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 Malacaan, 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 Castaeda, 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:

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

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

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

with slight physical injuries and violations of Manila ordinances; (35) Villaflor- robbery, frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence; (36) Villarama - frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence, and (37) Villegas - murder and evasion of service of sentence. At the arraignment on March 5, 1966, the accused were represented by two lawyers de oficio. The information was read and explained to them in the Tagalog dialect. The nineteen accused who pleaded guilty were (1) Abella, (2) Anover, (3) Cidro, (4) Dionisio, (5) Enrigan (6) Galanto, (7) Gavilaguin, (8) Hernandez, (9) Lorana (10) Maldecir (11) Opsiar (12) Rolando Pangilinan (1.3) Quijano, (14) Rebutaso (15) Ricafort, (16) Taboy, (17) Villaflor, (18) Villarama and (19) Villegas. Of the nineteen who pleaded guilty, sixteen were "close-confined" prisoners from the three small cells while three Dionisio Pangilinan and Ricafort were from the big cell. The seventeen accused who pleaded not guilty were (1) Apolinario, (2) Apolonias, (3) Astrologia, (4) Barbajo, (5) Bilbar, (6) Cabcaban, (7) Carballo, (8) Cuizon, (9) Duran, (10) Francisco, (11) Gaylan, (12) Gelle, (13) Lagarto, (14) Roberto Pangilinan, (15) Provide, Jr., (16) Sardenia and (17) Tagana. The thirty-seventh accused, Guillermo Ignacio, at first pleaded guilty but when he repudiated his extrajudicial confession, a plea of not guilty was substituted for his plea of guilty. After the pleas were entered, the trial court required the fiscal to present evidence as of those who had pleaded guilty. The fiscal submitted as exhibits the extrajudicial confessions of the nineteen accused which were sworn to before the municipal judge. At the fiscal's behest, the trial court ordered the interpreter to ask individually the nineteen accused whether they confirmed their confessions. In open court, all of them ratified their confessions. Typical of the confessions of the accused was Villaflor's statement taken by Ramon C. Alicarte, an investigator, on July 14, 1965 at the socalled "reading center" of the penal colony. Villaflor said: 13. Q - Will you please narrate to me what you know about that unusual incident (in the morning of June 27, 1965)? A. On that particular time and date, 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, we inmates in the close- confinement cells were also sent out to have our noon meat But before we went out from our cells, 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. After Cadio had finished eating, he went to his cell and got a pillow which was to be sold to our contact inside the big cell. When Cadio was already at the aisle between the big cell and the close-confinement cells, 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. Cadio then called the trusty police on duty, prisoner Numeriano Reynon, 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. When Cadio's request was seconded by Emerito Abella by saying. 'Sigi na pare. dahil sa wala kaming pangbili ng cigarilyo, Reynon opened the door of the big cell and Ruding Pakpak said: 'Abi, Abi tingnan ko ang unan kung bulak ang laman.' Then, 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, 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. 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. I then asked Pakpak as to where is Jimmy (Refugia) and he pointed Refugia to me who was then at the ceiling. When I saw Refugia. I also climbed and pulled him down. When he fell down the floor, I stabbed him and after that I left Jimmy (Jacinto) who was already fatally wounded. Then, I began looking for another of our enemies. I then saw Manuel Cayetano who was already wounded. 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. I gave the club to Kulot (Emerito Abella )and rested for a while. I then saw Pakpak grappling with Bundat and Pakpak called for me to help him. I went near them and I stabbed Bundat once. And Bundat lessened his grip from Pakpak then began stabbing Bundat (sic) and when he saw that Bundat is (was) dead, he mixed with the rest.

