I M A Lawyer: 1974

Ducay propounded the questions in English, translated them into Ilocano and translated into English Ramolete's answers. After Mariano Ramolete had made his declaration, Ducay held Ramolete's right thumb, "placed it in his (Ramolete's) blood" and affixed his thumbmark at the bottom of the paper containing the dying declaration as written in English by Ducay. The thumbmark is reddish-brown. Ducay is a native of Santa Maria, Ilocos Sur. He said that he wrote the ante-mortem statement in English because that is the language used in court.

The trial court, in not attaching any probative value to the "dying declaration" and to Ducay's testimony, observed that Mariano Ramolete declared that he did not know his assailant because he was shot in the back. He did not see the aggressor. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses positively identified the culprit as Quirino Ramolete.

The "dying declaration" has an ambiguous, double meaning. While the declarant said that he did not know who was his assailant, in the same breath he pointed to Quirino Ramolete as the gunwielder who, with a companion, entered his domicile. It may be implied from the "dying declaration" that Quirino Ramolete had complicity in the killing of Mariano Ramolete.

Finally, for a complete view of the case, it should be stated that, according to Quirino Ramolete's version, gunshots were also fired under the batalan or porch of Mariano Ramolete's house (6 tsn December 13, 1966).

As already stated, appellant's counsel admits that Quirino Ramolete killed Refuerzo and shot Rayray. The trial court correctly viewed, as a "sign of guilt", Ramolete's flight to Ballesteros. It observed that the two prosecution witnesses, Enriqueta Refuerzo and Calixta Rabot, were positive in their identification of Quirino Ramolete, as the malefactor who shot Refuerzo and Mariano Ramolete. It commented that the defense failed to impair their credibility in spite of rigid cross examination. On the basis of their testimony, the trial court was convinced that Quirino Ramolete killed Refuerzo and Mariano Ramolete.

Appellant's counsel, in support of his contention that Quirino Ramolete did not kill Mariano Ramolete, quotes in his brief a portion of Enriqueta Refuerzo's testimony that she did not see Quirino firing at Mariano. However, counsel omitted Enriqueta's subsequent declaration that she knew "that Quirino Ramolete fired at her brother", Severino, and at "Mariano Ramolete" (16 tsn April 3, 1963). An impartial perusal of Enriqueta's entire testimony reveals that she categorically testified that Quirino Ramolete killed Mariano Ramolete (4 and 7 tsn April 3, 1963).

Appellant's counsel impugns the trial court's finding that Calixta Rabot testified that Quirino Ramolete shot Mariano Ramolete. Counsel cites her declaration that, because a wall separated her and her husband, Mariano Ramolete, she did not see Quirino Ramolete shooting Mariano. As shown below, her declaration was quoted out of context.

Whether the killing of Refuerzo was treacherous and whether Quirino Ramolete killed Mariano Ramolete may be deduced from the pertinent portions of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses quoted hereunder:

Testimony of Enriqueta Refuerzo

Q. You said Quirino Ramolete killed some, do you know ... who were those that were killed? — A ... Severino Refuerzo and Mariano Ramolete, sir. (4 tsn April 3, 1963).

Q. And when Quirino Ramolete fired his gun what happened next? — A ... There was someone who was killed.

Q. Who was that was killed? — A. Severino Refuerzo and Mariano Ramolete, sir.

Q. How about his two companions, Andres Acosta and Fausto Rabara, how far were you to them? — A. They were farther to me than Quirino Ramolete.

Q. And what did they do with their guns that they were holding? — A. They fired their guns, sir.

Q. Can you tell the Court the direction where they fired their guns? — A. Quirino Ramolete pointed his gun to Severino Refuerzo. I don't know to whom the others pointed their guns. (7 tsn).

Q. And when you heard a noise which seems that someone was coming up, you made a conclusion that Quirino Ramolete was going up? — A. No, sir. He talked when he came up and said, "Stand up, Alfredo, and I will shoot you." (14 tsn).

Q. When Quirino Ramolete uttered those words to Alfredo Rayray, what did Alfredo Rayray do? — A. They went out because they were afraid, sir. ... Our companions including Severino Refuerzo went out, sir. ... When Severino Refuerzo jumped from the batalan, it was at that moment when Quirino Ramolete fired at him.

Q. How far were you when Quirino Ramolete fired at Severino Refuerzo? — A. I was about one meter from them, Your Honor. I was at the doorway. (15 tsn).

