You are on page 1of 37

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO GUILLEN, defendant-appellant. Mariano A. Albert for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Francisco A. Carreon for appellee. PER CURIAM, J.: This case is before us for review of, and by virtue of appeal from, the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in case No. 2746, whereby Julio Guillen y Corpus, or Julio C. Guillen, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder, as charged in the information, and is sentenced to the penalty of death, to indemnify the of the deceased Simeon Valera (or Barrela) in the sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs. Upon arraignment the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the charges contained in the information. Then the case was tried in one of the branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila presided over by the honorable Buenaventura Ocampo who, after the submission of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense, rendered judgment as above stated. In this connection it should be stated that, at the beginning of the trial and before arraignment, counsel de oficiofor the accused moved that the mental condition of Guillen be examined. The court, notwithstanding that it had found out from the answers of the accused to questions propounded to him in order to test the soundness of his mind, that he was not suffering from any mental derangement, ordered that Julio Guillen be confined for Hospital, there to be examined by medical experts who should report their findings accordingly. This was done, and, according to the report of the board of medical experts, presided over by Dr. Fernandez of the National Psychopathic Hospital, Julio Guillen was not insane. Said report (Exhibit L), under the heading "Formulation and Diagnosis," at pages 13 and 14, reads: FORMULATION AND DIAGNOSIS Julio C. Guillen was placed under constant observation since admission. There was not a single moment during his whole 24 hours daily, that he was not under observation. The motive behind the commission of the crime is stated above. The veracity of this motivation was determined in the Narcosynthesis. That the narco-synthesis was successful was checked up the day after the test. The narco-synthesis proved not only reveal any conflict or complex that may explain a delusional or hallucinatory motive behind the act. Our observation and examination failed to elicit any sign or symptom of insanity in Mr. Julio C. Guillen. He was found to be intelligent, always able to differentiate right from wrong, fully aware of the nature of the crime he committed and is equally decided to suffer for it in any manner or form. His version of the circumstances of the crime, his conduct and conversation relative thereto, the motives, temptations and provocations that preceded the act, were all those of an individual with a sound mind. On the other hand he is an man of strong will and conviction and once arriving at a decision he executes, irrespective of consequences and as in this case, the commission of the act at Plaza Miranda. What is of some interest in the personality of Julio C. Guillen is his commission of some overt acts. This is seen not only in the present instance, but sometime when an employee in la Clementina Cigar Factory he engaged in a boxing bout Mr. Manzano, a Span-wanted to abuse the women cigar makers, and felt it his duty to defend them. One time he ran after a policeman with a knife in hand after being provoked to a fight several times. He even challenged Congressman Nueno to a fight sometime before when Mr. Nueno was running for a seat in the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, after hearing him deliver one of his apparently outspoken speeches. All these mean a defect in his personality characterized by a weakness of censorship especially in relation to rationalization about the consequences of his acts. In view of the above findings it is our considered opinion that Julio C. Guillen is not insane but is an individual with a personality defect which in Psychiatry is termed, Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority. Final Diagnosis Not insane: Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority, without psychosis. In view of the above-quoted findings of the medical board, and notwithstanding the contrary opinion of one Dr. Alvarez, who was asked by the defense to give his opinion on the matter, the court ruled that Guillen, not being insane, could be tired, as he was tired, for the offenses he committed on the date in question. THE FACTS

Upon careful perusal of the evidence and the briefs submitted by counsel for the accused, the Solicitor General and their respective memoranda, we find that there is no disagreement between the prosecution and the defense, as to the essential facts which caused the filing of the present criminal case against this accused. Those facts may be stated as follows: On the dates mentioned in this decision, Julio Guillen y Corpus, although not affirmed with any particular political group, has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections held in 1946. Manuel A. Roxas, the successful candidate, assumed the office of President of the Commonwealth and subsequently President of the President of the Philippine Republic. According to Guillen, he became disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during the presidential election campaign; and his disappointment was aggravated when, according to him, President Roxas, instead of looking after the interest of his country, sponsored and campaigned for the approval of the so-called "parity" measure. Hence he determined to assassinate the President. After he had pondered for some time over the ways and means of assassinating President Roxas, the opportunity presented itself on the night of March 10, 1947, when at a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo, Manila attended by a big crowd, President Roxas, accompanied by his wife and daughter and surrounded by a number of ladies and gentlemen prominent in government and politics, stood on a platform erected for that purpose and delivered his speech expounding and trying to convince his thousand of listeners of the advantages to be gained by the Philippines, should the constitutional amendment granting American citizens the same rights granted to Filipino nationals be adopted. Guillen had first intended to use a revolver for the accomplishment of his purpose, but having lost said firearm, which was duly licensed, he thought of two hand grenades which were given him by an American soldier in the early days of the liberation of Manila in exchange for two bottles of whisky. He had likewise been weighing the chances of killing President Roxas, either by going to Malacañan, or following his intended victim in the latter's trips to provinces, for instance, to Tayabas (now Quezon) where the President was scheduled to speak, but having encountered many difficulties, he decided to carry out his plan at the pro-parity meeting held at Plaza de Miranda on the night of March 10, 1947. On the morning of that he went to the house of Amando Hernandez whom he requested to prepare for him a document (Exhibit B), in accordance with their pervious understanding in the preceding afternoon, when they met at the premises of the Manila Jockey Club on the occasion of an "anti-parity" meeting held there. On account of its materially in this case, we deem it proper to quote hereunder the contents of said document. An English translation (Exhibit B-2) from its original Tagalog reads: FOR THE SAKE OF A FREE PHILIPPINES I am the only one responsible for what happened. I conceived it, I planned it, and I carried it out all by myself alone. It took me many days and nights pondering over this act, talking to my own conscience, to my God, until I reached my conclusion. It was my duty. I did not expected to live long; I only had on life to spare. And had I expected to lives to spare, I would not have hesitated either ton sacrifice it for the sake of a principle which was the welfare of the people. Thousands have died in Bataan; many more have mourned the loss of their husbands, of their sons, and there are millions now suffering. Their deeds bore no fruits; their hopes were frustrated. I was told by my conscience and by my God that there was a man to be blamed for all this: he had deceived the people, he had astounded them with no other purpose than to entice them; he even went to the extent of risking the heritage of our future generations. For these reasons he should not continue any longer. His life would mean nothing as compared with the welfare of eighteen million souls. And why should I not give up my life too if only the good of those eighteen million souls. These are the reasons which impelled me to do what I did and I am willing to bear up the consequences of my act. I t matters not if others will curse me. Time and history will show, I am sure, that I have only displayed a high degree of patriotism in my performance of my said act. Hurrah for a free Philippines. Cheers for the happiness of every Filipino home. May God pity on me. Amen.

JULIO C. GUILLEN A copy (Exhibit B-1) of the original in Tagalog (Exhibit B), made at the request of Guillen by his nephew, was handed to him only at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon of March 10, 1947, for which reason said Exhibit B-1 appears unsigned, because he was in a hurry for that meeting at Plaza de Miranda. When he reached Plaza de Miranda, Guillen was carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag which also contained peanuts. He buried one of the hand grenades (Exhibit D), in a plant pot located close to the platform, and when he decided to carry out his evil purpose he stood on the chair on which he had been sitting and, from a distance of about seven meters, he hurled the grenade at the President when the latter had just closed his speech, was being congratulated by Ambassador Romulo and was about to leave the platform.

General Castañeda, who was on the platform, saw the smoking, hissing, grenade and without losing his presence of mind, kicked it away from the platform, along the stairway, and towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm; and, covering the President with his body, shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down. The grenade fell to the ground and exploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. Confusion ensued, and the crowd dispersed in a panic. It was found that the fragments of the grenade had seriously injured Simeon Varela (or Barrela ) — who died on the following day as the result of mortal wounds caused by the fragments of the grenade (Exhibits F and F-1) — Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang. Guillen was arrested by members of the Police Department about two hours after the occurrence. It appears that one Angel Garcia, who was one spectators at that meeting, saw how a person who was standing next to him hurled an object at the platform and, after the explosion, ran away towards a barber shop located near the platform at Plaza de Miranda. Suspecting that person was the thrower of the object that exploded, Garcia went after him and had almost succeeded in holding him, but Guillen offered stiff resistance, got loose from Garcia and managed to escape. Garcia pursued him, but some detectives, mistaking the former for the real criminal and the author of the explosion, placed him under arrest. In the meantime, while the City Mayor and some agents of the Manila Police Department were investigating the affair, one Manuel Robles volunteered the information that the person with whom Angel Garcia was wrestling was Julio Guillen; that he (Manuel Robles) was acquainted with Julio Guillen for the previous ten years and had seen each other in the plaza a few moments previous to the explosion. The police operatives interrogated Garcia and Robles, and Julio Guillen was, within two hours after the occurrence, found in his home at 1724 Juan Luna Street, Manila, brought to the police headquarters and identified by Angel Garcia, as the same person who hurled towards the platform the object which exploded and whom Garcia tried to hold when he was running away. During the investigation conducted by the police he readily admitted his responsibility, although at the same time he tried to justify his action in throwing the bomb at President Roxas. He also indicated to his captors the place where he had hidden his so called last will quoted above and marked Exhibit B, which was then unsigned by him and subsequently signed at the police headquarters. Re-enacting the crime (Exhibit C), he pointed out to the police where he had buried (Exhibit C-1) the other hand grenade (Exhibit D), and, in the presence of witnesses he signed a statement which contained his answers to question propounded to him by Major A. Quintos of the Manila Police, who investigated him soon after his arrest (Exhibit E). From a perusal of his voluntary statement, we are satisfied that it tallies exactly with the declarations and made by him on the witness stand during the trial of this case. THE ISSUES In the brief submitted by counsel de oficio for this appellant, several errors are assigned allegedly committed by the trial court, namely: first, "in finding the appellant guilty of murder for the death of Simeon Varela"; second, "in declaring the appellant guilty of the complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder"; third, "in applying sub-section 1 of article 49 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the penalty to be imposed upon the accused"; and fourth, "in considering the concurrence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and of contempt of public authorities in the commission of crime." The evidence for the prosecution, supported by the brazen statements made by the accused, shows beyond any shadow of doubt that, when Guillen attended that meeting, carrying with him two hand grenades, to put into execution his preconceived plan to assassinate President Roxas, he knew fully well that, by throwing one of those two hand grenades in his possession at President Roxas, and causing it to explode, he could not prevent the persons who were around his main and intended victim from being killed or at least injured, due to the highly explosive nature of the bomb employed by him to carry out his evil purpose. Guillen, testifying in his own behalf, in answer to questions propounded by the trial judge (page 96 of transcript) supports our conclusion. He stated that he performed the act voluntarily; that his purpose was to kill the President, but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the President when he hurled that bomb, because the killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to killing the President, in view of the fact that those persons, being loyal to the President being loyal to the President, were identified with the latter. In other word, although it was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the President, he felt no conjunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President. The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang, and that he should be sentenced to the corresponding penalties for the different felonies committed, the sum total of which shall not exceed three times the penalty to be imposed for the most serious crime in accordance with article 70 in relation to article 74 of the Revised Penal Code. In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act; for in accordance with article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil., 939.) In the words of Viada, "in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that either malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene; where such intention exists, the act should qualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced.' (Viada's Comments on the Penal Code, vol. 7, 5th ed., p.7.) And, as held by this Court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. (People vs. Nanquil, 43 Phil., 232.) Where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. (People vs. Gona, 54 Phil., 605) Squarely on the point by counsel is the following decision of the Supreme Court of Spain:

on such working day as the trial court may fix within 30 days from the date the record shall have been remanded. (Art. was attended by the various aggravating circumstances alleged in the information. but he did not succeed in assassinating him "by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. it should be stated that .0 de agosto. although there is abundant proof that . the accused committed two grave felonies. of which President Roxas. (Gaceta de 1. In the case of People vs.) Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows: Art. se oye la detonacion de un arma de fuego disparada por A desde la calle. Bengzon. The killing of Simeon Varela was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. C. supra. y que siendo ambas muertes producidas por un solo hecho. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. and we hereby do so by a unanimous vote. Se ve. that a throwing highly explosive hand grenade at President Roxas. pues.) (I Viada. or become aware of it. a tenor de lo puesto en este apartado ultimo del articulo. Jose Fabio. we have no alternative but to affirm it. by throwing at him in his official capacity as the Chief Executive of the nation the hand grenade in question. 48. trnscurrido un cuarto de hora. It is so ordered. JJ. in view of the appropriate allegation charging Guillen with the commission of said offense. en el estanco de B a comprar tabaco. quedando muertos en el acto C y el estanquero. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. There can be no question that the accused attempted to kill President Roxas by throwing a hand grenade at him with the intention to kill him." For the same reason we qualify the injuries caused on the four other persons already named as merely attempted and not frustrated murder. a las ocho de la noche. debio imponerse al reo la pena del delito de asesinato en el grado maximo. o sea por un solo disparo. for in fact his efforts were directed towards the execution of his main purpose of eliminating President Roxas for his failure to redeem his electoral campaign promises.. The complex crimes of murder and multiple attempted murder committed by the accused with the single act of throwing a hand grenade at the President. Ozaeta. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack. . Alfredo Eva. 42. y habiendose negado este a darselo al fiado.Cuestion 62. in violation of the provisions of article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. of which Simeon Varela was the victim. without any mitigating circumstance. a tenor de lo dispuesto en el art. Tuason. o sea la pena de muerte. y asi lo declaro el Tribunal Supremo en S. Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the injured parties. Paras. Reyes and Torres. under authority of the Director of Prisons. The death sentence shall be executed in accordance with article 81 of the Revised Penal Code. p. Padilla.. pero. claramente que en el antedicha sentencia. We think it is the above-quoted article and not paragraph 1 of article 49 that is applicable. Aparte de que la muerte del estanquero debio calificarse de assesinato y no de homicidio. Mabug-at. In the same case it was held that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation may not be properly taken into the account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became his victim. Pablo. and (2) multiple attempted murder. por haberse ejecutado con aleviosa. no pudo calificarse de imprudencia teme raria. 248. Penalty for Complex Crimes. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. cabe calificar la muerte de este de homicidio y la de c de imprudencia temeraria? — La Sala de lo Criminal de la Auudiencia de Granada lo estimo asi. In this connection. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies..) It is our painful duty to apply the law and mete out to the accused the extreme penalty provided by it upon the facts and circumstances hereinabove narrated. 5th Ed. this court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery may be properly considered.J. sino que tambien debio declararsele responsable de la misma. se infringio por la Sala la disposicion de este apartado ultimo del articulo muy principalmente. se retira a quel sin mediar entre ambos disputa alguna. The sentence of the trial court being correct. de 18 junio de 1872. 90 del Codigo. we shall refrain making a finding to that effect. suponiendo que no se propusiera ejecutaria el procesado. Se presenta A. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporalin its maximum period to death. The case before us is clearly governed by the first clause of article 48 because by a single act. Moran. namely: (1) murder. yet. the accused Guillen has committed among others the offense of assault upon a person in authority. Montemayor. But we do not deem it necessary to consider said aggravating circumstances because in any event article 48 of the Revised Penal Code abovequoted requires that the penalty for the most serious of said crimes be applied in its maximum period. aparte de otros articulos del Codigo. es evidente que la muerte de C. hallandose el estanquero despachando a C. the same to be applied in its maximum period. thereby commencing the commission of a felony by over acts. y condeno al procesado a catorse anos de reclusion por el homivcidio y a un año de prision correctional por la imprudencia. concur. supuesta la no intencion en A de matar a C y si solo al estanquero.

(18) ALFREDO GAYLAN. (12) Jose Villarama and (13) Sofronio Villegas. that Carballo would not accept his pillow because it was very dirty. It was indubitably congested. Davao del Norte. It was a reprise of a similar riot which occurred in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa Rizal on Sunday morning February 16. Reynon told Gavilaguin. Gavilaguin grabbed him from behind. When Reynon refused to open the door. The prisoners used a drum to dispose of their waste matter. 25 SCRA 759. Villaflor (Tisoy) shouted: "Tumabi ang Bisaya!" ("Visayans go to the sides"). (5) Felix Hernandez. accused whose death sentences are under automatic review. Perfecto Bilbar alias Proping. The jailhouse (bartolina) was a two-story building whose second floor was divided by a corridor or passageway one and half meters wide. (11) FELIX HERNANDEZ. "the close-confined" prisoners from the small cells surrounded Reynon and assaulted him. (21) GUILLERMO IGNACIO. June 27. (20) FELIX HERNANDEZ. (17) ANGEL TAGANA. (15) VICENTE QUIJANO. the other thirteen prisoners from the small cells rushed into the big cell. The name Sigue-Sigue was tattooed on their thighs or buttocks. (34) ANGEL TAGANA. (7) Eleuterio Maldecir alias Aswang. accused. (29) VICENTE QUIJANO. On one side was a single cell about ten meters long and eight meters wide. JR.squaremeter big cell when the massacre occurred.G. He locked its door and closed the padlock of the big cell (Page. 1965. Shortly before noontime of that Sunday. The prisoners belonged to two gangs: the Oxo gang. 1958 (People vs. Then. No. (24) ELEUTERIO MALDECIR alias Aswang. plaintiff-appellee. vs. (3) Absalon Enrigan. (9) RODOLFO CARBALLO. (31) ROMEO RICAFORT alias Romy. Record.) Led by Kulot (Emerito Abella). approached Reynon and asked permission to pawn his pillow to Rodolfo Carballo. (36) JOSE VILLARAMA and (37) SOFRONIO VILLEGAS. all members of the Oxo gang. (16) ELEUTERIO TABOY.R. Reynon locked that cell.: This case is about the massacre of certain prisoners in the Davao Penal Colony. Around seventy (seventy-five. Peralta. (15) JOSE FRANCISCO alias Karate. according to defendant Cabcaban) prisoners were incarcerated in the big cell. (12) FRANCISCO DIONISIO alias Satud. 1965 Numeriano Reynon a prisoner-trustee. (11) CRESENCIO CUIZON. (22) ALFREDO LAGARTO. Leocadio Gavilaguin. (4) CATALINO CABCABAN. AQUINO. de Guzman for appellee. Agacaoili. (19) ROMULO GELLE. (27) ROLANDO PANGILINAN. (10) Juanita Rebutaso. At that juncture. L-19067-68. (12) GUILLERMO IGNACIO. (10) LEOCADIO GAVILAGUIN. (5) DOMINGO ASTROLOGIA alias Blackie. (4) MAXIMO APOLONIAS. The seventeen inmates of the three small cells. Castro). So. (10) RUSTICO CIDRO. (1) EMERITO ABELLA. or after the inmates of the big cell had taken their lunch. and the Sigue-Sigue gang whose members hailed from Luzon. Solicitor General Estelito P. as if on cue. 1965. (5) RODOLFO CARBALLO. 1979 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Reynon lost consciousness and collapsed on the floor. whose members were Visayans with an Oxo mark tattooed on their bodies. July 30. Gavilaguin was simply employing a ruse to inveigle Reynon into opening the door to the big cell. there were around eighty-six prisoners in the eighty. a prisoner from the small cell. Mendoza. (9) Vicente Quijano. supra. (11) Eleuterio Taboy. was performing guard duty at the jailhouse of the penal colony in Panabo. (23) BENEDICTO LORAÑA alias Payat. Inside the big cell. June 27. (26) ROBERTO PANGILINAN. (2) GORGONIO AÑOVER (3) RODOLFO APOLINARIO. (17) LEOCADIO GAVILAGUIN alias Cadio. (7) ELINO DURAN. (6) FRANCISCO DIONISIO. placed pieces of wood and a blanket on the door to keep it closed (16 tsn July 25. an inmate of the big cell. an inmate of the big cell. The record reveals that in the morning of Sunday. The existence of these gangs in the New Bilibid Prison was traced by Judge (now Justice) Andres Reyes in the De los Santos case. (8) Ciriaco Opsiar alias Simaron. (8) ABSALON ENRIGAN. (13) BENEDICTO LORAÑA. (14) EUGENIO PROVIDO. A prisoner took the bunch of keys which were in Reynon's custody and opened the door of the big cell.. 9. De los Santos. Tisoy (Agustin Villaflor) and Cadio (Gavilaguin). . (32) MARCELO SARDENIA. (2) Rustico Cidro. (35) AGUSTIN VILLAFLOR alias Tisoy. (13) ELINO DURAN. (2) MAXIMO APOLONIAS. Picazo. They were (1) Gorgonio Anover. Confined ill the three small cells were seventeen prisoners who liad committed grave misconduct and who were known as "close-confined" prisoners to distinguish them from the prisoners in the big cell who were just undergoing punishment. (16) SINDOLFO GALANTO. (4) Sindolfo Galanto. As it turned out. J. Assistant Solicitor General Octavio R. On the opposite side were three small cells. (18) JOSE VILLARAMA and (19) SOFRONIO VILLEGAS. (33) ELEUTERIO TABOY. (14) ABSALON ENRIGAN. JR. had also taken their lunch but Reynon did not lock their cells because he was waiting for the prisoner-janitor to bring out from those cells the cans used as urinals. (According to some extrajudicial confessions. Report of Jose T. (6) Benedicto Lorana alias Payat. (25) CIRIACO OPSIAR alias Simaron. L-32205 August 31. They were armed with improvised weapons. (1) EMERITO ABELLA alias Kulot. (28) EUGENIO PROVIDO. See People vs. (6) JOSE BARBAJO. (8) CATALINIO CABCABAN alias Inday. 1967). stayed in the small cell. The seventeenth closely confined prisoner. One prisoner stabbed Reynon while the others hit him on the chest and right temple with fistic blows. Reynon himself opened the door. Santayana & Reyes for accused. 14 SCRA 702). (30) JUANITO REBUTASO.. (7) PERFECTO BILBAR alias Porping. Ramirez and Solicitor Felix M. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. (3) JOSE BARBAJO. (9) JOSE FRANCISCO.

