G.R. No. L-30621. December 14, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE ORPILLA, ALIAS “TOTOY”, AND JESUS TORIO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
For the killing of Marciana Garcia in
the morning of April 24, 1967, inside her stall at the Public Market of Binalonan, Pangasinan, a
complaint for murder was filed on June 23, 1967, in the Municipal Court of Binalonan, Pangasinan, against
Jose T. Orpilla, alias “Totoy” and Jesus Torio.[1]
After the preliminary investigation, the Municipal Court on
August 7, 1967 remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan, for further
proceedings.[2] A
reinvestigation was conducted by the prosecuting fiscal who found out that
there existed a prima facie case for Robbery with Homicide
against both accused Orpilla and Jesus Torio.[3] An information dated January 15, 1968 for Robbery with
Homicide was filed, as follows:
“The undersigned, after having conducted a preliminary
investigation under the provisions of existing laws, hereby accuses JOSE T.
ORPILLA and JESUS TORIO of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE committed as
follows:
“That on or about the 24th day of April, 1967 in the
municipality of Binalonan, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring together and
mutually aiding one another, with violence against and intimidation of person
and with intent of gain, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away with them P1,860.00 cash,
two rings and two pairs of errings valued at
P3,500.00 and Spanish coins valued at P500.00 with a total value of FIVE
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY PESOS (P5860.00) belonging to Marciana Garcia against her will and consent and to her
damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of P5,860.00; and that on the
occasion and by reason of said robbery and in furtherance thereof, the above
named accused, pursuant to the conspiracy aforementioned and under the
circumstances above narrated, with intent to kill did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
stab the offended party Marciana Garcia, thereby
inflicting upon her a fatal incised wound in the neck which caused her death.
“Contrary to Art. 294 par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.”[4]
After trial, the lower court promulgated its decision dated April
30, 1969, convicting both the accused, with dispositive
portion as follows:
“WHEREFORE, finding both accused Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide charged in the information and in
view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, both
accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment
(Reclusion Perpetua) and to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Marciana Garcia, the sum of P13,860.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs.
“SO ORDERED.”[5]
Both accused appealed from the decision of the trial court.[6]
Accused Jose T. Orpilla was granted temporary liberty
under bail bond pending appeal.[7]
After this case was submitted for decision per resolution dated January 28, 1971, by this Court,[8]
and after several requests for early decision by accused-appellant Jesus Torio[9]
he was allowed to withdraw his appeal per resolution of this Court on July 1, 1978.[10]
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
Marciana Garcia, a 68-year old, married
woman was discovered dead in the morning of April 24, 1967 at the kitchen of her stall situated inside
the Public Market of Binalonan, Pangasinan.[11]
The Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Angel Rosario, conducted the post
mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased right inside her stall
at about 10:45 a.m. that same
morning. He stated that she must have
been dead for about an hour, more or less.
He also found that the cadaver was not yet in rigor mortis.[12]
The deceased was first seen by Matias Grafite, a jueteng
collector, when he peeped inside the victim’s store to get her bet in the jueteng. He
saw her lying flat on her back on the cement floor, dead, with a washing basin
(batya) placed over her stomach. Grafite went
immediately to inform Patrocinio Garcia, a sister of
the victim, who had a store inside the public market. Patrocinio Garcia, upon being informed; rushed to the stall of the victim together
with Grafite.
Patrocinio then removed the basin over the
body. This revealed her sister’s stomach
because her (patadyong) skirt was pulled down
while her chemise was raised up. She
also examined the waistline of the deceased for the belt which the latter used
to keep her money and jewelry on her person, but the same was missing.[13]
Dr. Angel Rosario, the municipal health officer, arrived. He called for a photographer who took
pictures of the victim and the surrounding area.[14]
He reduced into writing the result of his autopsy,[15]
with these findings:
“Deep incised wound thru and thru,
from left lateral to the right lateral side of neck. Point of entrance 2.8 cm.,
left lateral side neck, just below adam’s apple
directed horizontally to right of neck point of exit 2 cm. at right side of
neck. Posterior upper trachea and left
jugular vein was incised.
“Cause of death:
a.
Asphyxia
b.
Loss of blood, severe
c.
Stab wound, neck, thru and
thru.”
The victim used to live alone in her stall inside the public
market of Binalonan where she was selling rice and
corn derived from lands owned by her and her husband Jose Solis, located in Binalonan and San Manuel, Pangasinan. Her husband, although residing in Dagupan City
with his two daughters with the victim, used to go to Binalonan
every morning on week days, except Sundays, and used to return to Dagupan City
in the evening.[16]
The week before April 24, 1967, the victim sold 40 cavans of clean rice at P46.50 per cavan,
for the total amount of P1,860.00, which she kept in a
belt she was wearing around her waist that morning of April 24, 1967, as was
her wont, ever since there was a fire in Binalonan
about a year prior to her death.[17]
C.I.S.
Investigator Jose Fortich interviewed several
witnesses who verbally told him they saw appellants Torio
and Orpilla on that morning of April 24, 1967, enter
the stall of the victim. With that lead,
Fortich investigated appellants.[18]
During the investigation, accused Torio
admitted in an affidavit,[19]
that about three days prior to the killing of the victim, appellant Jose Orpilla approached Torio and
tried to convince the latter that they would rob the late Marciana
Garcia because Orpilla was penniless and he needed
money to buy the materials needed in his store, but Torio
claimed he did not agree to the proposal.[20]
According to Investigator Fortich, Orpilla verbally admitted his participation in the crime
while they were riding in a public bus to Camp Crame,
but Orpilla refused to put down in writing said
admission when they reached Camp Crame.[21]
The alleged confession of Orpilla, as
narrated by Investigator Fortich, was that the plan
to rob the victim Marciana Garcia was carried out on
the morning of April 24, 1967, by appellants who entered at the backdoor when
the deceased went out. When they gained entrance, they ransacked the place, but
while doing so, the victim arrived. Upon
seeing appellants inside, victim tried to run and call for help, but appellant Torio grabbed her, held her hands, neck and mouth, while Orpilla stabbed her throat with a pointed ice-pick. Thereafter, appellants came out thru the back
door and entered the adjoining stall on the west owned by Orpilla. Witness Laluan saw
them coming out of the stall of the deceased.[22]
On the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and disregarding
the defense of alibi, the trial Court convicted the accused.
