G.R. No. 37712. March 06, 1933
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTEBAN MONES, IRINEO MAGUNCIA, FAUSTINO ELMIDO, AND IGNACIO GAGUA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
STREET, J.:
First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan, finding the appellants,
Esteban Mones, Irineo Maguncia, Faustino Elmido, and Ignacio Gagua,
guilty of robbery in band with quadruple homicide and sentencing each
of them to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories
prescribed by law, and requiring them jointly and severally to
indemnify each of the heirs of the four victims in the amount of
P1,000, and to indemnify the heirs of Manuel Mico and Adriana Aganon in
the further amount of P100, as well as to pay the costs of prosecution.
Shortly before midnight on the rainy night of August 27, 1931, a fire
consumed the house of Manuel Mico in the barrio of Nampalcan,
municipality of Umingan, in the Province of Pangasinan. Four persons
were then living in the house, namely, Manuel Mico and his wife,
Adriana Aganon, and two small children, Juana Obina and Domingo Obina,
and the charred trunks of all four were found in the debris of the
fire. In houses not far removed from the fire lived two sons of the
elderly couple, and these, with others living in the same houses or
nearby, were attracted by the flames or attendant noise. They arrived
on the scene, however, too late to be of any assistance in stopping the
fire.
Early in the morning the justice of the peace, the
municipal president, and the district health officer came to view the
premises; and the latter testified that the dead bodies of the four
human beings were so badly burned that he could not determine whether
violence had been used upon the deceased prior to the fire, though he
noticed that the intestines of one of the children protruded from an
orifice in the trunk. It was naturally assumed that the fire had been
of accidental origin.
In about two weeks, however, a letter
containing an illegible signature was received by the local
Constabulary authorities in which it was stated that the four persons
responsible for this fire and the death of the four inmates of the
house were the four accused, namely, Faustino Elmido and Irineo
Maguncia, of Santa Mariaan, of the municipality of San Quintin, and
Esteban Mones and Ignacio Gagua, of the barrio of Nampalcan, in
Umingan. It was later discovered that this letter had emanated from
Ulpiano Velasquez, a resident of Umingan, and further inquiry revealed
the fact that his informant was one Santiago Origenes. This Origenes
had a wife or querida named Pastora Maguncia, a sister of
Irineo Maguncia, and she was at this time staying in the home of
Faustino Elmido, who was married to the mother of Pastora Maguncia, and
her brother, Irineo Maguncia. In the meantime Origenes was living in
San Quintin. In the afternoon of August 27, 1931, it occurred to
Santiago Origenes to visit the house of Faustino Elmido, where Pastora
Maguncia was staying. After his arrival Faustino Elmido and Irineo
Maguncia, who were of course on intimate terms with Santiago, informed
him that they were going that night to the house of Ignacio Gagua,
otherwise known as Ignas, upon a mission that was expected to result in
gain. They accordingly invited Santiago to accompany them. The latter
declined, on the ground that he was already tired, preferring, no
doubt, to spend the time with Pastora.
Very early the next
morning, while it was yet dark, Faustino and Irineo returned, and
informed Santiago and other inmates of the house that if any
investigation should later be made, they must keep quiet, and that they
should not inform anybody that Faustino and Irineo had been to Umingan
that night. To this Santiago gave his assent. Faustino and Irineo then
went to sleep, and did not arise until the forenoon was well advanced.
When they came down the conversation relative to the doings of Faustino
and Irineo during the previous night was resumed. In the course of this
conversation Faustino gave Santiago to understand that the haul had
netted only P100, of which Ignacio Gagua had been given the sum of P16.
The net result of the talk was that Santiago inferred that the two had
been out on a robbing expedition and that Esteban Mones and Ignacio
Gagua were participants in the adventure.
As a result of the
information obtained from this individual the four accused were
arrested on September 18, 1931, and taken before the justice of the
peace in Umingan. Lieutenant J. G. Polotan of the Philippine
Constabulary, stationed at Tayug, Pangasinan, was then called in; and
upon arriving in Umingan, he found the four accused under detention.
The accused were then severally brought before the justice of the peace
and subjected to examination, when Gagua admitted that he had seen the
crime committed by the other three, but he refrained from incriminating
himself.
