G.R. No. L-6085-86




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-6085-86 June 11, 1954 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. *ANTONIO SAMANIEGO Y YOUNG alias* SY LION G BOK alias TONY, defendant-appellant. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ONG ING alias CRESENCIO ONG, and ALFREDO TORRES Y SAGAYSAY, defendants, ALFREDO TORRES YSAGAYSAY, defendant-appellant. Sixto S. J. Carlos, Guillermo S. Santos, Eleuterio S. Abad, and Constantino B. Acosta for appellants. Gaudencio C. Cabacungan for defendant Antonio Samaniego. Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Assistant Solicitor General Francisco Carreon for appellee. CONCEPCION, J.:** On April 28, 1950, at about 11:00 p.m., the dead body of Ong Tin Hui was found gagged and blindfolded in the Oxford Shoe Emporium, at No. 325 Carriedo Street, Manila, where he was working, with his wrists tied and a cord around his neck. The medical examiner found, on said body, the following: Lacerations, auricular and occipital arteries and veins. Lacerations, superficial, cerebral veins, basal portion, brain. Marked congestion and edema, lungs, bilateral. Old pleural adhesions, lungs, right. Congestion, spleen. Congestion, pancreas. Congestion, kidneys, bilateral. Hemorrhages, diffuse, hubdural and subarachnoid, specially base, brain. Fracture, cribiform plate, ethmoid bone of cranium. Wounds, lacerated, multiple (2) forehead. Wound, lacerated, temporal region, left. Wound, lacerated, slitting, external ear, pinna, left. Wounds (2) lacerated, with extensive contusion, scalp, posterior occipital region, head, left. Wounds, lacerated, multiple (2) extensive, scalp, with contusion hematoma, occipital-parietal region, posterior head, right. Tight-gag, mouth, and tight blind fold (piece of cloth), face. Strangulation by cord, neck. Tight cord around both forearms and wrist joints. Cause of Death: Asphyxia and diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage specially over the base of the brain due to suffocation by tight gagging of the mouth and whole face with cloth, and multiple laceration injuries by blows on the head and face. (Appellants' brief, p. 31). The peace officers who investigated the matter were tipped that Ong Tin Hui had an enemy by the name of Go Tay, whose brother-in-law, Ong Ing, had the reputation of being a tough guy and was unemployed. Upon questioning, Ong Ing, who, sometime latter on, was seen loitering around Carriedo Street, stated that, at about the time of the occurrence, he had seen Alfredo Torres, one Antonio Tan and a Filipino whose name he did not know, coming from the Oxford Shoe Store. Hence, Alfredo Torres, whose whereabouts were located with the assistance of Ong Ing, was arrested. Upon investigation, Torres, in turn declared that Ong Ing had participated in the commission of the crime. When Ong Ing and Alfredo Torres were made to face one another, they mutually recriminated and incriminated each other. Moreover, Torres, Ong Ing alias Cresencio Ong and Go Tay made their respective statements in writing, Exhibits X, W and Y, implicating one Tony. Upon examination of the pictures of police characters in the files of the Police Department, Ong Ing and Torres identified the picture of one bearing the name of Antonio Tan, as that of Tony. Antonio Tan turned out to be known, also, as Antonio Samaniego, alias Sy Liong Bok, who, on June 15, 1950, was arrested in Magarao, Naga, Camarines Sur, where he went late in May, 1950. Upon being questioned by the police, Samaniego declared substantially, that he was merely posted, as guard, at the door of the Oxford Shoe Emporium, during the commission of the crime charged, and that, thereafter, he received from Alfredo Torres a certain sum of money as his share of the loot. Samaniego, likewise, signed the statement Exhibit CC. As a consequence, three criminal cases for robbery and homicide were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila, namely: Case No. 12734, against Ong Ing and Alfredo Torres y Sagaysay; Case No. 12941, against Antonio Samaniego; and Case No. 13031, against Ang Tu alias Go Tay. After entering a plea of "not guilty," which was subsequently withdrawn, Ong Ing was allowed to plead, in lieu thereof, and after being carefully informed by the court of the serious nature of the charge and of the possible consequences of his contemplated step, did plead, "guilty," with the understanding that the would introduce evidence on the presence of some mitigating circumstances. Upon the presentation of the said evidence, Ong Ing was sentenced to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ong