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

The death sentence imposed upon Astrologia is likewise not under review because it was not promulgated. After the trial, he was returned to the national penitentiary for security reasons. On October 10, 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, 1969 (Pages 413-4 of Expediente and pages 1, I -D 2 and 159, Rollo). After the rendition of that decision or during the pendency of this case, death ended the agonies of ten of the twenty- nine accused who were sentenced to death. The ten dead defendants were Anover Cidro, Cuizon, Galanto, Maldecir Opsiar, Roberto Pangilinan, Rolando Pangilinan, Ricafort and Villaflor (Pages 98, 125, 171, 176, 181, 212, 336-B, 662, 717 and 750, Volumes I and II of the Rollo). The death penalty imposed on the remaining nineteen accused named in the title of this case (Including Abella, Apolonias and Villegas who escaped from confinement, page 158, Rollo), is the one under automatic review "as law and justice shall dictate". Review of death sentence on those who pleaded guilty. It may be recapitulated that of the nineteen accused in the death row, ten, namely (1) Abella, an escapee, (2) Dionisio, (3) Enrigan (4) Gavilaguin. (5) Hernandez, (6) Loraa (7) Quijano, (8) Taboy, (9) Villarama (he allegedly killed on February 12, 1976 a fellow prisoner in the national penitentiary, page 712, Volume II of Rollo), and (10) Villegas, an escapee, pleaded guilty upon arraignment and in open court ratified their extrajudicial confessions which were sworn to before the municipal judge. They were sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision. Nine of the ten were among the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in the three small cells who invaded the big cell. The tenth Dionisio, was confined in the big cell. After a perusal of their confessions, 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, 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, 1973, Magtoto vs. Manguera, L- 3720102, Simeon vs. Villaluz, L-37424 and People vs. Isnani, L-38929, all decided on March 3, 1975, 63 SCRA 4). 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. 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.S. vs. Talbanos, 6 Phil. 541, 543). 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. Apduhan, Jr., 19491, August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798, 817). 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, including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated, 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, fun significance and consequences of his plea" (People vs. Bulalake, 106 Phil. 767, 770. See People vs. Baluyot, L-32752-3, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 148). As already indicated in our recital of the proceedings below, the trial court, in order to comply with the procedure in capital cases when a plea of guilty is entered, required the fiscal to present evidence. The latter presented the confessions of those who pleaded guilty. 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. Presumably, the trial court did not do so, not only because the judicial confessions of the accused (pleas of guilty) were reinforced by their extrajudicial confessions, 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, therefore, some comprehension of what a plea of guilty signifies. We hold that in this case the accused did not make an improvident plea of guilty. As held in U.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil. 305, 318, 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. People vs. Yamson and Romero, 109 Phil. 793, is a case similar to the instant case. In the Yamson case two prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison killed their fellow convict. At their arraignment for murder, they pleaded guilty with the assistance of a counsel de oficio. They were forthwith convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death, being quasi-recidivists The accused appealed. This Court, in resolving the contention of the counsel de oficio that the accused had made an improvident plea, 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. That observation may be applied to the instant case. (Same holding in People vs. Perete, 111, Phil. 943 and People vs. Yamson, 111 Phil. 406.) Review of the death sentence on those who pleaded not guilty . As to the other nine accused, who pleaded not guilty and were tried and sentenced to death, namely, Apolonias, Barbajo, Cabcaban, Carballo, Duran, Francisco, Ignacio, Provide. Jr. and Tagana, it is necessary to make a painstaking examination of the evidence in order to ascertain whether their guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Those nine accused were in the big cell (bartolina). 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. 1. Maximo Apolonias alias Max. He was born in Barrio Anas, Dimasalang, Masbate. He finished grade four. 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, as maximum. He was imprisoned in the national penitentiary on December 26, 1964. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8, 1965. He was twenty-four years old when he testified on March 13, 1968. He testified that when the massacre occurred he climbed the wall of steel-matting. He allegedly did not know what transpired when the sixteen "close-confined" raiders entered the big cell. In his statement of August 9, 1965, he denied having joined the sixteen raiders. lie repeatedly declared that he could not have been involved in the massacre because he was a new arrival in the penal colony. The massacre took place fifty days after Ms arrival. Witness Guevarra said that he did not see Apolonias assaulting the victims (109 tsn November 16, 1966). Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo implicated Apolonias but did not state definitely the acts perpetrated by the latter during the assault. We find that the prosecution's evidence does net establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Apolonias. As to him, it is not sufficient to justify the judgment of conviction. 2. Jose Barbajo alias Joe. He is a native of Mabolo, Cebu City. He finished grade three. He was eighteen years old when he was convicted of robbery. 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, six months and twenty-one days for habitual delinquency. He was received in the national penitentiary on July 9, 1964. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 13, 1964. He was twenty-five years old when he testified on March 12, 1968. He declared that he was sick when the massacre occurred. He climbed the wall of steel-matting. He said that he was not a member of any prison gang. Witness Guevarra identified Barbajo as a member of the Oxo gang and as having beaten with a piece of wood one "Bandes" (108, 115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18, 1966). 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, 1967). 3. Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday. He was born in Barrio Asagna, Tanjay, Negros Oriental. He finished the fourth grade. He was convicted of theft and evasion of service of sentence. He was confined in the national penitentiary starting August 29, 1962. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15, 1964. He was twenty-six years old on October 20, 1967 when he testified. In his statement (Exh. DD), he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang but he denied that he helped the sixteen raiders in assaulting the victims. He testified that at the time the massacre was being perpetrated he was clinging to the wall made of steel-matting. His body was examined while he was on the witness stand. It was tattooed but not with the letters "OXO". Witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario, the companions of Cabcaban in the big cell, testified that Cabcaban was a member of the Oxo gang and that he helped Abella's group in attacking the members of the Sigue- Sigue gang in the big cell. Witness Rodrigo, a prisoner acting as a special policeman, pointed to Cabcaban as the person who beat Cabile with a piece of wood (4 tsn July 25, 1967). There is no victim surnamed Cabile, as reported in the transcript, but Rodrigo was probably referring to the victim named Salvador Abique who was also Identified by a witness as Tabique. The name "Cabile" might be an error in transcription. 4. Rodolfo Carballo alias Ruding Pakpak. He was born in Villadolid, Negros Occidental. He resided at 958 Antipolo Street, Tondo, Manila. He finished grade six. 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. He was brought to the New Bilibid Prison on December 8, 1962. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on June 20, 1964. He escaped from the penal colony on August 12, 1964 and was recaptured on March 15, 1965. He was twenty-seven years old when he testified on January 8, 1968. He admitted in his statement to the investigator that he was a member of the Oxo gang and had the Oxo tattoo mark. 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. Witness Guevarra testified that Gavilaguin, a closely-confined prisoner, wanted to sell his pillow to Carballo (who is Identified in the confessions as Ruding Pakpak), a prisoner in the big cell. It was that ruse which started the commotion (9598 tsn November 16. 1966). Guevarra Identified Carballo as one of those who helped the sixteen raiders (107 tsn November 17, 1966). That testimony was corroborated by witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo. 5. Elino Duran. He was born in Catbalogan, Samar. He finished grade five. 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. He was brought to the national penitentiary on December 18, 1962. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on March 5, 1963. He was twenty-nine years old when he testified on March 12, 1968. In his statement and testimony, he denied any participation in the massacre. He said that during the riot he climbed the wall of steelmatting. 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 admitted that he executed a statement and that the contents thereof were true (Exh. EE). On the witness stand, he pointed to Ignacio alias Pilay, Tagana, Astrologia, Cabcaban and Carballo alias Rudy as among those who took part in the massacre. In his statement, he Identified Cuizon, Roberto Pangilinan, Rolando Pangilinan, Cabcaban, Lagarto, Apolonias, Astrologia, Ricafort, Carballo, Ignacio, Tagana and Dionisio as having taken part in the killings (See No. 12, Exh. EE ). Prosecution eyewitnesses Guevarra, Del, Rosario and Rodrigo Identified Duran as having ellaborated with the sixteen raiders in perpetrating the massacre. 6. Jose Francisco alias Karate. He was born in Pila, Laguna and resided at San Andres Extension, Manila. He finished the first year of high school. He used to be a judo instructor. In 1964, 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, as maximum (Exh. J-5). He was confined in the national penitentiary on February 15, 1964. He was received in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15, 1964 and confined in the big cell on June 25, 1965, or two days before the riot, because he was suspected of having smuggled deadly weapons into the prison compound (pp. 93 or 115, Record). He was twenty- five years old when he testified on January 8, 1968. He declared that when the raiders entered the big cell he :stepped aside, climbed the wall of steel-matting and prayed. however, witness Guevarra Identified Francisco as a member of the Oxo gang who helped the raiders and who, armed with a wooden club, beat the victim, Gualberto Fuentes, who died (108, 114-115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18, 1966). Witness Del Rosario included Francisco in his wholesale Identification of twelve assailants who helped the raiders from the small cells. Counsel de oficio, who filed a brief for Francisco only, contended that the trial court erred in holding that Francisco was a co-conspirator. Said counsel alleged that Francisco was convicted of robbery (snatching) because he was framed up by a certain Patrolman Liwanag of the Manila police. According to counsel, Francisco and one Roberto Gonzales (an actor) had charged Liwanag with extorting money from the Karate Club, of which Francisco was a member, and, in revenge, Liwanag fabricated a complaint for robbery against Francisco who was convicted and sent to the Davao Penal Colony. No evidence was presented in the lower court by Francisco to prove that he was convicted on a trumped-up charge of robbery. 7. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. He was born in La Carlota, Negros Occidental. He finished grade five. He was convicted of murder, frustrated murder, arson and evasion of service of sentence. He was received in the national penitentiary on July 27, 1953. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 22, 1961. He escaped three times from prison (Exh. J-12). He was thirty-eight years old when he testified on March 12,1968. He declared that when the massacre began, he stood beside the steel-matting. He saw his fellow prisoner, Arsenio Guevarra (the prosecution witness), carrying a pillow. After the riot, he was investigated. 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. In his statement, he admitted he was a member of the Oxo gang. Guevarra said that he did not see Ignacio helping the group (108 tsn November 17, 1966). Witness Rodrigo, a prisoner acting as a special policeman, identified Ignacio as a member of the Oxo gang and as the prisoner who, during the riot, covered the door of the big cell with a blanket and pieces of wood and who, armed with a wooden club, took part in beating the victims (15-16 tsn July 25,1967). Witness Del Rosario, in his wholesale Identification of the twelve prisoners who took part in the assault, included Ignacio (222 tsn February 10, 1967). 8. Eugenie Provido, Jr. He was born in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo. He finished the sixth grade. He was convicted of theft and violations of articles 157 and 178 of the Review Penal Code. He was received in the national penitentiary on December 3, 1959. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on February 29, 1964 (Exh. J-17). He was twenty-six years old when he testified on July 10, 1968. 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. He said that he did not know what actually happened because he was solicitous about his own personal safety. He did not climb the steel- matting. He said that during the investigation of the case, he was told that he would be utilized as a State witness. He denied that he was a member of the Oxo gang. Witness Guevarra testified that he did not know Provido (90 tsn November 16, 1966). However, when he was asked to point to his (Guevarra's) companions in the big cell who helped Abella's group, 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, 108 and 11 5; 127 tsn Nov. 18, 1966). Witness Rodrigo Identified Provido as having beaten the deceased Jose Magpantay with a piece of wood (10-11 tsn July 25, 1967). Witness Del Rosario included Provido as among those who participated in the assault (222 tsn February 10, 1967). 9. Angel Tagana.He was born in Dulag, Leyte. He finished grade two. He resided in Pandacan, Manila. He had six convictions for robbery with physical injuries, malicious mischief and slander by deed and violations of city ordinances. He was received in the national penitentiary on June 15, 1963. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8,1965 (Exh. J-9). He was twenty-six years old when he testified on January 9, 1968. He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell and started stabbing his companions he ran to the side of the cell. He was not assaulted by anyone.

In his statement, he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang (p. 119 or 143, Record). 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, 1966). Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo also pointed to Tagana as one of those who helped Abella's group (222 tsn February 10, 1967 and 14-15 tsn July 25, 1967). Counsels de oficio contend that the trial court erred in holding that there was a conspiracy among the accused. That contention has no basis in the evidence. 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, after putting down the guard and entering the big cell, 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 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, united and concerted movement that could easily indicate a community of purpose, closeness of association and concurrence of will", as shown particularly by the order of the two "close-confined" prisoners, Abella and Villaflor, 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. 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. Counsel de oficio assails the credibility of witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario. These two witnesses were prisoners in the big cell. They had sufficient opportunity to observe what took place during the hour-long riot. Del Rosario was himself a victim. 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. On the contrary, according to counsel, the said accused were still serving sentence for their prior convictions. Counsel's contention is correct as to Abella. Dionisio, Gavilaguin, Maldecir, Villaflor and Villarama to whom reiteration was considered aggravating. They were still serving sentence for their previous crimes at the time the riot occurred. In order that the aggravating circumstance of reiteration may be taken into account, it should be shown that the offender against whom it is appreciated had already served out his sentences for the prior offenses (People vs. Layson, 1-25177, October 31, 1969. 30 SCRA 92, 97). 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. 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. The accused did not surrender voluntarily and unconditionally. They rejected the initial requests for their surrender. They surrendered after Prison officials armed with guns demanded their surrender. They chose the person to whom they would surrender, namely, Jorge, the overseer. Defense counsel's contention that treachery and evident premeditation are not aggravating in this case is untenable. The accused, who were all armed, 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. The victims did not offer any resistance. The accused had deliberately planned the attack as shown by the manner in which they executed the massacre. They provided themselves with improvised weapons. No one among the accused sustained any injuries or was exposed to any risk arising from any defense that the victims might have made. The victims were not able to make any retaliation. Moreover, there was abuse of superiority which absorbed cuadrilla In People vs. Layson, L-25177, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 92, the four accused, also inmates of the Davao Penal Colony, who were armed with bladed weapons, entered on January 17, 1964 the cell of their fellow prisoners, locked the door thereof and stabbed him to death. It was held that the crime was murder aggravated by treachery, evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism. The Layson case is similar to the instant case. The difference between the two cases is that in the instant case, more prisoners were involved and there were seventeen victims. Motion for new trial. On October 30, 1973 or after the Solicitor General had filed his brief, twenty of the thirty accused, who were sentenced to death, filed, personally or without the assistance of counsel, a motion for new trial. Those twenty movants are Anover alias Abarca (who died on June 18, 1976), Barbajo, Cabcaban, Carballo, Cuizon (who died on November 6, 1977), Dionisio, Duran, Enrigan Francisco, Gavilaguin, Hernandez, Ignacio, Lorana, Opsiar, (who died on April 2, 1974), Provide, Quijano, Tagana, Taboy, Villarama and Villegas. Of those twenty, ten accused, namely, Dionisio, Enrigan, Gavilaguin, Hernandez, Lorana, Opsiar, Quijano, Taboy, Villarama and Villegas had pleaded guilty, Nine of the ten were "close-confined" prisoners in the three cells. The tenth, Dionisio, was in the big cell. The other ten of the twenty accused were from the big cell. They pleaded not guilty and they were tried. The twenty movants alleged in their motion for new trial that those who pleaded guilty did so due to "the coercion, harassment and intimidation applied by the prison authorities" or due to "third degree" and other brutalities. They further alleged that one of the "fabricated (prosecution) witnesses" was Guillermo Ignacio who made a retraction and that another witness, Elino Duran, was forced to sign his affidavit.

