THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN IRANG ET AL., DEFENDANTS. BENJAMIN IRANG, APPELLANT.

The accused Benjamin Irang appeals to this
court from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of
robbery with homicide, the robbery having been committed in the house
of Perfecto Meloeotones and Maximiniana Vicente, and the homicide on
the person of Perfecto Meloeotones, and sentencing him to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, with the proportionate part of the costs of the trial.

In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as having been committed by the court a quo in its decision in question, to wit:

“1. The lower court erred in holding that the defendant Benjamin Irang
had been sufficiently identified beyond reasonable doubt, and in not
giving due weight to the testimony of, the witnesses for the defense.

“2. The lower court erred in not acquitting the defendant Benjamin Irang on the ground of reasonable doubt.”

The following undisputed facts have been established during the trial, to wit:

Between 7 and 8 o’clock on the night of November 9, 1935, seven
individuals, with white stripes upon their faces, two of whom were
armed with guns and two with bolos, went to the house of the spouses
Perfecto Melocotones and Maximiniana Vicente, where three lights were
burning, one at the balcony, another in the room and another on a
table. Some of said individuals went up and others remained on guard
downstairs. Those who went up approached Perfecto Melocotones
immediately and ordered him to bring out his money. Melocotones
answered in the affirmative but before he could do what was ordered him
he was attacked with bolos until he fell to the floor. Later another
armed with a gun went up and approaching Maximiniana Vicente, wife of
Perfecto Melocotones, struck her in the face with the butt of his gun,
making her lose consciousness momentarily. When she regained
consciousness she saw her husband already dead. One of the assailants
then said to her: “Bring out the money and jewelry.” Maximiniana
Vicente turned over to the man who had struck her with the butt of his
gun P70 in cash and jewelry valued at P200, which she had kept in a
trunk. During the short space of time that she was turning over the
money and jewelry, she looked at the man’s face and saw that he had
pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. That same night the house of
Juana de la Cruz was assaulted by malefactors who had been firing shots
before arriving at and going up the house. All of them had white
striped upon their faces. Juana de la Cruz noticed that one of them had
pockmarks and a scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in a maong-colored suit. It was he who opened her trunk.

After the malefactors had left Perfecto Melocotones’ house, the
latter’s son Toribio Melocotones, who had seen the assailantsarrive but
without recognizing them, immediately reported the matter to the
municipal authorities and to the constabulary, who went to the scene of
the crime without loss of time. Maximiniana Vicente informed Lieutenant
Roman Alejandre of the Constabulary that the person who had struck her
with the butt of his gun and taken her money and jewelry was a man of
regular stature, with a lean body and pockmarked face. With this
description, said lieutenant went in search of said individual. Having
arrested a group of persons, he brought them to Maximiniana Vicente’s
house so that the latter might identify among them the one who had
struck her with the butt of his gun, but she did not find such man
Later another group was presented to her but neither could she find
therein the man who had robbed her. Finally another group was presented
to her and in it she identified the herein accused-appellant Benjamin
Irang as the one who had struck her with the butt of his gun and
demanded delivery of her money and jewelry. He was likewise the same
man arrested by Lieutenant Alejandre at midnight on November 9, 1935;
in the barrio of Tampac which is five or seven kilometers from
Maturanoc to which he was taken and brought to the house of the
deceased. Juana de la Cruz also recognized Benjamin Irang, through his
pockmarks and scar on his left eyelid, as one of the men who had gone
up to her house that same night. Once under arrest, the
accused-appellant Benjamin Irang made an affidavit in Tagalog (Exhibit
B), stating that while he was in the barrio of Tampac, municipality of
Guimba, Province of Nueva Ecija, on November 9, 1935 at about 7 o’clock
in the evening, Fidel Estrella and Ignacio Sebastian arrived; that
Fidel Estrella invited him to go to the house of Ignacio Sebastian’s
brother-in-law named Angel Talens because Estrella had something to
tell him; that upon arriving at Angel Talens’ house, Fidel Estrella
invited him to go to Maturanoc to look for business; that the appellant
asked Fidel Estrella why he wanted to bring him and the latter told him
to stop asking questions otherwise he would slash him with his bolo;
that Fidel Estrella carried a bolo and Ignacio Sebastian an unlicensed
firearm; that they went to the house of Perf ecto Melocotones in the
barrio of Maturanoc, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and upon arriving there Fidel
Estrella, who acted as the ringleader, assigned to each and every one
of them his corresponding place, designating those who should assault
the house of Perfecto Melocotones and those who should assault that of
Ursula Cabigon; that Benjamin Irang was in the group formed by Fidel
Estrella and Ignacio Sebastian, which assaulted the house of Perfecto
Melocotones, having been assigned to stand guard on the stairs of said
house; that Fidel Estrella, once inside the house, slashed Perfecto
Melocotones thrice with his bolo; that Fidel Estrella later told him
that they had succeeded in taking money and a shotgun; and that after
the assault they dispersed, each returning to his own home. This
affidavit (Exhibit B) was sworn to by Benjamin Irang before the deputy
clerk of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in the presence of
Graciano Pingol, the constabulary soldier who accompanied him. Before
Irang affixed his thumbmark and took his oath, the deputy clerk of
court asked him if he understood Tagalog and when he answered in the
affirmative said deputy clerk read the contents of the document to him.
Asked whether he had any thing else to add thereto, the appellant
answered that he had nothing more to say.

