Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19149-50)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Ben Paredes, et al., G.R. Nos. L-19149-50, August 16, 1968, Supreme Court En Banc, Angeles, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged several persons with the April 26, 1960 robbery with homicide of Chua Nai Su, a Chinese tobacco dealer, who was shot inside a pick-up truck of the Insular‑Yebana Tobacco Corporation near its warehouse in Barrio Palattao, Naguilian, Isabela. The driver escaped; the victim died near the company guardhouse. The pick-up was later used by the perpetrators in their flight. The trial court (Court of First Instance of Isabela) consolidated separate informations (Criminal Case Nos. 2702, 2718 and later 2773) and tried the accused jointly. It convicted Ben Paredes, Conrado de Leon, Manuel Mamuri, Protasio A. Santos, and Pascual Bartolome of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnities (P6,000 to heirs, P10,000 to the corporation) and costs.
The factual narrative as found by the trial court (and accepted by the Supreme Court) was that Conrado de Leon induced Ruben Concepcion to join a plot to rob a wealthy Chinaman; Concepcion recruited Manuel Mamuri and Aurelio Tottoc. The group met with Paredes in Naguilian, slept in the municipal building, scoped the warehouse in Palattao, and met there with Bartolome who promised money if they killed or robbed the Chinaman. Chief of Police Protasio Santos supplied a revolver and, with municipal officials, allegedly promised immunity and even a share in land proceeds if the crime succeeded. On April 26 the three-man strike force boarded the pick‑up, Ruben Concepcion shot Chua Nai Su, the trio took a portfolio containing P400, divided the money and returned weapons to Paredes and Santos; witnesses placed the participants together before and after the crime.
Investigators seized a checkered polo shirt from Conrado de Leon that witnesses identified as like the triggerman’s; blood stains were later noted. Conrado de Leon was arrested April 27 and, after interrogation, implicated others; Concepcion and Tottoc admitted participation and, on April 29, statements and informations were filed against several accused (initially excluding Santos and Bartolome). Subsequent extrajudicial statements and further investigation connected Santos and Bartolome; separate informations against them were filed June 9 and September 14, 1960 respectively. During trial, Ruben Concepcion pleaded guilty and later testified for the prosecution; Tottoc likewise testified as a state witness. Several defense witnesses...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the testimonies of accomplices and a confessed co‑accused (i.e., “polluted sources”) sufficiently credible to sustain convictions, or should they have been treated with grave suspicion?
- Did the evidence establish that appellants Ben Paredes, Protasio A. Santos and Pascual Bartolome participated in the conspiracy and are therefore guilty under the doctrine of concerted action?
- Was appellant Pascual Bartolome denied his constitutional right to confront and cross‑examine witnesses because some witnesses testified before his arrest and indictment?
- Do the facts support treating the alleged promise of reward or the official position ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)