THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GORGONIO UBALDO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. VALENTIN SUPERABLE, SEVERO CAIGOY, VICENTE CALABIA, ANTONIO PACLI, CRISPIN VILLABLANC…

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Leyte sentencing the appellants-reviewees to suffer the penalty of
DEATH for the special complex crime of robbery in band with double homicide,
with frustrated homi­cide, less serious physical injuries and direct assault
upon agents of persons in authority.

The information  field with
the court a quo charged nine persons of the offense, namely:  Gorgo­nio Ubaldo, Valentin Superable,
Norberto Lumpay, Alfonso Hembra, Severo Caigoy, Vicente Calabia, Crispin Villablanca, Jr., and brothers
Antonio Pacli and Benjamin
Pacli.  During the pendency of the case,
however, accused Gorgonio Ubaldo succumbed from the gunshot wounds sustained by him during and on the occasion
of the robbery; accused Norberto Lumpay was
shot to death on his second attempt to escape from confinement in the provincial jail where he was
de­tained while the trial of the case was in progress; while accused Alfonso
Hembra was later discharged from
the information to become state witness.

Accordingly, trial proceeded with respect only to the remaining
six accused, namely:  Valentin Super­able,
Severe Caigoy @ Beroy, Vicente Calabia, Cris­pin Villablanca, Jr. @ Pengpeng, and the brothers Antonio Pacli and
Benjamin Pacli.  After due trial, on January 18, 1962, the trial court
found each and everyone of the accused:

“x x x guilty of the crime of robbery in band with double homi­cide,
frustrated homicide and less serious physical injuries and direct assault upon
agents of per­sons in authority, and sentences each and everyone of them to
suffer the penalty of DEATH, indemnify the heirs of the two deceased, Co Cui
Hui and Margarito Cotoner, jointly and severally, in the amount of P5,000.00
each, indemnify Eng Wan the amount of P250.00, the value of the things robbed,
without subsi­diary imprisonment in case of in­solvency, and to pay the propor­tional
costs.”

Crispin Villablanca, Jr. has
appealed from the decision.  The
other accused are represented by counsel de officio for purposes of this review
of this Court by law.

Our own examination of the record revealed that of the seven witnesses for the
prosecution, only Alfonso Hembra, Marcial
Glore and Jorge Co had direct and personal knowledge of the facts attend­ing
the commission of the robbery-killings in question.  Alfonso Hembra was originally one of these
charged in the information, but was later discharged to become state witness;
Marcial Glore was then a policeman in the municipality of Tunga, Leyte, who, in
the perfor­mance of his duties, sutained gunshot wounds on the occasion of the
robbery; while Jorge Go was a member of the family whose store was robbed on
the night of April 24, 1958.  It appears
indubitable in the record also, that immediately after the robbery,
two lifeless bodies were left at the scene of the crime – those of Co Cui Hui
(mother of Jorge Go) and policeman Margarito Cotoner of Tunga.

A review of the evidence
for the prosecution shows that at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 24, 1958, a market day, accused
turned state wit­ness Alfonso Hembra
left his house in Jaro, Leyte, and went to the cockpit of the adjoining municipality of Tunga to see the cockfights.  After staying there for about two hours, he
left the cockpit and passed by the house of his friend, accused Antonio Pacli,
located in the said municipality of Tunga, Leyte.  There he found also the other accused –
Benjamin Pacli, Norberto Lumpay, Severo Caigoy, Gorgonio Ubaldo, Vicente
Calabia, Valentin Superable and Crispin Villablanca, Jr. – drink­ing tuba;
and, he joined them in the “toma“.  In the course of their
drinking spree, at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, accused
Antonio Pacli proposed to the group that they rob Eng Wan, owner of a store
located along the provincial road.  To the proposition, all the
members of the group agreed, signifying their assent and concurrence to the
plan with the words “go ahead”. 
Then and there, they made preparations to execute the robbery.  Antonio Pacli went to the back of his house
and soon returned with several firearms which he dis­tributed among the members of the group.  He gave a carbine to Lumpay, another
carbine to Superable, a Thompson to Villablanca a .38 cal. revolver to Ubaldo, a .45
cal. pistol to Caigoy, and a pistol each to Calabia and Hembra.  Meanwhile, they continued drinking.

At about 6:00 o’clock that evening, the group prepared to go
to the store of Eng Wan.  Accused Va­lentin
Superable suggested that Lumpay, Ubaldo and Caigoy should enter the store while
the rest would re­main outside as lookouts. 
They reached the store at about 7:00
o’clock and, as planned, they divided into three groups.  As Lumpay, Ubaldo and Caigoy entered the store, Superable, Villablanca
and Hembra posted them­selves on one corner of the road some ten meters from
the store, while Calabia and the Pacli brothers stood watch at the other corner
of the road eight meters from the said store of Eng Wan.  Said lookouts stood guard in squatting or
proning positions with their guns point­ing towards the direction of the store,
ready for any eventuality.

When Lumpay, Ubaldo and Caigoy
approached the store, Jorge Go, younger brother of Eng Wan, was stand­ing at the sidewalk passing away the time; and he was completely taken by surprise when he was suddenly com­manded
by Ubaldo to get inside the store.  At
the same time, Lumpay aimed his
gun at Mana Lilia, Go’s sister-in-law. 
Caigoy went further inside the
store, and when he came back, he had with him Co Cui Hui,
Jorge Go’s mother.  Having hied the
inmates together, Ubaldo com­manded them to point to the place where their
money was hidden, and one of
them readily pointed to the drawer where they kept their cash, as they had no
safe.  Ubal­do opened the drawer and took
therefrom P200.00 in cash.  From another
drawer, Ubaldo obtained some P50.00
worth of jewelry.

Meanwhile that the
drawers were being
ransacked, Jorge Go slipped out of the store unnoticed.  He went
out of the store thru the door of Bodega A and proceeded towards the
direction of the store Bodega B to hide. 
From there, he saw Caigoy came out
of the door of Bodega A, conducting his mother, Co Cui Hui, by the neck of her
dress.  At about the same time, policeman
Margarito Cotoner entered the store, followed by an exchange of shots between
the policeman and Ubaldo.  Outside the
store, Caigoy also shot the Chinese woman Co Cui Hui who fell on the sidewalk
between the canal of the road and the
wall of the store.

The ensuing gunplay from
the direction of Eng Wan’s store
called the attention of Marcial Glore, another policeman of Tunga, who was then
eating supper with his family in his house
about 300 meters from the store of Eng Wan.  He immediately proceeded towards the store to investigate.  But before he could reach the place,
at a distance of 8 to 10 meters
from the store of Eng Wan, he was fired
upon.  He focused his flash­light
towards the direction of the place where the shot came from as he
ducked, and saw accused Lumpay, Calabia and
Villablanca in the middle of the road pointing their guns at him. 
Policeman Glore put out his
flashlight and tried to load his gun
which, unluckily, he failed to do, even as the second shot directed
against him came
from the place where the above-named accused were at the time.  He noted that Superable, whom he previously
saw a little farther away than Lumpay when he flashed his flashlight, ran
towards his back and there fired one shot, hitting him (Glore) at the right
shoulder below the scapula.  As policeman
Glore fell, his carbine and his flashlight were thrown aside.  Thereafter, the rob­bers left, one of them
dragging a body towards the river not far behind the store.  Still later policeman Glore managed to get up
and return to his house.  He was taken by
his wife to Carigara for first aid treatment and then to the Leyte
Provincial Hospital
for more adequate treat­ment.  He was
discharged from the said hospital after 19 days, but had to report back for
thirty days more before his wound was finally healed.