The version of the defense is as follows:
On April 24, 1967, at about 9:30 a.m. when the victim Marciana Garcia was slain, accused Jose Orpilla
was on board Pantranco Bus No. 809, which left Binalonan at about 6:00 a.m., bound for Manila. At about 12:51 p.m. of that day, Orpilla’s time card at the Bureau of Census and Statistics
in Manila showed that he punched in, indicating his half day presence in that
Office in the afternoon. Therefore, appellant
Jose Orpilla could not have been in and around the
vicinity of the scene of the crime between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. of April
24, 1967, when the victim was slain.[23]
On the aforementioned date when victim Marciana
Garcia was slain, accused Jesus Torio was working as
a house painter in Calumpang, Marikina,
Rizal, and he could not have been in Binalonan, Pangasinan, on that
morning of April 24, 1967. Torio was in Binalonan on March
23, 1967 during the Holy Week when he was on vacation and after Binalonan,
he went to see his mother at Baloan, La Union, where
he stayed two days.[24]
Accused Jose T. Orpilla denied the
alleged verbal confession he made to Investigator Fortich
inside a public bus that was boarded by them on their way to Camp Crame.[25]
Accused Jesus Torio denied that he
voluntarily and intelligently signed his alleged confession Exhibit
“F”, wherein he allegedly stated that accused Jose Orpilla invited him to rob Marciana
Garcia a few days before she was slain.[26]
The conviction of both accused is primarily anchored on circumstantial
evidence as no witness was presented who actually saw the crime committed. At best, the prosecution could present only a
witness who allegedly saw both accused in the vicinity of the scene of the
crime at about the time it was committed, and the alleged verbal confession of
accused Orpilla and the recanted written confession
of Torio, Exhibit “F”.
Be that as it may, the determination of moral certainty in the
guilt of the accused would primarily hinge on the credibility of the witness
who allegedly saw and identified both accused in the vicinity of the scene of
the crime and the strength of the alibi put up by both accused.
As to the evidence on the time of victim’s
death, the prosecution established beyond doubt that the victim met her death
after 9:30 a.m. of April 24, 1967.
On this score, prosecution witness Tommy C. Bolasoc
testified that the recess in his school was at 9:30 a.m.[27]
He stated that on April 24, 1967, at 9:30 a.m. he went to the stall of the
victim Marciana Garcia to ask from the latter the
winning number of a jueteng bet given by Tommy
to her before going to school, and Tommy saw Marciana
Garcia still alive.[28]
According to Dr. Rosario, who conducted the post mortem
examination on the victim, Marciana Garcia must have
been killed an hour or more before the autopsy at 10:45 a.m. of April 24, 1967,
because rigor mortis had not yet set in and fresh blood was still
flowing from the wound on the neck of the victim. Decedent must have been killed at about 9:45
a.m. on April 24, 1967.
Market Collector and prosecution witness Garcia corroborated
Tommy Bolasoc’s statement when he stated that around
10:00 a.m. of April 24, 1967, Mr. Grafite
shouted that Marciana was dead. [29]
Even the prosecuting fiscal opined that victim was killed after 9:30 a.m. [30]
However, prosecution witness Timoteo Laluan claimed that in the morning of April 24, 1967, just
after 8:30 a.m., he saw both accused Orpilla and Torio come out of the victim’s stall.
Timoteo Laluan
is from Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
and not Binalonan where the crime was committed. He and his wife have a stall in Baguio City where they sell vegetables. Three days a week, on Mondays, Wednesdays and
Saturdays, witness and his wife used to buy “talong“,
“ocra, and “ampalaya”
from the Binalonan Public Market to be sold in Baguio City. Binalonan, Pangasinan by bus, is
more than two hours ride to Baguio City.
Witness Laluan stated that while
standing on the other side of the street from victim Garcia’s stall on April
24, 1967, in the morning he saw accused Torio come
out of victim’s stall followed by Orpilla, and both
of them went to Orpilla’s stall. Not long afterwards, witness heard shouts
that Marciana Garcia was killed. He peeped through the door and saw the dead
body of Marciana Garcia. Then his wife arrived and they immediately
boarded a jeep and proceeded to the plaza of Pozorrubio,
where his wife waited for a bus going to Baguio City.[31]
Witness Laluan, however, admitted that
he did not know the names of both accused, showing that he was not familiar
with them.[32] Laluan also stated that he did not tell anybody else about
his alleged seeing the two accused come out of the stall of the victim that
morning.[33] Laluan likewise stated that they left the market place of Binalonan about 15 minutes to 10:00 a.m. that morning of
April 24, 1967.[34]
It is immediately observable that Laluan
could not be depended upon as a credible witness who allegedly saw the accused
Torio and Orpilla come out
of the stall of the victim at about 8:30 a.m. of April 24, 1967, and
immediately thereafter heard shouts that Marciana
Garcia was dead, because the victim died according to prosecution’s own
evidence, after 9:30 that morning, whereas witness Laluan
was sure it was 8:30 a.m. when he allegedly saw both the accused. Besides, if Laluan’s
wife had to sell in Baguio City vegetables bought
from Binalonan, Pangasinan,
(at least 2 hour’s ride by bus) the couple would have left Binalonan
at around 7:00 a.m. to reach Baguio City at about
9:00 a.m. to sell those vegetables.
We have serious doubts as to the actual presence of the witness Laluan in Binalonan on that
morning of April 24, 1967, after 9:00 a.m.; and likewise his having seen the
two accused on that occasion, not only because of the above stated reasons, but
also because of his admitted failure to report to the authorities immediately
what he allegedly saw. In fact, when the
complaint for murder was filed with the municipal court on June 23, 1967, Laluan was not even mentioned as a witness, belying his
statement that he reported the incident to Investigator Fortich,
who filed the information in the municipal court. What increases Our
doubt is witness Laluan’s admission that he was not
personally acquainted with the accused.
Furthermore, witness Laluan did not mention
anything about Ben Custodio who according to the
prosecution’s version was one of the three perpetrators of the crime. Ben Custodio was
not included as an accused because he was killed while in P.C. custody.
