*Complex Crimes (Compound Complex Crime) G.R. No. L-32144-45 July 30, 1982 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

NAÑO MILFLORES y LAKSA, defendant-appellant. BARREDO, J.: Appeal from the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XI) in its Criminal Cases Nos. 88173 and 88174 convicting and sentencing herein accused-appellant Naño Milflores y Laksa: to Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Eight (8) Years of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law for the crime of multiple attempted murder; and to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim in the sum of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, for the crime of murder. The incidents that gave rise to the filing of the abovementioned criminal cases against herein accused-appellant in the court a quo may be briefly narrated as follows: Early in the morning of November 27, 1967, about the hour of 7:45, an old man approached the house on 2233 Garrido Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, calling out the name of one of the occupants—Mrs. Javier. Heeding such call, Florencia Tactay Javier came out of the door and met the caller. The old man handed to her a paper bag containing some vegetables—pechay, upo and sigarillas—and then left the place. Mrs. Florencia Javier brought the bag into the house and proceeded to empty the same of its contents. As she did so, however, something inside the paper bag began emitting smoke and whistling sound, followed moments later by a deafening bomb explosion which caused death of one, and multiple injuries and wounds to seven (7) other occupants of the house. Investigations thereafter conducted by various police agencies led to the arrest of herein accused-appellant, Naño Milflores y Laksa. On December 6, 1967, he was charged with multiple frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 88173) before the Court of First Instance of Manila, in an information reading as follows:

That on or about the 27th of November, 1967 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with evident premeditation and treachery, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Abelardo Mique Olivar, Romana Mique, Isabelo Lapitan, Benedicto Mique, Florencia Javier, Anaflor Javier, and Ariel Javier, by then and there delivering a bomb inside a bag containing vegetables at the address of the latter at 2233 Garrido, Sta. Ana, causing the same to explode when opened, thereby inflicting upon the seen persons mentioned above mortal wounds on the different parts of their bodies, thus performing all of the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of multiple murder as a consequence but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of said accused, that is, the timely medical assistance rendered to said Abelardo Mique Olivar, Romana Mique, Isabelo Lapitan, Benedicto Mique, Florencia Javier, Anaflor Javier and Ariel Javier, which prevented their death. (Pp. 21-22, Record) In a separate information filed with the same court on even date, he was likewise charged for murder (Criminal Case No. 88174). The body of said separate information reads: That on or about the 27th of November, 1967 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with evident premeditation and treachery, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Felicidad Mique, by then and there delivering a bomb inside a bag containing vegetables at the address of the latte of 2233 Garrido, Sta. Ana, causing the same to explode when opened, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds on the different parts of her body, which

were the direct and immediate cause of her death. Accused-appellant was arraigned on said two informations on December 14, 1967 and January 23, 1968, respectively, and entered pleas of "Not Guilty" to the charges. Later, he moved to quash the information for murder but the same was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, the two cases were tried jointly, at the conclusion of which the court a quo rendered the decision of conviction and the corresponding sentences first above mentioned. The factual findings of the court below, upon which it based its sentence of conviction, are not seriously disputed by herein appellant 1 . Indeed, the record which We have carefully reviewed reveals that said findings are supported by the evidence which His Honor summarized as follows: From the evidence of the prosecution it appears that Victoria Remolar Javier, a public school teacher, married Antonio Javier on April 28, 1964 at Guiniañgan, Quezon Province. This wedlock, however, is Antonio Javier's second since he was previously married to Florencia Tactay-Javier, then living and with whom he had children. Sometime after the marriage of Victoria to Antonio, she discovered this previously existing marriage to Florencia. Victoria continued her marital relations with Antonio. This anomalous situation — i.e., a 'Love triangle' or the double marriage of Antonio Javier — naturally resulted in animosity between the two wives. The first wife, Florencia Tactay, filed a charge of bigamy against her husband, Antonio Javier, in Baguio City, and an administrative charge against Victoria Remolar, Florencia, however, later desisted when Victoria promised that she would cease to live with Antonio; and the administrative charge was dropped upon a finding that Victoria married Antonio without prior knowledge that he was previously married.

Sometime in March, 1967, Victoria consulted with the accused, Naño Milflores — who advertised his services as a palmist and fortune teller at Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City. Victoria wanted to know what her future would be and sought Milflores' help. She asked Milflores if she still had a chance to live again with Antonio. Milflores told her that she had a 100% chance to live with Antonio on condition that she pays him P375.00 as fee for the temple. He assured her that the result would be favorable and Antonio would voluntary come back to her. Milflores told her he would use his spiritual power in making Antonio come back to her voluntarily. Since March, 1967, Victoria consulted with Milflores at least once a month. She paid him P5.00 for the initial consultation. Sometime later, she paid him the P375.00. Milflores asked for and Victoria gave him the address of Antonio's other wife at 2233 Garrido, Sta. Ana, manila. Milflores told Victoria he will work in about 7 to 9 weeks, and, within that period he assured Victoria that Antonio will go back to her. Milflores in a couple of weeks. This time Milflores demanded another sum of P375.00 for things he needed in the temple. Victoria gave him the amount the following day. Then, again, Milflores asked Victoria the sums of P200.00 and P175.00, so that by June, 1967, Victoria had given Milflores the sum of P1,130.00 in all. After June, 1967, Antonio Javier still did not return Victoria. Victoria then demanded of Milflores the return of her money. She saw Milflores at least two times in July and August and demanded the return of the sums she had paid him. Milflores told her to be patient as Antonio would, for sure, return to her. In September and the last week of October, 1967, Milflores got mad at

Victoria because of the latter's insistence that he (Milflores) return her (Victoria's) money (Exh. A). Florencia Tactay really resided at 2233 Garrido, Sta. Ana, Manila. She and her family shared an apartment door with the Mique family — Romana, Felicidad, Isabelo Lapitan and Abelardo Mique. On November 27, 1967, somebody called at the 2233 Garrido apartment door where Florencia and the Miques resided for 'Mrs. Javier'. Florencia, who was carrying her child, peeped at the window and saw an old man. the man called for 'Mrs. Javier' twice. Florencia then went downstairs. The man gave her a big paper bag containing vegetables. Florencia inquired as to who sent the same, but the man did not answer. Instead, he hurriedly went away. As Florencia received the bag, she saw the address on it — i.e., 'Mrs. Javier; 2233 Makati'. The bag contained pechay, upo and sigarillas. She then brought the same inside the house and placed it on a chair in a room where Ana, Letty, Abe, Felicidad and Florencia's two children were. Florencia the proceeded to empty the bag of its contents. As she did so, she noticed that it emitted smoke and heard a whistling sound. Alarmed, she withdrew away from the bag. Felicidad Mique, however, went near the same and looked into the bag. Suddenly, a deafening explosion ensued. The explosion caused a hole through the table and on the cement floor 7 inches wide by 4 inches deep. Fragments of utensils and furniture were thrown and scattered around and the splattered room was in complete disarray (Exhs. II & I).