The defense of the accused-appellant is an alibi to the effect that
in the afternoon of the day of the commission of the crime, he was in
his rice field washing a fishing basket. There he met Roberto
Alcantara. Later he went to the house of Buenaventura Javier to return
the fishing basket in question and to exercise on the rings (jugar a
las argollas) with the latter’s son Pedro, and two unmarried sons of
the appellant’s uncle, in the presence of several persons,
returning home at 8 o’clock that night. When he was arrested the
constabulary soldiers opened his box but found nothing in it. They
later took him in a jitney to the victim’s house in the barrio of
Maturanoc and upon being brought face to face with the widow
Maximiniana Vicente, Lieutenant Alejandre told the widow: “This is the
one who slashed your husband and punctured your face. “The widow
answered saying: “Is it that man, sir.” As Benjamin Irang answered that
he had not left his house, the lieutenant gave him a blow which made
him lose consciousness. Then the lieutenant said to the widow: “He is
the same man. It was he to whom you delivered the money and jewelry.
Look at him well. Identify him well.” In the constabulary barracks in
Cabanatuan the soldiers and a sergeant manhandled him from the night of
November 9,1935, until 4 o’clock in the morning of the 11th of said
month and year, for having denied all knowledge of the crime, making
him lose his breath and punching him in the stomach. When he could no
longer bear the maltreatment, he agreed to tell what they wanted him to
tell. Upon being taken for investigation, the constabulary soldiers
told him to agree to all that the clerk of court might read to him,
otherwise they would again manhandle him at the barracks. He was not
present when the affidavit Exhibit B was prepared. Neither are the
contents thereof true. He merely affixed his thumbmark upon said
document for fear of the soldiers.

Lieutenant Alejandre as well as Sergeant Lubrico denied that the accused had been maltreated in the least

The only question to be decided in the present appeal is whether or
not the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang was identified as one of those
who assaulted the house of Perfecto Melocotones, killed him and robbed
his wife Maximiniana Vicente of money and jewelry.

Maximiniana Vicente, whom the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang
struck in the face with the butt of his gun and of whom he demanded
delivery of her money and jewelry, scrutinized the latter’s face and
noticed that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. When on
that same night of the assault Lieutenant Alejandre, guided by the
description given him by Maximiniana Vicente, went in search of the
person who might have maltreated the latter and robbed her of her money
and jewelry, and presented a group of persona to said Maximiniana
Vicente, she said that the man who had maltreated her was not among
those who composed that first group. Said lieutenant later presented
another group to her but neither did the widow find in it the man who
had struck her with the butt of his gun. In the third group presented
to her, she immediately pointed at one who turned out to be the herein
accused-appellant. The man pointed at protested but when she told him
that it was he who had struck her in the face with the butt of his gun,
the appellant became silent.

The testimony of Juana de la Cruz to the effect that her house,
situated only about one hundred meters from that of Perfecto
Melocotones, was assaulted that same night by some malefactors with
white stripes upon their faces, and that one of them, with pockmarks on
his face and a scar in his left eyelid and dressed in a maong-colored
suit, who later turned out to be the herein accused-appellant, opened
her box, indirectly corroborates Maximiniana Vicente’s testimony that
the man of the same description was the one who went to her house and
demanded delivery of her money and jewelry, having recognized him later
to be the herein accused-appellant. While evidence of another crime is,
as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is
admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where ‘t tends to identify
defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show
his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time
charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the
crime (16 C. J., 610, 611, sec. 1196).