Witness Laluan also stated that when he
saw the two accused on that morning of April 24, 1967, both doors of victim’s
stall were still closed, but victim’s own sister testified that at 8:30 a.m.
victim’s stall was already open and there were customers already.[35]
The following circumstances cannot be ignored. After the information was filed on January 7,
1968 in this case, the prosecution presented evidence during the hearings of
February 6, 7; March 11 and 12, 1968.
Investigator Fortich had been cross?examined
and the hearing was scheduled for March 13, 1969. The remaining evidence for the prosecution
was on minor matters, when the trial court intimated to the prosecution and
Investigator Fortich that the evidence for the
prosecution was not sufficient to support conviction as what Fortich testified to was information allegedly gathered
from persons who refused to testify.
Hence, the prosecution, to cover up the deficiency, presented witness Laluan, whose testimony cannot but be doubted.[36]
The uncorroborated testimony of witness Laluan
that he saw both accused leave the stall of the victim at 8:30 a.m. of April
24, 1967, cannot be given weight, as it runs contrary to prosecution’s own
evidence. It is clear that the victim
died after 9:30 a.m. and yet witness Laluan claimed
that immediately after he saw both accused that morning, Matias
Grafite discovered the victim already dead. That uncorroborated circumstantial evidence
is certainly not sufficient for conviction of the accused, specially
when the evidence itself is in serious doubt.[37]
It is fundamental that to justify a conviction based on circumstantial
evidence alone, the inferences to be derived from the established circumstances
must be inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence.[38]
The allegation of Investigator Fortich
that accused Orpilla verbally confessed to him while
they were riding in a public vehicle on their way to Camp Crame,
an alleged confession never placed in writing nor mentioned during the
investigation, cannot be given much credibility.
We cannot ignore some circumstances tending to prove bias against
the accused on the part of Investigator Fortich. The latter could not identify the
eyewitnesses he mentioned who allegedly saw the crime because of the lame
excuse that they refused to execute written statements because they could not
be given security. He claimed he had
documentary evidence to prove that accused Orpilla
was absent from office the whole day of April 24, 1967, when he had none. He even stated that Orpilla
“punch in” on April 24, 1967 at 12:51 p.m.[39]
Investigator Fortich also introduced as
evidence Exhibit 1 allegedly signed by one Federico Mariano, a fictitious
person never presented as witness, who claimed that accused Torio
told the former that Torio with Ben Custodio and Orpilla were responsible
for the victim’s death. This exhibit was
never identified.
Investigator Fortich also testified
that he knew accused Orpilla did not punch his time
record at 12:51 on April 24, 1967, because a woman watcher told him so, but
that unidentified woman watcher never appeared as witness and allegedly
disappeared according to Fortich.[40]
This investigator also suppressed the May 26, 1967 written
statement of accused Torio. There were two statements made by the accused
Torio. The
first, Exhibit “G”, was executed on May 26, 1967. The second, Exhibit “F”, was
executed on June 26, 1967. Fortich tried to make it appear that the second statement
was the one executed on May 26, 1967.[41]
The reason for the suppression must be the inconsistent statements appearing on
both Exhibits “G” and “F”.
As to the evidence for the defense, Exhibit I-Orpilla, proves that accused
Orpilla timed in at his office at the Bureau of
Census and Statistics in Manila on April 24, 1967 at 12:51 p.m. thus negating
the possibility of Orpilla’s presence in Binalonan after 9:30 a.m. of that same day.[42]
The mere testimony of Investigator Fortich
of the possibility that the time record might have been tampered with,
unsupported by any concrete evidence that it was actually tampered with, cannot
overcome the credibility of the documentary evidence which has in its favor the
presumption of regularity of performance of official duties.
By and large, and for the reasons previously stated, We find it difficult to conclude that the requirements of
evidence beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty have been sufficiently met
in this case.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated April 30, 1969 should be, as
it is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one entered ACQUITTING the appellant
JOSE ORPILLA, alias “Totoy“, of the
charge against him. The Clerk of Court
is hereby directed to forward a copy of this decision to the President of the
Philippines, through the Ministry of Justice, for consideration of the
propriety of extending to the other accused Jesus Torio,
whose appeal had been withdrawn, the benefits of executive clemency. With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Abad
Santos, De Castro, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ.,
concur.
Aquino, J., see
dissent.
[1] p. 1, Original Record, Criminal Case No. 22985, CFI, Pangasinan, Branch II.
[2] p. 51, Id.
[3] pp. 55 to 58, Id.
[4] p. 59, Id.
[5] pp. 374-375, Id.
[6] p. 378, Id.
[7] pp. 386-398, Id.
[8]
p. 261, rollo.
[9]
pp. 268-281, rollo.
[10]
p. 285, rollo.
[11] Exh. “D”, p. 2, Original Record’ pp. 62-63, t.s.n., Feb. 7, 1967.
[12] Exh.
“D”; p. 5, t.s.n., March 11, 1968; p. 9, t.s.n., March 11, 1968.
[13]
pp. 62-64, t.s.n., Feb. 7, 1968; p. 5, t.s.n., Feb. 6, 1968; pp. 8-9, t.s.n.,
Feb. 6, 1968.
[14] Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, and
“D”, pp. 46-49, Original Record.
[15] Exh. “D”, p. 2, Original Record.
[16] pp. 32-34, t.s.n., Feb. 6, 1968.
[17]
pp. 39-40, t.s.n., Feb. 6, 1968; pp. 30-37, t.s.n., Feb. 6, 1968; p. 42, t.s.n.,
Feb. 6, 1968.
[18] pp. 23, 25, t.s.n., March 11, 1968.
[19] Exh. “F-5”, p. 25, Original Record.
[20] p. 38, t.s.n., March 11, 1968.
[21] pp. 30-31, 41, t.s.n., March 11, 1968.
[22]
pp. 31-32, t.s.n., March 11, 1968; p. 113, t.s.n., March 12, 1968; pp. 151-152, t.s.n.,
March 21, 1968; p. 151, t.s.n., March 11, 1968.
[23] Exh.
5-Torio, pp. 134-135, Original Record; p. 40, t.s.n.,
Aug. 23, 1968; pp. 41-43, t.s.n., Aug. 23, 1968; Exh. 7-Orpilla, p. 130, Original Record; p. 341, t.s.n., Sept. 27, 1968; pp. 343-355, t.s.n.,
Sept. 27, 1968; pp. 17-22, t.s.n., Aug. 23, 1968.
