9/15/21, 11:54 AM G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL.

AÑEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />077 Phil 151 : August 1946 - P…

Pharma B2B trade platform

Open
Covering APIs and Intermediates, Animal Health, Pharma Machinery, Lab Equipment,

Pharmasources.com

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

Search

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

August 1946 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > August 1946 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

077 Phil 151:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26. August 31, 1946.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

[G.R. No. L-27. August 31, 1946.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORENZO SAMANO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Filomeno Cadayona for appellant Samano.

Gregorio N. Garcia for appellant Tauyan and Medina.

Domingo F. de Guzman for appellants Feliciano and Feliciano

Francisco & Jacinto for appellant Carballo.

Augusto Revilla for appellant Alcantara.

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

Alfonso E. Mendoza for appellant Cubillas.

First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Assistant Solicitor General Kapunan, Jr. for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; PRESENCE AT SCENE OF CRIME NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE COMPLICITY; CASE AT BAR. — Without proof
of conspiracy, mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime does not constitute complicity. The admissions of S and A to the effect
that they had acted as guards near the place of the crime do not prove complicity, because they did so in obedience to superior orders and
without knowledge that the B brothers, who were then under investigation, would later be killed.

2. ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL DECLARATIONS OF DEFENDANT; ADMISSIBILITY AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT. — The statement made
by a defendant is admissible against him, but not against his co-defendants, unless there is conspiracy proved by evidence other than the

statement itself, and that such statement is made in connection with the conspiracy and during its existence.

DECISION

MORAN, C.J. :

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila after a joint trial of criminal cases No 70021 and 70022.

In criminal cas No. 70021, Manuel Bañez, Estanislao Tauyan, Marciano Medina, Maximo Feliciano, Pablo Senson, Lorenzo Samano, Alfredo
Rivera, Maximo Pabalan, Francisco Feliciano and Arcadio Castro were found guilty of the murder of Ernesto Lorenzana, and sentenced to (a)
reclusion perpetua, with the exception of the minor Francisco Feliciano who was ordered committed to the Philippine Training School for Boys
until he reaches the age of majority; (b) to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000; and (c) to pay the costs. The defendants
appealed except Manuel Bañez and Maximo Pabalan, and except Pablo Senson, Alfredo Rivera and Arcadio Castro who remain unapprehended.

The evidence of the prosecution in this case shows that on February 22, 1945, at about the hour of 6 o’clock in the evening, Ernesto Lorenzana
was in a dice game at Solis Street, Tondo, Manila, when three men took him away in a carretela and brought him to a place in Blumentritt
Street known as the headquarters of Company "G," 51st Infantry, Ramsey Guerrilla Unit. Subsequently, he was transferred to the house of a
certain Totoy del Rosario, wherein he was investigated on alleged charges of espionage for the Japanese, and around the premises of which he
was beaten to death.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946augustdecisions.php?id=148 1/4
9/15/21, 11:54 AM G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />077 Phil 151 : August 1946 - P…

Pharma B2B On
trade platform
February 23, 1945, upon complaint filed by Rosendo Lorenzana, father of deceased Ernesto, the Criminal Investigation Division of the
Open
Covering APIs and Intermediates,
United StatesAnimal
Army,Health, Pharma
initiated an Machinery, Lab
inquiry into Equipment,

the case. On February 27, 1945, in an exhumation conducted by said Criminal Investigation
Pharmasources.com
Division near the house of Totoy del Rosario, the putrifying corpse of Ernesto Lorenzana, among several others, was unearthed, and identified
by Rosendo Lorenzana as that of his son. Whereupon, appellants were apprehended and submitted to individual investigations, in the course of
which they made and signed the sworn statements appearing in the record of this case.

In criminal case No. 70022, the evidence shows that on or about February 22, 1945, Virgilio and Emilio Beltran, brothers, were apprehended
and investigated at the headquarters of Company "G," 51st Infantry, Ramsey Guerrilla Unit, on charges of espionage and pro-Japanese
activities. After the investigation, the brothers were executed. Also, the house of Virgilio Beltran was raided and his furniture carted away.

