PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLOS CARAMONTE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On December 31, 1967,
armed men sacked two places in Negros
Occidental:  Toboso
town in the early morning; and Cadiz City
in the evening.  For the raid on Toboso, the Circuit Cri­minal Court at Bacolod City,
in Criminal Case No. CCC-XII-27, found the accused Carlos Caramonte
guilty of robbery in band with multiple homicide and
less serious physical injuries, and sentenced him to death.  But for the raid on Cadiz
City, the Court of First Instance,
Branch I, at Silay
City, in Criminal Case No. 690,
acquitted the same accused Caramonte.  This is an appeal from the judgment of
conviction.

At the time the trial of this case started, of the several
accused mentioned in the Third Amended Information, all were at large except
Ricardo Cañete and Caramonte.  Trial proceeded against these two; but before
the prosecution rested its case, it moved that the case be dismissed against Cañete, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.  There was no objection on the part of the
accused, and the court dismissed the case against Cañete.  Hence, the case proceeded only as against the
accused Caramonte.

One witness – Luciano Salinas –
testified for the prosecution in both cases. 
In Criminal Case No. 690, which resulted in the judgment of acquittal, Salinas
was discharged to become a state witness. 
In the instant case, he testified that he resides at sitio
Amamansa, barrio Pasil, Bantayan, Cebu.  This place is found on the island
of Botiguez,
which is a part of Bantayan.

On December 30, 1967,
at about 4:00 p.m., Salinas
left his house for sitio Tunga
to buy matches from the store of one Agustin Cañete.  When he arrived, he saw, about ten meters
away from the store, a group composed of: 
Carlos Caramonte, Isabelo
Montemayor, Florencio Tagsawa alias Turing, Tambok,
Boy, Kiampao, Cesar Cañete,
Roberto Rivera, and Tatong Mansueto.

When Salinas
approached the group squatting on the ground, he heard that they were planning
to stage robberies at Toboso and Cadiz
City.  Specifically, at arm’s length, he heard Montemayor tell the others: 
“We’ll rob Toboso and Cadiz
City.” When he left the place,
the group remained but later they also went away.  They divided into two groups and went to the
seashore.

At about 5:00 p.m., Salinas
reached home and went to the seashore. 
He watched while a group of seven – Caramonte,
Turing, Tambok, Mario, Boy, Ponyot,
and Kiampao – boarded a yellow pumpboat.  He was about 40 to 50 meters away from the
point of departure.  He followed with his
eyes the progress of the boat until it was about four to five kilometers away.

The scenario shifts from Botiguez island to Toboso town which, on December 31, 1967, between 1:00 to 1:30 a.m., was the venue of advisory
celebration for the newly-elected mayor and other town officials held at the
town plaza.  One of those who abstained
from participating in the celebration was Lim Eng Yu,
a merchant who preferred to go to sleep in his house located about 10 meters
from the plaza.  At about 1:20 a.m., he was awakened by several shots
fired near the municipal building, about 30 meters away.  He peeped through the window and saw several
men with carbines passing through Del Pilar street.  He hid himself, and then heard the front door
being broken down with an axe.  After
gaining entry, the malefactors broke the second door leading upstairs.  They fired several shots and destroyed the
clothes closets.  Lim did not recognize
any one of the three or four persons who broke into his house.

Together with Lim in his house at this time, were his daughter
Elizabeth Lim, and two maids:  Dioleta Disol and Lolita Pahayahay.  Lolita
testified that when the three girls heard the sound of the axe upon the door,
they hid under the bed in the living room. 
The armed men espied Dioleta’s feet sticking
out from under the bed.  They pulled Dioleta out and dragged her downstairs.  The band ordered them to look for money, but
the girls did not know where it could be found. 
Later, the band brought them to the seashore, which is about half a
kilometer’s distance from the house. 
There they were released, and they ran back home.  After the marauders left, Lim found that they
had broken his wooden safe open and taken the amount of P2,600.00,
as well as some pieces of jewelry.