All of the persons then in that room, where the bomb exploded, sustained injuries and wounds as a result of the explosion. Felicidad Mique y Olivar, 21 years, student; Abelardo Mique y Olivar, 22 years married, goldsmith; Romana Mique y Olivar, 21 years, married, housewife; Isabelo Lapitan y Mique, 25 years, laborer; Benedicto Mique y Olivar, 15 years, student; Florencia Tactay-Javier, wife of Antonio Javier; Anaflor Javier, 2 years, and Ariel Javier 9 months, Florencia's children — were brought to the St. Anne's Hospital for emergency treatment. Florencia Javier (sic) 2 sustained 23 different, penetrating, explosive blast wounds from metallic objects and wire coil fragments in different parts of her body — i.e., on her face or both upper right and left extremities and both thighs. Her right anterior VIII rib was fractured and the right lobe or her liver, right diaphram and right lung, were pierced with metallic fragment. Two (2) coiled wire loop metals were embedded on her right forehead and another in the anterior aspect of her right arm. She suffered hemorrhage of about 700 cc of blood in her respiratory system, exanguination collapse from bleeding, vena cavae, in her cardiovascular system. She died within 15 minutes of arrival at the St. Anne's Hospital from profuse exanguinating hemorrhage, colapsing the vena cavae, and shock due to the 23 different penetrating blast wounds. The rest of the victims were forwarded to the Philippine General Hospital for further treatment (Exhs. B, C, D, E & F). Meanwhile, Alexis Nazario, a student and Desiderio Juvida — who is known as 'Pops' in the vicinity — were conversing at the corner of Cagayan and Mabuhay Streets, a block from Garrido Street. They heard the explosion; they saw a person walking hurriedly from Garrido to Mabuhay. The person's face was

painted black; he was wearing a checkered polo shirt with black pants and black shoes. Nazario — who was 8 to 10 meters only away when he saw the person walking at a fast gait towards them (Exh. 1) — pointed to the person, at the same time calling Juvida's attention to him, thinking that he was a thief. When the blast was heard, the person began to run. Juvida asked Nazario to chase the person, but he (Nazario) did not overtake him (the person) as he was running fast (mabilis). The person ran towards Tejeron Street, where he was able to make good his escape. The explosion, which rocked the neighborhood that early morning, brought many persons to the scene, mostly curious onlookers. The police chief, Gen. Ricardo Papa, also arrived at the scene of the explosion. He took immediate steps to investigate the incident. He made requests for homicide operatives. Sgt. B. Brown, Det. N. Bonifacio and Pat. Alejandro Yatco, MPD, responded. Alex Tumale y Palma, 31 years old, and a security guard of the United Equity Agency assigned to the RCPI, alleged that he was the intended victim of the bomb explosion. He implicated a certain Theodore Laudet (See Exhs. M & M-1), a striker of the RCPI, as the person whom he saw carrying a paper bag with three other companions in front of his house before the explosion occurred. Tumale informed the police that Laudet resented his escorting the manager of the RCPI. Further investigation also revealed that Antonio Javier, husband of Florencio Tactay-Javier, had contracted another marriage with one Victoria Remolar with whom he has two children; that Victoria, who resides and teaches in

Baguio City, occasionally comes to Manila to see Antonio Javier; that Florencia and Victoria had quarreled for the sole possession of Antonio and that charges and countercharges had been filed between them. The site of the explosion was also searched for evidence, which were then submitted to the Criminal Investigation Division, MPD (Exhs. U & V). On November 28, 1967, at 4:30 a.m., Theodore Laudet y Gabriola was investigated. He was brought before Florencia Javier, Isabelo Lapitan and Alex Tumale. The three failed to Identify him. Mrs. Javier and Lapitan averred that the suspect was older, stouter, and his face was painted black. Laudet, on the other hand, accounted for his whereabouts the day previous. Laudet was released. Laudet, who was subjected to a polygraph, cleared himself (Exh. J). On November 30, 1967, at or about 10:00 a.m., Sgt. P. Briones Det. Dionisia Nena Tuason and Pat. Alejandro Yatco left for Baguio to investigate Mrs. Victoria Remolar-Javier, the second wife of Antonio Javier. They were referred to Pat. Pedro Remolar of the Baguio Police Department, Victoria's father, from whom they learned that Victoria had left for an unknown destination. A background investigation of Victoria revealed that she took her BSEE degree at the Baguio Colleges, where she met Antonio Javier whom she later married in 1963. In 1965, Florencia filed an immorality charge against Victoria. Florencia later desisted, when Antonio promised to leave Victoria and live with her. The immortality charge was dropped, on the ground that Victoria married Antonio in good faith. Meantime, in Baguio, Victoria RemolarJavier, who was then teaching at the

Ambuklao Elementary School, heard over her transistor radio, on November 29, 1967 — a Wednesday — that her name was being implicated in connection with the bomb explosion. She became apprehensive. She went home to her residence at Baguio City, to seek the advice of her parents. She was shown a newspaper account where her name was implicated, and advised to see their family lawyer, a certain Atty. de Guzman. Victoria decided to see the family lawyer. The next day — November 30, a Thursday — she was on her way to see him at about 7:00 A.M., but before she could leave the house, a phone call was received by Victoria. The person on the other side of the line Identified himself as Naño Milflores. Milflores told Victoria to go to his office at Magsaysay Avenue and bring with her P1,000.00 so that he could help her exricate herself from suspicion in connection with the bomb slaying incident. ten proceeded to the office of the accused with her sister, Gertrudis. When she arrived there, Milflores expressed his surprise why she was accompanied by her sister, saying, 'Why did you come with a companion?' I told you to come alone.' Victoria told Milflores there was nothing to hide. Touching her head Milflores said, 'Loko loko ka ba? Ang hirap hirap ng kaso mo. Now you need money so that you will not be involved in this case anymore.' He asked Victoria and her sister to produce P1,000.00, because he knew somebody at the Manila Police Department who could help Victoria. Victoria's sister left to secure money while Victoria was left ion the office of the accused. Gertrudis, Victoria's sister, later returned with P200.00. When Milflores saw the amount he said, 'Bakit iyan lang" O, sigue, tama na.'