Maximiniana Vicente’s identification of the herein
accused-appellant is likewise corroborated by the latter’s own
admission under oath that on the night of the crime he had been invited
to assault the house of Perfecto Melocotones, which they in fact
assaulted, although against his will. The rejection by the lower court
of the appellant’s admission under oath upon the assumption that it was
not made voluntarily, is erroneous, inasmuch as the only evidence that
it was not voluntary is the accused-appellant’s own testimony that he
had been manhandled by the constabulary soldiers and threatened with
further maltreatment if he did not testify as they wished., This
imputation of torture was categorically denied by Lieutenant Alejandre
and Sergeant Lubrico of the Constabulary, before whom the
accused-appellant made the admission and who caused it to be put in
writing. The imputation is likewise contradicted by the deputy clerk of
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija before whom the
accused-appellant swore to his admission and who testified that before
he administered oath to said accused-appellant, he asked him whether he
understood Tagalog and, having been answered in the affirmative, he
read said document to him and asked him whether he had anything to add,
the appellant affixing his thumbmark upon it after answering that he
had nothing more to say (U. S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil., 308).
There is no doubt that an admission made under oath under such
circumstances cannot be considered involuntary and therefore is
admissible against the person making it.

This court is of the opinion, therefore, that the
accused-appellant’s identity as one of those who assaulted the house of
Perfecto Meloeotones and robbed Maximiniana Vicente of her money and
jewelry, is established conclusively beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense of the accused is an alibi and has for its purpose to
show that he could’ not have been at the scene of the crime between 7
and 8 o’clock at night because he was in another place about seven
kilometers away at that time. This defense of alibi is contradicted by
the above-stated testimony of Juana de la Cruz and by the
accused-appellant’s own admission under oath Exhibit B.

The facts established at the trial as committed by the
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt constitute the complex crime
of robbery with homicide defined in article 293, in connection with
article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, and punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
imposed by the trial judge is in accordance with the evidence and with
law. It is not so, however, with the pecuniary liability because,
taking into account the gravity of the offense, the indemnity to the
heirs of the deceased should be P1,000 and that for the stolen goods
not restored P390.

Wherefore, with the sole modification that the accused-appellant
Benjamin Irang is sentenced further to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of Pl,000 and to restore to Maximiniana Vicente the
sum of P70 and the stolen jewelry and gun, or to reimburse the value
thereof in the amount of P390, the judgment appealed from is affirmed
in all other respects, with the costs of this instance to the
appellant. So ordered.

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

---

LAUREL, J .,

I dissent.

The evidence presented by the prosecution consists in the main of (a) Exhibit B, which is the alleged confession of the appellant herein, (b) the testimony of Toribio Melocotones, son of the deceased, (c) the testimony of Juana de la Cruz, (d) that of Lieut. Roman Alejandre of the Philippine Army, and (e) that of Maximiniana Vicente, widow of the deceased.

In his affidavit, marked Exhibit B, the appellant admitted his
participation in the commission of the crime charged. This written
confession was not given any value by the trial judge. According to the
appellant, it was obtained from him by an unknown soldier, through
force and violence, under circumstances which makes it involuntary and,
therefore, inadmissible as proof of guilt (U. S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil., 308; People vs. Buda Singh, 45 Phil, 676; People vs. Takeo Tabuche, 46 Phil., 28; People vs. Guendo Nishishima, 57 Phil., 26; People vs. Francisco, 57 Phil., 418).

Toribio Melocotones testified that he saw the band of seven robbers
on their way to his -father’s house; that at that time he did not know
who they were but that he now knows five of them to be the accused
Fidel Estrella, Jacinto Sebastian, Ignacio Sebastian, Juan Levaste (alias
Juan de Caste), and the appellant herein, Benjamin Irang; that he saw
the seven men enter the yard of his father’s house, where he had
planted himself; that the seven men entered the house, one at a time,
the smallest in the group, Fidel Estrella, first followed by a bigger
man, the appellant Benjamin Irang, then by Juan Levaste (alias
Juan de Caste), by Jacinto Sebastian, by Ignacio Sebastian and,
finally, by the two members of the band who were unknown to him; that
as soon as they all had entered he followed them but saw one of them
standing guard and firing several shots, as a result of which he heard
his brothers and sisters shouting; that it was on that occasion when he
came nearer the house but was seen by the guard who pointed a gun at
him, and he ran away. The trial judge brushed aside the testimony of
this witness as unworthy of credence and belief. He said:

“* * * En primer lugar, cada uno de estos acusados fueron
sucesivamente llevados a su casa y presentados alii para ser
reconocidos en dias y noches sucesivos. Sin embargo, dicho testigo no
indico a ninguno de ellos que fuera el que en la noche de autos asalto
a su casa. Este testigo, no obstante, no fue llamado como tal en la
investigation preliminar de esta causa en el Jtizgado de Paz para
indicar, de conformidad con los detalles que ha dado, que los acusados
eran los asaltantes de su casa, tampoco ha dado alguna, explicacion
como Ileg6 a conocer que los acusados eran los que asaltaron su casa.
Es verdad que esta falta de explicacion no es suficiente para
desacreditar su testimonio. Sin embargo, segun su propia indicacion de
que el primero que entro era el mas pequeno de aquella cuadrilla,
indicando como tal a Fidel Estrella, tal indicacion es suficiente para
desvirtuar todo el valor probatorio de su testimonio. Este acusado es
uno de los mas altos de entre todos los acusados, por consiguiente, no
puede decirse que era el mas pequeno. Atin admitiendo que el testimonio
del testigo al hablar de que el primero que entro era el mas pequeno se
referia al volumen del individuo, Fidel Estrella tampoco puede
considerarse como el mas flaco de entre los acusados. Es de cuerpo
regular y se confunde casi como cualquiera de los otros acusados en su
volumen, a exception del acusado Emilio de Guzman, que es el mas grueso
de entre los mismos. Su testimonio, pues, en opinion del Juzgado,
no puede servir ni siquiera como un indicio de que los acusados eran
los ladrones que asaltaron su casa en la noche de autos.” (Underlining is mine.)

Juana de la Cruz testified that her house had also been assaulted by tulisanes
on the same night and that she had recognized the appellant as one of
them. The testimony of this witness refers to an event wholly distinct
and separate from the criminal act imputed to the appellant in the case
at bar, during the commission of which she stated she was at her house
about five meters away.

The testimony of Lieut. Alejandre refers to the investigation
conducted by him and to posterior occurrences, of scarcely any
importance in proving the identity and guilt of the appellant. Lieut.
Alejandre arrested the appellant on the strength of the description
furnished him by the widow of the deceased. How good the description is
may be judged from the fact that prior to the appellant’s arrest,
Lieut. Alejandre had arrested three other persons, later to release
them as “wrong parties!”

The only remaining basis for the conviction of the appellant by the
lower court is the testimony of the widow, Maximiniana Vicente. In the
opinion of the trial court, this witness has sufficiently identified
the appellant herein. Lieut. Alejandre testified that when this
witness, Maximiniana Vicente, confronted the defendant she recognized
him as one of the assailants. This the appellant denied, stating that
the widow identified him “in obedience to Lieut. Alejandre’s orders.”
On cross-examination, the witness stated that she was able to identify
the appellant “porque el Teniente Alejandre Ie habia indicado que era
uno de los que tomaron parte en el asalto de su casa.” When called
again to the witness stand she retracted this statement. I am reluctant
to join the trial judge in attributing this contradiction on her part
merely to her ignorance.

Two important details in this
case deserve more than passing mention. It appears that soon after the
band of robbers had departed, Lieut. Alejandre arrived at the scene of
the crime and conducted an investigation. The widow, on that occasion,
referred to the appellant as a man with pockmarks. About one month
later, she testified that she recognized him besides by a scar on his
left eyelid. A scar identifies a man more effectively than mere
pockmarks, these being common. But I do not know why it took the
witness one month to discover this important descriptive detail. The
widow also testified that she recognized the appellant, Irang, because
of the light, because it was he who hit her with the butt of his gun
and because it was to him that she delivered money and jewelry. It
should be observed, however, that the assailants were disguised when
they committed the crime. This makes identification difficult, if not
impossible, and probably accounts for the fact that the widow made no
reference to the appellant’s scar in the beginning.

It is true that the findings of fact made by the trial judge are,
entitled to great weight and credit and should not be overturned unless
grave considerations warrant the taking of such a course. But I am not
convinced that appellant has been satisfactorily identified in the case
at bar (U. S. vs. Asiao, 1 Phil., 304).

The defense interposed by the appellant is an alibi. While alibis
are easily concocted and, for this reason, are received by courts with
great caution, I express the opinion that conviction should be
predicated on the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and
not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. I am, therefore,
of the opinion that the appellant is entitled, like his six co-accused
in the court below, to an acquittal.

CONCEPCION, J,:

I concur in the preceding dissenting opinion.