Q. And neither did you see also Quirino Ramolete fire at Mariano
Ramolete? — A. No, sir. When Quirino Ramolete fired at Severino Refuerzo, Mariano Ramolete was at the batalan.

Q. So, all that you know is that Quirino Ramolete fired at your brother (Refuerzo) and to Mariano Ramolete? — A. Yes, sir. (16 tsn).

Court: — Q: Are you sure that it was Quirino Ramolete who fired at your deceased brother? — A. Yes, Your Honor, I saw him. (23 tsn).

Q. So you saw Quirino Ramolete pointing his gun? He was not particularly trying to shoot your brother because all of you were scampering, is that right? — A. I was sure, sir. When my brother jumped to go down, it was then that he, Quirino Ramolete, pointed his gun at him. (24 tsn).

Q. To where did you ran? — A. When we ran away, Severino Refuerzo jumped out of the window west of the door (8 tsn March 15, 1966).

Q. Then what happened? — A. When we had been running, scampering towards any direction, I remembered Severino Refuerzo, and when I looked, that was the time when I saw Quirino Ramolete shot him. (9 tsn).

Q. What was the position of Severino Refuerzo when he was fired at by Quirino Ramolete? — A. He was in the act of jumping over the window so he could go to the batalan because that is where the stairs were. (10 tsn).

Q. How far was Quirino Ramolete when he fired at Severino Refuerzo? — A. It was near, sir. (The witness indicating a distance of about two and a half meters).

Q. Afterwards, what did you do and what happened next? — A. When there was no more firing, I went out and I saw Severino Refuerzo and Mariano Ramolete on the batalan and Mariano Ramolete was at his head.

Q. What was their condition? — A. Severino Refuerzo was then dead and Ramolete was agonizing. (10-11 tsn).

Q. After you heard Quirino Ramolete say that he will shoot Alfredo Rayray, you ran inside the room where Nicasia Rabanal was, is it not? — A. Not immediately, sir, because I stood up near the door where he was and that was the time when he fired at Severino (Refuerzo).

Q. Everybody who was inside the house had to pass that door where Quirino Ramolete was at that time? — A. Yes, sir. (16-17 tsn).

Testimony of Calixta Rabot

Q. When did your husband, Mariano Ramolete, die? — A. He died two years ago, sir.

Q. What was the cause of his death? — A. He was shot by Quirino Ramolete, sir. (3 tsn).

Q. And about you, how far were you in relation to Quirino Ramolete? — A. I was not very far, sir. He was close to me.

Q. How close was it? Will you indicate the distance from your place? — A. A distance of about one yard, sir.

Q. What else happened when the players ran away? — A. Quirino Ramolete fired his gun, sir.

Q. What else happened? — A. He shot Severino (Refuerzo) and my husband, Mariano (Ramolete), sir. (4-5 tsn April 4, 1963).

Q. And you said that Severino Refuerzo ran and was fired at. Do you know or did you see the one who fired at him? — A. Quirino Ramolete, sir.

Q. And where was your husband at the time when Quirino Ramolete fired at Severino Refuerzo? — A. He was in the batalan, sir.

Q. But you did not actually see your husband being fired upon, is it not? — A. As soon as Severino Refuerzo fell prostrate, my husband also fell. (7-8 tsn April 4, 1963).

Q. But your husband was in your batalan and between the batalan and where you were was a wall? — A. Yes, sir. The wall is here and here is where my husband fell (the witness indicating the walling to be between her and the place where her husband fell) (10 tsn).

Q. As a matter of fact, while you were near Quirino Ramolete, you did not see him in the batalan and you only knew that he was there when your husband was moaning? — A. Yes, sir, because when Severino Refuerzo fell, my husband fell also. (10 tsn).

Q. ... You mean to say that what you had stated that only Quirino Ramolete fired at Severino Refuerzo and your husband is not true? — A. What I saw Quirino Ramolete fired at Severino Refuerzo and my husband. (Id. 13 tsn).

Q. Can you tell the Court who was the accused who shot your husband? — A. Quirino Ramolete, your Honor. (18 tsn).

Q. When you saw Quirino Ramolete shoot your husband, was your husband inside the house? — A. He was at the batalan, your Honor. (18 tsn).

Q. When you were at the doorway of the kitchen that was the time when he shot your husband? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were very near the place where your husband was shot? — A. I was close to him, your Honor.