Tin Hui in the sum of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs — which sentence is not being served by him. In due course, the Court of First Instance subsequently rendered a decision convicting Alfredo Torres and Antonio Samaniego, as principal and as accomplice, respectively, of the crime charged, and sentencing the former to life imprisonment, and the latter to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ong Tin Hui in the sum of P5,000 and the Oxford Shoe Emporium in the sum of P104, and, Alfredo Torres to pay one-half of the costs in case No. 12734, and Antonio Samaniego the costs in case No. 12941, and acquitting Ang Tu alias Go Tay upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence, with costs de oficio in case No. 13031. Torres and Samaniego have appealed from said decision. It is not disputed that the Oxford Shoe Emporium was burglarized and Ong Tin Hui killed therein by the thieves in the evening of April 28, 1950. The only question for determination in this case are: (1) whether appellants formed part of the group that perpetrated the offense, and (2) in the affirmative case, the nature of their participation therein. The evidence thereon consists of the following: (a) Ong Ing, alias Cresencio Ong, testified that, pursuant to instructions of Ang Tu, alias Go Tay, who begged him to look for thugs to kill Ong Tin Hui, he (Ong Ing) sought appellants herein; that Ong Ing gave Samaniego the sum of P200, which had come from Ang Tu; that, upon hearing of the latter's plan, Samaniego remarked that Ong Tin Hui should really be killed, he being his (Samaniego's) creditor; that both appellants agreed to go to the Oxford Shoe Emporium in the evening of April 28, 1950; that on the way thereto, said evening, Samaniego suggested the advisability of finding a good excuse to knock at the door, in order that his companions could enter the store; that upon arrival there, Samaniego knocked at the door, which was opened by Ong Tin Hui; that, thereupon, Torres, another Filipino and one Chinese, whose name was not given, entered the store; that the unnamed Filipino expressed the wish to go to the toilet, for which reason Ong Tin Hui led him to said place; that, thereupon, the former struck the latter, from behind, with a piece of wood; that Torres tied the hands of Ong Tin Hui, whom Torres and the other Filipino dragged to the kitchen; that when Torres and his companions left the store, they stated that Ong Tin Hui was dead already; and that, soon later, they went to the house of Torres at Grace Park, where the loot of P104 was divided. (b) Nazario Aquino and Apolinario Ablaza, watchman and inspector, respectively, of the PAMA Special Watchmen Agency, declared that, on April 28, 1950, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., Aquino saw Torres at Bazar 51 in Carriedo Street, whereas Ablaza met said appellant near the Alcazar Building, in the same street; that Aquino chatted with Torres, who said that soon he could buy whatever he needed, for he would get his backpay; that Torres was perspiring and his hair was ruffled when Ablaza saw him; that, that evening, Aquino, likewise, saw appellant Samaniego, with four companions, at the corner of Carriedo and P. Gomez streets, and this was admitted by Samaniego; and that Samaniego greeted him on that occasion. (c) In his extrajudicial statement (Exhibit C), Torres declared that, pursuant to a previous understanding, he, Samaniego, Ong Ing, and others gathered at the Cliners Restaurant, where it was agreed that Torres would dissuade the special watchman from patrolling the vicinity of the Oxford Shoe Emporium; that Samaniego knocked at its door at about 10:45 p.m.; that while Samaniego and Torres stood on guard outside, Ong Ing, the unnamed Filipino, and another Chinaman, entered the store; that after leaving the store, the group proceeded to the house of Torres, where the stolen money was divided; and that the blood stains found in his trousers and coat (Exhibits M and N), must have been caused by the unnamed Filipino, who had blood in his hands. (d) Detective Lieutenant Enrique Morales and Detective Corporal Jose Sto. Tomas, testified that upon investigation, Samaniego stated that he was merely posted at the door of the Oxford Shoe Emporium during the occurrence. (e) In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit CC), Samaniego declared that he had known Ong Tin Hui since August 1949, because the Oxford Shoe Emporium was behind the store where said appellant used to work; that he was not inside the Oxford Shoe Emporium, but merely stood on guard at its door when the crime was committed; that