At the time of the robbery, at about 1:30 a. m., a group of policemen were taking a coffee
break at a store on Del Pilar
street. 
This group was composed of:  the
Chief of Police, Sgt. Charles Valencia, Pat. Salustiano
Taganele,
and Pat. Sotero Baynosa.  As they left the store to go home, a burst of
gunfire exploded in the vicinity.  The
policemen, seeing that the band of malefactors were
armed, sought refuge in different places. 
‘The band gave chase to Pat. Baynosa.  He testified that
he ran towards the market place and emerged only after one hour, after the band
had disappeared.  Baynosa
found Valencia’s
dead body at the mu­nicipal kiosk.  He
had been hit on the head by a bullet. 
The Chief of Police directed Pat. 
Baynosa to investigate the robbery. 
The policeman went to Lim’s house and recovered:  an axe; 29 pieces of .30 cal. shells; and one
piece of live .45 cal. bullet.

At about the same time, between 1:30
to 2:00 a.m., Vivencio Rosales and his
son Nelson were inside a bus identified as Simwin No.
50.  They were poised to go home after
attending the victory ball.  His son took
a seat near the bus driver.  Then a
person unknown to Vivenrio approached the bus and
ordered the driver not to start the vehicle and not to put on the lights.  When the driver, disregarding the stranger’s
directive, started the bus, immediately afterwards an explosion occurred.  After the first explosion, Nelson was hit on
the left side of the head and died five hours after arrival at the
hospital.  The passenger beside Nelson,
George Baynosa, was also hit and he died from the
gunshot wound.

Dr. Enrique Gauzon, Acting Municipal
Health Officer of Toboso, testified that at about 1:45 a.m., he examined the cadaver of Sgt.
Charles Valencia, and later issued a post-mortem report.  Dr. Gauzon was of
the opinion that death was caused by severe hemorrhage from the cerebral
gunshot wound.  He testified that the
wound was probably caused by a carbine, a Garand, or
a Thompson.  Dr. Gauzon
also examined the body of Nelson Rosales and arrived at the similar conclusion
that the cause of death was severe hemorrhage from a gunshot wound.  Further, the doctor also examined the cadaver
of George Baynosa and found one bullet wound.  He issued the opinion that the wounds on the
three cadavers he examined could have been caused by .38 or .45 cal. bullets.

Dr. Eusebio Respicio,
Jr., a physician engaged in private practice, testified that he examined Lim Katian at the Magdalene
Hospital on December 31, 1967.  Lim informed the doctor that he was shot in Toboso; his wounds actually healed on the 11th day.  The
doctor turned over the bullet to the PC.

After this telescopic view of the events at Toboso,
we return to Botiguez island
and find Salinas on the day of the
robbery, December 31, 1967.  At about 6:00
a.m., he had climbed to the top of a coconut tree in order to
gather tuba.  From this vantage point, at
a distance of about 50 meters, he saw the yellow pumpboat
coming back to the seashore.  He saw the pumpboat disgorge seven persons who were Caramonte and his six other companions.  The band pro­ceeded towards barrio Pasil.

On the same day, at about 5:00
p.m., Salinas went to
the cockpit.  He then went to buy tuba
at the house of Rosendo Cañete
– his wife’s relative – at barrio Silanga.  In the yard he saw: Caramonte,
Isabelo Montemayor, Teofilo Mejia, Ronnie Boy, Boy, Mario, Turing, Tambok, Ponyot, Kiampao, Liandring, and Panday.  He heard Montemayor say: 
“Let’s raid Cadiz City.”
He then received an invitation from Montemayor to
join the raiding party.  Although
initially hesitant, Salinas
accepted the invitation and boarded a blue pumpboat
with the others at the seashore of Tabunok.  They left at 7:00
p.m., and arrived at 9:00 p.m.
at Cadiz City.

Salinas stayed in the
pumpboat while his 13 companions -including Caramonte – disembarked with firearms.  Salinas
heard shots; after about 30 minutes, the group came back.  While they were at sea, he heard Boy groaning
and complaining that he was wounded on his left thigh.  Ronnie Boy was also wounded on the left
arm.  They reached Amamansa
at about 4:00 a.m. and brought the two
wounded men to Salinas’ house.  Montemayor gave him
P30.00 as his share for the Cadiz
adventure.