Q. How near were you from him? — A. From here to there, your Honor (the witness indicating a length of two meters).

Q. From the place where Quirino Ramolete shot your husband, how far was your husband to Quirino Ramolete at the time he was shot? — A. He was very close, your Honor. He was here while Severino Refuerzo and my husband were here dead (the witness indicating (where) she, the witness, was from the two deceased Mariano Ramolete and Severino Refuerzo).

Q. When you said Quirino Ramolete shot Severino Refuerzo and your husband, were they shot simultaneously? — A. As soon as Severino Refuerzo fell prostrate, my husband also fell, your Honor.

Q. Did Severino Refuerzo and your husband fall to the ground when they were shot? — A. They fell on the front of the batalan, your Honor.

Q. So they were both dying and killed on the batalan? — A. Yes, your Honor. (18-19 tsn).

Considering the foregoing oral evidence, appellant's claim that he did not kill Mariano Ramolete is not borne out by the record.

A close scrutiny and dispassionate appraisal of the testimonies of Calixta Rabot and Enriqueta Refuerzo confirm the trial court's finding that they witnessed the shooting of Refuerzo by Quirino Ramolete. However, there is a palpable nebulousness in their testimonies as to how Mariano Ramolete was shot by Quirino Ramolete or how Mariano received the fatal gunshot wound of entry in the abdomen whose corresponding exit wound was in the left iliac region and how the other gunshot wound in his buttocks was inflicted.

Appellant's counsel de oficio contends that the killing of Refuerzo by Quirino Ramolete was not attended with treachery because "no deceit and trickery" were employed. He argues that "while it is true that the wounds of Severino Refuerzo were at his back", there was no treachery since he "was not waylaid or trapped" pursuant to "a preconceived plot by his aggressor". Counsel says that there is no proof that there was treachery at the inception of the attack and that there is no showing that Quirino Ramolete, in shooting Refuerzo, was not exposed to any risk which would "require him to put up a defense". Hence, while admitting that Quirino Ramolete killed Refuerzo, counsel concludes that the killing was only homicide.

These contentions are untenable. The trial court found that the killings of Refuerzo and Mariano Ramolete were attended with treachery because the wounds which they sustained were on the back. The Solicitor General agrees that treachery was present because the wounds on the back indicate that the victims were shot from behind.

A conscientious review of the circumstances surrounding the killing of Refuerzo supports the finding that there was treachery. Appellant Quirino Ramolete first came to the house unarmed and ostensibly with pacific intentions. As it turned out, his purpose was to reconnoiter or to case the house and ascertain whether the intended victims were present and unarmed. That conduct of Quirino Ramolete amounted to "trickery or deceit". He dissembled and camouflaged his murderous intention by giving the inmates of the house the impression that he would not do them any harm.

Having satisfied himself that the place and time were propitious for the execution of his diabolical plan, he left the house and fetched his confederates, Acosta and Rabara. After equipping themselves with deadly weapons, they entered the house to put into effect their felonious design. They surprised the persons inside the house particularly Refuerzo. Ramolete strategically stationed himself near the door, "the only exit in the house". (8, 17 tsn March 15, 1966).

Refuerzo must have instinctively felt that he was one of the objects of Quirino Ramolete's vindictive hostility in view of the prior incident regarding Ragil, Quirino's friend. Inasmuch as Refuerzo was unarmed and utterly defenseless, he tried to escape through the window. Quirino Ramolete shot him in that situation. Refuerzo fell into the batalan with three serious gunshot wounds of entry on his back. Treachery (alevosia) was manifest in that manner of assault because it insured the killing without any risk to the assailant (Par. 16, Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code).

An attack made on a person who was running away and who was completely defenseless was held to be treacherous (People vs. Logroño 96 Phil. 975; Cf. People vs. Sawit, 100 Phil. 507, 512). Where the attack was made with firearms and the victims were unarmed and with no means of defense or escape because they were trapped inside a house, the assault in that situation was held to be treacherous (People vs. Hairal and Tajiril, 97 Phil. 966).

As to the culpability of appellant Quirino Ramolete for the death of Mariano Ramolete, the Court is not convinced that the killing was attended with treachery. As already noted, although the prosecution had established Quirino Ramolete's responsibility for the killing of Mariano Ramolete, it failed to establish clearly the circumstances surrounding the killing. Consequently, the killing of Mariano Ramolete should be characterized as homicide aggravated by dwelling. He was killed in his own house without having given any provocations (Par. 3, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code).

