THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN DE LA ROSA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RODOLFO BALMONTE, MARTIN ESTRADA AND LUIS DACOSCOS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Juan de la Rosa, Rodolfo Balmonte alias
Leopoldo Balmonte, Luis Dacoscos, and Martin Estrada were accused in
Criminal Case No. 17187 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
of the crime of robbery in band with homicide. Afterward Manuel
Bautista, Paty Quisada, and Carlos Luada were also accused in Criminal
Case No. 17392 of the sane court as co-principals of the same crime.
The two eases vere tried together. After the prosecution had rested,
the court dismissed the charge against Carlos Luada and Paty Quisada
for lack of evidence, and proceeded with the reception of the
defendants’ evidence with regard to the other defendants. After the
trial, Manuel Bautista was acquitted. Juan de la Rosa, Rodolfo Balmonte
alias Leopoldo Balmonte, Luis Dacoscos, and Martin Estrada were found
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and each of them was
sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua to indemnify jointly
and severally the heirs of the deceased Emilio Tolentino In the sum of
P6,000.00, to indemnify Jovita Caoile in the sum of P50.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in ease of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The four defendants appealed, but Juan de la Rosa failed to perfect his
appeal within the regular period. So the appellants now are only
Rodolfo Balmonte alias Leopoldo Balmonte, Luis Dacoscos, and Martin
Estrada.

The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:

On the night of July 13, 1946, Jovita Caoile, her mother Simeona
Rocapor, and her sister Juliana Caoile, were awakened by some persons
who were knocking at the door of Caoile’s house in barrio Binmeckeg,
municipality of Sison, Pangasinan, saying that they were police
officers who wanted to search the house. Before the door could be
opened by the inmates, said persons attempted to break it. The Inmates
shouted for help. Jovita then heard gunshots outside. Scared, she
jumped out of the window attempting to escape. Upon falling on the
ground she was seized by two men who were later joined by six others.
Jovita was able to identify only three of them, who were Juan de la
Rosa, Manuel Bautista, and Rodolfo Balmonte.

The men dragged
Jovita to some distance from the house, taking away from her a ring she
was wearing, valued at P50.00. She heard another shot. Some of the men
near Jovita said that it was fired by one of their companions. These
men left. When Jovita returned to the house, she found Emillo
Tolentino, who had answered their call for help, lying on the ground
with a wound in the abdomen, of which he later died.

Juan
de la Rosa, during his investigation by the Constabulary authorities,
made a written confession in which he stated that Martin Estrada, Rodolfo Balmonte, and Luis Dacoscos were among his companions in the
raid. These three persons were later arrested and interrogated. They
made confessions in separate sworn statements, Exhibits C, D, and E.

The appellants testified without corroboration that their confessions
had been obtained through force and intimidation. This claim Is net
believable. In the first place, Bautista, Luada, and Quisada did not
sign any confession, did not complain of any maltreatment, and were
acquitted. If it was the purpose of the police authorities to wring
confessions to facilitate their work in obtaining convictions, there
was no reason why they should not have also intimidated and forced
these three defendants to make confessions. Furthermore, the Justice of
the Peace of Manaoag, Pangasinan, Pedro C. Caoile, testified that
before the appellants signed their confessions before him he asked them
whether they had been forced or Intimidated. He told them not to be
afraid to say so as he would protect them, but the appellants answered
that their confessions were voluntary. However, at the trial Balmonte
testified that he refused to admit the contents of his alleged
confession before the Justice of the Peace; that he was taken away from
his presence, again maltreated, and then returned to the judicial
officer before whom he again refused to admit the confession. However,
the Justice of the Peace signed the confession, Exhibit C, as having
been ratified before him.

Estrada also testified at the trial
that he refused to admit the contents of the confession, Exhibit D, but
the Justice of the Peace, disregarding his protest, signed it as
ratified.

If the Justice of the Peace wanted to connive with
the police authorities, he could have signed the confessions, on the
first occasion without any further ceremony.

Although Justice
of the Peace Pedro R. Caoili Is the brother of the offended party
Jovita Caoili, we see no reason why he should have acted other than impartially in the premises.

With regard to Balmonte, he
testified that he signed the confession, Exhibit C, while he was still
trembling from the pain and shock caused by the maltreatment. An
examination of his signature shows that the strokes are smooth and
regular, not made by a trembling hand or a nervous person. Said
signature is even better than his signature in the record of the
preliminary investigation.

In Exhibit F, which is the record
of the preliminary Investigation conducted by the Justice of the Peace,
it appears that the appellants pleaded guilty. They impugn the truth of
said entry. In this connection it should be noted that the appellants
filed a motion for re-investigation to be held on October 11, 1946,
based on alleged irregularities committed by the Justice of the Peace,
but in their complaint, they did not mention the alleged falsity of the
entry of the plea of guilty, and at the reinvestigation they were not
able to substantiate their complaint, which was therefore dismissed.
Furthermore, it would have been unnecessary for the Justice of the
Peace to make a false entry of the plea of guilty when the defendants
had already executed their confessions, Exhibits C, D, and E.

The appellants contend that Jovita Caoile could not have identified
Balmonte It should be noted that Jovita was frank when she was unable
to identify some of the defendants, but with regard to Balmonte she
could not have been mistaken because she saw him at close range; there was moonlight and she had known and seen Balmonte several times before
the commission of the crime. No evil motive can be attributed to Jovita
which would have induced her to testify falsely against Balmonte.

In this ease, the fact that the crime of robbery had been committed, which constitutes the corpus delicti, is undoubted. Consequently, the confessions are admissible and can be given due weight.

The appellants contend that they cannot be held responsible for the
death of Tolentino as they were not the ones who actually killed him
and there is no proof of conspiracy. Proof of conspiracy en this point
is not essential. It is sufficient that “by reason or on occasion of
the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed” (Art.
294, Revised Penal Code).

“Whenever a
homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of
robbery will also be held guilty . as principals in the complex crime
of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually ‘ take part in
“Hie homicide, unless It appears that they endeavored to prevent the
killing.11 (Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, Guevara, 4th
Edition, p. 578; People vs. Silverio Morados et al., 40 Off. Gaz., 13th Supp. p. 75)

On the whole, we believe that the judgment appealed from should be
affirmed as It is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.
It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.