By this time it was already night, and an attorney,
Pedro Aquino, who appeared as representative of the two San Quintin
culprits, suggested to Lieutenant Polotan that he should take the four
prisoners for examination to Tayug. His idea seems to have been that in
Umingan influences might be brought to bear that would affect the
result unfavorably to his clients. Lieutenant Polotan adopted this
suggestion, and he and two of the prisoners embarked in Aquino’s car
for Tayug. The other two prisoners and their custodians got into a carromata,
which was supplied by the same Aquino, and followed to Tayug, arriving
at about 8.30 or 9 o’clock. Among those present was Santiago Origenes
who had been brought along from San Quintin. When all were collected in
the barracks in Tayug, Lieutenant Polotan went down and began
questioning the accused. At first each of the four was questioned
separately. Later they were confronted. After some questioning Gagua
explained to Lieutenant Polotan some of the details of how the crime
was committed, although he still insisted that he only waited down
below at the house of Mico while the other three accused accomplished
the robbery, murder, and arson.
One of the incidents of the
examination was that Esteban Mones, upon hearing that he was being
incriminated by Gagua, jumped towards Gagua and attempted to assault
him. Lieutenant Polotan says that seeing that Mones was threatening the
old man (Gagua), he seized them both by interposing his hands on the
chest of each, and warned Mones that if he should continue to misbehave
he would be handcuffed. The examination then proceeded and in time each
of the four gave his separate confession.
It appears that
the four accused speak Ilocano, a language not known to Lieutenant
Polotan; and Sergeant Villasista, who reduced the confessions to
writing, acted as interpreter. These proceedings took up a good part of
the night and it was 3 o’clock or later in the morning when the
reduction of the statements of the four accused to writing was
finished. At the conclusion of each of the separate statements it was
read over to the accused to whom the statement pertained, and each
signified his conformity with the contents as interpreted to him.
Lieutenant Polotan did not, however, cause either of the accused then
to sign his confession, as the lieutenant preferred to have that act
done in the presence of a justice of the peace. For some reason or
other the justice of the peace of Tayug was not available the next
morning for this service and the four accused were returned to the town
of Umingan, where they were again taken before the justice of the peace
of that municipality. Upon being brought before this official three of
the accused signed the statements prepared for them, but Irineo
Maguncia, acting upon the suggestion which had reached him from his
lawyer, refused to sign the statement prepared for him, and Esteban
Mones, though he signed his statement, said that he would not have
admitted the facts contained therein if he had not been maltreated the
night before.
An incident connected with the appearance of
the four accused before the justice of the peace was this: Gagua stated
in the written confession signed by him that he had received P16 of the
money which had been taken from. Manuel Mico, and when this part of the
confession was reached in the reading of the same to him, the justice
of the peace asked the declarant to point to the place where the money
had been delivered, which was on a public street only a short distance
from the court. The declarant indicated the spot and the justice of the
peace in fact repaired to that place with the declarant and others, and
upon reaching the place, Gagua demonstrated the act of the division of
the spoil at that place. Translated into English, the three confessions
signed by three of the accused are as follows:
“I,
Faustino Elmido, 40 years of age, married and resident of the
municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan, P. I., after being duly sworn
in accordance with law, declare as follows:“I remember
very well without hesitation that on the morning of the 27th of August
of this year, 1931,—I cannot remember the day—Esteban Mones, of
Umingan, came to my house in the barrio of Casantamariaan, San Quintin,
Pangasinan, at 8 o’clock, and told me the following: ‘Compadre,
if you wish, you come to Umingan for we will go and get money.’ I asked
him who would go with us and he gave me the names of Irineo Bagoncia
and old man Ignacio Gagua of Umingan. I also asked him whose money was
it that we would get and he said that it was the money of his uncle,
Manuel Mico, of the barrio of Nanpalcan, Umingan, Pangasinan. I acceded
to his proposal and so he returned to the municipality of Umingan and
left a word that Irineo Bagoncia and I should follow later in the
afternoon of the same day.“After taking my supper that
evening, I dropped in at the house of Irineo Bagoncia and, with him,
proceeded to Umingan. On reaching the town of Umingan, we called on the
old man Ignacio Gagua in his own barrio. Then we proceeded with him to
the house of Esteban Mones where we held a conference for about less
than an hour. Thereafter we again proceeded to the house of Manuel Mico
whom we killed that same night. It was about 10 o’clock when we reached
that house (Mico’s). The first one who went up the house was Esteban
Mones, himself the nephew of the old man Manuel, followed by Irineo
Bagoncia, myself, and Ignacio Gagua in the order named. On coming to
the house of the said Manuel Mico, we found four persons sleeping,
namely, old man Manuel, his wife, and two children, a girl and a boy.
