On July 4,  1953, at about 3:30  a.m., the lifeless body of Domingo T. Vengco was found,  with ten stab wounds, on Dakota Street, near the Rizal Memorial  Stadium, City of Manila,  by policeman Bernabe of Precinct No. 4 of the Manila  Police Department, who immediately  report the matter  to  Lt. Dujua of the  Homicide Squad, Detective Bureau, MPD.  Immediately thereafter, Lt. Dujua together with Detective Corporal Saturnine  Villasin  and Sgta. Bulaklak,  Walker and Turiñgan repaired to  the place and found the  body of the  deceased sprawled on  the  street. There, Lt. Dujua ordered that photographs of the dead body be taken and,  after the picture-taking, the party searched it but found nothing.  The killing remained  a mystery for almost a month, until August 1,  1953, when one Bonifacio Castro,  a driver by profession,  unable to withstand the impelling urge of his conscience, spontaneously went to the Manila Police Department to give information of what he knew about the matter.  He then narrated that between 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning of July 4, 1953, a person whom  he  later identified  as  the  deceased  Domingo  T. Vengeo, boarded his jeepney at the corner of P. Paterno St. and Quezon Blvd., Quiapo, and sat at the rear right seat; that subsequently  three other  persons, known  to him by their nicknames,  whom  he later  on identified as the defendants, also  boarded his jeepney; that defendant Lorenzo Magallanes sat beside  him in the front seat, while defendants Manuel Abrina  and  Norberto Ano sat on the left side  of the jeepney  behind him,  and with  these" four passengers he  proceeded on his  way to Pasay; that on passing  the corner of Taft Avenue and  San  Andres, he heard  Norberto Ano and  Manuel Abrina whispering to each other; that upon reaching Dakota St., near a midden shed before reaching the Rizal Memorial Stadium, he was ordered to stop by  defendant  Magallanes  who  gave him 30 cents for the fare of the three who  alighted at that place; that defendant  Ano pulled  the hands  of the  deceased Vengco forcing him to come down; that after the deceased has alighted from the jeepney, he saw defendant Ano give a fist blow to Vengco which  landed  either on his face or breast while  defendants Magallanes  and Abrina were behind Ano; that  when he  saw  the  deceased  fall to the ground after being socked by defendant Ano, he got scared and drove his jeepney away to Pasay where  he went to a restaurant  to take  a snack  and purchased a can of milk for his child,  and  then  went  home.

Upon receiving the foregoing information, the Police Department of Manila tried its best to arrest the defendants and, on  August  2, 1953,  Manuel Abrina was arrested and brought to the MPD  for investigation.  He denied his participation in the crime, but upon being lined up together with 14 other persons and confronted with Bonifacio Castro, the latter readily identified him as one of those who boarded his jeepney  and alighted with his co-defendants near the Rizal Memorial  Stadium early in the morning of July 4, 1953.  Thereupon,  on August 3, 1953,  the Fiscal of Manila, after proper  preliminary  investigation, filed an information for robbery and homicide against Manuel Abrina and his other companions who were still at large and whose true names were not yet  known.

On  August 4,  1953, defendant Norberto Ano  was apprehended  and  brought  to the  MPD  for investigation. As he  also denied his participation in the commission of the crime, he was lined up with 18 other persons and when Bonifacio was called, the latter identified  him as one of the three passengers  that boarded his jeepney and the one who pulled down the deceased when they alighted  near the Rizal Memorial Stadium.

Finally, on August 6,1953, defendant Lorenzo Magallanes was also arrested and when lined up together with 19 other persons, he was also identified by Castro as the companion of Ano and Abrina.  This  defendant also denied his participation in the crime at bar, but later on he executed an affidavit (Exhibit E) wherein he  stated:

"That in the morning of July 4, 1953,  lie boarded a jeepney at Quiapo with his co-accused; that he  did not  stab  the  deceased Domingo T. Vengeo; that it was Abrina,  alias Neggi,  who stabbed Veng-co, helped by Norberto  Ano,  alias Toto,  who took away the things  of the victim; that  thereafter, they went  to  Pasay City, where,  before separating", Abrina gave him 50¢ as faro money and told him that they would meet the following  morning  at the store of Mang Totoy at Leveriza; that they met in that place and drank tuba; that Abrina gave him P2, saying that little money had been realized from the  sale  of the  things  takon  from the deceased,' that he was present  at the place of  stabbing; that he  did not complain when he received only P2 from  Abrina; that in the jeepney he took the front seat beside the driver,  but  could not remember the places where his companions and Vengco sat at the rear of the jeepney; that he did not see  what kind of instrument  Abrma used in stabbing- the victim, but he saw Abrina pull out something  from his pocket."

