2/1/2016

G.R.No.L21860

TodayisMonday,February01,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L21860February28,1974
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
VIOLETOVILLACORTE,aliasBONGING,etal.,defendants.CRISANTOINOFERIOYALINDAOaliasSANTE,
andMARCIANOYUSAYaliasMANCING(appealwithdrawnres.of7/10/67),defendantsappellants.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralFelixQ.Antonio,ActingAssistantSolicitorGeneralBernardoP.PardoandSolicitor
JesusV.Diaz,forplaintiffappellee.
PeraltaLawOfficesfordefendantsappellants.

FERNANDEZ,J.:p
The charge in this case was for robbery with homicide and the penalty imposed upon the appellant Crisanto
Inoferio and his coaccused Violeto Villacorte and Marciano Yusay was reclusionperpetua and the payment of
indemnitytotheheirsofthedeceasedBenitoChinginthesumofP6,000.00.ThiscaseisnowbeforethisCourt
onlyontheappealofInoferio,becausealthoughthelowercourtconvictedhimandhiscoaccusedVillacorteand
Yusay(AlfredoHandig,afourthaccusedwasacquitted),Villacortedidnotappeal,whiletheappealofYusaywas
withdrawnuponhismotionwhichwasgrantedbythisCourtonJuly10,1967.
IntheeveningofAugust27,1959,BenitoChing,aChinesemerchant,lefthissarisaristoreinthepublicmarket
ofCaloocan1togohome,bringingwithhimtheproceedsofhissalesofthedaywhichwereplacedinapaperbag.Hewas
accompanied by his two employees, Pedro Libantino and Modesto Galvez, who acted as his bodyguards. On the way
towardshishomelocatedat133F.Roxas,GracePark,Caloocan,BenitoChingandhistwocompanionswereaccostedby
fourpersonsnearthecornerofanalleyatF.Roxasstreet.Atthattime,Libantinowassomethreeorfourmetersinfrontof
Ching,whileGalvezwaswalkingdirectlybehindtheChinesemerchant.

Oneoftheholdupperspointeda.45cal.pistolatChing.AnotherplacedhisleftarmaroundtheneckofGalvez,
while the third held both his arms. The first who pointed a pistol at Ching snatched from him the paper bag
containingthemoney.Thefourthgotthatpaperbagfromthesnatcher.
Ching shouted for help, crying aloud "Pedie, Pedie" his companion Libantino turned around to respond to his
employer'scallbutuponseeingthebagsnatcherpointingapistolatChing,Libantinofled.WhenChingshouted:
"Pedie,Pedie,"thepistolholderfiredathim.Galvez,Ching'sothercompanion,wasabletofreehimselffromtwo
of the holduppers holding him, and he too ran away. Ching fell down sprawled on the street and the four
holduppersranaway.BenitoChing,notwithstandinghiswound,wasabletowalk,staggeringtowardshishome.
His commonlaw wife immediately called for a taxicab, brought Ching to the North General Hospital in Manila
wherehediedthefollowingday.
Later that evening when Galvez was interrogated by police officers of Caloocan who were investigating the
incident,theinterrogationprovedfruitlessforGalvezwasabletofurnishtheinvestigatorsanyinformationonthe
identities of the holduppers. But when investigated by the CIS, Philippine Constabulary, at Camp Crame on
September11,1959,GalvezdeclaredthatChingwasaccostedbythreepersons,oneofthempointinghispistol
attherightribsofhisemployer.HeidentifiedthegunmanasVioletoVillacortealiasBongingandevendescribed
theshirtandpantsthegunmanwasthenwearing.HecouldnotidentifythetwoothercompanionsofVillacorte.
Libantino, when examined by the investigators of the Caloocan police department on the same night of August
27, 1959, declared that the holdup and shooting incident took place in a dark "kalyehon" and that he could not
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_21860_1974.html