But dwelling is not aggravating in the killing of Refuerzo since he was a mere visitor in Mariano Ramolete's house (Cf. People vs. Basa, 83 Phil. 622, citing 1 Viada, Codigo Penal, Cuarta Edicion, page 338 and People vs. Celespara, 82 Phil. 399).

The trial court held that there was no abuse of superiority because only Quirino Ramolete committed the three offenses. It is not necessary to pass upon that point and upon its finding that nocturnity was also aggravating. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength and nocturnity.

It is alleged in the information that the killings were also qualified with premeditation. While it is manifest that the assaults were not perpetrated on a momentary impulse and that there must have been some planning and deliberation, yet it cannot be held that there was premeditacion conocida. As correctly observed by the trial court, the evidence does not show (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (b) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination and (c) an appreciable interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime that was sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to overcome the resolution of his will (vencer las determinaciones de la voluntad) if he desired to hearken to its warnings (People vs. Fuentesuela, 73 Phil. 553; U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530, 547).

How to do justice in the case involving Rayray is rendered difficult by the contradictory and confusing evidence in the record. As already noted, Quirino Ramolete was charged with frustrated murder for having assaulted Rayray. The lower court convicted him of lesiones graves. His counsel in this appeal prays that judgment be affirmed. The Solicitor General recommends that he be convicted of attempted murder.

Rayray himself, as an ambivalent witness, was not helpful in dissipating the discrepancies in the testimonial evidence. Listed as a prosecution witness for being an offended party, he testified for the defense. Obviously, he must have been under heavy pressure to sabotage the prosecution of his assailant or assailants.

Two days after the shooting, Rayray signed a statement before Constabulary Corporal Rodolfo Purisima while confined in the hospital. It was sworn to before the justice of the peace of Vigan. Rayray said that Quirino Ramolete shot him in the arm while he (Rayray) "was at the stairs". Then, Acosta shot him in the leg. He collapsed. (Exh. D).

Rayray, testifying as a defense witness more than five years after the tragic occurrence, said on direct examination that he had an altercation with Quirino Ramolete in the house of Mariano Ramolete during the card game. He told Quirino: "I have been losing and it is only my first time to win this game, 'yot' ". Quirino went out. Rayray followed Quirino. Then, there was a gunshot and Rayray "felt a stinging pain" in his body. He was bleeding. He ran and went downstairs, where he collapsed.

On cross-examination, Rayray said that his statement before the justice of the peace (Exh. D) was fabricated by the late Mayor Jose Rapisura. He said that he was intimidated by the mayor and by Policeman Racsa. Rayray categorically testified that Quirino Ramolete shot him (36 tsn November 22, 1966). A prosecution witness testified that Rayray was shot downstairs or when he went down (17 tsn April 3, 1963; 10 tsn March 15, 1966).

Quirino Ramolete's version on the witness stand was that, after his altercation with Rayray, the latter gripped his (Rayray's) gun and rushed at him (Ramolete), saying: "Why do you have bad feelings?" Quirino shot Rayray twice in the arm. The trial court did not accord any credence to Quirino's story.

After weighing carefully the evidence, the Court concludes that the shooting of Rayray by Quirino Ramolete was attempted homicide. Appellant Ramolete intended to kill Rayray but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution necessary to consummate the killing. The wounds suffered by Rayray on his arm and leg did not affect his vital organs. They were not mortal. There was no treachery because Quirino Ramolete first warned Rayray that he would be shot. No modifying circumstances can be considered in the assault against Rayray.

WHEREFORE, as to the killing of Severino Refuerzo, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed (Arts. 64[1] and 248, Revised Penal Code), with the modification that the indemnity should be twelve thousand pesos. The penalty should be designated as reclusion perpetua. The term "life imprisonment" is not correct (People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58).

For the killing of Mariano Ramolete, appellant Quirino Ramolete is guilty of homicide aggravated by dwelling (morada). He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal and to pay the heirs of the victim an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos.

In the third case the lower court's judgment is also modified. Appellant Quirino Ramolete is convicted of attempted homicide as to Alfredo Rayray instead of lesiones graves. There being no modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six months of arresto mayor to three (3) years of prision correccional and to indemnify Rayray in the sum of one thousand four hundred pesos (P1,400) to cover his medical expenses and loss of income. Costs against the appellant.

