May 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > May 1981 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-39523 May 15, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ROBLES:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-39523 and L-39524. May 15, 1981.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO ROBLES, RODOLFO ROBLES, CONRADO LUNA and ANTONIO SARMIENTO, Accused. CONRADO LUNA, Accused-Appellant.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez Jr. and Solicitor Cecilio F. Balagot for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francisco J. Dimaculangan for Accused-Appellant.
SYNOPSIS
Around ten o’clock in the evening, the victim Rodolfo Mendoza was shot and killed by two persons inside the Old Gold Restaurant. Both the accused Luna and Sarmiento voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. The witnesses of the prosecution who confirmed their previous sworn statements pointed to Sarmiento and Luna as the killers and to Rogelio Robles as the person who wanted to be assured that Mendoza was dead. Sarmiento who executed four extrajudicial confessions during custodial investigation was not assisted by counsel nor was he informed of his constitutional rights under Section 20, Art. IV of the Constitution As he did not waive these rights, his confessions were inadmissible in evidence. On the otherhand, the accused Luna interposed the defense of alibi, alleging that he was in the vessel Bupri when the incident happened but he was refuted by a fellow prisoner Raymundo who was also detailed in said vessel. In finding she accused Luna and Sarmiento guilty of Murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila relied on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and gave more credence to the testimony of Raymundo than to the alibi of Luna. Rogelio Robles was acquitted while Rodolfo Robles was at large. Both Luna and Sarmiento appealed, but the latter withdrew his appeal.
On Luna’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err in giving more credence to the testimony of Raymundo who was a disinterested and unbiased witness and found the accused guilty of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.
On Luna’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err in giving more credence to the testimony of Raymundo who was a disinterested and unbiased witness and found the accused guilty of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; WITHOUT WAIVER, CONFESSIONS TAKEN ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — Where the accused Sarmiento executed four sworn extrajudicial confessions but he was not assisted by counsel when he made the same, neither was he informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to remain silent (Sec. 20, Art. IV, Constitution) nor did he waive those rights, but on the contrary in his affidavit of retraction, he said that the declarations in his confessions were not true, those four confessions, taken during custodial interrogation, are inadmissible in evidence as admissions of guilt.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; ALIBI; TESTIMONY OF A DISINTERESTED AND UNBIASED WITNESS, MORE CREDIBLE; CASE AT BAR. — The trial court did not err in giving more credence to the testimony of Raymundo, a rebuttal prosecution witness and a fellow prisoner of Luna who was detailed at the vessel Bupri and who refuted the alibi of Luna that he was in said vessel in the evening when the victim was killed as Raymundo was a disinterested and unbiased witness.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WITNESS’ DESCRIPTION OF THE KILLER CONFIRMED BY THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED; CASE AT BAR. — The failure of the owner of the Old Gold Restaurant Que Hok to identify Luna at the Police line up, was explained by the fact that the shooting took place shortly after Luna and his companions entered the restaurant and Que Hok did not have sufficient time to know them very well and that the had a weak eyesight but in her statement given on the day following the shooting, she described one of the two killers as "bilugan ho ang mukha, maputi, may hati ang buhok at hindi masyadong mahaba (mataas) at mga 5’2" ho seguro ang taas," while Judge Pamaran during the trial when Que Hok was testifying as a witness for Luna, observed that Luna "is more than the ordinary built or physique, his hair is parted on the left side and that he has a round face."cralaw virtua1aw library
4. ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; COMMISSION OF THE CRIME NOT UNUSUAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; CASE AT BAR. — It was not unusual that Luna and Sarmiento were co-conspirators because they were contemporaries in the Abad Santos High School where they used to play basketball together; they were fellow prisoners in the national penitentiary and they were both henchmen of the Robles brothers. Luna resided for a long time in Sande Street, his residence being about one hundred meters away from the scene of the crime. He was familiar with the locality.