On February 23, 1945, Francisco Capulong, wife of Virgilio Beltran, complained to the Criminal Investigation Division of the killing of her
husband and his brother Emilio. Upon investigation, and in the same exhumation conducted in the first case, among several corpses
unearthed, two were identified as those of the Beltran brothers. The Criminal Investigation Division then arrested the here in defendants and
questioned them, obtaining the sworn declarations now appearing in the record of this case. They were then formally accused, tried and found
guilty of the murders of Virgilio and Emilio, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
P2,000 and to pay costs. From the judgment only the following appealed: Lorenzo Samano, Epifanio Carballo, Avelino Alcantara and Ricardo
Cubillas. Narciso Alvarez did not appeal. Juanito Magalis, Timoteo Cruz and Benjamin Cochon are still at large.

The evidence of the defense tends to prove, among others, that the victims, Ernesto Lorenzana in the first case, and Virgilio Beltran and Emilio
Beltran in the second case, were all Japanese spies.

After going over all the record, we find no evidence in both cases showing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Defendant
Manuel Bañez admitted in his extrajudicial confession having struck Lorenzana thrice on the head with a hammer, and defendant Timoteo Cruz

in his extrajudicial confession admitted having stabbed Virgilio Beltran with a dagger. As above stated, Timoteo Cruz is still at large and Manuel

Bañez did not appeal. A to the appellants, in their individual extrajudicial declarations none of them has admitted having participated in the

killing, of either Lorenzana or the Beltran brothers. Some of them admitted having been present at the time of the killing and others, that they
August-1946 Jurisprudence                 

were away. But it is a well-known rule that, without proof of conspiracy, mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime does not

constitute complicity. (People v. Silvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil., 353.)

G.R. No. L-363 August 5, 1946 - GREGORIO K.

KALAW v. IÑIGO S. DAZA, ET AL.

The admissions of Samano and Alcantara to the effect that they had acted as guards near the place of the crime do not prove complicity,

because they did so in obedience to superior orders and without knowledge that the Beltran brothers, who were then under investigation,
077 Phil 4
would later be killed.

G.R. No. L-183 August 6, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE

In the extrajudicial declarations made by some of the appellants, there are facts stated which incriminate their co-appellants. But again, well-
FILIPINAS v. JOSE RAMOS

known is the rule that the statement made by a defendant is admissible against him, but not against his co-defendants, unless there is

077 Phil 6 conspiracy proved by evidence other than the statement itself, and that such statement is made in connection with the conspiracy and during

its existence. (Rule 123, section 12.) These requirements are not present in the instant cases.

G.R. No. L-186 August 6, 1946 - HORACIO A.

For all the foregoing and upon the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the judgments appealed from in these two cases are reversed and
GUANZON, ET AL. v. ANG BAN, ET AL.

the appellants acquitted, with | costs de oficio.

077 Phil 11
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla and Tuason, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-302 August 7, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE

Separate Opinions
PHIL. v. EDWIN DELGADO, ET AL.

077 Phil 16
PERFECTO, J., concurring:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

G.R. No. L-627 August 12, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. CONCEPCION FLORENDO

On may 26, 1945, two informations for murder were simultaneously filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, initiating cases Nos. 77021

and 70022, now before us as L-26 and L-27. The alleged victim in the first case is Ernesto Lorenzana and in the second are Virgilio beltran and
077 Phil 18 Emilio Beltran, the three having been killed on February 22, 1945. By agreement between prosecution and defense, the two cases were jointly

tried.