murder and robbery. evasion of service of sentence and frustrated murder. Salvador Abique Demetrio Camo. The fourteen victims died of shock. (20) Hernandez . (18) Gaylan murder. (29) Quijano .robbery with habitual delinquency.homicide.murder. four counts. In July. seven sharp. did not resist the attack. all prisoners.robbery. Identified as (1) Romeo Bulatao. Bartolome de Guzman had a lacerated wound on the head. (22) Lagarto . homicide and evasion of service of sentence. (26) Roberto Pangilinan . (7) Cresencio Cuizon alias Sianong Kulot. Arsenio Guevarra. (2) Maximo Apolinias alias Max. frustrated murder. (9) Elino Duran.homicide.theft.theft. It was only after they were assured that they would not be maltreated that Abella advise his companions to surrender. He gave them and the bunch of keys to Geronimo Jorge. Those weapons consisted of five sharp-pointed wooden daggers. (6) Severino Pacon. (28) Provide. slander . (4) Apolinias . charging the thirty-seven accused with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. (15) Romeo Ricafort alias Romy. (3) Apolinario . mid-anterior side of the neck. four counts. He was confined in the hospital for nineteen days. frustrated murder and qualified theft. (6) Rodolfo Carballo alias Rudy. Many of them were lying flat on the floor with raised hands or clinging to the walls made of steel-matting.robbery. . (3) Jose Castro. The offenders at first did not surrender to prison officials who had arrived at the scene after the alarm was sounded. The assaulted prisoners. theft of large cattle and evasion of service of sentence.robbery with physical injuries malicious mischief. frustrated murder.qualified theft. a stone wrapped with cloth (caburata).murder. (14) Enrigan . cerebral hemorrhage and severe external and internal hemorrhage. Ten victims. (16) Galanto . (6) Barbajo . (8) Generoso Palino. (5) Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday. 1965 Vicente B. (10) Cidro . murder and frustrated murder.(2) Añover .robbery. Although three whistles were sounded at the start of the massacre and prison officials rushed to the corridor near the big cell.murder.(11) Cuizon . and theft. two counts. (13) Duran . inmates from the big cell. (13) Rolando Pan (14) Eugenio Provide. Davao City Branch II.pointed aluminum daggers.murder. Reynon sustained a lacerated wound on his eyebrow and a stab wound on the left shoulder. attempted robbery with homicide and robbery with serious physical injuries. The affray lasted for about an hour. (7) Carlito Padilla. (21) Ignacio .murder. (8) Cabcaban . (7) Bilbar . robbery in an inhabited house. (9) Jacinto Refugia and (10) Delfin San Miguel. (11) Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. The examining physician testified that Reynon. (15) Francisco . were pronounced dead on arrival at the penal colony hospital. (12) Roberto Pangilinan alias Pagong. (4) Gualberto Fuentes. 9405).According to the eyewitnesses. On October 22. Afurong. (12) Dionisio . (10) Jose Francisco alias Karate. Jr. 1965 the statements of several jail inmates were taken by the prison investigator. Some of these seventeen prisoners destroyed the floor of the big cell removed the wood therefrom and used the pieces of wood in clubbing to death some of the victims. (8) Francisco Dionisio (he pleaded guilty).murder.homicide. a stab wound on the neck which penetrated the larynx and two superficial punctured wounds on the left and right sides of the chest. as indicated below: (1)Abella cualified theft.homicide. were (1) Rodolfo Apolinario. who were unarmed. a wooden club (Reynon's balila) and twenty-two pieces of wood. As specified in the information. and Roberto Rodrigo. two Gillete blades with wooden handles. Jr. Manuel Cayetano and Armando Sanchez died in that hospital. 1773). through the holes of the steel-matting.. Villaflor gathered all the weapons used by his group. Juan del Rosario.murder and theft. (17) Gavilaguin . six counts. a special counsel of the provincial fiscal's office filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Davao. alias Junior. filed in the municipal court of Panabo a complaint for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder against thirty-seven prisoners of the penal colony who allegedly took part in the assault (Criminal Case No. 1965. two counts and violation of articles 157 and 178 of the Revised Penal Code. Juan del Rosario (a victim). a prisoner in the big cell suffered a lacerated wound in the head and six incised wounds on the right cheek. (3) Domingo Astrologia alias Blackie. two incised wounds at the nape and at the left hypochondriac region. slander by deed. (16) Marcelo Sardenia and (17) Angel Tagana. the. supervising prison guard and senior investigator of the Davao Penal Colony. right side of the neck and the left arm. arson. (32) Sardenia . Three other victims survived. (24) Maldecir murder. (5) Astrologia . the overseer of the penal colony. (30) Rebutaso .homicide. (5) Jose Magpantay. On September 24. (27) Rolando Pangilinan . (9) Carballo . homicide. (19) Gelle .robbery.murder. at the time the massacre occurred the thirty-seven accused were quasi-recidivists because they were serving sentences for different crimes after having been convicted by final judgment. (4) Jose Barbajo alias Joe. (23) Lorana murder. two bamboo ice picks. They were sworn to before the municipal judge of Panabo. (33) Taboy . they could not do anything because the door was locked and the key was held by one of the raiders.murder. three wire ice picks. (2) Manalo Castillo.homicide.frustrated murder and evasion of service of sentence.murder. double homicide and evasion of service of sentence: (25) Opsiar . who joined the sixteen raiders from the three cells in assaulting the victims. No one among the assailants was injured.homicide. Del Rosario and De Guzman would have died had there been no timely medical attendance.murder. The accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. frustrated homicide and qualified theft. (34) Tagana . (31) Ricafort homicide and attempted homicide.

When Cadio was already at the aisle between the big cell and the close-confinement cells. the accused were represented by two lawyers de oficio. and (37) Villegas .confinement cells were also sent out to have our noon meat But before we went out from our cells. When I saw Refugia. (11) Gaylan. dahil sa wala kaming pangbili ng cigarilyo. (35) Villaflor. Of the nineteen who pleaded guilty.Will you please narrate to me what you know about that unusual incident (in the morning of June 27. In open court. sixteen were "close-confined" prisoners from the three small cells while three Dionisio Pangilinan and Ricafort were from the big cell. (3) Astrologia. (12) Gelle. I saw that Reynon was grappled by some of my co-inmates from the close-confinement cell and then my companions began entering the big cell When. he went to his cell and got a pillow which was to be sold to our contact inside the big cell.with slight physical injuries and violations of Manila ordinances. (4) Dionisio. I also went inside the big cell Ruding Pakpak met me and said to me: 'Saan ang sa akin?' I pulled from my waist his weapon and gave it to him. Guillermo Ignacio. . (8) Cuizon. I then saw Pakpak grappling with Bundat and Pakpak called for me to help him. an investigator. Q . The thirty-seventh accused. Then. (5) Bilbar. we inmates in the close. At the fiscal's behest. (13) Lagarto. At the arraignment on March 5.' Then.3) Quijano.murder and evasion of service of sentence. I then saw Manuel Cayetano who was already wounded. (8) Hernandez. our contact in the big cell by the name of Ruding Pakpak (Arsenio Guevarra) (should be Rodolfo Carballo) came near the door of their cell and asked Cadio if the pillow he (Cadio) was holding is made of cotton. (2) Anover. After the pleas were entered. After Cadio had finished eating. Alicarte. (9) Duran. Cadio then called the trusty police on duty. (18) Villarama and (19) Villegas. all of them ratified their confessions. the trial court required the fiscal to present evidence as of those who had pleaded guilty. the inmates of the big cell opposite our cell were already inside their cell after they have eaten their noon meal and after they were locked in the big cell. The seventeen accused who pleaded not guilty were (1) Apolinario.frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence. the trial court ordered the interpreter to ask individually the nineteen accused whether they confirmed their confessions. 'Sigi na pare. Abi tingnan ko ang unan kung bulak ang laman. Typical of the confessions of the accused was Villaflor's statement taken by Ramon C. Jr. When he fell down the floor. I gave the club to Kulot (Emerito Abella )and rested for a while. frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence. (10) Francisco. prisoner Numeriano Reynon. (7) Carballo.robbery. on July 14. (36) Villarama . The fiscal submitted as exhibits the extrajudicial confessions of the nineteen accused which were sworn to before the municipal judge. we had already agreed that we are going to get inside the big cell and we also made an agreement that one of us from the close-confinement cells by the name of Cadio (Gavilaguin) would find a way so that we can get inside the big cell. When Cadio's request was seconded by Emerito Abella by saying. he mixed with the rest.. 1965)? A. Villaflor said: 13. I began looking for another of our enemies. — On that particular time and date. I went near them and I stabbed Bundat once. and requested him (Reynon) that he (Cadio) is going to pledge the said pillow to Ruding Pakpak (Carballo) but the said trusty was hesitant at first. I also climbed and pulled him down. (15) Provide. at first pleaded guilty but when he repudiated his extrajudicial confession. I then began looking for the inmate who had incriminated me in the previous incident in the prison compound which caused my being jailed in the close-confinement cells. (17) Villaflor. Reynon opened the door of the big cell and Ruding Pakpak said: 'Abi. The information was read and explained to them in the Tagalog dialect. I took the club from Emerito Abella and began beating Cayetano with it until I stopped beating him when I saw that he was no longer moving. a plea of not guilty was substituted for his plea of guilty. (4) Barbajo. (2) Apolonias. (5) Enrigan (6) Galanto. And Bundat lessened his grip from Pakpak then began stabbing Bundat (sic) and when he saw that Bundat is (was) dead. I stabbed him and after that I left Jimmy (Jacinto) who was already fatally wounded. (3) Cidro. (16) Sardenia and (17) Tagana. I then asked Pakpak as to where is Jimmy (Refugia) and he pointed Refugia to me who was then at the ceiling. (9) Lorana (10) Maldecir (11) Opsiar (12) Rolando Pangilinan (1. (16) Taboy. 1966. (14) Rebutaso (15) Ricafort. (7) Gavilaguin. The nineteen accused who pleaded guilty were (1) Abella. (14) Roberto Pangilinan. 1965 at the socalled "reading center" of the penal colony. (6) Cabcaban.

The trial court sentenced to death each of the said twelve accused (in addition to the eighteen "close-confined" prisoners who pleaded guilty and were already sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision) and ordered them to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen victims. of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. we were sent out of the cell for our lunch. he asked me: 'Ano ba ito Cusa (Agustin ). aamin rin ba ako?'. Abique. You may inspect it if you wish. Eighteen accused who pleaded guilty were sentenced to death. I pushed him away and opened the door. Record). Gaylan. After trial. Ricafort.' When I went to the middle part of the big cell I met Abiki having Sigi. Malaki masyado ito. Magpantay. Gavilaguin.. which was alleged in the information. Expediente of Criminal Case No. Lagarto and Sardenia (Decision of September 14. we finished our meal. Rolando Pangilinan. Pilay.Then. was appreciated against Abella. Numeriano Reynon. 1966.' Pilay approached us and I gave him the blade and he used the same to cut off the neck of Abiki. . Refugia. Villarama and Dionisio. Taboy. I rested. Q. 1965. When I saw him down. While the rest of my companions continued stabbing and beating our victims. the lower court in its decision of September 14. Please come and I'll tell you something. Jr. Maldecir. was appreciated against Abella.'Open the door so that I can see it. Dionisio. and I grabbed the key from the hand of Reynon.sigi tatoo. Quijano. he approached and said: 'What?' 'I have a pillow to be given to Rudy Pakpak for sale. Fuentes.' My companions followed me inside in the big cell and I told them to watch on the door. Those who were convicted were sent to the national penitentiary. 1969. Gelle. I told him: 'siempre tapos na rin iyon and he kept quiet.' After (he) inspected. Enrigan. 63-64. recidivism. namely. The dead ones were brought down .'Mamatay kayong lahat diyan. Castillo. . we were instructed to go to the place near the toilet until the Judge arrived. I saw trusty police Budoy and (he) closed the door and said. (11) Provido. on the ground of lack of evidence. the trial court dismissed the case as to Perfecto Bilbar (page 299. Bilbar. which was also alleged in the information. was sentenced to cadena perpetua (should be reclusion perpetual.' I saw some who were still alive and I told 'Beat them on the head with the wooden clubs. Maldecir. After the lunch. All of them were ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen victims (Decision of March 5.pointed stakes) taken from me. 9405). Padilla. you help me. Gavilaguin. namely. Abiki released me and I continued stabbing for several others (sic).' Then. qualified by treachery and premeditation (alleged in the information) and with the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism which was not offset by their plea of guilty In addition.' Reynon opened the door and when it was opened. Lorana. of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation and quasi-recidivism (treachery was not mentioned). page 400. — At about 11:55 a. Castro. Expediente). Cayetano. 1969 convicted twelve of the said eighteen defendants. I called the jailer (trusty police) the person of Reynon and told him 'Pare. Then. p. Villaflor and Villegas. (1) Apolonias. The trial court forthwith rendered a partial decision convicting the nineteen accused. When I got inside the cell I said: 'Visaya at Ilocano ay tumabi. Expediente). For lack of evidence. Camo. Opsiar. pp. Galanto. is not under review. Fernandez. When I got (it). I left him and went to the others. and (12) Tagana. (EXH. (8) Francisco. I saw some Sigi-sigi members. Anover. (5) Carballo. Pacon. Palino.. The case of Rebutaso who was sentenced tocadena perpetua and who did not appeal.Will you narrate to me the story of said incident? A. m.. who pleaded guilty. Juan del Rosario and Bartolome de Guzman. I stabbed him and he was able to grab the weapon (sharp.. When he held my hand. (4) Cabcaban. he called Rudy Pakpak and said: 'Will you buy this pillow?" and Rudy said. a verdict of acquittal was rendered for six accused. June 27. thirty of the thirty-seven accused were sentenced to death. (3) Barbajo. Tulongan mo ako. (Exh. So. The twelve defendants were further ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of three thousand pesos to each of the frustrated murder victims. (2) Astrologia. Sofronio Villegas (prisoner) held him (Reynon) tightly. we were ordered to go down asked with hands tied and thereafter. Jorge for whom we made the surrender by giving to him our weapons such as sharpened stakes and others. Rebutaso the nineteenth accused who also pleaded guilty. I also stabbed them after which I told Rudy Pakpak: 'Hilahin mo dito and mga patay. Apolinario.' Afterwards. pp. E. (10) Pangilinan. . I then continued my rest until at (sic) the employees and guards arrived at the jail. Cidro. Then. the employees arrived and shouted: 'You surrender' and we called Mr. (6) Cuizon. Upon motion of the fiscal. (7) Duran. Bulatao. Record Gavilaguin's narrative of the massacre is as follows: 15. (9) Ignacio. Villaflor. 238. namely. he told me: 'Kalugar (sic). 76-77 or 55-56. The eighteen accused (including Ignacio) who pleaded not guilty were tried. B. Sanchez and San Miguel. Reiteration.

Villaluz. — It may be recapitulated that of the nineteen accused in the death row. it is necessary to make a painstaking examination of the evidence in order to ascertain whether their guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. 109 Phil. Provide. In the Yamson case two prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison killed their fellow convict. Francisco. Reliance is placed on the dictum that in capital cases "it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant" (U. August 30. As held in U. was confined in the big cell. They were sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision. 176. The tenth Dionisio. Counsel de oficio contends that the accused made an improvident plea of guilty because the lower court did not apprise them of the meaning and consequences of their plea. The latter presented the confessions of those who pleaded guilty. On October 10. 212. Cabcaban. 1976 a fellow prisoner in the national penitentiary. At their arraignment for murder. Bulalake. Talbanos. fun significance and consequences of his plea" (People vs. L-32752-3. Barbajo. 181. 171. People vs.nine accused who were sentenced to death. 1969 he was erroneously paroled because the Board of Pardons and Parole was not informed that he was sentenced to death in the Davao court's decision of September 14. After the rendition of that decision or during the pendency of this case. pleaded guilty upon arraignment and in open court ratified their extrajudicial confessions which were sworn to before the municipal judge. 770. required the fiscal to present evidence. in order to comply with the procedure in capital cases when a plea of guilty is entered. L-37424 and People vs. Magtoto vs. (9) Villarama (he allegedly killed on February 12. Also cited is the admonition that "judges are duty-bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction" (People vs. Galanto. namely (1) Abella. Apduhan. And the long settled rule is that in case a plea of guilty is made in capital cases "the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information. therefore. 336-B. it lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge whether he is satisfied that a plea of guilty has been entered by the accused with fun knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof. vs. an escapee. being quasi-recidivists The accused appealed. Roberto Pangilinan. 19491. After the trial. 662. 1975. some comprehension of what a plea of guilty signifies. They were forthwith convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death. Rolando Pangilinan. 24 SCRA 798. Perete. 767. page 712. page 158. Yamson. 125.) Review of the death sentence on those who pleaded not guilty . Maldecir Opsiar. As already indicated in our recital of the proceedings below. 943 and People vs. (2) Dionisio. held that the trial judge must have been fully satisfied that the accused entered the plea of guilty with fun knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof. See People vs. (Same holding in People vs. they pleaded guilty with the assistance of a counsel de oficio.S. Yamson and Romero. 817). 541. Rollo).. Presumably. 1969 (Pages 413-4 of Expediente and pages 1. . Nine of the ten were among the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in the three small cells who invaded the big cell. in resolving the contention of the counsel de oficio that the accused had made an improvident plea. Simeon vs. Rollo). Jamad. namely. rot only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning. 305. 543). and (10) Villegas. 406. Jr. 37 Phil. (8) Taboy. L. Jr. The requirements of section 20. Article IV of the Constitution with respect to extrajudicial confessions are not applicable to the confessions herein because they were taken before the effectivity of the Constitution or before January 17. The death penalty imposed on the remaining nineteen accused named in the title of this case (Including Abella. 318. This Court. Carballo. (5) Hernandez. 6 Phil. After a perusal of their confessions. 793. That observation may be applied to the instant case. L-38929. and Tagana. (6) Loraña (7) Quijano. 1977. all decided on March 3. Apolonias and Villegas who escaped from confinement. 75 SCRA 148). Isnani. The ten dead defendants were Anover Cidro. Volumes I and II of the Rollo). who pleaded not guilty and were tried and sentenced to death. an escapee. vs. the trial court did not do so. I -D 2 and 159. ten. we find that their admission of guilt therein is corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti or the fact that the massacre described therein actually took place. death ended the agonies of ten of the twenty. 1968. Review of death sentence on those who pleaded guilty. Phil. not only because the judicial confessions of the accused (pleas of guilty) were reinforced by their extrajudicial confessions. Baluyot.S. 717 and 750. We hold that in this case the accused did not make an improvident plea of guilty. Ricafort and Villaflor (Pages 98. 111. Duran. 63 SCRA 4). 106 Phil. including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated. — As to the other nine accused. Apolonias. Ignacio. Cuizon. the trial court. is the one under automatic review "as law and justice shall dictate".The death sentence imposed upon Astrologia is likewise not under review because it was not promulgated. 1973.3720102. but also because it was cognizant of the fact that all the accused were quasi-recidivists who had already acquired experience in criminal proceedings and had. It is true that the trial judge did not adhere to the ritualistic formula of explaining to the accused the meaning and consequences of their plea of guilty and the nature of the aggravating circumstances. is a case similar to the instant case. January 31. 111 Phil. Manguera. (3) Enrigan (4) Gavilaguin. he was returned to the national penitentiary for security reasons. Volume II of Rollo).

. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on June 20. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8. In his statement of August 9. 1968. He finished the fourth grade. Samar. 1967 when he testified. He admitted in his statement to the investigator that he was a member of the Oxo gang and had the Oxo tattoo mark. Jose Barbajo alias Joe. It was that ruse which started the commotion (9598 tsn November 16. 1964. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. 1966). 1967). He was received in the national penitentiary on July 9. Witness Guevarra identified Barbajo as a member —of the Oxo gang and as having beaten with a piece of wood one "Bandes" (108. 1968. 1. He said that he was not a member of the Oxo gang but he believed that he was counted as an Oxo sympathizer because he is a Visayan.— He was born in Barrio Asagna. a prisoner in the big cell. In his statement (Exh. 1965. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 13. He was imprisoned in the national penitentiary on December 26. The massacre took place fifty days after Ms arrival. 1966). 1966). testified that Cabcaban was a member of the Oxo gang and that he helped Abella's group in attacking the members of the Sigue. He was twenty-seven years old when he testified on January 8. He was convicted of theft and evasion of service of sentence. 1964. wanted to sell his pillow to Carballo (who is Identified in the confessions as Ruding Pakpak). It was tattooed but not with the letters "OXO". We find that the prosecution's evidence does net establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Apolonias. Negros Oriental. He was eighteen years old when he was convicted of robbery. lie repeatedly declared that he could not have been involved in the massacre because he was a new arrival in the penal colony. He was twenty-six years old on October 20. 1964 and was recaptured on March 15. He finished grade six. That testimony was corroborated by witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo.Those nine accused were in the big cell (bartolina). 115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18. He was brought to the New Bilibid Prison on December 8. In his statement and testimony. Witness Guevarra testified that Gavilaguin. 1962. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Masbate and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correctional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor. He was brought to the national penitentiary on December 18. — He was born in Barrio Anas. He climbed the wall of steel-matting. but Rodrigo was probably referring to the victim named Salvador Abique who was also Identified by a witness as Tabique. Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo implicated Apolonias but did not state definitely the acts perpetrated by the latter during the assault. He declared that he was sick when the massacre occurred. 5.Sigue gang in the big cell. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Samar and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal. 1966). 1963. Witness Rodrigo. it is not sufficient to justify the judgment of conviction. He testified that when the massacre occurred he climbed the wall of steel-matting.— He is a native of Mabolo. a closely-confined prisoner. 1965. pointed to Cabcaban as the person who beat Cabile with a piece of wood (4 tsn July 25. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15. Dimasalang. Tanjay. Elino Duran. There is no victim surnamed Cabile. — He was born in Villadolid. 1964. He escaped from the penal colony on August 12. DD). He allegedly did not know what transpired when the sixteen "close-confined" raiders entered the big cell. Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday. 1962. as reported in the transcript. he denied any participation in the massacre. As to him. 1965. he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang but he denied that he helped the sixteen raiders in assaulting the victims. Tondo. He finished grade five. 1964. The name "Cabile" might be an error in transcription. Guevarra Identified Carballo as one of those who helped the sixteen raiders (107 tsn November 17. 1964. a prisoner acting as a special policeman. He said that during the riot he climbed the wall of steelmatting. 1967). He resided at 958 Antipolo Street. He was confined in the national penitentiary starting August 29. Negros Occidental. he denied having joined the sixteen raiders. He was twenty-four years old when he testified on March 13. 3. Masbate. as maximum. 1968. He testified that at the time the massacre was being perpetrated he was clinging to the wall made of steel-matting. Witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario. the companions of Cabcaban in the big cell. He testified that during the massacre he climbed the wag of steel-matting but someone pulled his feet and he fell down on the floor. He finished grade three. 2. The prosecution's theory is that they conspired with the sixteen raiders from the three small cells to kill the fourteen victims and inflict injuries on the three other victims. Witness Del Rosario implicated Barbajo and witness Rodrigo definitely testified that Barbajo supplied to his companions the pieces of wood which they used in beating the victims (10 tsn July 25. Witness Guevarra said that he did not see Apolonias assaulting the victims (109 tsn November 16. He said that he was not a member of any prison gang. 1968. Manila. — He was born in Catbalogan. Maximo Apolonias alias Max. His body was examined while he was on the witness stand. Rodolfo Carballo alias Ruding Pakpak. He was twenty-nine years old when he testified on March 12. The Court of First Instance of Cebu imposed upon him a penalty of six years and eight months of prision mayor (as a habitual delinquent he was not entitled to an indeterminate sentence) plus three years. He was twenty-five years old when he testified on March 12. He finished grade four. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on March 5. 4. six months and twenty-one days for habitual delinquency. Cebu City. 1962.

J-5). 1967). — He was born in Sta. Rolando Pangilinan. because he was suspected of having smuggled deadly weapons into the prison compound (pp. Jr. 108 and 11 5. 1961. He finished the sixth grade. He was twenty. On the witness stand. contended that the trial court erred in holding that Francisco was a co-conspirator. Astrologia. he admitted he was a member of the Oxo gang. He was thirty-eight years old when he testified on March 12. identified Ignacio as a member of the Oxo gang and as the prisoner who. carrying a pillow. Negros Occidental. He was confined in the national penitentiary on February 15. frustrated murder. a prisoner acting as a special policeman. arson and evasion of service of sentence. 6. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8. He was received in the national penitentiary on June 15. In 1964. He escaped three times from prison (Exh. No evidence was presented in the lower court by Francisco to prove that he was convicted on a trumped-up charge of robbery. He was convicted of theft and violations of articles 157 and 178 of the Review Penal Code. 1966). He saw his fellow prisoner. EE). in revenge. Jose Francisco alias Karate. However. beat the victim. 1967). Barbara. He declared that when the raiders entered the big cell he :stepped aside. he pointed to Ignacio alias Pilay.1965 (Exh. of which Francisco was a member. Gualberto Fuentes. After the riot. He used to be a judo instructor. witness Guevarra Identified Francisco as a member of the Oxo gang who helped the raiders and who. who died (108. included Ignacio (222 tsn February 10. 1964 (Exh. 7.1968. J-9). as maximum (Exh. He finished the first year of high school. 1968. Witness Del Rosario. however. Guevarra said that he did not see Ignacio helping the group (108 tsn November 17. climbed the wall of steel-matting and prayed. He was received in the national penitentiary on December 3. Manila. — He was born in La Carlota. 1966). He was twenty-six years old when he testified on January 9. He was twenty-six years old when he testified on July 10. In his statement. He was convicted of murder. Rosario and Rodrigo Identified Duran as having ellaborated with the sixteen raiders in perpetrating the massacre. Witness Del Rosario included Provido as among those who participated in the assault (222 tsn February 10. EE ).1967). Liwanag fabricated a complaint for robbery against Francisco who was convicted and sent to the Davao Penal Colony. 127 tsn Nov. 93 or 115. Exh. He said that during the investigation of the case. Francisco and one Roberto Gonzales (an actor) had charged Liwanag with extorting money from the Karate Club. he was told that he would be utilized as a State witness. Tagana and Dionisio as having taken part in the killings (See No. 8. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. 12. Manila. He was not assaulted by anyone. He resided in Pandacan. he was investigated. 1968. He did not climb the steel. and. 1963. J-17). 1966). armed with a wooden club. 18. He declared that when the massacre began. Astrologia. . Witness Guevarra testified that he did not know Provido (90 tsn November 16. Laguna and resided at San Andres Extension. Ignacio. 1959. when he was asked to point to his (Guevarra's) companions in the big cell who helped Abella's group. Lagarto. Counsel de oficio. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 22. armed with a wooden club. He was received in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15. Ricafort. Guevarra fingered Provido and Identified him as a member of the Oxo gang and as having beaten the victims with a piece of wood (Ibid. 1968. covered the door of the big cell with a blanket and pieces of wood and who. He denied that he was a member of the Oxo gang. during the riot. Leyte. He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell he was driven to a comer and was shielded by the other prisoners and in that situation he heard the shouts of the rioters. malicious mischief and slander by deed and violations of city ordinances. Witness Rodrigo. he Identified Cuizon. Record). He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on February 29. 9. Del. He had six convictions for robbery with physical injuries. 1967). He said that he did not know what actually happened because he was solicitous about his own personal safety.He admitted that he executed a statement and that the contents thereof were true (Exh. Carballo. J-12). took part in beating the victims (15-16 tsn July 25. 1964.—He was born in Dulag. In his statement. He finished grade five. Said counsel alleged that Francisco was convicted of robbery (snatching) because he was framed up by a certain Patrolman Liwanag of the Manila police. Eugenie Provido. Iloilo. 1964 and confined in the big cell on June 25. 1965. Cabcaban and Carballo alias Rudy as among those who took part in the massacre. Angel Tagana. — He was born in Pila. 1966). he stood beside the steel-matting. According to counsel. Cabcaban. Witness Del Rosario included Francisco in his wholesale Identification of twelve assailants who helped the raiders from the small cells. Arsenio Guevarra (the prosecution witness). Apolonias. He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell and started stabbing his companions he ran to the side of the cell. Tagana. or two days before the riot. Witness Rodrigo Identified Provido as having beaten the deceased Jose Magpantay with a piece of wood (10-11 tsn July 25. Roberto Pangilinan.five years old when he testified on January 8.matting. He was received in the national penitentiary on July 27. 1953. who filed a brief for Francisco only. 114-115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18. He finished grade two. he was convicted of robbery by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months of prision correctional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor. in his wholesale Identification of the twelve prisoners who took part in the assault. He said that he did not read his statement but he was just made to sign it and he signed it so that he would not be maltreated. Prosecution eyewitnesses Guevarra.

Jorge. Dionisio. On the contrary. The record supports the trial court's finding that "conspiracy can logically be inferred from the simultaneous and concerted acts of (the) sixteen raiders who. Enrigan. L-25177. The other ten of the twenty accused were from the big cell. Carballo. Defense counsel's contention that treachery and evident premeditation are not aggravating in this case is untenable. The trial court added that the acts and conduct of the accused from the start of their aggression until the riot was suppressed were characterized "by a swift. Hernandez. Gavilaguin. Tagana. according to counsel. Dionisio. 30 SCRA 92. That contention has no basis in the evidence. Witness Guevarra Identified him as a member of that group and as having used a piece of wood in beating one victim (115 and 127 tsn November 17. Counsel de oficio contends that reiteration is not aggravating because there is no evidence that the said accused had been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. Gavilaguin. Lorana. The twenty movants alleged in their motion for new trial that those who pleaded guilty did so due to "the coercion. The Layson case is similar to the instant case. No one among the accused sustained any injuries or was exposed to any risk arising from any defense that the victims might have made. as shown particularly by the order of the two "close-confined" prisoners. who were sentenced to death. Taboy. who were armed with bladed weapons. The victims were not able to make any retaliation. after putting down the guard and entering the big cell. They had sufficient opportunity to observe what took place during the hour-long riot. They pleaded not guilty and they were tried. Counsels de oficio contend that the trial court erred in holding that there was a conspiracy among the accused. Counsel's contention is correct as to Abella. The tenth. Layson. The victims did not offer any resistance. Counsel de oficio assails the credibility of witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario. united and concerted movement that could easily indicate a community of purpose. joined and combined forces with their friends and associates-inmates of the big cell who were waiting for the go signal to commence the attack in pursuance of their criminal objective". The accused did not surrender voluntarily and unconditionally. Cuizon (who died on November 6. the overseer. 1977). It was held that the crime was murder aggravated by treachery. twenty of the thirty accused. Hernandez. 1976). October 31. harassment and intimidation applied by the prison authorities" or due to "third degree" and other brutalities. Villarama and Villegas had pleaded guilty. They surrendered after Prison officials armed with guns demanded their surrender. They chose the person to whom they would surrender. Villaflor and Villarama to whom reiteration was considered aggravating. Provide. Dionisio. The accused had deliberately planned the attack as shown by the manner in which they executed the massacre. was in the big cell. Those twenty movants are Anover alias Abarca (who died on June 18. Quijano. The massacre had been planned by the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in collaboration with the other members of the Oxo gang in the big cell. Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo also pointed to Tagana as one of those who helped Abella's group (222 tsn February 10. In order that the aggravating circumstance of reiteration may be taken into account. 1967 and 14-15 tsn July 25. the four accused. Of those twenty. Maldecir. Barbajo. Moreover. 1964 the cell of their fellow prisoners. Gavilaguin. personally or without the assistance of counsel. namely. Quijano. more prisoners were involved and there were seventeen victims. it should be shown that the offender against whom it is appreciated had already served out his sentences for the prior offenses (People vs. Dionisio. was forced to sign his affidavit. — On October 30. . They provided themselves with improvised weapons. Taboy. Motion for new trial. Enrigan Francisco. 30 SCRA 92. namely. entered on January 17. Abella and Villaflor. The accused. 119 or 143. 1966). 1969. the said accused were still serving sentence for their prior convictions. evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism. The difference between the two cases is that in the instant case. Duran. 97). Cabcaban. closeness of association and concurrence of will". Elino Duran. he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang (p. Del Rosario was himself a victim. 1967). Villarama and Villegas. 1974). Opsiar. Record). The other contention of counsel de oficio that all the accused should be given the benefit of the extenuating circumstance of voluntary Surrender to the authorities is not correct. Nine of the ten were "close-confined" prisoners in the three cells. unexpectedly attacked the unarmed and defenseless Sigue-Sigueinmates in the big cell who had no means of escaping from that cell and who could not avoid their assaults. Lorana. October 31. 1-25177. there was abuse of superiority which absorbed cuadrilla In People vs. Ignacio. Layson. filed. a motion for new trial. who were all armed.In his statement. Opsiar. 1969. These two witnesses were prisoners in the big cell. They further alleged that one of the "fabricated (prosecution) witnesses" was Guillermo Ignacio who made a retraction and that another witness. ten accused. also inmates of the Davao Penal Colony. locked the door thereof and stabbed him to death. (who died on April 2. They rejected the initial requests for their surrender. that the Visayans in the big cell should stay on one side so that it could be ascertained that they were the allies of the sixteen raiders. The conspiracy among the accused was manifest and indubitable. 1973 or after the Solicitor General had filed his brief. But since the accused are quasi-recidivists the fact that reiteration cannot be appreciated against them and that their Plea Of guilty is mitigating will not affect the imposition of the death penalty for the murders and frustrated murders which they had committed. They were still serving sentence for their previous crimes at the time the riot occurred.

two Constabulary lieutenants. 102. by fourteen death penalties and three penalties for the frustrated murders because the killings and injuries were effected by distinct acts. Recidivism is aggravating as to some accused As to all the eighteen accused. forming part of a band of one hundred. 1 Phil. the Solicitor General submits that the accused should be convicted of fourteen separate murders and three separate frustrated murders and punished. Umali. the fourteen members of the Sigue-Sigue gang who took part in the killing were convicted of multiple murder (a complex crime) and not of nine separate murders. namely. in People vs.) In People vs. 61 Phil. 64 and 82. On the other hand. The trial court sentenced them to death. for complicity in the ambuscade. Pedro Payumo. The ruling in the De los Santos case is predicated on the theory that "when. Only one death penalty was imposed. 236. In the De los Santos case. Mrs. 66 Phil. Quezon. Cabrera. vs. See People vs. one corporal and a soldier. . 687. around eighty persons stationed on both sides of the highway in Sitio Salabusab. Rule 121 and section 13. There is no compelling reason for not deciding this case in the same way as the De los Santos case. 4 Phil. It was commuted to reclusion perpetua for lack of necessary votes. Nueva Ecija. The record does not show that Ignacio retracted his statement. respectively. nineteen Moros. a complex one (People vs. Lawas. (See U. Baby Quezon Felipe Buencamino III.S. various acts are executed. such acts must be considered only as one offense". the killing was held to be only one complex offense of multiple homicide because it 4 resulted from a single criminal impulse" and it was not possible to determine how many victims were killed by each of the accused.) In People vs. each of which must be tried separately". a complex crime. 43 Phil.103. The eleven sergeants and corporals were Sentenced to death while the sixty-six privates were sentenced to reclusion perpetua (See People vs. The other eighteen accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 27. They were charged and convicted of multiple murder. Fresnido. which involved two riots on two successive days in the national penitentiary wherein nine prisoners were killed (five on the first day and four on the second day). Cited in support of that stand is the ruling in U.S. re sedition and multiple murder. Bongabong. Five persons were charged with multiple murder. killing one party and wounding another. Duran never claimed that he was intimidated into making his statement. quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which justifies the imposition of the penalty for murder ( reclusion temporal maximum to death) in its maximum period or death. 975. we find that it is devoid of merit and is not in order. The two cases are very similar. He correctly observed that Ignacio and Duran were not utilized as prosecution witnesses. The group was going to attend the inauguration of a monument in honor of President Manuel L. 831. Ferrer. Quezon. Action on the motion for new trial was deferred until the case is decided on the merits. Propriety of the imposition of the death penalty on the eighteen accused — As to the fourteen deceased victims.The Solicitor General commented that the grounds relied upon by the movants are not the grounds for a new trial under sections 2 and 3. The case as to three of the accused was dismissed on the ground that their confessions were taken after they had been tortured. In People vs. 96 Phil. fired at the group of Aurora Vda. The fiscal and the trial court treated the fourteen killings and the injuries inflicted on the three victims as a complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. Quezon Province. vs. 682. However. the acts constitute two distinct crimes. 185. where on a single occasion around fifty Maranaos were killed by a group of home guards (formerly Constabulary soldiers). that mitigating circumstance is offset by evident premeditation. 522 where the killing of three Constabulary soldiers on a single occasion was punished as a single homicide. Manantan. After an evaluation of the said motion. Sakam. 1931. de Quezon riding in five cars which were proceeding to Baler. supra. It is argued that article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this case. where the falsification of one hundred twenty-eight warehouse receipts during the period from November 1930 to July 6. massacred fourteen Constabularymen. 302 and 906. We hold that the Solicitor General's submission is not well taken. 61 Phil. Mayor Ponciano Bernardo of Quezon City. Primitive San Agustin. they were convicted of multiple murder with grave injuries. for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense. The trial court imposed a single death penalty. Their ring leader was sentenced to death. Antonio San Agustin. They testified and they had the opportunity to prove their innocence. They appealed. Those movants who pleaded guilty were convicted on the basis of their confessions which they ratified during the trial. which enabled the accused to swindle the bank in the sum of one million four hundred thousand pesos was treated as only one complex crime of estafa through multiple falsification of mercantile documents and only one penalty was imposed). the crime is murder qualified by treachery which absorbs abuse of superiority and cuadrilla As to those who pleaded guilty. a complex crime. Cu Unjieng. 97 Phil. Thus. Penas. Their testimonies (except Apolonias' testimony) did not generate any reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Killed as a result of the ambuscade were eleven persons. 56 that "where the defendant has fired two shots. those who pleaded not guilty were given a fair trial. where seventy-seven Constabularymen murdered six policemen (including the assistant chief of police) and two private citizens and gravely wounded three civilians. a complex crime. 94 Phil. That holding in the De los Santos case is buttressed by some precedents.

The death penalty was properly imposed in conformity with articles 48. L-22948. The holding that there is a complex crime in cases like the instant case is similar to the rule in robbery with homicide. attacked a group of excursionists coming from the Vintar Dam in Ilocos Norte. should be affirmed. 1979. et al. a special complex crime. and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry for the control of the prisoners. the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. three suffered lesiones menos graves and four suffered light injuries. The trial court convicted the assailants of homicide only. Santos. Antonio. J. WHEREFORE. J.) Justice Barredo believes that in a case like the instant case. is on leave. The Court of Appeals held that the appellants were guilty of the complex crime of homicide with lesiones menos graves. justice should be tempered with mercy. As a result of the attack. However. the accused have been in confinement and in fact they have been in confinement for other offenses even prior to 1965. All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed like wolf packs on the weak. The indemnities for the frustrated murders are affirmed. Society must not close its eyes to the fact that if it has the right to exclude from its midst those who attack it.... where. . Fernandez. must have rubbed raw the nerves and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates. JJ. following the precedent established in the aforecited De los Santos case. The indemnity of six thousand pesos should be increased to twelve thousand pesos for each set of heirs of the fourteen victims. where the number of persons killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery does not change the nature of the crime. Guerrero.. As persuasive authority. Please see my concurring opinion in People vs. concurs. SO ORDERED. The government cannot evade responsibility for keeping prisoners under such subhuman and Dentesque conditions. 461 per Albert. Barredo. The Solicitor General recommended that they be convicted of lesiones menos graves and lesiones leves in addition to homicide. Sison and Paras concurring). C. Fernando. which were not given credence. sticks and other weapons. it may be noted that the Court of Appeals rendered the same ruling when it held that where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose "their individual acts in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act — the act of execution — giving rise to a complex offense. The following observations of this Court in the De los Santos case have some relevancy to this case: But the members of the Court cannot in conscience concur in the death penalty imposed. and convert a prison term into prolonged torture and slow death. a group of twenty-five persons armed with bolos. June 15. as a complex crime. Teehankee. J. concurs in the result. The death penalty should be commuted to reclusion perpetua. Considering the circumstances which drove the accused to massacre their fellow prisoners. and predisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize from their owners the meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their miserable existence. Defendant Maximo Apolonias is acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. and which culminated in violent riots. qualified by treachery (absorbing abuse of superiority and cuadrilla and aggravated by quasi-recidivism and evident premeditation (offset by plea of guilty) and recidivism. G. We have already stated that the conviction for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. concur. The felonious agreement produces a sole and solidary liability: each confederate forms but a part of a single being" (People vs. one excursionist was killed. It is evident that the incredible overcrowding of the prison cells. knives. Concepcion Jr. This Court imposed upon Manantan and Viray only one death penalty for the multiple murder but for lack of necessary votes.. J. it has no right at all to confine them under circumstances that strangle all sense of decency.R. the death penalty should be commuted to reclusion perpetua. 160 and 248 of the Revised Penal Code. after shouting to one another "Remember the agreement! Don't be afraid!". who were riding in a Ford coupe and omnibus. they relied on alibis. vividly described by the trial judge in his decision. At the trial. 1 ACR 447. De Castro and Melencio Herrera.J. they deserve clemency. Makasiar. as shown in the record. Leano. the death penalty imposed by the lower court is reduced to reclusion perpetua. executed extrajudicial confessions. No. since the commission of the multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder in 1965 or more than fourteen years ago. In the Leaño case. Abad Santos.. The indemnity of six thousand pesos is increased to twelve thousand pesos. abetted by the inability of the outnumbered guards to enforce discipline. Moran. with Justices Pedro Concepcion. reduce convicts to the level of animals. as to some accused... Dahil. Costs de oficio. that taxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance of ten centavos per meal for each prisoner. because they find it impossible to ignore the contributory role played by the inhuman conditions then reigning in the penitentiary. Pedro Manantan and Raymundo Viray. Borja. L-30271.Two other accused. (See People vs.