After the arrest of Ano and Magallanes, the information was, by leave of court, amended to allege therein the true names of these  defendants.

After due trial, the lower court found the  defendants guilty  of the crime of robbery with homicide, as charged in the information, with the aggravating circumstances of  nocturnity and abuse of  superior  strength  and  the further aggravating circumstance of recividism as against accused Manuel Abrina,  and sentenced them to suffer the supreme penalty of death, and each and  everyone of them to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Domingo Vengco  in the sum of P6,000 and in  the  further sum of P275, the value of the stolen properties, and to pay 1/3%  of  the costs of  the proceedings.   And in view of the penalty imposed  by the lower  court  and the appeal interposed  by the  defendants, the case  was elevated  to this Court  for  final decision.

Defendants Manuel Abrina and Lorenzo Magallanes appealed from the decision claming that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt and in imposing upon them the supreme penalty of death,

Defendant Norberto Ano also appealed from the decision contending that  the  lower court erred  "in finding him guilty of  the crime charged  in  the information because (a)  the testimony of  Bonifacio  Castro  is inherently improbable,  highly suspicious and contrary to the ordinary course of  human conduct; (b) the defense of alibi set  up by him has been sufficiently substantiated by uncontradicted and  credible  evidence;  and (c) even if the testimony  of the witnesses for the prosecution were true, still  proof is hopelessly wanting as  to the author or authors of the crime of robbery with homicide."

In their briefs, the appellants do not dispute the perpetration  of the crime alleged  in  the information, to wit, robbery with homicide,  of which  the deceased Domingo T. Vengco was the victim; neither do they assail the finding of the lower  court, fully supported by the evidence  on record,  that  early  in  the morning  of  July 4,  1953, the deceased Domingo T. Vengco was killed at  the time and place mentioned above, and  robbed and taken  from him his ring valued at P60, a Parker fountain pen worth P20 and  a wristwatch worth P150,  it  having  been  proven, through the testimony of David  Martinez, that when the deceased boarded a jeepney on his way to Pasay, he had with him  a Parker 51  fountain pen, a diamond  ring, rimless glasses and a watch,  and thru the testimony of Irene Tayson, mother of the  deceased,  that the eyeglasses were worth P45, the ring P60, the fountain pen  P50: and the watch P150;  and,  thru  the testimony of witness Villasin, that  when the lifeless body of Vengco was found by him, all these articles were missing-. Their principal contention is that the evidence on record does not warrant their conviction because there was no direct evidence  clearly showing that they have killed the deceased Vengco and  robbed him.   They vigorously claim that the testimony  of Bonifacio Castro, linking them with the crime at bar, deserves no credit for it is highly unreliable and that, even  granting all his  declarations to be true, still they do not prove that the herein appellants were  the ones  who took  the  life of the deceased and  carted away  the  property he had  with him when he was killed.

Five  witnesses  testified  for  the  prosecution,  namely, Bonifacio Castro, Abelardo  Lucero, David Martinez, Irene Tayson  and Saturnino Villasin.

Bonifacio  Castro's  testimony,  as  found  by  the  trial court, is as follows:

"That he  was  the  driver of a  jeepney bearing plate  TPU-919); that  the deceased  Vengco boarded that  jeepney  at  the  corner  of Quezon  Blvd. and  P. Paterno  St.,  Quiapo, Manila;  that  Vengco was the only passenger; that he did  not  immediately proceed on his  way  to  Pasay City,  but instead waited for other passenger; that  five  minutes  thereafter,  the  herein three  accused  Manuel Abrina y Montano, Norberto Ano  and  Lorenzo  Magullanes,  boarded Castro's jeepney.   Because of the light  on the ceiling of the jeepney, Castro recognized the herein three accused.  He recognized them as three characters he used to see hanging1 around Leveriza  St., Pasay City.  In fact, he recalled Abrina as 'Neggie".   Lorenzo Magallanes took the front scat with Castro.  Abrina and Ano took the rear seat.

"After his four  passenger  had  taken  their  respective seats, Bonifacio Castro  proceeded on his way toward  Pasay City.  On the way to Dakota St.,  Bonifacio Castro heard Abrina and Ana whispering  to each other.  However, B,  Castro  could not  make  out the conversation between the two as he was  then busy at the wheel. Just  before  the Rizal  Memorial Stadium  on  Dakota  St.,  the accused  Magallanes  told  Castro  to  atop  the  vehicle.  The vehicle having been brought to a  stop, Magallanes paid  the  drive P0.30. Ano then dragged Vengco down  at a spot in front of a public toilet before the  Rizal  Memorial Stadium going south on Dakota  St. After the three accused had taken Vengco down, and before Bonifacio Castro resumed  motion, the latter  saw the accused Ano hit Vengco  either on  the face or  on  the  chest, while  Abrina  and Magallanes were behind Ano."

Witness Abelardo Lucero  testified about the autopsy he performed on the body of the deceased and the stab wounds he found thereon, to wit:

"Stab wound, base of the neck, right, piercing aorta, penetrating" anterior chest, (6 cm. X 2.5  cm. x 14 cm.)
Stab wound, .neck, left, post-auricular cutting the cervical vertebra and spinal cord  (8  X 1-5 X 8.5  cm.)
Stab wounds, multiple (4), left  side of the neck, one measuring 2 x  2  x  6  cm.; another  measuring  2.6 X 1  X  3.5 cm.; another measuring 2.2 X 2.9  x 3 cm.; and  the last measuring 2.5 X 0-6 X  3 cm.
Stab wounds, multiple (3) nape of the neck; one measuring 1.5 cm. X 0.5 cm. X 1-8 cm.; another measuring 2.5 X 1 cm. X 3 cm. and the last  measuring  3X1X4 cm.
Stab  wound, scalp, over  the occipital  protuberance  measuring 2.5 X 0.4  cm. X 0.4 cm.  deep.
Contused abrasions, multiple, scattered, right and left  face, right shoulder,  chin, both  knees.
Shock and  hemorrhage (850 cc.  recovered blood)  due  to multiple (10)  stab wounds in the neck."

He also testified that, on the whole, the wounds were mortal and, judging by  the  nature and  location of  the wounds, the assailants  of  Vengco must have been  at the back or at the side of the victim.

David Martinez testified about the  Parker fountain  pen, diamond  ring,  rimless  eyeglasses and  watch which the deceased had with him when  the latter and he  (witness) separated at the corner of P. Paterno St. and Quezon Blvd., Quiapo,  between 2:00 and 3:00 o'clock in the  morning of July 4,  1953.

Irene  Tayson mainly  testified about  these articles of Vengco  which were missing from his dead body when it was found  and searched by Lt.  Dujua, Cpl.  Villasin and other detectives on said date.

And Corporal Villasin mainly  testified about the investigation  he  conducted,  the arrest of the appellants, their identification by  Bonifacio Castro and  the  taking  and preparation of the affidavit of Lorenzo  Magallanes (Exhibit E). If.

Appellants  urge that the  foregoing evidence for  the prosecution is  completely  insufficient to establish  their guilt for the crime charged against them; more especially, they claim that even granting the testimony of  Bonifacio Castro  to  be  true,  said testimony  would not show that they were  the ones  who killed and  robbed Vengco in  the early morning of July 4, 1953. At most,  they insist, there being no clear and  positive evidence that they  attacked, killed and  robbed the deceased Vengco,  and there being no proof of conspiracy,  if at all  the  only one who could be held responsible for physical injuries  is Norberto Ano who, according to Castro, pulled down the deceased Vengco from the jeepney and dealt him fist blows on the face or chest.   Lastly, they  set up alibi as  their  defense  and, specifically, appellant Magallanes  claimed  that his affidavit (Exhibit E)  was obtained  from him thru  torture and maltreatment  by the police authorities.

Upon careful consideration of the foregoing contentions, we find  them untenable for, while it is true that there was no eyewitness to the actual  killing  and robbery  of  the deceased Vengco, it is a fact that Castro saw  appellant Ano  succeed in pulling Vengco down from the jeepney and hit him  on  the face or chest in the presence of Magallanes and  Abrina;  which  fact taken together with the other unrefuted fact that Vengco was found dead scarcely one or one and a half hours after he was pulled down from the jeepney  and attacked by Ano, do constitute certainly a well-founded ground to  pin the responsibility on the  defendants for the crime at bar, because  they were the last persons  seen manhandling the deceased and, as pointed  by the Solicitor General, it  would be absurd to  assume  that their manhandling of the deceased was only  to caress  or scare the  latter considering that the  victim was found brutally  killed with  ten  stab wounds  quite  immediately after he was manhandled.

Castro's testimony  is,  however, assailed as unreliable because  of his failure to immediately report the  incidents to the police authorities, but he explained  that he failed to do  so because he was shocked  and  terribly scared  by what he saw on that occasion, and certainly this is a strong reason for  him  to  shut his lips,  he being  an ordinary person, a jeepney driver who depended on his daily wages for his  and his  family's subsistence and who  would  not be willing to lose much time to testify at  the trial of a case which does  not concern him personally.   Further, in failing to report the incident promptly, he might have been prompted' by fear  of reprisal by  the defendants,  which, ordinarily, is a strong factor for common people to fail to immediately denounce the perpetrators of a  crime.   Hence the lower court committed no error in giving full credence to Castro's testimony for, as correctly stated in the decision,

"There was no showing  of any improper motive or purpose on the part  of Bonifacio  Castro in  imputing to these three  accused so serious a crime  as that  alleged in the information.  In the  absence, therefore, of any improper purpose "which may have activated Bonifacio Castro  in testifying  against them, his  testimony should be entitled to  full credence.   (People vs. De los Reyes, 82 Phil.,  180 46 Off. Gaz.,  [No. 41] p. 1520;  People vs.  Dizon,  78 Phil., 265, 42 Off. Gaz., [No.  11],  p. 2766,  People vs.  Gonzales, 42 Off. Gaz., [No.  12], p. 3195;  78 Phil., 473).

The  fact that, for about 3  weeks after  the  crime, Bonifacio Castro did not reveal  the crime to the authorities does not detract from his  credibility, his silence having been explained by him  that he was too scared to report.   (People vs. Malibiran,  G.  E.  No. L-4192, December  27, 1951).  Then, too,  we must consider that coupled with that is the well known  inclination of the common run of people to keep aloof of matters that do  not concern them personally,  specially  matters that  might take them away from their usual occupation.  (People vs.  Gutierrez,  88  Phil.,  592.)"

Appellants also urge  that, there being no evidence of conspiracy among them, they cannot be held liable, as the trial  court  did,  for the offense  charged  against  them. It has, however,  been established beyond reasonable doubt that  (1)  they boarded the  jeepney at the  same time; (2)  Abrina  and  Ano  were  seen and heard whispering to each  other while the  jeepney was in motion;  (3)  Magallanes ordered the driver to stop, and as the latter stopped the vehicle, he  paid  30¢  as fare, that is 10$ for each of the three  appellants;  and  (4)  Ano  dragged  the deceased out of  the jeepney while  Abrina  and Magallanes waited and  in  fact stood behind the deceased when the later was socked  by Ano;  all of which clearly show the appellants' sharing of  criminal purpose  and  strongly indicate  conspiracy, for which reason they  should be held  liable for the crime at  bar despite  the absence  of  clear  and distinct evidence who among  them inflict the stab wounds  upon the deceased and who among them took away his personal belongings,  for  conspiracy, once established,  makes each and  everyone of the appellants liable for the crime committed  by anyone  of  them.

Anent the respective defenses offerred  by the appellants at the  trial of the case, which are  now  insisted  upon in this  instance, we find correct  and  well  founded the trial court's  ruling thereon and see no justification for disturbing its findings which we quote:

"The accused Abrina brushed aside the charge against him with a shrug  of the shoulders and as I do not know anything about that' (Wala akong alam dian).  On cross-examination by the fiscal, he admitted that ho had been convicted  of robbery on February 16, 19A8 in criminal  case No. 1414 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and for which he  had served an  indeterminate sentence of  from two years, to six years and one day.  He was released on November 11, 1947  (See also Exhibit  F).  It is of course obvious that this defendant's  bare denial cannot prevail over Bonifacio Castro's positive testimony.  (People va. Ferrer, 44 Off. Gaz. [No.  1], p. 1123; Aribas [CA], 46 Off. Gaz. [No, 5],  2049).

"The accused Lorenzo  Magallanes set  up some sort of an  alibi. He testified that he could not remember  exactly where  he was  in the night of July  3, 1953, except that lie was  at Pasay City.  He also denied having been with his co-accusod Ano and Abrina in the night  of July 3, 1953.  He further stated that he could  not remember where he had been after July 3, 1953.  He admitted, however, having been  arrested  either on August 5, 1953, or August 6,  1953.