On January 3 and 5, 1968, the III PC Zone at Cebu City
received a spot report from the PC at Negros
Occidental on the robbery with multiple homicide in Toboso.  On January 9, 1968, Master Sgt. Sandy Castañeda was assigned to lead the team for the investigation
of the robberies at Toboso and Cadiz
City.  The team interviewed Salinas
and took down his affidavits.  On January 20, 1968, past 5:00 a.m., Sgt. Castañeda
went to the house of Rafael Escario at barrio Pasil, where he found Caramonte.  He was accompanied by Capt. Luis Panes and
other soldiers of the PC at Negros Occidental.  Capt. Panes on the witness stand later
confirmed the sergeant’s story.  The
sergeant showed to Caramonte the warrant of arrest
issued by the judge of the Cadiz City Court. 
Caramonte argued as an alibi that on the day
of the robbery, on December 31, 1967,
he took his oath as municipal councilor. 
However, the sergeant verified that Caramonte
actually took his oath on a later day, and therefore effected
the arrest.

Judge Francisco Ledesma of the Cadiz
City Court testified that before him, on January 23, 1968, Caramonte
subscribed his affidavit, marked as Exhibit “G”; and on January 24,
1968, another affidavit, marked as Exhibit “H”.  In Exhibit “G”, consisting of 12
pages, Caramonte raised the alibi that he stayed at
his residence, the house of Rafael Escario at barrio Pasil, Botiguez, the whole day of
December 30, 1967, until the afternoon of December 31, 1967, when he went to Silanga.  Caramonte and a
certain Pat. Ramos brought Exhibit “G” to Judge Ledesma.  The judge
explained to Caramonte the contents of the affidavit,
and advised him that he could make the necessary corrections.  Accordingly, Caramonte
made about ten corrections on Exhibit “G”.

In the affidavit marked as Exhibit “H”, consisting of
four pages, Carlos Caramonte admitted his
participation in the robberies at Toboso and Cadiz
City.  The accused also corrected Exhibit
“H”.

Judge Fernando Uy Bontua
of the municipal court of Toboso testified that
before him, Caramonte subscribed his affidavit,
marked as Exhibit “F”, on February
2, 1968.  In this affidavit
consisting of two pages, Caramonte confessed his
participation and acknowledged his receipt of P130.00 as his share in the rob­bery
at Toboso. 
Judge Bontua testified that Caramonte was alone when he brought the affidavit to the
judge’s office.  There were no policemen
in the judge’s chamber.  The judge
advised Caramonte, in English, of his constitutional
rights, and told him that he could correct the affidavit.  Accordingly, Caramonte
made about seven corrections on both the original and the carbon copies of the
affidavit.

On February 2, 1968,
Sgt. Castañeda went to Toboso
for the re-enactment of the robbery.  He
testified that Caramonte agreed to the re-enactment,
and that Caramonte played his role voluntarily,
without instruction from others.  Sgt. Castañeda asserted that while he was present and directed
the photographer on the shots to be made, yet Caramonte
voluntarily assumed different positions during the re-enactment, and did not do
so upon Castañeda’s instructions.

The photographer, Samuel Villaflor,
testified that while he was taking pictures of the re-enactment, Caramonte voluntarily assumed different positions without
force from any source.

The accused Caramonte, testifying in
his own behalf, raised the defense of alibi. 
He testified that he is a native of Botiguez island.  He was
informally adopted by Rafael Escario, who financed
him through the Cebu Institute of Technology until he
earned the degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce.  He then engaged in business, and in 1967 was
elected No. 2 councilor of Bantayan.

Caramonte testified that on December 28, 1967, at about 10:00 a. m. he left Botiguez
island by pumpboat and arrived at Bantayan
at 11:00 a.m.  At 4:00 p.m.,
he went to the house of Mayor-elect Jesus Escario –
Rafael’s nephew – to verify when their briefing session would be held.  Caramonte next went
to the house of Dr. Surmillion, and then to the
municipal building, and finally returned to the house of Mayor Escario.

