Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1807 April 20, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DY TOO (alias DONATO POMORALA) and CHU SE BENG, defendants-appellants.
Miguel N. Lanzona for appellant Chu Se Beng.
Jose Y. Garde for appellant Dy Too.
Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for appellee.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
For the killing of Chinaman Alfonso Ang Liongto nearthe wharf of Davao City on April 15, 1946, Dy Too aliasDonato Pomorala and Chu Se Beng were charged withmurder in the Court of First Instance of Davao, werefound guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpertua with theaccessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify, jointlyand severally, the heirs of the deceased Alfonso AngLiongto in the sum of P5,000 and to pay a proportionatepart of the costs. Both accused have brought the casehere on appeal..
After a careful review of the evidence in the case, wefind the following facts to have been fully established:On March 27, 1946, appellant Chinaman Chu Se Bengwith four Chinese companions, named James Young, AngChu Yeng, We Cod Guan and Carlos Ching, arrived byplane in Cebu City from Tacloban, Leyte. There theywere joined by appellant Dy Too, another Chinaman.Three days later they all took a plane for Davao City wherethey arrived on March 30, 1946. They took lodging ina hotel kept by a certain "Macao" at Claveria Street. Aweek later, the six companions transferred to the house ofEustaquio Sambas at Magallanes Street, where they occupied two rooms, the group paying P60 as advance roomrent for one month..
In the evening of April 6, 1946, Ang Cui Bao, a Chinaman, went to the People's Restaurant kept by Gan Yek Kiao, in a car sent by the latter, for a conference. In thatconference Gan Yek Kiao introduced his visitor Ang CuiBao to appellant Chu Se Beng and his companions AngChu Yeng. These two told Ang Cui Bao that they andsome companions had come from Manila with authorityto investigate the activities of the Chinese community inDavao during the Japanese occupation; that a number oflocal Chinese residents had filed complaints againts AlfonsoAng Liongto, and that to investigate said complaints, they(Chu Se Beng and his companions) wanted to conferwith said Alfonso Ang Liongto and for this purpose theywere asking Ang Cui Bao to notify Liongto of the desiredconference, with the warning that should Ang Liongto refuse to confer with them, he might suffer the same fateof a certain Chinaman whom they had killed in Leyte.Ang Cui Bao transmitted the message and warning toAng Liongto, but the latter not only declined to give importance to the matter but also refused to have any conference with Chu Se Beng and his companions, saying that he had just arrived from Manila himself and he knew that no one was authorized either by the Government or the Chinese Consulate to make an investigation. This attitude and decision of Ang Liongto was duly transmitted to Gan Yek Kiao who presumably conveyed it toChu Se Beng and his companions..
About 7 o'clock in the evening of April 15, 1946, sixChinese were seen on the wharf or pier of Davao, groupedtogether and apparently in conference. Not far fromthem and standing near an electric post was appellantDy Too. About the same time, Ang Liongto was standing in front of his store situated right next to the pier,at a point about six meters from Dy Too. Not long thereafter, three witnesses for the prosecution, namely: Jose Ang, a son of Ang Liongto, Maria Gellamucho who waskeeping a store next to the house and store of Ang Liongto, and Pantaleon Cabilao, a complete stranger who happened to be at the pier, saw appellant Dy Too approachAng Liongto from behind and at a distance of about twoand one-half meters fired two pistol shots at him, wounding him in the back. Ang Liongto was rushed to theDavao Public Hospitals in a jeep, but he died on the way.Tommy Alawe, a police detective and two companions,Ramon Posadas and his brother Filemon Posadas, wereabout 200 to 300 yards from the scene of the shooting.Upon hearing the two shots they hastened toward thepier, but on the way they saw a Chinaman whom they lateridentified as the other appellant Chu Se Beng runningalong Monteverde Avenue away from the pier. Whenquestioned by detective Alawe, Chu Se Beng cried out"ladron" at the same time pointing to a man running somedistance behind him. Alawe believing that there hadbeen a case of theft or robbery and that the thief orrobber was the man indicated, confronted the said personas he came abreast of Alawe and asked him what wasthe matter. This person, a Chinaman who turned outto be appellant Dy Too and who was carrying a .45 caliberpistol, in his turn cried out "ladron" and pointed to ChuSe Beng who was running ahead of him. Alawe actingupon this information chased Chu Se Beng, but because ofthe headstart had by him while Alawe was questioningDy Too, Chu Se Beng was able to escape. The two companions of Alawe, Ramon Posadas and Filemon Posadas, in their turn chased Dy Too acting on the hunch that after all he may be the real thief indicated by the first Chinaman Chu Se Beng, but they were also unable to capture him..
After the fruitless chase Alawe headed for the pier tofind out what had really happened and there he was informed that Ang Liongto had been shot down and had been rushed to the hospital. The shooting was immediately reported to police headquarters and Detective Untalan was sent to the scene of the shooting to investigate. With the aid of a flashlight he found two empty .45 caliber cartridges bearing the mark "E-C-42" marked as Exhibits B and B-1. During his investigation, one of the sons of the deceased Ang Liongto showed him a copy of a letter addressed by his father to the Provincial Fiscal reporting that six Chinamen who lived in the house of Eustaquio Sambas in Banquerojan, Davao had made threats to kill him. Acting upon this lead, detective Untalan accompanied by other detectives went to the said house and found therein five Chinaman, among whom was appellant Chu Se Beng. It will be remembered in this connection that this was the very house where the two appellants and their four Chinese companions had taken up two rooms. There the detective were informed that their companions Dy Too had left the house about 5:30 that same afternoon. In the course of the search, two rounds of .45 caliber ammunition bearing the same mark"E-C-42" were found in a buri bag belonging to Dy too.Two .32 caliber revolvers were also found and confiscatedby the detectives. All the five Chinamen were arrestedand taken to the police station. A policeman was left infront of the house to wait for Dy Too..
