G.R. No. 223246 - De Vera vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223246)

Factual Background: Robbery, Attempted Rape, and Killing

Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. on June 4, 1947, Emma Foronda-Abaya and her friend Marcelino Lontok, Jr. were walking side by side on Pampanga Street, Manila, returning home from the Far Eastern University, when they were held up by two men, each at the point of a pistol. They were robbed of watches, jewelry, a fountain pen, and cash, amounting to P 100.40 belonging to Marcelino and P 131.00 belonging to Emma, for a total of P 231.40.

After the robbery of Emma, one robber dragged her to a secluded vacant lot south of the street and attempted to satisfy his lust. He hugged and kissed her, laid her on the ground face upward on a log, pulled down her drawers, and placed himself on top of her with intent to rape. Marcelino Lontok, Jr. was kept at gunpoint at about eight meters away and was threatened with bodily harm if he moved to help. Emma cried for help, calling “Junior, pity me!” The rape was not completed because Emma resisted. During the struggle both fell into the mire beside the log. At that critical moment, the other robber left Marcelino and approached his companion, told him to stop, and invited him to leave the place. Marcelino escaped to seek help, and later in the same evening he returned with a police patrol. They found Emma dead, her chest and abdomen pierced by two bullets. Two empty shells were found at the scene.

Investigation and Identifying the Perpetrators

The Manila Police Detective Bureau pursued leads until it obtained its first tangible clue on the morning of June 10, when Detective Leano and Marcelino Lontok, Jr. recovered Marcelino’s Bulova wrist watch from a peddler in front of the Ideal Theater on Rizal Avenue. The peddler, Samuel Rhones, claimed he had received the watch from Jacinto Cornel alias Wy Teng Seng, who in turn said he received it from Salvador Custodio. Custodio said he bought it from Big Boy, later identified as Brigido Carlos. Carlos testified that the watch had been given to him in payment of a debt by a man known as Visaya, later found to be Saturnino Macawile. Macawile initially denied involvement but later admitted delivering the watch to Brigido Carlos. Under further questioning, Macawile revealed the identity of the seller as Romy.

The detectives then established that Romy’s real identity was Alejandro Carillo, alias Romy and alias Iwahig, using his prison records from the New Bilibid Prison. Those records showed prior convictions for robbery in an inhabited house, the service of minimum and maximum terms, conditional pardon, subsequent conviction, and eventual release upon expiration of his sentence on August 30, 1946. With the identity of Romy settled, detectives sought and arrested him after learning that he left Manila for Tacloban, Leyte, on June 8, 1947. After three detectives were dispatched to Tacloban, they found and arrested Alejandro Carillo in the public market on June 23, 1947.

Interrogations, Written Confessions, and Corroborating Identifications

Upon arrest, Carillo admitted verbally that he was the one who shot Emma. On June 24, 1947, Detective D. Lapina, in the presence of Detective L.O. Garcia, interrogated Carillo in Tagalog, with stenographer D. B. Ferrer reducing his answers to writing. In his signed and sworn written statement (Exhibit H), Carillo identified himself as Alejandro Carillo y Almadin, described his background and residence history, stated that he left Manila for Tacloban because he had committed a crime, and admitted that on the evening of June 4 he shot a woman on Aurora Avenue after holding up a woman and a man. He expressly described the robbery of the man’s watch, the attempt to rape the woman, his firing of two shots after the victim resisted, and his separation afterward. He also identified his co-perpetrator, whom he called Frank, as his companion in the assault and robbery, and he traced the sale of the man’s watch to Macawile, identifying the buyer as Saturnino Macawile and explaining that Macawile knew him by the name Romy only. Carillo further identified the seized Bulova watch as the same watch he had taken from Marcelino.

Carillo’s statement also supported the forensic and identification process. After the detectives established that “Frank” was Toribio Raquenio, Raquenio was apprehended on June 25, 1947. During interrogation, Raquenio’s answers were reduced to writing in Exhibit E, where he described how he came to know Romy, how they procured and used weapons, how he held up the man while Romy held up the woman, and how, after the woman screamed and he told Romy to stop, two shots were fired. He stated that they separated afterward, and he claimed he returned the firearm to its owner. He identified the pistol and the manner by which the weapons were involved. He also related that, on confronting Romy later, he recognized him as the person with whom he committed the crime.

Carillo was further interrogated on June 29, 1947, where he pointed to and identified Raquenio as the same man he knew as Frank, as reflected in the later statement and pointing described in the record.

Scene Re-enactment and Physical Evidence: Ballistics

After both appellants had confessed, they were brought, together with Marcelino Lontok, Jr., to the crime scene at the corner of Pampanga and Oroquieta streets. A policewoman impersonated Emma during a re-enactment of the crime, photographs were taken, and the images were presented during trial as Exhibits B-8, B-9, and B-10.