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED IN CASE AT BAR. — The following circumstances cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused Conrado Luna of the crime of murder, warranting his acquittal in the instant case: (a) The lapse of time between the killing of the victim on November 22, 1966 and the prosecution therefor which was initiated by the filing of informations on March 29 and June 18, 1973 due to the failure of the government’s key witnesses to come forward soon after the killing; (b) Mainly on the testimony of Ernesto de Guzman and Renato Manlapit the trial court tagged Conrado Luna and Antonio Sarmiento as the killers of Rodolfo Mendoza but at the same time it acquitted Rogelio Robles of any complicity in the commission of the crime notwithstanding the fact that the two witnesses were equally positive regarding the participation of Rogelio Robles; (c) The owner and a waitress of the restaurant where the killing took place, failed to identify Conrado Luna as one of the killers in a line-up at the Manila office of the Bureau of Prisons soon after the incident; and (d) The alibi of accused-appellant Luna that on November 22, 1966 when the killing took place he was a national prisoner assigned to the prison ship "Bupri" was corroborated by Victorino Navarro of the document section of the Bureau of Prisons.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; ALIBI; TESTIMONY OF A DISINTERESTED AND UNBIASED WITNESS, MORE CREDIBLE; CASE AT BAR. — The trial court did not err in giving more credence to the testimony of Raymundo, a rebuttal prosecution witness and a fellow prisoner of Luna who was detailed at the vessel Bupri and who refuted the alibi of Luna that he was in said vessel in the evening when the victim was killed as Raymundo was a disinterested and unbiased witness.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WITNESS’ DESCRIPTION OF THE KILLER CONFIRMED BY THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED; CASE AT BAR. — The failure of the owner of the Old Gold Restaurant Que Hok to identify Luna at the Police line up, was explained by the fact that the shooting took place shortly after Luna and his companions entered the restaurant and Que Hok did not have sufficient time to know them very well and that the had a weak eyesight but in her statement given on the day following the shooting, she described one of the two killers as "bilugan ho ang mukha, maputi, may hati ang buhok at hindi masyadong mahaba (mataas) at mga 5’2" ho seguro ang taas," while Judge Pamaran during the trial when Que Hok was testifying as a witness for Luna, observed that Luna "is more than the ordinary built or physique, his hair is parted on the left side and that he has a round face."cralaw virtua1aw library
4. ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; COMMISSION OF THE CRIME NOT UNUSUAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; CASE AT BAR. — It was not unusual that Luna and Sarmiento were co-conspirators because they were contemporaries in the Abad Santos High School where they used to play basketball together; they were fellow prisoners in the national penitentiary and they were both henchmen of the Robles brothers. Luna resided for a long time in Sande Street, his residence being about one hundred meters away from the scene of the crime. He was familiar with the locality.
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED IN CASE AT BAR. — The following circumstances cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused Conrado Luna of the crime of murder, warranting his acquittal in the instant case: (a) The lapse of time between the killing of the victim on November 22, 1966 and the prosecution therefor which was initiated by the filing of informations on March 29 and June 18, 1973 due to the failure of the government’s key witnesses to come forward soon after the killing; (b) Mainly on the testimony of Ernesto de Guzman and Renato Manlapit the trial court tagged Conrado Luna and Antonio Sarmiento as the killers of Rodolfo Mendoza but at the same time it acquitted Rogelio Robles of any complicity in the commission of the crime notwithstanding the fact that the two witnesses were equally positive regarding the participation of Rogelio Robles; (c) The owner and a waitress of the restaurant where the killing took place, failed to identify Conrado Luna as one of the killers in a line-up at the Manila office of the Bureau of Prisons soon after the incident; and (d) The alibi of accused-appellant Luna that on November 22, 1966 when the killing took place he was a national prisoner assigned to the prison ship "Bupri" was corroborated by Victorino Navarro of the document section of the Bureau of Prisons.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Conrado Luna appealed from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, finding him guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay an indemnity of twenty thousand pesos to the heirs of Rodolfo Mendoza (Criminal Cases Nos. 1451 and 1622).
Antonio Sarmiento, who was convicted as a co-principal of Luna and sentenced to a similar penalty, withdrew his appeal. The withdrawal was granted in this Court’s resolution of September 29, 1980.
Rogelio Robles was acquitted. The fourth accused, Rodolfo Robles, is at large. He is now in the United States.
There is no controversy as to the fact that at around ten o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1966, Rodolfo Mendoza, 24, was shot and killed by two persons inside the Old Gold Restaurant located at 1450 Sande Street, corner Perla Street, Tondo, Manila.