G.R. No. L-402 August 14, 19461

In the first case, there are ten accused: Manuel Bañez, Estanislao Tauyan, Marciano Medina, Maximo Feliciano, Pablo Senson, Lorenzo Samano,
ESTER CRUZ, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.
ALfredo Rivera, MaximoPabalan, Francisco Feliciano, and Arcadio Castro. Three of them — Pablo Senson, Alfredo Rivera, and Arcadio Castro —

well still at large when the case was tried and decided in the lower court. The remaining seven were convicted in the lower court and each and
077 Phil 28 everyone of them, excepting Francisco Feliciano who is a minor (12 years of age), was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the

heirs of the deceased Ernesto Lorenzana jointly and severally in the sum of P2,000, and to pay the costs. The sentance against Francisco
G.R. No. L-177 August 16, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE Feliciano was suspended until he reaches the age of majority when he shall appear before the court for a final determination of his case.
PHIL. v. EPIFANIO E. ENOJO
Manuel Bañez and Maximo Pabalan did not appeal. The appellants are: Estanislao Tauyan, Marciano Medina, Maximo Feliciano, Lorenzo

Samano, and Francisco Feliciano.

077 Phil 31

In the second case, there are eight accused: Lorenzo Samano, narciso Alvarez, Timoteo Cruz, Epifanio Carballo, Avelino Alcantara, Ricardo
G.R. No. L-327 August 16, 1946 - MARIANO FLORES Cubillas, Juanito Mañgali, and Benjamin Cochon. When the case was tried and decided in the lower court, three were still was tried and
v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.
decided in the lower court, three were still at large: Timeteo Cruz, Juanito Mañgali, and Benjamin Cochon. The remaining were found guilty

and sentenced, each and every one of them, to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Virgilio Beltran and Emilio Beltran jointly and
077 Phil 34 severally in the sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs. Narcosi Alvarez did not appeal. The appellants are: Lorenzo Samano, Efipanio Carballo,

Avelino Alcantara, and Ricardo Cubillas.

G.R. No. L-700 August 16, 1946 - LUIS MENESES v.

M. L. DE LA ROSA, ET AL.
Seven witnesses testified for the prosecution:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

077 Phil 46 (1) John F. Lockwood, special agent of the Criminal Investigation Section. Provost Marshal’s Office testified that he investigated the defendants

who, in the course of the investigation, gave written statements. Witness happened to investigate the cases through the complaint of Rosendo
G.R. No. L-750 August 16, 1946 - JOAQUIN ZAMORA Lorenzana father of deceased Ernesto Lorenzana, and Francisca Capulong. Witness identified Exhibits A and A-1, as written statements taken
v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN
from Manuel Bañez; Exhibit B, as that of Estanislao Tauyan; Exhibit C, as that of Marciano Medina; Exhibit D, as that of Maximo Feliciano;

Exhibit E, as that of Lorenzo Samano; Exhibits F and F-1, as those of Francisco Feliciano; Exhibit G, as that of Pablo Senson; Exhibit H, as that
077 Phil 55 of Arcadio Castro; Exhibits I, I-1 to I-9 as photographs taken by a special agent of the Photo Department of the Criminal Investigation Section

in the presence of witness at 393 Elias Street. Witness identified Exhibit J, as the hammer produced by Manuel Bañez in connection with his
G.R. No. L-439 August 20, 1946 - EDUARDO OCAMPO statement Exhibit A; Exhibit AA, as written statement of Lorenzo Samano; Exhibit BB, as that of Narciso Alvarez; Exhibit CC, as that of
v. JOSE BERNABE, ET AL.
Timoteo A. Cruz; Exhibits DD and DD-1, as those of Epifanio Carballo; Exhibit EE, as that of Avelino Alcantara; Exhibit FF, as that of Ricardo

Cubillas, Exhibit GG, as that of Juanito Mañgali; Exhibit HH, as that of Benjamin Cochon; and Exhibits II, II-1 and II-2, as photographs taken
077 Phil 67 in the presence of witness. He identified also Exhibit JJ, as the lead pipe which witness found near the grave where the alleged victims were

buried. Witness testified that no written statements were taken from Maximo Pabalan and Alfredo Rivera In his investigation, Maximo Pabalan
G.R. No. L-533 August 20, 1946 - RAMON RUFFY ET stated that on February 22, 1945, he just arrived from the province at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon.