Esteban Mones approached the old woman who was sleeping and boloed her;
Irineo Bagoncia also approached the old man who was also sleeping and
boloed him to death; I, myself, boloed the girl; and the old man
Ignacio Gagua also boloed the boy. Soon after the old man Manuel Mico
and his wife and two grandchildren died, Esteban Mones went to the
place where their trunk was, cut its lid with his bolo, and, after
taking the money which was our objective upon forcing the trunk open,
enjoined us to go. I then stepped down, with the old man Ignacio Gagua
and Ireneo Maguncia following me. Esteban Mones came down later, as he
first set the roof of the house on fire. As he came down, he again set
the shed (patag-guab) on fire, after which we all went home.
As we parted, Esteban Mones instructed us to meet together the
following morning at the town of Umingan where, he said, he would give
us our share of the booty (money).“On the morning of the
28th of August, of this same year, 1931, before noon, I left San
Quintin for Umingan in company with Irineo Bagoncia. As we reached the
town of Umingan, we found our companions in the poblacion and then and there we were given our shares in the following amounts:
Amount given to Irineo Bagoncia ………………… One 10-peso bill and one 5-peso bill. Amount given to me ……………………………….. One 10-peso bill and one 5-peso bill. “I do not know how much was given to the old man Ignacio Gagua, as he was handed a roll of bills.
“All
the statements hereinabove given are true. They are given freely
without threat and inducement. And in witness whereof, I hereunto press
my right thumb below, as I do not know how to write.”“I, Ignacio Gagua, of age, married, farmer, and resident of the barrio
of Nanpalcan, Umingan, Pangasinan, P. I., after being duly sworn in
accordance with law, without force and intimidation having been exerted
upon me, declare as follows:“That
on the 27th of August of this year, 1931, at about 10 o’clock p. m.,
Irineo Maguncia and Faustino Elmido of San Quintin called at my house
and invited me to go to the house of Esteban Mones and later to that of
Manuel Mico in the barrio of Nanpalcan, Umingan. Upon reaching his
house, Esteban Mones gave Irineo Bagoncia a bolo, and then we all
proceeded to the house, of the old man, Manuel Mico, armed with bolos.
Upon arriving at the house of the said Manuel Mico, Esteban Mones went
up the house, and he was followed by Faustino Elmido, Irineo Maguncia
and myself in the order named. As we entered the house, Esteban Mones
took hold of the left arm of the old woman Adriana with his right hand
and then struck her with his bolo twice. I did not notice on which
parts of the body of Adriana the blows landed as I was then in the act
of striking the little boy with my bolo on the left side below his
armpit. Faustino Elmido also struck the little girl with his bolo, but
I could not notice how many blows he gave her. Irineo Maguncia also
struck the old man, Manuel Mico, with his (Maguncia) bolo twice. I did
not notice on which parts of the body of the old man the blows landed.