Channel 5. A. 1967. dated November 25. a magician.e.00 Milflores received from her sister in Baguio.00 from her in Angeles City. Early the next morning — December 1. Pampanga. (11) one crucifix. 1967 draw. (4) one (1) pallet of black dye powder. Victoria gave these amounts to Milflores in her desire to clear her name. Both fingered Milflores as the person they saw running away from the house of Mrs.. (7) one TVR issued by the TRAFCON in his name. Milflores secured two tickets without Victoria and her sister's knowledge. (6) 3 rounds of .M. The investigation of Milflores proceeded. until she saw Atty. (10) four envelopes addressed to him. 1967 (Sunday). Fred Cruz of the Manila Times. Victoria was interviewed at the headquarters. (4) speculum. Pictures were taken during the confrontation (Exh. In the afternoon. After Victoria was interviewed. Whereupon. their driver. Florencia requested that the face of Milflores be painted black. The statement of Victoria RemolarJavier was taken (Exh. Victoria began to suspect Milflores. accompanied her to the said office. he also received P210.M. the police authorities searched his Willy's Mitsubishi jeep. Capt. Antonio Javier. she pointed to him as the very person who handed to her the paper bag containing the vegetables and the fatal bomb. Dimaunahan. the suspicion of the investigating authorities focused on Milflores. A police line-up was conducted. illutionist. During the interview. and a marriage counselor of 423 Angeles City. On December 2 (Saturday) — after Victoria had been interrogated extensively — Florencia Tactay was invited to the Manila Police Department. The police line-up was conducted in the presence of police authorities and other persons. Milflores denied the presence of these articles in his jeep and claimed the same must be that of his sons (Exh. A) on December 3. They arrived in Manila at or about 6:00 o'clock the same morning. gas station for the purchase of one liter oil. short. Since she was left alone and did not know anybody in Manila. 1678-67 Manila. Their statements were reduced into writing. Lim told her that she was swindled. In Manila she was introduced to one Atty. At 11:00 A. short. pitcher type. Ben Dimaunahan. K). He stood pat on his claim of innocence and that he had merely given her spiritual advice as a minister of the Will of Christ Chapel. He continued to deny any participation in the incident. the person sought in the bomb-slaying probe. which was parked in front of the headquarters. 3. Friday — at or about 4:00 A. (2) one (1) strip of cotton. Atty. blackened with dye.. at or about 3:00 o'clock. Nazario and Juvida pointed to the front of House No. Milflores was taken to the crime scene. where Victoria passed the night. (5) one plastic bag with 15 rounds of . and one Oscar Alayon. that he had asked Victoria to pay him some amounts for his spiritual advice and that all in all he had received from her more or less P800. Alfredo Santiago of the Evening News. whose appearance . bullets. From then on. Florencia also stated that the accused had the same tone of voice as the person who handed her the bag. He admitted he came to know Victoria Remolar-Javier sometime in June 1967. she looked for them. who tried to gather the facts from Victoria about the bombkilling. 2463 Cagayan Street as the place where they saw Milflores. and that they were going to the police headquarters with Milflores. Tony Alba of ABS. thru Lt. At 12:00 o'clock. Her husband. Alexis Nazario and Desiderio Juvida were recalled to the office. Lim. Victoria had no information go give. (5) a receipt from the Talayan Quezon Blvd. with Plate No. Dimaunahan informed the Manila Police Department. The Sunday Times. who was about to leave. Lim that aside from the P200. She was allowed to go home. but was advised to return for confrontation. wrapped in paper.22 cal. Confronted with these articles. (8) one piece of candle (9) one set of keys.The three then proceeded to the Dangwa Bus Station. The following articles were found in the glove compartment: (1) one (1) piece of cotton. Javier. The accused was investigated. leaving Gertrudis behind. including newspaper reporters — i. He denied any criminal participation in the fatal explosion incident. Victoria told Capt. that he had with him Victoria Remolar-Javier.22 cal. she noticed that Atty. December 3 — a Sunday — 1967. Dimaunahan and Milflores were nowhere around. when she came to his booth in Baguio City to seek his advice concerning her marital problems with Antonio Javier. (2) one white ladies' plastic bag.00. that Milflores told her these amounts will be given to the lawyer who will help her with respect to her involvement in the case... Milflores then hurriedly urged Victoria to board the bus for Manila. page 1). After Victoria was interviewed. (12) one envelope containing 40 units of sweepstakes tickets for the December 17. (3) one (1) plastic bottle. (3) one forcep. The two arrived at Angeles City and proceeded to the office of Milflores there. bullets. Milflores and Victoria proceeded to Manila in his jeep. She requested him to look for the accused. A further search of the jeep yielded a small box containing: (1) one brown ladies' clutch bag.

the elements of murder were alleged. is a wanton violation of Section 2(h). Case No. Incidentally. but the fact of death of one must not be the reason to make the same an object of a distinct and separate information. 2—Motion to Quash—Grounds— (h) That the defendant has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted. or acquitted of the offense charged. herein defendant-appellant. the above summation of the evidence by the trial court is fully supported by the evidence on record. So .attracted them. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CREDITING THE ALLEGED PREVIOUS MISDEEDS OF THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT AS A BASIS FOR AN INFERENCE OF MOTIVE IN THE DELIVERY OF EXPLOSIVE THAT CAUSED THE DEATH OF FELICIDAD MIQUE AND THE INJURIES OF SEVEN OTHERS. under the first assigned error. such conviction or acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the plea of double jeopardy or punishment for the same offense. Lutero. III. in the case of Yap vs. CFI Record. L-1266. II. paragraph 20. No. 88174. promulgated on April 30. It is obvious that the information charging herein appellant with the crime of MURDER in Criminal Case No. 88174 ON GROUNDS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. that after he had pleaded to the charge of multiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. That matter of charging the accused.R. 1968. which provides: Sec.) To reiterate. 88174 on January 23. counsel for appellant has made the following assignment of error in his brief: I. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. b) That the accused delivered a bomb inside a bag containing vegetables. Milflores was then placed under arrest and booked for murder and frustrated murder on 7 counts. G. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT OF AN EVIDENCE THAT FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. that in the multiple frustrated murder case and the murder case. our Supreme Court. appellant argues in his brief: A conscientious study of the allegations in both criminal cases (shows). 256-261. conviction or acquittal under either the law or ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. xxx xxx xxx It is very evident that the single act of delivering a big bag containing a bomb caused the injuries of seven persons and the death of one. (Pp. on November 27. The facts in both cases are synonymous insofar as the following are concerned: a) That offense charged in both cases were committed. causing the same to explode and which single act of the accused (herein appellant) resulted in the: —1— injuries of seven persons (those named in Crim. or murder in a separate information based on facts that are the very same facts obtaining in another case of frustrated murder. in relation to Section 1. 1967. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. It is the position of appellant. Case No. 3-8. because his face was painted black. 1967. Decision pp. 88173). considering that the charge in the separate information for murder is based on facts that are the very same facts alleged in the other information for multiple frustrated murder. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. 88173 on December 17. Thus. the trial court gravely erred in not hearkening to his plea of double jeopardy when he was subsequently arraigned on the separate charge of murder in Criminal Case NO. and —2— death to Felicidad Mique and independently treated in Crim. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CASE NO. Article III of the Constitution which likewise provides that: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 88173. 88174 placed him in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense treated in Criminal Case No. Giving effect to the above-quoted provisions of our laws. resolved as follows: If the two charges are based on one and the same act. Just the same. in one single act. Charges were preferred (sic) against him with the Fiscal's Office. 1959.