AL. v. CHIEF OF STAFF

(2) Felipe Santos testified that he was a guerrilla since 1943, and on February 22, 1945, he belonged to the 45th regiment with headquarters
075 Phil 875 at Blumentritt. Exhibit KK is the appointment issued to him by Captain Lorenzo Cobarrubias. Virgilio Beltran was a first lieutenant and Emilio

Beltran a master sergeant in the organization. On February 22, 1945, at about 9 o’clock in the morning, Emilio and witness were together. On
G.R. No. L-49059 August 20, 1946 - ROQUE S. that morning, Lorenzo Samano passed by the headquarters and called Emilio, who told the witness: "I am going out for a while because I am
MONFORT v. EMILIO AGUINALDO, ET AL.
going to talk with Loring." The witness saw them talking but did not know where they went because he was busy on that occasion. He did not

see Emilio since that time. The witness investigated what happened, "but I did not disclose any fact leading to the discovery."

cralaw virtua1aw library

077 Phil 70

Witness saw Virgilio Beltran at 6 o’clock on the morning of February 22, 1945, because witness relieved him from duty. Virgilio went out from
G.R. No. L-235 August 21, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE
the headquarters and that was the last time the witness saw him. Witness identified Exhibits LL and MM as appointments issued by
PHIL. v. ESTELITO LUNGASA

Cobarrubias to Emilio Beltran as master sergeant and to Virgilio Beltran as first lieutenant, respectively. Witness mentioned Emilio Beltran as
his brother-in-law "because my wife and his wife are first cousins."

cralaw virtua1aw library

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946augustdecisions.php?id=148 2/4
9/15/21, 11:54 AM G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />077 Phil 151 : August 1946 - P…

077 Phil 78 Pharma B2B (3) Merle

trade platform
K. Miller, a captain in the United States Army Corpus, Military Police, connected with the office of the Provost Marshal as commander
Open

Covering APIs and Intermediates, Animal Health, Pharma Machinery, Lab Equipment,

of the 35th Investigation Section, declared that he is the same Miller mentioned in Exhibit A. Bañez is the one pointed out to Agent Lockwood
Pharmasources.com
G.R. No. L-256 August 21, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE and to the witness a mound of earth allegedly the place where Lorenzana was buried.

FILIPINAS v. FELIX MAGBANUA

(4) Ricardo Lorenzana, inspector of the secret service of the Manila Police Department, with which he is connected since December 24, 1910,
077 Phil 82 testified that he is the father of Ernesto Lorenzana whom he saw the last time on the morning of February 22, 1945. He left him in the house,

and in the afternoon, when he arrived at Calle Solis, he was informed by his eldest daughter that Ernesto was taken by five unknown persons
G.R. No. L-429 August 21, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE riding in a carretela. In the morning of February 27, 1945, the body of Ernesto was dug in a yard in Calle Elias, and witness identified it
FILIPINAS v. FELIX MARQUEZ
through the clothes he was wearing. Witness indicated the persons and places appearing in photographs Exhibits I to I-9. Witness did not

know any of the ten defendants in the first case. On cross-examination, the witness testified that he was present when Ernesto put on his
077 Phil 87 clothes on February 22. The body was wearing "under drawers, no clothes, no pants." There were other bodies found also in other holes in the

same yard, but the witness did not pay attention to what they were wearing. The witness was informed of his son’s death only on February 26
C.A. No. L-562 August 23, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE by Lockwood. His son Ernesto was enrolled in the Metropolitan Constabulary during the Japanese regime.

PHIL. v. GREGORIO DE GOROSTIZA, ET AL.

(5) Max Davidson, Captain, Medical Corps of the United States Army, Medical Officer in the 5th Hospital and practising physician since 1937,
077 Phil 92 identified Exhibits K and MM as the result of the post-mortem examination performed by him on February 27. The five dead bodies were found

at 393 Elias Street where witness went personally in the company of Lockwood. The bodies were opened and displayed on February 27.