[24]
pp. 229-232, t.s.n., May 2, 1968; pp. 305-308, t.s.n., Aug. 1, 1968; pp. 320-325, t.s.n.,
Aug. 1, 1968.
[25] pp. 332-334, t.s.n., Sept. 27, 1968; pp.
340-341, t.s.n., Sept. 27, 1968.
[26]
pp. 268, t.s.n., May 28, 1968; pp. 269-271, t.s.n., May 28, 1968, pp. 280-281, t.s.n.,
May 28, 1968.
[27] p. 15, t.s.n., June 21, 1968.
[28] Exhibit 5-Torio.
[29]
pp. 34, 51, Feb. 27, 1968.
[30] pp. 21-22, t.s.n., June 21, 1968.
[31] pp. 148-155, t.s.n., March 21, 1968.
[32] p. 151, t.s.n., March 21, 1968.
[33] p. 166, t.s.n., March 21, 1968.
[34] p. 194, t.s.n., March 21, 1968.
[35] pp. 164, t.s.n., March 21, 1968; pp.
22-23, t.s.n., Feb. 6, 1968.
[36] p. 122, t.s.n., March 12, 1968; pp.
122-123, t.s.n., March 12, 1968.
[37] Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
[38]
4 Jones on Evidence, 5th Ed., pp. 1860-61.
[39] pp. 103-104, t.s.n., March 12, 1968; Exh. 3-Orpilla, p. 85, rollo.
[40] Exh.
3-Orpilla, pp. 108-109, rollo,
Exh. 3-Orpilla, pp. 111-112, rollo.
[41] pp. 34-35, t.s.n., March 11, 1968.
[42] Section 24, Rule 132, Rules of Court.
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
DISSENTING OPINION
AQUINO, J.:
I dissent. I find no
ground for reversing the following findings of the trial court, convicting Jose
T. Orpilla of murder:
“It is undisputed that on the morning of April 24, 1967, Marciana
Garcia was found dead inside her stall in the public market of Binalonan,
Pangasinan. The stall of Marciana
Garcia is beside the unfinished stall of the accused, Jose Orpilla in the
Public Market of Binalonan. At the time
of her death and for sometime prior, thereto, Marciana Garcia was living in her
market stall where she sold corn, rice and peanuts. Her husband, Jose Solis goes to that stall every morning from
Monday to Saturday, returning to Dagupan City in the afternoon to take care of
their two (2) daughters, who are living in Dagupan City.
“The dead body of Marciana Garcia was discovered at
approximately 9:00 o’clock on the morning of April 24, 1967, by Matias Grafite,
a jueteng collector, who went to the stall Marciana Garcia to get her jueteng
bet. The door at the back of the stall
was half-opened and when nobody answered his call for ‘Nana Marciana’, Matias
Grafite peeped inside the stall and saw Marciana Garcia already dead, lying on
the cement floor, near the kitchen. Matias Grafite hurriedly went to the stall of Patrocinia Garcia, sister
of Marciana Garcia, also in the Public Market of Binalonan, and informed her
that Marciana Garcia is dead.
“The matter was thereafter reported to the authorities of
Binalonan arid Dr. Angel G. Rosario, Municipal Health Officer of Binalonan,
conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Marciana Garcia. The autopsy report (Exh. D) together with
the pictures (Exhs. A, A-1 to A-6) show that Marciana Garcia was stabbed a
little below the Adam’s apple, which penetrated the neck and caused her
death. According to Dr. Rosario,
Marciana Garcia must have been killed an hour or more before the autopsy at
10:45, because rigor mortis has not yet set in and fresh blood
are still flowing from the wound on the neck of Marciana Garcia.
“The evidence of the prosecution tends to prove that sometime
before April 24, 1967, the accused Jose Orpilla was borrowing money from
Marciana Garcia to complete the construction of his stall in the public market
of Binalonan, beside the stall of Marciana Garcia. Jose Orpilla is a nephew of Marciana Garcia, because his mother
is the cousin of Marciana Garcia. The
accused Jesus Torio, cousin of his co?accused Jose Orpilla, is also a
distant relative of Marciana Garcia. He
always referred to Marciana Garcia as ‘Tia Marciana’. When Jose Solis was informed by Marciana Garcia that Jose Orpilla
was borrowing money from her, Jose Solis advised against it because according
to Jose Solis when Jose Orpilla previously borrowed cement and hollow blocks
from him, Jose Orpilla allegedly refused to pay and just told Jose Solis to
forget it, as it was not much.
“The death of Marciana Garcia was finally referred to the CIS
of the First Military Area for investigation, in the latter part of May, 1967,
and Jose T. Fortich, CIS Investigator, was assigned to the case. On a certain occasion when Jose Fortich was
in a restaurant in the municipality of Binalonan, he was informed that the two
(2) accused, Jose Orpilla and Jesus Torio, had something to do with the death
of Marciana Garcia. Upon receipt of
this information, Jose T. Fortich went to the office of the Bureau of Census
and Statistics in Manila, where the accused Jose Orpilla was employed, and
there Fortich learned that Jose Orpilla was absent from office on the
morning of April 24, 1967.
”Together with Jose Orpilla, Jose T. Fortich went to the residence
of Jesus Torio in Lincoln Street, San Francisco del Monte. They did not find Jesus Torio who was at
that time working as a painter in Pasay City. With a boy as their companion, Jose Orpilla and Jose T. Fortich went to
Pasay City and found Jesus Torio in the construction work of Fernando Marquez
and Associates. Both Jose Orpilla and
Jesus Torio were then brought to Camp Crame by Agent Jose T. Fortich for
investigation. According to Jose T.
Fortich, while they were riding on a bus on the way to Camp Crame, the accused
Jose Orpilla admitted to him that the killing of Marciana Garcia was
accidental.
“Their real purpose was only to rob and not to kill Marciana
Garcia. Jose Orpilla also allegedly
admitted that he and Jesus Torio have previously tried to enter the stall of
Marciana Garcia at night but they failed to enter the stall because the door
was tightly locked. So on the morning
of April 24, 1967, when the door was opened because Marciana Garcia went out to
buy food, Jose Orpilla, Jesus Torio and Ben Custodio, entered the stall and
ransacked the place.