On December 30, 1967,
at 10:00 a.m., he left for Botiguez island.  He had lunch with Rafael Escario
and his wife.  At 3:00 p.m., the barrio captain of Botiguez
invited him and the Escario couple to the celebration
scheduled for December 31, 1967,
at sitio Silanga.  The celebration was partly in Caramonte’s honor as newly-elected councilor, and he
accepted.

From the afternoon of December
30, 1967 up to noon of December 31, 1967, he stayed in Escario’s house, where he lived.  At 3:00 p.m.,
he went to barrio Silanga to attend a cock­fight.  In the afternoon, he learned that the
oath-taking was to be held that night (December
31, 1967).  But since he
could not take the pumpboat as low tide had set in;
and since he had to attend the celebration that evening, he sent word that he
would take his oath before the Mayor on January 2, 1968.

On December 31, 1967,
at 9:00 p.m., he and the Escario couple went to barrio Silanga
to attend the affair sponsored by the barrio captain.  He stayed at the dance hall from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00
a.m. the next day, January
1, 1968.  All during the
night, he was at the dance hall, except only for one hour when he had some
snacks at the house of Mrs. Adela Cañete.  Afterwards, he returned home to barrio Pasil and stayed there the whole day.  Caramonte took his
oath as councilor on January 3, 1968.

Caramonte testified that on January 20, 1968, in the early
morning, law enforcers led by Capt. Panes, and including Sgt. Castañeda, showed him a warrant and effected
his arrest.  He was first brought to Bantayan and then to Cadiz
City.  Initially, he shared a cell with Agustin and Rosendo, both surnamed Cañete but
later, the two men were transferred and Caramonte was
left alone in the cell.

On January 21, 1968,
at about 4:00 p.m., Sgt. Castañeda and others brought him to the radio room.  They asked him why he joined the robbery in Cadiz
City, but he protested that he was
at sitio Silanga at the
time of the robbery.  They brought Salinas
into the room, and he affirmed Caramonte’s participation.

Caramonte testified that after Salinas
left the room, Sgt. Castañeda ordered him to take off
his clothes and stand against the wall with both of his hands extended.  Castañeda then
started punching him in the stomach.  The
other CIS agent also thrust his fingers into Caramonte’s
stomach.  Caramonte
fell, but Castañeda ordered him to stand up and hit
him with a flying kick on the right shin. 
Caramonte was wounded and fell down.  He was told to stand up, only to be kicked
again on the left shin.

The Chief of Police pointed a gun to the right side of Caramonte’s head and said: 
“If you will not tell the truth, we’ll kill you.”, Conse­quently,
Caramonte said: 
“I will accept all what you are doing . . . .”  He was allowed to sit down but he was already
dizzy.  Castañeda
told him:  “If you keep on lying
that you were not in the Cadiz
robbery we will maltreat you until you die.” 
Castañeda’s stout companion made Caramonte stand and hit him with his open palm on the solar
plexus.  Then Castañeda
hit him on the abdomen until he lost consciousness.

Caramonte claimed that when he regained
consciousness on January 22, 1968,
in the morning, he was back in the cell. 
A policeman came and Caramonte requested for a
doctor, but this request was not
granted until the end of January.  At
about 10:00 p.m. of that day, he was
taken by jeep to the beach and ordered to wade into the water about six inches
deep.  Castañeda
told him:  “If you will not point
out the place where you landed right here, we will hit you with our
bullet.”  Caramonte
protested that he had never been to that place, at which five policemen hit him
with their carbines and he fell to the water. 
When he stood up, Castañeda cocked his pistol
and said:  “You point,
otherwise, we will kill you.” But Caramonte
refused to admit his guilt, and he was brought back to his cell.

Caramonte then claimed that on January 23, 1968, at about 10:00 a.m., Castañeda
and his stout companion told him that
if he did not sign the affidavit they brought, they would maltreat him until
death.  They brought him to City Hall and
on the ground floor, Castañeda
told him that if he did not sign, he would die of maltreatment.  He was brought to the city judge who read the
affidavit, Exh. “G”.  He did not want to sign it, but he did so
because he could no longer endure the pain they inflicted on him, and because
he was told that if he failed to sign they would continue the maltreatment
until he died.

