THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ROBLES, RODOLFO ROBLES, CONRADO LUNA AND ANTONIO SARMIENTO, ACCUSED.  CONRADO LUNA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Conrado Luna appealed from the decision
of the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, finding him guilty of murder, sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua and ordering
him to pay an indemnity of twenty thousand pesos to the heirs of Rodolfo
Mendoza (Criminal Cases Nos. 1451 and 1622).

Antonio Sarmiento, who was convicted as
a co-principal of Luna and sentenced to a similar penalty, withdrew his
appeal.  The withdrawal was granted in
this Court’s resolution of Sep­tember
29, 1980.

Rogelio Robles was acquitted. 
The fourth accused, Rodolfo Robles, is at large.  He is now in the United
States.

There is no controversy as to the fact that at around ten o’clock
in the evening of November 22,
1966, Rodolfo Mendoza, 24, was shot and killed by two persons inside the Old Gold
Restaurant located at 1450 Sande Street, corner Perla Street, Tondo, Manila.

The slaying was a front-page story in the issue of the Manila
Times on the following day, November 23. 
The victim, known as Roding Ulo, was the son
of Bienvenido Mendoza, alias Ben Ulo,
a bodyguard of former Defense Secretary Oscar Castelo,
who was convicted of having killed Manuel Monroy and who was then confined in the national penitentiary (Exh. 1-Luna.  See
People vs. Castelo, 120 Phil. 221).

The autopsy disclosed that the victim suffered ten entrance
gunshot wounds consisting of three fatal wounds in the head, four wounds in the
chest, a wound in the arm, another wound in the parietal region of the head and
a wound in the abdomen which lacerated the pancreas, stomach and liver (Exh. D).

Three persons, Tony Pangan, Conrado Luna or Boy Luna and Renato
Ramirez were suspected of having taken part in the killing (Exh.
I or 4-Robles). 
However, no arrests were made. 
The case remained dormant for around six years.  After the release from prison of Ben Ulo in 1972 (10-11 tsn May 30, 1974), the police
reinvestigated the case.

According to Antonio Sarmiento (Tony Pangan), the killing was instigated by the brothers Rogelio
and Rodolfo Robles who gave him five hundred pesos and two guns.  On the day before the killing, Sarmiento contacted Luna at the vessel Bupri, which was docked at the North Harbor, and informed him that Rogelio Robles wanted
Luna to take part in the assassination of Mendoza (Exh.
J).

Rogelio ordered the liquidation of Rodolfo Mendoza because
Rogelio was allegedly apprehensive that as a matter of vengeance Ben Ulo would order his son Rodolfo to kill Rogelio because
Rogelio testified against Ben Ulo in the case wherein
Ben Ulo was convicted (Exh.
J, p. 166, Record).  Rogelio’s residence at 1411
Sande Street was three
houses away from the scene of the crime (24 tsn May 30, 1974).

Rogelio was employed as a foreman in the city en­gineer’s office,
Manila while Rodolfo Robles was the
head of the social welfare department in the City Hall during the term of Mayor
Antonio Villegas.

The police investigator got the sworn statements of Ernesto de
Guzman dated November 20, 1972 and March 26 and 28, 1973 and the sworn
statements of Renato Manlapit
dated December 6, 1972 and March 27 and 28, 1973, pointing to Sarmiento and Luna as the killers and to Rogelio Robles as
the person who wanted to be assured that Mendoza was dead (Exh.
G, O, P, Q, R and S).

Crisanta Gonzaga,
an alleged common-law wife of Sarmiento, executed a
sworn statement dated March 26, 1973
wherein she declared that the Robles brothers induced Sarmiento
to kill Mendoza by paying him five
hundred pesos and furnishing him the two guns to be used in the killing.  That amount was turned over to Crisanta by Sarmiento (Exh. T).

From the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit,
which confirmed the allegations in their six sworn statements, it may be
gathered that between eight and nine o’clock in the evening of November 22,
1966, Mendoza invited De Guzman to take a snack in a restaurant located at
Coral Street, Tondo, Manila.  After they finished eating, Luna arrived and
invited them to have some drinks in another restaurant.  (See Exh.
J, pp. 163-166, Record.)

The three proceeded to the Old Gold Restaurant.  On the way, they were joined by Manlapit.  At the
restaurant, they seated themselves on the stools near the counter.  De Guzman sat near the door.  Seated next to him were Mendoza, Luna and Manlapit in that order (Exh. F).

Mendoza ordered
drinks.  While waiting for his order, he
took off his eyeglasses and cleaned them. 
Suddenly or without any preliminaries, Luna drew his gun and fired at Mendoza’s
head, causing the latter to fall on the floor. 
Luna fired other shots at the prostrate victim.

At that juncture, Sarmiento emerged
from the comfort room and also fired several shots at Mendoza.  Rogelio Robles entered the restaurant and
advised Luna and Sarmiento to make sure that Mendoza
was dead.  (“Siguruhin ninyo yan.  Baka buhay pa yan“.)
Acting on that suggestion of Rogelio, Luna, using his foot, turned the body of
Mendoza, who was lying down on his side, so that the latter assumed a supine
position.  Luna and Sarmiento
fired other shots.

