G. R. No. 16717. December 22, 1921
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDINO MANABAT AND DOMINGO SIMEON, DEFENDANTS. DOMINGO SIMEON, APPELLANT.
OSTRAND, J.:
machine shop, power plant, and transportation departments of the Manila
Electric Railroad and Light Company, a corporation operating the Manila
street car system, declared a strike against that corporation. The
strikers numbered nearly five hundred and all were members of a society
for mutual support called “Nagsumakit” which consisted exclusively of
employees of said corporation, and of which one Pedro Angeles was
president. In the course of the strike several acts of violence were
committed by the strikers culminating on June 20th at about 4:30 p. m.,
in the explosion on Plaza Goiti of a quantity of powder contained in a
cardboard box placed under one of the seats of a street car by the
defendant, Bernardino Manabat, one of the strikers. In depositing the
box, Manabat, by means of a lighted cigarette ignited a fuse connected
with the powder, whereupon he immediately left the car. Before the fuse
reached the powder the conductor of the car discovered the box, with
its burning fuse, and threw it out of a window of the car and into the
street. It was there picked up by a newsboy, Leonardo Sacramento, in
whose hands it exploded, inflcting wounds upon him from the effects of
which he died the following morning. A number of other persons were
also injured through the explosion. Manabat was recognized by several
persons and was captured a few minutes after the explosion within a
short distance of the place where it occurred. He was at once taken to
the headquarters of the Manila secret service where he at first denied
his guilt, but after having been closely examined by several secret
service men “more or less continuously” (see testimony of John
W. Green) for about twenty-three hours, made a confession in which he
implicated the defendant, Domingo Simeon, claiming that the latter had
given him the bomb, with instructions to take it aboard a street car
and there explode it. Domingo Simeon was thereupon arrested, brought to
secret service headquarters and there confronted with Manabat, who, in
his presence, repeated the story that Simeon had furnished the bomb and
given him the instructions mentioned. As some importance has been
attached to the point, we may here mention that while Manabat told his
story, Simeon showed no excitement or emotion, and did not interrupt or
even look at him. However, as soon as asked by the chief of the secret
service, Simeon emphatically denied the truth of Manabat’s statement.
An information was filed by the prosecuting attorney of the city charging both Manabat and Simeon with murder and lesiones
(physical injuries). The two accused were tried separately. Manabat
pleaded guilty but sentence was withheld until the termination of the
trial of Simeon. The latter, after a lengthy trial, was found guilty of
homicide and lesiones, and sentenced to twenty years of reclusion temporal. Manabat was given the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code and sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. The case is now before this court on appeal taken by Simeon.
In addition to the facts above stated, the record shows that the “Nagsumakit” was affiliated with the Congreso Obrero,
a federation of labor associations and of which Potenciano Salita was
president and Domingo Simeon, secretary. When dissatisfaction arose
among the laborers of the Street Car Company, Pedro Angeles, as
president of the “Nagsumakit” and feeling unequal to the task of
directing a strike, sought the assistance of the Congreso Obrero.
A petition directed to Mr. Rockwell, vice-president of the Street Car
Company, and containing a number of peremptory demands was thereupon
prepared. The petition was signed by Potenciano Salita, as president of
the Congreso Obrero, and countersigned by Simeon as
secretary. The company being unwilling to treat with outsiders in
regard to its relations with its employees, the strike above-mentioned
was at once declared.
“Labor Hall,” the headquarters of the Congreso Obrero also became the headquarters of the strike. Simeon, who in addition to being secretary of the Congreso Obrero,
was also the treasurer of the Printers’ Union, had his office in a room
adjoining the assembly room of Labor Hall and separated therefrom, in
the daytime, by swinging halfdoors of wire cloth. In the same room
several other persons had their offices or desks, among them the
treasurer and the secretary of the Cigarmakers’ Union.