“When Marciana Garcia arrived and saw What they were doing,
she was about to run when Jesus Torio grabbed her and held her on the mouth and
neck while Ben Custodio held both of her feet. In that position, Marciana Garcia was stabbed on the neck, with an
ice-pick. Ben Custodio herein referred
to, was also arrested but he was mysteriously killed while he was detained at
the PC Headquarters in Lingayen.
“While in Camp Crame, Jesus Torio and Jose Orpilla executed
their respective affidavits. Jose
Orpilla executed his affidavit (Exhs. G, G-1 to G-2) dated May 26, 1967 and a
second affidavit (Exhs. H, H-1 to H-4) on June 21, 1967, while Jesus Torio
executed an affidavit dated June 26, 1967 (Exhs. F, F-1 to F-4). In their affidavits, both accused denied any
participation in the killing of Marciana Garcia on April 24, 1967.
“However, in some portions of his statement which is marked
Exhibit F-5, Jesus Torio declared that his cousin and co-accused Jose Orpilla,
had planned to rob Marciana Garcia and even induced him (Jesus Torio) to
participate in robbing Marciana Garcia. Jesus Torio, however, refused. In his answer to Question No. 31 (Exh. F-5) of his statement, Jesus
Torio stated as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
‘Ito ang buong katutuhanan, ‘antis na
mamatay ang aming Tiya Marciana, mga tatlong araw, nagpunta sa akin si Totoy
Orpilla at kinukumbensi niya akong looban at nakawan lamang namin si Tiya
Marciana. Tumanggi naman ako kaya hindi
ako nakasama sa kanya. Ang Sabi ni
Totoy sa akin kong ayaw kong sumama sa kanya, kukuha ng kapalit ko. Ang dahilan na ibig looban ni Totoy si Tiya
Marciana, ay wala daw ang cuartang gamitin ni Totoy sa pamili ng paninda niya
sa kanyang puesto, at kasangkapan gamitin nila sa puesto, at pagayos sa bahay
niya.’ ‘Matapos ng mga ilang araw,
patay na ang Tiya Marciana, kaya nga nagpunta sa amin at siya ang nagsabing
patay na ang akong tiyahin na si Marciana Garcia.’
x x x x x x x x x
“The presence of Jesus Torio on the morning of April 24, 1967,
at the scene of the incident, is testified by Arsenio Garcia, market collector
of the Public Market of Binalonan. He
declared that on the morning of April 24, 1967, when he went to the stall of
Marciana Garcia to collect her rent for that month, he saw Jesus Torio standing
behind the stall of Marciana Garcia. When Marciana Garcia did not answer his call, Arsenio Garcia left and
proceeded to make his collections in other parts of the market. When Arsenio Garcia again peeped by the
stall of Marciana Garcia, the back door of the stall of Marciana Garcia at that
time was slightly opened. He tried to
push the half-opened door but the door was strongly being pushed back to him by
someone who was inside in the stall. Then he left and resumed his collections. After a while, he heard the shouts of Matias Grafite (jueteng
collector) that Marciana Garcia was killed. Arsenio Garcia then informed Ruperto Garcia, brother of Marciana
Garcia about the death of the latter.
“The presence of Jesus Torio in Binalonan on April 22 and 23,
1967, is likewise testified to by Juanito Ronquillo, who owns a restaurant a
few meters from the stall of Marciana Garcia. According to this witness, on the morning of April 22 and 23, 1967, he
saw Jesus Torio passed by the stall of Marciana Garcia.
“Timoteo Laluan, witness for the prosecution, testified that
on the morning of April 24, 1967, he and his wife were behind the stall of
Marciana Garcia, to buy vegetables which his wife will bring to and sell in
Baguio City; Three (3) days a week, i.e., on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, he
and his wife used to buy talong, ocra and ampalaya, from
the Binalonan Public Market to be sold in Baguio City. The sketch (Exh. 3) shows the place of the
stall of Marciana Garcia and the place marked ‘X’ in the sketch, just across
the road from the stall of Marciana Garcia, is the place where Timoteo Laluan
was seated when he saw the two (2) accused come out from the back door
of the stall of Marciana Garcia.
The first to come out was Jesus Torio, followed by Jose
Orpilla. Then they entered the adjacent
stall of Jose Orpilla and Jesus Torio closed the door. Timoteo Laluan has known Jesus Torio, having
seen him on several occasions in the public market and in the plaza of
Binalonan. He also knows Jose Orpilla
having seen him in the stall adjacent to the stall of Marciana Garcia, which
Jose Orpilla was constructing.
“Also, according to Timoteo Laluan, not long after he saw the
two (2) accused come out from the stall of Marciana Garcia, he heard shouts
that Marciana is Garcia was killed. He
peeped thru the door and saw the dead body of Marciana Garcia. When his wife arrived, Timoteo Laluan and
his wife immediately boarded a jeep and proceeded to the plaza of
Pozorrubio, where his wife waited for a bus going to Baguio City.
“As stated above, Marciana Garcia sold rice, corn and peanut
in her stall. Prior to April 24, 1967,
Marciana Garcia has already sold 40 cavans of rice out of the palay harvested
from their lands, at the rate of P46.00 per cavan, amounting to P1,860.00. The proceeds from the sale of their rice and
other moneys of Marciana Garcia were kept inside a leather belt tied around the
waist of Marciana Garcia. When she was
found dead on the morning of April 24, 1967, that belt was missing. The chemise of Marciana Garcia was raised
and her ‘patadiong’ was pulled down. All these appear in the photographs (Exhs. A, A-1, A-2 and A-3).
“The defense of the accused is an alibi. According to the accused Jesus Torio, he was
working as a painter for Fernando Marquez and Associates, on April 24, 1967 and
for sometime before that date. Particularly on April 24, 1967, Jesus Torio declared that he and his
companions, Alejandro Vicente and Ciriaco Bestida, were painting the house of a
certain Nadora in Bo. Calumpang, municipality of Marikina, which was completed
in May.
