G.R. No. L-19448. February 28, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. PEPITO ARGANA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. PROCESO TANSIANCO AND MARCIAL SAMIANO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
PAREDES, J.:
Pagsanjan, found on the side of a road in barrio San Antonio, Kalayaan,
Laguna, the prostrate body of Manolo de Guzman, a jeepney driver, of
Buenaventura Fernandez. He was brought to the hospital where he died on
January 22, 1960, from lacerated multiple wounds on the right forehead
and occipital region; puncture wound, supra clavicular region; multiple
contusions, with hematoma on the occipital region; cerebral contusion
with intracranial hemorrhage and skull fracture (Exhs. C & 14).
Captain Astilla of the PC and the Chief of Police of Pagsanjan,
conducted an investigation which resulted in the filing of Criminal
Case No. 80 with the Justice of the Peace of Kalayaan, for the crime of
“robbery with Homicide”, against Gonzalo Bandillo, alias “Otsi”, and
four. (4) others, “Does”, upon the basis of the sworn statements of
Buenaventura Fernandez, the owner of the lost jeep, Mrs. Elpidia
Cabatan, Antonio Macatanga and Manolo Aguilar (Exh. 3-G). Pending
service of the corresponding Warrant of Arrest for Bandillo, P.C. Lt.
Carlos A. Tibayan, filed a complaint for “robbery with Homicide”, with
the same Justice of the Peace Court, Crim. Case No. 82 against Cornelio
Nave, Pepito Argana, Proceso Tansianco, Marcial Samiano, Isidro Saliva
and Guillermo Balcueva.
On May 4, 1960, Capt. Astilla, presented with the JP Court an unverified Motion to Dismiss, Criminal Case No. 80, on the ground:
That after meticulous study of the above entitled
case, the undersigned believes that the evidence for the prosecution is
not sufficient to Warrant the conviction of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
On May 5, 1960, the JP granted the motion to dismiss. Upon the
elevation of the second case to the CFI of Laguna, and before the trial
commenced, the Provincial Fiscal presented a Motion for Dismissal, on
the ground—
“That during the reinvestigation conducted in the
above-entitled case it was established that the evidence now available
to the prosecution is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of the accused for the crime charged;With
respect to the accused Proceso Tansianco and Marcial Samiano, the
written statement of a lone co-accused implicating them, but without
any corroborative evidence, is insufficient. Other witnesses had
retracted and would not testify against them.
* * * * *
Because oppositions were interposed to the above motion by the
private prosecutors, resolution thereof was deferred. The record does
not-reveal; whether this motion was finally resolved, but the fact
remains that the case proceeded.
During the first day of the trial, accused Argana changed his former plea of not guilty to that of guilty.
Thereafter, he was presented to testify for the prosecution. The trial
court rendered a partial judgment on October 3,1961, against Argana,
sentencing him to suffer— “
* * * to not less than six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to not more than twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, with all the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify
the heirs of the deccased Manolo de Guzman in the sum of six thousand
pesos (P6,000.00), and the owner of the unrecovered stolen jeep,
Buenaventura Fernandez, in the amount of four thousand two hundred
pesos (P4,200.00), both without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the proportionate part of the costs.”
It appears from the testimony of Argana, and other evidence adduced
by the State that at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon, of January
21, 1960, Argana went by bus to Sta. Cruz, Laguna, together with
Cornelio Nave, Marcial Samiano and Proceso Tansianco. Their purpose was
to grab a jeep, the plan of which had been conceived before January 21,
by the four of them, together with Isidro Saliva and Guillermo
Balcueva, who agreed to buy any stolen jeep. On arriving at Sta. Cruz,
at 7:00 o’clock in the evening of said day, the four alighted in front
of the Soriano’s Studio, where they saw a passenger jeep parked nearby.