Ong Ing gave him P200, which came from Ang Tu, in order to induce him to kill Ong Tin Hui; and that, after the occurrence, he received P23 or P24 as his share of the loot. (f) In his extrajudicial statements ( Exhibit W and AA), Ong Ing said that, in addition to agreeing to participate in the commission of the crime, Samaniego had suggested that it be perpetrated on a Friday; that it was Samaniego who knocked at the door of the Oxford Shoe Emporium in order that his companions could enter the store; and that Torres was one of those who participated in the commission of the crime charged. (g) In Exhibits X and BB, the extrajudicial confessions of Torres he stated that besides knocking at the door of the Oxford Shoe Emporium, Samaniego received P26 of his share of the stolen money. Torres likewise identified Samaniego"s picture, Exhibit J. (h) The sales book Exhibit S, the Cash slip booklet and cash slips of the Oxford Shoe Emporium (Exhibits S, T, T-1 TO t-16, U and U-1 TO U-13), show that the sales made in said store on April 28, amounted, at least, to P104, thus corroborating the foregoing evidence on the amount of money taken from said store and divided among those who perpetrated the offense charged. Appellants claim that the aforementioned statements were secured form them by members of the police department through duress. In the language, however, of His Honor, the Trial Judge, this pretense cannot be sustained, for: First, the written statements of Torres and Samaniego, taken by question and answer, are too rich in details which only they themselves could furnish. It will be readily seen that in their respective statements each of these two defendants attempted as best he could to minimize the gravity of his participation in the crime. This is specially true in the case of Samaniego — the more intelligent of the two — who had finished the second year course in Commerce. If really the Police officers tortured the two defendants and manufactured their statements, the court has no doubt that the responsibility of the latter would have been placed in black and white in their respective statements. Second, another proof of weight against the claim of torture is the case of defendant Go Tay alias Ang Tu alias Kiko. The known theory of the police is that Go Tay was the instigator of the crime. In the eyes of the police, he was the whale; Torres and Samaniego, compared to Go Tay, were but mere winnows. A written statement of Go Tay Exhibit Y was taken. The statement Exhibit Y reflects all that Go Tay really stated to the investigator. go tay said so in court. No inculpatory answer appear therein. This shows that the police officers did not inject into that statement facts which would bring about the conviction of this principal defendant. Yet, when Go Tay afterwards changed his mind and refused to sign the statement, no force was exerted against him — it remained unsigned. Third, in the case of Torres, he himself stated in court that he did not sign a document presented to him whenever he did not want to. (Tr. pp. 1077-1079). Fourth, in the case of Samaniego, the court observed that he speaks Tagalog rather fluently. (Tr. p. 1309). He reads and writes English. He cannot say that he did not know the contents of his own statement, because if he reads English and he speaks Tagalog, undoubtedly he could read Tagalog words. (Decision, pp. 50-51, appellants' brief). (Brief of the Solicitor General, pp. 10-11). Appellants insist that the testimonies of Lieutenant Morales and Detectives Sto. Tomas, Walker, Alday and Gorospe, to the effect that said statements were made freely and voluntarily, do not deserve credence, said peace officers having testified for the prosecution in other criminal cases which were eventually dismissed upon the ground that the confessions obtained by them, in connection with those cases, were tainted with irregularities. But, the evidence sought to be introduced by the defense, in support of its aforementioned pretense, was not admitted by the lower court, and the ruling thereof is not assailed in appellants' brief. At any rate, what those witnesses did or said in relation to other cases is res inter alios acta and, as such, irrelevant to the case at bar. Appellants have set up their respective alibis. Torres said that he was sick at home, when the offense charged was committed. Obviously, his uncorroborated testimony cannot offset the incriminating evidence already adverted to, particularly considering the positive testimony of Aquino and Ablaza, who saw him at Carriedo Street, near the scene of the occurrence, at about the time of the perpetration of