hence treachery is present. including Joey and his brother. According to them. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery. 2 days later. their bodies were found in the Pasig river. voluntary surrender may not be appreciated. The passengers in the Fiera alighted. De Guzman. Though treachery should normally attend at the inception of the aggression. When the accused goes to a police station merely to clear his name and not to give himself up. there were cord impressions on his wrists. Issue: Whether or not the accused are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. with a penalty of reclusion perpetua. Valencia (all surnames). Joseph’s hands were tied at the back with a basketball t-shirt. In this case.Facts: It all started with an altercation during a basketball game. Afterwards. whipped with a gun. The RTC convicted all of them for MURDER. Erwin and Andres Lojero and Felix Tamayo. his genitals were cut off and had wounds in his body as well. Joey and his brother just threw stones at the Ronquillos’ house. 3 days later. There were other accused but their names were dropped from the information later on.” They were later on identified in a police line-up. kicked and hit and dragged into the van. They were boxed. That night. faces covered with handkerchiefs and they were armed. The SC is sufficiently satisfied that their guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Victims were Marlon and Joseph Ronquillo. cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation. They were brought to a basement in a compound where witness Elena saw them being mauled. So. they consulted the INC Central Office and were then accompanied by a lawyer to go to the police station to “clear their names. he had wounds and died from a gunshot to the head. when they read their names in the newspapers as the perpetrators of the crime. Erwin’s and Felix’s body had abrasions and burns. beaten with steel tubes and lead pipes. This fact clearly shows that the victims were rendered defenseless and helpless. a white Ford Fiera wi thout a plate number stopped in front of the group. There were 10-13 people on board. The neighbors saw this an d ran after them and mauled them. The accused are Abella. the victims Ronquillo brothers were played 3 rounds of basketball in Sta. the 5 victims’ bodies were found in the Pasig Rive r. thereby allowing the appellants to commit the crime without risk at all to their persons. they were herded back to the car. it mu st be spontaneous and should show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. it is enough to point out t hat the victims’ hands were tied at the back when their bodies were found floating in Pasig River. Andres’ hands were also bound at the back with a rope. The killing was characterized by treachery. First of all. Marlon’s hands were tied at the back with an electric cord. They also had a blow torch and the victims’ hands were tied. Held: No. Granada. the victims were in front of the Ronquillos’ house. Joey went back to the place carrying 2 pillboxes but were apprehended. for MURDER. the facts show that the victims were first seized and bound and then slain. . The victims tried to run but a shot was fired and Felix (victim) was shot. that they are INC members an d were attending a panata that night. seeming almost dead. a fracture in his skull and died by drowning. The appellants’ move to “clear their names” cannot be accepted as voluntary surrender. For a surrender to be voluntary. March 1992. Mesa Manila against the team of Joey de los Santos. had wounds and died of strangulation as well. Later that afternoon. the witnesses were able to fully establish and prove and connect the appellants-accused to the crime. either because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily included for his search and capture. The victims begged for mercy. The Ronquillos brothers won the first 2 rounds but the 3rd one ended in a brawl. Accused’ defense was an alibi. Suddenly.

the latter being a necessary means to commit the former. Philippines. one of them is an essential element of the other. did then and there wilfully. The crime charged being a complex crime of kidnapping and murder.. In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime. which reads as follows: Passing upon the petition for certiorari in G. SOTERO RODAS. . But we should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged therein was committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. but if a defendant is charged in a complaint or information with having committed falsification of a private document as a means for committingestafa. For example. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. Paras. Section 48 of the Penal Code. and Padilla. Judge of First Instance of Manila. the one charged in the information. vs. JJ. for in such cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the second case. et al. . further. and later. fracturing the right 5th and 6th ribs and the skull and lacerating the brain. 1947. petitioner. in general." Therefore. From a cursory examination of the foregoing it clearly appears that the crime charged is kidnapping and murder and the former was committed by the defendants as a necessary means "for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given. Moran. providing for penalties for complex crime.praying for relief from the order of the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. says that "when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other. Ricardo Parulan vs. etc. being then private individuals. not an essential element of rape because rape may be committed anywhere without necessity of forcibly abducting or taking the victim to another place for that purpose. abduction is. in the City of Manila. or stealing of personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence. J.. the abduction being in such a case a necessary means to commit the rape. denying petitioner's motion to quash the information filed in criminal case No. Pablo. respondents. carry away in an automobile. such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim. and for purpose of extorting ransom from one Arthur Lee or of killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given. after having taken him to an uninhabited place by means of a motor boat. therefore. And although homicide or murder may be committed wherever the victim may be found. we should not find out whether. Assistant City Fiscal of Manila. conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another.: This is a motion for reconsideration of our resolution dated July 11. and that in fact he was killed by the defendants because of his refusal to pay the ransom. L-1536. the crime charged would be a complex crime of rape through abduction. because this offense may be committed through many and varied means. Bengzon. C.R. yet if the charge in a complaint or information is that the victim was kidnapped and taken to another distant place in order to demand ransom for his release and kill him if ransom is not paid. for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondent Judge from arraigning the petitioner of July 12. in accordance with their definition by law. an essential element of the crime ofestafa.RICARDO PARULAN. unlawfully. the court of first instance of any province in which any one of the essential elements of said complex offense has been committed. the question for determination in the present case is whether the offense charged in the information is a complex crime of kidnapping and murder. REYES. 1947. Hontiveros. . the Court of First Instance of Manila from where the victim was kidnapped has jurisdiction over the offense committed in Manila and continued all the way to the place where the victim was taken and murdered. and LUIS B. the same to be applied in its maximum period.J. and kill him with certain sense of impunity and certainty that no other person may witness the commission of the offense by the defendants if the victim refused to accede to their demand. otherwise the complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another. fire upon him with a .45 caliber pistol several shots thru the chest and head. 1947: the Court resolved to dismiss said petition on the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the complex offense of kidnapping with murder. RESOLUTION FERIA. The pertinent part of the information reads as follows: That on or about the 10th day of June. the crime of falsification of a private document is not in general. and. if it were the two offenses constitute one complex crime. feloniously. 3649 of said respondent Court as well as petitioner's motion for reconsideration and praying. Sotero Rodas. detain. Also. No. concur. the said accused. with treachery.. . that the defendants had to kidnap or carry the victim to a faraway and secluded place in order to better secure the consent of the victim through fear to pay the ransom. has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense. thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which directly caused the death of the said Arthur Lee almost instantaneously. but if the offense charged is that the defendant abducted or carried by force the victim from one place to another wherein the latter was raped by the former. to wit: while the said Arthur Lee was deprived of his liberty and was very weak as a result of the physical injuries which had been previously inflicted upon him by the said accused. the offense charged would be a complex offense of estafa through falsification. kidnap. 1947. the former as a necessary means for committing the latter." that is. dated July 8. Hilado. The motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. the offense charged would evidently be a complex crime of murder through kidnapping. Reyes and Cruz for petitioner.

64. for murder. 1966 in Quezon City. trial commenced on May 19. and employ personal violence upon the person of MARIANO LIM. JOHN DOE and PETER DOE. by stabbing the latter with a bladed weapon thereby inflicting upon the said MARIANO LIM serious and mortal wounds which was the direct and immediate cause of his death. the Court of First Instance of Rizal issued an Order discharging said accused Ty Sui Wong for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. at night time purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime. with the mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and that of passion.. did. JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias "PEPENG KOMANG". attack. for murder. as already explained. R. Juanito Ang y Dejungco. VICTOR NG. Thereafter. (c) Romualdo Carreon. Philippines. the afore-mentioned decision finding he accused guilty of murder. 1968. while Ty Sui Wong also pleaded not guilty on April 14.).C.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Quezon City.: Appeal by Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. 1 2 1967. that of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that committed offsetting the aggravating circumstance of treachery. with treachery. 1-2). to suffer the penalty one degree lower than of the prescribed penalty of from reclusion temporary maximum to death (Art. JOSE DE LOS SANTOS. medium to reclusion temporal medium. with intent to kill. the accused ROQUE DEJUNGCO. J. as maximum. 1967. pursuant to a conspiracy previously had with their co-accused TY SUI WONG. unlawfully and feloniously. Branch V. after which both the prosecution and "he defenses submitted their respective memoranda. VICTOR NG alias "TY SING LING" and JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias "PEPENG KOMANG". together with Roque Dejungco alias Gerry. Masakayan.P. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence law. but only as accomplice. Jose de los Santos. in further pursuing their conspiracy aforestated. by taking advantage of their superior strength. defendants-appellants. 1967. then and there. Dacanay for appellant Jose de los Santos. ANTONIO. JOHN DOE and PETER DOE. Meanwhile. 5. VICTOR NG alias "TY SING LING" ROQUE DEJUNGCO alias "GERRY". pp. also for murder. and in consideration of the price or reward given to them and promised by. was promulgated and each of said accused were sentenced as follows: (a) Jose de los Santos and Gerry Dejungco. in Criminal Case No. (d) For Juanito Ang. but with the privilege mitigating circumstances of being 16 years old (Art. 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal. 1970. Victor Ng. (b) Victor Ng. 68. without any modifying circumstance as already explained in noticing the existence of one mitigating circumstance.) to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from 10 years prison mayor. by means of force and intimidation. vs. qualified by reward. also for murder. (CFI Rollo. their coaccused TY SUI WONG. Ty Sui Wong. ROMUALDO CARREON and JUANITO ANG.C. 36 Kanlaon. or on January 4. then and there employ personal violence upon the person of said MARIANO LIM. John Doe and Peter Doe. par. 1967 by the counsel for accused Ty Sui 3 4 Wong. for appellee. upon motion to dismiss filed on December 26. CONTRARY TO LAW. TY SUI WONG. PETER DOE and JOHN DOE. plaintiff-appellee. VICTOR NG. and with the use of a motor vehicle. E. Romualdo Carreon and Juanito Ang pleaded not guilty on February 20. with evident premeditation. as minimum to 17 years and 4 months ofreclusion temporal as maximum. finding them guilty of Murder and imposing upon them the penalties of an indeterminate penalty from ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum with respect to Victor Ng.P. as follows: That on or about the 21st day of December. by then and there. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said MARIANO LIM in such amount as may be awarded them under the provisions of the civil code. 1968 before Judge Honorato B. Quezon City Branch. to suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed for the crime of murder. and ended on December 23. did. Office of the Solicitor General. kidnap one MARIANO LIM at the latter's residence at No. and reclusion perpetua to Jose de los Santos. A. Upon arraignment. defendants. Dakila F. after which said accused. were charged with Kidnapping with Murder before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Roque Dejungco. Victor Ng. Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos. On January 20. them. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law he is hereby sentenced to a prison term of from 10 years of prision mayor. Q-7612. willfully. to suffer reclusion perpetua. ROMUALDO CARREON alias "OMENG" JUANITO ANG y DEJUNGCO. as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. without any aggravating circumstance to offset. Quezon City. as minimum. or prision mayor. R. he should suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years of prision mayor. Castro & Associates for appellant. . assault. Romualdo Carreon alias Omeng.

On the insistence of Abrogar. Angelita Failona. about what was happening outside. July 7. Thereafter. Lorenzo Gabriel described the dead man as around 35 years of age. by the man identified as Carreon. 615-616). Aug. testimony of Chua Yem. Sept. testimony of Det. She informed Quirino Asido. 1967.(tsn. Lim Chu Beng immediately ran towards the gate of their house and saw two men in the jeep with his brother. testimony of Chua Yem). 2526. 1967. went driving around the metropolitan area in his jeep to see the different Christmas decorations put up by big business establishments during the Yuletide season. p. tsn.000 as moral damages. 1967. 27. Sept. From the above quoted judgment of conviction. testimony of Lim Chu Beng. Mother and son. 1967. 1967 testimony of Lim Chu Beng. 15. pp. Lim Chu Beng gave to the police a description of the two men who snatched his brother. to open the gate. 7-9) xxx xxx xxx In the early morning of December 22. accused Victor Ng. the place where the latter worked (which was at Tong's Glassware at 226 Villalobos. 15. pp. 4. and the other hanging over the middle of the street. Ruiz). pp. wearing dark gray pants and a T-Shirt. 90. testimony of Failona. proceeded to Precinct No. 76-77. The other man. pp. One of these policemen. May 19. 72 July 7. 37.All the foregoing accused are furthermore sentenced to the accessory penalties prescribed by law. 1967. Rizal saw at a dead end street inside the aforesaid compound. (tsn. p. 21. 36. 22. his mouth gagged with handkerchief. pp. 31. Maria Abrogar. Pasay City. testimony Chua Yem). (tsn. the inert body of a man whom she thought to be merely in a state of a deep drunken stupor. 35 July 7. 23-24. also. 'C' p. pp. pp. also Exh. 87-88. pp. p. Ibid). Aug. pp. positively Identified as Juanito Ang. 1967. 15. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 31-33. (tsn. 'F-l'. Jose de los Santos. testimony of Lorenzo Gabriel Rizal Assistant Provincial Fiscal Bienvenido Reyes later joined the investigation upon being informed of the matter and conducted his own inquest. July 7. pp. The officer on duty assigned a man to accompany them to the headquarters of the said police department where the incident was entered in the police blotter as Case No. (tsn. he and his mother Chua Yem. was well lighted by two mercury lamps. St. testimony of Lim Chu Beng. testimony of Failona. pp. Rec. hereinafter referred to simply as QCPD. 10-12 Nov. Nov. It was while the said maid was opening the gate that two men suddenly approached the victim from each side of the jeep. Ibid). thus placing the victim between him and Ang. in the sum of P12. p. testimony of Chua Yem). p. of what she saw. the vicinity of the family residence at Kanlaon St. which sent him sprawling to the ground. Ang and Carreon were categorically Identified at the trial by the mother. 31. One of the two. Roque Dejungco and Romualdo Carreon 5 6 appealed. 10. 15.68. (tsn. 16-18. he found a man already dead. testimony of Quirino Asido). and Romualdo Carreon abandoned his appeal while the same was pending before the trial court. (tsn. p. went to the left of the victim. placed a hand on the victim's mouth. however. pp. 1967. 68. The following statement of facts contained in the brief of the Solicitor General are not disputed: Earlier that fateful day of December 21.. 35. July 7. testimony of Lim Chu Beng. Sept. 12. May 19. also positively Identified as Romualdo Carreon. 41-47. testimony of Chua Yem). shifted to forward gears and sped towards the direction of Dapitan Street. 25. 72-74. 15. testimony of Failona. July 7. pp. a cook in the household of Henrick Bratt of The Factor Compound. Ng Tong. p. testimony of Chua Yem. with proportionate costs. attended mass in a church at Libertad St. 1967. (tsn. pp 21. while waiting for the housemaid. one on a Meralco post 14 meter way and just across the street. 21-23. of Exhibits) and forced him to move aside from the driver seat. Sept. pp. 73. poked a sharppointed instrument at the victim (see Exhibit '0-5'. 1 of the Quezon City Police Department. jointly and severally. 'F'. pp. Rec. 1966. to report his ghastly discovery and the police department of that town immediately responded by sending two policemen to accompany Asido back to the scene to investigate. testimony of Failona: pp. 1966. pp. 15. 1967. Ibid).000 (People v. 15. 1967. (tsn. 11-12. 36-37. and thereafter. gardener in the same household. at about 6:00 o'clock. pp. 21-22. Parañaque. (tsn p. July 7. testimony of Lim Chu Beng. He rushed towards them only to be met with a kick in the stomach. (tsn. the daughter of the victim's employer.s. 10-11. pp. Ruiz) (pp. The mother alighted from the jeep. testimony of Lim Chu Beng). pp. Asido finally consented to do her bidding and went to the 'drunk' lying on the street. together with the maid. 1967. Quiapo. went to the otherside of the jeep. Asido forthwith went to the Municipal Building of Parañaque. 34-35. at about 11:00 o'clock that night. 1967. The jeep with Ang at the steering wheel then backed out. The mother and brother gave chase up to the corner of Kanlaon and Dapitan Streets but their efforts proved to be a futile gesture. Their Identification was made easy because on the night in question. 8 meters from where the jeep was then parked. Ibid. 25. and to pay said heirs the sum of P50. Accused Juanito Ang did not appeal and was committed to prison to serve his sentence on March 25. . (t. 31. 1967. Sept. then watching a television show. 65-66 Sept. Roque Dejungco. October 25. which was the victim's 30th birthday. July 7. 65. to report the incident. 34. 21. (tsn. urging him to go to the fellow and invite him for a cup of coffee. Instead. 1967. Pantoja) and in the order of precedence as to principals and accomplice as provided by law. 1966. 1967. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The two finally arrived at their residence at 36 Kanlaon St. Exh. Rizal. 1967. 1970. the body was brought to the Funeraria Quiogue for examination by the proper medico-legal officer. 76-A. pulled the victim towards him. testimony of Lim Chua Beng. 15-18. August 25. 14041 for robbery hold-up (Exh. the brother and the maid as the same two persons which forcibly took Mariano Lim that night of December 21. testimony of Pat. testimony of Det. The mother shouted after his son while the maid ran back inside the house and informed a brother of the victim Lim Chu Beng. 1967. 41-42. Sept. testimony of Chua Yem). pp. (CFI Rollo. Manila) and the fact that his brother was a good friend of Ruby Ng. July 7. Ibid). of Exhibits). 26-29.. 6-9. Likewise jointly and severally.n. (tsn. 1967. (tsn. 1967. 1967. 16-18. thus leaving Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos as the only 7 8 appellants. 1967. withdrew his appeal before the records could be forwarded to the Supreme Court. testimony of Failona). 1967. 15. 38. 1967. Ricardo Santos. Preliminary finding showed that the dead man had a stab wound on his chest. pp.

running downwards and slight laterally. Camilo Lim. and their other co-accused. 1966. 1967) and the death blow must have been delivered with the assailant holding the death weapon with his right hand. Exhs. from whom he got a description of the hold-up men. established beyond doubt the criminal culpability of the appellants Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos. 1966. he looked aghast with fear and remained speechless. and receiving an affirmative answer. pp.5 cm. 1. and puncturing the hylus of lung left and small bronchi. Rec. pp. Ant bites abundant. Oct. that shortly before December 21. Dr. Det. Mouth gagged with handkerchief. Godofredo Ruiz). from anterior median line. pp. with an approximate depth of 12. where the victim worked. 61. anterior. The Necropsy Report prepared by him and marked as Exhibit 'G' at the trial contained the following findings: Paller. even making corrections therein. 60. of Exhibits. The following facts. Ruiz also learned in the course of his interview with those in the Lim family residence and those in the glassware store at Quiapo. and during that meeting. went to the said funeral parlor and Identified the dead man as his brother. both armed. 10. In a short while. 1966. Cause of death: Stab wound of left chest. at about 11:30 o'clock in the morning and after a futile wait for the body to be identified. 2. Ernesto Brion of the National Bureau of Investigation performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the dead man. Det. Manila. this companion informed Det. He had brought along with him to the compound a Chinese speaking companion. testimony of Det. Brion took pictures of the deceased as well as his fingerprints for possible Identification. 1112. pp.On December 23. Mr.00 cm. but he received. Tracheabronchial tree contains blood. Hemopericardium 150 cc. which he did. Ibid. The body was remained unidentified until January 20. pp. 66-67. testimony of Lim Chu Beng. left superior. Ty Sui Wong told Mariano's father to tell his son (Mariano) to keep away from Ruby Ng. Ty Sui Wong.) Before performing his post-mortem examination. into left thoracic cavity. (pp. Exh. left side. although Ng had already managed to get out of the compound. Ruiz went again to the residence of Mariano Lim. Nov. Ruiz marked Victor Ng as a suspect. 68. thus: Assigned to the case as reported to the Quezon City Police Headquarters and entered as Case No.0 cm. Victor Ng was then brought to the Detective Bureau of Quezon City Police Department. (tsn. and information as to where Mariano worked and his having a girl friend named Ruby Ng.'I-3-a'. 71-73. this time to interview his father Lim Hok. 46). pp. Mr. but when confronted with a picture of the dead man taken by the NBI during the autopsy. also. when the brother of the dead man. Rec. one Victor Ng and his father. pp. after hearing the radio broadcast about the unidentified body at the Funeraria Quiogue. then into the pericardial cavity. From Caloocan City Treasurer's Office he also learned that Victor Ng was the Manager of Starlite Manufacturing Co. Victor Ng signed voluntarily on all the pages of his statement. Manila. (tsn. Ruiz then asked Victor Ng if he was willing to give a written statement. pp. conjunctivae and integument. in the presence of the detective and other witnesses. also. 25. Victor Ng and Mariano Lim figured in an encounter in front of the Tong's Glassware Store in which Mariano was mauled. 64. 36-38. . Ruiz tried co contact Victor Ng and able to do so only on February 6. (tsn. otherwise he would be liquidated. Chua Yam. Stab wound. and the timely arrival of reinforcement foiled Ng's escape attempt. Quezon City. From then on. 1967. and Angelita Faylona. the housemaid. Godofredo Ruiz interviewed first the complainant. Quezon City. 1967. 960 cc. Arcilla of the Manila Times. fan knife or such similar instruments (tsn. This prompted the detective to call for assistance from his headquarters. Mariano Lim. the mother. of Exhibits. Blood oozing from mouth. Oct. 13-14. In the presence of the Chief of the Detective Bureau. Rec. (See p. Quiapo. 14041 for robbery holdup (Exhibit F) Det. Ruiz that he heard Victor Ng. The body could have been dead for more than one day when he conducted the autopsy. Ibid. Victor Ng at first stood firm in his denial of any knowledge about the killing. Lim of the Greater East Asia Newspaper. together with two other companions. 'I'. who had been forcibly taken away from in front of the family residence at 36 Kanlaon St. 1967. Det. duly and voluntarily signed by him after reading it. No evidence of beginning putrefaction. 1967. 25. He then went to the glassware store to interview Ruby Ng and her father. On December 24. Paller. Stomach contains partly digested rice particles mixed with blood. 'I-3. Det. medially and almost horizontally. Det. with both of them either sitting or standing together. 1966. and Mr. 69-70. 'I-4'. Tan of the Fookien Times. (tsn. the daughter of the owner of Tong's Glassware at Villalobos Street. Dr. on the night of December 21. of Exhibits). at Kangkong. according to the trial court. Victor Ng broke down with an admission that he had something to do with the crime. The statement consists of three pages in the form of questions and answers in Tagalog. however. According to the doctor. edges clean cut. no information of value in the solution of the case. 21. Hemothorax. he was interrogated about the slaying of Mariano Lim. extremities sharp. 53-55. p. 25. 12-13. the victim to his left. but when informed that Mariano was still out. testimony Dr. brain and other visceral organs. 1967. perforating the pulmonary vein. went to the Lim residence looking for Mariano. 'H' and 'H-l'. the language he preferred to speak in. 68-69. liquid and clotting blood. all over integument. knotted at nape. 1966. (tsn. Det Ruiz then brought Victor Ng to Fiscal Solano for the verification of his statement. he took down Ng's statement after reminding him of his constitutional rights as shown in the statement itself (Exhibit M). telling the Chinese persons in the factory that he would try to escape. From these incidents. the wound could have been caused by a sharppointed instrument such as a dagger. into whose personal circumstances and background he was thus prompted to make proper inquiries from the Bureau of Immigration where he got his photograph. and thereafter asked to sign it if the contents were true. at level of 3rd intercostal space. 52. directed backwards. 56-60. It was then that he learned that on evening in September or October. Ibid). Oct. July 7. speaking in Chinese. Brion). thru the 3rd intercostal space and grazing the upper border of 4th rib. p. tsn. Again Victor Ng was asked to read his statement. 1961 at the latter's factory compound. chest left. Exhs. Lim Cho Beng. Ibid).

