THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO VALDEZ, JUANITO SEBASTIAN AND QUINCIANO LATORRE (ALIAS BASILIO), DEFENDANTS. MAXIMO VALDEZ AND QUINCIANO LATORR…

Maxio Valdez, Juanito Sebastian, and
Quinciano La torre were convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide
after due trial. Maximo Valdez was sentenced to reclusidn perpetua, to
indemnify the heirs of his victim named Cua Loc (alias Kibi)
in the sum of P1,000 plus that of P506 representing the value of the
articles and money of which Cua Loc had been robbed, and to pay
one-third of the costs of the trial. Juanito Sebastian and Quinciano La
torre, being minors, were ordered confined in the Philippine Training
School for Boys at Welfareville until they become of age.

Maximo Valdez and Quinciano Latorre appealed from the judgment
and order, respectively, of the lower court, alleging that the latter
erred:

“I. In having disregarded the testimony of the witnesses for the defense.

“II. In having given much weight and credit, to their confessions,
without taking into account the circumstances under which they had been
made.

“III. In having found them guilty of the crime imputed to them.”

The facts established by the prosecution and by the defense are not in accord except in that: Cua Loc (alias
Kibi), a Chinese, died on February 15, 1936, in the munic ipality of
Bautista, Province of Pangasinan, as a result of the various incised
wounds he had received in different parts of the body, in the morning
of February 13, 1936, in his dwelling and store situated on the ground
floor of the house of the spouses Trafiquilino Alvear and Alejandra
Aguilar, in the barrio of Villanueva, municipality of Bau tista,
Pangasinan, on the occasion of the robbery of which he was the victim
and in which he lost articles and money amounting to P506. Near the
place where Cua Loc, a few minutes after he had been wounded, was found
lying prone in a pool of blood on the floor, there was also found the
bloodstained bob which, for purposes of identification, has been marked
Exhibit B. In order to commit the robbery and the aggression on the
deceased, the authors thereof had to enter through an opening in the
wall of the store, which certainly was not the way intended for said
purpose. Maximo Valdez was then 21 years, 2 months and 12 days of age
and Quinciano Latorre had not yet completed 18 years.

The
prosecution proved that Cua Loc was alone in his dwelling and store in
the above stated barrio and municipality, from the time his nephew
Venancio Ganda went to sleep upstairs, as usual, after 9 o’clock in the
night of February 12, 1936; that between 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning
of February 13th of said year, Tranquilino Alvear heard Cua Loe
uttering groans, for which reason he awoke Venancio Ganda, Cua Loc’s
nephew, to find out what was the matter with him; that Venancio, upon
waking up and lighting a candle, saw from his place that Cua Loc was
lying on his face on the floor; that he immediately went down to help
him and was followed later by Tranquilino Alvear; that both saw that
Cua Loc was wounded in different parts of his body; that the
bloodstained bolo, Exhibit B, belonging to Maximo Valdez, was found
very near to Cua Loc; that the barrio lieutenant went there immediately
after he was informed of the incident; that Cua Loc, in answer to the
questions asked him by said lieutenant to find out who had wounded him,
answered that it was Maximo Valdez and other persons whom he could not
recognize; that the money which Cua Loc had in his box, together with
17 package’s of Piedmont cigarettes for sale in his store, all valued
at P506, disappeared, and that the papers that were in the same box
where Cua Loc kept his money, as Exhibits O to O4, P, Q, R and S, were
found in disorder on top of said box.

The prosecution
likewise proved that in the afternoon prior to the morning of the
crime, while Cua Loc was counting his money before placing it in the
box which he used to keep in the drawer of his bamboo table, the
appellants and two other individuals not included in the case were
looking at him; that before and after the closing of Cua Loc’s store,
at about 9 o’clock on the night of February 12, 1936, Maximo Valdez was
seen conversing with others in a low voice near the store; that while
Cua Loc was being taken to the municipal building of Bautista to be
attended by physicians, he again solemnly affirmed before the justice
of the peace of Bautista that the persons who assaulted and robbed him
were Maximo Valdez and several others whom he could not recognize; that
he made such affirmation, aware of the seriousness of his wounds and of
his condition, because, aside from being very weak, he had been
informed of the physician’s opinion that he might die any minute; that
Maximo Valdez, who lived very near Cua Loc’s dwelling and store, was
not found in his house in the morning of the crime but in that of his
sister, which is rather far, as it is necessary to cross a brook in
order to go there; that when Maximo Valdez was arrested early in the
morning of February 13, 1936, he was wearing a bloodstained sweater.

It was also proven by the prosecution that shortly after and on the
same date Maximo Valdez was arrested, that is, on February 13, 1936, he
made the admissions contained in Exhibit X, some of which are: that he
really committed the crime with which he was charged; that he used the
bolo, Exhibit B, for said purpose; that in order to introduce himself
into Cua Loc’s dwelling and store, he had to enter through an opening
in the wall thereof; and that he put his thumbmark upon said document
Exhibit X in the presence of the justice of the peace, his brother
Sergio, the accused Juanito Sebastian and Sergeant Bides of the
Constabulary, in the house of said justice of the peace.

It
was finally proven by the prosecution that if Quin eiano Latorre was
not included in the information until long after the filing of that of
February 13, 1936, that is, on the 27th of said month, it was because
Juanito Sebastian, the accused who did not appeal from his sentence,
implicated him only a few days before; and that said appellant
Quinciano Latorre, on his part, made the admissions contained in
Exhibits AA and II, which are certainly favorable instead of
prejudicial to him, because it is stated therein that he followed
Maximo Valdez and his companions when the latter committed the crime
for the reason that he was threatened with death.

Maximo
Valdez, by his testimony, by that of his mother Eusebia Mendecar, and
by that of his sister Rosalina Valdez, proved that he was absolutely
ignorant of the crime imputed to him; that in the night of the crime,
as in pre ceding nights, he slept in his sister’s house because her
husband was absent; that he did not leave said house during the whole
night; that the sweater worn by him when he was arrested had no
bloodstains; that if he signed Exhibit X, claimed to be his spontaneous
and free confession, it was because he had been maltreated by
Lieutenant Nicanor Velarde and Sergeant Jose. Bides of the Constabulary
; that Sergeant Bides caused him to put his thumb mark on the document
in question, by taking hold of his hand for that purpose; that the
contents of said document are not true and that if he ratified them in
the presence of the justice of the peace, Jacobo Manaois, it was
because Sergeant Bides had threatened him shortly ‘before; that he
knows how to write, but upon being required to sign Exhibit X, he
stated that he did not know how to write be cause he did not intend to
ratify said document. He at tempted to prove that not only did he not
enter Cua Loc’s store on February 12, 1936, but that he was not even in
the vicinity thereof, and that the bolo Exhibit B is not his.

The evidence presented by the prosecution with respect to Maximo Valdez
is so abundant and convincing that the alibi of said appellant cannot
be taken into consideration. The prosecution established the
above-stated facts by means of the testimonies of Venancio Ganda,
Alexandra Agui lar, Tranquilino Alvear, Julian Velasco, Sixto Ferrer,
Pablo Castillo, Hilario Cacatian, Eulalio Valdez, Justice of the Peace
Jacobo Manaois, Policemen Timoteo Salaba tino and Cesario Caragan,
Sergeant Bides and Lieutenant Nicanor Velarde.

That the bolo
Exhibit B belonged to Maximo Valdez and that it was the weapon, or one
of the weapons, used in the aggression upon Cua Loc, are shown by the
fact that it was Maximo Valdez himself who, sometime before, re quested
Julian Velasco, one of the witnesses, to put its bamboo handle; that he
was seen by Venancio Ganda and Tranquilino Alvear carrying the bolo on
several occasions; that he himself admitted that it was his, and that
the bolo was bloodstained when it was found very near the place where
Cua Loc lay. Furthermore, after the deceased Cua Loc had been uttering
groans, appellant Valdez was seen crawling out through an opening which
appeared for the first time in one of the walls of Cua Loc’s store.

The alleged maltreatment to which Maximo Valdez was subjected,
according to him and his witnesses, seems to be imaginary. At least,
there is. no evidence to corroborate the three of them. Their testimony
may be considered biased. Notwithstanding the testimony of the mother
of Maximo Valdez that she had to call Dr. Pio Sison to examine his son
after seeing him maltreated by Lieutenant Velarde, Sergeant Bides and
others, said physician was not called to testify in the case and there
was no desire to call him to the witness stand. On the other hand,
according to said mother of Valdez, the maltreatment took place on the
day following February 13, 1936. If this is true, then it may be said
that there was no reason to maltreat him because Exhibit X, containing
his admissions and confessions, had been made by him on the same day of
his arrest, that is, on February 13, 1936.

Quinciano Latorre’s defense consisted in another alibi. However,
there is no necessity of determining whether or not said defense is
good and deserving of credit because the record does not contain
sufficient data to link said appellant with the crime in question. The
only evidence presented by the prosecution against him, which may be
considered competent, consists in the statements or admissions
attributed to him in the documents Exhibits AA and II, and in the
testimony of Venancio Ganda, who stated that he had seen Quinciano
Latorre with Maximo Valdez at about 9 o’clock on the night of February
12, 1936. Such evidence, however, does not prove that he is guilty. On
the contrary it shows that he is not guilty, because if he followed
Valdez and the latter’s companions on the night or occasion in
question, it was for fear, having been threatened with death.

This court is fully convinced that the appellant Maximo Valdez is
really guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide imputed to him.
This court finds it proven that the aggravating circumstances of
dwelling and scaling were present in the commission of the said crime,
be cause the store where it was committed is a dwelling, the deceased
Cua Loc having lived therein, and because there is scaling when
entrance is effected through an opening not intended for said purpose,
as said appellant and his companions did when they went to commit the
crime in question. The two foregoing circumstances were certainly not
inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being robbery with
violence or intimidation against persons, the authors thereof could
have committed it with out the necessity of violating or scaling the
domicile of their victim. In view of these circumstances, which are not
offset by any mitigating circumstance, it would seem clear that the
penalty that should be imposed upon him is death, pursuant to the
provisions of articles 294, sub section 1, and 63, rule 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, but in the voting for the imposition of said
penalty, there was no unanimity among the members, of the court. Under
these circumstances, the court should act in conformity with the
provisions of section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending section 133
of the Revised Administrative Code, that is, by imposing upon the
appellant the penalty next lower to death, which is reclusion perpetua
the same penalty imposed upon him by the lower court

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in so far as it
imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon the appellant Maximo
Valdez and orders him to indemnify the heirs of Cua Loc in the sum of
P1,506 and to pay one-third of the costs of the trial; and it is
reversed in so far as it finds the appellant Quinciano Latorre guilty
of the crime with which he was charged and orders him, being below 18
years of age, confined in the Philippine Training School for Boys, at
Welfareville, until he reaches his majority, said appellant Quinciano
Latorre being as he is hereby acquitted of said crime, for the reason
that his guilt has not been established.

Let one-half of the costs of the appeal be assessed against Maximo Valdez and the other half de oficio. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., VillaReal, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed as to Maximo Valdez and reversed as to Quinciano Latorre.