On July 1, 1947, the fiscal amended the information: John Doe was dropped, and the charges were refined to reflect the roles of Alejandro Carillo and Toribio Raquenio as principals for robbery with homicide and attempted rape, while Saturnino Macawile was charged as accessory after the fact.

Physical evidence was obtained through the testimony of Simeon Madayag and his wife Antonieta Salazar, secret agent and spouse, respectively, both of whom connected the appellants to the firearms used. Madayag surrendered to authorities the .45-caliber pistol he said had been left with his wife by Carillo. The pistol, marked as Exhibit I, together with the two empty shells (Exhibits J and J-1), was submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for ballistics examination by Ballistics Expert Edgar Bond. Bond fired test shots from Exhibit I and compared the resulting test shells with the scene shells. He concluded, using a comparison microscope and congruent lines reflected in Ballistics Microphographic Chart (Exhibits L, L-1, and L-2), that the two empty shells found at the scene were fired from the pistol Exhibit I. He documented the findings in a written report (Exhibit M).

Prosecution Testimony Identifying the Accused

Marcelino Lontok, Jr., the offended party and eyewitness, testified that it was a moonlit night and that he could see the robbers’ features. He identified both appellants as the robbers. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had initially pointed to Saturnino Macawile instead of Carillo, but he explained the mistake by stating that there was resemblance between the two and that Carillo’s hair had been long before cropping. He testified that he was able to recover his watch in the manner described earlier and he claimed recognition based on physical characteristics, including a crack on the watch glass and scratches in the spring balance.

Madayag testified that he knew Carillo and Raquenio through their visits to his home in the Calavite, La Loma, Quezon City address. He also testified that the Japanese pistol issued to him as a secret agent (Exhibit N) was defective and that he had given it to his wife, who stored it in their home, and that he did not lend the pistol to Raquenio. Madayag stated that after June 23 or 24, he delivered the pistol to a repair shop and that detectives recovered it with his presence.

Antonieta Salazar testified that she knew Exhibit I, which she said was left in her possession by Romy, pointing to Alejandro Carillo, on June 7, 1947. She identified Raquenio as one who came with Romy to their home and explained that the Japanese pistol Exhibit N was taken by the police from the repair shop.

Defense Evidence and Attempted Repudiation of Confessions

The defense for Alejandro Carillo presented only one witness, Narciso Villegas, a prisoner at Muntinlupa who claimed that when he searched Carillo in the isolation cell he saw a bluish spot and heard Carillo say he was maltreated by secret service men. Carillo himself testified that he was a laborer in the market and denied knowing Raquenio prior to arrest. He claimed he was not on Aurora Avenue and Pampanga Street on June 4. He also asserted that he was ordered by police in Tacloban to admit “that case which occurred,” that he did not sign documents voluntarily, and that he was forced and beaten. He repudiated the confessions, alleging they were signed without knowing their contents, and denied selling the watch. He acknowledged knowledge of the revolver Exhibit I through an alleged delivery by a friend named Nestor, but he offered shifting explanations about why he accepted it.

Toribio Raquenio’s defense was largely a denial. He testified that he did not remember where he was on June 4 and claimed he did not know Carillo. He denied that he knew the contents of Exhibit E, asserting he was maltreated and signed it in that context. He acknowledged knowing Simeon Madayag and admitted he had been to the house of Madayag, though he claimed he went alone to look for work.

Saturnino Macawile testified in his own defense that he bought the Bulova watch from Romy for P3 and sold it for P10, asserting he did not know it was stolen. The trial court acquitted Macawile on reasonable doubt.

Trial Court Disposition

Judge Felipe Natividad found Alejandro Carillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of robbery with homicide, without mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to indemnify the heirs

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223246)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Alejandro Carillo y Almadin and Toribio Raquenio y Pitas for robbery with homicide and attempted rape, and prosecuted Saturnino Macawile as accessory after the fact.
The trial court convicted Alejandro Carillo as principal of robbery with homicide and imposed reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and return of the stolen items or their value.
The trial court convicted Toribio Raquenio as principal of robbery with violence against and intimidation of person and imposed an indeterminate penalty, with joint and several indemnity for the victims’ losses.
The trial court acquitted Saturnino Macawile on the ground of reasonable doubt.
On joint appeal, Alejandro Carillo and Toribio Raquenio, through counsel de oficio, contested the sufficiency of the evidence and sought acquittal.
The Solicitor General recommended the imposition of the death penalty on Alejandro Carillo and the increase of the maximum penalty imposed on Toribio Raquenio.
The appeal required the Court to examine whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through both direct and circumstantial evidence.