It is settled jurisprudence in this . t. The reason behind the legal doctrine of discouraging the splitting of cause of action in complex crimes was enunciated by this Honorable Supreme Court in the case of People vs. And so. it is doubtful whether the prosecution should split the action against the defendant . because there was only one injured party in the cited cases. (Pp. even if there has been neither conviction or acquital in either case. 88174 placed appellant under risk of double jeopardy.. rec. L-19660. Indeed. while the information in the cases at bar were filed on the same date (pp. No.n. therefore. the same to be applied in its maximum period. 6-8. (Emphasis Ours). the cases at bar were filed at the same time and there was a joint hearing in both cases (pp. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. Besides. 1 and 1. the same being a complex crime. it is plain to see that such was impossible or could not have happened. for it would require the presentation of substantially the same evidence in different courts . it is as if appellant had been prosecuted and tried under a single information. March 21. does not include among the victims or offense parties Felicidad Mique. it is obvious that the technical error of the fiscal in filing two separate informations did not cause appellant any substantial prejudice at all. 1966. Informations. pp. In effect. 8. namely. 1968). 4-5. And it is that the first information for frustrated murder. when it ruled that: From the viewpoint both of trial and practice. the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the same offense. that appellant was ever in jeopardy in that first case. the filing of the information and the hearings on the former cases were made one after the other.s. Cano. the cases cited by the appellant in support for its defense of double jeopardy cannot be applied in this case (pp.). and should have been incorporated in one criminal information in accordance with the provision of Article 48 of the REvised Penal Code. one important point has to be made clear. secondly. There is in law only one offense because there is only one penalty that can be imposed notwithstanding that the act may in fact involve a cluster of otherwise separate or distinct offenses.. the legal problem before Us is not really whether or not the filing of Criminal Case No. the fulldressed trial of the case. . having in view the peculiar milieu of the cases. the explosion of the bomb which according to the prosecution was handed by appellant to Florencia Tactay-Javier. 88174. what could have been the first jeopardy had not yet been completed or even began. 85 Phil. 9.. Solicitor General's Brief) There is. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. the crime for which appellant could be made to answer is the virtually single complex offense of murder pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: Penalty for complex crimes. People. the Solicitor General submits that: We submit that Criminal Cases Nos. Magalit. Definitely then. 88173 resulted from the same act allegedly of the accused that caused the death of Felicidad Mique. the legal error of the prosecution here consists of having filed two separate informations for a single offense. . But the more untenable aspect of the position of appellant is that when he invoked the defense of double jeopardy.. Firstly.). 1-2. rec. Significantly. 769). 88174. the victim in Criminal Case No. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. On this point. for the inconvenience sought to be prevented was avoided. Moreover. as the proceedings were actually conducted.R. (Pp. Such splitting of action would work unnecessary inconvenience to the administration of justice in general and to the accused in particular. Criminal Case No. Appellant's Brief). the woman who died and is precisely named as the deceased in the murder case. What has to be resolved here is the question of whether or not the error of the fiscal of filing two separate informations for the same offense.. albeit with different offended parties in each of them. to Our mind. Record) Before tackling counsel's pose. It would be giving premium to technicality and sacrificing substantial justice to yield to counsel's contention. Melo vs. May 24.long as jeopardy has attached under one of the informations charging said offense. 77-79. 88173 and 88174 were the results of appellant's single act (pp. Appellant's Brief. to do so would result in duplicating what had already been done. in reversible error. i and 1. joint hearing conducted by the trial court in the cases at bar cured the technical defect of splitting the cause of action. Informations. with both prosecution and defense presenting all their respective evidence. G. Criminal Case No. some degree of plausibility in such posture of the People. In the sence. To be accurate. For there can be no doubt about the fact that since the injuries suffered by the offended parties in Criminal Case No. while there were several injured parties in the case at bar. Counsel is thus off tangent in invoking double jeopardy. 88173.