The maximum duration of forty years fixed in article 70 of the Revised Penal Code applies to the service of the three sentences.

So ordered.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Esguerra, Fernandez and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Antonio, JJ., concurs in the result.

Makasiar, J., took no part.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

People vs. Feliciano, G.R. No. L-30307, August 15, 1974

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30307 August 15, 1974

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JORGE FELICIANO Y GARCIA AND ABRAHAM GARCIA Y PURIFICACION, defendants and appellants.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant Solicitor General Conrado T. Limcaoco and Solicitor Pedro A. Ramirez for plaintiff-appellee.

Jose S. Sarte for defendants-appellants. .

ESGUERRA, J.:p

This case is before this Court for automatic review of the death sentence for Robbery with Homicide imposed by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVIII, in its Criminal Case No. 85500, on accused Abraham Purificacion Garcia and Jorge Garcia Feliciano, who were found guilty upon an Information which reads as follows:

That on or about February 8, 1967, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with three others whose true names and whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of violence, take, steal and carry away the following motor vehicle, to wit:

One (1) passenger jeepney, Ford with plate No. PUJ-1398 '66 Manila, Motor No. GPW 144741, Steel top, painted maroon (body) with lining colored white, and with nickel plated words "Jerry" on the lower center of the windshield frame, valued .... P8,000.00

belonging to one Alberto Ila alias Alberto Salamat, against the latter's consent, to the damage and prejudice of said Alberto Ila alias Alberto Salamat, in the said amount of P8,000.00, Philippine currency; that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said motor vehicle, said accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior number and strength and with intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon said Alberto Ila alias Alberto Salamat, by then and there shooting him and hitting him with an iron pipe and wooden clubs on the head and other parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.

All contrary to law, and with the generic aggravating circumstances of having been committed in the nighttime, in an uninhabited place and by a band which facilitated the commission of said offense.

Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Thereupon trial ensued and upon its termination, judgment was rendered finding the two accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged with the attendant aggravating circumstances of craft, nighttime, abuse of superior strength and use of motor vehicle and without any mitigating circumstance to offset any of them. The extreme penalty of death was imposed on the accused and they were likewise sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00 plus P7,000.00 representing the value of the jeepney of the deceased which was never recovered.

It is not disputed that the late Alberto Ila Y Liongson alias Alberto Salamat, alias Vicente Ila was, married to Virginia Ila with whom he had two children; that they had acquired a jeep which he used for transporting passengers for fare; that he took out this vehicle to the streets on February 8, 1967, to solicit passengers along the Divisoria-Quiapo route and earn for the day, but he never returned; that Virginia grew apprehensive and she tried to locate him but failed; that she reported the matter to the police in the morning of February 10, 1967; that thereupon a search was conducted and the next day, Fidel Santos, a taxi-driver and neighbor of the victim, informed Virginia that he saw her husband driving his jeep northbound on the national highway near the San Miguel Brewery plant at Valenzuela, Bulacan, with 3 or 4 passengers aboard. (t.s.n. pp. 3-6, July 24, 1967; pp. 6-13 November 20, 1967)

On February 11, 1967, an unidentified body of a dead man was discovered in Barrio Salangan, Municipality of San Miguel, Province of Bulacan, by one Quintin Bautista who reported his discovery to the parochial priest. The latter together with the Barrio Captain reported the matter to the municipal authorities. Thereafter, Pat. Rodriguez along with Patrolmen Sanguyo and Salazar and four detainees of the San Miguel municipal jail repaired to the scene where the cadaver was and found the body inside a burlap sack concealed among the tall grasses (talahib). They waited for the arrival of Dr. Verde, the medico-legal officer, and in his presence slashed the sack open. They saw the victim naked with hands bound and face covered with cloth. The knees were bent close to the body and the arms bound to the knees with abaca twine and tie wire in a squatting position. (t.s.n. pp. 3-7 September 12, 1967) During the trial, Pat. Rodriguez declared that he made a sketch of the place where the body was found and the position of the body. After an examination was conducted by the medico-legal officer, he (Pat. Rodriguez) noted the identifying marks of the victim and lifted his fingerprints. impressions of which he indorsed to Det. Manuel Javier of the Manila Police Department (Exh. "E", "E-1",, "F",, "J-1", "J-2" and "J-3" pp. 49, 50, 250-253 Record).

