G.R. No. 21487. September 27, 1924
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAMERTO VALDELLON Y AFURONG ET AL., DEFENDANTS. MAMERTO VALDELLON Y AFURONG AND PEDRO BAGABALDO, APPELLANTS.
OSTRAND, J.:
The defendants Mamerto Valdellon, Atanasio Valdellon, Gregorio Elbo and Pedro
Bagabaldo were accused of the crime of qualified theft, the information alleging
that “on or about and within the time comprised between the 15th and 16th days
of September, 1922, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused,
Mamerto Valdellon y Afurong and Julian Flora y Bolante, being clerks of the
American Express Co., Inc., a concern duly authorized to transact business in
the said City of Manila, conspiring together and helping one another, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent of gain, with
serious breach of confidence and without the consent of the owner thereof, take,
steal, and carry away the following personal property belonging to the said
American Express Co., Inc., to wit:
money in cash consisting of different denominations
paper money in cash of different denominations
representing
of
and check folders, valued at
to the damage and prejudice of the said owner, the said American Express Co.,
Inc., in the total sum of one hundred five thousand seven hundred eighty-seven
pesos and sixty-one centavos (P105,787.61), equivalent to and of the value of
528,938.05 pesetas, Philippine currency; that the said Atanasio
Valdellon y Afurong, being a brother of his coaccused Mamerto Valdellon y
Afurong, and without taking direct part in the commission of the crime of
qualified theft perpetrated by the latter, on or about the dates aforementioned
and sometime subsequent thereto, but before the filing of this information in
the said City of Manila, Philippine Islands, wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously profited himself and assisted his said coaccused Mamerto Valdellon y
Afurong to profit by the effects of the crime, to wit, by then and there
receiving, as said Atanasio Valdellon y Afurong did in effect receive, part of
the stolen money, knowing very well, as he did, that the same was stolen; and
that the said Gregorio Elbo and Pedro Bagabaldo without likewise taking direct
part in the commission of the said crime of qualified theft perpetrated by the
said Mamerto Valdellon y Afurong and Julian Flora y Bolante, on or about the
dates aforementioned, to wit, the 15th and 16th days of September, 1922, and
sometime subsequent thereto, but before the filing of the present information,
in the said City of Manila, Philippine Islands, wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously and knowingly concealed and destroyed checks and other papers by
means of which the crime herein described as committed by Mamerto Valdellon y
Afurong and Julian Flora y Bolante could have been discovered.”
Upon arraignment all of the defendants pleaded not guilty. Atanasio Valdellon
and Gregorio Elbo were granted separate trials. After the testimony of the first
witness for the prosecution had been taken, the action was, upon motion of the
fiscal, dismissed as to the defendant Julian Flora in order that he might be
used as a witness for the prosecution. The court below found Mamerto Valdellon
guilty as principal of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer seven
years, four months and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory
penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the American Express Co. in the sum of
P105,787.61 and to pay one-fifth of the costs. Pedro Bagabaldo was found guilty
as an accessory after the fact and was sentenced to one year and one day of
presidio correctional, with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the
American Express Co. in the sum of P105,787.61, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay one-fifth of the costs. Both of the accused
appeal to this court.
The leading facts shown by the evidence may be briefly stated as follows:
Mamerto Valdellon was a stenographer and confidential clerk in the Manila office
of the American Express Co. and acted as amanuensis for Mr. Aubrey, the cashier.
The Hongkong office of the company requested that it be given the combination of
the Manila office safe and Mr. Aubrey dictated to Valdellon a letter addressed
to the manager of the Hongkong office containing a description of the turns of
the safe combination but left the numbers blank to be filled in later on in ink.
In filling in the blanks Mr. Aubrey used a new blotter. The letter was
afterwards returned from Hongkong and upon receipt of it Mr. Aubrey tore it into
pieces and threw them into the waste paper basket. Shortly thereafter Valdellon,
with the assistance of Julian Flora, a clerk in the same office, prepared the
following letter:
“U. S. Army
“Office of the Disbursing Officer
“Corregidor, P. I.
“14th of Sept., 1922.
“Subject:
Encashment of one U. S. check No. 179225 for U. S. $44,980 or
P89,960“To: American Express Co., Inc.,
36 Escolta, Manila.
“GENTLEMEN :
“1. This will serve to advise you that Mr. H. L. Hibsman, our authorized
representative, will call at your office on Saturday morning at 8 sharp,
September 16th, for encashment of one U. S. check No. 179225 in the sum of
44,980 dollars or approximately P89,960. Mr. Hibsman is arriving on a special
launch Miley and will, without fail, be at your office at the hour mentioned
above. If possible, please accommodate Mr. Hibsman the largest denominations, as
this sum is to be paid to a launch coming from Hongkong at 9.30 a. m., September
16th.
“2. We wish to thank you in anticipation of your prompt
attention.
“Very truly yours,
“Per
“E. M. BOULLARD
“Chief Clerk & Disbursing Officer
(Sgd.) “E. M. BOULLARD
“Major R. L. Grooves, Q. M. C.
“emb. hgt.”
It is not disputed that the name H. L. Hibsman is fictitious. On the day
before the commission of the robbery the letter was handed to Mr. Aubrey who, in
compliance with the request contained therein, withdrew the sum of P90,000 from
the International Banking Corporation and placed the same in the safe so as to
have it ready for “Hibsman” in the morning of the following day. The next
morning the safe was found open and it was discovered that not only the money
withdrawn from the bank but also an additional sum in cash, drafts, and checks
had been removed.
It being evident that the crime had been committed by some member of the
office force, suspicion was directed to Valdellon by reason of the fact that he
had been in position to ascertain the combination of the safe from the letter
written to the Hongkong office and from the blotter used by Mr. Aubrey, and
though allowed to continue in his employment, he was kept under surveillance
several months. In March, 1923, the witness Procopio Rebenque, who was then
living in the house of Valdellon, saw Bagabaldo, Elbo and Valdellon’s brother,
Atanasio, in the house on several different occasions. The last time they were
there the witness observed Bagabaldo and Atanasio burn some checks similar to
Exhibit T, an American Express Company traveller’s check, while Elbo was
occupied in counting large quantities of currency, an operation which lasted
until very late in the evening. On the following morning Atanasio Valdellon,
Bagabaldo and Elbo went away in an automobile carrying with them all the money.
The witness found a portion of a money order which had not been entirely
consumed by the fire and which he carried to a secret service agent by the name
of Nelson. Some days afterwards Valdellon gave the witness two letters for
mailing, but instead of placing them in the mail the witness delivered them to
Nelson.
A number of other circumstances have been testified to by various witnesses.
It thus appears that Atanasio Valdellon was found to be in possession of
unusually large sums of money and that upon a search of his effects several
American Express Company travellers’ check covers were found.
The evidence against Valdellon is overwhelming and shows him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Aside from the circumstances related and Julian Flora’s
testimony as to the writing of the letter Exhibit C, the signature “E. M.
Boullard” appearing in that letter exhibits the characteristics of Valdellon’s
handwriting and leaves no doubt whatever that he was the writer notwithstanding
the fact that two so-called handwriting experts testified to the contrary.
In regard to the defendant Bagabaldo, the proof is less voluminous but
nevertheless establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true that
the only direct testimony against him is that of Procopio Rebenque, whose
credibility has been attacked by the defense, but his testimony is so
conclusively corroborated by Exhibit U-1 as to leave no doubt of its essential
truthfulness. This exhibit is one of the letters handed to Rebenque for mailing
but delivered by him to detective Nelson. The letter is in the handwriting of
Mamerto Valdellon and reads as follows:
“MR. PEDRO BAGABALDO.
“DEAR SIR: I hereby remind you of our conversation of March 22d, so that you
may send me the money immediately by registered mail, because I have come to an
agreement with the person from whom the instruments are to be taken.
“Keep the money well, for something wrong may happen to us. Send me money
more frequently, for I do not retain any amount at home, because I am afraid to
keep money there, as I am working, and put the money inside the big tube in
order that it may not be wet in the culvert. “And tear the check remaining with
you and put it on the fire, since it has no more value, and do not be spending
the money, for if something should happen, we will spend that money in the
litigation. And in case we are convicted, that same money will save us. That’s
all for the present.
“Respectfully,
(Sgd.) “MAMBETO VALDELLON”
The letter was never received by Bagabaldo and counsel argues that it
therefore is not admissible in evidence. In this counsel is mistaken. Rebenque’s
testimony establishes prima facie the existence of a conspiracy between
Bagabaldo and the other accused and it is a well-established rule that letters
written or statements made by one coconspirator is admissible against the other.
Corpus Juris, citing numberous authorities, says:
“Letters written by a conspirator in connection with the conspiracy are
admissible against a coconspirator, although he was not present when they were
written. Thus, where defendant and two others were charged with stealing certain
indictments, letters written by one of the defendant’s alleged coconspirators
expressing the desire to get rid of the indictments were admissible against
defendant. Even a letter which appears from its date to have been written prior
to the formation of the conspiracy may be admitted, where it appears by other
evidence that the date was a mistake and that it actually was written after the
conspiracy was formed.” (16 C. J., pp. 664-5.)
Counsel also argues that inasmuch as it does not appear that Bagabaldo was in
confidential relations with the offended party, the penalty imposed by the court
below is too severe. This point is well taken. The qualifying circumstance of
breach of confidence which in the case of Valdellon justifies the imposition of
a penalty of one degree higher than that prescribed for simple theft does not
apply to Bagabaldo, who was not in confidential relations with the offended
party and who therefore should be punished as an accomplice in the commission of
the crime of simple theft only. (U. S. vs. Santos, 2 Phil., 669; U. S. vs.
Maharaja Alim, 38 Phil., 1; 3 Viada, Codigo Penal, 447; 2 Hidalgo,
717-718.)
The prison sentence imposed on the defendant Pedro Bagabaldo is therefore
reduced to three months of arresto mayor. In all other respects the
judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the modification that the appellants
jointly and severally indemnify the American Express Company in the sum of
P102,280.41, the defendant Pedro Bagabaldo to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency. Each of the appellants will pay one-half of the costs of
this instance. So ordered.
Street, Malcolm, Avancena, and Villamor, JJ.,
concur.
Johnson and Romualdez, JJ., did not take
part.