(People vs. Q — And what did you see after peeping out of the window? A — I saw an old man. Appellant's third and and last assignment of error is directed against the finding of his guilt by the trial court beyond reasonable doubt. 1973. Military Commissions Nos. 2. As to the Identification of appellant by prosecution witnesses Desiderio Juvida and Alexis Nazario. so I went downstairs. But even this observation seems superfluous. 2.s. 109 SCRA 273) Accordingly. he said that he was looking for "Mrs. 1973. Florencia had immediately described his general build and appearance to the investigators and readily Identified him in the police lineup in the presence of pressmen after he was made to paint his face black the same way he did that morning of the event in question. he more or less.00 from said Victoria with the promise that with his spiritual powers he would make her erstwhile husband Antonio Javier come back to her. Hearing of July 11. We overrule appellant's first assignment of error. admits either expressly or impliedly in his testimony and in his brief his meetings and conversations with Victoria Remolar whom he made to believe he had spiritual powers to help her solve her triangular marriage affair involving her bona-fide marriage with Antonio Javier who.Javier) to do away with her. Thus. Nov. 51 SCRA 31. it is not accurate to say. on the other hand. L-19344. let alone the circumstance that black dyeing materials were also found in the glove compartment of his jeep used by appellant in coming to the police headquarters.. Under his second assignment of error. Javier". and cases therein cited. And although he did not answer her when she asked from where the bag came and did not hear his voice then. He complains that the testimonies of the witnesses and the circumstantial evidence against him were excessively overweighed while the evidence on his behalf was hardly paid credit by His Honor. Dorico. much less recognized him. L-46366. He has not denied he received money from her several times in consideration of his promise that for sure soon enough Antonio would be Victoria's alone. And on this particular point. 1966. 54 SCRA 172. do you remember anything unusual that happened in your house at 2233 Garrido Street? A — Yes. 2. 1968. 1. People vs. FISCAL: (to witness) Q — Upon hearing such call what did you do? A — I peeped out of the window. 1978. (Bulaong vs. Suffice it to say that what happened between Victoria Remolar and appellant as related above. sir. Military Commission No. Q — And what happened? A — He called me twice. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. July 27. lack of motive does not preclude conviction of the offense when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely proved. 1981. He places reliance on Section 46 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides in part that unless in rebuttal. March 8. L-58284. scheme and plan to commit the crimes for which he had been indicted. People. Our conclusion after such review is that appellant's plaintiff has no merit. As to what We might refer to as the prelude to the fatal events which constituted the graver offenses committed by appellant. 29. it is inescapable to believe that upon being finally cornered by Victoria. 38. Appellant's contention that Florencia did not have sufficient basis for Identifying him as the man who delivered the bag with the fatal bomb to her that unhappy morning of November 27. as in these cases. 19. Florencia's testimony on this point reads: Q — At 7:45 o'clock in the morning. system. No. he concocted the diabolical Idea that he could make true his word to her by making Antonio a widower freed from the marriage with Florencia. More specifically. to Florencia Tactay-Javier. Herila. Javier! ASST. the following is revealing: COURT: (To witness [Desiderio Juvida] . It would appear Idle. turned out to have been previously legally married to Florencia Tactay. having extorted the sum of P1. Lumantas. L-28355. for the simple reason that the primary basis of the defense of double jeopardy is that the accused has already been convicted or acquitted in the first case or that the same has been terminated without his consent. 17 SCRA 746. Silvestre vs. No. We have taken pains to reread the transcript of the stenographic notes taken at the trial in order to find out by Ourselves where the trial court might have erred in the appreciation of all the oral and real evidence presented by both parties. and cases therein cited. it should be recalled that when he knocked at the door and Florencia or Mrs. Accordingly.130. 1969. failing in which Victoria had demanded from him the return of her money. Nov. he must have found no other way out of his problem with Victoria than to snap out the life of Florencia.n. L-32785. July 17. 186. as suggested by appellant. counsel for the People counters that what was considered by the lower court in the determination of appellant's motive were evidence of series of events and acts indicating his specific intent. that Florencia could Identify him thru his voice cannot be surprising. (t. the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused. Javier looked out from the window upstairs. for the determination of motive becomes relevant only where there is doubt as to whether or not an accused is the one who committed the crime charged. Emphasis supplied. 'Mrs. As he in truth did not possess a bit of the spiritual means he pretended to have and was in fact deceiving Victoria to be able to fleece money from her. furnishes a well. 6 and 25. In a word.) There is thus no merit in appellant's second assignment of error.) And as to the fact that this witness first failed to Identify appellant as the person who handed to her the bag containing the bomb. People vs. 3 Buscayno vs. L-31568. May 21. to discuss at length such opposing views of the parties. On this point. he bewails the finding of the court a quo from the testimony of Victoria Remolar to the effect that appellant.founded clue to what could have been the reason for appellant's act of delivering the fatal bag of vegetables containing also a deadly bomb. however. appellant resorted to the nefarious scheme of delivering a bomb to said Antonio's other wife (Florencia Tactay. COURT: (to witness) Q — What was that? A — Somebody called me. 1. the fact still remains that she later readily pointed to him after appellant's face was painted with black dye.Court that the mere filing of two informations or complaints charging the same offense does not yet afford the accused in those cases the occasion to complain that he is being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. 1967 is utterly untenable. p. which kind of evidence is admissible under Section 48. that said witnesses had only a passing glimpse of the person they saw running fast from the scene of the crime and could not have seen his face. Withal. appellant submits that the lower court erred in giving full weight and credit to the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove certain alleged previous misdeeds of his as basis for an inference of motive which must have induced him to commit the crimes imputed to him in these cases. 28 SCRA 764. 769. 21.