Mrs. Virginia Ila widow of Alberto, upon learning that a dead man was found in San Miguel, Bulacan, went to the Municipal Building of San Miguel, Bulacan, and inquired about the discovered body. She was informed that subject had been buried but she was asked if her husband had identifying marks and she answered that her missing husband had four false teeth with gold crown and a tattoo on his left leg with the name, "Virgie", and with the drawing of a woman. The authorities who earlier noted the dead man's identifying marks informed Mrs. Ila that they noted a tattoo mark on the dead man's left leg. Mrs. Ila then requested that the body be taken to Manila. An exhumation followed and a necropsy thereof was made (t.s.n. November 20, 1967 pp. 13-20).

Dr. Cesar Verde, medico-legal officer of Bulacan, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, testified that he found the marks around the right and left wrists and right and left ankles measuring 0.5 cm. which he said could have been caused by a rope tied around those parts of the body. He also found lacerated wound on the right occipital side measuring 2 x 1 cm. which could have been caused by a blunt instrument and a gunshot wound on the right chest (Exh. "Q" p. 130 Criminal Case Record Wrapper) He attributed the cause of death to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound. The retrieved slug was sent to the NBI for ballistic examination. .

Roberto Garcia, Chief. of the fingerprint section, Criminal Investigation Laboratory of the Manila Police Department, declared that on February 15, 1967, he received from Det. Javier a set of post mortem fingerprints with a request that a study and comparison be made of said fingerprints lifted from the discovered cadaver with the standard fingerprints of one Alberto Salamat which were on file with Central Records and Identification Division of the MPD. Garcia caused enlarged reproductions of both fingerprints to be made, and after a study arrived at the conclusion that the fingerprint impressions from the dead body were the same as those of Alberto Ila alias Alberto Salamat on file. In his study, he noted 13 identical characteristics obtaining in the middle right finger of both specimen and according to him (Roberto Garcia) "modern authorities sustain the opinion that 6 to 8 characteristics are sufficient to warrant positive identification." (t.s.n. p. 17 December 27, 1967)

The evidence also shows that when Mrs. Virginia Ila reported the disappearance of her husband to the authorities, an investigation was initiated. Detective Cano interviewed Jose Liongson alias Tisoy and Danilo Esteban who told him that they heard the accused herein say that if it could be confirmed that it was Alberto Ila who was responsible for his (Feliciano) dismissal by Rene Payumo, operator of the jeep he was driving, something would befall him (Alberto) (t.s.n. pp. 33, 34, July 24, 1967; pp. 70-72 t.s.n. September 11, 1967). Feliciano was found to have been dismissed in January 1967 (pp. 72, 73 t.s.n. September 11, 1967). These inquiries led to the apprehension of Abraham Garcia and Jorge Feliciano, herein accused who, when brought to the headquarters of the Manila Police Department (MPD), signed statements. (Exh. "A" and "B" pp. 35, 38, Record Wrapper). They likewise executed a waiver of their rights against detention beyond the period provided for in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, while under investigation. (Exh. "I" p. 135 Record Wrapper). Based on their signed statements which were taken by Detectives Buenaventura, Erfe and Javier, Det. Cano who was given charge of the case proceeded to Valenzuela, Bulacan to check on the statements of defendants, particularly their claim that they brought Alberto Ila alias Alberto Salamat to a house in said municipality and left the vehicle used in bringing him to the place to somebody also in that municipality (t.s.n. p. 13 July 24, 1967). Unfortunately, he failed to find the person and the vehicle he was looking for. Hence he conjectured that the two were not telling the whole truth. With the discovery of a dead man in Bulacan, accused Feliciano and Garcia readily admitted that their previous statements were not true and in subsequent separate statements given before Det. Cano, in the presence of Pat. San Miguel and Jaranilla (t.s.n. p. 15 July 24, 1967) they narrated in detail how they lured the victim to go to Marilao, Bulacan, on the pretext of fetching a woman (Exh. "C" and "I" pp. 39-48, Record, Wrapper), In his subsequent statement, accused Feliciano related that he had an axe to grind against Alberto whom he suspected as having triggered his, dismissal from his job. He also implication the names "Rene and Ding" as their confederates in the plot of revenge. He mentioned that they brought the victim and his jeepney somewhere on the national highway in San Miguel where he was divested of his jeep and where he (Feliciano) struck the victim with an iron pipe, with Garcia and Ding using pieces of wood also to strike Alberto. They pointed to Rene however as the gun-wielder, with all of them helping in, tying Alberto with abaca twine and tie wire and later slipping him into a burlap sock, tying the ends of the sack and leaving the victim in that pitiable state. They then fled back to Manila on a car painted white which was traced back to an auto repair shop owned by Rafael Bondoc at Lakas ng Mahirap, Caloocan (t.s.n. pp. 17, 18 July 24, 1967; Exh. "C", "D" pp. 39-48 Record Wrapper). The jeep of Alberto was allegedly sold by Rene to someone not personally known to them and they (Garcia and Feliciano) were given their share of the loot.

