G.R. No. L-21603; April 15, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN ENTRINA and FEDERICO ANTIPOLO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Five individuals, including Juan Entrina and Federico Antipolo, were charged with robbery in band with homicide before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur. After trial, three co-accused were acquitted on reasonable doubt, but Juan Entrina and Federico Antipolo were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They appealed. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court due to the penalty involved.
The uncontroverted facts establish that on April 16, 1961, Fortunata Robles left her husband, Blas Dago-oc, at their home in San Vicente, Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur. Before leaving, they counted P3,000.00, which she stored in notebooks inside a trunk. The following morning, she learned her husband had been killed. She returned home to find him dead and the money missing. The sanitary inspector found six wounds on the body, four fatal, likely inflicted by different sharp weapons. Police found evidence of forced entry, ransacked trunks, scattered notebooks, a live cartridge, an empty shell, and a shotgun at the scene.
The prosecution’s case relied on Juan Entrina’s extrajudicial confession (Exhibit B) and the testimonies of six witnesses. However, the trial court discredited the testimonies of Ricardo Diacosa and Candido Dacua. Diacosa’s claim of seeing the accused together before the crime was not in his affidavit, and he heard no conspiracy. Dacua’s identification of the accused near the victim’s house on a dark, moonless night from a distance of 15 meters was deemed unreliable, especially given his relationship to the victim’s family and evidence suggesting he no longer resided in the area at the time.
Consequently, the case against Federico Antipolo rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of police guard Emeterio Bogas, who claimed to have overheard Antipolo blame Entrina for confessing. The court found Bogas’s testimony doubtful due to the darkness, lack of visual confirmation, and insufficient familiarity with the voices.
Regarding Juan Entrina, his confession was challenged as involuntary, extracted through alleged torture (including a pistol barrel placed in his mouth and a chicken feather inserted into his penis). He later disavowed the confession in an affidavit (Exhibit 3). Even assuming the confession was voluntary, it stated Entrina remained downstairs during the killing, and the acquittal of his alleged co-conspirators cast doubt on its truthfulness. The recovery of a ten-peso bill from his kitchen wall, as mentioned in the confession, was disputed by Entrina and his wife, who claimed it was taken from his pocket.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellants Juan Entrina and Federico Antipolo for the crime of robbery in band with homicide has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted both appellants. The evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
For Federico Antipolo, the only evidence was the unreliable and uncorroborated testimony of Emeterio Bogas, which did not meet the required standard of proof.
For Juan Entrina, his extrajudicial confession was of doubtful voluntariness and, even if considered, was rendered suspect by the acquittal of all his alleged co-conspirators. No other credible evidence linked him to the crime. The testimony of the discredited witnesses and the disputed recovery of the ten-peso bill did not suffice to prove his guilt.
The Court emphasized that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Therefore, the decision of the trial court was reversed, and Juan Entrina and Federico Antipolo were acquitted. Costs were de oficio.