he ran fast. CABANTING: [Cross-examining witness Alexis Nazario] Q — I suppose Milflores just passed on November 27 when you saw him that morning.) From the above-quoted portions of the testimonies of witnesses Juvida and Nazario. sir. Will you indicate the route the accused took from the place where you were? (Witness indicating. ATTY. Q — He was not running. facing us. Surely. who was standing near me. Q — When you saw him.n. Q — On his face and on his hands? A— Yes. as you said. the old man Juvida instructed the younger Nazario to try to catch him. I was sitting at the comer indicated by a blue dot. Am I right? A — Yes. It cannot be said then that said witnesses had only a glimpse of appellant at the time. where your position was. told me that there was a man with painted face who might be a robber. it is very safe to say that those materials constituted the strongest mute evidence of his having been indeed the black-painted man whom Florencia and the other two eye witnesses Juvida and Nazario saw that morning. Q — And then? A — And I suspected. loud. as explained by said witnesses. Q — How many explosions did you hear? A — Just one.. where did you see the accused for the first time. or noticed him running. WITNESS: The first time we saw the accused he was walking in Cagayan Street. . GENSON: Please mark it with X.. when you saw him. They saw him walking at a fast clip from Cagayan Street to Mabuhay Street. Will you indicate the route the accused took when you first saw him? (The witness indicates it with an arrow. it is not at all out of the ordinary. he was painted black? A — I noticed his face when he passed by because he was only around two meters away from me. as testified to by said witnesses. because he was painted. 1968. GENSON: Q — After you heard the explosion. such behavior of appellant.. And so. (t. Is that correct? A — Yes. Hearing of June 4.. 1968. Words in brackets supplied. and because they also noticed that his face was painted black. He was not running but he was rushing. 21-23. he ran faster.n. for the stubborn fact is. Alexis. Q — How are you certain now that this man. so I requested Alexis Nazario to run after him. facing Cagayan Street. I suspected he might be connected with the explosion. Said materials. after appellant had passed in front of them. When we heard an explosion. is not in conflict with the experience of common fife and the ordinary instincts and promptings of human nature as insisted by appellant.s. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Q — Will you please indicate on this diagram. CABANTING: Q — That was the first time you saw him in your lifetime. COURT: Make a record that the witness indicates a distance of eight (8) to ten (1 0) meters. Words in brackets supplied. Is that correct? A — It is quite far.) ATTY. it can be readily seen that they came face to face with appellant.) Q — You also said you heard an explosion. and where the accused came nearest to you at the point of 2 meters? A — This is the store. GENSON: Q — Was the explosion. how far? A — From this place to that place. 5-6. and having had . Is that correct? A — Not only seconds... sir. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Q — And where was the accused when you saw him? A — He was here already in this place-corner of Cagayan and Mabuhay Streets. 11. apparently in an attempt to get away from the scene of the crime of which he was the author as fast as he could upon realization that the said bomb he planted had exploded. sir. As to appellant's lament about the finding of the trial court vis-a-vis the black dyeing materials found in his jeep. The accurate summation by the lower court of the evidence in support of the case for the People reads as follows: Having been Identified. 9. that they saw appellant first merely walking at a fast clip after having delivered the fatal bomb to the intended victim. more or less. and he ran.. their suspicion was readily aroused that he must be a robber or something when he passed by them at a distance of only about two (2) meters. that he might be a criminal or something like that. having thus been shown to have a motive for committing the offense. p. (t. the accused. (t. or soft? A — It was loud. Q — Q You saw him in a split second that morning before giving chase. Your Honor. when they heard the explosion and saw appellant start running. So I followed him with my face up to 15 meters.) (Words in brackets supplied) COURT: [To witness Alexis Nazario] xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Q — You said as soon as you heard the explosion you saw the accused walk at a fast clip. pointed to him conclusively as the culprit. Q — He was already far away. but walking? A — A He was walking at a fast clip. pp. ATTY. Exhibit 1. from the place where you were standing.s.s. 1968.n.Q — You say that the man you saw that morning is painted? A — Yes. Our review of the evidence leads Us to no other conclusion that appellant has been definitely and indubitably Identified as the man who handed the bag with the fatal bomb to Florencia Tactay-Javier. Q — What did you do them? A — I stood up and then I looked at the man who was passing and it was then that [he] passed in front of me. was the man whom you saw that morning... in this sketch? A — Here. Your Honor. but when we heard the explosion he was in Mabuhay and running already. albeit circumstantial.. Then too.. Is that correct? A — When he passed us. ATTY. There were very credible oral evidence on top of the dyeing materials. appellant started to run soon after the explosion of said bomb. as described by the two witnesses referred to. Hearing of May 2. because. Q — Where were you? A — A I was at the comer of the store.) ATTY. COURT: Q — You also said that the accused was walking at a fast clip and after he passed you. COURT: Q — Will you indicate. He was walking towards us. albeit in such attempt Nazario failed because appellant was able to make good his escape after Nazario lost sight of him amongst the many people passing by Tejeron Street. pp. From what portion of this sketch did you hear the explosion come from? A — It came from Garrido Street the third house from the corner. he was already running fast. Hearing of May 2.

The qualifying circumstance is use of explosive. . 526). We have no alternative than to find him guilty of said complex offense. (Ibid. abducted the deceased. EMILIO GENERALAO. pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code. He died about two hours later. ELPIDIO BARICUATRO. Caroz (68 Phil. His companions.in his possession blackening materials the evidence thus conclusively point to him as the person guilty as charged in the information. craft and dwelling. promulgated two years later. alibi cannot avail as against 'the positive and direct testimony' (lbid. a 1908 decision. 1904. constitute the complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder. where the accused 'was recognized with rare unanimity by five eye witnesses to the sequestration as being one of the four armed individuals who in the early morning of the 23rd of June.. Costs against appellant.. ROBERTO PASLON. 144-145. . 90 [1910]. of that town was mortally wounded. Mayor Samson Cerna. . Based on the facts proven. plaintiff-appellee. that he is presently more than 70 years old. vs. 1977. 1978 PENA.—After trial. NEMENZO. ELY BARICUATRO. 100) of the witnesses for the prosecution. L-37801-05 October 23. 422). craft and dwelling and he is hereby sentenced to death. CARLOS PASLON. ROMEO BARICUATRO. were also wounded. 521 [1939]: 'Alibis cannot stand and prevail over clear and convincing affirmation of credible witnesses (Ibid. The falsity of an assertion that he was elsewhere and therefore could not have been guilty of the crime imputed to him becomes apparent. Lourdes Cerna. We have no alternative but to affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. Francisco Jabido and Jose de los Reyes. No. as found above to have been committed by appellant in these cases. It was first announced by Justice Torres in United States v. Unquestionably. Pinamungajan Cebu. It is easily understandable why the Identification of an accused as a participant in the commission of an offense by evidence that is worthy of credence and belief negates the claim of alibi.. 426). VICTORIANO BARAGA AND CRESCENCIO F. such a defense in unavailing. Gonzaga... Candida Comahig. as pointed out by Justice Trent in United States v. L-34418. with an the concomitant accessories thereof. an information for murder with atentado two informations for frustrated murder and two for attempted murder (five cases) were filed against thirteen persons with the Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City. the crimes proven. We also find that the commission of the offense was attended by evident premeditation. (2) Rodrigo Baricuatro. . (4) Carlos Paslon and (5) Emilio Generalao of murder with direct assault upon a person in authority and sentenced each of them to death and to pay THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 51. *Complex Crimes (Compound Complex Crime) G. RODULFO UMBAY SALVADOR On the night of January 21. however. It may not be a miss to close this discussion with the following words in People vs.. Since then. VEDASTO MORENO. (3) Romeo Baricuatro. Roque(1 I Phil. the same being the result of a single act that of delivering the bomb which actually exploded as he had intended causing the death and grave injuries already referred to earlier. Lasada (18 Phil. In the language of Justice Laurel in People v. Such a doctrine is of respectable lineage. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. May 26.R. the appellant Naño Milflores y Laksa is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex offense of murder with frustrated murder with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation. Where the proof of his presence then is clear and positive. the lower court convicted (1) Vedasto Moreno. 77 SCRA 140.. It appearing from the records.. His guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt.. The lower court's judgment.. PER CURIAM: As an aftermath of that tragic occurrence. with the aggravating circumstances just mentioned.. and he deserves no less than the extreme penalty of death. in an ambuscade perpetrated at Barrio Tutay. to dispose of his defense of alibi. defendants-appellants. 1970. . RODRIGO BARICUATRO.