Caramonte claimed that it was Judge Ledesma and not he who made the corrections marked as Exh. “G-1”, to “G-8”.  He wrote the corrections marked as Exh. “G-9” and “G-10”, but he did so
only on the instructions of the judge. 
At the time he affixed his signature to the affidavit, he was positioned
between Castañeda and his companion, facing the
judge.

On January 23, 1968,
in the evening, Castañeda his stout Companion, and
the chief of police brought him again to the radio room.  When he refused to admit his guilt, they made
him stand up and kicked him at the back of his right thigh.  They asked him to name the mastermind of the
robbery, and promised that if he did so they would free him.  They suggested that he identify Rafael Escario as the brains behind the robbery, but he
refused.  Castañeda
made the same threats on his life, and then showed Caramonte
the affidavit marked as Exh. “H”.

On January 24, 1968
Castañeda, his stout companion, and the policemen brought him to the city
judge to sign Exh. “H”.  He was again threatened with death and
guarded on each side by Castañeda and his companion.  Caramonte claimed
that he did not request for permission to read the affidavit and he signed it
with­out reading.  He claimed that all
signatures appearing on the left side of the four pages are his, but the
signature on page 4 is not his.  He made
the cancellation on paragraph 2, but it was Judge Ledesma
who made the other cancellation.

On the same day, January
24, 1968, at about 3:00 p.m.,
Castañeda, his stout companion, and the chief of
police – all armed – took him by jeep to the beach.  Castañeda produced
a boat and then supervised the re-enactment of the robbery.  Castañeda ordered Salinas
to sit on the boat with a carbine, and ordered the photographer to take a
picture.  Castañeda
also ordered Caramonte to sit on the banca.

Later, the law officers brought Caramonte
to the Toboso beach. 
Policemen of Toboso and Cadiz
city surrounded Caramonte.  There were many civilians at the beach.  The Toboso
policemen approached him, held his left ear, and threatened:  “You pirate, you better watch out,
later, I’ll cut your ear.” When he refused to point to the place where he
allegedly landed, five policemen simultaneously hit him with the butt of their
carbines.  Castañeda  threatened him with death, and more
pictures were taken.

Caramonte said that on February 2, 1968, substantially the
same group of law-enforcers brought him to the Toboso
municipal building.  Castañeda
again made the same threats of death, and the group brought him to the
municipal judge.  In the presence of the
judge, Castañeda repeated his threats.  In the company of the law-enforcers, Caramonte signed the affidavit marked as Exh. “F” because of fear and the maltreatment he
had received.

The defense presented ten witnesses to prove the defense of
alibi, i.e., that on December 31, 1967:  in the morning, Caramonte
was at Barrio Pasil, Botiguez
island, in Rafael Escario’s
house; in the afternoon, he went to the cockpit at Silanga;
and in the evening, he attended the celebration hosted by the barrio captain in
his honor.  But the trial judge
discounted the defense of alibi, as well as the defense that Caramonte made his extra-judicial con­fession only because
of force and intimidation.  The trial
judge conceded that not one of those who saw the shooting at Lim’s house was
able to identify the robbers.  He also
conceded that Salinas as a witness
is unreliable, and that his testimony alone can not sustain a judgment of
conviction.  But the trial court was
convinced that Caramonte’s extra-judicial confession,
Exh. “F”, is valid, having been the result
of reflection after several days in jail.

The trial court disregarded Caramonte’s
claim that he signed Exhibit “F” only because of force and
intimidation.  It stressed that Caramonte not only signed his confession, but also
introduced corrections on the affidavit. 
Moreover, he did not report the alleged acts of force and intimidation
to Judge Bontua. 
Hence, the trial court applied the presumption of regularity in the
performance of public function.  The
trial court applied the same presumption with respect to the re-enactment of
the crime.

