EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 46776
June
17,
1940
-versus-
ILDEFONSO
SARMIENTO
AND PIO JUMARANG,
Defendants-Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
MORAN,
J :
In
the afternoon of January
31, 1939, at about three o'clock, Maria Arellano, an octogenarian, was
found dead on the barrio road of Amuyong, Municipality of Mabitac,
Laguna,
at a distance of about 55 meters from her house. Beside her dead body
were
found her wooden cane, an empty "pandan" bag where she kept the
family's savings amounting to P200, two pieces of cloth, a package of
cigarettes,
and a white blanket. The medical examination points to death through
asphyxia
as a result of strangulation.
Thereafter, Ildefonso
Sarmiento and Pio Jumarang were charged with robbery with homicide, and
found guilty. Each of them was sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and
to pay jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000 and the further sum
of P200 representing the amount robbed from the deceased. Both appealed.
Ildefonso Sarmiento
is doubtless guilty of the crime charged. Freely and spontaneously, he
confessed his guilt before the Justice of the Peace of Santa Cruz,
Laguna,
and ratified such confession before the Provincial Fiscal. His claim
that
the confession had been extorted from him by the constabulary soldiers
through force and violence is belied by the Justice of the Peace who
vouchsafed
to the accused's having, freely and without complaint whatsoever of any
maltreatment supposedly inflicted upon him, signed the confession in
his
presence. Neither did he make such complaint when he again ratified his
confession before the provincial fiscal.
Moreover, his conduct
the night following the killing discloses, indeed, a guilty conscience.
He was depressed, nervous and restless, unable to sleep and could not
even
appear at the house of the deceased to keep vigil over her, as many
did.
And when he was arrested on the day following, he appeared equally
depressed
and showed signs of deep repentance.
On the other hand,
Pio Jumarang must, We think, be acquitted. His guilt is made to rest
solely
upon the uncorroborated testimony of his co-accused, Ildefonso
Sarmiento
which, in very important respects, is contradicted by his own previous
written statements. Thus, while, in his written confession, Sarmiento
admitted
having planned, with Jumarang, the death of the old woman, in his
testimony
in Court, he averred that, when he was invited by Jumarang to go to her
place, he had no knowledge whatsoever of the purpose which Jumarang had
in mind. Again, while in his written confession, Sarmiento admitted
having
assisted in the killing of the old woman by holding her by her hands,
in
his testimony in Court, he denied having had such intervention, stating
that he confined himself to passively standing by while she was being
strangled
to death by Jumarang.
We have had an occasion
to hold that the testimony of an accomplice should be received with
caution,
since, as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing a crime, is
likely to put the blame as far as possible on others rather than
himself.
[People vs. Mandangan, 52 Phil. 62]. And We have laid down the
general
rule that the testimony of an accomplice shall not be sufficient as
ground
for conviction, unless supported by other evidence. [People vs. De
Otero,
51 Phil., 201]. There are, undoubtedly, certain exceptional instances
in
which the sole testimony of an accomplice may, even if uncorroborated,
be sufficient, as when it is shown to be sincere in itself, because
given
unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner, and is full of details
which, by their nature, could not have been the result of deliberate
afterthought.
In the instant case, the testimony of Sarmiento is lacking in those
characteristics
of sincerity. It is not only contrary to his previous written
statements
on material points, but also is shown to be false on other respects, as
the lower court itself declares. The trial court gave no credence to
Sarmiento's
claim that it was Jumarang who strangled the old woman to death, and
observed
that, while Sarmiento told his story in a "general and incoherent
manner",
Jumarang gave his in a very "direct, coherent and specific manner". And
the record discloses that, while Jumarang was testifying, Sarmiento was
trying to hide his face.
Furthermore, the alibi
offered by Jumarang appears credible. He averred that early in the
morning
of January 31, 1939, he arrived at the barrio of Pugadlawin, four
kilometers
from the scene of the crime, and from 7 a. m. to 5 p. m. he was busy
hauling
firewood in said barrio for Juan Ferret, the barrio lieutenant. From 1
a. m. to 1 p. m. of that day he took his carabao to rest, took lunch in
the house of the barrio lieutenant, and, after a while, resumed his
work
at about one o'clock. This alibi is corroborated by Juan Ferret, the
barrio
lieutenant, who has no motive of partiality in this case.
The lower court
observed
that "there is absolutely nothing in the conduct of Jumarang to
demonstrate
a guilty conscience or the existence of remorse on his part. He had
been
subjected to very strict questioning by the constabulary and by the
officials,
and he has consistently denied participation. His testimony in court,
while
apparently weak in connection with the close friendship between him and
Sarmiento and with respect to that he had been doing between 11: 30 in
the morning and 1: 30 in the afternoon, is entirely natural and
coherent
in all other respects and shows no signs or evidence of a guilty
conscience."
This observation is amply borne out by the evidence of the case. In the
night of the 31st of January, Jumarang kept vigil in the house of the
deceased,
freely mingled with the people, and even participated in the game known
as "juego de prenda". On the day following, he resumed his work
showing no sign of uneasiness on his part, until five o'clock in the
afternoon,
when he was called by the constabulary soldiers to accompany them to
the
house of Alfredo Relevo for the arrest of Sarmiento. And when Sarmiento
was arrested, he gave no indication whatsoever that Jumarang had any
participation
in the crime. Under these circumstances, We cannot let Our mind rest at
ease as to the certainty of Jumarang's guilt.
Judgment is accordingly
reversed as to Pio Jumarang, with half of the costs de oficio,
and
affirmed with respect to Ildefonso Sarmiento, with costs.
Avanceña, C.J.,
Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur. |