THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN MAIDO, HILARIO MAIDO AND PLACIDO CIRILO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
finding the appellants Juan Maido, Hilario Maido, and Placido Cirilo guilty of
the crime of robbery in a band with double homicide, and sentencing them to
cadena perpetua.

The offense of which the accused were convicted was committed just after
night fall on April 26, 1914, in the municipality of Santa Barbara, in the
Province of Iloilo. It appears that upon this occasion some twelve or more armed
men, six of whom had revolvers, made an attack upon the store of J. F. Starr for
purposes of robbery. As an incident to the accomplishment of this crime Starr
and his father-in-law, Salvador Sorianosis, were killed. Four of the actors in
this tragedy, namely, Agapito Solana, Valentin Vejil, Maximo Soriaso, and
Tiburcio Primaleon (Busoy) were convicted in another case; and upon appeal to
the Supreme Court the sentence of death was confirmed as to Maximo Soriaso, and
as to the others the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life. (33 Phil.
Rep., 582.)

The facts as revealed in the record in the present case are practically the
same as were developed at the trial of the previous case; but the evidence of
the prosecution is here materially weakened by the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witness Catalino, who was admittedly a participant in the robbery
and who was used as a witness for the prosecution in the former case, the cause
having been dismissed against him.

In the present case the principal witness for the prosecution is Tiburcio
Primaleon, who also testified in the former prosecution and who then told upon
the witness stand a story of the crime which he now repeats with some
variations. In the present prosecution the testimony of this witness is clear
and convincing and was not impaired upon cross examination. At the time the
testimony was given he was under a sentence of death, and he seemed to have lost
all motive or desire to falsify.

In the testimony of this witness given in the other trial Placido Cirilo was
not mentioned as a participant in the crime, and the explanation now given is
that the witness desired at that time to shield him from prosecution. He now
says Placido was the head of the whole thing, and that he had planned it and
carried it into execution.

The witness states that at least two meetings were held in the house of
Placido Cirilo prior to the robbery at each of which five or six persons were
present; and that at these meetings the project was determined upon. The first
of these meetings occurred on Thursday night and the second on Saturday night
before the crime was committed on Sunday. The witness states that Placido Cirilo
was the man who told Juan Maido and Hilario Maido to remain on guard outside,
and that he (Placido) then entered the store and first began the trouble by
attacking the old man Sorianosis.

Upon the point of the complicity of Placido Cirilo, Tiburcio is corroborated
by Beatriz Sorianosis, the widow of J. F. Starr. This woman showed remarkable
intelligence and coolness upon this occasion and has made an intelligent and
fair witness. She says that at the trial she recognized and remembered the
defendant Placido Cirilo as a man whom she saw struggling with her father before
the latter was killed. The girl Clarita Sorianosis, who was in the house at the
time of the tragedy, also identified this defendant as a person whom she had
seen drinking some wine in the store while she was assisting in serving some
articles of food which had been ordered by the conspirators.

The case against Juan Maido and Hilario Maido rests almost exclusively upon
the testimony of Tiburcio. It is true Beatriz Sorianosis at one place in her
testimony said that she thought she remembered Hilario Maido as having been
among those present; but she is evidently mistaken in this as she says she
thinks he had something that appeared like a cane and that with this he hit
Starr. From this it would seem that she mistook him for somebody else, probably
Tiburcio, as the latter testifies that he had such an instrument and with it
jabbed Starr. Besides if the theory of the prosecution is correct she could not
have seen him as he was outside. Juan Maido she does not remember. The result is
that, as before stated, the connection of the two Maidos with the crime rests
exclusively upon the testimony of Tiburcio.

The circumstance that the two Maidos ran away from this locality and remained
hidden for some months until they finally came in and surrendered to Lieutenant
Borromeo of the Constabulary furnishes some corroboration of their guilt.

The substance of the testimony of Tiburcio as it affects the two Maidos may
be summed up thus: They were not among the first arrivals at the scene of the
robbery but came later, Hilario arriving with Placido Cirilo. Juan Maido and
Hilario Maido did not enter the house where the crime was committed but remained
outside to guard against interference, and Placido Cirilo was the person who
assigned this duty to them. When the pistol shots sounded in the air they ran
away.

The defense attempted to prove an alibi for these two defendants; but the
proof in support of this defense is in our opinion entitled to no weight.

After a careful study of the testimony, we are forced to the conclusion that
the evidence given by Tiburcio Primaleon is true. It is credible and consistent
in itself and is supported by the strong moral sanction derived from his
appreciation of the fact that he was soon to be executed.

This testimony therefore can not be rejected. As is well said in the brief of
the Attorney-General.

“At the time he testified in this case he expected to be notified any day
that the date of his execution had been set. He stated in court that he knew he
was going to be hanged and that he was resolved to tell the truth and nothing
but the truth to the court. If there is any thing that would make a man tell the
truth and keep him from lying it seems that the knowledge of his approaching
death would. Is it reasonable to believe, with no evidence to support such a
belief, that this man would deliberately perjure himself and attempt to convict
three innocent men of a crime, while he himself expected to be hanged shortly?
His testimony even when read in cold type impresses the reader with its
sincerity and truth.”

It follows that in our opinion all of the defendants are guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt and that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
The aggravating circumstance is present that the offense was committed in the
nighttime; and the penalty imposed by the lower court might be raised to the
penalty of death; but this is not proposed, inasmuch as in the other case the
court gave all of the defendants except Maximo Soriaso the benefit of the
provisions of article 11, of the Penal Code, as amended, and we think that the
same leniency should be observed with respect to the defendants in this case.
The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with proportional costs of this
instance against the respective appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, and Malcolm,
JJ., concur.