G.R. No. L-288 August 29, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ISABELO NOBLE

(6) Crisanto Santos testified that on February 22, 1945, he was living at Solis. He knows Ernesto Lorenzana because the latter was his

neighbor. The last time he saw him was between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon playing dice at Solis Street. "We were playing dice near the
077 Phil 104 store when suddenly Wenceslao stopped our game. At the time he stopped the game he saw Lorenzana. I saw Marcial forcing and telling

Lorenzana to go with them. Anyhow, Lorenzana protested and said, ’what is the cause of taking me,’ and Marcial said, ’they will have a sort of
G.R. No. L-270 August 30, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE investigation at the headquarters’ Lorenzana said, ’you can investigate me in this place,’ but that was not done. He was brought to the
FILIPINAS v. RESTITUTO BAUDEN
carretela and the very time that he was in the carretela they rode away and we do not know where he was brought. But Lutgardo Villareal

asked Wenceslao where he was to be brought and Wenceslao said that he was to be brought to the headquarters for investigation, and that is
077 Phil 120 all." The witness identified accused Marcial Medina and Estanislao Tauyan. Since then, witness did not see Ernesto any more.

G.R. No. L-277 August 30, 1946 - MANUEL (7). Trinidad de leon testified having taken down, as stenographer, Exhibits I and I-A as statements taken from Manuel Bañez. Bañez related
BAGUIORO v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.
the story in Tagalog. The witness took it down both in stenographic and longhand notes, and, after transcribing them, he translated them into

English. Witness identified Exhibit B as statement of Estanislao Tauyan Exhibit D, as that of Marcial Medina, Exhibit E, as that of Maximo
077 Phil 130 Feliciano. Later, upon the prosecutor’s proposal, the defense admitted that Exhibits A up to H in case No. 70021 and AA to HH in case No,

70022 are the respective statements of the accused which were taken down by the witness in Tagalog and translated by himself into English.

G.R. No. L-697 August 30, 1946 - TOMAS MAPUA, ET

AL. v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

The prosecution rested after presenting in case No. 70021 the exhibits marked with single letters and in case No. 70022 those marked with

double letters.

077 Phil 132

Eight witnesses testified for the defense.

G.R. No. L-786 August 30, 1946 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ

v. PABLO LOPEZ, ET AL.

(1) Faustino Jimenez testified that he knew Ernesto Lorenzana because he used to be on patrol on Lico Street as policeman. At 12 o’clock

midnight of Good Friday, 1944, Ernesto, accompanied by two unknown Filipinos, "came to my house and they knocked at my door. When I
077 Phil 136 opened the door for him he asked me to produce a revolver because according to him I was a guerrilla. He took me with him to a car. When at

first I did not want to go with him, he told me that he was a Kempei of the Japanese. It means spy." The witness had to go with Ernesto
G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE "because he maltreated me. He gave me fist blows and he kicked me while I was inside the car, because according to him I was a guerilla and
PHIL. v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL.
I could not produce a revolver." The witness was taken to a Japanese garrison in Marikina. They arrived about 3 o’clock in the early morning.

In Marikina, Ernesto struck the witness, who was delivered to three Japanese. "After turning me over to the three Japanese, the slapped me
077 Phil 151 and struck me. They wanted me to produce that revolver that Lorenzana wanted me to produce." Lorenzana came back after the lapse of five

years days. "He insisted that I admit that I was a guerrilla and that I should surrender the revolver." The witness remained in Marikina garrison
G.R. No. L-353 August 31, 1946 - PACIENCIA DE 17 days. The Japanese released him.

JESUS v. IÑIGO S. DAZA, ET AL.

