among the eight lined-up prisoners, he readily pointed to the
accused. The reasons given by Magcalas for not shouting for help were
his fears of reprisal from the dissidents around the municipality of
Santo Tomas and, more convincingly, that, at the time he saw the two
armed assailants, he was completely unarmed. Prudence dictated that he
seek cover and hide to avoid detection, lest he invite a similar fate
to that of the deceased Maloles.

Again, appellants pointed to certain contradictions in the
testimonies of Juan Malabanan, Rufina Maloles, and Jose Magcalas, as to
the color and nature of the clothes worn by Mitra and Mansit on the
evening of January 25, 1950, the exact spot, where the shots were
fired, and other insignificant details. It is not uncommon that people
who witness an incident give different versions as to their impression
on some trivial matters; we have enough experience that not all those
who witness an incident in relating their impressions agree on the
minor details.

Besides the testimonies of the state witnesses, we have the
extra-judicial confession of Paulino Mansit admitting his individual
participation in the commission of the crime and confirming in material
points the State’s version of the foul deed. The regularity with Which
this confession was executed is sufficiently established. Pfc. Neofito
Torres, one of those who helped prepare Mansit’s affidavit (Exhibit
“K”), declared that all the answers therein were spontaneously and
voluntarily furnished by Mansit himself (t.s.n. p. 705). After the
interrogation, the declarant was allowed to go over his statements and
upon being asked whether the same were true, he replied in the
affirmative.

Thereafter, he was brought to Assistant Director of Prisons Misa
before whom Mansit subscribed and sworn s to his affidavit. At the
witness stand, Director Misa testified that he recognized the signature
of Mansit appearing in Exhibit “K” because it was affixed in his
presence and that all the formalities of law required were duly
complied with at the signing.

The claim of Mansit that Exhibit “K” was already prepared when he
signed it, is uncorroborated and his repudiation came only for the
first time when he took the witness stand in July, 1956 or 1 ½ years
after its execution. As we said in one case:

“The repudiation made by the accused of their
affidavits of confessions for the first time only during the trial in
the court of first instance is afterthought born of an eleventh hour
attempt to escape criminal responsibility.” (People vs. Viernes, et al., 47 Off. Gaz. 123)

In truth, Mansit even reenacted the commission of the crime, from
the initial stage of the conspiracy to liquidate Dr. Maloles to the
consummation thereof. The defense’s claim that he was merely instructed
to pose for the pictures Exhibits “B” to “I” deserves scant
consideration. Captain Segundo Quintans and Lt. Emilio Cea, who were
both present in the reenactment, vigorously denied appellants’
imputation. The captain testified that when, asked if Mansit could
point the place where they had a conference with Oliva and, reenact the
crime, the latter, without hesitation, agreed. He (Mansit) then guided
the party and indicated to the investigators a spot less than a
kilometer from the chapel in barrio San Pablo surrounded by coconut
groves as the place of the conference. He remarked that the hut which
was supposed to be standing at the place was no longer there.
Nevertheless, he pointed to the spot where the culprits stood during
the conference, placing himself where he was supposed to be that time
and Malabanan in his relative position. Two enlisted men were placed by
Mansit in the position of Mitra and Oliva. Upon request if he could
reenact the delivery of money by Oliva to him (Mansit), the latter
consented. Mansit thereafter went to the extent of inviting the group
to the house of a relative where they took their lunch. Then they
proceeded to the scene of the shooting at Santo Tomas where the killing
was reenacted. These facts negate the pretention of involuntariness on
the part of Mansit, in the reenactment of the conspiracy and the
killing.

Equally meaningful is the circumstance that no at tempt appears to
have been made to coerce Mitra into confessing, notwithstanding that he
was one of the triggermen while Carpio merely drove the murder car.

It is pointed out by the appellants that January 25, 1950 was the
feast day of San Pablo, and that, therefore, the conspirators would not
have chosen the chapel of the said barrio as their meeting place
preparatory to boarding the vehicle that would take them to Santo Tomas
town, considering that they must have wanted to conceal their plot. It
is precisely in crowds that individuals easily escape notice.

During the trial, all the defendants-appellants denied participation
in the killing or in the conspiracy to commit the imputed felony and
set up the defense of alibi.

Paulino Mansit tried to show that he was in barrio San Pablo, Santo
Tomas, Batangas, on January 25, 1950. He testified that he was in the
barrio chapel decorating the float of the patron saint on the night of
January 25, because there was a barrio fiesta. He claimed that when the
procession started at about 6:00 o’clock that evening, he stayed in the
“tuclong”. His own witnesses, however, made conflicting assertions.
Sotero Mansit attested that he saw the appellant pushing the float of
the patron saint during the procession; while Vicente Carlepio
testified that he saw Mansit “arranging the persons who were with the
procession”. Moreover, the bias and prejudice of the above witnesses
are readily noticeable from the entirety of their testimony, and this
may be explained by the fact that Mansit is a relative of both Sotero
Mansit and Carlepio.

On his part, Francisco Mitra attempted to prove that he was in
Maraoy, Lipa City, on the date of the killing of Dr. Maloles. Octavio
Alcantara and Alfredo Caraan were presented to corroborate the alibi
of Mitra. It is, however, noteworthy that they could not say with
certainty whether or not they saw Mitra at Maraoy on the night of
January 25, 1950.

It is to be noted that the places mentioned by the appellants are
contiguous to the town of Santo Tomas and linked to it by well-paved
roads. This fact, considered with the contradictory versions of the
appellants and their witnesses, only attests to the improbability of
appellants’ claim of alibi.

Considering the testimony of Juan Malabanan which was corroborated
in all significant details by the eyewitnesses to the killing (Mrs.
Maloles and Jose Magcalas), and the voluntary extra-judicial confession
of accused-appellant Mansit and his reenactment of the crime, the
conclusion is inescapable that Paulino Mansit and Francisco Mitra
criminally participated in the crime of murder charged against them,
characterized by premeditation, treachery and use of motor vehicle.
However, on the part of Adriano Carpio, no evidence was offered to
prove that he participated in the conspiracy to kill Dr. Maloles; the
only evidence against him was the driving of the jeep where Mansit,
Mitra and Malabanan boarded from barrio San Pablo to the outskirts of
the town of Santo Tomas and in taking them back to barrio San Pablo.
Since there is no reliable evidence of his knowledge of the plan to
commit the murder, and because of the likelihood that his posterior
acts were dictated by fear of his armed passengers, we find error in
his being convicted as accomplice by the Court below.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified by acquitting the
appellant, Adriano Carpio, and affirming the conviction and sentence of
Paulino Mansit and Francisco Mitra, who alone shall answer, jointly and
severally for the civil indemnity. In all other respects, the judgment
is affirmed. Costs in this instance against appellants Mansit and Mitra.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.