“Jesus Torio also declared that he did not go to Binalonan in
April, 1967, although he passed by Binalonan in March 1967 during the Holy
Week, when he went to visit his mother in Bolaon, La Union. On his way back to Manila after he visited
his mother, Jesus Torio passed by Binalonan and a sister of Jose Orpilla gave
Jesus Torio five (5) gantas of rice. Jesus Torio denied the truth of the contents of his statements (Exhs. F,
F-1 to F-4) and claim that its contents were not read to him and that he was
merely asked by Jose T. Fortich to sign it so they can go to Binalonan.
“The accused Jose Orpilla admitted that in the morning of
April 24, 1967, he was in Binalonan. He claims, however, that at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of that
day, he boarded a bus and proceeded to Manila, arriving in Manila at 11:00 o’
clock that same morning. At 12:15 in
the afternoon of that day, he reported for work. His attendance at 12:15 p.m. in office is shown by his time
record (Exh. 2).
“Jose Orpilla, however, admitted that before he boarded a bus
in the morning of April 24, 1967, he was with his children who were going to
school and that he even changed his P5.00 to coins to give some of it to his
children, who were on their way to go to school. Then, he proceeded to his stall in the public market to measure a
cabinet because he intended buy a glass to be placed in that
cabinet. After taking the measurements
of the cabinet, Jose Orpilla boarded Pantranco Bus No. 809 and went to
Manila. On the bus, he saw a boyhood
friend, Engineer Tacderas, who was with him in the bus until they reached
Manila. The pertinent portions of the
testimony of Jose T. Orpilla on this point, is as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
‘Q. At
6:00 o’clock in the morning of April 24, 1967, you boarded the bus of Pantranco
stationed in Binalonan? -A. When I
boarded the bus I did not look at my watch but when I left our house together
with my children, I looked at my watch and it was 20 minutes to 6:00 o’clock.
‘Q. And
you have to pass only by a store to change some coins and give it to your
children, before you boarded the Pantranco bus at the station? – A. I also went inside our store to measure a
certain cabinet because I was then looking for a scale to measure that piece of
cabinet because I was intending to buy glass sheets to cover the cabinet and so
after we left our house we walked to the store. I exchanged a P5.00 bill to loose coins for the ‘baon’ of my
children, and when I finished giving them I went to the store and got the
measurement of that piece of cabinet and then I left and that is the time I
boarded the bus.
‘Q. Was
the bus already at the Pantranco station in Binalonan when you boarded it? –
A. It was arriving, sir.
‘Q. Now,
my question is, in your testimony, you mentioned that you boarded that bus at
6:00 o’clock in the morning? -A. At
about that time, sir.’ (pp. 17-18, t.s.n., Session of Sept. 27, 1968.
x x x x x x x x x
“The alibi of Jose Orpilla is sought to be
substantiated by the testimony of his co-employee in the Bureau of Census and
Statistics, Albino V. Ariel, who testified regarding the time records (Exhs. 1
and 2), to show that Jose Orpilla reported for work at 12:15 p.m. on April 24,
1967. This witness declared that he was not the one who prepared the original
of those time records.
x x x x x x x x x
“As to the accused Jesus Torio, the presence of said accused
in Binalonan on April 22 and 23, 1967, was duly established by the testimony of
Juanito Ronquillo, owner of a restaurant, a few yards away from the stall of
Marciana Garcia. According to this
witness, he saw Jesus Torio passing by the stall of Marciana Garcia between 5
to o’clock in the morning of April 22 and 23, 1967. This is affirmed by his own statement taken on June 17, 1967 and
was even marked Exhibits 2, 2-A for the accused, Jesus Torio. The presence of this accused in Binalonan on
the morning of April 24, 1967, is likewise testified by Arsenio M. Garcia, the
market collector, who saw the accused Jesus Torio standing in front of the
half-opened door, at the back of the stall of Marciana Garcia, on the morning
of April 24, 1967, and finally by the testimony of Timoteo Laluan, who saw
Jesus Torio together with his co-accused Jose T. Orpilla, when they came out of
the stall of Marciana Garcia on the morning of April 24, 1967.
“Shortly thereafter, Marciana Garcia was found dead by Matias
Grafite, the ‘jueteng‘ collector. The evidence regarding the presence of Jesus Torio in Binalonan on April
22,23 and 24,1967, completely and absolutely destroy the alibi of said
accused, that on those dates he was working in the municipality of Marikina,
province of Rizal, as a painter of Marquez Construction. These witnesses mentioned above, have known
Jesus Torio before the incident in question and no reason or motive has been
shown why they should testify falsely against said accused. Consequently, their testimonies are entitled
to full faith and credit. (People v.
Valera, G. R. No. L-15662, Aug. 30, 1962; People vs. Iman Sawah, G. R. No.
L-15333, June 29, 1962.)
“There is no dispute as to the ability of these witnesses to
identify said accused because he is known to them. ‘When one meets a person known to him, identification takes place
at first sight, so the testimony of the prosecution witnesses identifying the
appellants who were known to them, as the authors of the crime should be
accepted’. (People v. Avonavon, G. R.
No. L-16664, March 30, 1962). And
finally, the identity of persons involved in exciting incidents (such as the
killing of Marciana Garcia) ‘must have been literally buried into the memory of
the prosecution witnesses to enable them to identify subsequently with
confidence’. (U. S. v. Requera, et al.,
41 Phil. 506, 512).
“Hence, insofar as the accused Jesus Torio is concerned, the
court finds that his defense of alibi cannot overcome the positive
identification or said accused by the witnesses for the prosecution, as to his
presence at or about the time Marciana Garcia was killed on April 24, 1967, and
particularly as one of those two (2) persons who came out from the stall of Marciana
Garcia immediately before her dead body was discovered.
“As to the accused Jose T. Orpilla, as shown from his
testimony, portion of which is quoted above, he went to his stall in the Public
Market of Binalonan early on the morning of April 24, 1967, which is adjacent
to the stall of Marciana Garcia, where she was killed. Said accused, however, claims that at about
6:00 o’clock in the morning of that day, he boarded a Pantranco bus for Manila,
arriving at Manila at 11:00 o’clock and reported for work in his office at the
Bureau of Census and Statistics at about 12:51 p.m. This is sought to be corroborated by his time record (Exh. 2).
