THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMAN JUGILON, AMANCIO BALATAYO AND CRISPIN JAVIER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Sometime in the night of May
26, 1960, an aged couple, Estanislao Jugilon, 90 years old, and Emiliana
Puyod, 85 years old, became the victims of a
robbery-killing.  Said couple, sleeping
alone in their house at sitio Sandayong,
barrio Casul, municipality
of Sapang Dalaga,
province of Misamis Occidental, were
beaten with a club and/or a ball hammer, causing their subsequent death.  Some money in the amount of P800.00, more or
less, were taken from their place, i.e., their trunk, bamboo tubes filled with
coins and a small cotton bag.

Report of the crime reached Rosalio P.
Ho, the Chief of Police of Sapang Dalaga,
in the morning of May 27, 1960.  The Police Chief, accompanied by the
municipal judge, the municipal health officer, PC soldeirs
and po­licemen, went to the scene of the crime.

Arriving at around 10:30 A.M., the Police Chief and his
companions found inside the aforementioned house, Estanislao,
already dead and in partial rigor mortis; Emiliana,
however, was found still alive, but unconscious.  Five minutes later, she died.

Nobody was arrested for the said offense.  Almost one and a half years later, on October 28, 1962, one Crispin Javier
was arrested for theft of coconuts.  The
Po­lice Chief, however, acting on a suspicion, investigated him about the robbery-killing
of the aged couple, imputing the crime against him.  Said investigation resulted in the signing by
Crispin Javier of an affidavit dated October
30, 1962, Exhibit “H”.

In said affidavit, Crispin Javier declares in subs­tance as
follows:

One night, about the end of May 1960, Crispin was awakened by
Roman Jugilon who asked him to accompany the
latter.  Roman was carrying a cane (garote) and had a hammer tucked in his waist.  They left Roman’s house and passed by the
house of one Onyot where Amancio
Balatayo joined them. 
The three of them proceeded towards the house of the old couple, Estanislao Jugilon and Emiliana Puyod.  Crispin was not told of their purpose.  When they arrived at the place, Roman Jugilon went up the porch (pantawan),
climbed the make-shift window of woven coconut leaves and entered the
house.  Crispin was told to stay
downstairs.  Once inside, Roman Jugilon lighted a lamp and placed it on the bench.  Crispin Javier was down­stairs and peeping
through a crack in the walls, he saw Roman Jugilon
hit several times with the cane the old man and old woman.  Then he opened the door and admitted Amancio Balatayo, who was then at
the porch, to whom he handed the cane with which Amancio
Balatayo immediately beat the old woman several times.  Roman drew from his waist the hammer and
hammered the old man on his face and head. 
Crispin did not count how many times. 
He was very scared and was seized by an overwhelming fear.  After beating the couple, Roman and Amancio carried the old man and laid him on the wooden
bench below the window, leaving the old woman where she lay beaten up.

Afterwards, the two entered the room and Roman Jugi­lon hammered the trunk.  After the lid was pried open, Amancio withdrew from it bamboo tubes and poured the contents
– silver coins – on the floor.  Roman
went to the unconscious old woman and untied a cotton bag from her waist.  He transferred the lamp from the bench to the
floor and poured the contents of the cotton bag near the pile of silver coins
from the bamboo tubes.  Roman and Amancio started to count the money, the amount of which
Crispin did not know.  After counting the
money, they came down and Roman told him he will have a share but he refused to
receive any, and because he refused, Roman warned him not to tell anybody or
else they will kill him.  He asked Roman
why he killed the old couple and Roman told him not to report because the
coconut plantation is already his.

They parted.  Amancio Balatayo and Roman Jugilon went up the hill while he went down the hill.  He slept under a certain house on an empty
sack and the following morning he took a boat to Manla.

A week later Roman went to see him at Manla
and asked him if he told anyone of the incident.  Upon his assurance that he did not, Roman
suggested that he go with the latter. 
Fearful of his safety, he consented. 
Roman said it is well and good that he go along as he will help in the
harvesting of coconuts and the making of copra in the land
of Amancio.  He went with Roman and since then until Sunday, October 28, 1962, he lived
in the house of Roman Jugilon in Libertad,
Sapang Dala­ga (Exhibit
“H”).