Tansianco and Nave immediately contacted the jeep driver, telling him
that they wanted to hire the jeep to bring them to Paete. The driver,
Manolo de Guzman, agreed to transport them for P9.00. On their way, the
driver stopped at Pagsanjan to take in gasoline and at the house of
Buenaventura Fernandez, to deliver the day’s earning of de Guzman. After these stops, the jeepney with de Guzman tat the wheels, and
the four, accused as passengers, resumed its journey towards Paete. At
a secluded place along the road, at barrio San Antonio, Kalayaan,
Samiano took out his .45 caliber pistol and told the driver to slow
down; that when the driver said “I thought we are bound for Paete”,
Argana told him that “This is a holdup”, and ordered the driver to stop
the vehicle. When the jeepney came to a stop, the driver was told by
Samiano to alight, whereupon after walking some distance from the
jeepney and Argana having informed him (driver) that they were taking
the jeep and to which de Guzman replied “It is up to you”, Samiano
ordered Argana to strike the driver on the head. Argana did so, as
commanded, hitting the driver twice on the nape, with the butt of the
pistol given to him by Tansianco. The two blows applied upon de Guzman
caused him to slump down, face downward. This, condition
notwithstanding, Samiano ordered Argana to keep hitting the driver to
prevent any further investigation. Argana did not obey the order of
Samiano, but proposed to leave the place. Before doing so, Tansianco
turned the prostrate body of de Guzman and stepped on it. Samiano and
Nave stayed in the jeepney all along; but it was Samiano who drive the
jeep towards barrio Paeta, Calamba, where the prospective buyers of the
same waited. Saliva, on the same night gave P100.00 to Nave and P50.00
to Argana, telling them that they (Saliva and Balcueva) would take care
of the shares of Tansianco and Samiano. Balcueva told them before they
separated, that he would pay the balance, after he has sold his crop of
garlic. The balance pertaining to them (Argana and Nave) was paid later
by Saliva and Balcueva by installments, of P30.00 to P50.00.
Beside the testimony of Argana, the prosecution presented his
extra-judicial confession (Exh. 1). Nave, who likewise executed an
extra-judicial confession (Exh. B), on March 9, 1960, also implicating
the appellants Tansianco and Samiano, was not presented by the
prosecution. Accused Nave refuted the statements attributed to him in
the extra-judicial confession Exh. B, claiming that those were not his;
that the investigators wrote the statement in their own words and later
told him (Nave) to sign the document for his own good that the Justice
of the Peace did not read to him the contents of the document.
Appellants Samiano and Tansianco Vehemently denied participation in the
crime charged. Both claimed that at the time and date the crime was
supposedly being planned and committed, they were on their way from
Barandal, Calamba, to Ambulong, Tanauan, Batangas, to visit Tansianco’s
girl friend, Candida Panganiban; they left the place at midnight,
arriving in their homes at 2:00 or 3:00 o’clock in the morning of
January 22, 1960; that Argana’s only means of income was derived from
mulcting jeepney drivers, and among his victims were the appellants.
Before March 5, 1960, while appellants were waiting for passengers to
board their jeep for Barandal, Laguna, Argana approached them asking
for P3.00. When Argana asked Samiano, the latter pointed to Tansianco;
and when Argana went to Tansianco, the latter pointed to Samiano. This
dilly-dallying angered Argana who remarked: “Some day you will pay for
what you did to me”.
The trial court, on November 8, 1961, rendered the following judgment:
* * * * * *
- Proceso Tansianco, Marcial Samiano and Cornelio Nave to
reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties of the law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Manolo de Guzman, jointly and
severally, in the sum of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00), to indemnify
Buenaventura Fernandez, jointly and severally, in the amount of Four
Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P4,200.00), the value of the unrecovered
jeep, both without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the proportionate part of the costs; and -
Isidro Saliva and Quillermo Balcueva to four (4) months of arresto
mayor, with all the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify
Buenaventura Fernandez, jointly and severally with their principal
co-accused, in the sum of Four Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P4,200.00),
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency but not to exceed
one-third (1/3) of the principal penalty and to pay the proportionate
part of the costs.”
Proceso Tansianco and Marcial Samiano interposed the instant appeal,
urging reversal thereof, in so far as they are concerned, on five (5)
errors allegedly committed by the trial court, all of which pose the
dominant issue of whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
sufficient to warrant their conviction.
The learned trial court pronounced in the affirmative, and after a
careful review of the evidence of record, having in mind the
seriousness of the crime committed, We find no plausible reason to hold
otherwise. The trial judge, after having minutely observed Argana on
the witness stand, declared that he gave his testimony “in a natural
and straightforward narration that was worthy of belief”. The
conclusions of the trial judge, regarding the credibility of witnesses,
command great respect and consideration, specially when, as in this
particular case, they are supported by the evidence of record.