The slaying was a front-page story in the issue of the Manila Times on the following day, November 23. The victim, known as Roding Ulo, was the son of Bienvenido Mendoza, alias Ben Ulo, a bodyguard of former Defense Secretary Oscar Castelo, who was convicted of having killed Manuel Monroy and who was then confined in the national penitentiary (Exh. 1-Luna. See People v. Castelo, 120 Phil. 221).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The autopsy disclosed that the victim suffered ten entrance gunshot wounds consisting of three fatal wounds in the head, four wounds in the chest, a wound in the arm, another wound in the parietal region of the head and a wound in the abdomen which lacerated the pancreas, stomach and liver (Exh. D).
Three persons, Tony Pangan, Conrado Luna or Boy Luna and Renato Ramirez were suspected of having taken part in the killing (Exh. I or 4-Robles). However, no arrests were made. The case remained dormant for around six years. After the release from prison of Ben Ulo in 1972 (10-11 tsn May 30, 1974), the police reinvestigated the case.
According to Antonio Sarmiento (Tony Pangan), the killing was instigated by the brothers Rogelio and Rodolfo Robles who gave him five hundred pesos and two guns. On the day before the killing, Sarmiento contacted Luna at the vessel Bupri, which was docked at the North Harbor, and informed him that Rogelio Robles wanted Luna to take part in the assassination of Mendoza (Exh. J).
Rogelio ordered the liquidation of Rodolfo Mendoza because Rogelio was allegedly apprehensive that as a matter of vengeance Ben Ulo would order his son Rodolfo to kill Rogelio because Rogelio testified against Ben Ulo in the case wherein Ben Ulo was convicted (Exh. J, p. 166, Record). Rogelio’s residence at 1411 Sande Street was three houses away from the scene of the crime (24 tsn May 30, 1974).
Rogelio was employed as a foreman in the city engineer’s office, Manila while Rodolfo Robles was the head of the social welfare department in the City Hall during the term of Mayor Antonio Villegas.
The police investigator got the sworn statements of Ernesto de Guzman dated November 20, 1972 and March 26 and 28, 1973 and the sworn statements of Renato Manlapit dated December 6, 1972 and March 27 and 28, 1973, pointing to Sarmiento and Luna as the killers and to Rogelio Robles as the person who wanted to be assured that Mendoza was dead (Exh. G, O, P, Q, R and S).
Crisanta Gonzaga, an alleged common-law wife of Sarmiento, executed a sworn statement dated March 26, 1973 wherein she declared that the Robles brothers induced Sarmiento to kill Mendoza by paying him five hundred pesos and furnishing him the two guns to be used in the killing. That amount was turned over to Crisanta by Sarmiento (Exh. T).
From the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit, which confirmed the allegations in their six sworn statements, it may be gathered that between eight and nine o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1966, Mendoza invited De Guzman to take a snack in a restaurant located at Coral Street, Tondo, Manila. After they finished eating, Luna arrived and invited them to have some drinks in another restaurant. (See Exh. J, pp. 163-166, Record.)cralawnad
The three proceeded to the Old Gold Restaurant. On the way, they were joined by Manlapit. At the restaurant, they seated themselves on the stools near the counter. De Guzman sat near the door. Seated next to him were Mendoza, Luna and Manlapit in that order (Exh. F).
Mendoza ordered drinks. While waiting for his order, he took off his eyeglasses and cleaned them. Suddenly or without any preliminaries, Luna drew his gun and fired at Mendoza’s head, causing the latter to fall on the floor. Luna fired other shots at the prostrate victim.
At that juncture, Sarmiento emerged from the comfort room and also fired several shots at Mendoza. Rogelio Robles entered the restaurant and advised Luna and Sarmiento to make sure that Mendoza was dead. ("Siguruhin ninyo yan. Baka buhay pa yan." ) Acting on the suggestion of Rogelio, Luna, using his foot, turned the body of Mendoza, who was lying down on his side, so that the latter assumed a supine position. Luna and Sarmiento fired other shots.
Luna, Sarmiento and Robles left the restaurant. De Guzman and Manlapit also left. They did not report the killing to the police and they remained silent for a long time because they were afraid that they might be killed. Renato Robles, a policeman, the son of Rodolfo Robles and nephew of Rogelio, and Romeo Robles, also a policeman, and a cousin of Renato, told them to remain silent. (Nos. 32 to 36, Exh. G.)
Sarmiento surrendered to the Constabulary Metropolitan Command (Metrocom) on March 23, 1973 while Luna surrendered to Judge Manuel R. Pamaran on November 6, 1973 (p. 6, Record of Criminal Case No. 1622).