The trial court then rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused CARLOS CARAMONTE guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery in band with multiple homicide
and less serious physical injuries as charged in the information, and
considering the aggravating circumstances that the act was com­mitted by a
band, that the crime was committed during nighttime to facilitate the
commission and its accomplishment, that the crime was committed with evident
premeditation, that the crime was committed with the use of superior strength,
and that it was committed with the use of fast motor vehicle without any
mitigating circumstance to off­set the same, hereby sentences said accused
Carlos Caramonte to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to
indemnify each of the heirs of the deceased Charles B. Valencia, George Baynosa and Nelson
Rosales each in the sum of P12,000.00; and another sum of P10,000.00 each to
the heirs of said deceased as moral damages, to indemnify Lim Katian the sum of P3,000.00 for the injuries he received and another sum of
P3,000.00 as moral damages, to indemnify Lim Eng Yu the sum of P2,600.00, the
amount stolen, and to pay the costs.

In its Brief, the defense assigned two errors:  that the lower court erred in convicting the
accused and imposing on him the extreme penalty of death on the basis of his
coerced confession and his voluntary re-enactment of the crime charged; and
that the lower court erred in ignoring the defense of alibi, notwithstanding
its finding that there was no identification what­soever that the accused
committed the crime charged.

The defense pointed out that the Court of First Instance, Branch I, of Negros
Occidental acquitted Caramonte in Criminal Case No.
690 for the robbery at Cadiz City.  The defense claimed that the prosecution, in
spite of the judgment of acquittal in that case, is bent on securing Caramonte’s conviction. 
It stressed that while the accused made a confession in Exhibit
“F”, he ini­tially denied participation in the robberies in Exhibit
“G”.  It argued that it should
be Exhibit “G” and not Exhibit “F” which should be accepted
because Exhibit “G” was subscribed earlier – some three days after Caramonte’s arrest – on January 23, 1968; while Exhibit “F” was
subscribed later, on February 2, 1968.  Why did Caramonte
deny his guilt in the first affidavit and then some days later repudiate that
document and admit his participa­tion in the Toboso
robbery? The defense claims that the answer lies in the “intensive
investigation” conducted by Sgt. Castañeda for
the intervening days that Caramonte was detained.

The issue on appeal hinges on the validity of the extra­judicial
confession made by the accused.  The
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 29 provides:  “The declaration of an accused expressly
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be given as evidence
against him.” But following the time-honored caveat, it has been
constantly held that when the accused successfully proves that a confession was
given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise of a reward or
leniency, the confession becomes inadmissible. 
The Court is ever cogni­zant of the time-honored admonition that
confessions, especially those made extra-judicially, should be carefully
scrutinized.  The court does not accept
confessions readily, because experience has shown that some law officers are
not above extorting confes­sions through violence and intimidation.  Hence, the true test of admissibility is that
the confession is made freely and voluntarily.

But the rule is that a confession is presumed to be voluntary
until the contrary is proved.  The
defense has the burden to show that the confession is involuntary.  Generally, the question of admissibility of
extra-judicial confessions is necessarily addressed to the sound discretion of
the judge, and since such discretion must be controlled by all the attendant
circumstances, the courts have wisely forborne to mark with absolute precision
any rules limiting the admission or exclusion of such testimony.  Their admissibility must depend largely in
each case upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the same.  (US vs. De Leon and De
Leon, No. 9656, August 20, 1914, 27 Phil. 506).

In determining whether a confession is voluntary or not, the age,
character and situation of the accused at the time it was made are important
elements in the consideration of
the court.  Much depends upon the
intelligence of the accused or want of it.  The defendant
must realize the importance of his act. 
The accused was 37 years old and a college degree-holder at that time he gave his confession.  Not only that he was
a responsible public offi­cial, having been newly elected municipal
councilor.  Even counsel for the accused stresses his strong character by
emphasizing that although born to poverty, he rose above the handicap of his
eco­nomic position to claim moderate success in his professional life.

The accused made numerous corrections on Exhibits “F”,
and “G” and “H” in front of the municipal judges before whom they
were subscribed and sworn to.  The
corrections embody information best known only to the accused, and it is
improbable that coercion wrung them out of him. 
Moreover, testimony of the accused that his confession was not voluntary
can not prevail as against that of a justice of the peace to the effect that
the confession was volunta­rily signed in his presence (People vs. Cabrera, No.
L-1311, February 25, 1949, 82 Phil.
839; People vs. Baluran, No. L-28582, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 71.)
The accused contends that we should disbelieve Exhibit “F” because in
an earlier affidavit, Exhibit “G”; he denied his participation in the
Toboso robbery. 
But a variation in the declaration of a witness is not always sufficient
to discredit his testimony (US vs. Briones, No. 9589,
November 12, 1914, 28 Phil. 367).