later in the day at 10:00 o'clock a. The confession of Dejungco was taken down after the usual preliminary interrogations during which he admitted his participation in the dastardly crime. 08. to play a leading role in the commission of the crime he wanted committed. (Affiant pointing to the person of ROQUE DEJUNGCO Y CHAN. 1966. Manila. . . Dejungco also confessed and named Jose de los Santos and Juanita Ang as confederates. So I contacted two people by the name of JUANITO ANG alias Johnny he is my cousin and one Pepeng Komang. 06. I met Mr. and if he will arrive on the 23rd of December. at about 6:30 a. T: Ano ang pangalan ng taong napatay na iyong sinasabi? S: Mariano daw po. at about 1:00 a. as well as in his signed statement (Exhibit M). De los Santos and Ang also signed respective confessions on the same day. . . He informed (me) that he had again a quarrel with Mariano Lim Cho Kuan. to read again his statement and to sign it if the same was true. and they told me that they are ready at my disposal. . February 7. Thus. T: Ano naman ang kaugnayan mo sa pagkamatay Mariano? S: Kasama po ako sa pagpatay kay Mariano.. allowed to read. Carreon made and signed his confession. and told me that he will be leaving for Zamboanga and Cebu City. February 7. . alias JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias JOSE VILLANUEVA. I told him if I could do any help to him. T: Ano ang kaugnayan nitong si Gerry o Roque Dejungco sa pagkamatay ni Mariano? S: Kasama po siya sa pagpatay bilang pangalawang mastermind. Marcos Viñas on the same morning of his apprehension. he doesn't want to see Mariano alive. 10. 1967. The only remaining confederate named in the confession of De los Santos and Ang still to be apprehended and questioned by that tune was Romualdo Carreon. of the next day. As in the case of Victor Ng. the former in the early morning of the same day in his residence at 235 Miguelin. In its most important part his confession reads as follows: 04. Manila). and further told me that if he will leave by the 15th of December 1966. 1967.m. Siya ang bilang boss namin sapagkat siya ang naguutos. The statement of Jose de los Santos alias 'Pepeng Komang' (Exhibit K) was taken before Pat. immediately after confessions have been taken down as aforestate. sir . With Dejungco's name thus mentioned.In the course of the interrogation of Victor Ng. T: Papaano mo nalaman na Mariano ang pangalan ng napatay na tao? S: Sinabi ho sa akin ni Gerry. and even correct. In his signed confession (Exhibit N) Dejungco gave the most compact account of the plan for the killing of Mariano Lim. You make a preparation to contact two people who can liquidate Mariano . he confessed to having contacted his classmate. 1967. In November 1966. alias Gerry. . T: Ano ang ibig mong sabihin ng salitang 'namin'? S: Ang ibig ko pong sabihin ay ako. single. which he did voluntarily before Fiscal Solano who also asked Dejungco before the latter affixed his signature. accompanied by Ernesto Lorenzo and Benjamin Gardiola upon being informed by his father that Det.m. 05. the latter in Welfareville. old. said statement before signing it. and that it was Dejungco who arranged for the execution of the hideous plot upon Ng's offer to pay the sum of P2. 25 yrs. I met him again in the same place. native of Manila and residing at 235 Miguelin St. Victor Ng at a Chinese Club somewhere at Pasay City. as well as its actual execution as follows: Q: Do you know personally the cause of his death? S: Yes. 1967. T: Sino ba itong si Gerry? S: Siya po. After five days. only Carreon was not there to take part. si Omeng na ang tunay na pangalan ay Romeo Carreon at Juanito Ang. He told me 'You see Gerry I know you from childhood and I am cognizant that you know hoodlums at Sampaloc. Apprehension of these two was also effected without loss of time. . On the same day. Sampaloc. his apprehension quickly followed. Gerry Dejungco. and I'll answer for the expenses'. Sampaloc.000 for the job. 09. I told these two people about the plan of Victor Ng. . Upon being investigated. He voluntarily appeared at the QCPD Headquarters on February 13. he was reminded of his constitutional rights before he gave his statement. T: Anong pagkakasala ang ibig mong sabihin? S: Pagpatay sa isang tao. This is the story. in the re-enactment of the crime on February 7. Ruiz had been looking for him for questioning about this case. . 07.m.

Mga isang daan metro buhat sa pinaglikuan namin ay inihinto ni Juanito ang jeep. 16. Sabi niya ay ipinapapatay ni Vic na kaibigan ni Gerry. T: Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari sa pagkapatay ninyo kay Mariano? S: Ganito po ang pangyayari niyan. Bumaba si Omeng at inilipat namin si Mariano sa harap na upuan tapos pinagitnaan namin ni Juanito at ako. 15: T: Sino-sino ang kasama mo ng patayin ninyo si Mariano? S: Si Gerry. Sabi niya ay magbabayad daw si Vic ng halagang limang libo para mapatay si Mariano. 18. Kaya kami ay nagpunta doon ay pinamumukhaan sa amin ni Gerry itong si Mariano. Ang ginawa ko ay iniakbay ko ang kaliwang kamay ko kay Mariano at sinaksak ko ng minsan sa bandang kaliwang dibdib. Rizal po. Nagpaikot-ikot muna kami sa bandang Pasay at Dewey Blvd. 12. 21. Nuon pong Nobiembre 1966 ay nasabi sa akin ni Gerry na may bibirahin tao kami. Matapos talian sa bibig ay hinawakan ni Omeng at Gerry ang dalawang kamay ni Mariano buhat sa likuran. Napagusapan namin kung saan bibirahin o papatayin si Mariano at sabi ni Juanito ay alam niya kung saan. Pagkatapos ng mga tatlong araw pagkasabi sa akin ni Gerry ang balak na pagpatay kay Mariano ay nagkita-kita kaming apat sa bahay ni Omeng. T: Sinong kumpare ito. (Affiant pointing to the person of VICTOR NG alias Victor Ty with Chinese name of Ty Sing Ling). T: Kailan uli kayo nagkita tungkol sa bagay na isinasalaysay mo? S: Sila Vic po at Gerry ay madalas magkita pa pero ako ay nito na lang na gabi ng kunin na si Mariano sa bahay niya sa Quezon City uli nakasama. Nuong araw na iyon una kong nakita si Mariano. 13. iyong anak ko ay inaanak niya. Ang ginawa ni Omeng ay tinalian ang bibig ng isang panyo na galing kay Juanito si Mariano. Sabi ni Gerry sa akin ay sumama daw ako. T: Ituloy mo ang salaysay mo? S: Matapos naming makita at mamukhaan si Mariano ay naghiwalay na kami. sa pagpatay kay Mariano. Pumayag naman ako dahil sa nademonyo na ako sa sinabi ng aking kumpare. T: Ituloy mo ang iyong salaysay? S: Sumakay nga po ako ng jeep at sa unahan ako umupo duon sa kanan. T: Saan ninyo pinatay si Mariano? S: Sa Parañaque. 14. 22. si Jose de los Santos at Omeng o Romeo Carreon. T: Anong oras mo unang nakita si Mariano? S: Mga alas 8:30 ng gabi po. T: Kaylan ka nakasama sa pagpatay kay Mariano? S: Bago po magpasko ng Deciembre 1966 hinde ko po natandaan ang petsa. Nuon po ay nasa loob pa ng jeep si Mariano. Mayroon pa bang pangunahing mastermind? S: Dahil po ang pangunahing mastermind bale ay si VIC. T: Nasaang gawi mo si Mariano ng saksakin siya? . 17. si Juanito Ang. T: Bakit nasabi mo na pangalawang mastermind si Gerry o Roque Dejungco. 20. T: Sino itong Vic na sinasabi mo? S: Siya po. 23.11. Kaming apat ngayon ay nagpunta sa Quiapo sa Villalobos sa glass store na pinagtatrabahuhan ni Mariano. 19. Ang ginawa ko ay tinanong ko kung saan ang puso ni Mariano at sumagot ang isa sa amin na sa kaliwa aniya.? S: Gerry po. Matapos ang isang oras humigit-kumulang ay nakarating kami ng Parañaque at sa isang kalye sa may gawaan ng Canada Dry ay kumanan kami. T: Ituloy mo ang salaysay mo? S: Nasabi din niya sa akin kung sino-sino ang kasama namin Sabi niya ay si Omeng at Juanito pati siya ay kasama. Hindi ko lang alam ang kalye.

Gerry Dejungco at Romeo. Iyon namang kakulangan sa dalawang libo ay napunta na siguro kay Gerry. Mesa at De la Fuente ay ipinarada ko ang jeep sa may restaurant at nagalmusal na ako. Ang sagot nila ay sa akin ng buong buo ang jeep.m. Tumuloy sa amin sa di kalayuan sa amin sa Miguelin. Pagkatapos ng dalawang araw ay nagkita kami ni Gerry. . Nuong a-19 ng Disyembre gabi nuon mga alas-7 pasado ay sinabi sa akin ni Romeo Carreon na itutuloy na ang balak nila. Bali ang napaghatian namin ay umaabot sa kulang na dalawang libo at sabi ni Gerry ay tumatawad daw si Victor sa usapang limang libo. Omeng at Juanito sa aming lugar sa Miguelin sa bahay nila Omeng at mapagusapan namin ang tungkol sa ibibigay sa amin. Kinaliwa ko sa P. Lumabas na uli kami pabalik sa gawing Maynila. Ang ginawa ko ay kinuha ko at inihagis ko sa may kanto ng Arevalo at M. T: Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari sa pagkapatay ninyo sa isang lalaki na iyong sinasabi? S: Ako po ay umiskapo buhat sa Welfareville nuong ika-13 ng Disyembre 1966 at umuwi ako sa amin sa Miguelin. Nagdaan ako ng may Ayala. Nuong a-21 ng Disyembre gabi rin mga alas-9 ay kagagaling ko lang sa inuman sa may Constancia. Ang limang daan ay ibinigay sa akin. Tumuloy na kami ng rotonda ng Baclaran. Sumakay siya sa jeep. Also before Pat. 1967. Pagkatapos ng limang araw ay nagkita uli kami ni Gerry at sabi niya ay binigyan daw siya uling tres sientos pesos ni Victor. de la Fuente. Wala pa aniya ni Gerry si Victor Ng at nasa Cebu City pa kaya naghintay kami. Pagkatapos ng mga 20 minutos na kami ay naguusap ay napagkayarian na si Jose ang papatay sa intsik at ako ang magmamaneho ng jeep. Mga dalawang araw pa lang na ako ay nakalabas ay naikuwento sa akin ni Gerry na aking pinsan na may papatayin daw siya na isang intsik na may atraso sa kay Gerry. Jose at Gerry na naguusap. Nagpaandar uli si Juanito ng jeep at nagmaneobra para bumalik kami sa aming pinasukan. Mga alas 10 ng umaga ding iyon ay pumunta ako sa bahay ni Romeo at ipinakita ko ang diaryo na may balita. Tumuloy kaming pabalik sa Pasay at pagdating sa Pasay ay bumaba na ako pero bago ako bumaba ay binigyan niya ako ng sampung piso ni Gerry. Mag-aalas 5:30 media na nuon ng umaga. Nuong 27 ng Disyembre umaga ay ipinahuli ako ng aking Tatay sa Manila Police at dinala ako sa Precinto 2 at nuong 29 ng Disyembre 1966 ay ibinalik ako sa Welfareville. Pauwi na ako noon ng dumaan ako kina Romeo uli para makipagusap. Nabanggit duon ni Gerry na limang libo ang ibibigay ni Victor Ng sa amin pero ang naibigay lang nito ng magbigayan na ay umabot lang sa dalawang libong piso. Napunta sa akin duon ay isang daan at ang iba ay sa kanila. . Pagkatapos ng siyam na araw buhat nuong pangalawang pagbibigay ng pera ay binigyan uli ni Vic ng tres sientos pero wala nang napunta sa akin duon. Mga alas-3 o alas-2:30 ng umaga nuon din ay sumakay ako sa isang jeep pabalik sa Quiapo at umuwi na ako sa amin. Tumuloy pa ako ng Sta. Florentino ang jeep at di kalayuan sa sine Trabaho ay ipinara ko ang jeep paharap sa UST sa kaliwa ng P Florentino. Sila ay ang tatlo nina Gerry. Ang natira ay napunta sa kanila nila Omeng at Juanita... T: Ano pa ang nangyari? S: Ang ginawa namin ni Omeng ay binuhat namin si Mariano at itinapon namin sa tabi ng daan mga dalawang metro ang law sa daan. of the same day of his arrest on February 7. Nuong bisperas ng pasko ay nagkita kami ni Gerry sa tapat ng bahay namin at tinanong niya ako kung ako ay may pera at sabi ko wala at binigyan niya ako ng limang piso. Marcos Viñas. Si Juanita naman ay nasa kaliwa ni Mariano. Jose de los Santos at Romeo Carreon. Sila naman ay tumuloy na patungong Maynila. Kinaumagahan ay pumunta ako sa bahay nina Romeo sa Arevalo at sinabi niya sa akin na pumaltos daw ang lakad nila. Dahil po sa kalasingan ko ay nakisabat na ako sa usapan. Naglakad na lang akong patungong España at umuwi na ako sa Miguelin. Ang paksa ng usapan ay tungkol sa papatayin nilang intsik. Pagdating duon ay sabi nila Gerry at si Jose at Romeo na lilipat na sila ng jeep na de pasahero kaya bumaba na sila. the most revealing part of which reads: 11. Pagkaalmusal ko ay umikot uli ako dala ang jeep at may nasalubong akong isang batang nagtitinda ng diaryo at bumili ako ng Manila Times. Bukod duon ay wala na akong naging pera buhat sa kanila at pagkalipas ng dalawang araw ay nabasa ko sa Manila Times na nakuha na ang jeep ng mga pulis. Nuong malapit na kami sa gawaan ng Darigold ay iniabot sa akin ni Gerry ang bente pesos. Kumaliwa na akong patungong Dewey at tumuloy ako ng Maynila. Balak ni Juanito ay ibenta ang jeep at sabi ko ay sa parteng iyon ay ayaw ko na kaya bumaba na ako. Ipinarada ko doon ang jeep na may mga kalahating oras at umuwi ako para magpalit ng damit dahil sa may dugo ang manggas ng aking polo. Nadatnan ko sina Romeo. Juanito Ang gave his statement (Exhibit L) at about 1:20 p. Binasa ko at nalaman ko na alarmado na ang jeep. Nakaupo kaming pareho sa unahang upuan ng jeep. Mesa at sa kanto ng Sta. Hindi pa kami masyadong nakalalayo ay tinanong ko si Romeo.S: Nasa kaliwa ko siya. Pinunasan ko ng basahan na nakuha ko sa jeep ang talsik ng dugo sa salamin at itinapon ko ang basahan sa di kalayuan ng jeep. Sinabi sa akin na ang intsik na papatayin ay may jeep at ako nga ang magmamaneho ng jeep. Pagtingin ko ay nakita ko ang balita na: 'Chinese Trader Kidnapped'. Sinabi ko na sasama na rin ako sa lakad nila. at nasabi ko pa na akin na lang ang jeep. Nagtawa lang si Romeo tapos ay bumalik na ako sa amin at natulog na ako. Ibinalita ko uli kay Romeo at sabi niya hindi bale. Pagkatapos ng isang linggo ay nagpunta si Gerry sa bahay namin at dala niya ang otso sientos sinkuenta pesos bilang bayad daw ni Victor sa amin. Sabi sa akin ay mayroon nubenta pesos na nasa kay Gerry na. Gerry at Jose kung may nakuha silang pera. 24. Natakot ako ngayon. Ang ibig sabihin niya ay sila nina Jose de los Santos. Naglibot-libot ako sa may lugar namin at naalala ko na ang ipinanaksak ni Jose sa intsik ay nasa compartment ng jeep. Dineretso ko ang Economia patungong España at tumawid ako ng España.

19. at si Jose raw ay binigyan na niya ng limang daang piso (P500. pero hindi ko matandaan ang numero ng plaka. Sa isang kalye roon na hindi ko alam ang pangalan ay iniliko ni Juanito ang jeep.00). at nagpaikot-ikot muna. 2. Lim Hoc. The foregoing facts were established by the testimonial evidence of the prosecution through the testimonies of Quirino Acido. Ernesto G. pp.00). xxx xxx xxx Pagdating namin sa Mayon ay nakita ko sina Gerry at Jose na nakatayo sa Mayon sa pagitan ng Dapitan at Piy Margal. T: Sinabi ba sa iyo ni Gerry kung sino ang nagbigay ng pera? S: Sinabi po at ang sabi ay si Victor Ng. Pablo C. T: Nasaan ngayon si Victor Ng na iyong sinasabi na siyang nagbigay ng pera? S: Siya po. Pagdating sa isang kanto na malapit sa Stonehill ay bumaba kaming dalawa ni Gerry at sina Juanito at Jose ay pumasok sa nasabing kanto na kasama si Mariano Lim. Dr. Tapos ay iniakbay ni Jose ang kanyang kaliwang balikat ni Mariano Lim at biglang sinaksak sa dibdib. T: Ano ang kulay ng jeep ni Mariano Lim? S: Kulay pula po. who were all inside the Bureau). Makalipas ang bagong taon ay binigayan pa ako uli ng isang daang piso ni Gerry. T: Matapos na maibigay sa iyo ni Gerry ang dalawang daang piso. (Affiant pointing to the person of VICTOR NG alias TY SING LING who is inside the Bureau). Tapos ay bumaba na si Jose at binuhat niya ang intsik o si Mariano Lim at ibinaba sa tabi ng kalye na may damo. Sgt. Sabi ni Jose sa akin. Chief of NBI Medico-Legal Office. Sabi sa akin ni Juanito ay talian ko na ang bibig. Lim Cho Beng. JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias 'PEPE'. Samantalang kami ay nasa daan pa ay nagtanong si Jose sa amin kung nasaan ang tusok. T: Paano mo nakilala si Mariano Lim at ang kanyang jeep? S: Itinuro po sa akin ni Gerry noong Disyembre 10. Tapos ay tinanong ni Jose kay Juanito kung saan ang puso. at the QCPD headquarters quoted in its more significant parts as follows: 15. Kami ay naghanap muna ni Gerry ng mabibilihan ng sigarilyo. and JUANITO ANG y DEJUNGCO. (CFI Rollo. Pascual on the same day he presented himself on February 13. Sumakay uli kami ni Gerry sa likod ng jeep dahil sa si Jose na ang nakaupo sa harapan ng dati kong inuupuan. Makalipas ang sinco minutos ay bumalik si Gerry at sabi sa amin ay wala pa ang kanyang kumpare.In the case of Romualdo Carreon. 1967. dumaan kami sa España. Chua Yem. Nang makababa na kami ni Gerry ay sinabi sa akin ni Gerry na 'YAYARIIN NATIN IYANG SI MARIANO'. ano ang sinabi sa iyo? S: Ang sabi niya ay iyon ang aking kaparte sa pagkakapatay namin kay Mariano Lim. Angelita Faylona. 578-590). his statement exhibit J) was given before Det. nasaan ngayon? S: Ayan po sila (Affiant pointing to the persons of ROQUE DEJUNGCO y CHAN alias 'GERRY'. Nang bumalik si Gerry ay dala na niya ang isang kutsilyo at ibinigay kay Jose. pagdating sa Rotonda at patungo kaming Maynila. 20. 1966. Samantalang kami ay naghahanap ay dumating sina Juanito at Jose na kasama si Mariano Lim na sakay din ng Jeep. Bumaba uli si Gerry at nagpunta sa bahay ng kanyang kumpare. Kami ay nagtuloy sa Parañaque. tapos hanggang sa may Stonehill sa Pasay City. Nakarating kami sa Roxas Boulevard. Makalipas ang dalawang minuto ay inilagay o itinapat ni Juanito ang kanyang isang daliri sa ilong ni Mariano Lim at pagkatapos ay sinabi niyang "PATAY NA'. Tapos ay sumakay siya uli at umalis na kami sa lugar na iyon. Patrolman Lorenzo Gabriel. Ang sagot ni Juanito ay 'AYWAN HINDI KO ALAM'. 16. ay binigyan ako ni Gerry ng dalawang daang piso (P200. Ricardo . T: Ang mga kasama mong pumatay kay Mariano Lim. ipinahinto ni Gerry ang jeep kay Juanito at siya ay bumaba. Kami ay nagpatuloy nang pagtakbo at duon kami dumaan sa Mayon. 17 T: Ng magdaan ba ang jeep sa Avenida Rizal at ituro sa iyo ni Gerry ay sino ang may data ng jeep? S: Ang nagmamaneho po ay isang lalaki at kasama sa jeep si Mariano Lim. Sabi ni Gerry ay 'SANDALI LANG AT MANGHIHIRAM AKO NG TUSOK SA AKING KUMPARE'. Nang makarating kami sa may tapat ng opisina ng MERALCO sa Parañaque. Ang ginawa ko ay kinuha ko ang panyo ni Gerry at tinalian ang bibig ni Mariano. Tapos ay nagpatuloy kami sa pagtakbo na patungong kabayanan ng Parañaque. Ang sagot ni Juanito ay wala sa akin. 21. Nang makalipas ang mga trenta minutos ay bumalik na kami sa may opisina ng Meralco sa Parañaque. 'NASA IYO BA' ang sagot ko 'WALA.00) at si Juanito ay hindi pa kundi iyon lang biente pesos (P20. Tapos ay hinawakan ko ang kanang kamay ni Mariano. Kami ay nagbalik sa may Roxas Blvd. Tinigilan ni Juanito ang dalawa at sumakay naman ang dalawa sa likod ng jeep. 1966. Brion. T: Bukod sa sampong piso na naibigay sa iyo ni Gerry ikaw ba ay nakatanggap ng salapi o ano mang gantimpala sa ginawa ninyong pagpatay na ito? S: Noon pong Disyembre 22. Tapos ay itinigil ang jeep sa pagdating sa dulo pagkat Dead End na. 18. ng magkasama kami sa Maynila at makita niya na magdaan sa Avenida Rizal.

QCPD. He alleged that before he and his co-accused signed their respective statements. Thus. having left Manila on December 15.. were taken to Kanlaon St. In impugning his extrajudicial confession. while his wife. 1967. thighs and chest until he became dizzy. he was brought into room and was presented with a typewritten statement which contained his admission that he was the one who killed Mariano Lim. they never spoke with each other regarding this case. 1967. Afterwards. that at about 4:30 a. in the presence of three policemen. When he denied killing Mariano Lim. he admitted making corrections on his statement and signing the same twice after reading it. returning only on December 22. that he read some comic magazines and then went to sleep at about 9:00 p.m. although he never read the statement. he had been driving his passenger jeepney along the afore-mentioned line. Later. dito sa amin hindi maaaring hindi aamin". he took care of his son and put him to sleep. he testified that after his arrest at 3:00 am. In the process. Thereafter. Victor Ng testified that he was arrested in the afternoon of February 6. that he had supper with his father. counsel for appellant Jose de los Santos contends that the lower court erred: (1) In finding that the confession — the sole and evidence here — of appellant was given voluntarily. age. 1966 up to February 7. Roque Dejungco. 1966. Ruiz of the Detective Bureau. two of the officers maltreated him by boxing him on his stomach. as heretofore stated.Santos. Amelia Santos. Appellant Jose de los Santos also claimed that at about 8:00 o'clock p. a policeman hit his legs. were told to re-enact the crime from its inception at Kanlaon St. Roman Santos. that they also stripped him of his clothes and put ice on his body and then put him in a jeep which they drove around the golf club. to its consummation at Parañaque. he was brought inside a room where he was again stripped of his clothes. took care of their son who was then sick: that after supper. to commit the crime. Thereafter.m. for a reward. Likewise. where he was allegedly asked to confess to the killing of Mariano Lim. and . In his brief.. Victor Ng is inadmissible for having been secured through promise of immunity aside from the use of force. Both Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos interposed the defense of alibi. QCPD. and latter to the police headquarters. of December 21. and in spite of the maltreatment he refused to admit that he ordered the killing. he was brought to the office of Major Ernesto San Diego who told him that if he made the desired admission he will be released and used as a state witness. 1967 by the police authorities. Hence. he was awakened by his wife and he immediately left for work. 1966. threat and intimidation. Quirino District. that he was brought again to the Capitol Golf Club where he was maltreated when he refuse to admit that he ordered the killing of Mariano Lim. Det. occupation and the names of his wife and parents. and told: "Hindi ka pala tatagal. In view of this assurance to him and allegedly because of the beatings which he could no longer endure.m. in his brief. After signing the statement. Juanito Ang did not appeal. In the morning of February 7. and brought to the hills near the Capitol Golf Club. Pat. He stated that from December 21. he went directly to his home after his work as a driver of a passenger jeepney plying the Balic-Balic-Quiapo Line. and by the documentary evidence of the prosecution. and Romualdo Carreon abandoned his appeal from the judgment of conviction meted against them by the trial court. date of birth. that they put pepper in his eyes and nose. 1966. as well as their co-accused Juanito Ang. and tied thereto. of the Quezon City Police Department at Project 4. to which statement he kept silent. 1967. Appellant Jose de los Santos also claimed that he signed Exhibit "K" under duress. the present appeal concerns only the cases of the accused Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos. At about 2:30 a. (2) In discarding the alibi of herein appellant. It is worthy to note that any doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of appellants' co-accuse had already been dispelled by the fact that. after which he was brought to Precinct 5. that at about 11:00 p. When he refused to sign it he was boxed on the mouth and then the man sitting beside him held his right hand and forced him to sign the statement. of February 6.m. once before the police investigators and again before Fiscal Solano. Roque Dejungco withdrew his appeal. he was brought to the Quezon City Police Department Detective Bureau where reporters took his pictures. he was returned to his detention cell. inclusive. Quezon City. of December 22. Quezon City. and without having been investigated or questioned by Det. 1967 at Barrio Kangkong. covered his face with a rug and poured water into his nose and mouth. (4) In finding that defendant-appellant Victor Ng was motivated by jealousy and intense hate in inducing the commission of the crime. pictures were taken. made to lie down on a bench with his face upward. He admitted that he did not recognize the persons who maltreated him because his face was covered. Afterwards. Pablo Pascual QCPD. On cross-examination. he signed a statement marked Exhibit "M". 1967. Exhibit "K" he and his co-accused. he was asked his name. he was placed inside a room where he was asked if he admits having killed Mariano Lim. on February 7. or the day following the incident in question. and that even before December 21.. (2) In considering the alleged confession of Roque Dejungco as having interlock with the alleged confession of defendant-appellant Victor Ng: (3) In finding that defendant-appellant Victor Ng induced his co-accused. and (5) In not acquiting defendant-appellant Victor Ng at least on the ground of reasonable doubt. by several policemen where the two of them. Quezon City. Victor Ng stated that he was in Zamboanga on the night of the killing. and when he refused to do so. Exhibits "A" to "P" and "P-1". he was boxed and kicked inside the police headquarters when he refused to acknowledge that he knew Victor Ng as wen as Gerry Dejungco.m. on February 7. Godofredo Ruiz. he already knew Romualdo Carreon and Juanito Ang. 1966. he decided to make the admission they wanted him to make. 1966. counsel for appellant Victor Ng contends that the lower court erred: (1) In not finding that the alleged confession of herein defendant-appellant. They are currently serving their corresponding sentences.

it appears that Victor Ng harbored such bitter hatred against the victim. dahil galit ang tatay ko. sabi niya sa telepono. 10. pinababa ko si Mariano. sabi ni Mariano." (Exhibit "N"). Unable to find Mariano who was then out. which prevented further harm on Mariano Lim. 1966 looking for Mariano. Q. Tapos alis na kami. he doesn't want to see Mariano Lim alive. From the interlocking confessions of the accused. This culminated. who were again armed.(3) In convicting appellant. Kami away sa telepono. while Juanito Ang and Romualdo Carreon were positively identified by the mother. proceeded to the residence of Mariano Lim at Kanlaon St. brother and maid of the victim as the persons whom they saw taking away forcibly Mariano Lim on the night of December 21. also revealed in detail the participation of this accused. Tapos shake hands kami. . but he had also become the business associate of Ruby's father. It was precisely on the basis of these prior incidents that Det.. these witnesses did not know of the names of the kidnappers or their whereabouts. ginalit niya ako. 1966. minura ako marami siya sabi sa akin. Ty Sui Wong... kung meron akong panahon. nagaway din sila para naghamon si Mariano sa Tatay ko. otherwise. Exhibit ("M"). Godofredo Ruiz on the night of February 6. Tapos usap sila uli Sabi tatay ko. two brothers and two other companions who were then armed. Thus. Kaya kami magaama paalam na . Juanita Ang.pero bunot siya baril ang akin ginawa ay hawak ko siya. all neighbor of in . were this fact not revealed for the first time to them by appellant Victor Ng when he was investigated by Det.. 'Ako si TY SUI WONG sagot Tatay ni Mariano sino Ty Sui Wong. napunit ang damit niya. Punta kayo dito sa Quiapo. Ang dinig ko sa usap nila sabi Tatay ko. . Mariano Lim. saan kayo nagtuloy? S: Nagtuloy kaming magaama sa No. niyaya ako maglabas. 36 Kanlaon St. . Kapatid ako ni Ty Liong Kue. 1966 and the second was in October of the same year. prior to the incident of December 21. . In turn.? S: Tuloy kami uli sa Villalobos.' sagot ko 'Ano ang pakialam mo . Ikaw alaga sa anak mong mabuti sabi Tatay ko sa Tatay ni Mariano. And it is only from the narration of facts contained in their interlocking confessions that the Court could piece together the various pieces that make up the whole fabric of the criminal conspiracy and its cold-blooded execution. . bakit hamon ang anak mong away. Roque "Gerry" Dejungco to whom he offered P5. ay tumawag sa akin at sabi niya ay magsini kami . Suntukan kami . in the commission of tile crime. T: Saan kayo nagtuloy pagkagaling ninyo sa Kanlaon. 12. his father. Sabi ko sa kanya babae ayaw sa akin ano gawa ko. si Mariano hingi patawad sa amin. Not only was Mariano Lim preferred for outings and picnics by Ruby Ng. sagot Tatay ko. T: Saan? S: Sa Villalobos St. bakit pati matanda na ako.000. as stated theretofore in the solution of the murder case. . 13. Ruiz started his inquiries about Victor Ng.C.. .00 provided he and his men could maul Mariano Lim and prevent him from visiting Ruby Ng. . Sabi niya para handa ako pambili regalo. tapos si Mariano Lim ay tawag sa akin sa telepono dahil sa narinig niya ang usapan namin tungkol sa date . went to Lim's residence looking for Mariano. The incident was repeated in October. As testified to by the victim's mother. it was Gerry Dejungco who revealed to the police authorities on the early morning of February 7. whom he considered as his rival for the affections of Ruby Ng. For it has been shown that after those violent encounters with the victim. Kaya gawa namin ng ama ko at kapatid ko si Jaime Ng ay punta kami sa Villalobos pero wala na si Mariano. tapos alis kasama niya . he will be liquidated.. . Dejungco contacted his cousin. sa bahay nila Mariano. T: Pagkagaling ninyo sa Villalobos. 1966 incident. . This turn of events generated not only jealousy but spawned the subsequent incidents of violence. 'Kailan kasal ninyo ni Ruby. The first was in September. .. To begin with.. . Finally. 1966. . Tapos nuon ang tatay ko ay again sa telepono at nakipagusap kay Mariano . . . . . his "compadre" looked. Manila. Nakita ko si Mariano nakasakay sa taxi merong siyang kasama nuong aalis na ang taxi. Lim Hok. Q. Victor Ng contacted his former classmate. tapos suntok ko siya. 11. but not before they told the father of Mariano to tell his son to stay away from Ruby Ng. Victor Ng. The solution of the case were supplied principally by the confession of Victor Ng. nagkasa siya sa baril niya dito sa kasama niya. if he (Victor Ng) will arrive on the 23rd of December 1966. Victor Ng's group left. They only left the place when they found that Mariano was out. including Romualdo Carreon. Santos and Romualdo Carreon. Victor Ng told Dejungco that he Ng was leaving for Zamboanga and Cebu City on December 15. thus: 9. . Pinaayos kami ng magulang ni Ruby . Chua Yam.C. sabi nanay ni Ruby wala na si Mariano uwi na. T: Kailan mo huling nakita si Mariano Lim Cho Kuan? S: Nuong Octubre 1966 nuong kami ay nagaway. hinarang ko ang taxi binuksan ko ang pinto. in September. and their housemaid. Quiapo. Hanggang sa kaming dalawa ay away sa telepono. Iyon mga tao sa Villalobos hinila kami para pumasok sa Tong's Enterprises. when interrogated by he police. . Pagdating doon kami katok. his father. and in the words of Dejungco: . . Victor Ng had at least two violent encounters with Mariano Lim. kung hindi kayo punta dito ako punta diyan. Agustin Ng. . Indeed. the police investigators would not have known of the participation of Gerry Dejungco in the crime. . 1966 when Victor Ng and his companions. labas ang Tatay ni Mariano at usap sila ng tatay ko.. anak nang mayari ng Tong's Glassware sa Villalobos. It was only the timely arrival of Dr. 1961 the role played in the commission if the crime by appellant Jose de los Santos and Juanito Ang. Victor Ng related this October. it was Jose de los Santos who. the brother of Ruby Ng. 1966. 1967. T: Bakit kayo nagaway? S: Kasi si Ruby Ng. Sabi ko meron akong panahon .

It was the wife of his "compadre".000. and "M" as their very statements which they were allegedly forced to sign on the basis of the recitals of facts written therein. Thus. the confessions of Jose de los Santos and Victor Ng. gave him a knife on the latter's pretext that they needed the knife to repair their jeep. On the second page of Exhibit "M".— The two appellants and their three co-accused admitted that they made certain corrections and/or additions in their respective extrajudicial statements. 1966. This Court has held in various decisions that when the confessions of the accused contained details that the police could not have possibly supplied or invented and which facts only the declarant could have known. Carreon then gagged the victim with handkerchief and held him by his hands. and Omeng or Romeo Carreon. On the third page. such would be a strong indication 10 that those confessions were freely made and not due to duress and intimidation. Juanito Ang. that in connection with the amount which was promised by Victor Ng for the purpose of liquidating Mariano Lim. Juanito Ang. It could not be contended therefore. the police investigators would not have known of the participation of Roque Dejungco had this fact not been revealed by Victor Ng. as well as those of their co-accused Juanito Ang and Roque Dejungco. For instance. then turning left at Manuel de la Fuente Street. Romualdo Carreon and Jose de los Santos.Sampaloc. Teodora Maravilla. They fled with their victim towards Mayon Street where they picked up De los Santos and Dejungco who had been waiting for them. he (De los Santos) and Carreon lifted the body from the jeep and drop it on the ground. who. At the trial. At the end of the street inside the compound. Jose de los Santos. then to Nagtahan bridge and continuing towards Parañaque. 1966 (see Exhibits "K" and "N") and the first attempt to kill the victim was made on December 19. on the very natal day of Mariano Lim. 1967. Would the police have known that De los Santos and Dejungco went to a bordello at Pasay City right after the killing had this had not been related to them? Roque Dejungco withdrawing his appeal. alias Gerry Dejungco. We find their arguments unpersuasive. But on the night of December 21. he crossed out the words "dalawang libo" ang wrote therein the words "limang libo". Returning to his companions. Apart from the presumption of law which favors the spontaneity and voluntariness of a statement given by the defendant in a criminal 9 case. As heretofore stated. Victor Ng made corrections on the second and third pages of his statement. Manila. since it was Roque Dejungco who revealed the role of these persons in the commission of the crime. Carreon and Ang denied on the witness stand that they ever read their respective statements even up to the time they testified in court. Of the P12. 1966. and that when asked who was his "kumpadre". apparently ignorant of Dejungco's real purpose. He even wrote the words "siya si Jerry" referring to Roque Dejungco's and the date when he supposedly left for Cebu. While Victor Ng. they were already represented by their respective counsels to whom they could freely communicate such alleged maltreatment. appellants Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos now attempt to impugn those facts. yet no explanation had been given why the same declarants could Identify Exhibits "J". placed his left arm around Mariano's shoulder and plunged the knife on the left chest of the victim. the police could not have known that Victor Ng came to know the deceased Mariano Lim when they were schoolmates at the Chiang Kai Shek High School. not one of the five accused could indicate which part of his body had been injured. as the person to whom he induced. Extension. On this matter. and his "compadre". the Solicitor General made the following observations: . he corrected the written therein by inserting the phrase "De los" so that the name therein would read "Jose de los Santos y Casire" that in his answer to the question as to who were his companions in killing Mariano Lim. that Dejungco's narration therein of the participation of his first cousin.00 (Exhibit "K") with balance presumably kept by Gerry Dejungco. Rizal and that he had since been recommitted to the same institution. The plot was first conceived in November. Mesa Blvd.000. In the process of snatching Mariano Lim. These corrections were all initialed by him.00 (Exhibit "K"). the date when they presented a motion for the release of Victor Ng on bail. leaving his three companions to finish the job.— Not one of the appellants or their co-accused had himself examined medically much less requested for such medical 11 examination. Rizal passing Quezon Blvd. Neither could the police been aware that Juanito Ang is a first cousin of Roque Dejungco. The main thrust of their strategy is to undermine the probative force of their extrajudicial confessions. are replete with small and intimate details that only the appellants and their co-accused could have known of. For instance. or that Juanito Ang was an escaped from the Welfareville institution in Mandaluyong. One as stated heretofore. which the appellants have not been able to overcome. Manila. since long before the trial. for the sum of P2. leaving only the names of Gerry. Carreon P200. They met several times afterwards to share and divide the money given by Victor Ng. The three-page statement of Jose de los Santos also contains his corrections. on the first page. in the Commission of the crime was due to duress or maltreatment. or that this appellant and Roque Dejungco were also classmates at the Philippines Chin Hua School. Juanito Ang stopped the vehicle. Afterwards. Three. The five proceeded to Parañaque. De Los Santos got P600. Carreon. Two.— Both Victor Ng and Roque Dejungco signed their confessions both in English and Chinese characters on each and every page of their statements. It was at that instance when De los Santos pulled out the knife given to him earlier by Dejungco and after asking his companions where the heart of the victim was located. Davao and Zamboanga City in 1966. It must be noted that the present counsel of the appellants appeared in behalf of said accused as early as February 20. All the pages were signed by him both in Chinese characters and in the ordinary manner. the four with their victim proceeded towards the Factor Compound at the entrance of which Dejungco alighted. The circumstance that they were under detention is no impediment to such examination. he mentioned "Gerry po" and added in his handwriting the following words: "iyong anak ay inaanak niya".00 (Exhibit "J") and Ang a measly sum of P25. he crossed out the name of Victor Ng.00 actually paid by Victor Ng. he corrected the name of the street of the building where he gave money to Gerry Dejungco. Ang must have lost the sharp pointed instrument which he used in intimidating the victim (Exhibit "0-5 "). As a matter of fact. Ang and Carreon were able to grab Mariano Lim from his jeep and forced him to go with them. to get some men to maul Mariano Lim and to prevent him from going to Quiapo or to see Ruby Ng. "I". he admitted having pointed to Roque. Ang and De los Santos left the compound and after picking up Dejungco proceeded on their separate ways.00. confirmed his guilt and the recital of facts contained in his confession (Exhibit "N"). turning right on Sta. compelling Dejungco to go to the house of his "compadre" to borrow a sharp pointed weapon. the record convincingly shows that the extrajudicial confessions of appellants Victor Ng (Exhibit "M") and Jose de los Santos (Exhibit "K") were given voluntarily and that they reflected the truth. much less could they have been aware of the names of Juanito Ang.. nor of the fact that appellant De los Santos is Dejungco's "compadre". Four. but something went wrong and the conspirators were not able to realize their plan (Exhibit "L").

All these could have been discovered by a competent physician. particularly.. together with Juanita Ang and Roque Dejungco. of several newspapermen representing the Manila Times.m. In fact.. A careful examination of the facial expressions of the accused appearing on the photographs of the re-enactment (exhibits "0-9" to "0-17") indicate that they were acting voluntarily. 1967. and such failure further shows that their claims of maltreatment which were first made by them sometime in January.It is important to note that up to the present time. we can safely assume that his parents immediately took steps. his counsel at the trial. including the hiring of a competent lawyer. chest and back and pepper being poured in his eyes and nose . It is clearly an afterthought designed. Eight.. the latter a law clerk in the office of Atty. there appears to be no serious and sustained effort to even Identify their alleged tormentors. considering that the police investigators did not know the victim or any of the appellants or any members of 'heir families before this case was instituted. — The presence of statements in the declarations of Victor Ng minimizing his role in the commission of the crime is another indication that his afore-mentioned extrajudicial statement was rendered of his free accord. Jaime Nuevas. much less any word or denial emanated from the lips of either of the two. no formal charges of any nature whatsoever had been instituted against those who allegedly maltreated them. surely even a cursory examination by a physician would have revealed the injuries he suffered. Where an accused made an extrajudicial confession implicating his co-defendant. While it is true that De los Santos attempted to impugn the spontaneity or the voluntariness of his Statement. (pp. For it is precisely this attempt to minimize his criminal responsibility. such as use. among others. . Crispulo Ilumen to defend him. 'Mercilessly mauled' is the term he uses in his brief. Ilumen would have raised Cain. his family immediate came to know of his apprehension.It should be noted that Victor Ng was arrested by the police while he was in the company of some friends. Moreover. were a mere 12 afterthought. Again. Atty.m. Appellants have shown no plausible reason why the investigators should have maltreated them and falsely implicated them in the crime. Ang having conferred with the latter. Six. Gardiola knew the rights of his nephew. Victor Ng himself would have revealed the injuries resulting from his maltreatment to his lawyer. This argument is misleading. do not usually manifest external injury on the body of the person maltreated . who was present when the said confession was being taken and who did not protest or demonstrate. in the statement of De Los Santos. any claim that he was maltreated and we reject any contention that Atty. they did retain the services of Atty.. This is to naive and absurd for even a gullible mind to accept. his personal safety and interest were amply protected from the very start by two uncles. which would have been the natural and instinctive reaction of an innocent man. This appellant further claims that a medical examination would have been useless. as well as the reenactment by the afore-mentioned accused were done under duress. up to now. the same is unworthy of credence since it would have been highly improbable for the police to have forced him to do so in the presence of several reporters. the Great Asia Newspaper and the Fookien Times. no criminal and or administrative charges have been lodged against the police who had a hand in the solution of this crime. Indeed. The above discussion likewise disposes of Victor Ng's claim that he could not get a medical certificate because he was not allowed visitors Lo his cell. tallies exactly with 16 the manner the killing was performed. Victor Ng admits that the reporters were around and as a matter of fact the police allowed the reporters to take his pictures after he had come for the second time from the Capitol Golf Club. This fact alone should militate against. The fact that no claims of maltreatment were ever raised before the trial should be significant when we take note of the aggressive nature of Atty. those on his chest and back. De los Santos admitted the presence of the reporters during the investigation.— When Victor Ng and Roque Dejungco were made to confront each other. among others. setting or hitting the stomach. The presence. When we consider that this appellant comes from moneyed family. Nuevas as borne out by the records of this case. 32-34). Ilumen could not have failed to notice the condition of his client or. He has never claimed that he was not able to confer with either Atty. As pointed out by the Solicitor General Victor Ng was arrested by the police while he was in company of his friends. to place his investigators in a bad light. arguing that 'it has been physically and scientifically recognized that certain forms of maltreatment or torture. We also reject any claim that the police would have dared refuse this privilege and right of a lawyer. etc. -The re-enactment of the crime by appellant Jose de los Santos. water cure. Seven. of February 6. and as a matter of fact he immediately secured the services of one Atty. it is likewise not true that all injuries on the stomach cannot be detected. up to 11:00 p. Thus. Atty... Ilumen or Atty. Ernesto Lorenzo and Benjamin Cardiola. if he was 'mercilessly mauled'. Ilumen took was to arrange a meeting with his client. Crispulo Ilumen who eventually became one of his defense counsel. renders it highly improbable that the investigation. Considering the length of time he claims he was given he was the third degree from the time of his arrest which he says was at 1:30 p. Victor Ng testified that part of his alleged maltreatment consisted of being hit in the stomach. Dakila Castro. In the case of Romualdo Carreon. The fact that Atty. Ilumen in the course of the long trial of this case never mentioned such a rude treatment on the part of the police only means that he was really allowed to see Victor Ng. the pouring of pepper in the eyes of the accused would have caused not only the reddening but also swelling of the eyes. each pointed to the other as his confederate. . Ilumen made no efforts to visit him in his cell for such is not the behavior of a lawyer hired to protect the interest of his client surely among the first steps Atty. to see to it that nothing untoward happened to him. . 1968. of electric shock. otherwise. Five. the said confession may be given in evidence against 15 the said co-defendant. Yet. The slightest of pressure made on the abdomen of a person severely maltreated will cause that person to shout in pain. as described. Certainly. which has been considered by the trial court as a potent circumstance which demonstrates the voluntariness 13 of the confession. This Court has observed that "those parts of the confession which would avoid or lessen the declarant's criminal 14 liability could have come only from the mouth of one who stood to benefit from the qualifications or avoidance of the admission. No gesture of any protest. during the entire interrogation and at the re-enactment of the crime by the said accused. although feebly.

as well as the performance of official duties. . On the other hand. taken in conjunction with the other circumstances already enumerated it assumes importance. account first one to be named as accused in the.. is not a ground for objecting to account admissibility of account confession made under such circumstances. to which claim of maltreatment and promise of immunity. — Juanita Ang did not appeal from this judgment. information attests also to account non-use of violence. however. while Roque Dejungco and Romualdo Carreon withdrew their appeals. not only were the accused asked to read their confessions before signing before the subscribing officer. convincing proof that he was allowed to make his statement free from undue pressure or intimidation . Hence. Det. . with a promise of reward only the mauling of the victim not his liquidation just to discourage him from continuing with his courtship or intimate association with Ruby Ng. account victim's liquidation. the confessions are remarkably abundant with details which the declarants alone could have supplied willingly out of a desire to make a client breast of the offense imputed to them.. therefore. The failure to reveal to responsible officials. such as Fiscal Solano before whom he was brought for account verification of his statement that he was maltreated is a circumstance tending to disprove the alleged maltreatment. it would not take them long to attain this end.Nine. A thorough examination of the records yielded no evidence of the alleged maltreatment other than the self-serving and naturally biased testimony of the accused themselves. but of his own free will and volition..— The post-mortem findings of Dr. The absence of a confession of Ty Sui Wong. the trial judge (now Justice Pacifico P. coincide with the description of the actual killing. ever promised to Victor Ng that he will be utilized as a state witness if he would "tell the whole truth" that Major San Diego made such a promise. It indicates that the confessions of guilt of Ang. . the Court finds itself unable to give credence. it does not clearly appear from account evidence that Victor Ng was ever promised immunity. Even in account latter case. with a convincing ring of truth. also a promise of immunity. what was account reason for taking a confession of the killing or any confession at . account confession of Victor Ng could not have been account result of violence or maltreatment. The alleged circumstance that quite a long period of time expired from their apprehension to their making admission of their participation in the commission of the crime which the defense has tried to seize upon as indicating the employment of pressure to extract the confession. certain circumstances. he admitted to having proposed. even as against the allegation of maltreatment and intimidation supposedly administered to the accused to extract their confessions' and in the case of Victor Ng. father of Victor Ng.. much less plotted. in fits claim of innocence. been forced to confess.bent in extracting a confession that would suit their purpose. perhaps with more reason. Ruiz. short of death itself is a strong. would not produce the desired solution of account crime... to whom account case was assigned. In the case of Victor Ng. a fact which is indicative of the correctness of the finding of guilt with respect to said accused. That there was no such complaint of any sort nor a medical certificate to show infliction of violence if it was true that account alleged had actually occurred specially against one who. else Ty Sui Wong who could even be the more logical suspect as account mastermind for being the one. Likewise. extrajudicial confessions of Carreon. Victor Ng appears to come from a moneyed family which is engaged in business and therefore with sufficient resources to retain a lawyer whose legal services could be made available at any time in case of need. A man as intelligent and as educated as appellant Victor Ng was obviously aware that only account prosecuting officer and not account police can decide definitely who win be utilized as a state witness. That Ng's confession was only for inflicting harm. The evidence. Ernesto Brion of the National Bureau of Investigation regarding the location and direction of the wounds of the deceased. testified that he was not sure if account Chief of account Detective Bureau. If the investigators were hell. 17 de Torres: If the Idea was to condone the murder.) Besides. That need arose when Ng was allegedly tortured for then a complaint should have been filed in Court or registered with higher police authorities if Victor Ng had really undergone account ordeal in the hands of the police investigators.(Emphasis supplied. While this circumstance alone would have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the herein appellants. Ang and appellant De los Santos. As this Court observed in People v. Major Ernesto San Diego. Such circumstances further render unworthy of credence the claims of Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos that their declarations were secured through duress or violence. A confession that Ng never intended. Thus. for if the police investigators were sent on using force to obtain at all cost. no more than having the accused's own words to back up such claim of violence can induce the Court to discard their confessions as involuntary. Dejungco and Carreon were. but only his being mauled. a confession from each of the accused. de Castro of the Court of Appeals made the following important: The background of the killing as just depicted through the testimony of eye-witnesses provides the solid foundation upon which the confessions of the accused could be made to stand firm. is bereft of any intimation that he made any confession . as related in the. but they also made some corrections therein The act of making corrections. rather than his son Victor. seems to the Court as indicating more the contrary. how could this claim of appellant Victor Ng that his alleged confession was secured through force and violence square with his claim that his confession was obtained under promise of immunity. as well as the probable position of the killer at the time of the infliction of the injuries. constantly recognized as indicative of voluntariness of the confession have been duly stablished by the evidence. given freely and voluntarily. would have also. Assistant Fiscal Antonio Solano. Indeed. they would not have been content with less than an admission of an intent to kill the victim.. who was in a better position to make account monetary reward in such amount as to afford greater inducement to commit account killing.. Ten. . however. As against the presumption that of regularity in the performance of voluntariness of a confession. specially when same refer to intimate details of which the declarant alone has knowledge can only mean that the decedent had given his full volition to the making of the confession. would feel undeservedly punished and thus seriously aggrieved. account promise of immunity by one who is not a prosecuting officer and who is in no position to comply with such promise. which they did. In this regard.

are admissible as trial evidence against account person implicated to show account probability of account latter's actual 19 participation in account commission of account crime. the suggestion by Victor Ng that Dejungco contact his goons in Sampaloc to do account job. the telephone call of Dejungco to Victor Ng upon his return. both are liable for the crime commit the first. sir . In order to get a clear picture of the events that led to the murder of the victim. therefore. "K". respectively). "L" and "N". Ruby Ng. Manila. Thus. their bringing of the victim to Parañaque where he was stabbed to death by De los Santos. They all agree on the ghastly details of account crime — thus account fact that they were contacted by Roque Dejungco. De los Santos. evident that only appellant Victor Ng knew the victim. Dejungco states that account payment was made upon Victor's return. it is. Hence. and the delivery to Dejungco by Victor Ng of account total sum of P2. Badilla. his purpose being merely to stop him from or purpose his courtship of the object of his own suit. Thus. account rule which has been reiterated by the Court in various cases is that extrajudicial confessions. This is account story .. the dumping of the body of the deceased on the road. their subsequent meeting to divide the money given them by Victor Ng. I met Mr. Romualdo Carreon and Juanita Ang shows that they interlock in most material points. considering that some of the suspects. Appellant cannot plausibly pretend immaturity to be so easily duped by his investigators. both coincide on the amount actually paid.. Recto St. I 18 . strikes Us as significant. it said: . as it is natural and to be expected that he would make therein statements and denials tending to minimize his participation in the crime. their failure to complain of their alleged maltreatment to account fiscal before whom they swore under oath their declarations. that it was appellant Jose de los Santos who inflicted the fatal blow upon the victim. the plan of Victor Ng to establish an alibi by going to Cebu and Zamboanga City and staying there for several days while the crime is being committed in Manila. He informed (me) that he had again a quarrel with Mariano Lim Cho Kuan. muchless produce any medical testimony to corroborate their claims of maltreatment: their reenactment of the crime in the presence of reporters: and the circumstance what many of the statements in said confessions are confirmed by the indisputable facts. or at least minimizing effect on his 20 liability among others. However. Ang and Dejungco (Exhibit "J". to wit. their movements toward the fulfillment of such purpose were smooth and concerted. that there was never any disagreement among them with respect to this matter. which are identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record. On the contrary..all?Promise of immunity by one who is not prosecuting offier who could honor or comply with his promise. The detailed narration of the incident leading to the death of the victim given by each of the other accused reveals that the original purpose was to kill. 1966. Q: Do you know personally account cause of his death? A: Yes. In resume. On November 1966. On the basis thereof. For it is precisely this virtual exculpatory tenor. independently made without collusion. Inasmuch as there is no proof of collusion among account declarants. each pointed to the other as his companion in the crime. The Court considers important account fact that his confession was not for account killing of account deceased but only for his mauling or acts short of doing away with him. Jose de los Santos. which was the primary consideration for Dejungco and his companions to commit the crime. their confessions should. the presence of corrections or notations made by account declarants themselves on their respective confessions. Quiapo to familiarize themselves with the face of their intended victim... upon account instigation of Victor Ng who promised that he will pay them if they kill Mariano Lim. M. through price or reward. it is necessary that the statements and admissions made by all the accused be taken together. their inability. to indicate any mark of violence on their bodies or to request for a medical examination of their bodies. there is harmony in most material points. informing him that the job was already done.. the killing itself which began with the forcible taking of Mariano Lim from Kanlaon Street by Ang and Carreon the trip to Mayon Street where the two confederates picked up De los Santos and Dejungco.. While Victor Ng says that the price money of P2. including the father of Victor Ng. all their statements point to the fact that the original intent was to kill. or to any other competent governmental authority. as a principal by inducement. As between Victor Ng and Roque Dejungco (Exhibits "M" and "N"). their meeting in preparation for account job which included their trip to Villalobos. Since People v. without any protest or denial of the person indicated. Victor Ng at a Chinese Club somewhere at Pasay City. render the claim of appellants of duress in the execution of their confessions as totally unworthy of credence. Roque Dejungco gave the following statements: 11. be read together to form a complete picture of account commission of account crime and considered collectively as corroborative or confirmatory of account evidence apart from account confessions themselves. the inducement by Victor Ng to Roque Dejungco and his co-accused. with a motive. coupled with account circumstance that account appellants even corrected and added some details in their respective statements. " (the promise was made by a PC investigator) "is no ground for objecting account admissibility of account confession. There can be no doubt.00 at the Gocheco Bldg. that has induced account Court to give full credence to his confession.00 was paid before account killing or prior to his departure for Zamboanga City on December 15. or account fact that they did not file many criminal or administrative charges against their alleged torturers. and. The confession of Victor Ng should not be taken independently of those of his co-accused. the absence of any evil motive on the part of the investigators. and thus. We are incline to disagree with the aforestated finding of the trial court. strong and co enough to warrant the latter's elimination and that it was he who induced his co-accused to commit the crime in question because of the said accuse admit that they killed account deceased in consideration of the sum of money promised them by Victor Ng. for the elimination of Mariano Lim. there is also no question that they synchronize or interlock in various material points. and not merely to maul or threaten Mariano Lim.000. account plot to harm the victim. also. In account cases of Carreon. finally. A careful perusal of the statements of Victor Ng. were never made to execute any confession. therefore. The fact that not one of the other co-accused of appellant Victor Ng made mention of. Roque Dejungco. or even intimated the fact that the agreement or intent was merely to frighten Mariano Lim in order to force him to desist from his suit of Ruby Ng. alias "Gerry". C. and the second. account presence of details in account confession which only account declarant could have known. during the trial. as one by the participation The court a quo found that accused-appellant Victor Ng did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed. the circumstance that when they were made to confront each other.000.

The records disclose that Victor Ng was paying in installments.00. at Magdalena St. Tapos ay hinawakan ko ang kanang kamay ni Mariano.00 These in themselves are not convincing factors.Sabi niya ay ipinapapatay ni Vic na kaibigan ni Gerry. and he handed to me an amount of P1. if they thought the price was incommensurate. it required only a single stab wound. All the foregoing factors. seriousness thereof.000. I know you from childhood and I am cognizant that you know hoodlums at Sampaloc. Had account intent been merely to scare Lim. 23 Pumayag naman ako dahil sa nademyo na ako sa sinabi ng aking kumpare. and a deadly one at that. The fact that a pointed knife about eight (8) inches in length and one-half (1/2) inch in width. generally. Sabi niya ay magbabayad daw si Vic ng halagang limang libong piso para mapatay si Mariano . could have effectively frightened Mariano Lim from pursuing his suit of Ruby Ng. purposely intended to be fatal to kill him. Tapos ay bumaba na si Jose at binuhat niya ang intsik o si Mariano Lim at ibinaba sa tabi ng kalye na may damo. may be inferred from the nature of the weapon used. can be given credence. does not at all prove that there was no intent to kill. I received this amount before Christmas. Ang ginawa ko ay kinuha ko ang panyo ni Gerry at tinalian ang bibig ni Mariano. The intention to kill a mental process. with its graver consequences. which was P5. and on mid-January 1967 I again received from 21 Victor Ng another P500. but this they did not do. and that if he will arrive on the 23rd of December 1966. . indicates a contrary intent. primarily the confessions of the other accuse pointing to the true nature of his guilt. that Mariano Lim was to be killed. He told me 'You see Gerry. . alias JOSE DELOS SANTOS. Moreover. Victor Ng told me that I should wait at the ground floor of the Gocheco Bldg. as promised.. and there is no indication that he did not intend to pay the full amount agreed upon.000. and I'll answer for account expenses. While We are cognizant of the rule that an extra-judicial confession is. thus: 16. Furthermore if the agreement was merely to scare Mariano Lim off his suit of Ruby Ng.. so I proceeded to the said place.. Sabi sa akin ni Juanita ay talian ko na ang bibig. You make a preparation to contact two people who can liquidate Mariano . evidence only against the person making it. it is difficult to perceive how the lone allegation of accuse Victor Ng. would have been necessary. Courts need not believe confessions in their entirety.00 before New Year. In the face of the foregoing declarations made by account other accused. but merely "frightened".000. Moreover. and they told me that they are ready at my disposal. The court a quo was convinced of Victor Ng's lack of intent to kill Mariano by the facts that they did not have a ready weapon and had to borrow one from Dejungco's "compadre" and the smallness of the amount actually received as consideration for the crime which was only P2. Romualdo Carreon declared that Roque Dejungco Chan.. and 25 the persistence to kill the victim. There is absolutely nothing in the records to support his allegation except his own statements. Thus. in the absence of collusion among the declarants their confessions should be read together in order 22 Likewise . The fact that the amount actually paid was merely P2. it is nevertheless true that the same may serve as corroborative evidence when it is clear from the other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the 27 perpetration of the cime... and told me that. After five days. in addition to the fact that none of the other accused claimed a lesser intent." Tapos ay iniakbay ni Jose and kanyang kaliwang kamay sa balikat ni Mariano Lim at biglang sinaksak sa dibdib...00 and not P5. was obtained and actually used. and further told me that if he will leave by the 15th of December 1966. which harmonize on all material aspects. This was testified to by Romualdo Carreon in the following manner: . Had account intent been merely to frighten the victim no weapon. Q: When Victor Ng arrived from Zamboanga City. alias Gerry. the accused could have merely mauled or beaten him up. contrary 26 to his claim intended Mariano Lim to be killed. I told these two people about the plan of Victor Ng. and I received again from him P500. the mastermind of the crime. the place of the wound. an examination of the statement given by Juanito Ang reveals that the groups was made to understand from the beginning by Roque Dejungco. alias Gerry. which are self-serving and cannot be given credence in the face of all the overwhelming evidence.000. he don't (sic) want to see Mariano alive (contacted two people by the name of JUANITO ANG alias Johnny he is my cousin and one Pepeng Komang... accused-appellant Jose de los Santos made substantially similar statements. the manner in which the weapon was wielded clearly shows that there was no doubt at all in the minds of the assailants that they were to slay Mariano Lim. by means of their superiority in strength and number. In addition. 12.told him if I could do any help to him. alias JOSE VILLANUEVA. Makalipas ang dalawang minuto ay inilagay o itinapat ni Juanito ang kanyang isang daliri sa ilong ni Mariano Lim at pagkatapos ay sinabi niyang "PATAY NA". did you inform Victor Ng about the killing of Mariano Lim Cho Kuan? A: I called up Victor Ng by phone and informed him that Mariano was already finished. it is doubtful if the direct participants would have committed the capital crime of murder. Ang sagot ni Juanita ay "AYWAN HINDI KO ALAM. Tapos ay sumakay siya uli at umalis na kami sa 24 lugar na iyon. convince Us that Victor Ng. The direct participants in the crime. he will be leaving for Zamboanga and Cebu City.00.00. as compared to that promised..00 . told him that "Yayariin natin iyang si Mariano.000. that he did not intend to have the victim killed. Tapos ay tinanong ni Jose kay Juanita kung saan ang puso. Nuon pong Nobiembre 1966 ay nasabi sa akin ni Gerry na may bibirahin tao kami. T: Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari sa pagkapatay ninyo kay Mariano? S: Ganito po ang pangyayari niyan. . who was acting for Victor Ng. I met him again in the same place. Sabi ni Gerry sa akin ay sumama daw ako. Similarly.

It is contended by the Solicitor General that appellants should be convicted of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. The foregoing considerations likewise indicate that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in favor of appellant Jose de los Santos. having actually left to his co-accused the means or methods for the commission of the crime. with the foregoing modification. the crime committed is murder. the circumstance of evident premeditation is absorbed by the circumstance of reward or promise which qualifies the crime as murder. in relation to Article 48 thereof. Fernando (Chairman). concur. however. Concepcion. paragraph 3. Barredo. Considering that the penalty imposed upon Roque Dejungco y Chan which is reclusion perpetua is now final it would seem but fair that Jose de los Santos be meted the same penalty.. of the Revised Penal Code. that the clear manifest intention of the appellants was to kill the victim the kidnapping of the victim merely incidental to the principal purpose. As observed by the trial . WHEREFORE. and finally to a deserted place in still another town where he kills him. he is a principal by induction.. There is no question. considering that the latter was a mere follower of the former. suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. JJ. taking him from one city or town to another city or town. Since the form a complete picture of the whole situation and considered as corroborative of what evidence there is apart from the confessions 28 themselves. disclose that he induced the others to commit the crime for a price or promise of reward. We find that such principle is applicable to this case. as in the case at bar. and Santos. It seems evident that the weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that where a victim was taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him for a length of time or for the purpose of obtaining a ransom for his release. It is smarted that when a person kidnaps the victim for no other purpose than to kill him but only after he detains him for a considerable length of time. . He should therefore. Jr. the offense committed is serious illegal detention with murder punishable either under Article 248 or Article 267. and not the 29 complex crime of kidnapping with murder. The circumstance of treachery cannot be applied to victor Ng since he was not actually present when the crime was committed. however. the judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED.

: An information.00) out of the funds for which he was accountable.000. the Sandiganbayan came out with its factual findings and conclusions. Metro Manila. He entrusted the check to Romero for safekeeping. in the absence of such modules. no such meeting was held. Melquiades P. Barangay Treasurer of Panghulo. the Metro Manila Commission (MMC). .000. Under the program. 17 Series of 1983 by making it appear that on August 25. After the seminar. in the City of Caloocan. Pasig. willfully. Metro Manila from 1983 to 1988. had to be supported by a project proposal to be approved by the KKK. accused received a check in the amount of P10. accused submitted the falsified resolution to the MHS-MMC-KKK Secretariat which endorsed the same to the Land Bank of the Philippines. the Ministry of Human Settlements.00 per barangay. could be encashed only upon submission to the Secretariat of a resolution approved by the Barangay Council identifying the livelihood project in which the loan would be invested. accused Felix Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo of Malabon.00 each to members of the 2 barangay council. Metro Manila and discharged his functions as such. 2. a public officer. Nizurtado and Manuel P.00 for said barangay's livelihood program.00 in the form of loans of P1. when in truth and in fact. as well as from the stipulations of the parties that accused Felix V. and thereafter. held on 17 July 1989. being then the Barangay Captain of Panghulo. 3.000. and upon receipt thereof herein accused. vs. accusing Felix Nizurtado of having committed the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public document. the barangays in Metro Manila could avail of loans of P10. That the check. which on the basis of said endorsement and the falsified resolution. with deliberate intent and grave abuse of confidence did then and there willfully. 1 When arraigned by the Sandiganbayan. 1983. That sometime in 1983 and 1984. as the accused fully well knew. and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto. however. petitioner. The seminar was about the Barangay Livelihood Program of the Ministry of Human Settlements (MHS). SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. unlawfully and feloniously falsify and attest Resolution No. testimonial and documentary.00 with the Land Bank of the Philippines. which check was earlier received by him as Barangay Captain of Panghulo in trust for the Barangay for its livelihood project and for which fund accused became accountable.00). reads: That on or about August 25. J.000. did then and there. CONTRARY TO LAW. Nizurtado pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Eugene C. Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo. De Leon for petitioner. Nizurtado received a check for P10. 1983 the Barangay council of Panghulo met and identified T-shirt manufacturing as its livelihood project. and 6. 184792 in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10. During the pre-trial.000. the Metro Manila Commission and Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK) undertook a Livelihood Program for Barangays in Metro Manila consisting of loans in the amount of P10. Romero. That the accused encashed the check received by him in the amount of P10.FELIX NIZURTADO. hereunder detailed: It appears from the evidence. respondents. The check.000. where T-shirt manufacturing was identified and approved by the Barangay Council as its livelihood project. Malabon. 5.000. the Councils would choose subject to the evaluation/validation of the Secretariat. 000.00 intended for Barangay Panghulo and issued in his name. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. That sometime in 1983. the abovenamed accused. misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10. encashed LBP check No.00 per barangay to finance viable livelihood projects which the Barangay Councils would identify from the modules developed by the KKK Secretariat or which. attended a seminar at the University of Life. That as Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo. to be encashed. unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate. After evaluating the evidence adduced. That the accused distributed the amount of P10. Paras collaborating counsel for the petitioner. and the Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK). Malabon.000. VITUG. In April or May 1983. the prosecution and the defense stipulated thusly: 1. 4. Metro Manila. to the damage and prejudice of the government in the said amount.

" After a few more days. The machine copy is now marked Exhibit J. and re-lent the cash proceeds to himself. which was on the second Saturday of each month. They were: Project Identification (Exhibit B). Romero obliged and upon his pleading that his proposed barangay service center would be the one written in the blank resolution. Unknown to Romero and Gomez." and "August 25." "Brgy. Secretary.A. and Nizurtado. The resolution as fully accomplished is now marked Exhibit D. In the blank spaces for the names of the members of the Council who attended the meeting were typewritten the names of Felix Nizurtado Barangay Captain Marcelo Sandel Barangay Councilman Alfredo Aguilar Barangay Councilman Santos Gomez Barangay Councilman Jose Bautista Barangay Councilman Alfredo Dalmacio Barangay Councilman Ceferino Roldan Barangay Councilman The word "none" was inserted in the space intended for the names of the Councilmen who did not attend. 1983. Bautista.In one of its regular sessions. saying that he would return it because. Alfredo Aguilar.000. except those at the bottom which were intended for the names of the Barangay Councilmen. the Barangay Council now in this session had already identified one livelihood project with the following title and description: the following: Title : T-shirt Manufacturing Description : Manufacture of round neck T-shirts of various sizes and colors. 1983. the Barangay Council of Panghulo discussed the project in which to invest the P10. Other supporting documents for the encashment of the check of P10. he had it machine copied. the blank resolution did not yet bear the signatures of Councilmen Santos Gomez and Ceferino Roldan. Thus "Panghulo. and Promissory Note (Exhibit F). at P500. October 18." Finally. signed. All the blank spaces in the form were unfilled-up.00 each from its date. the last line before the names and signatures of the Councilmen was completed by typewriting the date so that it now reads: UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED this 25th day of August. . F. The other blank spaces in the resolution were also filled-up. the blank but signed resolution was later on accomplished by writing in the blank space below the paragraph reading: WHEREAS. the Councilmen could not agree on any livelihood project. In asking Romero to sign. The blank resolution having already been signed by Romero. Nizurtado asked Romero to sign an unaccomplished resolution in mimeograph form. Nizurtado said that the MMC was hurrying up the matter and that the livelihood project to be stated in the resolution was that proposed by Romero — barangay service center. placed in the name of the Samahang Kabuhayan ng Panghulo represented by Nizurtado. Alfredo Dalmacio.00 were also prepared. Jose Bautista. Trusting Nizurtado. 1983" were typewritten in the spaces for the name of the Barangay. But the meeting ended without the Councilmen agreeing on any livelihood project.000. Romero affixed his signature above his typewritten name.000. Barangay Court Secretary and Barangay Secretary. 1983.00. Nizurtado signed a receipt dated August 4. The purpose of the loan was stated to be T-Shirt Manufacturing of round neck shirts of various sizes and colors. Project Application in which the borrower was stated to be Samahang Kabuhayan ng Panghulo (Exhibit C and C-1). respectively. But before he returned the resolution. Dalmacio. Aguilar. and Captain. and Roldan at P1. for the check "to be returned to the Metro Manila Commission. Nizurtado asked him to talk with Gomez and secure the latter's signature. and to Manalang and Oro Soledad. Project Location Map (Exhibit E). which were already filled-up and signed by Councilmen Marcelo Sandel. Among the proposals was that of Romero that a barangay service center be established. The resolution was given the number "17" series of "1983.00 each. and made payable in two equal yearly amortizations of P5. the Promissory Note (Exhibit F) was re-dated from August to October 18. The application for loan having been approved. Gomez signed.000. Hall. and filed by Nizurtado. Nizurtado encashed the check on the same day. respectively.00. A few days after the meeting. Manalang (the alleged Barangay Secretary). Sandel. the place where and the date when the council meeting took place. When he did so. as admitted by Nizurtado during the trial. Nizurtado got back the check from Romero. 1983.

"D") is a falsified document and that the petitioner is the forger thereof.000. As of September 7. . remitted the payments to the MMC on these dates: April 16. Nizurtado has filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. but the latter did not answer. appreciating in his favor . 17.000. and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS. and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum.000. 1983. No pronouncement is made as to civil liability.550. shall suffer: 1. if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundreds pesos. 4 His motion for reconsideration having been denied. After due preliminary investigation. and a fine of P10. by reason of the duties of his office.On April 25. 1984. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.00 loans from the barangay livelihood fund of P10. 1984 3. or shall otherwise be guilty the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. The dispositive portions of its decision.00 ———— Total P8. — Any public officer who. With costs. of the Barangay Council of Panghulo. two mitigating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. T-shirt manufacturing was adopted as the livelihood project of Panghulo. as well as Bacani (also referred to as Manalang) and Soledad who had received P500. NINE (9) MONTHS. They learned that the check for P10.000. The Solicitor General Agrees in all respects with the Sandiganbayan in its findings and judgment except insofar as it has found petitioner to have likewise committed the crime of falsification of a public document.00 September 7. SO ORDERED. It has committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that Resolution No. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art.450. 1984 P1. the Sandiganbayan convicted the accused of the offense charged. On August 9. imposes upon him the penalties of imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS. is accountable for public funds or property. this case was filed. 1984.00 August 14.000.00 and advising him to collect. Metro Manila. This attempt to collect from Romero and Gomez prompted them to make inquiries. perpetual special disqualification. dated August 25. or through abandonment or negligence. then acting Barangay Captain. EIGHT (8) MONTHS. Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan in that — 1. . But no such meeting occurred on that day or on any other day. 1984. after demands for payment. Romero and Gomez lodged their complaint against Nizurtado with the Office of the Tanodbayan. shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property.00 each had paid their respective loans to Nizurtado who. read: WHEREFORE. 1984. Malversation of public funds or property. informing him that per record. .00 each. there having been complete restitution of the amount malversed. wholly or partially. Dalmacio remitted the balance of P2. promulgated on 18 September 1992. the Court finds Felix Nizurtado y Victa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of malversation of public funds committed through falsification of public document and. It has committed serious error of law and gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioner guilty of malversation of the amount of P10. On the basis of its above findings. or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent.00 from his pocket because. they told Sandel to ask Nizurtado if he had any proof of their alleged loans.000.00 was indeed encashed by Nizurtado and that the blank resolution which they had signed was filled-up to make it appear that in a Council meeting where all councilmen were present on August 25. So Sandel wrote Nizurtado on May 2. 1983. Nizurtado who was then on leave wrote Sandel.00 which he had received as a loan from the then Metro Manila Commission in his capacity as 5 representative of the Samahang Kabuhayan ng Barangay Panghulo. the members of the Council who had received P1.000. Malabon. as acting 3 Barangay Captain. 217. Malabon. and Gomez had not made any remittance for the account of their P1.00 In June 1987. Neither was Nizurtado authorized by the Council to submit T-shirt Manufacturing as the livelihood project of Panghulo. shall appropriate the same. Metro Manila (Exh.000. through the Secretary or Treasurer.000.00. and 2. in turn. 1984 3. he. Romero. he did not want to leave the Barangay with an indebtedness. — Presumption of malversation. Since Romero and Gomez had not borrowed any amount from the said fund.

Nizurtado was a public officer. essential for the conviction of an accused." The only point of controversy is whether or not Nizurtado has indeed misappropriated the funds. and not indispensable to constitute. But assuming there was such a change. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable. he received and later encashed a check for P10. prescribed that the livelihood project shall be identified from the modules developed by the KKK Secretariat or. the Metro Manila Commission and "Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran.00 was not enough to support the T-shirt manufacturing project. from 1983 to 1988.00. that they decided to distribute the money in the form of loans to 7 themselves. the taking by another person of. Jr. if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.000. Ledesma were 8 the officials duly authorized to approve such projects upon the recommendation of the KKK Secretariat. instead of its being used for the project. Even without a demand. upon demand by any duly authorized officer. Metro Manila. in rejecting this defense." The guidelines. the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. We could see no flaw in the ratiocination of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was able to encash the check on 18 October 1988 on the basis of a resolution of the Barangay Council. persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. as stipulated in the Resolution itself. in that capacity. Malabon. it would appear that only Regional Action Officer Ismael Mathay. in support thereof.000. Lending the unutilized funds to the members of the Barangay council could have hardly been meant to be the viable project contemplated under that certification.. or could have been made. the members of the Barangay Council. in turn.000. and (d) he has appropriated. (c) the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable.000. Accused-appellant was charged with having committed the crime through the falsification of a public document punishable under paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. and the funds had come from the Ministry of Human Settlements. 3. If the amount exceeds the latter. shall be chosen by the Samahang Kabuhayan "subject to the evaluation/validation of the KKK Secretariat. Chief of District IV of the Support Staff and Malabon Sub-District Officer of KKK. Demand merely raises a prima faciepresumption that missing funds have been put to personal use.2. if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos.. along with petitioner. as already stated. such as here. however. having been the Barangay Captain of Panghulo. shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. probative value. i.00 "shall only be appropriated for the purpose/s as provided in the issued policies and guidelines of the program. 4. specifically intended by way of a loan to the barangay for its livelihood program. Accused-appellant criticizes the Sandiganbayan for its having failed to consider the fact that no valid demand has been made.000. 6 Undoubtedly. is not an element of. are extant to prove it. or has consented to. in the absence of such modules." There is absolutely no showing that the alleged substitute projects which each lendee of P1. if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos. The pertinent provisions read: . The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. was later lent to. 10 malversation can still be committed when enough facts. to the effect that Barangay Captains were given discretionary authority to invest the money in any viable project not falling within the list of project modules provided by the MHS-NCR Management. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. "T-shirt manufacturing. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. the same is of no avail. under the above penal provisions are that — (a) the offender is a public officer. and Deputy Regional Action Officer Lilia S. or through abandonment or negligence permitted. to the effect that a livelihood project. a belated certification issued by Rodolfo B. submitted to the KKK Secretariat. He submitted.00 would select were among those of the developed modules 9 or were submitted to the KKK Secretariat for evaluation/validation.00 has. In all cases. taken or misappropriated. The Resolution marked Exhibit D expressly stated that the P10. such funds or property. the act constituted "misappropriation" within the meaning of the law. if any.e. for the repayment of the loaned sum." had already been identified by the council. Accused-appellant sought to justify the questioned act in that it was only when the members of the Barangay Council had realized that P10. however. Furthermore. The money. The elements of malversation. it said: The defense evidence that the Barangay Council changed the T-shirt Manufacturing to whatever business ventures each members of the Council would select for investment of his P1. The demand itself. (b) he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. malversation. Banquicio. when. little.

is the correct rule and it is thus here reiterated. 217[3]. 13. prision correccional in its medium period to prision correccional in its maximum period or anywhere from two years. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. four months and one day to six years) and the maximum of which is that which the law prescribes after considering the attendant modifying circumstances. should. in relation to Art. Exhibit "J" on the representation that Romero's proposal to build a barangay service center would so later be indicated in that resolution as the barangay livelihood project. be imposed in its maximum period or from eight years. entitling him to three distinct mitigating circumstances. Revised Penal Code). since the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional. the Sandiganbayan gave credence to the testimonies of Barangay Councilman Santos A. 1989 (sgd. being more severe than the latter (that imposed for the falsification). The Sandiganbayan concluded that Nizurtado had 13 induced Romero and Gomez to sign the blank resolution. par. The former (that imposed for the malversation). It is our considered view that the ruling in People vs. The two testified that no meeting had actually taken place on 25 August 1983. The Sandiganbayan has considered the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution in favor of Nizurtado. 549. the minimum of which shall be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in degree (i. par. the full range of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense. the one degree lower than prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum is prision mayor minimum to prision mayor medium (being the next two periods in the scale of penalties [see Art. 1069. Deputy Clerk of Court Luisabel Alfonso Cortez. may thus be treated as a modifying circumstance independent and apart from restitution of the questioned funds by petitioner (Art. from eight years.Art.) LUISABEL ALFONSO CORTEZ 14 Deputy Clerk of Court Voluntary surrender (Art. those findings are binding on this court. par. 1989 and posted his bail bond in said case. is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. from which range the maximum of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken. Revised Penal Code). or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Revised Penal Code). JANUARY 17. 61. as opposed to that of People vs. Philippines. 7. Fulgencio. Exhibit "D. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: xxx xxx xxx 2. the document need not be an authentic official paper since its simulation. the court is to impose an indeterminate sentence. 39. Gonzales. or notary who. conformably with Article 48 of the Code (the penalty for complex crimes). employee. that is. therefore. 13. Revised Penal Code). The established rule is that unless the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are bereft of substantial evidence to support it. on 17 January 1989. a priori. In view of the mitigating circumstances present in this case. Considering. the offender shall be sentenced to suffer perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine equal to the amount malversed (Art. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of five thousand pesos is prescribed for the crime of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. The presence of the third mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem (lack of intention to 15 commit so grave a wrong as that committed) would result in imposing a period the court may deem applicable. that the penalty has to be imposed in the maximum period. also. par. the same (the penalty) to be applied in the maximum period. 13. six months and ten days. the signatures appearing thereon need not necessarily be forged. subsidiary imprisonment would not be warranted. however. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (which can apply since the maximum term of imprisonment would exceed one year).000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer. So. Revised Penal Code).. Revised Penal Code) and. the only effect of this additional mitigating circumstance is to impose only the 16 minimum portion of that maximum period. 66. 92 Phil. The actual attendance of two separate mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution. In fine. For purposes of determining that next lower degree. be considered. 171. in 11 fact. is then the applicable prescribed penalty to be imposed in its maximum period. We are convinced. (Art. employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.e. has certified to the voluntary surrender of the accused thusly: CERTIFICATION THIS CERTIFIES that accused FELIX NIZURTADO in criminal Case No: 13304 voluntarily surrendered before this court on JANUARY 17. the date when "T-shirt manufacturing" was allegedly decided to be the barangay livelihood project. when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. Revised Penal Code]) the full range of which is six years and one day to ten years. when the amount involved exceeds six thousand pesos but does not exceed twelve thousand pesos. Gomez and Barangay Treasurer Manuel P. eight months and one day to ten years. — The penalty ofprision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5. furthermore. not merely the imposable penalty because of its complex nature. The penalty prescribed for the offense of malversation of public funds. 3. In falsification under the above-quoted paragraph. Falsification by public officer. entitles the accused to the penalty next lower in degree. the fine of P10. is the essence of falsification. 64. eight months and one day to nine years. Romero. par 5. This one degree lower penalty should.00 may also be reduced (Art. also found by the Sandiganbayan and uncontested by the Solicitor General. 73 Phil." was a falsified document for which petitioner should be held responsible. 3. in addition. that petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. par 5. (Art. 10. taking advantage of his official position. Manila. In concluding that the Barangay Council resolution. 12 .000.

the personal and humble opinion of the assigned writer of this ponencia that appellant deserves an executive commutation of the statutory minimum sentence pronounced by this Court. Puno. four months and one day to eight years. Given all the attendant circumstances. is on leave. Kapunan and Mendoza. Bidin. Jr. WHEREFORE.000. Melo. Romero. Padilla.The law and the evidence no doubt sustains Nizurtado's conviction. is MODIFIED by imposing on petitioner a reduced indeterminate sentence of from two years.00.. it is. Quiason. Davide. Feliciano. nevertheless.J.. given the circumstances here obtaining. JJ. Regalado.. eight months and one day. perpetual special disqualification and a fine of P2. SO ORDERED. the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting Nizurtado for malversation of public funds through falsification of public document is AFFIRMED but the sentence. Narvasa.. Bellosillo. concur. C. J. .