THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PAQUITO PRIAS AND ESPERIDION FLORES, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal
from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Honorable
Jose R. Querubin, presiding, finding defendants Paquito Prias (Frias)
and Esperidion Flores guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing
each of them to reclusion perpetua to pay, jointly and
severally, the heirs of the deceased Eleuterio Hortillosa the sum of
P5,000.00, to return the amount of P53.00 of which the deceased was
robbed and to pay the costs.

The record discloses that on
March 9, 1957, Epifanio Aquiles and Rodolfo Hautea agreed to go to
barrio Santol, San Dionisio, the following day, and that Epifanio would
pass Rodolfo at the latter’s house at barrio Pangi, also San Dionisio,
Iloilo. At about six o’clock the following morning, Epifanio, as
agreed, passed by the house of Rodolfo and called thereat three times,
but nobody answered and the door was locked. So he went around the
house and found a window on one side partly opened. This window was
under a shed used for storing palay and there was a bamboo receptacle
filled with palay. He climbed it and peeped through the opening in the
window and to his surprise, he saw Eleuterio Hortillosa sitting on his
bed near the window, with blood covering all his body.

Epifanio was frightened, so he jumped down and proceeded to the barrio
of Dogman where Rodolfo Hautea had passed the night, contrary to their
agreement. Epifanio informed Rodolfo what he had seen, so together they
went to the house, broke the door open and went inside. They found
Eleuterio Hortillosa dead, sitting on his bed as Epifanio had told him.
They went around the rooms of the house and saw blood on the floor 6f
the sala. They lost no time in reporting the incident to the police of
San Dionisio. The Chief of Police proceeded to the house in company
with two policemen and conducted a cursory investigation, ordering that
nothing inside the house be moved and sending for the Municipal Health
Officer and at the same time preparing a sketch of the house (Exhibit
“G”). The Municipal Health Officer examined the dead body of Hortillosa
and made the following findings:

“1. Incised wound obliquely in the forehead from the right to the left about 3 inches long ½ inch wide perforating the skull.

2. Incised wound left wrist almost completely severing the hand.

3. Incised wound back of the right elbow about 4 inches long, 3 inches wide cutting the elbow in half.

4. Incised wound right forearm posterior region about 4 inches long 1-½ inches wide 1-½ inches deep.

5. Stab wound penetrating left side anterior auxiliary line about 2
inches long ½ inch wide between 10th and the 11th ribs.” (Exhibit “C”).

The police were baffled and were unable to determine who the author or
authors could have been. So they reported the matter to the
Constabulary and sought the latter’s help. The Constabulary assigned
Sgt. Abello Juaneza, a Constabulary non-commissioned officer who had
training and experience in criminal investigations, and two
Constabulary soldiers.

Juaneza lost no time in contacting
Rodolfo Hautea, the barrio lieutenant, the chief of police and barrio
residents, to get clues as to the identity of the probable author of
the crime. Juaneza and his companions also went to the barrio of Dogman
and Pangi on March 20, 1957, making inquiries.

About a week
thereafter, the barrio lieutenant informed them that they suspected one
by the name of Esperidion Flores a resident of barrio Malonoy, who had
been seen around the barrio of Pangi two times. So on March 27, 1951,
Juaneza went to Malonoy to contact Flores. He found Flores catching
fish. Juaneza made a search of the house and subjected Flores to
questioning as to his whereabouts in previous days. Flores showed
Juaneza his clothes for examination but no clues were found, but the
companion of Juaneza, Corporal Amador Gellada, saw Flores’ pants on the
fence. The pants were examined thoroughly and bloodstains were found
thereon. Upon being asked if the pants have been washed, Flores
admitted that he had done so. He was also asked to explain the presence
of bloodstains on the pants, but Flores declared he did not know. Upon
being asked1 his whereabouts and activities immediately before March 9,
he answered that he spent the night in the house of his uncle at barrio
Dogman, San Dionisio. When confronted with the uncle referred to,
however, the latter denied that Flores slept in his house on March 9.
Upon further examination, Flores finally admitted he had been telling a
lie; that he was actually in barrio Sowa where his wife had been
treated by a certain woman relative for rheumatism. The police went to
the woman accompanied by Flores, and upon being asked, the woman
referred to told that Flores and his wife had left in the afternoon of
March 9 and had gone to an unknown destination.

In the
course of further investigation, it was further found that after
leaving barrio Sowa, Flores went to the barrio of Balcon and slept at
the house of Paquito Prias. So the officers went there but once there
Prias denied that Flores had gone there, so the two were made to
confront each other. Flores insisted that he slept in Prias’ house in
the evening of March 9,1957. So Juaneza and his companions began making
inquiries from neighbors. These were asked if they had seen Flores and
his wife in the house of Paquito Prias. They confirmed that Flores and
his wife left the house of Prias on the morning of March 10.

Sergeant Juaneza testified that before Flores was brought to the house
of Prias, Flores had already confessed it was he and Prias who had
killed Hortillosa in barrio Pangi. Thereupon Flores was asked to sign
the certification, Exhibit “D”, to the effect that he (Flores) was
making his admissions voluntarily. Exhibit “D” was prepared and signed
on March 28, 1957.

Juaneza also called for the part of the
floor of the house which contained bloody footprints, and which had
been sawn off by the municipal police for preservation. He also took
the footprints of Flores and Prias, then measured those on the floor
and the prints he took and found that with a slight difference, the
footprints on the floor were practically of the same size as those he
took. He explained that the difference is due to the fact that those on
the floor were impressed as the men were carrying a heavy weight, which
was the case when the killers of Hortillosa carried his body from the
sala to the bed.

After the measurements of the footprints
had been made, Juaneza ordered the reenactment of the crime. Flores and
Prias reenacted what they did on the night of the killing while the
victim was represented by a person named “Ilo”.

After the
reenactment Juaneza took down in writing the statement of Flores and
typed it on a typewriter borrowed from the municipal building. Flores
then placed his fingerprint at the bottom. This statement of Prias a
carbon duplicate of which bears his fingerprint at the bottom on the
name of Paquito Prias was taken on March 30, 1957. The prosecution
witnesses declared that Prias impressed his fingerprint on the said
document but when he was already in the town jail and had been visited
by his wife, he refused to swear to it.

The affidavit of
Esperidion Flores, presented at the trial as Exhibit “A”, was brought
to the office of the Justice of the Peace, according to the latter, on
the 29th day of March, 1957 at a time when he was not yet in his
office. When he arrived he found the affidavit already bore a
fingerprint, so he asked Flores if the latter knew how to read Visayan
and Flores answered he did know a little. The Justice of the Peace then
explained to Flores what is contained in the exhibit, then asked Flores
if it is true and Flores admitted everything in the affidavit to be
true. After this the Justice of the Peace signed his name at the bottom
of the affidavit. Upon cross-examination he declared he read to Flores
not only a portion of the affidavit but the whole and after reading the
whole document he asked Flores if the same were true and the latter
answered in front of him that it is.

The defendants both
denied having committed the crime, explaining that they were in the
house of Paquito Prias on the evening of March 9th; that Flores helped
Prias in making pig’s trough in the afternoon; that they ate supper in
the house at eight o’clock in the evening; that after supper Prias
retired to bed, while Flores continued sewing the fishing net of Prias;
that at about ten o’clock Flores also went to sleep; that both of them
slept, staying in the house without going down till morning of the next
day, when, they went to fish until ten o’clock in the morning.

Flores, testifying on Exhibit “A”, explained that his fingerprint
thereon was made by the Constabulary soldiers holding his finger and
pressing it on the paper, after it had been previously placed on the
stamping pad, and that the contents of the document were never
explained to him in the Visayan dialect before his thumbmark was placed
thereon. He further declared that he placed his fingerprint on the
document Exhibit “A” after they had been ordered to go to the house of
Hortillosa for the reenactment of the crime. He denied the declaration
of the Justice of the Peace that the latter asked him if he was
confessing to the truth of what was contained in the document; and said
he answered the Justice of the Peace that he placed his thumbmark on
the document only because he could no longer stand the maltreatment he
had received.

As to the pants supposed to have been found
with huge blood stains, which according to the witness for the
prosecution were taken from the fence of the house of Flores, the
latter denied that the said pants were taken from the fence and said
they were taken within the house and already dry at that time, and that
it is not true that he said he did not know the stains in the pants but
explained to them that the same were due to juice coming from the
fishing net when he was digging crabs. He also denied having confessed
to the Constabulary that he was in the house of Paquito Prias on the
evening of March 28.

As to the reenactment of the crime he
explained that while he was downstairs of the house of Eleuterio
Hortillosa he was called up, and once up he saw a person lying down on
the sala whom he was told to pick up and place on the bed; that when he
said he could not carry the man, they had another man help him carry
the person lying down and so they carried the said person together;
that he had continuously been subjected to blows given by members of
the Constabulary, once when they were at his house, another when the
reenactment of the crime was being made, and still another when he was
asked to sign the document; and finally, that on the occasions he
received the blows, he always got benumbed.

Prias for his
part declared on the reenactment of the crime, that he was taken to a
house (supposedly that of Hortillosa) and was asked if he had killed a
man in that house and he denied having done so; that thereupon the
Constabulary took off his clothes and tied his hands at the back and
insisted he had killed Hortillosa, and as he denied he had done so he
was given a blow at the pit of the stomach twice; that thereupon he
fell on the floor and after raising him up they again asked him if he
was not the man who killed Hortillosa, and as he again denied they
again struck him a blow at the pit of the stomach causing him to fall
down; but he was made to stand up again after another Constabulary
soldier had kicked him; that he was forced to go down and kneel under
the heat of the sun without clothing of any kind for a long time; that
after a while a glass of water was poured over him; that thereupon he
was taken to the house and the cords that bound his hands were loosened
and then he was asked to sign a certain piece of paper but that he
refused to do so; that in the afternoon he was taken to barrio Dogman
and there he was given to the custody of a policeman; that about two in
the afternoon the chief of police went inside his cell in order to ask
him to sign the document; that he signed it because they told him they
were going to bring him to a doctor as requested by his sister; and
that he did not understand the contents of the document as he had never
gone to school.

As Indicated above the defense set up by the
defendants was a denial and a supposed alibi. They explained the sworn
statements have been marked by them after having been compelled to do
so against their will; that as to the reenactment of the crime they
were forced to perform the acts against their will and at the direction
of the Constabulary officers. However, the prosecution introduced the
barrio lieutenant of barrio Pangi, San Dionisio who declared that
Exhibit “D” was marked voluntarily by Esperidion Flores. He further
declared it is not true Paquito Prias was hog tied and his upper
clothing were removed on the occasion of the reenactment of the crime
in the house of Hortillosa; that nobody was ever maltreated at the time
the crime was reenacted, and that the reenactment was made by the
accused themselves voluntarily. The investigator Juaneza was also
called back to the witness stand and he denied under oath that he
delivered any blow on Flores before the latter put his finger print on
Exhibit “A”, Flores’ statement. The other Constabulary soldier Amado
Gellada denied that Paquito Prias was maltreated or that Flores was
given bodily harm before he signed his confession Exhibit “A”. To the
same effect is the testimony of the third Constabulary officer,
Epitacio Santilla, who denied all the alleged maltreatment supposedly
imputed to him by the defendant.

But aside from the
admissions made by the defendants-appellants, the prosecution has been
able to muster and present in court some circumstances. Do these
circumstances sufficiently corroborate the admissions such that it
produces proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
defendants-appellants? We answer this question in the affirmative. In
the first place the manner in which the Constabulary was finally able
to determine the identity of the robbers was indeed very logical and
systematic. By first determining the persons who had been seen to
loiter near the scene of the crime, the identity of Flores was
established. So Flores was investigated in his house and the pants with
bloodstains aroused the suspicion of the investigators and lead to
their being “convinced he was one of the malefactors. Confronted with
such convincing evidence on his guilt, Flores finally admitted his
participation, indicating Paquito Prias, his co-accused, as his
companion when the crime was committed. Thus Flores was brought to
Paquito Prias. At first Prias denied having been with Flores, but after
being confronted with Flores, finally admitted that he was with him in
the commission of the crime.

The claims of the
defendants-appellants that the admissions were secured through the use
of force is asserted only by the defendants-appellants themselves and
their respective spouses. But such force was denied by the Constabulary
officers as well as by the officials of the municipality of San
Dionisio. Thus the justice of the peace declared Flores understood the
contents of Exhibit “A” and admitted them to be true. As to the written
confession of Prias, explanation why the same was not sworn to before
the justice of the peace, is found in the fact that after having been
visited by his sister in jail, he refused to swear to it before the
corresponding official. It will be noted, however, that notwithstanding
the pretenses of defendants-appellants that the admissions were secured
by the use of force, the said defendants-appellants never asserted that
said admissions did not contain the truth; so we entertain the
conviction that if force at all was used, it was not to have the truth
distorted but precisely for the defendants-appellants to declare what
the true facts were, which true facts were finally embodied in their
respective admissions and confessions.

The sizes of the
footprints found on the floor of the house of Hortillosa in which the
crime was committed tally with the sizes of the footprints of the
defendants-appellants taken down by the police. No fingerprint expert
was called to testify on the matter. The fact that two sizes of
footprints were found and the footprints of defendants-appellants
differ in size was explained and we are convinced defendants-appellants
actually participated in the robbery.

Finally their alleged
continued presence in the house of Paquito Prias the whole night of
March 9, 1957, stated by only the defendants-appellants themselves and
wives, is of doubtful character as evidence thereof is given by persons
who are interested in saving their husbands from the responsibility for
a very serious offense.

Furthermore, We have carefully
examined the evidence and we are satisfied that the trial judge who
heard the witnesses and the defendants-appellants testify and arrived
at the conclusion that the latter are guilty, has made a correct
appraisal of the value of the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses.

The prosecution also proved without contradiction
that the deceased Hortillosa used to have during his life-time a
margarine can containing not less than P50.00 savings, he being an old
bachelor. This evidence has not been contradicted or found to be
unworthy, for the same is testified to by persons who lived with him in
his house.

The crime committed is that defined in Article 294 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code for which the penalty provided is reclusion perpetua
to death. The crime having been committed with at least one aggravating
circumstance, i. e., that of nighttime, the penalty provided for should
be imposed in the maximum period. However, for lack of sufficient
number of votes, the judgment of the lower court sentencing each of the
defendants-appellants to reclusion perpetua, is hereby
affirmed. Appellants are also sentenced to pay jointly and severally,
to the heirs of the deceased Eleuterio Hortillosa, the amount of
P5,000.00 and the amount of P53.00. With costs against the
defendants-apppellants.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.