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

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

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

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TY SUI WONG, VICTOR NG alias "TY SING LING" ROQUE DEJUNGCO alias "GERRY", JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias "PEPENG KOMANG", ROMUALDO CARREON alias "OMENG" JUANITO ANG y DEJUNGCO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, defendants. VICTOR NG alias "TY SING LING" and JOSE DE LOS SANTOS alias "PEPENG KOMANG", defendants-appellants. Dakila F. Castro & Associates for appellant, Victor Ng. A. E. Dacanay for appellant Jose de los Santos. Office of the Solicitor General, for appellee.

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

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

On December 23, 1966, at about 11:30 o'clock in the morning and after a futile wait for the body to be identified, Dr. Ernesto Brion of the National Bureau of Investigation performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the dead man. (tsn, pp. 52, 60, 68, Oct. 25, 1967, testimony Dr. Brion). The Necropsy Report prepared by him and marked as Exhibit 'G' at the trial contained the following findings: Paller, conjunctivae and integument, No evidence of beginning putrefaction. Ant bites abundant, all over integument. Mouth gagged with handkerchief, knotted at nape. Blood oozing from mouth. Stab wound, chest left, anterior, 2.0 cm. at level of 3rd intercostal space, 1.5 cm. from anterior median line, running downwards and slight laterally, edges clean cut, extremities sharp, directed backwards, medially and almost horizontally, thru the 3rd intercostal space and grazing the upper border of 4th rib, into left thoracic cavity, then into the pericardial cavity, perforating the pulmonary vein, left superior, and puncturing the hylus of lung left and small bronchi, with an approximate depth of 12.00 cm. Tracheabronchial tree contains blood, Hemopericardium 150 cc. Hemothorax, left side, 960 cc. liquid and clotting blood, Paller, brain and other visceral organs. Stomach contains partly digested rice particles mixed with blood. Cause of death: Stab wound of left chest. (See p. 10. Rec. of Exhibits.) Before performing his post-mortem examination, Dr. Brion took pictures of the deceased as well as his fingerprints for possible Identification, (tsn, pp. 56-60, 68-69, Oct. 25, 1967. Ibid; Exhs. 'I', 'I-3,'I-3-a'; also, Exh. 'I-4', pp. 13-14, Rec. of Exhibits). According to the doctor, the wound could have been caused by a sharppointed instrument such as a dagger, fan knife or such similar instruments (tsn, p. 64, Oct. 25, 1967) and the death blow must have been delivered with the assailant holding the death weapon with his right hand, the victim to his left, with both of them either sitting or standing together. (tsn, pp, 66-67, Ibid). The body could have been dead for more than one day when he conducted the autopsy. (tsn, p. 61, Ibid). The body was remained unidentified until January 20, 1967, when the brother of the dead man, Camilo Lim, after hearing the radio broadcast about the unidentified body at the Funeraria Quiogue, went to the said funeral parlor and Identified the dead man as his brother, Mariano Lim, who had been forcibly taken away from in front of the family residence at 36 Kanlaon St, Quezon City, on the night of December 21, 1966, (tsn. pp. 53-55, 69-70, 71-73. Ibid, Exhs. 'H' and 'H-l', pp, 1112, Rec. of Exhibits; also, tsn. pp. 12-13, July 7, 1967, testimony of Lim Chu Beng; pp, 36-38, Nov. 21, 1967, testimony of Det. Godofredo Ruiz). (pp. 46). The following facts, according to the trial court, established beyond doubt the criminal culpability of the appellants Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos, and their other co-accused, thus: Assigned to the case as reported to the Quezon City Police Headquarters and entered as Case No. 14041 for robbery holdup (Exhibit F) Det. Godofredo Ruiz interviewed first the complainant, Lim Cho Beng, from whom he got a description of the hold-up men, and information as to where Mariano worked and his having a girl friend named Ruby Ng, the daughter of the owner of Tong's Glassware at Villalobos Street, Quiapo, Manila, where the victim worked. He then went to the glassware store to interview Ruby Ng and her father, but he received, no information of value in the solution of the case. On December 24, 1966, Det. Ruiz went again to the residence of Mariano Lim, this time to interview his father Lim Hok, Chua Yam, the mother, and Angelita Faylona, the housemaid. It was then that he learned that on evening in September or October, 1966, one Victor Ng and his father, Ty Sui Wong, both armed, together with two other companions, went to the Lim residence looking for Mariano, but when informed that Mariano was still out. Ty Sui Wong told Mariano's father to tell his son (Mariano) to keep away from Ruby Ng, otherwise he would be liquidated. Det. Ruiz also learned in the course of his interview with those in the Lim family residence and those in the glassware store at Quiapo, Manila, that shortly before December 21, 1966, Victor Ng and Mariano Lim figured in an encounter in front of the Tong's Glassware Store in which Mariano was mauled. From these incidents, Det. Ruiz marked Victor Ng as a suspect, into whose personal circumstances and background he was thus prompted to make proper inquiries from the Bureau of Immigration where he got his photograph. From Caloocan City Treasurer's Office he also learned that Victor Ng was the Manager of Starlite Manufacturing Co. at Kangkong, Quezon City. From then on, Det. Ruiz tried co contact Victor Ng and able to do so only on February 6, 1961 at the latter's factory compound. He had brought along with him to the compound a Chinese speaking companion, and during that meeting, this companion informed Det. Ruiz that he heard Victor Ng, speaking in Chinese, telling the Chinese persons in the factory that he would try to escape. This prompted the detective to call for assistance from his headquarters, and the timely arrival of reinforcement foiled Ng's escape attempt, although Ng had already managed to get out of the compound. Victor Ng was then brought to the Detective Bureau of Quezon City Police Department. In the presence of the Chief of the Detective Bureau, Mr. Arcilla of the Manila Times, Mr. Tan of the Fookien Times, and Mr. Lim of the Greater East Asia Newspaper, he was interrogated about the slaying of Mariano Lim. Victor Ng at first stood firm in his denial of any knowledge about the killing, but when confronted with a picture of the dead man taken by the NBI during the autopsy, he looked aghast with fear and remained speechless. In a short while, however, Victor Ng broke down with an admission that he had something to do with the crime. Det. Ruiz then asked Victor Ng if he was willing to give a written statement, and receiving an affirmative answer, he took down Ng's statement after reminding him of his constitutional rights as shown in the statement itself (Exhibit M). The statement consists of three pages in the form of questions and answers in Tagalog, the language he preferred to speak in, duly and voluntarily signed by him after reading it, in the presence of the detective and other witnesses. Det Ruiz then brought Victor Ng to Fiscal Solano for the verification of his statement. Again Victor Ng was asked to read his statement, which he did, even making corrections therein, and thereafter asked to sign it if the contents were true. Victor Ng signed voluntarily on all the pages of his statement.

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

11. T: Bakit nasabi mo na pangalawang mastermind si Gerry o Roque Dejungco, sa pagpatay kay Mariano. Mayroon pa bang pangunahing mastermind? S: Dahil po ang pangunahing mastermind bale ay si VIC. 12. T: Sino itong Vic na sinasabi mo? S: Siya po. (Affiant pointing to the person of VICTOR NG alias Victor Ty with Chinese name of Ty Sing Ling). 13. T: Kaylan ka nakasama sa pagpatay kay Mariano? S: Bago po magpasko ng Deciembre 1966 hinde ko po natandaan ang petsa. 14. T: Saan ninyo pinatay si Mariano? S: Sa Paraaque, Rizal po. 15: T: Sino-sino ang kasama mo ng patayin ninyo si Mariano? S: Si Gerry, si Juanito Ang, si Jose de los Santos at Omeng o Romeo Carreon. 16. T: Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari sa pagkapatay ninyo kay Mariano? S: Ganito po ang pangyayari niyan. Nuon pong Nobiembre 1966 ay nasabi sa akin ni Gerry na may bibirahin tao kami. Sabi niya ay ipinapapatay ni Vic na kaibigan ni Gerry, Sabi ni Gerry sa akin ay sumama daw ako. Sabi niya ay magbabayad daw si Vic ng halagang limang libo para mapatay si Mariano. Pumayag naman ako dahil sa nademonyo na ako sa sinabi ng aking kumpare. 17. T: Sinong kumpare ito.? S: Gerry po, iyong anak ko ay inaanak niya. 18. 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. 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. Kaming apat ngayon ay nagpunta sa Quiapo sa Villalobos sa glass store na pinagtatrabahuhan ni Mariano. Kaya kami ay nagpunta doon ay pinamumukhaan sa amin ni Gerry itong si Mariano. Nuong araw na iyon una kong nakita si Mariano. 19. T: Anong oras mo unang nakita si Mariano? S: Mga alas 8:30 ng gabi po. 20. T: Ituloy mo ang salaysay mo? S: Matapos naming makita at mamukhaan si Mariano ay naghiwalay na kami. 21. 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. 22. T: Ituloy mo ang iyong salaysay? S: Sumakay nga po ako ng jeep at sa unahan ako umupo duon sa kanan. Napagusapan namin kung saan bibirahin o papatayin si Mariano at sabi ni Juanito ay alam niya kung saan. Nagpaikot-ikot muna kami sa bandang Pasay at Dewey Blvd. Matapos ang isang oras humigit-kumulang ay nakarating kami ng Paraaque at sa isang kalye sa may gawaan ng Canada Dry ay kumanan kami. Hindi ko lang alam ang kalye. Mga isang daan metro buhat sa pinaglikuan namin ay inihinto ni Juanito ang jeep. Bumaba si Omeng at inilipat namin si Mariano sa harap na upuan tapos pinagitnaan namin ni Juanito at ako. Ang ginawa ni Omeng ay tinalian ang bibig ng isang panyo na galing kay Juanito si Mariano. Matapos talian sa bibig ay hinawakan ni Omeng at Gerry ang dalawang kamay ni Mariano buhat sa likuran. Nuon po ay nasa loob pa ng jeep si Mariano. Ang ginawa ko ay tinanong ko kung saan ang puso ni Mariano at sumagot ang isa sa amin na sa kaliwa aniya. Ang ginawa ko ay iniakbay ko ang kaliwang kamay ko kay Mariano at sinaksak ko ng minsan sa bandang kaliwang dibdib. 23. T: Nasaang gawi mo si Mariano ng saksakin siya?