the crime. As regards Samaniego's alibi, we fully agree with the view of the lower court thereon, which we quote from the decision appealed from: Weaker still is the alibi of defendant Samaniego. Samaniego testified in court that he went to Quiapo Church at around 8:30 in the evening of April 28, 1950; that after a few minutes there he went out and passed by Calle Carriedo; that he then proceeded to Avenida Rizal where he purchased a newspaper and thereafter went to Cine Capitol; and that he left the show shortly before 11 o'clock in the evening. This admission of Samaniego by itself alone is sufficient to overcome his defense of alibi. The reason is that he could have been in the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof. (Appellants' brief, p. 50). It is clear from the foregoing that the lower court has not erred in rejecting said alibis and in convicting appellants herein as above stated. In a motion filed before this Court, during the pendency of the present appeal, appellants pray for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimony of Narciso de la Cruz and Enrique Mojica, whose joint affidavit is attached to said motion as Annex C. Affiants declare therein that they are serving sentences, De la Cruz, of imprisonment for 20 years, for the crime of robbery with homicide, and Mojica of imprisonment for 17 years, for robbery; that they are the assassins of Ong Tin Hui; that no other persons have committed said crime; and that they perpetrated the same at the instigation of Ang Tu alias Go Tay. Upon careful consideration of the said motion for new trial, we are clearly of the opinion, and so hold, that the same should be, as it is hereby, denied for: (1) The alleged newly discovered evidence is merely corroborative of appellants' alibis. It merely tries to strengthen appellants' evidence to the effect that they were not present at the scene of the crime and could not have participated, therefore, in its commission. (2) Even if introduced in evidence, the testimony of Narciso de la Cruz and Enrique Mojica would not, in all probability, affect the result of the case. Considering the source of the testimony; the fact the presence of appellants at the place of the offense charged, has been positively established by the testimony of two unbiased witnesses, Nazario Aquino and Apolinario Ablaza, who were partly corroborated by the testimony of appellant Samaniego; and the circumstance that credence cannot be given to the testimony of said affiants without assuming that Ong Ing had pleaded guilty of, and is willingly serving sentence for, a crime he had not committed, the allegedly newly discovered evidence is, to our mind, insufficient to offset the evidence for the prosecution, or even to create a reasonable doubt on appellants' guilt. Moreover, as we said in case G. R. No. L-5849, entitled "People vs. Buluran", decided May 24, 1954: . . . for some time now this Court has been receiving, in connection with criminal cases pending before it, a number of motions for new trial, similar to the one under consideration, based upon affidavits of prisoners — either serving sentences (like Torio and Lao) or merely under preventive detention, pending final disposition of the charges against them — who, in a sudden display of concern for the dictates of their conscience — to which they consistently turned deaf ears in the past — assume responsibility for crimes of which others have been found guilty by competent courts. Although one might, at first, be impressed by said affidavits — particularly if resort thereto had not become so frequent as to be no longer an uncommon occurrence — it is not difficult, on second thought, to realize how desperate men — such as those already adverted to — could be induced, or could even offer, to make such affidavits, for a monetary consideration, which would be of some help to the usually needy family of the affiants. At any rate, the risks they assume thereby are, in many cases, purely theoretical, not only because of the possibility, if not probability is assumed) a legitimate alibi — in some cases it may be proven positively that the affiants could not have committed said offenses, because they were actually confined in prison at the time of the occurrence — but, also, because the evidence already introduced by the prosecution may be too strong to be offset by the reproduction on the witness stand of the contents of said affidavits. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, the same being in accordance with the facts and the law, with costs against the appellants. Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation