People of the Philippines vs. Otadora, et al.

A person who induces another to commit murder by offering monetary reward and furnishing the weapon used is guilty as a principal by induction and is equally liable as if she had personally perpetrated the crime.

Apolonia Carreon was the sister of Hilaria Carreon. Their relationship was strained by a family quarrel. In August 1946, Apolonia filed a criminal complaint for serious threats against Hilaria and her husband Francisco Galos, which was later withdrawn upon the advice of friendly mediators. In December 1946, Leon Castro, as guardian ad litem of minors surnamed Carreon, filed a civil complaint for partition of real property and damages against Hilaria, set for hearing on June 24, 1947. These disputes formed the backdrop of the grudge attributed to Hilaria.

Antonio Otadora and Hilaria Carreon were charged in the Court of First Instance of Leyte with the murder of the spouses Leon Castro and Apolonia Carreon, who were shot dead early in the morning of June 16, 1947 in their house in the City of Ormoc, Leyte. Apolonia was the sister of Hilaria. Their relationship was strained by a family quarrel; in August 1946 Apolonia had filed a criminal complaint for serious threats against Hilaria and her husband Francisco Galos, which was later withdrawn, and in December 1946 Leon Castro, as guardian ad litem of minors surnamed Carreon, had filed a civil complaint for partition of real property and damages against Hilaria, set for hearing on June 24, 1947.

Antonio Otadora met Hilaria Carreon sometime in April 1947 through Amando Garbo, and thereafter they conversed on several occasions. In the early part of May 1947, Hilaria saw Otadora going to barrio Matica-a and told him that if he would liquidate the spouses Leon Castro and Apolonia Carreon she would give him P3,000; he did not agree. In the last week of May, Otadora was invited to Hilaria’s house, where the proposal was renewed with better conditions: one-third of P10,000, plus carabaos, plus P300. He demurred, alleging that he had no adequate weapon, and Hilaria engaged to supply it. Around the first week of June 1947, Hilaria sent for Otadora and gave him the revolver Exhibit A, but it turned out to be defective, so he handed it back to her. Hilaria ordered it repaired by Benigno Baltonado, who had previously sold it to her. Three days later, Baltonado returned the gun in good condition with more than ten bullets, and Hilaria delivered the weapon to Otadora in her house, advising him to carry out their plan soon so that Leon Castro might not attend the hearing of the civil case. Hilaria also gave Otadora the bolo Exhibit B, a pair of trousers of her husband Francisco Galos, Exhibit C, a hat Exhibit D, and a flashlight Exhibit E.

Otadora set out to do his part in the morning of June 16, but Apolonia was not in her residence. He reported to Hilaria the next day, and she urged him to execute the plan that day, giving him P6.50 for transportation. That night, at about one o’clock, Antonio climbed up the house of the Castros through the window. He saw them sleeping side by side. He opened the door to the kitchen to prepare his exit. Returning to the place where the couple lay, he stumbled on Leon Castro, who exclaimed, “who are you?” Otadora replied, “I am” and “I don’t have any purpose except you, get up and fight.” As Castro was about to stand up, Otadora fired. Apolonia was awakened and embraced her husband, who had meantime fallen. Otadora shot her too. The couple died immediately of shock and hemorrhage.

After committing the murders, Otadora returned to barrio Matica-a intending to go to Hilaria’s home, but as he was nearing the kitchen, Francisco Galos signalled him to go away. He was seen crossing the cornfield near Hilaria Carreon’s house by Juanita Garbo, who testified in court. Otadora went to his home in Sitio Hubas. On June 20, at a dance, he received word from Hilaria through her husband Galos that he was wanted by the police and that he should decamp. The next morning he passed by the residence of Hilaria, and she gave him P5 plus two packages of cigarettes, adding that he should not attempt to visit her further because she was being watched. The next day, she again sent him P45 through Amando Garbo, who delivered the money at the back of the house of Menes Tahur in Canangca-an. After receiving the money, Otadora prepared to escape to Camotes Islands, but he was caught before he could run away.

In the afternoon of June 21, 1947, Otadora was arrested in Ormoc City while preparing to escape to Camotes Island, Cebu. The next day he confessed in an extrajudicial statement, Exhibit 1, wherein he implicated Hilaria Carreon, asserting that with offers of pecuniary gain she had induced him to commit the crime. On June 25, 1947, a complaint for double murder was filed against both defendants in the justice of the peace court of Ormoc, Leyte. Preliminary investigation was waived, and the record was forwarded to the court of first instance, where on September 3, 1947, Otadora pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel. Hilaria Carreon pleaded not guilty and asked for a separate trial, which was immediately held, with Otadora as the first witness for the prosecution.