S: Nasa kaliwa ko siya. Nakaupo kaming pareho sa unahang upuan ng jeep. Si Juanita naman ay nasa kaliwa ni Mariano. 24. 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. Nagpaandar uli si Juanito ng jeep at nagmaneobra para bumalik kami sa aming pinasukan. 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. Balak ni Juanito ay ibenta ang jeep at sabi ko ay sa parteng iyon ay ayaw ko na kaya bumaba na ako. Sila naman ay tumuloy na patungong Maynila. 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. Pagkatapos ng dalawang araw ay nagkita kami ni Gerry, Omeng at Juanito sa aming lugar sa Miguelin sa bahay nila Omeng at mapagusapan namin ang tungkol sa ibibigay sa amin. 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. Wala pa aniya ni Gerry si Victor Ng at nasa Cebu City pa kaya naghintay kami. 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. Ang limang daan ay ibinigay sa akin. Ang natira ay napunta sa kanila nila Omeng at Juanita. Pagkatapos ng limang araw ay nagkita uli kami ni Gerry at sabi niya ay binigyan daw siya uling tres sientos pesos ni Victor. 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. Bali ang napaghatian namin ay umaabot sa kulang na dalawang libo at sabi ni Gerry ay tumatawad daw si Victor sa usapang limang libo. Iyon namang kakulangan sa dalawang libo ay napunta na siguro kay Gerry. Also before Pat. Marcos Vias, Juanito Ang gave his statement (Exhibit L) at about 1:20 p.m. of the same day of his arrest on February 7, 1967, the most revealing part of which reads: 11. 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. 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. Nuong a-19 ng Disyembre gabi nuon mga alas-7 pasado ay sinabi sa akin ni Romeo Carreon na itutuloy na ang balak nila. Sila ay ang tatlo nina Gerry, Jose de los Santos at Romeo Carreon. Kinaumagahan ay pumunta ako sa bahay nina Romeo sa Arevalo at sinabi niya sa akin na pumaltos daw ang lakad nila. Ang ibig sabihin niya ay sila nina Jose de los Santos, Gerry Dejungco at Romeo. Nuong a-21 ng Disyembre gabi rin mga alas-9 ay kagagaling ko lang sa inuman sa may Constancia. Pauwi na ako noon ng dumaan ako kina Romeo uli para makipagusap. Nadatnan ko sina Romeo, Jose at Gerry na naguusap. Ang paksa ng usapan ay tungkol sa papatayin nilang intsik. Dahil po sa kalasingan ko ay nakisabat na ako sa usapan. Sinabi ko na sasama na rin ako sa lakad nila. Pagkatapos ng mga 20 minutos na kami ay naguusap ay napagkayarian na si Jose ang papatay sa intsik at ako ang magmamaneho ng jeep. Sinabi sa akin na ang intsik na papatayin ay may jeep at ako nga ang magmamaneho ng jeep. ... Sumakay siya sa jeep. Lumabas na uli kami pabalik sa gawing Maynila. Hindi pa kami masyadong nakalalayo ay tinanong ko si Romeo, Gerry at Jose kung may nakuha silang pera. Sabi sa akin ay mayroon nubenta pesos na nasa kay Gerry na. Nuong malapit na kami sa gawaan ng Darigold ay iniabot sa akin ni Gerry ang bente pesos. Tumuloy na kami ng rotonda ng Baclaran. Pagdating duon ay sabi nila Gerry at si Jose at Romeo na lilipat na sila ng jeep na de pasahero kaya bumaba na sila, at nasabi ko pa na akin na lang ang jeep. Ang sagot nila ay sa akin ng buong buo ang jeep. Kumaliwa na akong patungong Dewey at tumuloy ako ng Maynila. Nagdaan ako ng may Ayala. Tumuloy sa amin sa di kalayuan sa amin sa Miguelin. 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. Naglibot-libot ako sa may lugar namin at naalala ko na ang ipinanaksak ni Jose sa intsik ay nasa compartment ng jeep. Ang ginawa ko ay kinuha ko at inihagis ko sa may kanto ng Arevalo at M. de la Fuente. Tumuloy pa ako ng Sta. Mesa at sa kanto ng Sta. Mesa at De la Fuente ay ipinarada ko ang jeep sa may restaurant at nagalmusal na ako. Mag-aalas 5:30 media na nuon ng umaga. Pagkaalmusal ko ay umikot uli ako dala ang jeep at may nasalubong akong isang batang nagtitinda ng diaryo at bumili ako ng Manila Times. Pagtingin ko ay nakita ko ang balita na: 'Chinese Trader Kidnapped'. Binasa ko at nalaman ko na alarmado na ang jeep. Natakot ako ngayon. Dineretso ko ang Economia patungong Espaa at tumawid ako ng Espaa. Kinaliwa ko sa P. Florentino ang jeep at di kalayuan sa sine Trabaho ay ipinara ko ang jeep paharap sa UST sa kaliwa ng P Florentino. 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. Naglakad na lang akong patungong Espaa at umuwi na ako sa Miguelin. Mga alas 10 ng umaga ding iyon ay pumunta ako sa bahay ni Romeo at ipinakita ko ang diaryo na may balita. Nagtawa lang si Romeo tapos ay bumalik na ako sa amin at natulog na ako. 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. 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. Ibinalita ko uli kay Romeo at sabi niya hindi bale. 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.

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

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

(3) In convicting appellant. To begin with, the police investigators would not have known of the participation of Gerry Dejungco in the crime, were this fact not revealed for the first time to them by appellant Victor Ng when he was investigated by Det. Godofredo Ruiz on the night of February 6, 1967, In turn, it was Gerry Dejungco who revealed to the police authorities on the early morning of February 7, 1961 the role played in the commission if the crime by appellant Jose de los Santos and Juanito Ang. Finally, it was Jose de los Santos who, when interrogated by he police. also revealed in detail the participation of this accused, including Romualdo Carreon, in the commission of tile crime. Indeed, while Juanito Ang and Romualdo Carreon were positively identified by the mother, brother and maid of the victim as the persons whom they saw taking away forcibly Mariano Lim on the night of December 21, 1966, these witnesses did not know of the names of the kidnappers or their whereabouts. The solution of the case were supplied principally by the confession of Victor Ng. 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. From the interlocking confessions of the accused, it appears that Victor Ng harbored such bitter hatred against the victim, Mariano Lim, whom he considered as his rival for the affections of Ruby Ng. Not only was Mariano Lim preferred for outings and picnics by Ruby Ng, but he had also become the business associate of Ruby's father. This turn of events generated not only jealousy but spawned the subsequent incidents of violence. Thus, prior to the incident of December 21, 1966, Victor Ng had at least two violent encounters with Mariano Lim. The first was in September, 1966 and the second was in October of the same year. As testified to by the victim's mother, Chua Yam, his father, Lim Hok, and their housemaid, Victor Ng, his father, Ty Sui Wong, two brothers and two other companions who were then armed, proceeded to the residence of Mariano Lim at Kanlaon St. in September, 1966 looking for Mariano. They only left the place when they found that Mariano was out. The incident was repeated in October, 1966 when Victor Ng and his companions, who were again armed, went to Lim's residence looking for Mariano. Unable to find Mariano who was then out, Victor Ng's group left, but not before they told the father of Mariano to tell his son to stay away from Ruby Ng, otherwise, he will be liquidated. Victor Ng related this October, 1966 incident, thus: 9. T: Kailan mo huling nakita si Mariano Lim Cho Kuan? S: Nuong Octubre 1966 nuong kami ay nagaway. 10. T: Saan? S: Sa Villalobos St., Quiapo, Manila. 11. T: Bakit kayo nagaway? S: Kasi si Ruby Ng, anak nang mayari ng Tong's Glassware sa Villalobos, ay tumawag sa akin at sabi niya ay magsini kami . . niyaya ako maglabas, kung meron akong panahon. Sabi ko meron akong panahon . . tapos si Mariano Lim ay tawag sa akin sa telepono dahil sa narinig niya ang usapan namin tungkol sa date . . sabi niya sa telepono. . ginalit niya ako. . minura ako marami siya sabi sa akin. 'Kailan kasal ninyo ni Ruby,' sagot ko 'Ano ang pakialam mo . . Sabi niya para handa ako pambili regalo. Kami away sa telepono. Sabi ko sa kanya babae ayaw sa akin ano gawa ko. Hanggang sa kaming dalawa ay away sa telepono. Tapos nuon ang tatay ko ay again sa telepono at nakipagusap kay Mariano . . nagaway din sila para naghamon si Mariano sa Tatay ko. Punta kayo dito sa Quiapo. . sabi ni Mariano, kung hindi kayo punta dito ako punta diyan. Kaya gawa namin ng ama ko at kapatid ko si Jaime Ng ay punta kami sa Villalobos pero wala na si Mariano. . sabi nanay ni Ruby wala na si Mariano uwi na. Kaya kami magaama paalam na .. 12. T: Pagkagaling ninyo sa Villalobos. . saan kayo nagtuloy? S: Nagtuloy kaming magaama sa No. 36 Kanlaon St. Q.C., sa bahay nila Mariano. Pagdating doon kami katok. . labas ang Tatay ni Mariano at usap sila ng tatay ko. Ang dinig ko sa usap nila sabi Tatay ko, 'Ako si TY SUI WONG sagot Tatay ni Mariano sino Ty Sui Wong, sagot Tatay ko. Kapatid ako ni Ty Liong Kue. Tapos usap sila uli Sabi tatay ko. . bakit pati matanda na ako. . bakit hamon ang anak mong away.. Ikaw alaga sa anak mong mabuti sabi Tatay ko sa Tatay ni Mariano. Tapos alis na kami. 13. T: Saan kayo nagtuloy pagkagaling ninyo sa Kanlaon, Q.C.? S: Tuloy kami uli sa Villalobos, dahil galit ang tatay ko. Nakita ko si Mariano nakasakay sa taxi merong siyang kasama nuong aalis na ang taxi. . hinarang ko ang taxi binuksan ko ang pinto. . pinababa ko si Mariano, ...pero bunot siya baril ang akin ginawa ay hawak ko siya. . tapos suntok ko siya, . . nagkasa siya sa baril niya dito sa kasama niya. . tapos alis kasama niya . . Suntukan kami . . napunit ang damit niya. Iyon mga tao sa Villalobos hinila kami para pumasok sa Tong's Enterprises. Pinaayos kami ng magulang ni Ruby .. si Mariano hingi patawad sa amin. Tapos shake hands kami. Exhibit ("M"). It was only the timely arrival of Dr. Agustin Ng, the brother of Ruby Ng, which prevented further harm on Mariano Lim. It was precisely on the basis of these prior incidents that Det. Ruiz started his inquiries about Victor Ng. This culminated, as stated theretofore in the solution of the murder case. For it has been shown that after those violent encounters with the victim, Victor Ng contacted his former classmate, Roque "Gerry" Dejungco to whom he offered P5,000.00 provided he and his men could maul Mariano Lim and prevent him from visiting Ruby Ng. Victor Ng told Dejungco that he Ng was leaving for Zamboanga and Cebu City on December 15, 1966, and in the words of Dejungco: ... if he (Victor Ng) will arrive on the 23rd of December 1966, he doesn't want to see Mariano Lim alive." (Exhibit "N"). Dejungco contacted his cousin, Juanita Ang, his "compadre" looked, Santos and Romualdo Carreon, all neighbor of in

Sampaloc, Manila. The plot was first conceived in November, 1966 (see Exhibits "K" and "N") and the first attempt to kill the victim was made on December 19, 1966, but something went wrong and the conspirators were not able to realize their plan (Exhibit "L"). But on the night of December 21, 1966, on the very natal day of Mariano Lim, Ang and Carreon were able to grab Mariano Lim from his jeep and forced him to go with them. They fled with their victim towards Mayon Street where they picked up De los Santos and Dejungco who had been waiting for them. The five proceeded to Paraaque, Rizal passing Quezon Blvd. Extension, then turning left at Manuel de la Fuente Street. Manila, turning right on Sta. Mesa Blvd., then to Nagtahan bridge and continuing towards Paraaque, In the process of snatching Mariano Lim, Ang must have lost the sharp pointed instrument which he used in intimidating the victim (Exhibit "0-5 "), compelling Dejungco to go to the house of his "compadre" to borrow a sharp pointed weapon. It was the wife of his "compadre", Teodora Maravilla, who, apparently ignorant of Dejungco's real purpose, gave him a knife on the latter's pretext that they needed the knife to repair their jeep. Returning to his companions, the four with their victim proceeded towards the Factor Compound at the entrance of which Dejungco alighted, leaving his three companions to finish the job. At the end of the street inside the compound, Juanito Ang stopped the vehicle. Carreon then gagged the victim with handkerchief and held him by his hands. 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, placed his left arm around Mariano's shoulder and plunged the knife on the left chest of the victim. Afterwards, he (De los Santos) and Carreon lifted the body from the jeep and drop it on the ground. Carreon, Ang and De los Santos left the compound and after picking up Dejungco proceeded on their separate ways. They met several times afterwards to share and divide the money given by Victor Ng. Of the P12,000.00 actually paid by Victor Ng, De Los Santos got P600.00 (Exhibit "K"), Carreon P200.00 (Exhibit "J") and Ang a measly sum of P25.00 (Exhibit "K") with balance presumably kept by Gerry Dejungco. As heretofore stated, appellants Victor Ng and Jose de los Santos now attempt to impugn those facts. The main thrust of their strategy is to undermine the probative force of their extrajudicial confessions. We find their arguments unpersuasive. Apart from the presumption of law which favors the spontaneity and voluntariness of a statement given by the defendant in a criminal 9 case, which the appellants have not been able to overcome, 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. One as stated heretofore, the confessions of Jose de los Santos and Victor Ng, as well as those of their co-accused Juanito Ang and Roque Dejungco, are replete with small and intimate details that only the appellants and their co-accused could have known of. For instance, 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, or that this appellant and Roque Dejungco were also classmates at the Philippines Chin Hua School. As a matter of fact, the police investigators would not have known of the participation of Roque Dejungco had this fact not been revealed by Victor Ng, much less could they have been aware of the names of Juanito Ang, Romualdo Carreon and Jose de los Santos, since it was Roque Dejungco who revealed the role of these persons in the commission of the crime. Neither could the police been aware that Juanito Ang is a first cousin of Roque Dejungco, nor of the fact that appellant De los Santos is Dejungco's "compadre"; or that Juanito Ang was an escaped from the Welfareville institution in Mandaluyong, Rizal and that he had since been recommitted to the same institution, 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, confirmed his guilt and the recital of facts contained in his confession (Exhibit "N"). It could not be contended therefore, that Dejungco's narration therein of the participation of his first cousin, Juanito Ang, and his "compadre", Jose de los Santos, in the Commission of the crime was due to duress or maltreatment. While Victor Ng. Carreon and Ang denied on the witness stand that they ever read their respective statements even up to the time they testified in court, yet no explanation had been given why the same declarants could Identify Exhibits "J", "I", and "M" as their very statements which they were allegedly forced to sign on the basis of the recitals of facts written therein. 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, such would be a strong indication 10 that those confessions were freely made and not due to duress and intimidation. Two. The two appellants and their three co-accused admitted that they made certain corrections and/or additions in their respective extrajudicial statements. For instance, Victor Ng made corrections on the second and third pages of his statement. On the second page of Exhibit "M", he admitted having pointed to Roque, alias Gerry Dejungco, as the person to whom he induced, for the sum of P2,000.00, to get some men to maul Mariano Lim and to prevent him from going to Quiapo or to see Ruby Ng. He even wrote the words "siya si Jerry" referring to Roque Dejungco's and the date when he supposedly left for Cebu, Davao and Zamboanga City in 1966. On the third page, he corrected the name of the street of the building where he gave money to Gerry Dejungco. These corrections were all initialed by him. All the pages were signed by him both in Chinese characters and in the ordinary manner. The three-page statement of Jose de los Santos also contains his corrections. Thus, on the first page, 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, he crossed out the name of Victor Ng, leaving only the names of Gerry, Juanito Ang, and Omeng or Romeo Carreon; that in connection with the amount which was promised by Victor Ng for the purpose of liquidating Mariano Lim, he crossed out the words "dalawang libo" ang wrote therein the words "limang libo"; and that when asked who was his "kumpadre", he mentioned "Gerry po" and added in his handwriting the following words: "iyong anak ay inaanak niya". Three. Both Victor Ng and Roque Dejungco signed their confessions both in English and Chinese characters on each and every page of their statements. Four. Not one of the appellants or their co-accused had himself examined medically much less requested for such medical 11 examination. At the trial, not one of the five accused could indicate which part of his body had been injured. The circumstance that they were under detention is no impediment to such examination, since long before the trial, they were already represented by their respective counsels to whom they could freely communicate such alleged maltreatment. It must be noted that the present counsel of the appellants appeared in behalf of said accused as early as February 20, 1967, the date when they presented a motion for the release of Victor Ng on bail. On this matter, the Solicitor General made the following observations:

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

Nine. The post-mortem findings of Dr. Ernesto Brion of the National Bureau of Investigation regarding the location and direction of the wounds of the deceased, as well as the probable position of the killer at the time of the infliction of the injuries, coincide with the description of the actual killing, as related in the, extrajudicial confessions of Carreon, Ang and appellant De los Santos. Ten. Juanita Ang did not appeal from this judgment, while Roque Dejungco and Romualdo Carreon withdrew their appeals, a fact which is indicative of the correctness of the finding of guilt with respect to said accused. While this circumstance alone would have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the herein appellants, taken in conjunction with the other circumstances already enumerated it assumes importance. It indicates that the confessions of guilt of Ang, Dejungco and Carreon were, therefore, given freely and voluntarily. 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. In this regard, the trial judge (now Justice Pacifico P. 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, with a convincing ring of truth, 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, also a promise of immunity, to which claim of maltreatment and promise of immunity, however, the Court finds itself unable to give credence. 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. As against the presumption that of regularity in the performance of voluntariness of a confession, as well as the performance of official duties, 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. 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, seems to the Court as indicating more the contrary, for if the police investigators were sent on using force to obtain at all cost, a confession from each of the accused, it would not take them long to attain this end. On the other hand, certain circumstances, constantly recognized as indicative of voluntariness of the confession have been duly stablished by the evidence. Thus, 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. ... Likewise, not only were the accused asked to read their confessions before signing before the subscribing officer, Assistant Fiscal Antonio Solano, which they did, but they also made some corrections therein The act of making corrections, 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. In the case of Victor Ng, he admitted to having proposed, 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. If the investigators were hell- bent in extracting a confession that would suit their purpose, they would not have been content with less than an admission of an intent to kill the victim. That Ng's confession was only for inflicting harm, short of death itself is a strong, convincing proof that he was allowed to make his statement free from undue pressure or intimidation ... . Indeed, 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. 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. 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, in fits claim of innocence, would feel undeservedly punished and thus seriously aggrieved. 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. ... A confession that Ng never intended, much less plotted, account victim's liquidation, but only his being mauled, would not produce the desired solution of account crime. Hence, account confession of Victor Ng could not have been account result of violence or maltreatment, but of his own free will and volition. The absence of a confession of Ty Sui Wong, father of Victor Ng, account first one to be named as accused in the, information attests also to account non-use of violence, else Ty Sui Wong who could even be the more logical suspect as account mastermind for being the one, rather than his son Victor, who was in a better position to make account monetary reward in such amount as to afford greater inducement to commit account killing, would have also, perhaps with more reason, been forced to confess. The evidence, however, is bereft of any intimation that he made any confession ... .(Emphasis supplied.) Besides, 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. Even in account latter case, it does not clearly appear from account evidence that Victor Ng was ever promised immunity. Det. Ruiz, to whom account case was assigned, testified that he was not sure if account Chief of account Detective Bureau, Major Ernesto San Diego, 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, account promise of immunity by one who is not a prosecuting officer and who is in no position to comply with such promise, is not a ground for objecting to account admissibility of account confession made under such circumstances. 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. As this Court observed in People v. 17 de Torres: If the Idea was to condone the murder, what was account reason for taking a confession of the killing or any confession at

all?Promise of immunity by one who is not prosecuting offier who could honor or comply with his promise, " (the promise was made by a PC investigator) "is no ground for objecting account admissibility of account confession. Appellant cannot plausibly pretend immaturity to be so easily duped by his investigators. In resume, account presence of details in account confession which only account declarant could have known, coupled with account circumstance that account appellants even corrected and added some details in their respective statements; the presence of corrections or notations made by account declarants themselves on their respective confessions; their failure to complain of their alleged maltreatment to account fiscal before whom they swore under oath their declarations, or to any other competent governmental authority; or account fact that they did not file many criminal or administrative charges against their alleged torturers; the circumstance that when they were made to confront each other, each pointed to the other as his companion in the crime, without any protest or denial of the person indicated; the absence of any evil motive on the part of the investigators, considering that some of the suspects, including the father of Victor Ng. were never made to execute any confession; their inability, during the trial, to indicate any mark of violence on their bodies or to request for a medical examination of their bodies, 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, render the claim of appellants of duress in the execution of their confessions as totally unworthy of credence. A careful perusal of the statements of Victor Ng, Roque Dejungco, Jose de los Santos, Romualdo Carreon and Juanita Ang shows that they interlock in most material points. As between Victor Ng and Roque Dejungco (Exhibits "M" and "N"), there is harmony in most material points, to wit; account plot to harm the victim; the suggestion by Victor Ng that Dejungco contact his goons in Sampaloc to do account job; the inducement by Victor Ng to Roque Dejungco and his co-accused, through price or reward, for the elimination of Mariano Lim, which was the primary consideration for Dejungco and his companions to commit the crime, 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; the telephone call of Dejungco to Victor Ng upon his return, informing him that the job was already done; and the delivery to Dejungco by Victor Ng of account total sum of P2,000.00 at the Gocheco Bldg. C. M. Recto St., Manila. While Victor Ng says that the price money of P2,000.00 was paid before account killing or prior to his departure for Zamboanga City on December 15, 1966, Dejungco states that account payment was made upon Victor's return. However, both coincide on the amount actually paid. In account cases of Carreon, De los Santos, Ang and Dejungco (Exhibit "J", "K", "L" and "N", respectively), there is also no question that they synchronize or interlock in various material points. They all agree on the ghastly details of account crime thus account fact that they were contacted by Roque Dejungco, alias "Gerry", upon account instigation of Victor Ng who promised that he will pay them if they kill Mariano Lim, their meeting in preparation for account job which included their trip to Villalobos, Quiapo to familiarize themselves with the face of their intended victim; 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; their bringing of the victim to Paraaque where he was stabbed to death by De los Santos; the dumping of the body of the deceased on the road; and, finally, their subsequent meeting to divide the money given them by Victor Ng. Since People v. Badilla, account rule which has been reiterated by the Court in various cases is that extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, 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. Inasmuch as there is no proof of collusion among account declarants, their confessions should, therefore, 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. On the basis thereof, it is, therefore, evident that only appellant Victor Ng knew the victim, with a motive, 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. There can be no doubt, also, that it was appellant Jose de los Santos who inflicted the fatal blow upon the victim. Hence, both are liable for the crime commit the first, as a principal by inducement, and the second, 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. Thus, it said: ... 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, his purpose being merely to stop him from or purpose his courtship of the object of his own suit, Ruby Ng. For it is precisely this virtual exculpatory tenor, or at least minimizing effect on his 20 liability among others. that has induced account Court to give full credence to his confession. We are incline to disagree with the aforestated finding of the trial court. The confession of Victor Ng should not be taken independently of those of his co-accused, as it is natural and to be expected that he would make therein statements and denials tending to minimize his participation in the crime. In order to get a clear picture of the events that led to the murder of the victim, it is necessary that the statements and admissions made by all the accused be taken together. The fact that not one of the other co-accused of appellant Victor Ng made mention of, 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, strikes Us as significant. On the contrary, all their statements point to the fact that the original intent was to kill, and not merely to maul or threaten Mariano Lim. 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, that there was never any disagreement among them with respect to this matter, and thus, their movements toward the fulfillment of such purpose were smooth and concerted. Thus, Roque Dejungco gave the following statements: 11. Q: Do you know personally account cause of his death? A: Yes, sir ... This is account story ... On November 1966, I met Mr. Victor Ng at a Chinese Club somewhere at Pasay City. He informed (me) that he had again a quarrel with Mariano Lim Cho Kuan. I
18

