G.R. No. L-19448. February 28, 1964.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEPITO ARGANA, ET AL., defendants, PROCESS TANSIANCO and MARCIAL SAMIANO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On January 21, 1960, jeepney driver Manolo de Guzman was found mortally wounded on a road in Kalayaan, Laguna, and died the next day. An initial investigation led to the filing of a robbery with homicide case (Crim. Case No. 80) against Gonzalo Bandillo and others, but this was later dismissed for insufficient evidence. A second complaint (Crim. Case No. 82) was filed against appellants Proceso Tansianco and Marcial Samiano, along with Pepito Argana, Cornelio Nave, and others. The Provincial Fiscal later moved to dismiss the case against Tansianco and Samiano, citing insufficient evidence, but the trial proceeded after opposition from private prosecutors. Accused Argana changed his plea to guilty and testified for the prosecution, resulting in his conviction.
Argana’s testimony detailed a conspiracy to steal a jeep. He, along with Nave, Tansianco, and Samiano, hired de Guzman’s jeepney. During the trip, at a secluded area, Samiano announced the holdup. After the driver alighted, Argana, upon Samiano’s order and using a pistol provided by Tansianco, struck de Guzman on the head. Tansianco then stepped on the prostrate victim. The group took the jeep to sell it to co-accused Isidro Saliva and Guillermo Balcueva, who made partial payments. The prosecution also presented Argana’s extra-judicial confession and physical evidence, including parts of the stolen jeep found at Saliva’s residence.

ISSUE

Whether the testimony of co-accused and accomplice Pepito Argana, without corroboration, is sufficient to convict appellants Tansianco and Samiano of robbery with homicide.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court meticulously examined Argana’s testimony and found it credible, detailed, and consistent with the physical evidence. The rule that an accomplice’s testimony should be scrutinized with caution was observed, but the Court concluded that Argana’s account was not fabricated.
The legal logic rests on the principle that witnesses are weighed, not numbered. Argana’s court testimony was admissible and competent evidence against his co-accused. While the extra-judicial confessions of Argana and Nave were inadmissible against the appellants, they served as interlocking statements that corroborated the physical facts and Argana’s oral testimony, thereby proving conspiracy and participation. The medical findings on the victim’s wounds and the discovery of jeep parts at Saliva’s home provided further corroboration. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence were deemed minor and natural, not products of a perjured mind. Thus, the guilt of appellants Tansianco and Samiano was proven beyond reasonable doubt.