THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BORROMEO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. MANUEL BORROMEO AND ALFONSO ORTEGA, APPELLANTS.

“That in, about and during the period comprised
between December 19 and 20,1933, in the City of Manila, Philippine
Islands, the said defendants conspiring together and mutually helping
one another and in cooperation with Dominador Salonga, who now stands
charged with the commission of said crime under a separate information
(criminal case No. 47134 of the Court of First Instance of Manila), did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of
gain and by the use of force upon things, to wit: by breaking open its
sidewall, enter the dwelling house of one Chua To, inhabited by him and
situated at 601 Calle G. Tuason, this city, and once inside, the said
accused, without the consent of the owner thereof, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously took, stole and carried away the following
personal property:

to the damage and prejudice of the said Ghua To in the total sum of
thirty-one pesos and one centavo (P31.01), Philippine currency.

“That, at the time of commission of said offense,
accused Manuel Borromeo y Lacdan has heretofore been convicted once (1)
of the crime of attempted estafa and twice (2) of the crime
of theft by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts and
is, therefore, a habitual delinquent, within the purview of article 62
of the Revised Penal Code, his last date of conviction on the
last-named offense, being on January 30, 1933, and date of release,
May, 1933.”

Alberto Mallari could not be found, and the information was
provisionally dismissed as to him. Manuel Borromeo and Alfonso Ortega
were tried on a plea of not guilty to the foregoing information.

The trial judge found that said defendants had taken part in the
commission of the crime; that the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity should be taken into account; and that Manuel Borromeo had
previously been convicted once of estafa and twice of theft,
as alleged in the information. The court therefore declared the
defendant Manuel Borromeo guilty of robbery in an inhabited house
committed with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and
sentenced him to suffer three years, six months, and twenty-one days of
prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the
sum of P7.93, and to pay the proportionate part of the costs. The court
further found him to be a habitual delinquent and sentenced him to
suffer an additional penalty of eight years, eight months, and one day
of prision mayor.

In view of the fact that the defendant Alfonso Ortega was only
sixteen years old, the trial judge suspended the sentence as to him,
and ordered that he be confined in the Philippine Training School for
Boys until he is twenty years old, subject to visitation and
supervision by the Public Welfare Commissioner or his agents or
representatives in accordance with article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.

From the aforesaid decision Manuel Borromeo and Alfonso Ortega appealed to this court, and their attorney de oficio now makes the following assignments of error:

“1. El Juzgado incurrio en error al no declarar que
las pruebas de la acusacion no son suficientes para establecer fuera de
toda duda racional la culpabilidad del acusado Manuel Borromeo.

“2. Incurrio tambien en error al no apreciar en favor del mencionado
Manuel Borromeo y Lacdan la duda racional y al no sobreseer la causa en
contra de este acusado.”

The evidence shows that the store of the offended party, Chua To,
at 601 G. Tuason, in the City of Manila, was robbed on the morning of
December 20, 1933, in the manner alleged in the information. A few days
after the crime was committed, one Dominador Salonga was arrested. He
admitted that he had participated in the robbery, and mentioned the
defendants herein as his companions. Manuel Borromeo and Alfonso Ortega
were investigated by the police. They both admitted their participation
in the robbery. Borromeo admitted to policeman Esteban Buenaventura
that he and his companions made a hole in the wall of the offended
party’s store by removing a stone, and that for that purpose they used
Borromeo’s dagger, Exhibit B; that once inside he and Mallari took
money, street-car tickets, cigarettes, and other articles which he
could not remember, Alfonso Ortega related to the police the way in
which the crime was committed. His statements were reduced to writing
and signed by him.

At the trial Manuel Borromeo denied that he had taken part in the
robbery or made any admission to that effect to the policeman
Buenaventura.

The principal contention of the attorney for the appellants is that
the testimony of Ortega should not be taken into consideration as
evidence against Borromeo, and that the testimony of the policeman
Buenaventura as to the admissions made to him by Borromeo is not
sufficient to sustain the judgment of the lower court.

In our opinion the guilt of the appellants was clearly proved.
Borromeo admitted to the policeman Buenaventura his participation in
the crime, and Alfonso Ortega, testifying at the trial as a witness for
the defense, stated that he accepted the invitation of Alberto Mallari,
Dominador Salonga, and Manuel Borromeo to engage in a serenade in 6.
Tuason Street; that about two o’clock in the morning, after they had
been serenading for a long time, Borromeo and Mallari left him and
Salonga, but a little later they called him and Salonga and showed him
a hole in a wall and made him enter it; that he did not wish to do so,
but Mallari caught him by the neck and Borromeo threatened to Mil him
with a dagger if he did not go into the hole; that he went through the
hole in the wall and opened the door; that Salonga and Borromeo entered
the store and took the money while Mallari was watching outside; that
he then ran away and went home; that it was about four o’clock in the
morning when he reached home. We identified Exhibit B as the dagger
with which Borromeo threatened to kill him.

No valid reason has been advanced for not taking the testimony of
Ortega into consideration as evidence against his codefendant Borromeo.
The admissions made by Ortega prior to the trial were not admissible as
to Borromeo, but when he took the stand and testified, his testimony
was part of tile evidence in the case. Although it came from a polluted
source, it was admissible for what it might be worth. When a defendant
incriminates his codefendant in his testimony, the credibility of his
testimony is affected by reason of the fact that the witness is one of
the defendants, but its admissibility as evidence against his
codefendant is not affected thereby. (U. S. vs. Wayne Shoup, 35 Phil., 56; People vs. Gan Tian Hok, G. R. No. 40841, p. 993, post.)

The lower court found that the civil liability of Manuel Borromeo
was limited to one-fourth of the value of the money and merchandise
taken by the four participants in the crime. His liability, however,
was joint and several with that of his companions. The indemnity to be
paid by him is accordingly increased to P31.01.

The lower court ordered Alfonso Ortega to be confined in the
Philippine Training School for Boys until he should be twenty years
old. We are of the opinion that he should be confined in said
institution until he reaches his majority, unless sooner released by
competent authority, and it is so ordered.

With the modifications herein above indicated, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellants.

Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Hull, and Diaz, JJ., concur.