(2) Carlos P. Navarro, mechanical engineer, declared that he is a member of the guerrilla, being a major of the 51st Infantry Regiment which is
077 Phil 170 under the East Central Luzon Guerrilla Army or specifically under Major Ramsey. "I have entered this guerrilla army since 1942 when it was

originally organized under Col. Alejandro Santos. The witness knows Lorenzo Samano, Narciso Alvarez, Timoteo Cruz, Epifanio Carballo, and
G.R. No. L-362 August 31, 1946 - AMADO CALUAG Avelino Alcantara as members of the same guerrilla outfit, 51st Infantry Regiment. They were under the command of the witness during
DOMINGO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA Japanese occupation. The witness knows the Beltran brothers "to be connected with the Japanese military police during the Japanese regime."
ECIJA, ET AL.
They were spies. "I have them investigated around their neighborhood. Almost every person is well-known where he lives as to his activities,

as to his character and comradeship. Among the people that these two brothers had done wrong was a certain woman and a brother whom
077 Phil 175 these people threatened and robbed and murdered in Pambundok, La Loma." The United States Army gave instructions to the guerrilla forces

"to apprehend Filipinos who might be suspected as pro-Jap and then bring them to the CIC for investigation." Witness is not sure whether the
G.R. No. L-411 August 31, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE accused received the order from the United States Army. When the Americans arrived in Manila "all our men were on field work. They kept on
FILIPINAS v. GENARO JAPITANA, ET AL.
moving with the Americans when the Americans started cleaning up North Bay and later on started the offensive on the other side of the river,

plenty of these men were still with the American forces on the south bank of the river." Witness identified Exhibit 33 as the usual form of the
077 Phil 181 oath before a guerrilla is inducted.

G.R. No. L-475 August 31, 1946 - ISAAC CAPAYAS v. (3) Leopoldo Rivera, guerrilla, 1st Lieutenant, inducted since 1942, knows the five accused guerrillas Lorenzo Samano, Narciso Alvarez,
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ALBAY, ET AL.
Timoteo Cruz, Epifanio Carballo and Avelino Alcantara. At the time of the coming of the Americans in Manila, witness instructed his men "to get

all Japanese collaborators and Japanese spies." They must arrest them and "if they try to resist, to shoot them." The witness investigated the
077 Phil 186 Beltran brothers and he found out that they were spies. Virgilio Beltran was marked in his forehead with the tattoo of a spy although witness

did not see it personally.

G.R. No. L-491 August 31, 1946 - SIMON IBAÑEZ v.

CONRADO BARRIOS
(4) Cristina Samaniego, 26 years old, testified that she is the widow of Domingo de Belen who died two months before the Americans arrived.

"Emilio and Virgilio Beltran got my husband from our house. They were then accompanied by the Japanese military police because they were
077 Phil 191 according to them, taking my husband because he was a guerrilla." Virgilio and Emilio Beltran searched the house, and after "they maltreated

my husband, they got him and from then on I never saw him any more up to the present time. The witness was living with her husband at 194
G.R. No. L-543 August 31, 1946 - JOSE O. VERA, ET Iriga, about ten meters from the house of Beltran brothers, who are Japanese spies, because "during the Japanese occupation they were
AL. v. JOSE A. AVELINO, ET AL.
responsible for the taking of my husband and other Filipinos." At that time the witness saw the Beltran brothers armed. Her husband was a

laborer in Tutuban. Emilio and Virgilio Beltran were also members of the guerrilla forces. "I came to know that they became guerrillas only
077 Phil 365 after the arrival of the Americans."

cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 48321 August 31, 1946 - OH CHO v. (5) Gregoria Gison testified that she knows the Beltran brothers who "were Japanese spies." The witness knows Crispin and Mercedes Dalan.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS
"They were brought by Virgilio Beltran to our house. They were tied, their hands at the back. They were taken out of the house. Their eyes

were covered. They were taken to the cemetery. Shortly afterwards, we heard two shots." Since then the witness did not see again Crispin and
075 Phil 890 Mercedes Dalan. The happening took place before the arrival of the Americans in Manila. Witness saw Beltran brothers in the company of the

Japanese military police and they were armed with guns. The witness notified the guerlilla forces after the Americans arrived of what happened

to Crispin and Mercedes Dalan. The person she noticed was accused Avelino Alcantara.