Subsequently, on October
31, 1962, Amancio Balatayo
and Roman Jugilon were arrested.  These two were inves­tigated on the
robbery-killing aforementioned.  Amancio Balatayo wrote down an
affidavit, dated November 2, 1962,
Exhibit “I”, stating that:

He is a very close friend of Roman Jugilon.  On one occasion, Roman Jugilon
told him “Let us kill the old couple because their nephews are giving me
trouble.” He chose him as companion in the plot because they are
friends.  After they had agreed to kill
the old couple they walked towards the house where he lives and Amancio went up and did not go down any more.  The following day the old couple were dead
and Roman told him so.  Roman Jugilon shoul­dered all the burial expenses including the
tomb.  A man named Crispin Moros (Javier) went to live with Roman after the death of
the old couple.  Roman assigned him as
helper in making copra on their coconut land.  It was because of this occasion that he
[Roman] was able to tell Amancio that the old couple
were killed and that P800.00 were taken (Exhibit “I”).

And later, Balatayo
signed an additional affidavit, also dated November 2, 1962, Exhibit “1-4”, in the office
of the Provincial Fiscal, stating, as follows:

Roman Jugilon and Crispin Javier were
investigated on November 1, 1962 by the Chief of Police of Sapang
Dalaga and he [Amancio]
heard Roman Jugilon declare that he was the one who
killed the two old couple, Estanislao Jugilon and Emiliana Puyod at Sandayong, Casul, Sapang Dalaga,
on May 26, 1960; that Roman Jugilon admitted before
the Chief of Police that he struck the head of the old couple with a piece of
wood; that he killed the spou­ses because the nephews of the old couple were
bothering him in the division or partition of the  coconut land; furthermore, Roman Jugilon declared before the Chief of Police that he took
money from the house of the old couple after they were killed, amounting to
P800.00, contained in a tin can, bamboo tubes and in a small cotton bag and
consisting of silver coins and paper money; that Roman has taken a bigger bag
from the trunk, untied the cotton bag from the waist of the old woman and took
the bamboo tubes which were buried among the millet or cereal; that these
admissions of Roman were voluntary as he was not maltreated, forced or promised
anything; and that Roman Jugilon confessed and made a
clean breast of it because Crispin Javier had made his statement and Amancio had revealed what Roman had done.  (Exhibit “I-4)

On the strength of these aforementioned affidavits and other
evidence, Roman Jugilon, Amancio
Balatayo and Crispin Javier were prosecuted for the
robbery with double homicide committed against the aged spouses.  At the trial, the accused repudiated the
foregoing affidavits, asserting that the same were obtained thru force and intimidation,
and that the statements therein are not true but were provided by the Police
Chief.  In addition, Crispin Javier and Amancio Balatayo interposed
alibi, the former stating that at the time in question he was in Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte, and
the latter, that he was in Cebu City.

After the trial, on October
7, 1965, the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental rendered its decision, finding all three accused guilty as charged
upon the basis of their so-called extrajudicial confessions and proof of corpus
delicti.  The dispositive portion thereof ran as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING and premises considered, pursuant to
the provisions of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code taken together with the
provisions of Article 64 paragraph 7 of the same code, sentences [sic] Roman Jugilon, Amancio Balatayo and Crispin Javier to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P12,000.00 jointly and
severally, to suffer the other accessory penalties provided for by law and to
pay the costs.

“SO ORDERED.”

Appeal to this Court thereupon resulted.

The record discloses no evidence advanced to prove the guilt of
any of the accused other than the so-called confessions of said accused. 

Testimony was adduced – thru the witness Erlinda
Jugilon – to the effect that Roman Jugilon, grand nephew of the deceased, had threatened to
kill them that afternoon of the day they were killed due to some misunderstanding
on the sharing of the crops of the land, as the old folks wanted Roman to give
a share to their grand niece Erlinda Jugilon, but Roman allegedly was opposed to the idea.  Furthermore, Roman had a deed of sale in his
favor over the land of the old folks, and the latter were only given the use
thereof until their death.  Apparently
there is motive and basis to suspect Roman. 
However, these are far from enough to convict him.  This does not prove he had a hand in the
robbery-killing.