1/7

2/1/2016

G.R.No.L21860

identifythegunmannorthelatter'scompanions.But,inhiswrittenstatementtakenbytheCISatCampCrame,
Quezon City on September 11, 1959, he declared positively that he saw Violeto Villacorte alias Bonging as the
personwhograbbedthepaperbagcontainingmoneyfromChingandfiredapistolatChing.Hefurthersaidthat
asidefromVillacortehesawthreeotherpersons,twoofthemwereholdingthehandsofhiscompanion,Galvez.
Headmittedhowever,thathecouldnotrecognizethetwopersonswhowereholdingGalvez.
Villacortewho,inthemeantime,hadbeenpositivelyidentifiedbyGalvezandLibantinoasthebagsnatcherand
asthegunmanwhoshotdownChing,wheninterrogatedbytheinvestigatorsoftheCriminalInvestigationService
atCampCrameonSeptember12,1959admittedthathewastheonewhosnatchedthepaperbagfromBenito
Chingandshothim.Heidentifiedhiscompanionsas"Roque","Sante"and"Fred".
IntheinformationforrobberywithhomicidefiledintheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizalonSeptember12,1959,
Violeto Villacorte was so named therein "Roque" and "Fred" were already identified as Roque Guerrero and
Alfredo Handig, respectively while "Sante" was not yet identified and was named "John Doe alias Sante". On
September24ofthesameyear,theinformationwasamendedbychangingthenameoftheaccusedJohnDoe
alias Sante to Crisanto Inoferio y Alindao and another person, Marciano Yusay, was included among the
accused.Beforethetrial,uponmotion,thetrialcourtdischargedRoqueGuerrerotobeusedasaStatewitness.
Asalreadyabovestated,thetrialcourt,initsdecisionofMay15,1963,acquittedHandig,convictedVillacortewho
didnotappeal,andYusaywhoappealedbutwhowithdrewhisappeal,andInoferiowhopursuedhisappeal.
Uponacarefulreviewoftheevidence,WeholdthattheaccusedappellantCrisantoInoferioshouldbeacquitted
upon the ground that although his defense, in the nature of an alibi, is inherently a weak defense, it should be
consideredsufficientasinthiscase,totiltthescaleofjusticeinfavoroftheaccusedbecausetheevidenceforthe
prosecution is itself weak and unconvincing and, therefore, by and large, insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Only Modesto Galvez and the State witness, Roque Guerrero, identified the appellant Inoferio as one of the
holduppers.So,letusnowreviewandanalyzetheirtestimonies,especiallyinsofarastheyrefertoInoferio,onthe
onehand,andtheevidenceofInoferio,ontheother.
At the time he testified in Court, Modesto Galvez was 21 years old, married and unemployed. In synthesis, he
declaredthat:InAugust,1957,hewasworkingasahelperinthestoreofBenitoChinginsidethemarketinGrace
Park. Between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening of August 27 that year, he and another store helper, Pedro
LibantinoaccompaniedChingingoinghome.WhiletheywereatF.RoxasStreet,theywerewaylaidbyfourmen.
2