(6) Aurora Sabas testified that she knew the Beltran brothers when they came to witness’s house at 29 Isarog, Quezon City. They took from
the house a boy who was living with the witness and his sister who arrived later in the house. The boy and girl evacuated "to my house" and
they were Crispin and Mercedes Dalan. The Beltran brothers took also from the house "my furniture and the furniture of those people who
evacuated to my house." Since then, witness did not see again Crispin and Mercedes Dalan. Marcelino Moral of the Police Department, is
witness’s husband, who was taken by the Japs. Beltran brothers told the witness that "they were guerrillas under the Americans and that those
people who were living at my house were formerly servant and maid servant of a certain Japanese." The witness did not ask the Beltran
brothers for their identification. "I saw they were armed with carbine and hand grenade." They came to the house "for three successive days."
"Had been taking furniture." The witness saw personally the taking of the girl against her will, but she did not tell the authorities, because "I
was afraid that I would be taken."

cralaw virtua1aw library

(7) Manuel Bañez, 23 years old, testified that he was detained at the Bilibid Prisons five days before his investigation, during which no visitors

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946augustdecisions.php?id=148 3/4
9/15/21, 11:54 AM G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />077 Phil 151 : August 1946 - P…
were allowed to see him, even any lawyer. His relatives were not allowed to bring food to him. His statements Exhibits A and A-1 were taken
Pharma B2B by
trade platform
threats. "Lockwood told me that if I would not tell the truth he was going to hang me by that rope that was hanging there. He held me by
Open
Covering APIs and Intermediates,
the neck andAnimal Health,
told me that Pharma Machinery,
if I would Lab truth
not tell the Equipment,

and the whole truth, he would give me fist blows. That he was going to help me if I was
Pharmasources.com
going to tell the truth." That is, he was to be released. During the time that I was confined in the prison I used to be given food only twice a
day, once at 10 o’clock and another at 4 o’clock. Most of the time I was hungry. During the investigation Lockwood gave me cigarettes after
cigarettes so after smoking I became groggy and somewhat weakened." The witness became a guerrilla lieutenant on account of his activities
during the Japanese occupation.

(8) Prospero Sanidad, 46 years old, residing at 3147 Blumentritt, San Juan, Assemblyman from Ilocos Sur, testified that previous to the
coming of the Japanese to these Islands, he was a member of the Philippine Congress. He declared: "I came here in the capacity as liaison
officer of the United States Army Guerrilla in the Island of Luzon and as such it came to my possession this document (Exhibit 44) which was
sent to me by the Commanding Officer of the ECLGA, Major Ramsey, relative to the genuine status as guerrillas of the persons named in the
document and which I understand are accused of the crime of murder. The witness identified the signature appearing on Exhibit 44.

After going over all the record, we found that no evidence appears to have been produced to show that appellants in both cases had
participated in the killing of either Lorenzana or the Beltran brothers, or that they had cooperated in the commission of the murder charged in
each information.

The corpus delicti in both cases has not been established. From the photographs on record it can be seen that it is next to impossible to
identify the several bodies exhumed on February 27, 1945. All the exhumed bodies were, as can be seen from the photographs in an advanced
state of decomposition, and some of them were not completely uncovered when they were examined. The certificate issued by Captain
Davidson on March 15, 1945, Exhibit K, fails to enlighten us as to the identity of the five disinterred bodies. It is true that Ricardo Lorenzana,
as prosecution witness , tried to show that he was able to identity one of the corpses as belonging to his son Ernesto; but we can not give
much reliance on his testimony, not only because of his special relationship with the victim, because his identification was based on the clothes
the body was wearing which, according to his own words, were "under drawers, no clothes, no pants." The witness even failed to set a basis of
comparison between the "under drawers" which he maintained belonged to his son and the clothes of the other bodies to which he purposely
did not pay attention.

