THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO POBLETE Y MENDOZA ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ERNESTO POBLETE Y MENDOZA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila finding the appellant guilty of robbery with homicide and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to the accessories of law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Concepcion Carpio, in the sum of P4,000,
and to pay one-fifth of the costs.

Four other persons were accused of the same crime with the
appellant. Three of them were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and one
was still at large when the case was tried.

It appears that five men broke into a house in Sampaloc,
Manila, between twelve midnight and one o’clock a.m. on August 6, 1946. The
robbers were armed with German luggers, carbines and pistols, gathered the
people of the house in the sala, and searched the place for loot. Alfredo
Carpio, one of the inmates, was able to slip out into the street and cry for
help. Upon hearing Alfredo’s outcries, the malefactors fled, but in their flight
they fired into the dwelling and fatally wounded Concepcion Carpio, Alfredo’s
sister, who succumbed soon after, on the way to a hospital. They succeeded in
carrying away cash, jewelry and other articles worth, including the cash,
P4,000.

Appellant’s three coaccused were acquitted because the only
evidence against them was their confessions to the police, and these
confessions, the court believed, had been obtained through force and
intimidation.

In pronouncing Ernesto Poblete, the appellant, guilty, the
court found that he had been identified by Alfredo Carpio, who declared that
Poblete was armed with a revolver, and that, although the faces of the robbers
were covered with handkerchiefs, Ernesto Poblete pulled down his once. But
Detective Baldomero Tiansen, who was presented as a witness for the prosecution,
testified that in his investigation of the robbery, Alfredo Carpio pointed to
Eduardo Ignacio as the man who took off his disguise and who was recognized by
Alfredo.

No attempt was made to explain this contradiction. Little or no
value can be attached to Alfredo Carpio’s testimony. The fact that all the
lights in the house were out except perhaps one in the toilet room, adds to the
doubt as to the identity of the man who, according to Alfredo Carpio, was the
appellant.

However, we are satisfied that the appellant’s confession was
voluntary. The arresting and investigating officers denied that this accused was
subjected to maltreatment. We are not prepared to declare that pressure was used
to coerce him into confessing. If this defendant’s coaccused were tortured, as
the court found, it does not necessarily follow that the appellant was treated
likewise. It appears that the appellant was arrested only on September 28, 1946,
when Ricardo Mendoza, Jose Demetrio and Eduardo Ignacio, his co-defendants, were
already under arrest and had made statements in which they implicated him. It
would not have been strange if the appellant, confronted with these confessions
realized the futility of denying his participation in the crime and so readily
admitted it.

The appealed decision is affirmed with costs, except that the
appellant should be sentenced also to pay the owners the value of the property
and cash stolen, which value is P4,000.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.