He was able to recognize two of them, namely Villacorte and the herein appellant Crisanto Inoferio who were
pointed to by him in open court. Villacorte snatched the bag from Benito Ching and fired at him once. The bag
containedmoney.Twopersonsheldhim.Inoferiowasoneofthem.Hedidnotknowtheotherone.Inoferioheld
him,InoferiowasbehindandtotherightofGalvez,placinghislefthandoverthenapeofthelatter.Hewasable
torecognizeInoferiobecausehelookedathisleft,removedhishandaroundthefrontpartofhisneck,andhe
saw tattoo on his forearm. It was the figure of a woman with a bird. The place where they were waylaid was
bright.3
Oncrossexamination,GalvezadmittedthathesawaccusedappellantInoferioforthefirsttimeonlyonthatnight
ofAugust27,1959.Theplacewaslightedfromtwoelectricpostsoneinthealleyandtheothereastofthealley,
corner of the alley and F. Roxas street. He was scared at the time he was held up. When he was held by two
persons,oneathisback(byappellantInoferio)andanotherathisfront,hewasscared.Hedidnotmovenorrun
away until they released him. Inoferio was holding him with his left arm, held him tight around the neck it was
difficult to unloose his hold the left forearm was so close to his neck that he could hardly breathe and
immediatelyafterbeingreleased,heranaway.4
Onfurthercrossexamination,thewitnesstestified:ThemorningfollowingAugust27,1959,hewenttothepolice
stationinCaloocan.Threeofficersinterrogatedhim.Hewasstillscaredandwasnotabletotellthemanything.5
On September 11, 1957, he was brought by some PC officers to the CIS office, Camp Crame. He was
interrogatedbyagentsRodolfoEstevezandFlorencioSuela.Theyaskedhimtorelatethedetailsoftheincident
as best as he could. His statement was taken down in writing. He signed that statement under oath before
Assistant Fiscal Castillo. The last question asked of him was: "Do you have anything more to say?" And his
answerwas:"Nomore".Inthatinvestigation,hesaidthathesawonlythreeholduppers.Inthatswornstatement,
althoughhedidnotmentionthenameofInoferio,hestatedthathesawatattooonthearmofthepersonwho
heldhisneckthatnight.HisswornstatementconsistingoftwopageshasbeenmarkedasExh."1Inoferio".
Reading the sworn statement of Modesto Galvez (Exh. "1Inoferio"), it appears that it was taken on September
11, 1959 but subscribed and sworn to before Assistant Fiscal Jose Castillo on September 12, 1959. It is a fact
thatinthisstatement,hementionedthattheywerehelduponlybythreepersons.But,contrarytohisstatement
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_21860_1974.html

2/7

2/1/2016

G.R.No.L21860

inCourt,hedidnotmentioninthisswornstatement(Exh."1Inoferio")thattheonewhoheldhimbytheneckhad
atattooonhisarm.
LetusnowgotothetestimonyofRoqueGuerrero.Ondirectexamination,hedeclared:Heknowstheaccused
Violeto Villacorte. He had known him for a long time already. He knows the accused Alfredo Handig. He also
knowstheaccusedCrisantoInoferioalias"Sante".Hecametoknowhimbecausetheyusedtoplaycaraycruzin
1959.Asfarasheknows,CrisantoInoferioisaVisayan.HealsoknowstheaccusedMarcianoYusay.
InJuly,1959,whilehewasdrivingatricycle,VioletoVillacortecalledhimandaskedifhewantedtomakesome
moneybywaylayingsomebody.Hedidnotagreeandhecontinueddrivingthetricycle.Aftertwoweeks,theysaw
eachotheragainwhenhewasdrivingatricycle.Villacorteagainaskedhimifhewantedtomakesomemoney.
Hedidnotagree.Then,intheafternoonofAugust29,1959,Villacortemethimagain.Hiscompanionsthenwere
Alfredo Handig, Marciano Yusay and "Sante". Villacorte asked him if he was not really going with them. His
answerwashowcouldhegowhen"Sante"didnotwanttotellhimthepersontobewaylaid.Handigtoldhimto
go. "Sante" also told him that he go with them. Yusay even pulled out his .45 caliber gun and threatened him,
tellinghim:"Don'tbeafraid,thisiswhatwearegoingtouse."Guerrerotoldthemthathecouldnotgowiththem
because"heismykuya,"referringtoBenitoChing.WhenVillacortetoldhimthattheyweregoingtorobChing,he
leftthembutAlfredoHandigand"Sante"followedhim.Theytoldhimthattheywouldkillhimifhewouldapproach
anybody.Hecontinueddrivinghistricyclebuttheyfollowedhim.Theyleftalreadyhoweveratabout7o'clockthat
evening.6
Oncrossexamination,Guerrerodeclared:Atthetimehemet"Sante",hewasdressedinlongsleevehewas
alwayswearinglongsleeveshirtinthesamemannerthathewasdressedwhileInoferiowasinCourtatthetime
thiswitnesswascrossexamined.7
OnthenightofAugust8,1959,hewasarrestedinconnectionwithanattempttorobthestoreofBenitoChing.
He was prosecuted for vagrancy and he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to ten days imprisonment.
Subsequently,hewaschargedwithattemptedrobbery.WheninvestigatedbytheCISagents,hedidnotrevealto
themanything.HegaveawrittenstatementatCampCrameonSeptember21,1959.Inthatstatement,hetold
"the entire truth of what you (Guerrero) knew about the entire case."8 In this statement, Guerrero mentioned only
"Sante"asamongthosewhotalkedtohim,butdidnotmentionhisnameCrisantoInoferio.

TheappellantCrisantoInoferio,testifyinginhisdefense,statedthathewas39yearsold,single,housepainter,
andaresidentof1691AlvarezSt.,Sta.Cruz,Manila.9 He came to know the accused Violeto Villacorte for the first
timeonlyinCampCrameonSeptember12,1959.HecametoknowtheaccusedAlfredoHandigforthefirsttimealsoon
September12,1959butintheCaloocanPoliceDepartment.HecametoknowtheaccusedwhobecameaStatewitness,
RoqueGuerrero,forthefirsttimesometimebeforeAugust,1959atCaloocan.Heusedtorideinhistricycleandtheyoften
playedcaraycruztogether.10

HehadbeentotheCISofficeatCampCrametwotimes.ThefirstwasonSeptember12,1959.Inthemorningof
thatdate,hewasinvitedbythepolicemenofCaloocantogototheirheadquarters.Hewasmadetowaitthere
becausesomeCISagentswouldcome.Theycameatabout1to2o'clockintheafternoon.TheCaloocanpolice
officers and the CIS agents talked to each other. After a while, the CIS said that they would bring him to their
headquarters.TheCaloocanpoliceofficersansweredthattheythemselveswouldtakehimtoCampCramewhich
they did. They were Pat. Cadoy, Cpl. Mauricio and another police lieutenant whom he did not know. He was
broughttotheCISheadquartersatCampCrameatabout3o'clockalreadythatafternoon.11
Whenhe,Inoferio,wasbroughtupstairs,theaccusedVillacortewasgoingdown.Hedidnotmindhimbecausehe
didnotknowhimthen.UponreachingtheofficeofCapt.Calderon,hewasmadetositdown.Lateron,Villacorte
andhiscompanioncamein.HiscompanionaskedVillacorteifheknewhim(Inoferio)andVillacorteansweredin
the negative. He was also asked if he knew Villacorte and his answer was in the negative. Then the accused
Handigwasbroughtandintheconfrontation,bothofthemstatedthattheydidnotknoweachother.12
ThenhewasbroughttoanotherroombytheCISagentwhosaid:"Youareluckyyoudon'tknowthosepeople.
"Afterthat,hetoldthemthathewasnot"Sante"becausehisnicknamewas"Santing."13
Towardstheafternoon,hewasgivenfoodtoeat.Whilehewaseating,theCaloocanpolicementoldhimnotto
finish eating anymore as they were going home. And they left Camp Crame at about past 6 o'clock in the
afternoonofSeptember12,1959.WhentheyreachedGracePark,Caloocan,thePolicementoldhimtogohome
becausehehadnocase.14
ThesecondtimehewasatCampCramewasonSeptember21,1959.Atabout2o'clockintheafternoon,some
CISagentswenttohishouseandupontheirinvitation,hewentwiththemtoCampCrame.Theyarrivedthereat
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. While they were walking at the corridor, they saw Capt. Calderon talking with
RoqueGuerrero.TheCISagentaskedhimifheknewGuerreroandhesaidyes.Guerrerowasaskedifheknew
himandheansweredintheaffirmative.Thenhewasbroughttoacellatthegroundfloor.Atabout6o'clockinthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_21860_1974.html

3/7

2/1/2016

G.R.No.L21860

afternoon,CISagentMoralescameandbroughthimupstairs.Hewasaskedifhewasdrinkingwineandwhenhe
answeredintheaffirmative,winewasbrought.Moralesopenedthebottleandhewasaskedtodrink.Whilehe
wasdrinking,Moralestoldhim:"Iwanttohelpyoubutyoualsohelpme."Hisanswerwas:"WhathelpcanIdo?"
Andthereplywas:"I'llmakeyouawitnessforthegovernment."HeaskedMoraleswhathewouldtestifyandthe
answer was: "At the trial, point to Violeto Villacorte, Alfredo Handig and Roque Guerrero as the persons who
robbedtheChineseandthattheywereinvitingyoutojointhem."Hisanswerwas:"ThatisbadMr.Morales.Ido
not know anything about the case you are talking about. I even do not know Alfredo Handig and Violeto
Villacorte."Moralesstoodup,tookhimdownstairsandtoldhimtothinkaboutthematter.Hewasagainbroughtto
hiscell.15
The following morning, after Inoferio had just taken his breakfast, Morales came and told him: "What about the
matterwetalkedaboutlastnight,haveyoucometothinkaboutit?"Hesaid:"Iamsorry,Icannotdowhatyouare
askingme."ThenMoralesreplied:"Youmightregret,Icanalsosecureanotherwitness,"andheleft.Atabout11
o'clockthatmorning,MoralesreturnedwithsomebodynamedGalvezwhomhedidnotknow.Moralesthentold
himtotakeoffhisclothes.Afterhehadtakenoffhisshirt,Moralessawthetattooonhisarms(anteriorportionof
hisleftforearm).MoralesthentoldhimtoshowhisarmwiththetattootoGalvez.Afterafewminutes,Morales
andGalvezleft.Atabout5o'clockintheafternoon,Moralescame,broughthimoutofhiscellandconductedhim
upstairs.Whiletheywereinsidearoom,Moralesaskedhimquestionswhichhe,thelatter,typed.Wheneverhe
would not be able to answer Morales, Morales would slap him. Morales even tied his belt around his neck and
wheneverhecouldnotanswerthequestions,Moraleswouldjustpullthebelt.AfterthequestioningbyMoralesin
that afternoon of September 22, 1959, he was made to sign his statement. At that time, Capt. Calderon was
passingbythecorridor.Thenhewasplacedinhiscell.16
Thenextday,hewasbroughtouthiscell,wasbroughttothestockadeandthenafterwards,totheprovincialjail
inPasig.17
InoferiocategoricallydeniedthetestimonyofRoqueGuerrerothathewaswithHandig,Yusay,andVillacorteon
August27,1959,andthatbeforethatdate,heandhiscompanionswereinvitinghim(Guerrero)tojointhemto
holdupsomebody.AndthereasonwhyRoqueGuerrerotestifiedagainsthimwasthatGuerrerothoughtthathe
wasarrestedbecauseInoferiopointedtohimwhentheymetatCampCrame.ButInoferiosaidthathepointedto
GuerreroonlywhenhewasaskedbytheCISwhereGuerrerowas.18
InoferiodeniedthetestimonyofGalvezthathe(Inoferio)wasoneofthosethatembracedhim(Galvez)duringthe
holdup.19HecategoricallystatedthathehadnotknownGalveznorhavemethimpriortoAugust27,1959.Hecameto
knowVillacorteforthefirsttimeonSeptember12,1959whentheymetatthestairwayofabuildingCampCramewherehe
was interrogated. It was while he was coming up said stairway when he met Violeto Villacorte for the first time. Villacorte
wasthencomingdownthestairs.HeadmittedthatbeforeAugust,1959,healreadyknewRoqueGuerrero.20

Violeto Villacorte, the person identified as the bag snatcher and the one who shot Benito Ching, declared: He
came to know Crisanto Inoferio for the first time when he met at Camp Crame on September 12, 1959. Before
August27,1959,hehadnotyetmetInoferio.21
Another coaccused, Alfredo Handig, testified that he came to know Crisanto Inoferio for the first time on
September12,1959inthemunicipalbuildingofCaloocan.Hecategoricallydeclaredthatpriortothisdate,hedid
notknowsaidCrisantoInoferio.22
BywayofbackgroundtoourfindingsoffactswhichjustifytheacquittalofappellantInoferio,wenowrecapitulate
theevidenceagainsttheaccusedVioletoVillacorte,MarcianoYusay,andAlfredoHandig.
VioletoVillacortewaspositivelyidentifiedbyprosecutionwitnessesLibantinoandGalvez.Andinanextrajudicial
statementsecuredfromhimbyCISinvestigatorsandwhichhesignedandsworetobeforetheAssistantFiscalof
Rizal in Pasig, Villacorte admitted his role as mastermind of the plan to waylay Benito Ching and his having
grabbedthepaperbagcontainingtheproceedsofthesalesofthesarisaristoreoftheChinaman.Helikewise
admittedresponsibilityforfiringthepistolthatsnuffedthelifeofBenitoChing.
MarcianoYusaywasequallyidentifiedpositivelybyPedroLibantinoandModestoGalvezasoneofthosepresent
when Villacorte was planning the holdup and at the time of the holdup. And in the ante mortem statement of
BenitoChingmadetohiswifeCandidaPasion,hesaidthatMarcianoYusaywasoneofthosewhoheldhimup.
Alfredo Handig, on the other hand, although mentioned by accused Villacorte as one of his companions in the
planning and in the execution of the robbery, prosecution witnesses Libantino and Galvez never identified him
positivelybecauseofwhichhewasacquittedbythetrialcourt.
WithrespecttothehereinappellantCrisantoInoferio,theevidenceoftheprosecutiontotheeffectthathewas
oneoftheholduppersisweakandunconvincing.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_21860_1974.html

4/7

2/1/2016

G.R.No.L21860

In the investigations conducted by the Caloocan Police Department, both Modesto Galvez and Pedro Libantino
never mentioned appellant Inoferio as one of those who either planned or executed the robbery and killing
although the name of Villacorte was mentioned by Libantino. In the examination conducted by the CIS
investigators at Camp Crame, again Inoferio's name was never mentioned by both prosecution witnesses
althoughVillacorte'sandYusay'snameswerenowmentionedandlinkedtothecrime.
WhentheaccusedVillacortewassubjectedtoathoroughinvestigationbytheCISagents,headmittedhispartin
the planning and in the commission of the crime and named Marciano Yusay, Alfredo Handig and a certain
"Sante".Again,Inoferioatthisstageoftheinvestigationhadasyettobelinkedtothispersoncalled"Sante"and
tothecrime.
In court, Libantino never identified Inoferio. More than that, he contradicted Galvez, for while the latter testified
thatthemanwhohadhisarmaroundhisneckwasInoferio,Libantinowhowastheonefacetofacewiththeman
whohadhisarmaroundGalvez,saidthatitwastheaccusedMarcianoYusay. 23 And Libantino declared that the
placewheretheholdupandtheshootingincidenttookplacewasinadark"kalyehon,"thatwaswhyhecouldnotidentifythe
gunman nor the latter's companions. This contradicts the testimony of Galvez that the place where the holdup and the
shooting took place, was lighted from electric posts. Libantino said that these two electric posts were quite far from the
sceneofthecrimetheywere10metersaway.

AndasweconsiderthetestimonyofModestoGalvez,evenbyitself,weconcludethathewasnotabletoseethe
faceofthemanwhoheldhimaroundhisneckandthereforecouldnotpossiblyidentifyhim.Hewasscaredatthe
time.Theoneholdinghimbytheneckwasathisback.Andimmediatelyafterhewasreleased,heranaway.
Letusnowgotothetelltaletattoo,thefigureofawomanwithabird,ontheleftforearmofInoferio.Yes,Inoferio
hasthattattoo.AndaccordingtoGalvez,theonewhoheldhimaroundhisneckwasInoferiobecausehesawthe
tattooofInoferiowhenhelookedathisleftandtriedtoremovethearmofthemanholdinghimbyhisneck.But
anyotherpersoncouldhavethatkindofatattoo,thefigureofawomanwithabird.Butitmaybeasked:Howdid
GalvezcometoknowthatInoferiohadthattattoo?TheanswerisfurnishedbythetestimonyofInoferio.Wehave
takenpainstogivethesynthesisofhisentiretestimony,andwearesatisfiedthathetoldthetruth,particularlyon
thepointthatwhenhewasbroughttoCampCrameforthesecondtimeonSeptember21,1959,hewastoldto
removehisclothesandshowhisarmwiththetattootoGalvez.
Ontopofallofthese,thereisthetestimonyinopencourtbyGalvezthatasearlyasSeptember11,1959,when
hewasinvestigatedattheCISofficeinCampCrame,healreadystatedandspecificallyinhisswornstatement
givenonthatdatebutsubscribedandsworntobeforeAssistantFiscalCastillothefollowingday,thattheonewho
heldhimbytheneckhadatattooonhisarm.Wehavegoneoverthiswrittenswornstatementandwedonotsee
anymentionthereinbyGalvezofatattooonthearmofpersonthatheldhim.
AndhowcouldGalvezhaveseenthetattooonthearmofthemanwhoheldhimbytheneckwhenaccordingto
Guerrero,"Sante"wasdressedinlongsleeveintheafternoonoftheholdup(theprosecutionwouldwanttoprove
that"Sante"istheaccusedCrisantoInoferio).
Therefore, the authorities cited by the prosecution that written statements of witnesses to police authorities are
usuallysketchyandincompletethatasamatteroffact,itisnaturalforevenmaterialmatterstobeleftoutwhen
apersongivesaswornstatementduringacriminalinvestigation,donothereapply.ThefactisthatGalveztolda
liewhenhesaidthatinhiswrittenstatementhedeclaredthatthemanwhoheldhimhadatattoo.
HowaboutthetestimonyofRoqueGuerrero,thesecondandtheonlyotherwitnesslinkingtheappellantInoferio
totherobberyholdupinquestion?Hewasnotthereatthesceneofthecrime.Allthathesaidwasthathewas
asked three times before the robbery holdup took place to go with the holduppers. But Villacorte, Yusay and
HandigdeniedthistestimonyofGuerrero.Andofcourse,Inoferioalsodeniedit.
But what is most significant is the fact that all along, he was referring to "Sante" as the one who was with the
groupwhenhewasaskedtojointhemintherobberyholdup.AsearlyasinhiswrittenstatementgivenatCamp
CrameonSeptember21,1959,hereferredtooneoftheholduppersas"Sante"henevermentionedthereinthe
nameofCrisantoInoferioandyetitisafact,admittedbybothGuerreroandInoferio,thattheyhadknowneach
otherlongbeforetherobberyholduptookplaceonAugust27,1959.Therefore,ifInoferiowasthe"Sante"with
the group of the holduppers, Guerrero should have referred to him as Inoferio in his written statement of
September21,1959.
And Crisanto Inoferio is not "Sante". He is the best witness to testify on his nickname and he said that his
nicknameis"Santing".
Furthermore,thiswitnessGuerrerohasverypoorcredentialsasfarashiscredibilityisconcerned.Hewas,atthe
time he testified, 18 years old, single and unemployed. And on cross examination, he admitted that on August
1959,hewasarrestedinanattempttorobthestoreofBenitoChinghewasprosecutedforvagrancypleaded
guiltyandsentencedtotendaysimprisonment.Subsequently,hewaschargedwithattemptedrobbery.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_21860_1974.html

