Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47126. April 8, 1941. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MELCHOR MEDINA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Marcelo P. Karaan, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Solicitor Kapunan, Jr., for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND PHYSICAL INJURIES; ALIBI. — Appellants sought to offer an alibi, pretending that even since 9 o’clock of the night in question they were in the house of E. de O. where they were boarding, and that they never left the house until morning of the next day. It has been held, however, that an alibi must be proved by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence. (U. S. v. Olais, 36 Phil. 828; People v. Limbo, 49 Phil., 94; People v. Pili, 51 Phil., 965.) The reason is that "oral evidence of alibi is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence." (People v. Padilla, 48 Phil., 718.) It has been held, further, that, when the defendants are identified by the witnesses for the prosecution by clear, explicit and positive testimony, the alibi will not be credited. (U. S. v. Hudieres, 27 Phil., 45; People v. Cabantug, 49 Phil., 482; People v. Palamos, 40 Phil., 501; People v. Medina, 59 Phil., 330; People v. De Asis, 61 Phil., 384; People v. Cinco, 37 Off. Gaz., 2740.)


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


Pursuant to their plan of robbery concocted in the morning of the day previous, appellants Melchor Medina, Hilarion Holgado, Regino Garcia, Benigno Tenorio and Jose Agojo, together with one Veronico Oriola, equipped with a carata, rope and flashlight, entered, at about midnight of June 29, 1938, the house of Modesto Bastasas and his sister Aniceta, in the barrio of Olingan, municipality of Dipolog, Zamboanga. The entry was effected through one of the windows, the main and kitchen doors being then locked. After putting out the light on the altar in the living room, three of the malefactors, at the indication of Oriola who was standing on guard at the main door, entered the room of Modesto, and the two others, the room of Aniceta. They bound and gagged Aniceta in her bed, but in her vain effort to extricate herself, she fell to the floor after which one of them kicked her and gave her a blow on the head. She thereupon feigned unconsciousness undoubtedly to save herself from further injuries. One of the malefactors who entered Modesto’s room came out, approached one Romana Troyo, the Bastasas’ maid who was then having her quarters in the living room, and held her by the hands. She awoke and screamed for help, and her assailant held her by the neck and clamped her mouth with one of his hands. Attracted by her screams, another man came out of Aniceta’s room, and as he focused a flashlight which accidentally caught his companion’s face, Romana saw the person gagging her as one with curly hair and whom she identified at the trial as Melchor Medina. Thereafter, the malefactors pulled out two trunks from the room of Aniceta and rifled them of their contents. With their loot, they left the house taking exit through the main door.

When the malefactors were gone, the maid, who in the meantime succeeded in freeing herself, went immediately to Aniceta’s room and there found her on the floor be-smeared with blood. At the instance of the latter, the maid went to the room of Modesto whom she found also bound and gagged and was limp and cold. She notified their neighbor Laylay who repaired to the house and upon entering the living room, he saw the trunks open and their remaining contents scattered around. He also saw Aniceta in her room still on the floor and bleeding, and Modesto in his room, already dead.

Laylay called the chief of police and at about 7 o’clock in the morning of that day, the latter, accompanied by Dr. Jose de las Penas of the sanitary division and other policemen, immediately repaired to the scene of the crime. The physician found stuffed inside the mouth of the deceased Modesto, a handkerchief which completely covered his glottis pillow case and a part of one of the pants. Death, according to him, was due to asphyxia or to strangulation the deceased showing finger marks around his neck. Aniceta sustained injuries by friction with the rope with which she was bound and certain contusions on the head which were cured after twenty days of medical treatment.

The evidence discloses that in the smaller trunk which was forced open by the malefactors, Aniceta kept P300 in bills of different denominations, delivered into three packages of P100 each, folded lengthwise and were wrapped with papers and old cloths. It also contained jewelries and fancy trinkets valued at P805, old foreign coins and a piece of stone. All these valuables disappeared. In the larger trunk, Aniceta kept P464, also divided into packages and folded lengthwise. Of this sum, P114 .was looted away! and the package containing P350 which was kept at the bottom of the trunk remained. The sum of P93 which Modesto himself was keeping also disappeared.

Defendants-appellants were held guilty by the trial court of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries, and each of them was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify, jointly and solidarily, the heirs of the deceased Modesto Bastasas in the sum of P2,000, and Aniceta Bastasas in the amount of P100, to return the articles stolen or pa! their value of P805, together with the unrecovered amount in cash of P11.51, and the pay the costs. Part of the money stolen and found in the possession of defendants-appellants was ordered returned to Aniceta Bastasas.

The case rests basically upon the sole question of the identity! of the criminals. That the appellants are the authors of the crime is established by the positive testimony of Oriola who was with them in the perpetration of the crime; by a similarly positive testimony of the maid who definitely identified Melchor Medina as the one who gagged her and clamped her mouth with one of his hands; and by a chain of extrinsic circumstantial evidence.

Appellants sought to impugn Oriola’s veracity on the ground, among others, that it is improbable for them, being complete strangers to Oriola, to propose to him the commission of the robbery on the day they first met. But Oriola is a poor man, earning P4 a month as rig driver, with meager education, and has hardly been five days in the employ of the Bastasas. Having attained knowledge of these facts from Oriola himself through appropriate questioning, appellants undoubtedly thought then that, under such personal circumstances, Oriola, with an offer of a share in the loot, might be tempted to fall in, as in fact he did.

Appellants sought to cast suspicion on the general credibility of Oriola on the circumstance of his having been kept for six months in the constabulary barracks. The evidence, however, discloses not even the slightest clue of official pressure upon Oriola in a way as to make him testify falsely against the appellants. It might have been possible that Oriola, out of fear, would have refused to testify at all but for the fact of his having been thus kept in the custody of the constabulary. But this is legally no ground for discrediting him. In the absence of any evidence of illegitimate official pressure, no inference to that effect can be drawn. The presumption in favor of the official integrity cannot be overthrown by mere conjecture

The trial court, commenting on the credibility of this witness (Veronico Oriola), said the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El Juzgado, consciente de la gravedad del crimen de que estan acusados los aqui acusados, declara que considera veraz a este testigo. Consideramos inverosimil hasta imposible que este testigo haya podido dar la profusion de detalles que ha dado sobre la comision del crimen que nos ocupa si no fuera verdad todo lo que el ha declarado y que realmente el era uno de los que subieron a la casa del occiso Modesto Bastasas en la noche de autos. Durante su largo interrogatorio, solo ha flaqueado en un detalle, o sea, cuando al principio de su testimonio confundio las fechas del dia en que comenzo a servir al occiso como cochero y del dia en que se encontro en la carretera provincial con los acusados Melchor Medina y Regino Garcia. En vez de decir que este ultimo dia era el dia 28 del mencionado mes de junio de 1938, dijo que era el Pero es evidente que esto no es mas que una mera confusion de fechas en la que suelen incurrir muchos que declaran por primera vez en los Juzgados. Este testigo, acostumbrado a recordar fechas mediante la mencion los dias de la semana, ha asegurado que el dia de la comision del crimen era un miercoles (que corresponde al 29 de junio) y tambien ha asegurado que este dia de la comision del crimen era el dia siguiente al dia aquel en que se encontro con los acusados Melchor Medina y Regino Garcia en la carretera provincial.

"La veracidad de este testigo se pone de manifiesto ademas si se tiene en cuenta que algunos dias despues de la comision del crimen, o sea, el 4 de julio de 1938 (lunes), no sabiendo aun que los aqui cinco acusados habian sido arrestados por el teniente Diosdado Rodriguez de la Constabularia el dia 1.
Top of Page