told him if I could do any help to him. He told me 'You see Gerry, I know you from childhood and I am cognizant that you know hoodlums at Sampaloc... You make a preparation to contact two people who can liquidate Mariano ... and I'll answer for account expenses. After five days, I met him again in the same place, and told me that, he will be leaving for Zamboanga and Cebu City, and further told me that if he will leave by the 15th of December 1966, and that if he will arrive on the 23rd of December 1966, 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, alias JOSE DELOS SANTOS, alias JOSE VILLANUEVA, I told these two people about the plan of Victor Ng, and they told me that they are ready at my disposal. 12. Q: When Victor Ng arrived from Zamboanga City, 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. Victor Ng told me that I should wait at the ground floor of the Gocheco Bldg. at Magdalena St., so I proceeded to the said place, and he handed to me an amount of P1,000.00. I received this amount before Christmas, and I received again from him P500.00 before New Year. . . and on mid-January 1967 I again received from 21 Victor Ng another P500.00 ... Similarly, Romualdo Carreon declared that Roque Dejungco Chan, alias Gerry, told him that "Yayariin natin iyang si Mariano, accused-appellant Jose de los Santos made substantially similar statements, thus: 16. T: Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari sa pagkapatay ninyo kay Mariano? S: Ganito po ang pangyayari niyan. Nuon pong Nobiembre 1966 ay nasabi sa akin ni Gerry na may bibirahin tao kami.Sabi niya ay ipinapapatay ni Vic na kaibigan ni Gerry. Sabi ni Gerry sa akin ay sumama daw ako. Sabi niya ay magbabayad daw si Vic ng halagang limang libong piso para mapatay si Mariano . 23 Pumayag naman ako dahil sa nademyo na ako sa sinabi ng aking kumpare. In addition, 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, who was acting for Victor Ng, that Mariano Lim was to be killed. In the face of the foregoing declarations made by account other accused, which harmonize on all material aspects, it is difficult to perceive how the lone allegation of accuse Victor Ng, the mastermind of the crime, that he did not intend to have the victim killed, but merely "frightened", can be given credence. 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 P2,000.00, as compared to that promised, which was P5,000.00 These in themselves are not convincing factors. Had account intent been merely to frighten the victim no weapon, and a deadly one at that, would have been necessary. The direct participants in the crime, by means of their superiority in strength and number, could have effectively frightened Mariano Lim from pursuing his suit of Ruby Ng. The fact that a pointed knife about eight (8) inches in length and one-half (1/2) inch in width, was obtained and actually used, indicates a contrary intent. Moreover, 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. Thus, it required only a single stab wound, purposely intended to be fatal to kill him. This was testified to by Romualdo Carreon in the following manner: ... Sabi sa akin ni Juanita ay talian ko na ang bibig. Ang ginawa ko ay kinuha ko ang panyo ni Gerry at tinalian ang bibig ni Mariano. Tapos ay hinawakan ko ang kanang kamay ni Mariano. Tapos ay tinanong ni Jose kay Juanita kung saan ang puso. Ang sagot ni Juanita ay "AYWAN HINDI KO ALAM." Tapos ay iniakbay ni Jose and kanyang kaliwang kamay sa balikat ni Mariano Lim at biglang sinaksak sa dibdib. 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 bumaba na si Jose at binuhat niya ang intsik o si Mariano Lim at ibinaba sa tabi ng kalye na may damo. Tapos ay sumakay siya uli at umalis na kami sa 24 lugar na iyon. ... Had account intent been merely to scare Lim, the accused could have merely mauled or beaten him up, but this they did not do. The intention to kill a mental process, may be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the place of the wound, seriousness thereof, and 25 the persistence to kill the victim. The fact that the amount actually paid was merely P2,000.00 and not P5,000.00, as promised, does not at all prove that there was no intent to kill. The records disclose that Victor Ng was paying in installments, and there is no indication that he did not intend to pay the full amount agreed upon. Furthermore if the agreement was merely to scare Mariano Lim off his suit of Ruby Ng, it is doubtful if the direct participants would have committed the capital crime of murder, with its graver consequences, if they thought the price was incommensurate. All the foregoing factors, in addition to the fact that none of the other accused claimed a lesser intent, convince Us that Victor Ng, contrary 26 to his claim intended Mariano Lim to be killed. Courts need not believe confessions in their entirety. There is absolutely nothing in the records to support his allegation except his own statements, which are self-serving and cannot be given credence in the face of all the overwhelming evidence, primarily the confessions of the other accuse pointing to the true nature of his guilt. While We are cognizant of the rule that an extra-judicial confession is, generally, evidence only against the person making it, 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. Moreover, in the absence of collusion among the declarants their confessions should be read together in order
22

Likewise

to form a complete picture of the whole situation and considered as corroborative of what evidence there is apart from the confessions 28 themselves. 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. It is contended by the Solicitor General that appellants should be convicted of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. 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, taking him from one city or town to another city or town, and finally to a deserted place in still another town where he kills him, as in the case at bar, the offense committed is serious illegal detention with murder punishable either under Article 248 or Article 267, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 48 thereof. There is no question, however, that the clear manifest intention of the appellants was to kill the victim the kidnapping of the victim merely incidental to the principal purpose. 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, the crime committed is murder, and not the 29 complex crime of kidnapping with murder. We find that such principle is applicable to this case. The circumstance of treachery cannot be applied to victor Ng since he was not actually present when the crime was committed, having actually left to his co-accused the means or methods for the commission of the crime. Since the evidence, however, disclose that he induced the others to commit the crime for a price or promise of reward, he is a principal by induction. As observed by the trial , the circumstance of evident premeditation is absorbed by the circumstance of reward or promise which qualifies the crime as murder. He should therefore, suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 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, considering that the latter was a mere follower of the former. WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modification, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED. Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.

FELIX NIZURTADO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Melquiades P. De Leon for petitioner. Eugene C. Paras collaborating counsel for the petitioner.

VITUG, J.: An information, accusing Felix Nizurtado of having committed the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public document, reads: That on or about August 25, 1983, and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Caloocan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, a public officer, being then the Barangay Captain of Panghulo, Malabon, Metro Manila, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify and attest Resolution No. 17 Series of 1983 by making it appear that on August 25, 1983 the Barangay council of Panghulo met and identified T-shirt manufacturing as its livelihood project, when in truth and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, no such meeting was held, where T-shirt manufacturing was identified and approved by the Barangay Council as its livelihood project, and thereafter, accused submitted the falsified resolution to the MHS-MMC-KKK Secretariat which endorsed the same to the Land Bank of the Philippines, which on the basis of said endorsement and the falsified resolution, encashed LBP check No. 184792 in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), 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, and upon receipt thereof herein accused, with deliberate intent and grave abuse of confidence did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) out of the funds for which he was accountable, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the said amount. CONTRARY TO LAW.
1

When arraigned by the Sandiganbayan, Nizurtado pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. During the pre-trial, held on 17 July 1989, the prosecution and the defense stipulated thusly: 1. That sometime in 1983 and 1984, accused Felix Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo of Malabon, Metro Manila and discharged his functions as such; 2. That sometime in 1983, the Ministry of Human Settlements, 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, 000.00 per barangay. 3. That as Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo, accused received a check in the amount of P10,000.00 for said barangay's livelihood program; 4. That the check, to be encashed, had to be supported by a project proposal to be approved by the KKK; 5. That the accused encashed the check received by him in the amount of P10,000.00 with the Land Bank of the Philippines; and 6. That the accused distributed the amount of P10,000.00 in the form of loans of P1,000.00 each to members of the 2 barangay council. After evaluating the evidence adduced, the Sandiganbayan came out with its factual findings and conclusions, hereunder detailed: It appears from the evidence, testimonial and documentary, as well as from the stipulations of the parties that accused Felix V. Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo, Malabon, Metro Manila from 1983 to 1988. In April or May 1983, Nizurtado and Manuel P. Romero, Barangay Treasurer of Panghulo, attended a seminar at the University of Life, Pasig, Metro Manila. The seminar was about the Barangay Livelihood Program of the Ministry of Human Settlements (MHS), the Metro Manila Commission (MMC), and the Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK). Under the program, the barangays in Metro Manila could avail of loans of P10,000.00 per barangay to finance viable livelihood projects which the Barangay Councils would identify from the modules developed by the KKK Secretariat or which, in the absence of such modules, the Councils would choose subject to the evaluation/validation of the Secretariat. After the seminar, Nizurtado received a check for P10,000.00 intended for Barangay Panghulo and issued in his name. The check, however, 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. He entrusted the check to Romero for safekeeping.

In one of its regular sessions, which was on the second Saturday of each month, the Barangay Council of Panghulo discussed the project in which to invest the P10,000.00. Among the proposals was that of Romero that a barangay service center be established. But the meeting ended without the Councilmen agreeing on any livelihood project. A few days after the meeting, Nizurtado got back the check from Romero, saying that he would return it because, as admitted by Nizurtado during the trial, the Councilmen could not agree on any livelihood project. Nizurtado signed a receipt dated August 4, 1983, for the check "to be returned to the Metro Manila Commission." After a few more days, Nizurtado asked Romero to sign an unaccomplished resolution in mimeograph form. All the blank spaces in the form were unfilled-up, except those at the bottom which were intended for the names of the Barangay Councilmen, Secretary, and Captain, which were already filled-up and signed by Councilmen Marcelo Sandel, Jose Bautista, Alfredo Aguilar, Alfredo Dalmacio, F.A. Manalang (the alleged Barangay Secretary), and Nizurtado. In asking Romero to sign, 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. Trusting Nizurtado, Romero affixed his signature above his typewritten name. When he did so, the blank resolution did not yet bear the signatures of Councilmen Santos Gomez and Ceferino Roldan. The blank resolution having already been signed by Romero, Nizurtado asked him to talk with Gomez and secure the latter's signature. Romero obliged and upon his pleading that his proposed barangay service center would be the one written in the blank resolution, Gomez signed. But before he returned the resolution, he had it machine copied. The machine copy is now marked Exhibit J. Unknown to Romero and Gomez, the blank but signed resolution was later on accomplished by writing in the blank space below the paragraph reading: WHEREAS, 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. The other blank spaces in the resolution were also filled-up. Thus "Panghulo," "Brgy. Hall," and "August 25, 1983" were typewritten in the spaces for the name of the Barangay, the place where and the date when the council meeting took place, respectively. 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. The resolution was given the number "17" series of "1983." Finally, 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, 1983. The resolution as fully accomplished is now marked Exhibit D. Other supporting documents for the encashment of the check of P10,000.00 were also prepared, signed, and filed by Nizurtado. They were: Project Identification (Exhibit B), Project Application in which the borrower was stated to be Samahang Kabuhayan ng Panghulo (Exhibit C and C-1), Project Location Map (Exhibit E), and Promissory Note (Exhibit F). The application for loan having been approved, the Promissory Note (Exhibit F) was re-dated from August to October 18, 1983, placed in the name of the Samahang Kabuhayan ng Panghulo represented by Nizurtado, and made payable in two equal yearly amortizations of P5,000.00 each from its date. The purpose of the loan was stated to be T-Shirt Manufacturing of round neck shirts of various sizes and colors. Nizurtado encashed the check on the same day, October 18, 1983, and re-lent the cash proceeds to himself, Sandel, Aguilar, Bautista, Dalmacio, and Roldan at P1,000.00, and to Manalang and Oro Soledad, Barangay Court Secretary and Barangay Secretary, respectively, at P500.00 each.