Hilaria denied any connection with the assassination. The defense sought to discredit Otadora’s version by arguing that he planned revenge upon Castro because Castro, as a spy, had caused the death of Otadora’s father Sergio Otadora at the hands of the Japanese; that Otadora had to eliminate Apolonia Carreon because she witnessed the deed; and that Otadora and his relatives also desired revenge upon Hilaria because she had saved Leon Castro from death at the hands of the guerrillas during the Japanese occupation. The trial court found Otadora’s testimony corroborated by Benigno Baltonado, Amando Garbo, Juanita Garbo, Macario Bensig, Sgt. Tomada, and circumstantial evidence, including Otadora’s undisputed possession of Francisco Galos’s pants and hat. When Francisco Galos denied ownership of the pants, he was ordered to put them on, and the judge found that they fitted him perfectly.

• Frame-Up and Denial: Appellant Hilaria Carreon denied any connection with the assassination and maintained that Antonio Otadora alone was responsible for the slaying; she claimed to be “the unfortunate victim of a vicious frame-up concocted against her.”
• Otadora’s Alleged Motive: The defense argued that Otadora planned revenge upon Leon Castro because Castro, as a spy, caused the death of Otadora’s father Sergio Otadora at the hands of the Japanese; that Otadora had to eliminate Apolonia Carreon because she witnessed the deed; and that Otadora and his relatives also desired revenge upon Hilaria because she had saved Leon Castro from death at the hands of the guerrillas.
• Credibility of Otadora: The defense exerted effort to discredit Otadora’s version and to break down the position of the prosecution.
• Self-Incrimination: The defense argued that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination was erroneously disregarded when Francisco Galos was ordered to put on the pants allegedly belonging to him.

• Principal by Induction: Whether Hilaria Carreon induced Antonio Otadora to commit the double murder with promises of monetary reward and by furnishing the weapon, thereby making her guilty as a principal by induction.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Whether the testimony of Antonio Otadora, an admitted participant, was credible and sufficiently corroborated to support conviction.
• Defense Theory: Whether the defense theory that Otadora acted alone out of revenge and that Hilaria was framed should be accepted.
• Self-Incrimination: Whether the constitutional protection against self-incrimination was violated when Francisco Galos was ordered to wear the pants allegedly belonging to him.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances; Penalty: Whether the killings were qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, and whether the death penalty could be imposed.

• Principal by Induction: Yes. The evidence established that Carreon induced Otadora with promises of monetary reward and supplied the firearm; she is just as guilty as if she herself had perpetrated the assaults.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Yes. Otadora’s declarations were persuasive because he admitted direct participation and were fully corroborated by circumstances and other witnesses.
• Defense Theory: No. The theory was not lawfully accepted; Otadora denied his father died at Japanese hands, the alleged saving of Castro was not sufficiently established, and the grudge explained his willingness to kill for consideration.
• Self-Incrimination: No. No timely objection was made on that specific ground, and requiring a party to wear garments is not within the privilege against self-incrimination.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances; Penalty: Yes. The slaying was qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation; but for lack of sufficient votes, life imprisonment was imposed for each murder, not exceeding 40 years, plus P4,000 indemnity.