At the beginning of the strike, Salita was a candidate for member
of the Municipal Council and as his time was taken up with the
electoral campaign, the management of the strike devolved upon Simeon
until June 8th, when the elections being over, Salita assumed the
management. On that date a meeting of the strikers and their
sympathizers was held at the Zorrilla Theater, which meeting was opened
by Simeon and afterwards presided over by Salita. At the meeting one
Crisanto Evangelists made an inflammatory speech in which he criticised
the Government for protecting the “scabs” with Constabulary guards and
secret service men, and stated that in other countries such repressive
measure led to violence on the part of strikers. He finally, however,
advised the audience to remain peaceful while justice took its course.
At the same meeting several committees were appointed, among them a
committee on finance of which Simeon was made chairman. As such
chairman, he had charge of the collection of funds from the public for
the benefit of the strikers and also of the distribution of such funds.
The greater part of the funds were used for the purchase of food, and
meals were served the strikers daily at the Labor Hall. Among the
persons so receiving meals was Manabat, who sometimes was accompanied
by his wife, and Simeon came to know both of them. Manabat testifies
that from the beginning of the strike he went to Labor Hall nearly
every day and that a large number of the other strikers did likewise.
The facts here related as to Simeon’s close connection with the
strike and his silence when confronted with Manabat in the office of
the chief of the secret service are relied on by the prosecution as
corroboration of Manabat’s statements inculpating Simeon. A critical
.examination of these circumstances will, however, show that they are
of little, if any, corroborative value, and that Simeon’s conviction
depends entirely on the credibility of the, on this point, practically
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Such testimony coming, as it
does, from a polluted source must be accepted with extreme caution and
its inherent probability must be carefully tested. This is especially
so when, as in the present case, we have only the testimony of one man
without any means of comparing and verifying it with other testimony to
the same effect. The cases in which the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice has been held sufficient to convict of grave offenses have
been very rare indeed. Upon this subject Bishop, in his new Criminal
Procedure, second edition, section 1169, says:
“So manifest is the danger of convicting men on
evidence from a source confessedly corrupt and delivered by the witness
to shield himself from merited punishment, that the judges, while
explaining to the jury their right to convict on it alone, by way of
caution advise them not to return a verdict of guilty unless it is
corroborated by evidence from a purer source. Yet they are not as of
law required to give this advise.”
And again, in section 1170:
“* * * corroborating evidence must tend to prove the defendant’s guilt, not merely the credibility of the accomplice.”
The rule stated by Bishop is based on wisdom and experience and
while it may not have been formally adopted in our local jurisprudence,
it is, nevertheless, of great persuasive force.
Now, what corroboration is there as to Simeon’s complicity? That he
had his office at Labor Hall and that Manabat also was present in the
building between the hours of 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon of June
20th, as testitified to by two secret service men? There is nothing
strange in this; where else would both Simeon and Manabat be more
likely to be at that hour? Neither is Simeon’s silence and his failure
to show agitation or emotion when first confronted with Manabat’s
charge, inconsistent with his entire innocence. He would, perhaps, have
been quite as likely to make a display of resentment if he were guilty
and had been betrayed by Manabat. If this incident proves anything at
all, it indicates a degree of self-control which makes his
participation in Manabat’s illconsidered and reckless exploit all the
more improbable. Neither can Simeon’s participation in the management
of the strike be regarded as a corroborating circumstance of the
character required by the rule above quoted; there were many persons
similarly circumstanced and who, in addition, had a pecuniary interest
in the strike which Simeon lacked. The record contains ample
corroboration of Manabat’s confession of his own guilt; as to Simeon’s
complicity it is singularly deficient.