On April 25, 1984, Nizurtado who was then on leave wrote Sandel, then acting Barangay Captain, informing him that per record, he, Romero, and Gomez had not made any remittance for the account of their P1,000.00 loans from the barangay livelihood fund of P10,000.00 and advising him to collect, through the Secretary or Treasurer. Since Romero and Gomez had not borrowed any amount from the said fund, they told Sandel to ask Nizurtado if he had any proof of their alleged loans. So Sandel wrote Nizurtado on May 2, 1984, but the latter did not answer. This attempt to collect from Romero and Gomez prompted them to make inquiries. They learned that the check for P10,000.00 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, 1983, T-shirt manufacturing was adopted as the livelihood project of Panghulo. But no such meeting occurred on that day or on any other day. Neither was Nizurtado authorized by the Council to submit T-shirt Manufacturing as the livelihood project of Panghulo. On August 9, 1984, Romero and Gomez lodged their complaint against Nizurtado with the Office of the Tanodbayan. After due preliminary investigation, this case was filed. As of September 7, 1984, the members of the Council who had received P1,000.00 each, as well as Bacani (also referred to as Manalang) and Soledad who had received P500.00 each had paid their respective loans to Nizurtado who, in turn, remitted the payments to the MMC on these dates: April 16, 1984 P1,450.00 August 14, 1984 3,550.00 September 7, 1984 3,000.00 Total P8,000.00 In June 1987, after demands for payment, Dalmacio remitted the balance of P2,000.00 from his pocket because, as acting 3 Barangay Captain, he did not want to leave the Barangay with an indebtedness. On the basis of its above findings, the Sandiganbayan convicted the accused of the offense charged. The dispositive portions of its decision, promulgated on 18 September 1992, read: WHEREFORE, 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, appreciating in his favor . . . two mitigating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposes upon him the penalties of imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, NINE (9) MONTHS, and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum; perpetual special disqualification; and a fine of P10,000.00. No pronouncement is made as to civil liability, there having been complete restitution of the amount malversed. With costs. SO ORDERED.
4

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Nizurtado has filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan in that 1. It has committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that Resolution No. 17, dated August 25, 1983, of the Barangay Council of Panghulo, Malabon, Metro Manila (Exh. "D") is a falsified document and that the petitioner is the forger thereof; and 2. It has committed serious error of law and gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioner guilty of malversation of the amount of P10,000.00 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, Malabon, Metro Manila. 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. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. Presumption of malversation. Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundreds pesos.

2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos. 3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos. 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In all cases, 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. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. The elements of malversation, essential for the conviction of an accused, under the above penal provisions are that (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (d) he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence permitted, the taking by another person of, such funds or property. Nizurtado was a public officer, having been the Barangay Captain of Panghulo, Malabon, Metro Manila, from 1983 to 1988; in that capacity, he received and later encashed a check for P10,000.00, specifically intended by way of a loan to the barangay for its livelihood program; and the funds had come from the Ministry of Human Settlements, the Metro Manila Commission and "Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran." The only point of controversy is whether or not Nizurtado has indeed misappropriated the funds. Petitioner was able to encash the check on 18 October 1988 on the basis of a resolution of the Barangay Council, submitted to the KKK Secretariat, to the effect that a livelihood project, i.e., "T-shirt manufacturing," had already been identified by the council. The money, however, instead of its being used for the project, was later lent to, along with petitioner, the members of the Barangay Council. 6 Undoubtedly, the act constituted "misappropriation" within the meaning of the law. Accused-appellant sought to justify the questioned act in that it was only when the members of the Barangay Council had realized that P10,000.00 was not enough to support the T-shirt manufacturing project, that they decided to distribute the money in the form of loans to 7 themselves. He submitted, in support thereof, a belated certification issued by Rodolfo B. Banquicio, Chief of District IV of the Support Staff and Malabon Sub-District Officer of KKK, 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. 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. Furthermore, it would appear that only Regional Action Officer Ismael Mathay, Jr., and Deputy Regional Action Officer Lilia S. Ledesma were 8 the officials duly authorized to approve such projects upon the recommendation of the KKK Secretariat. We could see no flaw in the ratiocination of the Sandiganbayan, when, in rejecting this defense, 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 P1,000.00 has, as already stated, little, if any, probative value. But assuming there was such a change, the same is of no avail. The Resolution marked Exhibit D expressly stated that the P10,000.00 "shall only be appropriated for the purpose/s as provided in the issued policies and guidelines of the program." The guidelines, in turn, prescribed that the livelihood project shall be identified from the modules developed by the KKK Secretariat or, as stipulated in the Resolution itself, in the absence of such modules, shall be chosen by the Samahang Kabuhayan "subject to the evaluation/validation of the KKK Secretariat." There is absolutely no showing that the alleged substitute projects which each lendee of P1,000.00 would select were among those of the developed modules 9 or were submitted to the KKK Secretariat for evaluation/validation. Accused-appellant criticizes the Sandiganbayan for its having failed to consider the fact that no valid demand has been made, or could have been made, for the repayment of the loaned sum. Demand merely raises a prima faciepresumption that missing funds have been put to personal use. The demand itself, however, is not an element of, and not indispensable to constitute, malversation. Even without a demand, 10 malversation can still be committed when enough facts, such as here, are extant to prove it. 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. The pertinent provisions read:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty ofprision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: xxx xxx xxx 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; In falsification under the above-quoted paragraph, the document need not be an authentic official paper since its simulation, in 11 fact, is the essence of falsification. So, also, the signatures appearing thereon need not necessarily be forged. In concluding that the Barangay Council resolution, Exhibit "D," was a falsified document for which petitioner should be held responsible, the Sandiganbayan gave credence to the testimonies of Barangay Councilman Santos A. Gomez and Barangay Treasurer Manuel P. Romero. The two testified that no meeting had actually taken place on 25 August 1983, the date when "T-shirt manufacturing" was allegedly decided to be the barangay livelihood project. The Sandiganbayan concluded that Nizurtado had 13 induced Romero and Gomez to sign the blank resolution, 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. The established rule is that unless the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are bereft of substantial evidence to support it, those findings are binding on this court. The Sandiganbayan has considered the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution in favor of Nizurtado. Deputy Clerk of Court Luisabel Alfonso Cortez, on 17 January 1989, 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, 1989 and posted his bail bond in said case. Manila, Philippines, JANUARY 17, 1989 (sgd.) LUISABEL ALFONSO CORTEZ 14 Deputy Clerk of Court Voluntary surrender (Art. 13, par. 7, Revised Penal Code), therefore, may thus be treated as a modifying circumstance independent and apart from restitution of the questioned funds by petitioner (Art. 13, par. 10, Revised Penal Code). We are convinced, furthermore, that petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code), entitling him to three distinct mitigating circumstances. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same (the penalty) to be applied in the maximum period. The penalty prescribed for the offense of malversation of public funds, when the amount involved exceeds six thousand pesos but does not exceed twelve thousand pesos, is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period; in addition, the offender shall be sentenced to suffer perpetual special disqualification and to pay a fine equal to the amount malversed (Art. 217[3], Revised Penal Code). 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. The former (that imposed for the malversation), being more severe than the latter (that imposed for the falsification), is then the applicable prescribed penalty to be imposed in its maximum period. The actual attendance of two separate mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution, also found by the Sandiganbayan and uncontested by the Solicitor General, entitles the accused to the penalty next lower in degree. For purposes of determining that next lower degree, the full range of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense, not merely the imposable penalty because of its complex nature, should, a priori, be considered. It is our considered view that the ruling in People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549, as opposed to that of People vs. Fulgencio, 92 Phil. 1069, is the correct rule and it is thus here reiterated. In fine, 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. 64, par 5, in relation to Art. 61, par 5, Revised Penal Code]) the full range of which is six years and one day to ten years. This one degree lower penalty should, conformably with Article 48 of the Code (the penalty for complex crimes), be imposed in its maximum period or from eight years, eight months and one day to ten years. 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. Considering, however, that the penalty has to be imposed in the maximum period, the only effect of this additional mitigating circumstance is to impose only the 16 minimum portion of that maximum period, that is, from eight years, eight months and one day to nine years, six months and ten days, from which range the maximum of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (which can apply since the maximum term of imprisonment would exceed one year), the court is to impose an indeterminate sentence, the minimum of which shall be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in degree (i.e., prision correccional in its medium period to prision correccional in its maximum period or anywhere from two years, 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. In view of the mitigating circumstances present in this case, the fine of P10,000.00 may also be reduced (Art. 66, Revised Penal Code) and, since the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional, subsidiary imprisonment would not be warranted. (Art. 39, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
12

The law and the evidence no doubt sustains Nizurtado's conviction. Given all the attendant circumstances, it is, nevertheless, 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. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting Nizurtado for malversation of public funds through falsification of public document is AFFIRMED but the sentence, given the circumstances here obtaining, is MODIFIED by imposing on petitioner a reduced indeterminate sentence of from two years, four months and one day to eight years, eight months and one day, perpetual special disqualification and a fine of P2,000.00. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., is on leave.

You might also like