Soon after these persons died in the house, Esteban Mones cut the lid
of their trunk and forced it open. After taking the money contained in
the trunk, he ordered us to go down. He came down later, as he first
set the roof of the house, just above the door, on fire. As he came
down, he again set the shed (patag-guab) south of the ladder
of the house on fire. As the house was in flames, we all went home with
instructions from Esteban Mones to meet together the following day in
the town of Umingan where he would give us our share of the booty.“That
on the morning of the 28th of the same month and year, I went to the
town and found Esteban Mones on a corner of a road South where we all
met together. Then and there Esteban Mones handed me the amount of P16:
one 10-peso bill, one 5-peso bill and one 1-peso bill. After receiving
my share I went home and the others also returned home.“All
the statements hereinabove given are true. They are given without
anybody inducing me or exerting undue influence upon me. And in witness
whereof, I hereunto press my right thumb between my name and my
surname, as I do not know how to write, this 19th day of September,
1931, in the municipality of Umingan, Pangasinan, P. I.”“I,
Esteban Mones, 35 years of age, single, born in Bacnotan, La Union, and
actually residing in the municipality of Umingan, Pangasinan, for the
last seven years, whose occupation is farmer, after being duly sworn in
accordance with law, declare as follows:“That one day in
the month of July of this year, 1931, my uncle, Manuel Mico, of the
barrio of Nampalcan, Umingan, sold a hog for P30. Five days after the
sale, I went to him to ask for a loan of P5 on account of my extreme
poverty. I was not favored with the loan asked of him and so I thought
of committing wrong.“That on account of the ill-feeling I
harbored against my uncle, Manuel Mico, for his refusal to give me a
loan, I went to my friends, Irineo Maguncia and Faustino Elmido, in the
municipality of San Quintin on the morning of August 27 of this same
year, 1931, and told them of the money that my said uncle then had. We
then agreed then and there to get the money of my uncle, Manuel Mico,
at any cost. We further agreed to get the money on the night of the
same day or the day when I went to the houses of the said Irineo
Maguncia and Faustino Elmido.“After our conference, I
returned home in Umingan with the understanding that they (Irineo
Maguncia and Faustino Elmido) would call on me at my house.“That
at about 7 o’clock in the evening, Irineo Maguncia and Faustino Elmido
together with the old man Ignacio Gagua dropped home.“That
a few moments after thair arrival at home, we started off together,
including the old man Ignacio. We brought bolos with us. As Irineo
Maguncia came home without a bolo, I furnished him one.“On
arriving at the above-named house of my uncle, Manuel Mico, I went
upstairs, followed by Irineo Maguncia, Faustino Elmido and Ignacio
Gagua in the order named. I know positively that we were in
conversation as we went up, for I turned my face to them. Once in the
house, I approached my aunt, Adriana Aganon, who was then sleeping,
took hold of her left arm with my right hand and struck her with my
bolo on the right nipple. She was awakened by the blow and because she
shouted, saying ‘Ay!’ I covered up her mouth with my hand until she
died.“Irineo Maguncia boloed my uncle, Manuel Mico, until
the latter died. Faustino Elmido also boloed the little girl by the
name of Juanita Ovina. The old man, Ignacio Gagua also boloed the
little boy by the name of Domingo Ovina.“That soon after
the death of my uncle, Manuel Mico, and my aunt, Adriana Aganon, and
the two children, I approached the trunk, cut it with my bolo and,
after breaking the lid, forced it open. I then took the money that it
contained in the amount of P100 in denominations of one 20-peso and
eight 10-peso bills. Thereupon, I told my companions that we could then
leave the place as I had already with me the money which was our
objective. My companions then came down, while I remained upstairs as I
first set the roof of the house, just above the ladder, on fire. Then
as I came down I again set the shed (patag-guab) on fire. The
house being then in flames, we left for our respective homes, giving
them instructions to meet together the following morning at the town of
Umingan where I would give each his share.“That on the morning of the 28th of August of this same year, we met together in the poblacion of Umingan. Then and there I handed them their shares in the following amounts:
Irineo Magoncia Faustino Elmido Ignacio Gagua I, the affiant out of which nothing was left, as I spent it in taking care of my mother and my nephews and nieces.
“The
statements hereinabove given are the whole truth. They were given
freely without the use of force, intimidation and inducement. And in
witness whereof, I hereunto place my right thumb mark between my name
and surname this 19th day of September, 1931, in this municipality of
Tayug, for I do not know how to write.”
The
statement of Irineo Maguncia was not signed by him, but it is proved
that when the statement was drawn up and read over to him that night at
Tayug, he clearly stated “That is true, sir”. In substance the
statement thus approved by Maguncia follows in the main the lines of
the declarations made by the three whose confessions have been quoted,
Elmido admitting that he slew the old man Manuel Mico with his bolo,
while the other accused performed the parts admitted by them in their
several statements. In this statement Irineo asserted that Mones opened
the chest and took therefrom P100 in money, and that Mones was the one
who set the house on fire.