"This  accused attempted to  repudiate  his confession. Exhibit E, by alleging torture and  maltreatment in the  hands of the  police authorities.  He claimed that lie came to know  his co-accused  Norberto  Ano and Manuel Abrina only in  the City Jail during  their detention, altho he  said  he knew Abrina by face because  he had seen him  gambling  on Leveriza.  It is  apparent,  however, that his attempted repudiation of his  statement  is Exhibit 'E'  must be over-ruled.   In the first  place, the statement is replete with details that could have been known only to him but which were difficult  or even impossible  for the  police to  insert  or  include  therein  (People vs. Pulido,  et al., 47 Off. Gaz. [No. 9],  p.  4581).  In  the  second  place, his allegation  of  torture and maltreatment  in  the  hands  of  the police is belied by the fact that the latter did not obtain any written confession from his co-accused Abrina and Ano.

"The  defense of the accused Norberfco Ano, a former dock  laborer who has been out of work for at least one year prior to July, 1953, is planted  on an alibi consisting1 in  his  own testimony  and  that of his sister, Remedios Ano, and bis townmate, Laureana  Regalado,  a medical student of the University of Santo Tomas.  The gist of his alibi is that he was at home at 58  Valenzuela St. the  whole  night of July 8, 1953, because lie  was suffering' from  fever  due  to pulmonary tuberculosis.

"According to this defendant's  testimonial evidence,  he went to the Philippine Anti  Tuberculosis Society at 1893 Rizal Ave.,  Manila, for consultation on  June 30,  1953 and  was issued a patient's identification  card as Case No. 20900 (Exhibit 3) ;  that  lie was  given prescriptions for dehydo-streptomydn, tenitone and by draeid tablets, with  the  corresponding instruction for their  use  (Exhibits 4, 5, 6 ;and 7); that he and his sister, Remedios Ano, purchased  the medicines from tho  Globe Drag Store in  Quiapo at around 9  o'clock in the morning'  of  July 3,  1953;  that  around 7  or 8  o'clock in the evening of  July 3,  1953, Miss Regalado  started  treating  him  by giving him the first injection of streptomycin; that he did not leave the house the whole night of July 3, 1953 as he was  suffering from fever and  pains on the chest; that  Miss Regalado checked  him  up every two hours between 10 o'clock p. m, of July S, 1953 to 4 o'clock a.m.  of July  4, 1958.

"On cross  examination (Miss Regalado  admitted  that she is a townmate of  the accused and his sister; that she has  been boarding with  Remedios  at   58 Valenzuela St.,  Manila, and, at  the  time of her  testimony, was still boarding with her at  72-B  Lima Street, Project No.  4, Quezon City.

"After  an evaluation of the evidence in  support of the alibi  set up by the accused  Norberto  Ano, the Court believes  that the same must be overruled.   In the  first place, it would  appear from  his testimony  and that of his sister, Remedios, that  although  he may have been suffering of pulmonary tuberculosis in July 1953, he was :at most an  ambulatory patient as shown by the fact  that he  was able to  go to the Philippine Anti Tuberculosis Clinic on Rizal Avenue on June 30,  1953 for consultation, and that lie even went with  his sister in purchasing' the medicine's allegedly prescribed for Mm from the Globe  Drug Store on the morning of July 3, 1953.  This is, of course, in the assumption  that  his sister Remedios had  already purchased the medicine prescribed in Exhibit 4, 5, 6 and ", for if she had really  done go, the  prescriptions Exhibits 4, 5 and 7 would nave been retained by the pharmacist in accordance with standard pharmaceutical practice.  In the  second place, the testimonial evidence in  support of his  alibi  comes from his own sister and  his townmate. Because of the easiness with which testimonial evidence in support of the  alibi can be manufactured  among members of a family and  among friends  and  even  among those  who are not (People vs.  Nolasco,  88  Phil., 676), the court  believes that the testimonial evidence  in this  case  in support of Ano's alibi  cannot prevail over  his positive  identification by the government witness, Bonifacio Castro, and the latter's clear and convincing testimony."

The facts of the  case, as  sufficiently and  clearly established by the evidence on  record, constitute the crime  of robbery with homicide with the aggravating  circumstances of nocturnity  and abuse  of superior strength and the further aggravating circumstances of recidivism as to Manuel Abrina y Montano and therefore, the trial court justifiably imposed upon the appellants  the supreme penalty of death. However, as  the votes of the members of this Court fell short  of  the  required number for the  imposition  of said penalty, the  same  should be as it is hereby reduced,  according  to  law,  to reclusion perpetua.

Wherefore,  the decision  appealed from is  hereby modified  as above  indicated and affirmed in  all other respects, with costs.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista  Angelo, Labrador,  Cvneepcion, Reyes,  J.  B. L., and  Felix,  JJ., concur.