Sarmiento executed an extrajudicial confession before a Metrocom officer dated March 24, 1973 wherein he declared that he and Luna killed Mendoza at the instigation of Rogelio Robles who supplied two guns and to whom they returned the same after the killing (Exh. BB).
Sarmiento executed a more detailed confession dated March 25, 1973 before a Manila police investigator (Exh. L), another confession dated March 26, 1973 wherein he implicated Rodolfo Robles as the mastermind and inducer (Exh. M) and a fourth confession dated March 28, 1973 wherein he confirmed his identification of Rogelio Robles at a police lineup (Exh. N).
All the four confessions were sworn to by Sarmiento. However, he was not assisted by counsel when he made the confessions and he was not informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to remain silent (Sec. 20, Art. IV, Constitution). He did not waive those rights. Hence, those four confessions, taken during custodial interrogation, are inadmissible in evidence as admissions of guilt.
Moreover, Sarmiento in his affidavit of retraction dated June 8, 1973, said that the declarations in his confessions were not true, particularly the imputation that Rodolfo Robles induced the killing of Mendoza (Exh. HH).
In convicting Luna and Sarmiento of murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by craft, which was offset by voluntary surrender to the authorities, the lower court relied on the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit. The latter used to be a fellow prisoner of Luna in the New Bilibid Prison.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
Luna in this appeal contends that the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit, in disregarding the circumstance that the owner of the Old Gold Restaurant failed to identify Luna at the police lineup, in not sustaining Luna’s alibi and in rendering the judgment of conviction.
As Luna’s counsel aptly states, these contentions revolve around the issue as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the probative value of Luna’s evidence.
From September 16, 1961 to February 25, 1969, Luna was serving sentences for robbery and theft in the New Bilibid Prison. He was classified as a minimum security prisoner. As such, he was detailed from June 20, 1966 to July 27, 1967 to work as an oiler in the vessel Bupri which was owned by the Bureau of Prisons (Exh. 3-Luna) and was anchored at the Manila North Harbor.
Luna’s alibi was that in the evening of November 22, 1966, when Mendoza was killed, he (Luna) was in the vessel Bupri from which he could not have left because it was guarded.
That pretension was refuted by Ricardo Raymundo, a rebuttal prosecution witness and a fellow prisoner of Luna also detailed at the vessel Bupri. Raymundo declared that at around six o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1966, he, Luna and another prisoner named Rudy were permitted by the prison guard, Romy Veloria, to leave the vessel at the Manila North Harbor and go home on condition that they would be back before midnight.
Raymundo testified that he took a jeepney at Pier 8 while Luna went to Pier 10. We hold that the trial court did not err in giving more credence to Raymundo’s testimony than to Luna’s alibi. Raymundo was a disinterested and unbiased witness.
With respect to the failure of Que Hok, the female Chinese owner of the Old Gold Restaurant, to identify Luna during the police lineup on November 24, 1966, the explanation is that the shooting took place shortly after Luna and his companions entered the restaurant and Que Hok did not have sufficient time to know them very well. When she heard the first shot, she was going to the kitchen. She witnessed the shooting by looking through the glass partition (Exh. 6-Luna). She was afraid and nervous when she failed to identify Luna at the Old Bilibid Prison.
Another reason is that she had a weak eyesight. She later suffered from cataract and had an eye operation and her right eye became blind in 1970.
Que Hok in her statement given on the day following the shooting described one of the two killers as "bilugan ho ang mukha, maputi, may hati and buhok at hindi masyadong mahaba (mataas) at mga 5’2" ho seguro ang taas" (No. 11, Exh. 6-Luna).
Judge Pamaran during the trial, when Que Hok was testifying as a witness for Luna, observed that Luna "is more than the ordinary built or physique, his hair is parted on the left side and that he has a round face" (31 tsn April 25, 1974).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Finally, it is relevant to note that it was not unusual that Luna and Sarmiento were co-conspirators because they were contemporaries in the Abad Santos High School where they used to play basketball together; they were fellow prisoners in the national penitentiary and they were both henchmen of the Robles brothers (No. 8, Exh. M, p. 171, Record). Luna resided for a long time in Sande Street, his residence being about one hundred meters away from the scene of the crime. He was familiar with that locality.
After a thorough review of the evidence and a conscientious evaluation of Luna’s arguments, we find that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment as to Luna is affirmed. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., is on official leave.
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
My mind cannot rest easy that Conrado Luna is guilty of murder. My uneasiness is due not only to the lapse of time between the killing of Rodolfo Mendoza on November 22, 1966, and the prosecution therefor which was initiated by the filing of informations on March 29 and June 18, 1973, because the governments key witnesses did not come forward soon after the killing. Mainly on the testimony of Ernesto de Guzman and Renato Manlapit the trial court tagged Conrado Luna and Antonio Sarmiento as the killers of Rodolfo Mendoza but at the same time it acquitted Rogelio Robles of any complicity in the commission of the crime notwithstanding the fact that the two witnesses were equally positive regarding the participation of Rogelio Robles.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
Then too Que Hock and Dioning Dadolla, owner and waitress respectively, of the Old Gold restaurant where the killing took place, failed to identify Conrado Luna as one of the killers in a line-up at the Manila Office of the Bureau of Prisons soon after the incident.
Conrado Luna assails the trial court for disregarding his defense of alibi. He claims that on November 22, 1966, when the killing took place he was a national prisoner assigned to the prison ship "Bupri" and this was corroborated by Victorino Navarro of the document section of the Bureau of Prisons. True, Ricardo Raymundo who at that time was also a prisoner assigned to "Bupri" said that prisoners thereat could leave with the guard’s permission and that on the date in question, he, Luna and a third prisoner left the "Bupri." The testimony of this witness is incredible in that after the lapse of eight years he was able to recall what he did on a particular day. There is also the presumption that the prison guards on the "Bupri" performed their duties regularly by not allowing prisoners assigned thereto to leave the premises. With these two factors the defense of alibi acquires strength and significance.
I vote for the acquittal of Conrado Luna.
Fernando, C.J., concurs.
Antonio Sarmiento, who was convicted as a co-principal of Luna and sentenced to a similar penalty, withdrew his appeal. The withdrawal was granted in this Court’s resolution of September 29, 1980.
Rogelio Robles was acquitted. The fourth accused, Rodolfo Robles, is at large. He is now in the United States.
There is no controversy as to the fact that at around ten o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1966, Rodolfo Mendoza, 24, was shot and killed by two persons inside the Old Gold Restaurant located at 1450 Sande Street, corner Perla Street, Tondo, Manila.
The slaying was a front-page story in the issue of the Manila Times on the following day, November 23. The victim, known as Roding Ulo, was the son of Bienvenido Mendoza, alias Ben Ulo, a bodyguard of former Defense Secretary Oscar Castelo, who was convicted of having killed Manuel Monroy and who was then confined in the national penitentiary (Exh. 1-Luna. See People v. Castelo, 120 Phil. 221).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The autopsy disclosed that the victim suffered ten entrance gunshot wounds consisting of three fatal wounds in the head, four wounds in the chest, a wound in the arm, another wound in the parietal region of the head and a wound in the abdomen which lacerated the pancreas, stomach and liver (Exh. D).
Three persons, Tony Pangan, Conrado Luna or Boy Luna and Renato Ramirez were suspected of having taken part in the killing (Exh. I or 4-Robles). However, no arrests were made. The case remained dormant for around six years. After the release from prison of Ben Ulo in 1972 (10-11 tsn May 30, 1974), the police reinvestigated the case.
According to Antonio Sarmiento (Tony Pangan), the killing was instigated by the brothers Rogelio and Rodolfo Robles who gave him five hundred pesos and two guns. On the day before the killing, Sarmiento contacted Luna at the vessel Bupri, which was docked at the North Harbor, and informed him that Rogelio Robles wanted Luna to take part in the assassination of Mendoza (Exh. J).
Rogelio ordered the liquidation of Rodolfo Mendoza because Rogelio was allegedly apprehensive that as a matter of vengeance Ben Ulo would order his son Rodolfo to kill Rogelio because Rogelio testified against Ben Ulo in the case wherein Ben Ulo was convicted (Exh. J, p. 166, Record). Rogelio’s residence at 1411 Sande Street was three houses away from the scene of the crime (24 tsn May 30, 1974).
Rogelio was employed as a foreman in the city engineer’s office, Manila while Rodolfo Robles was the head of the social welfare department in the City Hall during the term of Mayor Antonio Villegas.
The police investigator got the sworn statements of Ernesto de Guzman dated November 20, 1972 and March 26 and 28, 1973 and the sworn statements of Renato Manlapit dated December 6, 1972 and March 27 and 28, 1973, pointing to Sarmiento and Luna as the killers and to Rogelio Robles as the person who wanted to be assured that Mendoza was dead (Exh. G, O, P, Q, R and S).
Crisanta Gonzaga, an alleged common-law wife of Sarmiento, executed a sworn statement dated March 26, 1973 wherein she declared that the Robles brothers induced Sarmiento to kill Mendoza by paying him five hundred pesos and furnishing him the two guns to be used in the killing. That amount was turned over to Crisanta by Sarmiento (Exh. T).
From the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit, which confirmed the allegations in their six sworn statements, it may be gathered that between eight and nine o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1966, Mendoza invited De Guzman to take a snack in a restaurant located at Coral Street, Tondo, Manila. After they finished eating, Luna arrived and invited them to have some drinks in another restaurant. (See Exh. J, pp. 163-166, Record.)cralawnad
The three proceeded to the Old Gold Restaurant. On the way, they were joined by Manlapit. At the restaurant, they seated themselves on the stools near the counter. De Guzman sat near the door. Seated next to him were Mendoza, Luna and Manlapit in that order (Exh. F).
Mendoza ordered drinks. While waiting for his order, he took off his eyeglasses and cleaned them. Suddenly or without any preliminaries, Luna drew his gun and fired at Mendoza’s head, causing the latter to fall on the floor. Luna fired other shots at the prostrate victim.
At that juncture, Sarmiento emerged from the comfort room and also fired several shots at Mendoza. Rogelio Robles entered the restaurant and advised Luna and Sarmiento to make sure that Mendoza was dead. ("Siguruhin ninyo yan. Baka buhay pa yan." ) Acting on the suggestion of Rogelio, Luna, using his foot, turned the body of Mendoza, who was lying down on his side, so that the latter assumed a supine position. Luna and Sarmiento fired other shots.
Luna, Sarmiento and Robles left the restaurant. De Guzman and Manlapit also left. They did not report the killing to the police and they remained silent for a long time because they were afraid that they might be killed. Renato Robles, a policeman, the son of Rodolfo Robles and nephew of Rogelio, and Romeo Robles, also a policeman, and a cousin of Renato, told them to remain silent. (Nos. 32 to 36, Exh. G.)
Sarmiento surrendered to the Constabulary Metropolitan Command (Metrocom) on March 23, 1973 while Luna surrendered to Judge Manuel R. Pamaran on November 6, 1973 (p. 6, Record of Criminal Case No. 1622).
Sarmiento executed an extrajudicial confession before a Metrocom officer dated March 24, 1973 wherein he declared that he and Luna killed Mendoza at the instigation of Rogelio Robles who supplied two guns and to whom they returned the same after the killing (Exh. BB).
Sarmiento executed a more detailed confession dated March 25, 1973 before a Manila police investigator (Exh. L), another confession dated March 26, 1973 wherein he implicated Rodolfo Robles as the mastermind and inducer (Exh. M) and a fourth confession dated March 28, 1973 wherein he confirmed his identification of Rogelio Robles at a police lineup (Exh. N).
All the four confessions were sworn to by Sarmiento. However, he was not assisted by counsel when he made the confessions and he was not informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to remain silent (Sec. 20, Art. IV, Constitution). He did not waive those rights. Hence, those four confessions, taken during custodial interrogation, are inadmissible in evidence as admissions of guilt.
Moreover, Sarmiento in his affidavit of retraction dated June 8, 1973, said that the declarations in his confessions were not true, particularly the imputation that Rodolfo Robles induced the killing of Mendoza (Exh. HH).
In convicting Luna and Sarmiento of murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by craft, which was offset by voluntary surrender to the authorities, the lower court relied on the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit. The latter used to be a fellow prisoner of Luna in the New Bilibid Prison.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
Luna in this appeal contends that the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of De Guzman and Manlapit, in disregarding the circumstance that the owner of the Old Gold Restaurant failed to identify Luna at the police lineup, in not sustaining Luna’s alibi and in rendering the judgment of conviction.
As Luna’s counsel aptly states, these contentions revolve around the issue as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the probative value of Luna’s evidence.