When the body was taken to Manila, the accused herein identified the deceased (Exh. "H" and "I"). A few days thereafter, a re-enactment of the commission of the crime was made in the presence of Lt. Jesus Buenaventura, Assistant Chief of the Detective and Robbery Division, Sgts. Manguyo and Villanueva and Pat. Dacanay, and the body was photographed. (Exh. "M-O-1")

Accused Jorge Feliciano and Abraham Garcia during the trial repudiated the extra-judicial confessions they made and signed. They now disown the documents purporting to be their confession. (Exh. "A, B, C, D, H and I" pp. 35,36, 37, 38, 53, 54 record; pp. 5, 6, t.s.n. October 17, 1968; pp. 4, 5 t.s.n. September 24, 1968) and claim that the statements were extracted from them by force or through "third degree" methods.

Jorge Feliciano declared that all he remembers was that he was forcibly made to sign many papers by the police officers who arrested him but "did not know exactly" what they were all about (pp. 6, 13, 14, 18 t.s.n. October 17, 1968); and that he was brought to a hotel and to the Detective Bureau where he was "3rd degreed". (pp. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 t.s.n. October 17, 1968). On the other hand, Abraham Garcia claimed that after he was arrested, he was brought to the Manila Police Headquarters at Isaac Peral (now United Nations Street) was maltreated and, at the point of a gun, was made to sign statements (pp. 1-15 t.s.n. September 24, 1968). They however admitted the genuineness of their signatures and that the signatures on the different statements are their normal signatures, a fact aptly noted by the trial judge, viz:

Against their repeated admissions, the defendants entered a defense of complete denial. Defendant Garcia alleged further by way of defense that has become a standard defense that he was maltreated. The claim of maltreatment, however, deserves no credence. Thus the defendant claims with respect to his statement Exh. B that he does not know anything about its contents. Yet, he admitted on cross examination that many of the questions in the statement were asked of him. Again the defendant admitted that the signatures in the statements are his. If it were true as he said that he was maltreated every day for two weeks, his physical condition must have been such that his signatures in the said statements would surely show a marked difference from each other because of the tension and the pain he must have suffered. An examination of the signatures in his different statements taken after days of interval clearly show that they were written with the same sure and firm hand. The defendant claims that the re-enactment was not voluntary on their part. Yet, the defendant admitted that they were told to pose as they pleased. In fact the defendant admitted that he was not actually forced.

The defense in its ably-written brief exerted mighty efforts to discredit the confessions by attempting to prove that they were extorted by torture and maltreatment of the accused. The trial judge, however, after a careful deliberation did not view their contention of a forced confession with sympathy and rejected their claim. Our own study of the record reveals that no error was committed by the court a quo in admitting the confessions of the accused. Their assertions of maltreatment are belied by their own testimonies. The facts contained in the written statements could not have been given by any one else who did not perform the acts narrated therein. They are so replete with details which the police officers could not have known if they merely concocted the confessions. Information such as that Jorge Feliciano was without a drivers license a week before he was arrested or the fact that he had a quarrel with one "Tisoy", an uncle of the deceased, and during which fight Abraham Garcia, the other defendant, was also with him; or that he reached the 7th grade at Tayuman Elementary School or the names of their teachers and other personal circumstances could not have been supplied by the police officers. Likewise their sworn statements contained a narrative detail of how they went about the plot to avenge their grudges against Alberto; their use of the wires and abaca twine to tie the victim's wrists and knees; their use of a burlap sack which contained the deceased and the gunning of the victim, these details dovetailed with the findings of the medico-legal officer.

Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial judge are not to be disturbed on appeal unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked or which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case. (People vs. Pareja
L-21937, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA, 693, 703; People vs. Bautista L-23303-04, May 20, 1969, p. 185, 190). We hold that the trial court did not err when it did not give credence to the accused's claim of involuntary confession.

One additional factor that militates against appellants' claim of maltreatment is that it appears that accused Garcia and Feliciano were transferred to the custody of the NBI in 1968 on motion of the late Delegate Enrique Voltaire Garcia in connection with the hearings of the Senate Committee on Justice on Senate Bills Nos. 801 and 802 which were intended as a remedial legislation on the use of extra-judicial confession in cases. However counsel for appellants never bothered to secure and present in evidence a copy of the result of the Committee Investigation to lend support to their claim of maltreatment. Neither did counsel for appellants file a complaint or charge against the "erring" policemen inspite of alleged prior requests of accused. (t.s.n. pp. 11, 12 September 24, 1968; pp. 18, 19 October 17, 1968).

We have observed too that during the trial defendants alleged that they knew the police officers who maltreated them and in fact they were so positive about their identity. On cross examination, however, the prosecuting officer tried to let the accused identify a police officer through exhibits 0-28 (photographs taken during the re-enactment which accused previously identified as having been taken on said occasion). Accused Garcia identified the man with a hat on as Pat. San Miguel. The prosecuting officer noted that it was not San Miguel but Pat. Jaranilia on the picture whom he identified (t.s.n. p. 11, September 24, 1968; p. 3 October 17, 1968).

Appellants also question the validity of the signed confessions by mentioning the fact that they were subscribed and sworn to before Col. Morales, Chief of the Detective Bureau of the MPD, and not before a Fiscal or Judge. However, as held in several cases (U.S. versus Corrales L-9230 November 10, 1914, 28 Phil. 362, 366; People vs. Jose Pardo L-562), "there is no provision of law which prescribes that either confessions or admissions are not competent evidence unless made under oath. It is the fact that they are voluntarily made by the accused and against his own interest which gives to them their evidentiary value. Provided that fact is established, it does not matter whether or not they are made under oath." Moreover, confessions are not even required to be in writing as can be gleaned from our ruling in People vs. Bantagan L-33045, August 15, 1930,54 Phil. 834, 839, where it said:

... no explanation is given of the failure of Luis Bantagan to sign the statement, but the fact that he did not accredit the statement with his signature does not render inadmissible the oral testimony of Crisologo and Alvarez as to the substance of his previous admission.

Also the fact that the confessions were made while the accused were under arrest does not render the same inadmissible (People vs. Marimpong L- 43514, 62 Phil. 70) since the confessions were made and admitted prior to the adoption of the 1973 Constitution. Of significance too is the fact that the confessions were made in Tagalog, a dialect fully within the comprehension of, and well-spoken by, the accused, they being residents of Tondo, Manila.

Appellants likewise contend that prosecution has failed to present any eye- witness to the perpetration of the crime, or to adduce any concrete evidence showing the motive of the accused in committing such a heinous crime as robbery with homicide. While the question of motive is important to the person who committed the criminal act, yet when there is no longer any doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes unimportant to know the exact reason or purpose for the commission of the crime. The failure to establish motive in that case becomes inconsequential (People vs. Diva L-22946, April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 332, 346). Here We entertain no doubt that the defendants committed the crime.

Accused also raised the issue of jurisdiction, contending that since the cadaver of the deceased was found in a barrio in San Miguel, Bulacan, and there is no evidence as to where the victim was killed, it is doubtful whether the Court of First Instance of Manila can take cognizance of the same. Section 14 (a) Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 14 (a) — In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

Since the commission of the crime was started in Manila, in front of the Vista Theater along Claro M. Recto Avenue, where the victim was lured into going with defendants to Marilao, Bulacan, on the pretext of fetching a woman, then to San Miguel where he was liquidated, the Court of First Instance of Manila unquestionably has jurisdiction of the case.

WHEREFORE, judgment of conviction against the accused, with the civil indemnities therein provided, is hereby affirmed. However, for lack of the required votes to impose the extreme penalty of death, the penalty of reclusion perpetua(life imprisonment), with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law, shall be suffered by both accused.

Costs against the accused.

Makalintal, C.J, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Antonio, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ. concur.

Barredo, J., cannot conceive of any legal reason why the penalty of death imposed by the lower court should be reduced to life. He voted to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Makasiar, J, took no part.