Early the next morning Dy Too was seen entering thehouse wearing khaki pants dripping wet, with neithershirt nor undershirt on him. The guard immediately wentto the station to report what he had seen, but when he,accompanied by other policemen, returned to the housethey were informed that Dy Too had already left headingfor the river. The policemen followed him and finallysaw him in a banca being rowed away. He was arrestedand when asked where he was going, he answered thathe was going to a distant barrio which was found to bemuch nearer and much more easily accessible by landinstead of by water transportation. After being questioned at the police station, he was taken to the housewhere he was staying and there he showed the police thepair of wet pants which he had hidden under the stove.While being detained at the police station, appellant DyToo spoke to one Roman Posadas who was at the stationas a witness and told him that he should not sign anypaper because the police had no evidence against him(Dy Too) because although he had really killed AngLiongto, the gun with which he shot him had not been found,and that if Posadas would help him, he (Dy Too) wouldintroduce him to many rich Chinese merchants who werecoming to the station and said Chinese merchants wouldgive him anything that he wanted..
Based on all these evidences, there is not the least doubtthat Dy Too was the killer. He was seen by three ocularwitnesses who saw the actual shooting and positivelyidentified him as he fired the shots and as he passed nearthem when he ran away to escape. This, apart from hisadmission made to Ramon Posadas at the police stationthat he was the one who killed Ang Liongto. Dy Toodid not even bother or take the trouble to testify at thetrial in order to deny the imputation made against himas the person who fired the fatal shots..
The case against appellant Chu Se Beng is not soeasy. He did not participate in the shooting. His criminal responsiblity if any must be based on conspiracy.Considering all that had happened before the shooting ofAng Liongto, from the time that Chu Se Beng and fourother Chinese companions left Leyte by plane until theconference at Gan Yek Kiao's restaurant where Chu SeBeng made a threat against Ang Liongto's life, includingthe events that took place shortly after the killing, we areconvinced that there was a conspiracy between Dy Tooand Chu Se Beng to kill Ang Liongto. It may not beamiss to recall that Chu Se Beng and his four companionsupon arriving in Cebu on March 27, 1946, immediatelycontacted Dy Too and three days later they all emplanedfor Davao. There, they lodged together in the same hotelat Claveria Street. A few days later Chu Se Beng andhis four original Chinese companions and his co-appellanttransferred to the house of Eustaquio Sambas where theyoccupied two rooms paying P60 in advance. Then, onApril 6, in the evening, Chu Se Beng and his companionAng Chu Yen had a conference with Gan Yek Kiaoand Ang Cui Bao, Chinese residents, where Chu Se Bengsent a message to Ang Liongto for the latter to confer withhim and his companions who had been authorized fromManila to investigate him particularly his conduct duringthe Japanese occupation, accompanying the invitation with threats that if he refused to see them, he might be killed.Lastly, it will be remembered that Chu Se Beng wasnear the scene of the killing, perhaps one of the Chinamen who were seen suspiciously loitering at the pier rightin front of the house of Ang Liongto, and that immediatelyafter the shooting he was seen running away from it.And, what is more important, to avoid being suspected orapprehended by the police, he tried to confuse and mislead detective Alawe by making it appear that what hadbeen committed was not a killing but a robbery or theftand he even indicated someone behind as the thief. DyToo in his turn and showing an understanding and concert of action played the same trick on the police byshouting "ladron" and pointing to Chu Se Beng who hadcontinued running away and had already a good headstart rendering difficult his capture as in fact he escapedthat evening..
The defense of alibi interposed by both appellantswas correctly rejected by the trial court. Chu Se Bengclaimed that he was in the house all evening playing pokerwith his companions and later went to bed, but this defensemay not prevail over the testimony of at least two witnesses who saw him running away from the scene of thecrime immediately after the shooting. As to Dy Too, histheory that he was in a movie house all evening onApril 15 was not accepted by the trial court which foundthat the place where he pretended to have taken refreshments and entertained friends at the Restaurant "El Dolor"is only about five minutes ride from the pier and thathe could have easily gone to that place before he went tothe movie house, assuming that he actually went therethat evening. Moreover, he was seen by two others ashe ran away from the pier carrying a .45 caliber gun,the same caliber of the two empty shells found at the sceneof the shooting as well as of two rounds of ammunitionfound in his buri bag in his room..
The circumstances surrounding the shooting clearlyprove the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The deceased was shot from behind in a surprise and unexpectedattack. We agree with the trial court that the aggravating circumstance of premeditation accompanied the killing. The elaborate preparations made by the two appellants from the time that they left Cebu and during theseveral days of their stay in Davao where they tried tocontact Ang Liongto, perhaps to obtain money from himor lure him into a trap, with threats against his life,have sufficiently established this aggravating circumstance.To offset it, the lower court found in their favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. The SolicitorGeneral, however, believes that the two appellants beingmerchants and, consequently, intelligent and not entirelyignorant, are not entitled to the same. It is to be noted,however, that the trial court did not believe tha claim ofthe appellants, made through Chu Se Beng, that they weremerchants who had come to Cebu with a capital of P12,000to buy corn. There is, therefore, no reason to uphold thecontention of the Solicitor General and reject the findingof the trial court..
In conclusion, we find the guilt of the two appellants tohave been established beyond reasonable doubt. Findingno reversible error in the decision appealed from, thesame is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes,JJ., concur.
MORAN, C.J.:
Mr. Justice Padilla voted for affirmance.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