Not a single appellant has admitted having participated in the killing of either Lorenzana or the Beltran brothers. Some of them stated that
they were away, such as Maximo Feliciano and Arcadio Castro in case L-26, and Juanito Mañgali, Benjamin Cochon, and Epifanio Carballo in
case L-27 , and the other appellants only admitted being present at the time the deceased were killed but without in any way participating in
the killing. It is a settled doctrine that in the absence of other proof, mere passive presence at the scene of anthers crime, mere silence and
failure to give alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal Code
for complicity, in the commission of the crime witnessed passively. (People v. Silvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil., 353.) Moreover, it was held that
naked extra-judcial admissions are not sufficient to sustain conviction. (People v. Isleta, G. R. No. 43078, August 28, 1935; United States v.
Agatea , 40 Phil., 596, 601; People v. Gervasio, G. R. No. 45959, June 13, 1938.)

Samano’s and Alcantara’s admissions that they were at the time acting as guards near the place where the Beltran brothers were allegedly
executed do not make them guilty as accomplices, because it was not shown that the acts performed by them were material or in any way
contributed to the success of the commission of the crime. (People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil., 38.) Furthermore, it must be remembered that Samano
performed guard duty while the Beltran brothers were being investigated; and he had no knowledge that they were going to be killed; and
Alcantara was ordered to stand guard outside the premises because he refused to stuff the mouth of the victims, showing that he did not wish
to have anything to do with what the others intended to do.

What evidence can be pointed as to the actual killings, the circumstances surrounding them, and as to their authors, may only be found in the
statements made by the defendants Manuel Bañez, Pablo Senson, Timoteo Cruz, and Narciso Alvarez; but none of them is among the
appellants in either case, and although said statements may adversely affect some of the appellants, no conspiracy having been established,
they cannot be considered as evidence against them.

This Court has ruled consistently that the extrajudicial admission of an accused is admissible in evidence only against himself, but not against
his co-accused. (United States v. Castillo, 2 Phil., 17; United States v. Paete, 6 Phil., 105; People v. Tabuche, 46 Phil., 28; United States v.
Vega, 43 Phil., 41; People v. Durante, 47 Phil., 654, 658; People v. Orenciada and Cenita, 47 Phil., 970, People v. Badilla, 48 Phil., 718, 725,
726.)

In order that said statements may be accepted in evidence against appellants, the conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than said
statements, according to section 12, Rule 123, of the Rules, which provides:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 12. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration."

cralaw virtua1aw library

The rule that the conspiracy must be established by evidence aliunde has not been followed in these cases, because single witness has
testified on the participation of appellants in the commission of the crimes charge one of the alleged conspirators was produced to testify
against appellants, and no other kind of evidence has been presented by the prosecution to show conspiracy. As Chief Justice Moran,
commenting on section 12 of Rule 123 in his Law on Evidence, pointed out, in order that a conspirator’s extrajudicial confession or admission
may be admitted against his co-conspirator, it is necessary that (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the confession or
admission; (b) it be made after the formation of the unlawful agreement and before it has come to an end; and (c) it be made in furtherance
of the objects of the conspiracy, elements which do not exist in the present case with regards to the statements in question.

In view of the conclusion we have already arrived at in this case, we deem it unnecessary to decide the question as to whether appellants were
justified and, therefore, should be absolved from criminal responsibility because the deceased Lorenzana and the Beltran brothers were
Japanese spies, who had fired with the Japanese against guerrillas, including appellants; had caused the arrest by the Japanese of several
Filipinos, including guerrillas and nonguerrillas; had killed others, like the Dalan brothers; had raped the Dalan girl; and themselves were
caught by the accused and then killed when the battle for the liberation of Manila was still raging.

There being no evidence to show that appellants are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in the informations, they are
entitled to acquittal and, with the reversal of the lower court’s decision, we absolve them from all criminal responsibility in these two cases,
with costs de oficio.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946augustdecisions.php?id=148 4/4