Luna, Sarmiento and Robles left the
restaurant.  De Guzman and Manlapit also left. 
They did not report the killing to the police and they remained silent
for a long time because they were afraid that they might be killed.  Renato Robles, a
policeman, the son of Rodolfo Robles and nephew of Rogelio, and Romeo Robles,
also a policeman, and a cousin of Renato, told them
to remain silent.  (Nos. 32 to 36, Exh. G.)

Sarmiento surrendered to the
Constabulary Metropo­litan Command (Metrocom) on March 23, 1973 while Luna surrendered
to Judge Manuel R. Pamaran on November 6, 1973 (p. 6, Record of Criminal Case
No. 1622).

Sarmiento executed an extrajudicial
confession before a Metrocom officer dated March 24,
1973 wherein he declared that he and Luna killed Mendoza at the instigation of
Rogelio Robles who supplied two guns and to whom they returned the same after
the killing (Exh. BB).

Sarmiento executed a more detailed
confession dated March 25, 1973
before a Manila police investigator (Exh.
L), another confession dated March 26,
1973 wherein he implicated Rodolfo Robles as the mastermind and
inducer (Exh. M) and a
fourth confession dated March 28, 1973
wherein he con­firmed his identification of Rogelio Robles at a police lineup (Exh. N).

All the four confessions were sworn to by Sarmiento.  However, he was not assisted by counsel when
he made the confessions and he was not informed of his constitutional rights
against self-incrimination and to remain silent (Sec. 20, Art. IV,
Constitution).  He did not waive those
rights.  Hence, those four confessions,
taken during custodial interrogation, are inadmissible in evidence as
admissions of guilt.

Moreover, Sarmiento in his affidavit of
retraction dated June 8, 1973
said that the declarations in his confes­sions were not true, particularly the
imputation that Rodolfo Robles induced the killing of Mendoza (Exh. HH).

In convicting Luna and Sarmiento of
murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by craft, which was offset by
voluntary surrender to the authorities, the lower court relied on the
testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit.  The latter used to be a fellow prisoner of
Luna in the New Bilibid Prison.

Luna in this appeal contends that the lower court erred in giving
credence to the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit,
in disregarding the circumstance that the owner of the Old Gold Restaurant
failed to identify Luna at the police lineup, in not sustaining Luna’s alibi
and in rendering the judg­ment of conviction.

As Luna’s counsel aptly states, these contentions revolve around
the issue as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the probative
value of Luna’s evidence.

From September 16, 1961
to February 25, 1969, Luna
was serving sentences for robbery and theft in the New Bilibid
Prison.  He was classified as a minimum
security prisoner.  As such, he was
detailed from June 20, 1966
to July 27, 1967 to work as
an oiler in the vessel Bupri
which was owned by the Bureau of Prisons (Exh.
3-Luna) and was anchored at the Manila
North Harbor.

Luna’s alibi was that in the evening of November 22, 1966, when Mendoza
was killed, he (Luna) was in the vessel Bupri
from which he could not have left because it was guarded.

That pretension was refuted by Ricardo Raymundo,
a rebuttal prosecution witness and a fellow prisoner of Luna also detailed at
the vessel Bupri.  Raymundo declared
that at around six o’clock in the
evening of November 22, 1966,
he, Luna and another prisoner named Rudy were permitted by the prison guard, Romy Veloria, to leave the vessel
at the Manila North
Harbor and go home on condition
that they would be back before midnight.

Raymundo testified that he took a jeepney at Pier 8 while Luna went to Pier 10.  We hold that the trial court did not err in
giving more credence to Raymundo’s testimony than to
Luna’s alibi.  Raymundo
was a disinterested and unbiased witness.

With respect to the failure of Que Hok, the female Chinese owner of the Old Gold Restaurant,
to identify Luna during the police lineup on November 24, 1966, the explanation is that the shooting
took place shortly after Luna and his companions entered the restaurant and Que Hok did not have sufficient
time to know them very well.  When she
heard the first shot, she was going to the kitchen.  She witnessed the shooting by looking through
the glass partition
(Exh. 6-Luna). 
She was afraid and nervous when she failed to identify Luna at the Old Bilibid Prison.

Another reason is that she had a weak
eyesight.  She later suffered from
cataract and had an eye operation and her right eye became blind in 1970.

Que Hok in
her statement given on the day following the shooting described one of the two
killers as “bilugan ho ang
mukha, maputi, may hati ang buhok
at hindi masyadong
mahaba (mataas) at mga 5’2″ ho seguro ang taas” (No. 11, Exh. 6-Luna).

Judge Pamaran during the trial, when Que Hok was testifying as a
witness for Luna, observed that Luna “is more than the ordinary built or
physique, his hair is parted on the left side and that he has a round
face” (31 tsn April 25, 1974).

Finally, it is relevant to note that it was not unusual that Luna
and Sarmiento were co-conspirators because they were
contemporaries in the Abad
Santos High School
where they used to play basketball together; they were fellow prisoners in the
national penitentiary and they were both henchmen of the Robles brothers (No.
8, Exh. M, p. 171, Record).  Luna resided for a long time in Sande Street, his residence
being about one hundred meters away from the scene of the crime.  He was familiar with that locality.

After a thorough review of the evidence and a cons­cientious
evaluation of Luna’s arguments, we find that his guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment as to Luna is
affirmed.  Costs de
oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Barredo,
Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ.,
concur.

Fernando, C.J., concurs in the dissent of
Justice Abad Santos.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on official leave.

Abad Santos, J., see
dissent.