G.R. No. L-5385
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO DOMINGO, ET AL., defendants. SEGUNDO OROZCO, appellant.
December 4, 1909

—

FACTS:
On the early morning of September 24, 1908, two Chinese men, Coa Sin and Lim Ping, were brutally murdered, and their tienda (store) near the Intendencia Building in Manila was robbed and ransacked.

Initially, Gregorio Domingo, Segundo Orozco, Rafael de la Cruz, Santos Andres, and Lope Deang were charged with robbery with homicide. During the trial, Santos Andres and Lope Deang were discharged to become state witnesses. They testified that they acted as guards outside the store while Domingo, Orozco, and De la Cruz entered, killed the Chinamen, and robbed the establishment, thereafter dividing the loot.

The three defendants (Domingo, Orozco, and De la Cruz) voluntarily admitted their presence during the commission of the crime. Domingo specifically stated that Orozco was the first to enter the tienda and struck the first blow. The trial court found the crime was committed with aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and treachery, but considered the defendants’ ordinary intelligence as an extenuating circumstance.

The Court of First Instance found Domingo, Orozco, and De la Cruz guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced each to cadena perpetua (imprisonment for natural life). Domingo and De la Cruz did not appeal.

Segundo Orozco appealed his conviction and also filed a motion for a new trial, citing “newly discovered evidence.” This new evidence consisted of a confession made by one Alberto David, corroborated by Gregorio Medrano, claiming that they (David, Medrano, and one Crisanto Magalindan) were the actual perpetrators of the robbery and murder. David provided detailed accounts of the crime and the disposal of the stolen items.

However, David and Medrano later retracted their confessions. David stated that he was coached by Gregorio Panlequi, the presidente of Floridablanca, Pampanga, and a teniente del barrio to falsely confess in exchange for protection and a reward. Medrano likewise retracted, stating that David had promised him P1,000 and legal assistance if he confessed. Upon re-examination, Gregorio Domingo reaffirmed his original statements regarding the crime.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the conviction of Segundo Orozco for robbery with homicide, considering the subsequent “newly discovered evidence” and its ultimate retraction.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Segundo Orozco.

The Court held that the evidence presented at the original trial, including the testimonies of the state witnesses (Andres and Deang) and the voluntary admissions of the defendants themselves (particularly Domingo’s identification of Orozco as the first to enter and strike), was sufficient to establish Orozco’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regarding the “newly discovered evidence,” the Court found that the confessions of Alberto David and Gregorio Medrano, which initially might have shaken confidence in the original conviction, were rendered utterly unreliable by their subsequent retractions. These retractions exposed that the confessions were coerced or fabricated through subornation of perjury by local officials. The detailed accounts of how David and Medrano were induced to falsely confess undermined their credibility entirely.

The Court concluded that the false confessions and their retractions did not weaken, but rather strengthened, the original judgment. The motion for a new trial was thus denied, and the sentence of cadena perpetua imposed upon Segundo Orozco was affirmed in all respects.