“There is a dispute in the evidence, as to the exact time
Marciana Garcia was killed, whether it was between 8 and 9 or between 9 and 10
o’clock in the morning of April 24, 1967. The accused Jose T. Orpilla gave much emphasis on the time Marciana
Garcia was killed, in view of his time record (Exh. 2) where it is shown that
he reported for work in his office at 12:51 p.m. on April 24, 1967. In short, this accused wanted the court to
believe that he left Binalonan at 6 o’clock in the morning of April 24, 1967,
so he could not have been present at the time when Marciana Garcia was killed,
either between 8 and 9 o’clock, or 9 and 10 o’clock in the morning of that same
date. For otherwise, or had he left
Binalonan later than 6:00 a.m., he would not have been able to arrive and
report to his office at 12:51 in the afternoon of April 24, 1967, as evidenced
by his time record (Exh. 2).
“The evidence as to the exact time Marciana Garcia was killed
is uncertain. The testimony of
witnesses as to the time Marciana Garcia was found dead; the time when the
accused Jesus Torio was seen standing behind the stall of Marciana Garcia and,
the time that the two (2) accused were seen coming out from the back door of
the stall of Marciana Garcia, were based on mere estimates or
calculation. Hence, it is not
conclusive.
“For nothing is generally so unsatisfactory in the course of
judicial investigation as to attempt to fix so fleeting a thing as time. Unless the attention of a witness is called
to the exact period of time when the event occurs, or unless he is enabled to
estimate from a given point the period at which a subsequent event occurred,
very little value is to be attached to the effect of his memory.’ (People v.
Judson, 11 Daly (N.Y.) 1, 81; Evidence by Francisco, p. 1135).
“The presence of the accused Jose T. Orpilla, at the time of
the killing of Marciana Garcia and his participation in the killing of said
deceased, is duly established.
“First, by his co-accused Jesus Torio, who declared in
his statement (Exh. F; Exh. F-5) that he was invited by his cousin and
co-accused Jose T. Orpilla to rob Marciana Garcia because Jose T. Orpilla
needed money to finish the construction of his stall. And, when Jesus Torio refused to join him Jose T. Orpilla
allegedly said that he would look for someone to substitute Jesus Torio. This statement of Jesus Torio (Exh. F) is
corroborated by the fact that when Marciana Garcia was killed on April 24,
1967, she was really robbed, because the leather belt tied around her waist
where she kept her money was missing and was never recovered. This statement (Exh. F; Exh. F-1) of Jesus
Torio is admissible against the accused Jose T. Orpilla to corroborate
the other evidence which points to the guilt of said accused. ‘While it is true that extrajudicial
confessions are admissible only against the persons who made them, it is,
however, the rule that they may be admitted as corroborative evidence of other
facts that tend to establish the guilt of the other defendants.’ (People v.
Simbajon, et al., G. R. Nos. L-18073-75, September 20, 1965). ‘Although an extrajudicial confession as a
rule is evidence only against the person making it, nonetheless, the same may
serve as a corroborative evidence if it is clear from, other facts and
circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the
crime charged and proved.’ (People v. Sta. Maria, et al., G. R. No. L-19919,
Oct. 30, 1965).
“Secondly, the admission made by Jose T. Orpilla to CIS
Investigator Jose Fortich, while riding in the bus that he and his co-accused
Jesus Torio previously attempted to rob Marciana Garcia but failed because the
door of the stall of Marciana Garcia was tightly locked but they were able to
enter the stall of Marciana Garcia on the morning of April 24, 1967, after the
latter left to buy food when the door was left opened; that he and his
co-accused ransacked the stall of Marciana Garcia and when Marciana Garcia
unexpectedly arrived and was about to run and call for help, Marciana Garcia
was seized by Jesus Torio on the mouth and stab her on the neck, while Ben
Custodio held Marciana Garcia by the feet.
“This admission was of course denied by the accused Jose T.
Orpilla on the witness stand. This is
to be expected, for as a rule, ‘very seldom does an accused admit the commission
of a crime fully and completely.’ (People v. Abella, et al., G. R. No. L-4219;
People v. Abris, G. R. No. L-4218, May 19, 1952). There is nothing, however, for the court to doubt the truth of
the testimony of Jose Fortich.
“Said witness is an officer of the law, a peace officer and
the presumption is that he had performed his duties regularly and
properly. ‘Evidence of improper tactics
must be very strong to overcome the presumption that peace officers have acted
within the bounds of law in the discharge of their duties.’ (People v. Ciscer,
G. R. No. 7369, Jan. 13, 1943; People v. Almazan, CA-G. R. No. 02851-R, Feb.
22, 1963). Nothing unsatisfactory can be said about the actuation of Jose
Fortich in his investigation of this case.
“When he took the statement of Jesus Torio (Exh. F) and the
statement of Jose T. Orpilla (Exh. G) they were neither forced or coerced to
make said statements. The accused Jose
T. Orpilla was assisted by Attys. Decepoda and Duca, when he gave his
statements. And, when he refused to
reaffirm in his written statement (Exh. G) the admission he made to Jose
Fortich regarding his participation in the killing of Marciana Garcia, Jose
Fortich did not do anything about it. The statement of Jesus Torio (Exh. F) has all the earmarks of voluntariness. It contained exculpatory statements and details
which he alone could have furnished. It
is, therefore, incredible as Jesus Torio would like the court to believe that
he simply signed his statement (Exh. F) without knowing its contents.
“Finally, and most important of all is the identification by
Timoteo Laluan, who saw both accused coming out from the half-opened door of
Marciana Garcia, immediately before her dead body was found on the morning of
April 24, 1967. This witness had
sufficient opportunity to see and recognize both accused, as he was just across
the street from the back of the stall of Marciana Garcia where he was waiting
for his wife who went to buy some more vegetables to be taken to Baguio City,
as the vegetables supplied by their customers were not enough.
“He knew both accused having seen them in the Public Market of
Binalonan, when this witness and his wife used to buy vegetables regularly
three (3) days a week, namely, Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. The testimony of this witness has not been
impeached and there is no reason and nothing has been shown to doubt the truth
of his testimony. He readily agreed to
testify when he was cited as a witness, as he previously informed Fortich that
he saw the incident.