For this, the prosecution and the court a quo
relied on the so-called extrajudicial confessions of Crispin Javier and Amancio Balatayo (Exhibits
“H”, “I” and “I-4”).  These extrajudicial declarations, which were
repudiated at the trial, cannot be taken against Roman Jugilon,
for they are hearsay as to him.  Assuming
they are confessions, a confession is admissible only against the declarant.^[1]
Neither can they be considered as declarations of co-conspirators; there was no
proof aliunde of the conspiracy and, above all, these
declarations were not made in the course of the execution of the offense but
long afterwards.^[2]
As far as Roman Jugilon is concerned, they should
therefore be totally disregarded, for being hear­say.

Roman Jugilon himself did not admit
participation in the offense.  He
executed no affidavit.  Roman Jugilon’s verbal statement during the investigation, as reported
by the Police Chief who investigated him, was mere­ly: “Please, Chief,
help me in this matter.” (TSN, Nov. 12, 1964, p. 56) This is not a
positive and categorical admission of guilt of the offense.  It could even be a plea of innocence.  It certainly cannot be deemed a confession.  The record shows only one witness who claims
that Roman Jugilon categorically said he killed the
old couple: Bonifacio Arocha.  This witness allegedly was passing by near
the municipal building in the evening of November 1, 1962 when the
investigation was conducted and as an on-looker he heard Roman Jugilon say: “Chief, help us, we were the ones who
killed the old folks.” (TSN, June 4, 1964, p. 26) Said witness, however,
said on cross-examination that he was sixteen feet away from the Police Chief
who was then conducting the investiga­tion on the porch of the municipal
building (TSN, Ibid., pp. 41-42).  Arocha’s version of what Roman said is therefore doubtful
and that of the Police Chief shows no con­fession.  And, finally, it is claimed that Roman Jugilon was showed the affidavit of Amancio
Balatayo and after reading it he acknowledged the
same to be true but said he will first consult his lawyer (TSN, Nov. 12, 1964,
p. 59).  Said affidavit referred to,
however, is the first one handwritten by Amancio Balatayo, Exhibit “I” (TSN, Ibid., p. 22), and
not the second one, Exhibit “I-4”; the first affidavit merely said
that Amancio and Roman had agreed to kill the old
folks; it does not state that they in fact did so; it was the second affidavit
which stated that Roman was heard by Amancio to have
admitted during the police investigation that he, Roman, killed the old
folks.  Roman’s admission that the
contents of the first affidavit are true, therefore, does not amount to
admission on his part that he killed the old couple.

As to Amancio Balatayo,
his two affidavits cannot be deemed a confession; there is nothing therein that
states that he took part in the robbery or killing in question.  The Police Chief, in his testimony, said that
Amancio told Roman that he better confess that they
“were the ones.” (TSN, Nov. 12, 1964, p. 55) Again, this does not
clearly show admission of his own guilt by him; he merely told Roman that it is
better for him to confess that they were the ones; Roman did not confess.  We cannot take this urging by Amancio for Roman to confess that they were guilty, as a confession
by Amancio that he was guilty.  A confession must come from the declarant, positive­ly admitting his own guilt to the
offense.

Coming to Crispin Javier, his affidavit is not only short of a
confession, but would clearly exculpate him; it says he was asked to come along
but he was not told of the evil purpose; that at the house of the old folks, he
was ordered to wait downstairs, and he did nothing to help the other accused as
they allegedly committed the robbery-killing upstairs.  Again, while his affidavit imputes the crime
on his co-accused, it would absolve himself. 
As stated, the imputation against the others are inadmissible as
hearsay.  The affidavit not containing
any admission that the affiant took part in the robbery-killing, it is not a
confession and cannot be relied upon to convict the affiant.

Appellants, brief – it should also be mentioned – asserts, and appellees brief does not deny, that in Criminal Case No.
6274, entitled People vs. Francisco Limonsera, et
al., for robbery, filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental, the same Chief of Police who conducted the investigation herein,
extracted a confession from a suspect who later turned out upon further
investigation to have been confined at the Davao
Penal Colony at the date of the robbery, prompting the provincial fiscal to
dismiss the case (Appellants’ brief, p. 13).

All told, therefore, in the present case, the con­viction,
predicated on so-called confessions, cannot be sustained, because there was in
fact no confession, the declarant therein at most
merely imputing the guilt on the others, not on himself.  As the record contains no other evidence
against the accused to show that they in fact robbed and killed the deceased,
their guilt cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed,
and the three accused-appellants are acquitted, on reasonable doubt.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court.

^[2]
Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court.