Lt. Gaudencio Ruiz, then investigating officer of the 57th PC
Company with
headquarters at Camp Bumpus,
Tacloban City,
was informed about
the incident that same evening of April 24, 1958, at about 11:00
o’clock.  Im­mediately, he
proceeded to Tunga and was at the scene of the crime at about 1:00 o’clock the following morning together
with the municipal mayor of the place and five PC soldiers.  He placed a cordon around the area and be­gan
an investigation.  At the store of Eng
Wan, they found the lifeless bodies of policeman Cotoner and the Chinese woman, Co Cui
Hui.  Several empty shells were also
recovered inside the store.  Further
investigation of the surrounding premises later led to the discovery of Gorgonio
Ubaldo who was found half-submerged in the nearby river.  And upon pulling him out of the water, it was
learned that although he was still alive, he had been rendered helpless by a
gunshot wound.  A bullet had plowed through the lower
part of his body, piercing one of his pockets which contained part of the money
taken from the store of Eng Wan.

From the river, Gorgonio Ubaldo was taken to the municipal
building of Tunga where he was first given treatment, and then investigated.  Later, he was trans­ferred to the Provincial
Hospital in Tacloban
City where he subsequently
died.  Before he died, however, he gave
an ante mortem
statement wherein he named his companions in the robbery.  Said statement, taken on April 25, 1958, was reduced to writing and
subscribed by Gorgonio Ubaldo before the justice of the peace of Tunga, Leyte.

In his ante mortem statement (Exh.
C), Gorgonio Ubaldo affirmed that:  he was 27 years of age; he was
arrested by policemen and PC soldiers near the river of Tunga, Leyte, because
he was with the group who robbed and killed a Chinese woman and a policeman in
Tunga; his companions in the robbery
were Valentin Superable, Berto Lumpay, Biroy Caigoy, Vicente Calabia, one
Alfonso whose family name he did
not know, Antonio Pacli @ “Tony” and his brother Benjamin Pacli @
“Ben”; the Pacli brothers
were the ones who invited them to rob
the store of Eng Wan; he (Ubaldo)
and Caigoy went to the house of
Tony (Antonio) and Benjamin Pacli before they went to the store of Eng Wan; he (Ubaldo) was carrying a revolver caliber .38, Caigoy carried a pistol caliber .45 and
a Thompson sub-machinegun, Superable and Lumpay each had a carbine, and Hembra carried a pistol
caliber .45; Antonio and his brother Benjamin were unarmed, but they were the
ones who pointed to the store to be robbed; Caigoy, Lumpay and Calabia were the ones who entered the store, while he (Ubaldo) remained
outside together with Superable and
Hembra; it was Lumpay who shot the policeman who entered the store and the
Chinese woman; after the shooting, his companions ran towards the direction of Jaro, Leyte; he (Ubaldo) was left behind because he was wounded; the leader of the group
was Superable, but it was the Pacli brothers who planned the robbery; the
firearm he carried that evening was taken by his companions; and
Antonio Pacli‘s
wife was present when they
had their meeting in their house.

On the basis of
the wounded Gorgonio Ubaldo‘s
revelations, the persons named by him as his companions in the robbery were
subsequently apprehended.  They were
brought before Gorgonio Ubaldo who positively identified them as his companions
in the
robbery.  Later, they were all investigated in the form of questions and answers which
were reduced to writing.  Each gave his
own version of the circumstances surrounding the robbery in question which,
stripped of unessential details, we shall hereinafter set forth.

 In his statement (Exh.
I) executed before Sgt. Moreno of the PC and sworn to before Joaquin Hacbang,
Clerk, Court of First Instance of Leyte on April 26, 1958, accused Antonio
Pacli declared that; he was 28 years of age; with residence in Tunga, Leyte; he knew accused Superable since 1951;
on April 24, 1958, he had visitors in his house, namely:  Hembra, Superable, Ubaldo, Villablanca,
Caigoy, Lumpay, Calabia an his own brother Benjamin Pacli; with the exception
of Calbia, he knew them all, although Superable and Caigoy were his closest friends; in the house, firearms were
distributed (describing the particular firearm each held); they drank in the
house, consuming one and a half gallons of tuba; he did
not  know why they came to his house nor hear the topic
of their conversation; he did not report to the authorities about their
unlicensed firearms
because they were his friends; what they told him was that
they were going to hire the truck of Eng Wan; after they had left his house, he
heard shots, so, he put out the light in the house because he was afraid that
they may come back; after the firing, he saw people running in different
directions, and he decided to close the doors of his house; the next morning,
he went out and mingled with the people among whom there was common talk that
the store of Eng Wan had been robbed; but while still in his house, he had been
informed already that Gorgonio Ubaldo had been shot; he was later arrested by the PC in his own house.

The statement (Exh. D) of accused Benjamin Pacli
was executed on April 25, 1958.  It was
taken by Lt. Ruiz of the PC and sworn to before Gerardo Tamaca, justice of the peace of Tunga, Leyte.  Accused Benjamin Pacli declared in his
statement that:  he was 23 years of age, residing in Tunga, Leyte; he knew Gogoy (Gorgonio Ubaldo) and saw him in the
house of his brother Tony Pacli on April 24, 1958, together with accused Caigoy,
Superable, Lumpay, Pengpeng (Crispin Villablanca) and two others; they robbed
the store of Eng Wan and killed a Chinese woman and a policeman; in the house
of his brother (Tony), he saw all of
them carrying firearms (describing the particular firearm each of them
carried);  his brother Antonio and the
latter‘s wife and
children were also in the house then; the group left the house just after darkness had set in, and he went
with them to indicate the store of Eng Wan; but after pointing the store to them, “I proceeded my way to the other side of the river”; he did not know the purpose
why they asked him to point to them the store of Eng Wan; once on the other side of the river, he joined
several other persons drinking tuba in a store; it was then while he was
drinking with these persons, that he heard gunshots near the store of Eng Wan,
and believing there was a fight
there, he decided to go home; he did not reach his house, however, because
white passing the bridge, he met
policeman Froilan Dadolia who “brought us to his house and we slept there in his house.”

