G.R. No. L-19798 September 20, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALOD MANOBO and MALOMPON MANOBO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Alod Manobo and Malompon Manobo, were charged with robbery with triple homicide in the Court of First Instance of Davao. They were convicted only of triple homicide and sentenced to three indeterminate penalties, with the total penalty not to exceed forty years. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, finding the imposable penalty for each appellant should be reclusion perpetua for each of the three murders. The victims were Chinese hemp merchant Uy Kee Kang (alias Chiquito), his wife Mandoloon Manoba, and another Chinese, Te Chu (alias Tiago), who were killed in their house/store in barrio Kilain, Davao, on the evening of August 9, 1954. Their bodies were found with multiple gunshot and stab wounds. A sum of P4,300.00, received by Kee Kang days earlier, was missing. Appellants executed separate extra-judicial confessions before a justice of the peace, detailing a conspiracy with two others to rob and kill the victims, and their respective roles in the killings. At trial, appellants repudiated their confessions, claiming they were extracted through maltreatment by PC officers and the victim’s father, and that they were promised Malompon would be a state witness. They claimed they were at Alod’s house during the incident and only reported the trouble to the barrio lieutenant.

ISSUE

The main issue revolves around the credibility and admissibility of the extra-judicial confessions (Exhibits “D” and “E”) of the appellants, specifically whether they were voluntarily executed or obtained through force, maltreatment, or promise of reward.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the confessions to be credible and voluntarily made. The appellants’ claims of maltreatment were unconvincing. Alod’s detailed claims of beatings and tooth injury were disproved by a lack of external signs of injury in a medical examination, the failure to demonstrate how handcuffs could reach his teeth, and his failure to complain to the justice of the peace. Malompon’s claim was undermined by his shifting statements and lack of visible injury. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the crime committed was not robbery with homicide due to lack of independent proof of the robbery aside from the confessions. Without proof of the corpus delicti of robbery, conviction for that complex crime was impossible. The killings were thus held to be triple murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling. The penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua. The sentence was affirmed in all other respects, with each appellant to pay one-half of the costs. The Court also called for an investigation into the alleged violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code regarding detention for investigation.