Key Factual Allegations

On June 4, 1947, between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., Emma Foronda-Abaya and Marcelino Lontok, Jr. were held up on Pampanga street, Manila, while walking home from the Far Eastern University.
Two robbers threatened the victims at the point of a pistol and robbed them of specified personal items and cash.
After the robbery, one robber took Emma to a secluded vacant lot and forcibly kissed and hugged her, then laid her on a log with intent to satisfy his lust and attempted to rape her.
Emma resisted, but the assault continued until both Emma and her assailant fell into mud beside the log during their struggle.
The second robber restrained Marcelino at gunpoint from a distance of about eight meters, threatening bodily harm if he attempted to help Emma.
The attempted rape did not succeed because of Emma’s resistance and the struggle.
At the critical moment, the second robber left Marcelino, approached Emma’s assailant, and urged him to stop and to leave the place, while Marcelino escaped to seek help.
Marcelino heard two shots about fifteen meters away after escaping.
When police later located the scene later that same evening, Emma was dead, with her chest and abdomen pierced by two bullets, and two empty shells were recovered.
The detective work connected a stolen watch and firearms to Alejandro Carillo and Toribio Raquenio, followed by confessions and ballistic verification.

Investigation and Evidence Trail

Police obtained the first tangible clue on the morning of June 10, 1947, when Detective Leano and Marcelino Lontok, Jr. recovered Marcelino’s Bulova wrist watch from a peddler offering it for sale.
The peddler stated that the watch was received from Jacinto Cornel (alias Wy Teng Seng), who said he received it from Salvador Custodio, who in turn said he bought it from Big Boy.
Big Boy was identified as Brigido Carlos, who said the watch was given in payment of a debt by a man known as Visaya, who turned out to be Saturnino Macawile.
Saturnino Macawile at first denied involvement, but later admitted delivering the watch to Brigido Carlos, shifting explanations as to where he obtained it before finally revealing that the mysterious seller was known as Romy.
After detectives established the identity of Romy as Alejandro Carillo, his prior prison record confirmed prior convictions for robbery and indicated conditional release and subsequent re-incarceration.
Detectives learned Alejandro Carillo left Manila for Tacloban, Leyte, on a boat bound for that destination on June 8, 1947.
Three detectives proceeded to Tacloban and arrested Alejandro Carillo in the public market on June 23, 1947.
In Tacloban, Alejandro Carillo verbally admitted shooting Emma Foronda-Abaya to the local chief of police.
On June 24, 1947, Detective D. Lapina interrogated Alejandro Carillo in the presence of Detective L.O. Garcia, with answers taken in writing by a stenographer and later ratified under oath before Assistant City Fiscal Julio Villamor.
The written confession (Exhibit H) included details unknown to the investigators prior to interrogation, including his living arrangements and the accomplice he referred to as “Frank.”
The detectives identified “Frank” as Toribio Raquenio, who was apprehended on June 25, 1947.
On the night of June 25, 1947, Detective Tomas A. Calazan interrogated Toribio Raquenio in the presence of Detective J. Senen, and his written confession was identified as Exhibit E.
On June 29, 1947, Alejandro Carillo further identified Toribio Raquenio as “Frank” and disclosed where the .45 caliber gun was left and who had possession of it.
As part of investigation, the accused and Marcelino Lontok, Jr. reenacted the crime at the corner of Pampanga and Oroquieta with photographs taken and introduced in evidence.
The fiscal amended the information on July 1, 1947, dropping John Doe and charging Alejandro Carillo and Toribio Raquenio as principals of robbery with homicide and attempted rape, and charging Saturnino Macawile as accessory after the fact.
Ballistics evidence linked the recovered gun to the crime scene shells after the National Bureau of Investigation conducted microscopic comparison between shell casings and test shells.
Ballistics Expert Edgar Bond testified that the shells at the scene were fired from the recovered pistol Exhibit I, and explained the results and charts marked for trial.

Confessions and Their Treatment

The Court treated the confessions of Alejandro Carillo and Toribio Raquenio as direct evidence.
Both accused repudiated their confessions during trial and claimed they were extorted by violence and intimidation.
The Court emphasized that confession extortion through violence or intimidation is reprehensible and cited the Court’s condemnation in People vs. Ricardo Tipay, G.R. No. 49014 (March 31, 1944).
The Court found Exhibit H inherently credible because it contained specific facts known only to the accused, including his personal circumstances, residence history, and his participation with the accomplice.
The Court noted that Exhibit H had led investigators to arrest Toribio Raquenio, showing that the information was not a fabrication by the detectives.
The Court found that Exhibit H initially included a false statement regarding ownership of the pistol and that this was later corrected in Exhibit F, supporting non-fabrication.
The Court reasoned that if investigators fabricated a confession, it would be unlikely to include statements later contradicted by reality and corrected by the accused.
The Court dismissed Alejandro Carillo’s claim that he signed without knowing contents, given shifting theories of coercion and the failure to identify particular torturers.
The Court assessed the testimony of Narciso Villegas, offered to support Alejandro Carillo’s coerced-signature claim, and found it inherently incredible for multiple reasons stated in the decision.
The Court similarly found Toribio Raquenio’s repudiation unpersuasiv