000 as actual and moral damages. Cerna testified that the mayor was ambushed "because Vedasto Moreno got angry with the mayor because he was confined in jail and this Rodrigo Baricuatro is jealous of the mayor because of his ambition to become a mayor of Pinamungajan an and as long as the mayor x x x is still alive he cannot become a mayor of our town" (155 tsn November 19. 507-RP). Issue as to the Identity of the culprits. 505-RP). at Barrio Tutay. Antecedents. the sum of P800 and grabbed from Patrolman Diacamus his service revolver. Patrolman Diacamus. 502. Paslon and Generalao with robbery in band with intimidation for having taken the money and revolver (Criminal Cases Nos. when they threatened to kill Lausa. the chief of police filed on November 15. The nagging question is the identity of the malefactors.) Also on December 12. 1971). Cerna and P2. the prosecution used as a witness. Rodrigo Baricuatro. Baricuatro of the department of constabulary science and tactics of the University of the Visayas at Cebu City was given by his Commandant a pass authorizing him to be absent for seventy two hours. 1969. CCC-XIV-95).). and Patrolman Filemon Diacamus because they were buying votes. He would be the opponent of mayor Cerna. it should be noted (according to the evidence for the defense) that Sergeant Rodrigo N. carbine and . 501. the chief of police filed in the municipal court a complaint (Criminal Case No. who were armed with a Thompson submachine gun. The same twelve accused were convicted of four frustrated murders. He took from them the envelopes containing money and turned them over to the Constabulary authorities. . shortly before the ambuscade. He posted bait paying P1. Moreno. November 11. Who among you here is brave?" (The municipal court dismissed that case in its order of August 28. Rodrigo Baricuatro was alleged to have told Lausa: "Do you want to die. Vedasto Moreno. were filed in the municipal court by the chief of police. 506-RP). a Nationalista. The fourth complaint against the same four accused was for qualified trespass to dwelling for having entered Gabina's dwelling. as shown in the receipt. Nemenzo (2) Elpidio Baricuatro. Romeo Baricuatro (1404 tsn. (That firearm was allegedly turned over to Rodrigo Baricuatro. (Those four cases were remanded to the Court of First Instance on February 23. It may be assumed that the arrest of Moreno and the impending arrest of Rodrigo Baricuatro. charging Rodrigo Baricuatro.—Certain undisputed circumstances preceding the ambuscade may shed light on the motivation for the assassination of Mayor Cerna and serve to explain why the appellants were implicated therein. CCCXI V-129 .000 to Mrs. Sometime after the commencement of the trial. residing at Barrio Tutay. His release was ordered by the municipal judge onJanuary 20. On December 12. Avelino Norteza. Romeo Baricuatro. Paslon and Generalao inflamed their smoldering resentment against Mayor Cerna. 505 and 506. Generalao. His testimony as to the conspiracy was severely assailed by the defense and even by the Solicitor General. 1970 E 4 and 6 to 6C-Moreno) On the other hand. (3)Elf Baricuatro. signed by Sergeant Marcillano The prosecution has a contrary version of the incident. November 25. In 1969. a Constabulary sergeant. All the twelve defendants appealed. considerable tension had developed between Moreno.000 as premiums on four bail bonds. The mayor issued warrant for the arrest of the four accused. Romeo Baricuatro. 1970. 42. The prosecution was not able to use a coconspirator as a State witness or to obtain an extrajudicial confession. Moreno would be Baricuatro's running mate (1265-66 tsn November 16. 1971. 1970. which were also sworn to before Mayor Cerna. on that day. 1971). the offended party in the robbery case. or from seven o'clock in the morning of January 21 to twelve o'clock midnight of January 23. charging Moreno. both sworn to before Mayor Cerna. (4) Salvador Pena (5) Victoriano Baraga. a barrio captain. Jabido and De los Reyes (Criminal Cases Nos. Thus. of the five offenses. 1970 because of Lausa's failure to prosecute it. Exhibit 8-Moreno.000 each to Candida Comahig. 154 tsn November 19. Moreno was arrested and imprisoned on January 16. (6) Rodulfo Umbay and (7) Roberto Paslon were convicted as co-principals and were each sentenced the reclusion perpetua and to pay solidarity an indemnity of P50. 1970. a college graduate and a businessman. Each of them was sentenced to four indeterminate penalties of six years and one day to eight years and one day of prision mayor and to pay solidarity an indemnity of P8.45 caliber pistol. employing force and intimidation.000 (Criminal Case No. 9 Rod Bar. namely. on the occasion mentioned above. It was later recovered from Paslon. Mrs. That complaint was also sworn to before Mayor Cerna (Criminal Case No. an alleged coconspirator who withdrew from the conspiracy but who was not indicted and who was not present when the ambuscade was consummated. A controversial incident occurred on election day. 1969 in the municipal court two almost Identical complaints. According t the chief of police. for the ostensible purpose of attending to his family's needs in Sitio Manga. when he was disarmed (Criminal Case No. and Mayor Cerna. (1) Crescencio F. Paslon and Romeo Baricuatro entered the house of Gabina Baron and. on one hand. his nephew. on that day. and Arturo Kyamko.solidarity to the heirs of Mayor Cerna the sum of P50. 1969. was being groomed as the Liberal Party candidate for mayor of that town in the coming 1971 elections. was the number one councilor of Pinamungajan affiliated with the Liberal Party.—There is iio question as to the corpus delicti or the commission. 501-RP and 502RP). 26. 1971). on the other. Merto Killing is what we want now.132). In the same case. 1969 two other complaints. sworn to before Mayor Cerna.) Because of that incident. According to Moreno. Pinamungajan (Exh. Crispin Baraga the thirteenth accused. he arrested Mamerto Lausa.) In the aforementioned four criminal cases Nos. with having committed grave threats also on election day. took from Lausa. Mayor Cerna conducted the preliminary examination although there was no showing that the municipal judge could not perform that duty. is at large. Rodrigo Baricuatro and their followers. One complaint against the same four accused was for direct assault against an agent of a person in authority.