As heretofore stated, Argana and Nave, upon apprehension, confessed
(Exhs. 1 and B). Nave, at the trial, did not deny the contents of his
confession, implicating his co-accused, describing, as did Argana, the
participation of each accused, in the same manner as exposed in the
statement of facts by the trial court. On the contrary, Nave’s
confession (Exh. B), corroborated that of Argana (Exh. 1).
The alibi of appellants Tansianco and Samiano consist of
their testimonies, corroborated by two witnesses, that in the evening
of July 21, 1960, they were in Ambulong, Tanauan, Batangas, to visit a
girl and went home in Barandal, Calamba, at midnight. Not having
presented credible and tangible evidence, that it was physically
impossible for them to be in Kalayaan, at the time of the commission of
the offense, such defense can not prosper. It is almost trite to be
repeating here, the ruling that an alibi, which is easily and
conveniently manufactured, must be so convincing as to preclude any
doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the
place of the crime or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its
commission. The motive alluded to by appellants why Argana implicated
them is, in our opinion, not enough ground to impute to them the
commission of a very grave crime, if they had not really perpetrated
it. In the face of Argana’s positive identification of the appellants
and the other accused, as participants in the crime, the alibi
dwindles into nothingness. One should be convinced of the veracity of
Argana’s story when he takes into account the fact that he pleaded
guilty to the information and is now serving his term in the
penitentiary. His testimony was completely corroborated by accused
Nave’s confession Exh. B. Of course, Nave’s testimony in Court was a
repudiation of said confession, stating that he just signed a prepared
statement, without knowing its contents. It appears, however, that its
contents were sworn to by him to be true, before the Justice of the
Peace of Kalayaan, a disinterested officer, who affirmed that Nave
understood it and swore to the truth thereof. The doubt as to the guilt
of Nave was completely dispelled, when he had chosen not to appeal any
more from his conviction.
Granting for the purposes of argument that Argana’s testimony, was
not corroborated, as contended, still the same is sufficient to convict
his co-accused, if and when the court give it full faith. In the
determination of the values and credibility of evidence, witnesses are
to be weighed and not numbered (People vs. Marasigan, 85 Phil., 427; 47
Off. Gaz. No. 7, p. 2529). The testimony of only one witness, if
credible and positive; an unsupported evidence of an accomplice, if it
satisfies the court beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.
And Argana’s testimony is not wanting of corroboration. Nave’s
confession, as heretofore adverted to, fully substantiates Argana’s
story. The physical and medical findings on the body of the victim,
confirm Argana’s testimony that the victim was struck with the butt of
a revolver, kicked and badly mauled by the accused. Parts of the stolen
jeep were found at the fence and in the kitchen of accused Saliva, a
fact admitted by Saliva himself.
Concededly, the extra-judicial confessions of Argana and Nave are
not admissible against the appellants. They, however, serve as strong
indication that appellants were participants in the crime. Interlocking
confessions, as they are, they are confirmatory to the imputable
physical facts involved in the present case. They support the oral
testimony of Argana, thereby strengthening the trial court’s conviction
of the latter’s trustworthiness and credibility. The appellants warn
that Argana being an accomplice, his testimony, coming as it does from
a polluted source, should be received with great caution and carefully
examined. We were alerted, as warned, and We find his testimony in
court admissible and competent, against the appellants (People vs.
Zipagan, 64 Phil. 757; People vs. Serrano, 56 Off. Gaz. 4414). There
being no proof of collusion, and being identical with each other in
their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence of
record, as shown heretofore, Exhs. 1 and B are admissible to prove
conspiracy among them and to establish their participation in the crime
(People vs. Cariño, et al., G. R. No. L-9580, Sept. 30, 1957). But as
things stand now, there is not even a necessity to invoke this
doctrine, for Argana himself had testified in court.
We have gone over the alleged circumstances and contradictions
imputed by the defense against the principal State witnesses, and We
are perfectly convinced that they were not generated from a perversed
and perjured mind; they were merely the product of human imperfection.
The decision appealed from being in accordance with the law and the evidence, is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.