Accused Severo
Caigoy also executed a statement (Exh. F) before Sgt. Moreno
of the PC.  He signed the statement, but
failed to swear to it.  In that statement, he declared as follows: 
he was 29 years old, a resident
of Jaro, Leyte; when he was arrested by the PC soldiers in his house, they
found in his possession an unlicensed caliber .45 revolver which (upon
being shown to him during the investigation) he admitted to be the firearm the PC confiscated from him; at about
6:30 p.m. on 24 April, 1958, he was in the house of accused Antonio Pacli where he met accused Ubaldo, Villablanca,
Superable, Calabia, Hembra, Lumpay and Benjamin; he did not have any conference
with Superable at the cockpit on April 20, 1958, regarding the plan to rob the
store of Eng Wan, for the agreement to rob the store of Eng Wan was made in the house of Antonio Pacli
upon the suggestion of the latter and Superable during their drinking spree; it
was there agreed that the raid will be made at 7:00 o’clock on the night of
April 24, 1958; his companions were all armed then (describing the firearm each
held and carried), and Superable was their leader; Benjamin Pacli was the one
who conducted them to the store of Eng Wan; Lumpay, Ubaldo and he (Caigoy) were the ones who entered
the store; Lumpay and Ubaldo asked the Chinese woman to show the place where
they kept their money; Ubaldo opened the drawer, while Lumpay went up the
second floor with the Chinese woman; then he saw a policeman enter the store,
and Ubaldo shot the policeman and the Chinese woman; he then ran away after the
shooting and proceeded towards Jaro, Leyte, arriving at the place at about
11:00 o’clock that same evening.

In his statement (Exh. J) executed
before Sgt. Moreno of the PC and sworn
to before the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Leyte on April 25,
1958, accused Norberto Lumpay gave his
own version, to wit:  he was 30 years of age, a resident
of Jaro, Leyte; he was arrested by the PC soldiers and the chief of po­lice of
Jaro in his house on April 25, 1958; he was arrested because he was a member of
the group of per­sons who robbed and killed some persons in the house of Eng
Wan on April 24, 1958; the PC soldiers found in his possession at the time of his arrest, a carbine with one magazine and three rounds of
ammunition which were given to him by
Superable the day before; he went to the house of Antonio Pacli on that
day of April 24, because on 20 April,
he met Superable at the cockpit and told him to go to the said house
where they would plan the robbery of Eng Wan; he was acquainted with Superable
since 1953; Antonio Pacli did not go with them to the house of Eng Wan, he remained in his house; arriving
at the house of Eng Wan, the
first to enter the store was Caigoy, followed by
Ubaldo and he (Lumpay); Superable,
Hembra, Villablanca and Calabia stayed on guard outside the store, while Benjamin Pacli left immediately after conducting them to the store; once inside the
store, Caigoy closed the door of the store facing Jaro; Ubaldo opened the drawer and took the money; he
(Lumpay) conducted the Chinese woman to the second floor of the house and ordered her to open the
drawer there, but the Chinese woman explained that she could not because the
keys were in the possession of her husband, so they went down again; while they
were descending the stairs, the policeman inside the store fired at him; he returned
the shot, hitting the policeman; then he ran away towards Jaro; he did
not know who killed the Chinese woman; the policeman he shot was in uniform,
but he did not know his name.

State witness Alfonso Hembra appears
to have executed also a statement (Exh. E) before the PC officers on April 25, 1958, wherein he substantially
corroborated the statements of accused
Caigoy and Ubaldo.  During the trial, after his discharge from the information, he reiterated
the contents of his extra-judicial statement on material points, and
named and identified the other accused
with pinpoint accuracy, as his
companions in the commission of the robbery.  He described in detail the respective roles each had in
the robbery-killings in question,
his account of which, was substantially corroborated
by the testimony of policeman
Marcial Glore and Jorge Go.  The same was
further substantiated by the facts and evidence found at the scene of the crime
as testified to by Lt. Ruiz and Pvt.
Verutiao of the PC.

For their defense, all
the accused disclaimed any
participation in the commission of
the offense charged, and interposed separately their respective alibis.  Without exception, each one attempted to prove that he was somewhere else when the
crime was committed.

EVIDENCE FOR ANTONIO
PACLI:

Accused Antonio Pacli admitted that he signed his statement (Exh.
I). 
He claimed, however, that he did so, only because he was
maltreated by Sgt. Moreno of the PC who struck him several times with the butt
of a carbine.  He denied that the other
accused were his
visitors on April 24, 1958,
although he admitted that he was present when Gorgonio Ubaldo who had
implicated him, was investigated by Lt. Ruiz of the PC as gleaned from the
following portion of his testimony:

“Q. – You said,
you heard some questions and answers.  How
many questions and answers did you hear?

“A. – I heard them but I do not remem­ber them now.” (TSN, p. 5, Sept. 1961.)

And
this is further supported by the testimony of Lt.
Ruiz who, in this connection, testified as follows:

“Q. – What did
you do when Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli saw Gorgonio Ubaldo?

A. – I had both of them identified by Gorgonio Ubaldo.

Q. – Will you tell us the manner of identification made by Ubaldo?

A. – I took Antonio
Pacli beside me and asked Ubaldo who is this per­son, and he said, ‘That is
Anto­nio Pacli.’ In the same way, I took
Benjamin Pacli beside me and in the same way asked him who is
this person, and he also answered, ‘That is Benjamin Pacli.’

Q. – Did you also
notice the faces of Antonio Pacli and
Benjamin Pacli at the moment when Gorgonio Ubaldo pointed to them as his companions?

A. – Yes, sir, they became pale and
they did not say anything.” (TSN, pp. 176-177)

Anotnio
Pacli denied that he took part
in the commission of the robbery, claiming that the whole evening of April
24, 1958, he was in his house, on a
cot.  Thus,
he testified:

“A. – I was lying on my cot when I heard a
gun shot.  x x x.

Q. – What did you do when you heard the shot?

A. – I was awakened by my wife.

Q. – What did you do after you were awakened by your wife?

A. – I closed all the windows in my house.  x x x.

Q. – That whole
evening of April 24, 1958,
where were you?

A. – I was in my house.”

He testified that on April 25, 1958, he went to the river bank because there was news that a Hul???lahap had died near the river.  There, he saw Ubaldo lying on the ground on his back.  And while Ubaldo was being investigated by Lt. Ruiz in the municipal
building, he helped and held him in
his arms.

Rosa Aguja Pacli, wife of
accused Antonio Pacli also testified for the defense of her husband.  She declared that Antonio Pacli was in the house on April
24, 1958.  At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of that day, she sent for
Evarista Peñaranda, a “hilot”, to administer prenatal massage to her, and Peñaranda left at about 7:00 o’clock that evening.  Her husband did not leave the house that
evening.  He was asleep, and was only awakened by her when she heard the gunshot.

“Q. – For how long did she
(Peñaranda) remain there?

A. – At 7:00 o’clock she
was no longer there.”

Evarista Peñaranda tried
to corroborate the story told by Antonio Pacli and his wife, declaring that at
about 6:00 o‘clock in the
evening of April 24, 1958, she was in their house because she massaged Pacli’s wife; that as she was
massaging Aguja, she heard a
gunshot, immediately followed by continuous firing; that because of the incident, she did
not go home anymore that evening, and slept in the house
of Pacli.

“Q. –
That evening where did
you spend the right?  Where
did you sleep?

