G.R. No. 29395. December 22, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VALENTIN SAMBILE ET AL., DEFENDANTS. VALENTIN SAMBILE, APPELLANT.
STREET, J.:
of First Instance of Tayabas, finding the appellant, Valentin Sambile, guilty of
the complex offense of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to undergo the
penalty of cadena perpetua, with the accessories prescribed by law, requiring
him to return to Bonifacia Villoso the sum of P70.50, and to pay to the heirs of
the deceased, Enrique Aldea, the sum of P500, as indemnity, and requiring him to
pay the one-third part of the costs of prosecution.
It appears that at about midnight of December 17-18, 1927,
while Enrique Aldea and his wife, Bonifacia Villoso, were sleeping in their
house in the barrio of Mamala, Sariaya, Tayabas, some one produced a noise by
opening the front sliding door. This sound aroused the sleepers, and Enrique
rose to a sitting posture. Just then two men were seen to enter the room, one
behind the other; and they directed themselves to the place where Enrique and
his wife were sleeping. The one in front carried a revolver, and Bonifacia
recognized him as Getulio Albitos, father-inlaw of Marta, a Bister of Bonifacia.
The man following Getulio was also recognized by Bonifacia as Valentin Sambile,
the present appellant.
The house was lighted at the time by a small lamp, and, upon
seeing the intruders approach, Enrique said to them, “I know you.” Upon this
Getulio pointed the revolver at Enrique and fired point-blank into his body. At
the same time the villain kicked over the little lamp, and the room was left in
darkness except for a flash light which Valentin Sambile carried. With this
light Valentin now approached Bonifacia and took from her the sum of P70.50,
which she carried in a belt. When this had been accomplished, Bonifacia heard
some one outside call out, “Hurry, hurry!,” and the two intruders withdrew.
Bonifacia says that she recognized the voice of the person thus calling as that
of Fructuoso Gaviola. Before leaving the house Getulio threatened Bonifacia with
death if she should denounce the crime.
The bullet fired by Getulio
Albitos entered the body of Enrique Aldea 2 or 3 inches below the left nipple,
passed near the heart and, after perforating the lung, burried itself in the
vertebral column. As a result of this wound Enrique died instantly. The deceased
was a young man only 22 years of age; and his wife, Bonifacia Villoso, was
scarcely more than a child, her age, at the time of the trial being stated as 19
years.
After the robbers had withdrawn Bonifacia went to find her
sister Marta, in the nearby house of the latter’s father-in-law, who was none
other than the homicide, Getulio Albitos. Having procured the company of her
sister, Bonifacia went to the home of her own parents and gave information of
the perpetration of the crime.
Bonifacia says that after the crime was committed, both Getulio
Albitos and his wife Barbara repeatedly threatened her with death if she should
denounce him. In subjection no doubt to the fear engendered from these and the
previous threats, Bonifacia at first refrained from giving the names of the
three culprits, and when she was interviewed by Gabino Reyes, the acting
municipal president of Sariaya, she told him that she could not tell the names
of the robbers for she was afraid, but she said that she could recognize the
guilty if they should be presented to her.
Soon after the offense was committed, the three whom we have
mentioned as participating in the offense were arrested, and the present
appellant, Valentin Sambile, made a written confession, in which he gave a
circumstantial account of the perpetration of the crime by him and his two
coaccused in this case. In order, however, no doubt, to exculpate himself as far
as possible, Sambile pretended in this confession that he was the one who had
remained outside while Getulio and Fructuoso entered the house and perpetrated
the crime as already described.
Of the justice of the conviction of this appellant we entertain
no doubt whatever; and the circumstance that his two companions in the crime
have escaped punishment by their acquittal in the trial court does not entitle
the appellant to any consideration whatever at our hands. Not only was this
appellant identified by Bonifacia Villoso as the man who robbed her, but we have
his own confession, from which his guilt is apparent. In view of the proximity
with which this appellant approached to the person of Bonifacia when he robbed
her, she had ample opportunity for recognizing him as one with whom she was well
acquainted. And not only did she recognize him before the little lamp in the
room was, extinguished but she recognized him afterwards, by means of the flash
light, in the act of robbery.
It should be stated that P70 of the money taken by the
appellant from Bonifacia Villoso had been taken in by her, some two weeks before
the robbery, from her father, upon the occasion of his returning a loan for that
amount. Getulio Albitos and his wife were present when this money was paid over,
thus giving Albitos ample opportunity to know that Bonifacia was carrying the
money on her person.
At the hearing of the cause, the appellant pretended that his
confession (Exhibit C) had been extorted from him by threats and by the
application of electrical currents and water, to which the Constabulary
authorities had treated him. These acts are denied by the persons concerned, and
the story told by the appellant bears the ordinary marks of fabrication designed
to assist him in evading the effects of said confession.
His recantation should not in our opinion be given any weight,
because of the evident marks of perjury in his testimony with respect to the
making of the confession. But, even if it be supposed, that said confession
(Exhibit C) was obtained under conditions which render it inadmissible in
evidence, we are of the opinion that the identity of the appellant as the man
who robbed Bonifacia Villoso is sufficiently proved by her testimony alone. In
the opinion of the court, the appellant is guilty; and the penalty imposed by
the trial court is in manifest conformity with the law and the facts.
The judgment will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered,
with costs against the appellant.
Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Villa-Real, JJ.,
concur.
DISSENTING
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
With all due respect to the majority opinion, it seems to me
that Bonifacia Villoso’s testimony, which suffers from certain inconsistencies,
and as the identification of Valentin Sambile, was overthrown by the testimony
of Getulio Albitos and Inocente Gabiela, is not enough proof that the appellant
took part in the commission of the crime charged.
As to the so-called confession of Valentin Sambile (Exhibit C),
I am of opinion that the record furnishes enough data to cast doubts on its
voluntariness.
Entertaining, as I do, a reasonable doubt of the appellant’s
guilt, I vote for his acquittal.
Judgment affirmed.