• Principal by Induction: The Court concluded from the whole expediente that appellant induced Otadora to commit the double murder and furnished him with the deadly firearm. Otadora testified that Hilaria first offered P3,000, then renewed the proposal with better conditions—one-third of P10,000, carabaos, and P300—and supplied him a revolver, which she had repaired after it proved defective, together with a bolo, trousers, hat, and flashlight. She urged him to act before Leon Castro could attend the civil case hearing, gave him transportation money, and after the killings gave him P5, cigarettes, and sent P45 through Amando Garbo. These acts established inducement and material contribution, making her guilty as a principal by induction, just as if she herself had perpetrated the assaults.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Otadora’s declarations were persuasive because he admitted his direct participation in the killings and his assertions were fully corroborated by circumstances. Benigno Baltonado testified that Hilaria purchased the gun from him for P55, ordered him to repair it, and received it back with ammunition in Otadora’s presence. Amando Garbo testified that Hilaria tried to persuade him to kill the spouses, asked him to find another, introduced Otadora to her, and delivered P45 to Otadora after the crime. Juanita Garbo confirmed the meetings between Otadora and Hilaria; Macario Bensig testified to a similar offer; Sgt. Tomada testified that Hilaria asked him to obtain a lock of Otadora’s hair to burn so that Otadora would become insane and unable to testify; and Otadora’s possession of Francisco Galos’s pants and hat was undisputed. The defense arguments did not destroy Baltonado’s credibility.
• Defense Theory: The defense theory was not lawfully accepted. Otadora denied that his father died at the hands of the Japanese. The alleged saving of Leon Castro by Hilaria was not sufficiently established; Loreto Micabel, the guerrilla superior who ordered Castro’s release, did not mention Hilaria as one of those who interceded. The Court reasoned that no one in his right senses holds Pedro criminally responsible for Juan’s crime simply because Pedro saved Juan from drowning. The grudge Otadora supposedly held against Castro readily explained why, for a consideration, he undertook to kill; and knowing that desire for vengeance, Hilaria selected him. If Hilaria had saved Castro, it was likely she hated her “ungrateful” brother-in-law and sister, who had brought her to court on two subsequent occasions, enough to hire Otadora to eliminate them.
• Self-Incrimination: The defense’s claim that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination was violated when Francisco Galos was ordered to wear the pants was rejected. No timely objection was made on that specific ground, and it was doubtful whether the accused could benefit from the alleged error. In any event, measuring or photographing a party is not within the privilege against self-incrimination, nor is the removal or replacement of his garments or shoes, nor is requiring the party to move his body to enable those things to be done, as quoted from Wigmore and Beltran vs. Samson and Jose.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances; Penalty: The slaying was qualified by treachery. It was aggravated by evident premeditation. However, for lack of sufficient votes, the death penalty could not be imposed. The appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for each murder, not exceeding 40 years under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, and to indemnify the heirs of the Castros in the sum of P4,000. The appealed judgment was thus modified.

• Principal by Induction — A person who induces another to commit a crime by offering monetary reward and by furnishing the weapon used is guilty as a principal by induction and is equally liable as if she had personally committed the crime. In this case, Hilaria Carreon’s offers of money, supply of the revolver, and repeated urging established her as the inducer of Otadora in the double murder.
• Credibility of an Admitted Participant — The testimony of a witness who admits direct participation in the crime is persuasive when his assertions are corroborated by a series of circumstances. Otadora’s testimony was credited because he admitted his role and was corroborated by Baltonado, Amando Garbo, Juanita Garbo, Macario Bensig, Sgt. Tomada, and physical evidence.
• Privilege Against Self-Incrimination — The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to measuring or photographing a party, removing or replacing his garments or shoes, or requiring him to move his body to enable those acts. The Court applied this to Francisco Galos’s being ordered to wear the pants, and also noted the absence of a timely objection.
• Treachery and Evident Premeditation — Treachery qualified the killing to murder, and evident premeditation aggravated it. The Court applied these circumstances to the shooting of the sleeping spouses, but the death penalty was not imposed for lack of sufficient votes.
• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — The Court applied Article 70 in fixing the penalty at life imprisonment for each murder, with the total not exceeding 40 years. This provision governs the imposition of successive penalties.

• “In conclusion, we are fully satisfied from a reading of the whole expediente that the appellant induced Antonio Otadora to commit the double murder, and furnished him with the deadly firearm. She is just as guilty as if she herself had perpetrated the murderous assaults.” — This passage states the ratio decidendi on principal by induction: Hilaria Carreon’s inducement and supply of the weapon made her equally guilty with the actual killer.
• “The slaying is qualified by the circumstance of treachery. It is aggravated by evident premeditation; but for lack of sufficient votes the appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for each murder, (not exceeding 40 years, art. 70, Rev. Penal Code), and to indemnify the heirs of the Castros in the sum of P4,000.” — This passage sets out the qualifying and aggravating circumstances and the modified penalty imposed by the Supreme Court.
• “Furthermore, and this is conclusive, “measuring or photographing the party is not within the privilege” (against self-incrimination). “Nor is the removal or replacement of his garments or shoes. Nor is the requirement that the party move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.”” — This passage defines the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and explains why requiring Francisco Galos to wear the pants did not violate it.

• Beltran vs. Samson and Jose, 53 Phil. 570, 576 — Cited for the rule that measuring or photographing a party and requiring the removal or replacement of garments or shoes are not within the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court relied on this citation in rejecting the defense’s self-incrimination argument.

• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — The Court cited this provision in imposing life imprisonment for each murder, with the total penalty not exceeding 40 years. It governed the aggregate service of the successive penalties.
• Constitutional protection against self-incrimination — The defense invoked this protection when Francisco Galos was ordered to wear the pants allegedly belonging to him. The Court held that no timely objection was made on that specific ground and that requiring a party to wear garments is not within the privilege. The text does not specify a constitutional article.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concurred.