Parenthetically, Exhibit “G” – the validity of which
the defense presses on this Court – indicates certain aspects of the character
and personality of the accused Caramonte.  For one, it appears that he knew his
acquaintance Isabelo Montemayor
was wanted by the authorities for past robberies committed in 1962 and 1966;
yet, although they both resided at Botiguez island, Caramonte did not report Montemayor’s
presence to the authori­ties at Bantayan.  For another, it appears that on December 30, 1967 at about 5:00 p.
m.  Caramonte
was present while Montemayor’s group planned the
robbery at Cadiz city.  Instead of dissuading them, Caramonte said: “It’s up to you.  For me I have a different life already.”
The clause “I have a different life already” –
which appear several times in the affidavit – implies an unsavory aspect
of Caramonte’s personal history antecedent to the
instant case.  Moreover, it appears that
although Caramonte was privy to the plans for the
raid at Cadiz City,
he did not attempt to stave off the crime by reporting it to the authorities in
that city.  In the handwritten correction
marked as Exhibit “G-9”, Caramonte added
the explanation that his failure to make a report was due to fear of fatal reprisal at the hands
of the conspirators.

It has been held that conflicting confessions can not be a ground
for acquitting the defendant, for if a confession could be rejected on such
ground, all that would be necessary in any case to dispense with a damaging
confession would be for an accused to tell another story out of harmony with
the preceding one (US vs. Acacia, No. 12875, October 26, 1917, 37 Phil. 71).  And when
extra-judicial confession is followed by a re-enactment of the crime by
the accused himself in accordance with his confession, such confession may be
deemed voluntary.  (PP.
vs. Conde, L-2921, June 27, 1951, 89 Phil. 298).  Whether or not a confession is voluntary
depends upon the credibility of the witnesses. 
This matter lies within the special competence of the trial court whose
conclusion concerning the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed by the
appellate court.  (PP. vs. Pereto, L-20894, December 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1469; PP. vs. Secapuri, L-17518-19, February 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 199; PP.
vs. Pasiona, L-18295, February 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 212;
PP. vs. Quintab, L-21417, January 31, 1966, 16 SCRA
146)

The trial court was convinced that the extra-judicial confession
of the accused was a truthful emanation from a man resigned to his fate because
of the seeming lack of help from his friends and associates.  The court noted that when Caramonte
was arrested at Botiguez island,
he requested that the arresting party pass Bantayan,
in order to seek aid from his family and some town officials.  But no help issued, and on that day Caramonte was brought to Cadiz
city, where he was detained for several days. 
During this period of waiting,
Caramonte gradually lost faith that help would ever
be forthcoming.  In this state of mind,
he executed his extra-judicial confession. 
He was so resigned to retribution that on January 28, 1968, he sent a collect telegram (Exh. 24) to a certain Mrs. Myrna Surmillion
stating:  “No need of counsel, I’m
happy to die; only God’s justice for me.” The upshot of this telegram was
that on the next day, counsel did arrive at Cadiz
city.  But this form of succor came too
late, for Caramonte had already signed his
extra-judicial confession.

The defense of alibi is traditionally received by the courts with
less than cordiality, for it is easily concocted.  In this case, the alibi of the accused can
not prevail over his voluntary confession contained in Exhibits “F”
and “H”.  It is evident that
his alibi is a last-ditch effort to salvage what, in a moment of truth, he has
voluntarily ad­mitted as to his criminal participation.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the appellant guilty as
charged.  The penalty for the crime is
death.  However, for lack of the
necessary number of required votes, the decision appealed from is modified in
respect of the principal penalty to reclusion perpetua
but affirmed in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., while
concurring in the result, I feel that I should make of record my lack of
conformity to the view expressed by the ponente on
the subject of confessions.

Aquino, J., in the result.

Teehankee J., votes for the affirmance of the death
penalty.

Barredo, J., in view of the long detention of appellant since his conviction by the
trial court, I vote for life imprisonment.