At the hearing in this case all
of the accused stated that they were maltreated by Sergeant Villasista
during the examination of the accused in Tayug, and all united in
asserting that Lieutenant Polotan was not present when said acts of
maltreatment were committed. The obvious mendacity of the latter
statement deprives their testimony on this point entirely of credit,
for it is evident that Lieutenant Polotan was present during the
examination of the witnesses during the whole night prior to the time
their confessions were given, and we have no doubt that the statements
suggesting abuse were built up upon the incident that Lieutenant
Polotan had to intervene energetically with his arms to prevent Mones
from assaulting Gagua.
The facts above stated supply the
basis for the conviction of the four accused in this case; and the
point is here made in their favor that the proof of what is called the corpus delicti
is not sufficient. In this connection we are reminded of the rule
generally prevailing in American jurisdictions that before evidence of
a confession in a homicide case is admitted there should be some proof
that the person supposed to have been slain is in fact dead. In dealing
with this subject in his treatise on the law of evidence Professor
Wigmore calls attention to the fact that judicial decisions in the
United States are not harmonious, but he says that in its orthodox
sense the expression corpus delicti signifies the fact of
specific loss or injury sustained; and he illustrates what he considers
to be the correct meaning of the term by saying that “in homicide the
fact of death, whether or not feloniously caused, is the corpus delicti;
in arson, the fact of burning, whether or not willful.” (Wigmore on
Evidence, sec. 2072.) This view has been accepted in this court.
(People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil., 834.) It is true that cases can be cited from, various courts to the effect that proof of the corpus delicti
should go beyond mere proof of specific injury or loss and comprehend
not only somebody’s criminal liability as the source of the loss but
even the identity of the accused as the author of the crime. But, as
observed by Professor Wigmore, if interpreted in this sense, the
expression corpus delicti would be synonymous with the whole
charge, and the rule would require corroborative evidence as to all
elements of the crime independently of the confession. In conformity
with the view of this learned author, we consider the more restricted
meaning to be the one properly applicable to the expression in this
jurisdiction. It is therefore unnecessary to require independent proof
of the criminal connection of the four accused with the four deaths and
with the crime of arson, apart from their several confessions.
Upon the point whether any reasonable doubt can be raised as to the
innocence of the accused in the light of those confessions and related
circumstances, only one conclusion can, in the opinion of the majority
of the court, be deduced, namely, that they are guilty. As against
Faustino Elmido we have his admissions made to Santiago Origenes in the
morning after the crime was committed, and the later confession reduced
to writing in Tayug and subsequently ratified before the justice of the
peace of Umingan. As against Ignacio Gagua we have the circumstance
that, when first arrested and questioned by Lieutenant Polotan before
the justice of the peace of Umingan in the afternoon of September 18,
he admitted that he was present and saw the murders committed, and on
the same night at Tayug he repeated this confession, with additional
circumstances indicating his own guilt. The next morning he ratified
this confession before the justice of the peace of Umingan, in
connection with which he pointed out, as already stated, with
sufficient details the place and manner in which he was paid P16 of the
booty. As against Irineo Maguncia we have his admissions to Origenes,
and the subsequent confession which was reduced to writing at Tayug;
and although this confession was not confirmed the next morning by the
signature or mark of this accused, the proof leaves no room for doubt
that the confession, as reduced to writing, is true. Lastly, the guilt
of Esteban Mones is shown by his confession in writing and by the fact
that he subsequently ratified it with his mark. In addition to this, we
have the circumstance of his physical assault on Gagua, based precisely
on the fact, not that Gagua was speaking falsely as to the intervention
of Mones in the crime, but because Gagua at first had refused to admit
his own guilt.
We conclude that the confessions of all four
of the accused were voluntarily made and the circumstance that they may
have been subjected to questioning by Lieutenant Polotan with respect
to their participation in the crime does not render these confessions
incompetent. In weighing the truthfulness of these confessions, we
should remember that the inference of guilt drawn against the four is
corroborated by the testimony of Santiago Origenes, a witness who had
no motive to reveal the guilt of the four accused other than a laudable
desire to bring the guilty to justice. Indeed, he was indirectly
connected with two of the accused by ties of kinship,—a circumstance
which tended rather to seal his lips than to cause him to reveal the
truth.
