Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > September 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11923 September 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BARROSO

106 Phil 177:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11923. September 18, 1959.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDO BARROSO, Et Al., Defendants. FLORENTINO CASONITE, Defendant-Appellant.

Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Isidro C. Borromeo for Appellee.

Avena, Lagula & Singson for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE; CONFESSION; REPUDIATION NOT WARRANTED BY FACTS. — A confession by an accused, sworn to by him before a Justice of the Peace, cannot be repudiated as having been made involuntarily under threat or maltreatment where it has been established that two of his co-accused, who refused to make any statement to the authorities, were not force to do so, as a result of which the case against them was dismissed. Moreover, had such maltreatment occurred, it should have been reported to the Justice of the Peace at the time the accused was taken to him. His failure to do so and his having sworn to his confession before the said official belie his claim that force or intimidation.

2. ID.; ALIBI; DEFENSE UNTENABLE IF PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS DULY PROVEN. — If the presence and participation of an accused in the commission of a crime is proven by his confession and by the testimony of a witness for the prosecution, against whom no improper motive has been shwon why he would falsely implicate the accused, the defense of alibi is untenable.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


Florentino Casonite is appealing from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal finding him guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and with Leonardo Barroso, jointly and severally to indemnify Valeriano Mandique in the sum of P2,300 and the heirs of Crispin Merin, in the sum of P6,000 and to pay 1/4 of the costs.

On November 15, 1954, a little after midnight, Valeriano Mandique was sleeping on the ground floor of his house at Punta, Jalajala, Rizal. His daughter, Felicidad Mandique and a helper were in the second floor of the house, while his wife, Ines Teodoro with a grandchild was in the store, about 2 meters from the house. Valeriano was awakened by two men who had entered his sleeping quarters, one of whom he later identified as Leonardo Barroso, who at the point of a revolver and a balisong demanded money from him. At the time the two robbers had about nine or ten companions outside the house, some acting as guards. Unable to produce any money because he had none with him, the robbers entered and ransacked his house and the store and were able to get from Felicidad P1,000 and from Ines P900 as well as jewelry worth P300 and merchandise from the store worth P100, or a total of P2,300. After the corresponding investigation by the authorities, Leonardo Barroso, Florentino Casonite, Filemon Figuracion and Marcos Quimio alias Teniente Marcos were charged with the crime of robbery in band with homicide. After the prosecution had rested, for lack of evidence, the case against Filemon Figuracion and Marcos Quimio was dismissed and the trial proceeded with respect to Barroso and Casonite who were later found guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the indemnity already mentioned.

Barroso and Casonite appealed. Later, however, Barroso withdrew his appeal. We are, therefore, concerned only with the appeal of Casonite.

On the occasion of the robbery, it is fact that while the robbers were still in the house of Valeriano Mandique, Sergeant Pedro Jakosalem, assistant detachment commander of the 14th BCT who was with his soldiers at Punta on a secret mission, was informed that the house of Valeriano Mandique about 200 meters away was being robbed. He immediately alerted his men and they proceeded to the scene of the crime. Noticing nothing unusual, they advanced towards the house, Pfc. Crispin Merin leading. They saw a man, later identified as Barroso sitting in front of the store. Barroso, carrying a piece of wood stood up, and approached Merin in a menacing attitude. Merin shouted. "We are soldiers", but Barroso ignoring the information assaulted him and before long they were grappling with each other. Sgt. Jakosalem who was a few meters behind Merin fired a warning shot in the air. Then the robbers opened fire on the soldiers, and there was an exchange of shots which lasted about 5 minutes. As a result of the encounter, Merin was shot dead and Juan Liquido, one of the robbers was also killed. According to Sgt. Jakosalem whose testimony was accepted by the trial court and which we also accept, as soon as he fired a warning shot, he saw Casonite emerge from behind or beside the store where the group of robbers was stationed, carrying a .45 cal. pistol which he fired at the soldiers more than once. He, Jakosalem, was not very far from Casonite whom he distinctly recognized not only by the light of the moon but also because of the light from the Petromax lamp (Coleman) which was burning inside the store.

In his turn, Casonite disclaimed any and all participation in the robbery and set up the defense of alibi, quite an elaborate one, in which he was supported by several witnesses. This defense was discussed and analyzed by the trial court and found to be unfounded.

In the course of the investigation by the PC, Casonite made a statement which was reduced to writing and presented in evidence as Exhibit B. This was sworn to by him before the Justice of the Peace of Pililla. He, however, repudiated this statement at the trial, claiming that it was not voluntary because he made it under fear of being again subjected to ill-treatment as had supposedly been done to him earlier in his investigation by the 14th BCT soldiers. We agree with the trial court that Exhibit B was a voluntary confession because in our opinion, it was made freely without any threats much less maltreatment or torture. In this connection, it should be stated that Filemon Figuración one of the accused refused to make any statement to the constabulary and yet nothing was done to him. Another defendant, Marcos Quimio also refused to make any statement and the soldiers did nothing to him. As a result the case against these two accused was dismissed for lack of evidence. If the PC soldiers really wanted to extract confession from them they could have used force, violence and intimidation on them to make them confess which they did not. It was therefore unlikely that Casonite was maltreated as claimed by him. Moreover, had such maltreatment occurred it was not explained why he did not report the same to the Justice of the Peace at the time he was taken before him, but instead swore to his confession before the said official.

As to Casonite’s defense of alibi, we quote with favor the pertinent portion of the decision of the trial court, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An examination of their respective defenses shows that the alibi set up are not sufficient to meet the case established by the prosecution. The presence and participation of Leonardo Barroso in the robbery with homicide alleged in the information has been positively and conclusively established by the testimonies of Valeriano Mandique, Felicidad Mandique, Levi Padua, Sgt. Pedro Jakosalem and by his confession, Exhibit A; while the presence and participation of Florentino Casonite is proven by the testimony of Sgt. Jakosalem and his confession, Exhibit B. Above all, no improper motive has been shown why the witnesses for the prosecution would falsely implicate these two defendants if they were not really present and participate in the robbery."cralaw virtua1aw library

It may be stated that appellant’s co-defendant Barroso had also made a statement admitting his participation in the commission of the crime, marked Exhibit A, which was presented in Court and which he later repudiated on the ground that it was not voluntary because he had allegedly been subjected to ill-treatment by the soldiers. He also set up the defense of alibi in which he was corroborated by quite a number of witnesses; and yet abandoning these defenses he later withdrew his appeal, practically admitting his guilt.

We are convinced that appellant Florentino Casonite was a member of the group that robbed the house of Valeriano Mandique and who, with his .45 cal. pistol exchanged shots with the soldiers and that he was sufficiently identified by Sgt. Jakosalem.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12826 September 10, 1959 - LUCINA EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO DEUDOR

    106 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-11923 September 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BARROSO

    106 Phil 177

  • G.R. Nos. L-137727-3 September 18, 1959 - PRIMO PANTI v. JUAN ALBERTO

    106 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-13919 September 18, 1959 - AGUSTIN PARAISO v. JESUS CAMON

    106 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-12152 September 22, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOSTOMO ABONALES

    106 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-13119 September 22, 1959 - RICARDO TANTONGCO v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA

    106 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-10923 September 23, 1959 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. MIGUEL TOLENTINO

    106 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-11803 September 23, 1959 - CHAN LAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-14233 September 23, 1959 - RAFAEL PASTORIZA v. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

    106 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-13371 September 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGATON SALAZAR

    106 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-13408 September 24, 1959 - LO KIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. L-13665 September 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BUSTAMANTE

    106 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-10940 September 25, 1959 - AMPANG TAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    106 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-13000 September 25, 1959 - GAUDENCIO D. DEMAISIP v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-12102 September 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BAO

    106 Phil 243

  • G.R. Nos. L-12812-13 September 29, 1959 - FILIPINAS COLLEGES v. MARIA GARCIA TIMBANG

    106 Phil 247

  • Adm. Case No. 225 September 30, 1959 - ANITA CABRERA v. FRANCISCO G. AGUSTIN

    106 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-9854 September 30, 1959 - LEON VELEZ v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

    106 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-10374 September 30, 1959 - GAVINA PEREZ v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    106 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-10677 September 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CANARE

    106 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. 11113 & L-11134 September 30, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ILAGAN AND ALEJANDRINO

    106 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-11751 September 30, 1959 - CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION v. SIMPLICIO BILLONES

    106 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-12181 September 30, 1959 - LUCIO R. ILDEFONSO v. ERNESTO Y. SIBAL

    106 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-12205 September 30, 1959 - FORTUNATO MILLARE v. ISIDRO MILLARE

    106 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-13014 September 30, 1959 - JOSE RUEDA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    106 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-13209 September 30, 1959 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-13548 September 30, 1959 - SALVADOR LACUNA v. MACARIO M. OFILADA

    106 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-13712 September 30, 1959 - SERAFIN G. DAVID v. JOSE M. SANTOS

    106 Phil 318

  • G.R. Nos. L-14059-62 September 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    106 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-11443 September 30, 1959 - MAXIMA GROSPE v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 1144

  • G.R. No. L-14339 September 30, 1959 - MATIAS GAMBOL v. MANUEL P. BARCELONA

    106 Phil 328