A. – I slept with
them in their house.

Q. – Why did you not go home?

A. – Because I could not go home alone as the street was
quiet.

Q. – So, what if the street was quiet?  Why did you not go home?

A. – Because I was afraid to go alone, x x x.

Q. – During the
period from about 6:00 o’clock in the
evening of April 24, 1958, until early in the morning of April
25, where was
Antonio Pacli?

A. – He was in the
cot.  x x x.

Q. – How many gun
retorts did you hear while you were in the house of Antonio Pacli?

A. – At first, there
was only one gunshot followed immediately by two shots, and there were more
continuous firing of guns.

Q. – Antonio Pacli
was awakened after the last gunshot that you heard?

A. – Yes, when he closed the window.

Q. – How far is the house of Antonio Pacli to the store of Eng Wan?

A. – About 200 meters from that place.” (TSN, pp. 84-89)

We find it hard to
believe Antonio Pacli’s alibi because of its inherent
incredibility.  It must be noted that
according to Peñaranda, she heard continuous firing of guns from a place less
than 200 meters to Pacli’s house. 
Incredibly, however, he was not awakened by the shots nor was he bothered
by the same, while he was overly sensitive to the voice of his wife who woke him
up to close the windows.  The testimonies
of his wife and Peñaranda are likewise incredible, for they are glaringly
contradictory.  And considering that
Pacli’s house was less than 200 meters from the store of Eng Wan; and there was
continuous firing, it is unbelievable that Aguja should hear only one
shot.  She was not as­leep at the time, for
according to her own testimony, Peñaranda was then administering prenatal
massage to her.  She must have a reason for so saying; and
we surmise that she simply wanted to make natural the beha­vior of her husband
in remaining on the cot the whole right without bothering to find out of
curiuosity at least, the cause of the unusual incident.  Moreover, the voluntariness
of his extra-judicial statement (Exh. I) had been conclusively
established by the pro­secution, and implicit therefrom is the unreliability of
the evidence with which his alibi is now sought to be established.

EVIDENCE FOR BENJAMIN
PACLI:

Testifying for the
defense of Benjamin Pacli, Margarita Matilla declared that on the afternoon of April
24, 1958, she was in
the house of Sabina Panao opposite the house of Eng Wan across the river. 
Panso had a store in her house where tuba was sold, and at about 6:00 o’clock that evening, she was already there drinking
tuba with Francisco Salvacion and Mimi Miralles.  Benjamin Pacli was also there drinking on the
same table.  She later heard the firing
of guns, and she was later told that the shots came from the direct­ion of Eng
Wan’s store across the river.  Benjamin
Pacli stayed there for about 30 to 45 minutes, after which he left the store of
Panao.  Later, they all left the place
also.  As to the place where accused
Benjamin Pacli went after that time, Margarita Matilla declared that she did
not know whether or not he went home after leaving the place of Panao.

Trinidad Cadorna, a
farmer, also testified to bolster the defense profferred by Benjamin
Pacli.  He declared that on April
24, 1958, he was in
the farm in Tunga, Leyte, with Brigido Pacli, father of Benja­min,
who hired him to gather coconuts. 
Benjamin was there in the field also with them.  They stayed there the whole day, gathering
the nuts which he brought through a sledge pulled by his carabao.  They returned to the town only at
about 5:30 in the afternoon.  When they arrived at the bridge in town, a
person in the nearby store invited him to join him in drinking tuba to
which Benjamin acceded.  They drank tuba
in the said store for some time while Trinidad stood by,
after which they continued their way home. 
While crossing the bridge, they heard guns firing, and they
stopped.  A policeman soon came who
advised them not to continue their way because there were Huks and they were killing people.  Upon said information and advice then, he
decided to part ways with Benjamin Pacli and proceeded to the house of his
brother, while Benjamin went with the policeman to the house of the
latter.  He admitted, however, that he
did not recognize the policeman for it was
then getting dark.

For his part, Benjamin Pacli denied participation in the crime of
which he was charged, claiming that the whole day of April 24, 1958, he was in his farm at Hiagsam, about 3 kilometers
from Tunga, in company with
Trinidad Cadorna.  On their way home in the afternoon of the same
day, they passed by the store of Panao where he met Margarita Matilla,
Francisco Salvacion
and Mimi Miralles drinking tuba, and he joined them.  He was with the group drinking when they
heard the shots from across the river, after which he stood up and decided to go home.  As he was walking across the river, however, he met
policeman Froilan Dadolia who warned him not to continue his way as it would be dangerous due to a recent killing perpetrated just
across the river.  Dadolia invited him to
spend the night in his house which he did.  He went
home only the following morning.

The
alibi offered by Benjamin Pacli did not merit any consideration from the court below.  Thus, it made the following observation:

“This defense as presented
by him is not worthy of credit.  If it is
true that there was a police
whom he met, there is no reason why this policeman will not comply with his duties and
go to the place to save the people from being attack­ed by the Huks.  Much more, this policeman was not presented
to cor­roborate his testimony.  Taking
into consideration the distance from
the place, it is not a surprise that after three minutes, he can be in the
place where the crime was committed.”

We find no cogent reason
to disturb that finding of the
trial court.  From the evidence for the
prosecution already set forth,
there is no doubt that the
presence of Benjamin Pacli at the scene of the crime had
been clearly established.  Above all, the
stuborn fact stands out in the record that soon after the wound­ed Gorgonio
Ubaldo was
found in the river, he revealed the names of his companions in the robbery as set out in his ante mortem
declaration, and when Benjamin Pacli and Antonio Pecli were brought before
him, he pointed to them as the
ones referred to in his statement; and both Antonio and Benjamin did not even
protest against the imputation.

Nor do We give any
credence to the claim that the PC soldiers had maltreated Benjamin Pacli and his brother Antonio, for it appears that
the officials be­fore whom their statements were sworn to by them tes­tified
during the trial of the case,
and We find no reasonable ground
to doubt, after examining their de­clarations, that their actuations were above
suspicion.  As so aptly noted by the trial court:

“x x x (Atty.
Hacbang and Judge Tamaca) testified clearly and categorically that the res­pective
admissions made before them by the accused were volunta­rily given as before
making them signed their statements and
sub­scribed before
them, the same were read before the accused and admitted their contents to be
true.  There are no valid motives to
question their sincerety as to their testimonies in open court.”

Furthermore,
the statements signed by the Pacli brothers, far from being in the nature of
complete ad­missions of their participation in
the commission of the robbery in question, were actually exculpatory in essence. 
Antonio Pacli admitted in his statement that the other accused were his visitors in his house
in the afternoon of April 24, 1958, and that firearms were actually distributed
in his house; but he was careful in his declaration, and did not admit that he was the one who distributed the firearms to
them.  He was, likewise, careful in
stating that he knew nothing about the subject of their conversation when the
group engaged in a drinking spree in his house, and never revealed the fact
that he joined them when they left later and pro­ceeded to the store of Eng
Wan.  Benjamin Pacli, on the other hand,
admitted in his extra-judicial statement that he was with Superable and his
companions in the house of Antonio Pacli in the afternoon of April
24, 1958, and that
Superable and his companions robbed the store of Eng Wan.  But he never admitted in said statement of
his, that he was with them in the robbery, claiming that he immediately left
the place and went across the river as soon as he had pointed to them the store
of Eng Wan.  No reasonable mind would
swallow such versions in the light of their pretenses that they signed their
said statements only because they were maltreated by the PC soldiers.  Had they really been maltreated, their
respective statements would have contained more serious incriminatory matters
which could later be effectively used against them; but as it is, their statements were but narrations of the events
that led to the commission of the robbery by the other accused, without making any direct acknowledgment of their
participation therein.  Indeed, it defies
logic and common sense that seasoned investigators would have to resort to
violence to make them sign such statements which are relatively harmless
insofar as they are concerned which, to our mind, discards the theory of Ben­jamin and Antonio Pacli that
the investigators had attempted to incriminate them.  As we read their state­ments, We
find that they reflect spontaneity and co­herence, supplied with details which
they alone could have known at the time, which cannot be associated with a mind to which violence
and torture had been applied.

EVIDENCE FOR SEVERO
CAIGOY:

Severo Caigoy,
testified that on April 24, 1958, he was in the market of Jaro waiting for
fish to take to their five workers plowing their farm in barrio San Roque.  Having obtained the fish he wanted, he left
the poblacion of Jaro at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning and proceeded to San Roque,
four kilometers away, arriving thereat at 10:00 o’clock the same morning.  He returned home to the poblacion later in the evening,
stating that he was delayed since he spent time drinking tuba with Esco
Fuentes, Mateo Caigoy, Agudo Capatoy and Doroteo Caigoy.  Caul (Ulpiano) Sosaya pass­ed by later and he
was also invited and prevailed upon to partake with the tuba.  Sosaya was Caigoy’s alleged companion when
the atter went home that night.

Although he admitted having known state witness Alfonso Hembra,
he denied the truth of Hembra’s testi­mony. 
Likewise, Caigoy completely repudiated the vera­city of the contents of
the statement that he signed.  (Exh. F)

Inspite of the corroborating testimony of Ulpiano Sosaya who
affirmed Caigoy’s alibi, We honestly feel that
accused’s alibi does not merit serious consideration.  After carefully going over the records, We are of the opinion
that appellant’s alibi is shaky and cannot be allowed to prevail over his signed
confession, which has been adequately found to have been voluntarily given.

“No jurisprudence in criminal cases is more settled than the
rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses
and that the same should be rejected when the identity of the
accused has been sufficiently and positively es­tablished by eyewitnesses to
the crime.  When nothing supports it
except the testimonies of rela­tives and friends and the defend­ant’s own
urging of the same, the said defense
weighs and is worth nothing.” (People vs. Pelagio,
G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967)

Caigoy
has been positively identified
by the vic­tim’s own son who saw with his
own eyes the useless and treacherous
fatal shooting of his mother.  One whose own
mother was killed right before his eyes would unlikely forget
the face of the perpetrator.  In all
likelihood, the ugly scene would
remain etched in his memory for long time. 
Furthermore, the evidence shows that there was sufficient light between
Bodega “A” and Bodega “B” where witness Go was hiding to
enable Go to obtain and retain in his memory
a correct mental picture of the accused to the extent of overcoming
the presumption of innocence that the law extends to the appellant.

“In the face of an air-tight alibi, testified to by witnesses
whose credibility is apparent and positive, doubt may be engendered to an extent favorable to the accused; but when
proof there­of is too general, improbable, and incoherent, the result is
otherwise, the evidence for the prose­cution is reaffirmed and strength­ened, and the truth of its theory assured beyond moral
certainty.” (People vs. de los Santos,
et al. 93 Phil. 83, 90)

EVIDENCE FOR VALENTIN
SUPERABLE:

Tomas Fontillas declared
that he was a resident of barrio Buenavista, Jaro, Leyte; that he knew Valentin
Superable since birth; at about
1 o’clock in the after­noon of April 24, 1958, he went to Tunga, Leyte, to
attend the cockfight there, and “A. – I went home at five o’clock in the
afternoon by jeep, arriving at Jaro at 5:30”; at six o’clock that same
afternoon, he saw Supe­rable “in the machinery where he was the watchman
of the crane”, which was about 80 meters to his house, and the
distance from the place where the crane was to the pob­lacion of
Tunga is 7 kilometers; the last time he saw the crane at its place was on April
18, 1958, which was then removed and taken to Tacloban, Leyte.

“Q. – When was the last time you saw that crane near your house?

A. – April 18.

Q. On April 18, you
saw that
crane for the 1st time, you know where it went?

A. – I know.

Q. It was brought to where?

A. – To Tacloban.” (TSN p. 36, June 23, 1960.)

Fontillas was able to remember and give an
account in de­tail of the whereabouts of Superable on April
24, 1958; however,
when he was asked, what made him remember where was Superable in the afternoon of that day, he said:

“A. – I only
remember that April 24, 1958,
for that was tabo day (day of cockfight) and market day.

Q. – Mr. witness, my
question is, on the third week of April 1958, can you tell us if you can remember that date when
there was tabo and cockfight in Tunga?

A. – On April 24 1958,
Thursday, that I can remember.

Q. – But I am asking you the third
week of April 1958.  You do remember
also?

A. – I remember April 24.

Q. – You remember
April 24 but you do not remember the date immediately preceeding that date when there was
tabo and market day in Tunga?

A. – I remember April 24, that
was Thursday.

Q. – The date
immediately preceeding the date of the market day and cockfight preceeding April 24, 1958, you do not remember?

A. – It was April 24.

Q. – You are always remembering April 24, I am asking you what date was that immediately
preceeding the market day and cockfight on the 24th day of April 1958?

A. – April 24.

COURT:

Q. – What date?

A. – I do not know.

Q. – So you only remember April 24?

A. – I remember only that date when I went to Tunga.

Q. – You do not remember the date yesterday?

A. – I do not know
because I have no calendar.  (TSN p. 37, June 29,
1960.)

Valentin Superable
declared that on April 24, 1958, he was a watchman for the government in the
construction of a bridge at Naliwatan river in Jaro Leyte; at 6:00
o’clock in the afternoon of that day, he was still at his place of work
watching the crane; he saw Fontillas at that hour who went to the river to find
out if the river was swolen; Fontillas even helped him lift some pieces of
lumber in the river to the bank; he denied having commit­ted the crime charge,
as he was watching the crane; from that place where the crane was, to the
poblacion of Tunga, the distance is 7 kilometers; when he was arrested, he told
the arresting officers that he committed no crime; he knew Alfonso Hembra; he
had a grudge against him and that is the reason he testified against him,
although when they were together in jail, Hembra told him that he will not testify against him; he knew Gorgonio Ubaldo; he also had a
grudge against him, because when Ubaldo was courting his present
wife, at one time, they were seated together at a table, and Superable touched the hands of the girl friend of Ubaldo, and the mother of the girl became angry with
Ubaldo.

Aquilino Quimbo declared that he is a government employee in
the construction and repair of roads and bridges; on April 24, on his way home,
he passed by the Langcawisan bridge; he knows Valentin Superable; “on
April 24, 1958, Superable was at the Naliwatan bridge in the crane”;
“he (Superable) was watching the crane”; at about 6:00 o’clock in the
evening, he reached Naliwatan river, and asked Superable “which part of
the ri­ver was shallow and which was passable by man”; Supera­ble was then watching the crane; he (witness) was “at the other side of the river”, and from there, he asked Superable, who was at the other side of the bank of the river, “which part of the river is deep and which is shallow”; Superable answered that “you go about 20
meters upstream”; he went to the
place indicated by Superable, and he crossed the river.  On cross examination, he was asked the
following questions:

“Q. – Did you see that crane on April 18, 1958 at
the Naliwatan river?

A.     
– I saw it
on working days.

Q. – My question is, whether you saw that crane on April18, 1968?

COURT: Answer the question.

A. – I cannot answer that question.

Q. – Have you seen that crane on April 19?

A. – I cannot answer also

Q. – On April 20, 1958,
have you seen that crane at the
Naliwatan river?

 A. – I cannot answer unless I see the day.

Q. – On April 21, did you see that crane?

A. – I used to see it except
on Saturdays and Sundays.  (TSN pp. 68-69, June 23, 1960.)

Upon the foregoing evidence for Valentin Superable, it is clear
that his defense centers around
the proposition that he could not have
been at Eng Wan’s store at
about 7:00 o‘clock in the evening of April 24,
1958, because he was at his place of work at the Naliwatan bridge.  Assuming,
however, that he was really seen at his place of work earlier that day, as testified to by his witnesses, this does not preclude the possibility that he left his work and went to Tunga for the distance between the two places is scarcely about 6 or 7 kilometers which could easily be negotiated within a short time. 
Moreover, one of his own
witnesses admitted that the crane near the bridge had been removed and taken to
Tacloban, Leyte, on April 18, 1958,
which discredits the testimony of Superable and his other witnesses that on
April 24, he (Superable) was at his place of work guarding the said
crane.  Above all, his alibi cannot
prevail over the positive testimony of policeman Marcial Glore that Superable
was the one who shot him on the night of the robbery.  Between the positive identification made by
one who had no reason to put a man’s life in jeopardy and an alibi whose
only claim to truth is anchored on the testimony of solicited witnesses to
corroborate accused story, the former must prevail, and the defense of alibi
must be disregarded.

EVIDENCE FOR VICENTE
CALABIA:

Vicente Calabia testified that on April 24, 1958, he was at his place of work at the Naliwatan
Bridge that was then under
construction.  He left his house at Sta.
Cruz, Jaro, Leyte, at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of that day and arrived at the
place of construction, 5 kilometers distant from his residence, at 8:00 o’clock. 
After the day’s work at 5:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, he returned to his house which he reached at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening.  He changed his wet clothes, then went to the house of Basilio Carson about 50 meters away where a little party was then
being held on the occasion of the close of a novena for Nuestra Señora de
Salvacion.  There, along with the other
guests of the house, he partook of the food and drinks offered by Basilio
Carson.  He went home at about 9:00 o’clock that evening and slept until the
following morning.  His alleged presence in the house of
Basilio Carson that evening was confirmed by the latter who said that he had to
go beck to the house of Vicente Calabia to invite him that evening because he failed to find him in his house the first time he went
there.  To the same effect was the
testimony of Benedicta Barraza who declared in court that she was also present
in the house of Basilio Carson to
help in the preparation of the
food for the guests and saw Vicente
Calabia there that evening of April
24, 1958.  Basilio
Carson and Benedicta Barraza were one in their declaration that Vicente Calabia
never left the party between 6:30 and 9:00 o’clock that evening, for that was the time that the
foods and drinks were served, and
all the time they saw Vicente
Calabia there.  Cala­bia’s claim is supported further by the testimonies
of Aquilino Quimbo and Juan Puntilla,
the one declaring that he saw
Vicente Calabia at his place of work near the Naliwatan Bridge at about 5:00 o’clock in the after­noon of April 24, 1958, and the other
testifying to the effect that he knew Vicente Calabia had walked the
long way from the Naliwatan
Bride to his house in Sta. Cruz,
Jaro, Leyte that same afternoon
because he walked part of the distance with him.

The Court is persuaded to disregard the story told by Vicente Calabia,
notwithstanding the cumulative evi­dence he proffered to shore up defense of alibi.  Inherently weak, and easily manufactured, alibi
must rest upon stronger evidence to overturn the testimony of equally credible
witnesses for the prosecution.  For it to
prosper, it is not enough to prove that defendant was somewhere else when the
crime imputed to him was commit­ted, but he must, likewise, demonstrate that it was phy­sically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.  And when, as here, the perpetra­tors of the
crime had been positively identified by eye-­ witnesses, alibi, as a
defense, becomes valueless.  (People vs. Pelagio, et al., G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967; People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. L-26103, January 17, 1968.) A care­ful examination of the
evidence revealed that Vicente Calabia was named by Gorgonio Ubaldo in his ante
mortem statement as one of the perpetrators of the crime; his
participation in the robbery was sufficiently described by state witness
Alfonso Hembra; and he was also clearly identified by policeman Marcial Glore
as one of the armed men he saw outside the store of Eng Wan pointing their guns
at him when Valentin Superable shot him. 
Indeed, the weight of these evidence cannot be
overcome by Vi­cente Calabia’s alibi that at the time of the robbery, he
was at home in Jaro, Leyte, which, any way, adjoins the
town of Tunga where the crime
was committed.

EVIDENCE FOR CRISPIN VILLABLANCA, JR.:

Crispin Villablanca, Jr., testified that on April 24, 1958, he was engaged in his customary
work-driving a passenger truck owned
and operated by his father-in-law, Toribio Campo.  He made three trips that day from Pastrana to
Tacloban.  As usual, the last trip he made was from Pastrana
to Palo (along the route to Tacloban) where he and Toribio Campo resides, and where he use to park the bus for the
night.  He recalled that among the
passengers on the bus during that trip from Pastrana were ex-mayor Francisco
Villablanca, Julian
Reandino and his wife, and his (Crispin‘s) parents, who went to Palo that afternoon to the house of his
father-in-law, Toribio Campo, to attend a birthday party.  They arrived in Palo at about 5:30 in the afternoon of that day.  Dinner was served at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening, and the party
lasted up to 1:00 o’clock the fol­lowing
morning.  As soon as the visitors
dispersed, Cris­pin Villablanca, Jr., brought back the guests from Pas­trana on
the same bus owned by his father-in-law, arriv­ing in Pastrana at about 2:00 a.m. 
Thereafter, he re­turned to Palo to the house of his father-in-law at 3:00 o’clock in the morning.  He declared that from 6:00 o’clock in the evening of April 24 to 1:00 o’clock in the morning of April 25, 1958, he never left the
house of his father-in-law in Palo during that birthday celebra­tion, and thus
maintains that he could not have been in Tunga (32 kilometers away) at the time
of the robbery.

Pedro Dorango, a tuba gatherer, testified that he was one of the
guests in the house of Toribio Campos on the night of April 24, 1958. 
He declared that he arrived at the place at 6:00 o’clock in the evening, and at the time he already
saw Crispin Villablanca, Jr. there.  He
ate the foods and drank tuba which were served before 9:00 o’clock, after which he went home; and
although he was not sure of the time they were through eating, he was positive,
however, that up to the time he left later, Crispin Villablanca, Jr. was still
there.  Villablanca’s claim was also
further corroborated by a number of other witnesses, among them, his
father-in-law and his (Crispin’s) wife, who were one in their declaration that
Crispin Villablanca was present during the party in Palo from 6:00 o’clock in the
evening of April 24, 1958, up to 1:00 a.m. of the following day, leaving the
place only after the visitors had dispersed to conduct some of the guests and
his parents back to Pastrana.

Again this Court has to turn down the foregoing de­fense of
Crispin Villablanca, Jr.  His alibi
did not overcome the positive identification of him by the wit­nesses for the
prosecution as one
of the perpetrators of the crime. 
Our attention is called to the fact that Crispin Villablanca, Jr. was not
mentioned by Gorgonio Ubaldo in his ante mortem statement – a circumstance pointed
out by Villablanca in his brief and heavily re­lied upon by Villablanca in this
appeal; however, We find upon the evidence that the inculpatory facts have established beyond any cavil of doubt the
participation of Villablanca in the crime. 
When the wounded Gorgonio Ubaldo was discovered lying prostrate
near the bank of the river in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, and was
investigated, Ubaldo readily admitted participation in the commission of the
robbery, naming his com­panions in the perpetration of the crime, among them appellant Villablanca.  On the
basis of his revelations, the other accused were subsequently arrested,
majority of them on that very day; their extra-judicial statements were taken
then and there, and they were one and all in their declaration that herein
appellant Crispin Villa­blanca, Jr. (Pengpeng) was with the group that effected
the robbery; accused Alfonso Hembra revealed in open court how he and his
co-accused, including Villablanca, Jr., had committed the crime; and his identification
of herein appellant Villablanca, Jr. was convincingly cor­roborated by the
testimony of policeman Marcial Glore who was fired upon and wounded on the
occasion of the robbery.  Crispin
Villablanca, Jr. had tried to show that Alfonso Hembra had an axe to grind
against him (Villablanca appears to have begotten a child with Hembra’s
sister-in-law) which could have been a strong mo­tive for Alfonso Hembra to
implicate Villablanca to get even with him; but no such ill motives had been
shown on the part of the other accused and policeman Marcial Glore which might
have impelled them to incriminate him. 
The circumstance that the other accused repudiated their extra-judicial
statements later, affords no relief to Villablanca, Jr. either, for the Court finds
no truth in the alleged maltreatment they claimed to have induced them to
execute their respective extra-judicial state­ments.  The fact that herein appellant Villablanca,
Jr., along with Valentin Superable and Vicente Calabia, were not forced by the
investigating officers into making any extra-judicial statements, as a matter
of fact, militates against the claim of the other accused that they executed
their statements involuntarily.  On the
other hand, the fact that the extra-judicial statements corro­borate one
another, describing in detail the steps taken in the perpetration of the
robbery, is a circumstance that may be taken and relied upon by the Court in
accept­ing the credibility of state witnesses
testimony.

Besides the respective alibis
advanced by appel­lants, the defense, likewise, presented one Lucio
Pal­conit, a detention prisoner in the provincial jail, who voluntarily owned the robbery-killing
subject matter of this case, pointing to Gorgonio Ubaldo and Norberto Lumpay
who are now both deceased, and to certain Carling Miralles and Jose Cataga as his companions in the com­mission
of the
crime.  The trial court, however,
viewed with grave suspicion the evidence elicited from this witness and refused
to give it any weight.  Thus, it observed:

“The testimony of Lucio Pal­conit, a prisoner detained in the
provincial jail, is, in the
opinion of the Court, not only fantastic but also extraordinary and a frame-up one.  The way he came to know Gorgonio Ubaldo, one
of the accused in this case, did not convince the the Court that he had an
intimate relation with Gorgonio Ubaldo. 
This witness was convicted in accordance with Criminal Case No. 1774 of
this Court for illegal possession of fire­arm, on March 21, 1961, and is again accused of another serious crime of robbery in band and
has been detained in the provincial jail already for a long time.  What he alleged that he was invited by
Gorgonio Ubaldo to go to the house of the latter located behind the Aztec
Theater, and for that he went to Tacloban
City and arrived there on April 23, 1958, is devoid of
truth.  If it is true that he was written
a letter,
yet, that letter was not even exhibited in Court.  One thing more which the Court does not
believe in his testi­mony is, that when he arrived in Tacloban City in the
house of Gorgo­nio Ubaldo, he did not meet him in the house, and the father of
the lat­ter pointed him to go to the Shamrock Hotel to look for him there, and
there he met Norberto Lumpay and was introduced to him by Gorgonio Ubaldo.  In that place, they planned the rob­bery.  To the Court, this is a story coming from a polluted
source, and for that, its
veracity is doubtful.  From that place
they went to the Coca-cola Plant, and then to Tunga riding in a jeep up
to barrio Baliri to pick up their companions by the name of Carlin Miralles and
Jose Ca­tega.  To the Court, this is an
in­vented story, imaginative in its na­ture. 
These two persons, Carling Miralles and Jose Catag, were never mentioned
in the information nor in the evidence presented by
the prose­cution.  It was not even
mentioned in the testimony of the witnesses of any of the accused.  This fact
does not reconcile with the defense presented by Crispin Villablanca,
that Gorgonio Ubaldo is not from Tacloban but from Pastrana, Leyte.  He
alleged further that it was Carling
Miralles who brought the weapons that were distributed to them in Barrio Baliri
but there is no evidence at all to corroborate this fact, nor Carling Miralles
was ever presented to make the necessary corroboration.  Jose
Cataga was not even presented to testify for the accused.  The Court believes and so opines,
that these persons never exist.  The
Court is surprised why this
witness was presented to tell a suicidal story and incriminating himself before
the Court for so serious a crime of rob­bery in band with double homicide,
etc.  When this witness was asked on
cross-examination, he manifested, that he did not know the whereabouts of Jose
Cataga and Carling Miralles.  This
confirms the doubt of the Court as to
the existence of this persons.  He further alleged that while he was detained
in Tacloban for seven months and did not reveal anything that happened for
Norberto Lumpay threatened to kill him if he will do so.  This witness, while testifying in court in this
case, is detained as above-mentioned
for the crime of robbery in band.  The
Court is at a loss to give credit to his testimony as he said, he was afraid of
Norberto Lumpay as the latter admonished him not to make it known to other
persons about the robbery.  Yet, the
records show that this witness was testifying while Nor­berto Lumpay had
already made an es­cape from the provincial jail, at large and is free to make some harm if he desires to make
any revelation as what he stated.  This
fact makes the Court to doubt its veracity and qualifies the story as real
fantasy.  He wanted to be crucified to
save the real enemies of mankind.”

This self-sacrifice
bravely assumed by Lucio Palconit in owning direct participation in the
commission of the offense charged thereby inferentially absolving the other accused from criminal liability is, to our mind, hardly
believable.  It must be noted that Palconit‘s al­leged participation in the robbery homicide surprisingly
surfaced into the open only after the lapse of more than three years from the
date of the commission of the of­fense. 
We cannot give credence to Palconit’s lame excuse that he had not been
able to come forward much earlier to supply such vital an
information because he was afraid of Norberto Lumpay who had previously
threatened to kill him should he confess. 
Rather, We entertain a very strong hunch that Palconit must have been persuaded
to admit the offenses charged in view of the fact that he had very little to lose.  Palconit was a consistent law­breaker,
having to his credit a string of
criminal charges for robbery aside from one confirmed conviction.  Fur­thermore, We
cannot conceive of Palconit to be overly apprehensive about Norberto Lumpay’s
threat to kill him should he confess and at the same time be extremely courageous to own direct participation in an offense with
which he was clearly aware could mete him the death penalty.

Likewise militating against the truth of Palconit’s confession is the fact
that nowhere in the investigation conducted
by the police authorities nor in the preliminary statements given by the
accused had Palconit’s partici­pation been slightly connected.  This glaring non-inclu­sion could obviously
only mean that Palconit was actually not with the group which perpetrated the acts
leading to the filing of this instant charge.

After carefully examining the voluminous record of this case, a
larger part of which faithfully recited appellants’ respective defenses and
testimonies, the Court has arrived at the
conclusion that the alibis set up by Antonio Pacli, Benjamin Pacli,
Valentin Superable and Severo Caigoy do not impair in the least the evidence
adduced by the prosecution.  The members
of the Court are unanimous in the opinion that the trial court did not err in
not giving credence to the evidence they have respectively presented.  The conclusion has, like­wise, been reached that the guilt of Vicente Calabia and
Crispin Villablanca, Jr.  has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The precision which characterized the movements of the accused in carrying out their plan
to rob the victim, strongly suggests a unity of purpose and design to the end
that the accused’ intent may be expeditiously consummated.  As planned and later on carried out, three of the accused, namely:  Gorgonio Ubaldo, Norberto Lumpay and
Severo Caigoy entered the store in order to secure things of value; Superable,
Villablanca, Jr.  and
Hembra posted themselves on one corner of the road while Cala­bia, Antonio
Pacli and Benjamin Pacli stood guard on the other corner of the street to insure protection
against any interference from the outside that may ham­per the success of the
whole operation.  They acted accordingly,
primarily obssessed with the unity of their intent to gain from the
undertaking.  Thus, Ubaldo shot and
killed policeman Cotoñer even before the lat­ter could render any help to the victims of the robbery; while the lookouts
posted on opposite corners of the road fronting the store effectively halted
policeman Glore by wounding him even before he could come near the store and
assess the gravity of the situation. 
Such precision displayed by them in the execution of the rob­bery,
coupled with the evidence that they came together to the house of Antonio Pacli
earlier that afternoon and agreed to commit the same against Eng Wan, leave no
room for doubt that they have acted pursuant to a cons­piracy.  Consequently, it is not absolutely necessary
to pinpoint specifically, who fired the shot that kill­ed either policeman Cotoñer or the Chinese woman Co Cui Hui; all the conspirators are liable
irrespective of the fact that some had limited themselves to the act or robbery while the others participated in the
act of homicide and less serious physical injuries.

Crispin Villablanca, Jr. pleads, in this connect­ion, that even
the evidence for the prosecution tends to show that he escaped from the scene
of the crime shortly after the appearance of policeman Marcial Glore near the
premises of the store of Eng
Wan.  This cir­cumstance, he argues,
shows voluntary desistance on his part from the consummation of the robbery and
should entitle him to an acquittal.  This
pretense deserves no serious
consideration.  The evidence is
conclusive, that policeman Marcial Glore went to the scene of the crime
only after hearing several gun reports from the direction of Eng Wan’s store. 
Apparently, the shots he heard
from the place, were those that emanated from the
exchange of fires between Ubaldo and
policeman Cotoñer and the shot with which Caigoy killed the Chinese woman Co Cui Hui.  At the time, the robbery and killings had
fully been consummated before the arrival of policeman Marcial Glore at the
scene of the crime, and Crispin Villablanca, Jr. cannot exculpate himself from
liabi­lity simply because he left shortly thereafter.  If he did escape from the place without
waiting for his companions, it was not
by reason of any desistance anymore, but with a desire to evade the
hands of the law which he must have then realized would soon be out to get him.

The crime committed by
the accused is robbery in band with
double homicide.  The penalty provided
for by Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua
to death.  In view of the provision of
Article 296, as amended, of the Revised Penal Code which pro­vides:

“Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof.  – When more than three armed malefactors take
part in the commis­sion of robbery it shall be deemed to have been committed by
a band.  When any of the arms used in the commission
of the offense be an unli­censed firearm, the penalty to be im­posed upon all the
malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without
pre­judice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed
firearm.

“Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a
rob­bery by the band shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the same.  (As emended by Republic Act
No. 12, Sec. 3).”

the penalty to be
imposed upon them is the maximum penalty,
that is, DEATH even without the concurrence of any aggravating circumstance
(see People vs. Valeriano,  et al., 90 Phil. 15).  For this reason, We
do not find it necessary to discuss separately and in detail the aggravating
circumstances alleged and proved by the prosecution during the trial.  What is significant is that We do not find nor has the defense attempted to prove any
mitigating circumstance.  Likewise, there
is no further need to consider the frustrated homicide, less serious physical
injuries and the direct assault upon agents of persons in authority which were
all al­leged in the information and subsequently proved dur­ing the trial to
have been committed by the
accused on the occasion of the robbery, for purposes of determining the proper
penalty to be imposed.  Anyway, with or without such consideration, the conclusion would be the same –
the accused should be sentenced to the
maximum of the penalty provided by law.

Accused Valentin
Superable, Severo Caigoy, Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli, as shown by the degree of their participation in
the commission of the atrocious horrible crime of which they now stand
convicted, have proved themselves dangerous enemies of the decent members of
society.  The law ordains that they should pay with
their lives in retribution for their offense. 
In these days of rampant violence and criminality, this decision is
calculated to have a most salutary effect upon the elements that threaten to set the law at naught and
break the social order; it should serve as a reminder to those who are
criminally minded that crime does not pay; and above all, it should make them realize once again that courts will
not shrink their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty in cases where
the law so provides.

Some members of the Court believe, however, that Vicente Calabia
and Crispin Villablanca, Jr. have shown less perversity in view of the lesser
extent of their participation in the commission of the robbery, for which
reason they have voted against the imposition of the sup­reme penalty on them.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirm­ed with
respect to the imposition of the death penalty upon Valentin Superable, Severo
Caigoy, Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli; for lack of the necessary number of
votes to impose the death sentence upon Vicente Calabia and Crispin
Villablanca, Jr., they are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
 With this modification, the decision
appealed from and reviewed is affirmed in all other respects.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.