With respect to the qualification of this offense, or
offenses, we note that the four accused were prosecuted upon an
information charging robbery en cuadrilla, with quadruple
homicide and arson. Fundamentally this is a prosecution for the complex
crime of robbery with homicide, and of this offense the accused were
convicted. Technically this is a higher offense than simple robbery or
simple homicide, and even than murder. Moreover, the crime of robbery
with homicide remains fundamentally the same regardless of the number
of persons killed in connection with the robbery. There is only one
offense. (People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil., 333.) But, in such a
case, where the accusation of robbery fails, but multiple homicide or
murder is proved, the accused must be sentenced for the several
separate offenses of homicide or murder (U. S. vs. Lahoy-lahoy
and Madanlog, 38 Phil., 330); and in this case, if the proof should be
held insufficient as to the robbery, the result would be, under the
Revised Penal Code, that each of the accused would be sentenced for the
four murders committed by them. In view of this fact we are constrained
to sustain the conviction for robbery with homicide, upon the
concurrent confessions of each of the four accused to the effect that
robbery was the purpose of the crime and that P100 in money were taken
from the trunk of Manuel Mico. As to the moral basis of this fact we
entertain no doubt whatever, although there is no independent evidence,
apart from the confessions that robbery was committed. In thus
sustaining the trial court in its finding of robbery we do not wish to
be understood as declaring that this appreciation could prevail if the
prosecution consisted of a charge of robbery only, or if the conclusion
reached were in fact unfavorable to the accused.
In
connection with the crime is to be estimated the aggravating
circumstance that the offense was committed in the dwelling house of
the injured parties, nocturnity being absorbed in the alevosia
which is constitutive of murder. The same may perhaps be said of the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as regards the
offenses committed upon the person of the two children. As against the
aggravating circumstance we allow the mitigating circumstance of lack
of instruction. But this point is immaterial in this case as the
ultimate penalty could not be imposed in view of the lack of unanimity
on the part of the court.
To the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
imposed on each of the accused by the trial court, must be added three
months and eleven days for the crime of arson, under No. 1 of article
322 of the Revised Penal Code, there being no allegations in the
information with respect to the arson which would justify the
imposition of a more severe penalty. Also, the dispositive part of the
appealed decision must be amended so as to require that the indemnity
imposed on the accused shall be paid to the heirs of the four victims
instead of to “each” of the heirs of said victims.
It being
understood, therefore, that the judgment is modified to the extent
above stated, said judgment is affirmed. So ordered, with costs against
the appellants.
Avanceña, C. J., Ostrand, Villa-Real, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.
CONCURRING IN PART, AND DISSENTING IN PART
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
In United States vs.
De Leon and De Leon (27 Phil., 506, 511), this court, in my opinion,
wisely observed: “Courts are slow to accept extrajudicial confessions,
when they are subsequently disputed, unless they are corroborated by
other testimony. Generally the question of the admissibility of
extrajudicial confessions is necessarily addressed, in the first
instance, to the judge, and since such discretion must be controlled by
all the attendant circumstances, the courts have wisely foreborne to
mark with absolute precision any rules limiting the admission or
exclusion of such testimony. Their admissibility must depend largely in
each case upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the same. (Hopt vs. Utah, 110 U. S., 574; Bram vs. U. S., 168 U. S., 532; Wilson vs. U. S., 162 U. S., 613.)” Again, in United States vs.
Agatea (40 Phil., 596, 601), this court said: “Another rule of evidence
is, that a mere naked confession uncorroborated by any circumstance
inspiring belief in the truth of the confession is not sufficient to
warrant the conviction of the accused for the crime of which he is
charged.”
Considering the circumstances of the present case, I
entertain serious doubt as to the guilt of the defendant Ignacio Gagua.
Unlike the case of the other accused, whose confessions have been
corroborated by circumstances inspiring belief in the truth thereof,
Gagua is being convicted solely on his naked confession. I believe he
is entitled to an acquittal.
DISSENTING
BUTTE, J.:
The accused are illiterate, “poor and ignorant” men. They are
“taos”—peaceful, typical “little men”, about whom we hear so much talk.
I am convinced that they are innocent and that their alleged confessions are spurious and false on their face.
Moreover,
their conviction is illegal because it flies in the face of the
principles relating to confessions laid down repeatedly in the
decisions of this court. (U. S. vs. De la Cruz, 2 Phil., 148; U. S. vs. De Leon and De Leon, 27 Phil., 506; People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil., 834.)
Villamor, J., I concur.