“There is nothing in the time record (Exh. 2) to establish
conclusively the alibi of the accused Jose T. Orpilla. It is to be noted
that Exhibit 1 is a photostat of its original, which does not contain entries
found in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 1 was, according to Jose Fortich, given to him by
the Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Census and Statistics, a week
after he started the investigation of this case, sometime in the month of May,
1967. Its feature and appearance is
very different from Exhibit 2, which contains additional details which do not
appear in Exhibit 1. The incident took
place in the month of April 24, 1967 and Exhibit 1 was given to Jose Fortich in
May, 1967. Yet, there are additional
details appearing on Exhibit 2, another time record of Jose T. Orpilla, which
do not appear on Exhibit 1. There is reason
to believe that it was ‘conveniently prepared’ to corroborate the alibi
of the accused, Jose T. Orpilla.
“The court believes that had the original of the time record
(Exh. 2) been produced and subjected to closer scrutiny, erasures and
alterations, could have been detected, as changes must have been made. Instead, a ‘certified’ copy therefor marked
Exhibit 2 was presented by Albino Ariel, the Custodian of said document, to
avoid any possible detection of the alterations of the time record of Jose T. Orpilla,
for the month of April, 1967.
“At any rate, time records are easy to fabricate and they have
never been considered as conclusive proof as to the truth of its contents. It is a common practice that in government
offices, time records are slackishly prepared by persons other than the
employee himself, specially in Bundy Clock where the handwriting of the
employee cannot be detected.
“Jose Fortich even testified that he observed how time records
are prepared in the Bureau of Census and Statistics for 2 or 3 days and he
noticed that only one or two employees were punching the time records for the
other employees. So in discovering such
irregularity he reported the incident to Atty. Decepeda, the Administrative
Officer, and the employee concerned, was immediately removed. This testimony of Jose Fortich was not
disputed by the accused.
“As documentary evidence, a time record regarding the hours of
work, is given less value than parol evidence. (Mosso vs. Uy Kee Beng, CA-G. R. No. 30753-R, Oct. 15, 1963). In Mallorca Taxi versus Roman
Guaniao, et al., G. R. No. L-8613, January 30, 1957, the court did not give any
conclusve effect on a time record, when it held in part that ‘The time record
of Gonzalo Guanlao presented in evidence by the petitioner, had not been
punched in at 1:00 o’clock on November 15, 1952, thereby showing that his
failure to do so which is due to the accident which occurred before 1:00
o’clock cannot have any conclusive effect, specially because there is
sufficient oral evidence to the effect that the accident took place between
1:30 and 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.’ In People v. Baysican, G. R. No.
13486, Oct. 31, 1962, a police blotter was exhibited to corroborate the defense
of alibi. The court ruled that a
police blotter even if it were a public document is doubtful and made
conveniently on a later date to corroborate the defense of alibi.
“The same can be said that the time record (Exh. 2) was later
conveniently prepared to corroborate the defense of alibi; that it is of
recent preparation, considering specially that it was Exhibit 1, not
Exhibit 2 which was shown to Jose Fortich, by the Administrative Officer of the
Bureau of Census and Statistics, when he was investigating this case in the
later part of May 1967.
“The authenticity of the time record (Exh. 2) is further put
in doubt by the testimony of Mrs. Remedios Galinato who solemnly affirmed that
three (3) days after the death of Marciana Garcia or more particularly on
April 26, 1967, the accused Jose T. Orpilla arrived in Binalonan and inquired
from her about the death of Marciana Garcia. In Exhibit 2, it was made, to appear that Jose T. Orpilla was out on official
business, when in fact he was in Binalonan making inquiries about the death of
Marciana Garcia.
“There is no reason for the court to doubt the truth of the
testimony of Mrs. Remedios Galinato on this point, which she disclosed not only
during the trial but also during the early stage of the investigation of this
case by CIS Investigator, Jose Fortich. Finally, Engineer Calderas, who was allegedly with the accused Jose T.
Orpilla in the Pantranco bus to Manila was not presented as witness to bolster
the alibi of this accused.
“To enable the accused Jose T. Orpilla to leave Binalonan at
6:00 o’clock in the morning of April 24, 1967, as he claims, he must have left
his house together With his children who are going to school either at 5:00
o’clock or at the latest at 5:30. Considering that said accused will have to be absent from his office
that morning, the court does not find any plausible reason for said accused to
wake up his children at 5:00 o’clock in the morning and accompany them to give
them some loose coins, for their ‘baon’. As the classes of elementary school children start either at 7:30 or
8:00 o’clock in the morning, the most that can be said is that the accused
Jose T. Orpilla with his children left their house either at 6:30 or 7:00
o’clock and after giving coins to his children, said accused proceeded to his
stall in the market place in Binalonan to measure the cabinet, he intended to
cover with glasses. Under the circumstances,
he could not have left or boarded the Pantranco bus at 6:00 o’clock in the
morning of that date.
“The court does not find any evidence to substantiate the view
of the accused that Jose Solis could have something to do with the death of
Marciana Garcia, with whom he is living as common-law husband, simply because
Jose Solis was also cohabiting with Patrocinio Garcia, sister of the deceased. According to the evidence, Jose Solis had
two (2) daughters with Marciana Garcia, who are both living in Dagupan City and
it is precisely because Jose Solis was looking after their two (2) daughters
that he cannot stay permanently with Marciana Garcia at their stall in the
public market of Binalonan. Had he
wanted to kill Marciana Garcia because of his relations with Patrocinio Garcia,
he could have done so long ago.
“At any event, no evidence of sufficient weight and importance
have been introduced by the accused to substantiate the belief that Jose Solis
had something to do with the death of Marciana Garcia. As to the money or jewelries which were
taken from the deceased Marciana Garcia, the court finds that only P1,860.00
were in her possession at the time of the robbery. This is the amount which represents the proceeds from the sale of
rice in her stall. The jewelries mentioned
in the information were, according to Jose Solis, purchased for their
children, so they may have been in the possession of their children and no
longer in the possession of Marciana Garcia, at the time of the robbery.”
The foregoing findings and conclusions of the learned trial
judge, Antonio C. Masaquel, are supported by the evidence. Oropilla’s guilt was
proven beyond reasonable doubt. His
deceptive and fraudulent alibi does not deserve any credence.
I vote for the affirmance of the trial court decision.