5/7

2/1/2016

G.R.No.L21860

And assuming that appellant Inoferio was the "Sante" who took part in the planning of the robbery holdup in
question,whichisnotthefactinthiscase,thatinitselfwouldnotmakehimincuranycriminalliabilityiflateron
thereisnotthatsufficientevidencetoprovethatheactuallytookpartintherobberyholdup.Foraftertakingpart
intheplanning,hecouldhavedesistedfromtakingpartintheactualcommissionofthecrimebylisteningtothe
callofhisconscience.Thisexemptshimfromcriminalliabilitywhatsoever.
Against the weak and unconvincing evidence of the prosecution regarding appellant Inoferio are his testimony
andthoseofthewitnesseswhocorroboratedhim.
Atthetimehetestified,Inoferiowas39yearsold,single,andahousepainter.Theflowofeventsasrelatedby
himinhistestimony,asynopsisofwhichwehavealreadygivenearlier,issonaturalandconvincingastosetat
ease the mind and the conscience of the Court that he was telling the truth. He denied any participation in the
robbery holdup in question. Moreover, that he did not know coaccused Villacorte and Handig at the time the
crimewascommittedonAugust27,1959.Hecametoknowthemonlywhenthesetwowerealreadyarrested,a
fact corroborated by Villacorte and Handig. Even at the confrontation before police officers and CIS agents,
Inoferio,ononehand,andhistwocoaccused,ontheother,alreadydeniedhavingknowneachotherearlier.
The motive of Guerrero in testifying against Inoferio was explained by the latter, and that is, that Guerrero
thought, when Inoferio pointed to him at Camp Crame that Inoferio was implicating Guerrero in the robbery
holdup. And Galvez, who never implicated Inoferio when investigated by the Caloocan police officers in the
eveningofAugust27,1959andwheninvestigatedbytheCISCampCrameonSeptember11,1959,musthave
based his testimony in court, where he identified Inoferio, on the erroneous information supplied to him that
"Sante"(oneoftheholduppers)wasInoferio.
Thisisgoodatimeasanytoemphasizethefactthatcourtsshouldnotatoncelookwithdisfavoratthedefense
ofalibi.Althoughinherentlyweakandeasilyfabricated,theevidencepresentedbyanaccusedinsupportofthat
defense must be scrutinized with the same care that evidence supporting other defenses deserves. When an
accusedputsupthedefenseofalibi,thecourtshouldnotatoncehaveamentalprejudiceagainsthim.For,taken
inthelightofalltheevidenceonrecord,itmaybesufficienttoacquithim,asinthecaseofappellantInoferio.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromconvictingtheaccusedappellantCrisantoInoferioisherebyreversed
and he is hereby acquitted with costs de oficio. It appearing that he is at present detained at the New Bilibid
PrisonsatMuntinlupa,hisimmediatereleaseisherebyordered.Soordered.
Zaldivar(Chairman),Fernando,BarredoandAquino,JJ.,concur.
Antonio,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
1Thenonlyatown,nowacity.
2SessionofJuly20,1960,t.s.n.,26.
3Id.,t.s.n.,613.
4Id.,t.s.n.,1525.
5Id.,t.s.n.,2628.
6SessionofMarch15,1961,t.s.n.,417.
7Id.,t.s.n.,2628.
8SessionofJanuary3,1962,t.s.n.,615.
9SessionofAugust2,1962,t.s.n.,235.
10Id.,t.s.n.,236238.
11Id.,t.s.n.,236241.
12Id.,t.s.n.,241243.
13Id.,t.s.n.,243244.
14Id.,t.s.n.,244245.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_21860_1974.html

6/7