From September 16, 1961 to February 25, 1969, Luna was serving sentences for robbery and theft in the New Bilibid Prison. He was classified as a minimum security prisoner. As such, he was detailed from June 20, 1966 to July 27, 1967 to work as an oiler in the vessel Bupri which was owned by the Bureau of Prisons (Exh. 3-Luna) and was anchored at the Manila North Harbor.
Luna’s alibi was that in the evening of November 22, 1966, when Mendoza was killed, he (Luna) was in the vessel Bupri from which he could not have left because it was guarded.
That pretension was refuted by Ricardo Raymundo, a rebuttal prosecution witness and a fellow prisoner of Luna also detailed at the vessel Bupri. Raymundo declared that at around six o’clock in the evening of November 22, 1966, he, Luna and another prisoner named Rudy were permitted by the prison guard, Romy Veloria, to leave the vessel at the Manila North Harbor and go home on condition that they would be back before midnight.
Raymundo testified that he took a jeepney at Pier 8 while Luna went to Pier 10. We hold that the trial court did not err in giving more credence to Raymundo’s testimony than to Luna’s alibi. Raymundo was a disinterested and unbiased witness.
With respect to the failure of Que Hok, the female Chinese owner of the Old Gold Restaurant, to identify Luna during the police lineup on November 24, 1966, the explanation is that the shooting took place shortly after Luna and his companions entered the restaurant and Que Hok did not have sufficient time to know them very well. When she heard the first shot, she was going to the kitchen. She witnessed the shooting by looking through the glass partition (Exh. 6-Luna). She was afraid and nervous when she failed to identify Luna at the Old Bilibid Prison.
Another reason is that she had a weak eyesight. She later suffered from cataract and had an eye operation and her right eye became blind in 1970.
Que Hok in her statement given on the day following the shooting described one of the two killers as "bilugan ho ang mukha, maputi, may hati and buhok at hindi masyadong mahaba (mataas) at mga 5’2" ho seguro ang taas" (No. 11, Exh. 6-Luna).
Judge Pamaran during the trial, when Que Hok was testifying as a witness for Luna, observed that Luna "is more than the ordinary built or physique, his hair is parted on the left side and that he has a round face" (31 tsn April 25, 1974).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Finally, it is relevant to note that it was not unusual that Luna and Sarmiento were co-conspirators because they were contemporaries in the Abad Santos High School where they used to play basketball together; they were fellow prisoners in the national penitentiary and they were both henchmen of the Robles brothers (No. 8, Exh. M, p. 171, Record). Luna resided for a long time in Sande Street, his residence being about one hundred meters away from the scene of the crime. He was familiar with that locality.
After a thorough review of the evidence and a conscientious evaluation of Luna’s arguments, we find that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment as to Luna is affirmed. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., is on official leave.
Separate Opinions
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
My mind cannot rest easy that Conrado Luna is guilty of murder. My uneasiness is due not only to the lapse of time between the killing of Rodolfo Mendoza on November 22, 1966, and the prosecution therefor which was initiated by the filing of informations on March 29 and June 18, 1973, because the governments key witnesses did not come forward soon after the killing. Mainly on the testimony of Ernesto de Guzman and Renato Manlapit the trial court tagged Conrado Luna and Antonio Sarmiento as the killers of Rodolfo Mendoza but at the same time it acquitted Rogelio Robles of any complicity in the commission of the crime notwithstanding the fact that the two witnesses were equally positive regarding the participation of Rogelio Robles.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
Then too Que Hock and Dioning Dadolla, owner and waitress respectively, of the Old Gold restaurant where the killing took place, failed to identify Conrado Luna as one of the killers in a line-up at the Manila Office of the Bureau of Prisons soon after the incident.
Conrado Luna assails the trial court for disregarding his defense of alibi. He claims that on November 22, 1966, when the killing took place he was a national prisoner assigned to the prison ship "Bupri" and this was corroborated by Victorino Navarro of the document section of the Bureau of Prisons. True, Ricardo Raymundo who at that time was also a prisoner assigned to "Bupri" said that prisoners thereat could leave with the guard’s permission and that on the date in question, he, Luna and a third prisoner left the "Bupri." The testimony of this witness is incredible in that after the lapse of eight years he was able to recall what he did on a particular day. There is also the presumption that the prison guards on the "Bupri" performed their duties regularly by not allowing prisoners assigned thereto to leave the premises. With these two factors the defense of alibi acquires strength and significance.
I vote for the acquittal of Conrado Luna.
Fernando, C.J., concurs.