We therefore have to fall back on the testimony of Manabat. He
testifies that he arrived at Labor Hall at 8 o’clock in the morning of
June 20th and remained there until 4 o’clock in the afternoon; that he,
at this later hour, was covering with a number of other strikers of
whom about fourteen were present outside of the door of Simeon’s
office, when a person whom he did not know came out of Simeon’s office
and asked for Bernardino Manabat; that upon his, Manabat, stepping
forward, this person told him that Simeon wanted to see him; that he
thereupon entered the office where he found Simeon alone; that he asked
Simeon what he wanted of him and that Simeon then asked him “Do you see
that thing on the chair?” He further states that he asked Simeon what
it was and was told that it was only a firecracker for the street car.
When asked if he was willing to explode it in a car, he answered that
he was afraid on account of his family and was told to have no fear for
the family as he would be protected in the event he was arrested. He
further states that the so-called firecracker was in a white
paste-board box about 12 inches long, 4 inches wide, and 4 1/3 inches
high; that he was curious to see what was inside the box, but that
Simeon told him not to open it; that after some further discussion,
lasting altogether about twenty-five minutes, he put the box under his
left arm and in that manner carried it out of Simeon’s office and
through the hall and all the way from there to the corner of Calles
Dasmariiias and Rosario where he, after waiting a couple of minutes,
boarded a street car bound for Plaza Goiti where the “firecracker” was
exploded. He asserts that he did not think the “firecracker” was
dangerous but simply would frighten the public from using the street
cars.
When it is considered that Labor Hall was a public place,
frequented by many people, that Simeon’s desk was visible not only
through the half-doors separating his office from the hall, but also
open to public view from the outside through the windows, and that both
Simeon and the strikers knew that Labor Hall was being watched by the
secret service, Manabat’s story certainly challenges our credulity. It
is highly improbable that Simeon, an intelligent, and as the record
shows, self-possessed man, should, without any previous conversation
have intrusted a man he had known casually only for a few weeks with
such a desperate venture and should have delivered to this man,
practically in public view, such a conspicuous object as the box in
question.
In addition to its inherent improbability, Manabat’s story is
further weakened by being contradicted in important details by the
testimony of fairly credible witnesses. It is, for instance,
conclusively proven that instead of being in Labor Hall during the
forenoon of June 20th, he was at the Bureau of Labor as a witness in an
investigation conducted by that Bureau. It must also be regarded as
proven that there were at least two other persons present in Simeon’s
office at the time of the alleged delivery of the cardboard box to
Manabat It is hardly likely that the delivery could have been made
without being noticed by them. It is furthermore significant that
Manabat did not know any of the men with whom he was talking when he
was called into Simeon’s office, and that he, apparently, has been
unable to so describe them as to lead to their identification. It is
also remarkable that he has been unable to give any clue to the
identity of the person who called him into the office.
It has been intimated that if Manabat had not been telling the
truth he could not have adhered to his story under cross-examination.
To this we may say that the story was relatively simple, the witness
fairly intelligent and the cross-examination was not very searching.
There are hints in the record that the testimony before the court
differed materially from the confession made to the secret service, but
as the confession has not been presented in evidence we cannot take
this into consideration.
It has also been suggested that Manabat could have had no motive
for implicating Simeon. As to this, we are not left entirely to
conjectures. Two witnesses testify that on one occasion Manabat was
highly offended at Simeon’s reluctance to lend him a peso out of the
funds collected for the strikers and that he, on leaving Simeon’s
office, expressed his dissatisfaction in strong terms. There is also
some probability of his having resented the attentions shown his wife
by Simeon. That Simeon on being questioned at the time of his
examination by the secret service failed to recall, on the spur of the
moment, any cause for resentment on Manabat’s part is not as strange as
it at first blush may seem. Being in charge of the distribution of the
strike funds, he was peculiarly exposed to suspicions of unfairness.
The strikers were numerous and the funds scant; he could not very well
satisfy everyone, and, nwittingly, may have made many enemies. Even if
aware of the enmity he might easily forget individual instances.
Manabat being, as the evidence shows, a man of a morose and aggressive
temperament might easily have taken umbrage at comparatively slight
incidents. Furthermore, when it is remembered that he was captured
almost in the act of the commission of the crime and that the evidence
against him was overwhelming, it requires no wide stretch of the
imagination to conclude that the lengthy examination by the secret
service was directed not so much towards establishing his guilt as
towards ascertaining whether he had any accomplices, and being a fairly
intelligent man (he was a machinist by trade and had studied two years
in the Manila Trade School) it could not have taken him long to realize
what was wanted. By governing himself accordingly and implicating one
of the leaders of the strike he succeeded in creating the impression
that he himself was merely the ignorant tool of a more intelligent
person. He was consequently convicted of manslaughter instead of murder
and given the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code, thereby
shortening his term of imprisonment by eighteen years less one day. Men
have committed perjury for less.
Much as we abhor the crime committed, we cannot convict men on
evidence as flimsy as that against the defendant Domingo Simeon in the
present case, and as to him the sentence of the lower court is
therefore reversed, and it is hereby ordered that the complaint against
him be dismissed and that he be discharged from the custody of the law
with the costs de oficio. So ordered.
Araullo, C. J., Avancena, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., dissents.
STREET, J.,
I am unable to concur in the judgment of acquittal in this case and
am constrained, with some reluctance, to record my belief that the
accused is guilty. To exhibit clearly the reasons for this belief, it
is necessary to show the relation of the appellant to the strike
referred to in the opinion of the court, and which at the time of the
commission of the crime, was nearing the stage of dissolution.
In this connection it appears that for sometime prior to the strike
an association had been organized among the company’s employees, known
as the Nagsumakit, This body was in turn member of a larger labor organization called the Congreso Obrero,
composed of representatives of working men in all branches of labor.
The latter body had as its president at this time Potenciano Salita,
and as its secretary, the present appellant, Domingo Simeon. From the
inception of the trouble between the company and its employees these
two personages, as officials of the Congreso Obrero, had
assumed the guidance of the affairs of the employees; but during the
first two or three weeks of the strike, Salita was occupied with his
candidacy for the office of councilman. It thus happened that
responsibility for the direction of the strike rested chiefly on
Domingo Simeon, until the night of June 8, when a meeting attended by
the strikers was held and president Salita assumed charge of the
management of the strike.
Upon this occasion a committee was appointed to raise funds and
means in support of the strikers, and of this committee Domingo Simeon
was made chairman. In this capacity he remained in close and active
relations with the strikers during the continuance of the trouble, and
maintained headquarters at the Labor Hall, a place much frequented in
those days by the strikers. From his hand came the subsistence which
was officially supplied for the maintenance of the strikers, many of
whom were in straits for lack of means to support themselves and
families.
Among the strikers thus reduced to extremity, and burdened with the
petty obligations incurred by reason of the strike, was Bernardino
Manabat, who had known Domingo Simeon from the time the Nagsumakit
had been organized, and who had now become in a measure dependent on
Domingo Simeon for the supplies necessary for the immediate
requirements of himself and family. Moreover, as an idler, or
hanger-on, around the Labor Hall during the strike, Manabat had
frequent occasions to see Domingo Simeon and was not infrequently used
by the latter to do errands, such as carrying letters and buying food
or periodicals.
The narrative of Manabat, so far as relates to the alleged
participation of the appellant in the offense in question, is to the
effect that at about 4 p. m., of June 20, while standing in the
precincts of the Labor Hall, he (Manabat) was called into the office of
Simeon, who was at the time alone. Upon entering Manabat was shown the
cardboard box mentioned in the opinion of the court, and was asked by
Simeon if he could explode it on a Street ear, in which connection he
was told that it was nothing more than a firecracker. Manabat at first
objected, saying that he had a family to look after, but his misgivings
were allayed by the assurance that if he would cause an explosion on a
car, this act would instil fear into the people to such an extent that
they would not use the cars and the strikers would triumph.
When Manabat’s assent had been obtained he was shown a hole in the
bottom of the box through which a short fuse protruded and was told
that it could be lighted from a cigarette. He was then directed to
cause the explosion on a car at some point between Rosario Street and
Plaza Goiti for the reason that, as there are always many people in
those limits, information of the occurrence would at once be propagated
throughout the city. As Manabat took the box in his hands to depart,
Simeon told him that whatever occurred he would not be left alone and,
if arrested, a way would be devised to get him out. The witness then
departed, made his way to Rosario Street, and boarded the car on which
the bomb was later ignited, as stated in the opinion of the court.
The conviction depends on the credibility of Manabat, and the
question is whether his testimony is sufficient, in connection with the
circumstances surrounding the case, to prove the guilt of the appellant
beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it is.
In the light of the facts, and especially in view of the position
occupied by Manabat, it is impossible to believe that he planned the
stroke, manufactured the .bomb, and carried the affair into execution
all by himself. In the nature of things he was a mere tool in the hands
of some more intelligent individual, and in Domingo Simeon is found a
person who had a powerful motive for such an act and intelligence
enough to direct its execution, even if he did not plan it.
Of course Bernardino Manabat knows where and from whom he got the
box, and the only question is whether he has actually and truly
revealed the knowledge that is within him. A careful perusal of what he
says is, in my opinion, convincing that his story is true. Among minor
features of his testimony, it is clearly revealed that he had no
knowledge of the existence of the box, or its contents, prior to
receiving it, as is apparent from his manifestation of curiosity when
he wanted to see into the box in the presence of Simeon, but was told
not to open it.
His ignorance of the size, color, and appearance of the bomb is
repeatedly and, I think, truly shown in different parts of his
testimony; and his differing statements as to the length of the fuse
are evidently mere guesses founded on casual inspection through the
little square hole in the bottom of the box—certainly not on any
definite personal knowledge of his own. It is practically certain that
he could not have fabricated the agent of destruction; and I believe
that he received it at the time and place and from the person stated by
him.
Moreover, it is evident that he had little or no idea of the
death-dealing power of the explosive, and he was in a measure appalled
at the consequences of his act. At most he probably expected a noisy
report that would carry trepidation to passengers on the cars and
by-standers, but he did not expect anything like the tragic
consequences that in fact followed. This circumstance supplies, I
think, the moral necessity for his confession, and adds greatly to the
probability that he has named in Domingo Simeon the true author by
induction of the crime and the cause of his own undoing.
Another circumstance which in my opinion in some measure accredits
the truth of Manabat’s narrative is that no adequate motive is shown
which would have led him to implicate the appellant, supposing the
latter to be innocent. On the contrary, the friendly feeling of
fellowship and respect which Manabat must have entertained towards
Simeon would have supplied a powerful incentive to Manabat to shield
him; and it is safe to say that if Manabat had designed to implicate
some innocent person in order merely to gratify the importunity of his
interrogators at the police station, he would have been very likely to
have named some other person; and if he had thus implicated an innocent
person, he must sooner or later have wavered in his story and in some
way would have revealed the falsity of his testimony.
The conditions under which the confession was finally made by
Bernardino Manabat, revealing the complicity of the appellant, were not
in my opinion such as to impair the credibility of the witness. No
promise of indulgence was held out to him, if he would reveal the names
of other guilty persons, and no pressure was imposed upon him which
could have operated to induce falsehood. The only instrument that seems
to have been used by the chief of police to extract the truth was the
prolongation of the examination over a period of nearly a full day—a
process certainly debilitating to the resisting powers of the human
will, but not in itself likely to elicit falsehood. On the contrary,
the only relief of his burdened spirit under such conditions was to
reveal the truth. In addition to this it is to be noted that, after
making a full revelation of the facts, as stated in his declaration
before the chief of police, this witness has not faltered in his
fidelity to that narrative, and he persisted in it to the end of the
trial both of himself and of his coaccused.
Under all the circumstances the accusing witness is in my opinion
entitled to full credit, and I think the conviction should be sustained.
MALCOLM, J.,
With all due consideration for the learned opinion of the majority,
yet duty impels me to register my dissent and to say that in my
judgment the court has fallen into a grave error in acquitting Domingo
Simeon of the crime of murder.
The main decision states nothing new when it relies on the rule
announced in Bishop on Criminal Procedure as to the weight which should
be given to the testimony of an accomplice. (U. S. vs. Remigio [1918], 37 Phil., 599; U. S. vs. Ambrosio and Falsario [1910], 17 Phil., 295; U. S. vs. Ocampo [1905], 4 Phil., 400; U. S. vs. Balisacan [1905], 4 Philv 545; U. S. vs. Ocampo [1905], 5 Phil., 339; U. S. vs. Bernales [1911], 18 Phil., 525; U. S. vs. Soriano [1913], 25 Phil., 624; U. S. vs. Briones [1914], 28 Phil., 367; U. S. vs. Lazaro [1915], 34 Phil., 871; U. S. vs.
Claro [1915], 32 Phil., 413, and other cases.) In a decision on appeal
from this court, the United States Supreme Court laid down the rule
that although the accomplice was a low type of man, “yet his testimony
or confession is not to be summarily discarded but is to be judged of
by confirming or opposing circumstances as well as by his character and
the influences that may invest him.” (Valdez vs. U. S.
[1917], 244 U. S., 432.) The decision of the higher court in the case
just mentioned is most illuminating. Let us, therefore, contrast the
facts in that case, in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed
the judgment of conviction, with the facts of the instant case in which
the Supreme Court of the Philippines reverses the judgment of
conviction.
The guilt or innocence of the defendant Valdez turned solely or
principally upon the testimony of the accomplice Juan Oatmaitan. The
guilt or innocence of the instant defendant Simeon turns solely or
principally upon the testimony of the accomplice Bernardino Manabat.
Gatmaitan was found by the different courts to be a densely ignorant
man, of a low order of intelligence, lacking in instruction both mental
and moral, and a convicted cattle thief. Manabat is shown to be a
laborer of the usual type, of a fair order of intelligence, who has
heretofore been a law-abiding citizen. Gatmaitan first testified in one
manner as to the guilt of the defendant Valdez, subsequently retracted
the accusation, and later retracted the retraction. Manabat has told
only one story connecting Domingo Simeon with the horrible crime and
this story has never been shaken even when confronted with his chief
Simeon, and even when undergoing a grilling by an expert
cross-examiner. In the Valdez case the court thought it possible to
conclude that Valdez planned the crime in the crude manner certain to
be detected, described by Gatmaitan. In the Simeon case the court does
not believe that Domingo Simeon, the secretary of Nagsumakit,
and a prominent leader in the street railway strike, would issue an
order for the explosion of the bomb from his office in the Labor Hall.
Finally, in the Valdez case the judgments of the court of first
instance, of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, and of the
Supreme Court of the United States, were based on the testimony of
Gatmaitan; while here the court discredits completely the testimony of
Manabat.
To make just one more reference to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Valdez vs. United States, supra,
we note that the court there said that “the judgment should not be
reversed upon a mere abstraction.” Judgment should here also not be
reversed upon a mere abstraction. A perusal of the testimony of
Bernardino Manabat shows a straightforward narration of events,
reasonable in every respect. It is assuming the impossible as a basis
for acquittal to make the assertion that Manabat concocted the story
implicating Simeon during the time he was being examined by the secret
service, in order that he might shorten his term of imprisonment.
Acquittal in this case leaves the active head of a vicious strike
against the Manila Electric Railway and Light Company, and the real
perpetrator of a crime which caused the death of an innocent child and
the grave wounding of various other persons, with his liberty, while
the ignorant tool of the strike leader must languish in prison for a
long period of years. This is not justice. I am strongly of the opinion
that judgment should be affirmed.