) After the truck had passed the bridge. the detail of Constabulary soldiers in Pinamungajan was necessary in order to apprehend a band headed by Generalao. Seated in the front seat were Jabido on the extreme left and then the driver. Cerna testified as investigation: Q. 308 tsn September 3.The ambuscade. She testified that Mayor was told her that Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro Bide and Dido) were among the malefactors. The driver did not shut off the headlights. 1970. Emilio Generalao. u his cargo truck arid accompanied by his wife.Moreno. The return of Mayor Cerna to Pinamungajan in the evening of that date was known beforehand because on t day the mayor's housemaid. 72. One end of the roadblock rested on the pile of lumber. Rodrigo Baricuatro. the ends of which were connected to the sides of the road by two other pieces of wood. Lourdes Cerna. Exh H. The Place was an Ideal One for an ambuscade (67 tsn November 15. xxx xxx xxx Q. At about six o'clock. January 21. Governor Osmundo Rama in a telegram to Mayor Cerna requested him to come for a conference in connection with the release of funds for his town. Carlos Paslon and those who were at the back I could not see their faces because their faces were covered . please ten this Investigator whether you saw those persons behind the pile of logs before the shooting or after the shooting? — A. You said also it was a moonlight night and the headlight of the truck was on. Mayor Cerna.She was instinctively afraid. you told this Honorable Investigator that you saw those persons you mentioned behind the pile of logs. Before the shooting. He received a treasury warrant for P5. Vedasto Moreno. Cerna saw the roadblock. Carlos Paslon. You said also yesterday that there were persons behind the Pile of loge that were placed at the side of the road. side by side. Who were those persons with aid which (whom) you saw at the time of the incident? — A. They were in line.721 as national aid for the maintenance and improvement of municipal roads and bridges E M). Emilio Generalao. Those are the same persons whom I have named Q. De los Reyes. The armed persons behind the barricade were Romeo Baricuatro. its headlights revealed that a big log. Mayor Cerna boarded his truck and proceeded to Barrio Tabunok. were armed persons whom Mrs. Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon. the truck reached the five-meter-wide curve about seven meters from the end of the wooden bridge in an isolated place at Barrio Tutay. tsn Exh. and the agenda to be taken up in the forthcoming conference of municipal mayors. Q. in answer to a policemen 's in quiry d that the mayor would return to Pinamungajan at night time. Rodrigo Baricuatro. Record of Criminal Case No.) Mayor Cerna conferred with the governor. and in fact you named those persons. 1970). At about eight o'clock on that moonlit night. Who were those persons whom you can clearly see? — A. Cerna. He brushed her hand aside. etc. 1971). When Mrs. Rodrigo Baricuatro. Romeo Baricuatro. The truck stopped at the me which is a few meters away from the end of the bridge and which on the right side is near the cliff and the pile of lumber. G. can you please tell us who was that person who was first from the left while looking on them? — A. went to Cebu City in the morning of January 21. Anacleto Barrientos and two helpers were in the back of the truck. Q. Mrs. 74.) In compliance with that request. which is about three to four kilometers away from the poblacion of Pinamungajan (See sketch Exh. According to Mrs. She pressed the left thigh of her husband. Cerna. and Exh. do you know who were those persons? — A. and others whom I cannot Identify because I could not see their faces. The detail in that place of Constabulary soldiers. photographs. the truck started on its trip to Pinamungajan via Carcar. January 21. Since you can tell this Honorable Investigator that they were in line side by side. Pieces of lumber piled as high as the waistline of a person or less than a meter high and about seven meters long were stacked on the right side of the road below a cliff shaded by a ballets tree. Emilio Generalao. Carlos Paslon. had been placed across the highway as a roadblock about three meters from the curve (66 ton November 15. Cerna. Moreno's house was about l00 to 150 meters away from the bridge. Mayor Cerna 'was on the extreme right. since you saw those persons behind the pile of logs. I could not tell their positions because I could only see their bodies from their breast up. 1971. 10-T. and because there were rumors that Mayor Cerna's political enemies were intending to liquidate him Late in the afternoon of that day. Q. (Note that Elpidio Baricuatro saw the mayor's truck leaving for Cebu City and that Moreno. (See pp. Cerna.2-Moreno). Q. and three others. Talisay to pick up his cargo. 66-67. On the Identity of the assets. Vedasto Moreno. Mrs. Vedasto Moreno. 1. can you please tell this investigator what were their relative positions when you saw them behind the pile of logs? A. Emilio Generalao. 1971). Romeo Baricuatro. Anacleto Barrientos and Jose de los Reyes is vehemently contested by the appellants. that was wanted in connection with the death of Juanita Gabonada. 1970. Vedasto Moreno. Would you state to the investigator that the persons can still be seen on that night in question? — A It (They) can be clearly seen. Moreno and Rodrigo went to Pinamungajan an in the afternoon of that day. Mrs. Stationed behind the pile lumber. about three to four arms' length. Q. The veracity of that testimony and similar testimony given by the chief of Police.—On January 19. The truck's headlights were focused on the right end of the roadblock and the pile of . 39-43. The truck stopped opposite the pile of lumber and was about two arms' length from it (164 tsn November 19. which served as a barricade. Now. Can you tell this Investigator if they were standing side by side or on file? — A. 1970. Those were fronting me from the cliff which (who) were in line side by side were: first was Rodrigo Baricuatro. she turned to the right side of the road (" stooped down in order to peep and she then saw "clearly" before the shooting the armed persons behind the pile of logs on the side of the road "beneath the cliff " (3233. Rodrigo Baricuatro and Romeo Baricuatro were also in Cebu City on that fateful day. Candida Comahig and Mrs. 71. a foot wide and six inches thick. Cerna allegedly recognized because of the moonlight and the truck's headlights and because their bodies from the waist up were exposed.

Emilio Generalao. (71-77 tsn Exh 2-Moreno and Exh. Q. How were you able to recognize these persons you have named since it was 8:30 in the evening? — A. gave the following testimony on the Identity of the male factors: Q. xxx xxx xxx Q. Yes. 95-97 tsn).A. What were they doing at that time when you saw them — A. more or less and I called him: 'Do'." Ibid 126 tsn). but I observed that they passed by the side of the truck. by passing by the side of the truck towards the end of the truck. more or less. how long have you known them? — A." (147-148 tsn September 1970). definitely. 1970). you did not see any sidearms? — A. Day and 1 told him they were Dido Baricuatro. Bidi Moreno. xxx xxx xxx Q. After I heard the shots. disappeared. Rodrigo Baricuatro. Romeo Baricuatro. Not only because of the light of the moon but they were also lighted by the beam of the light of our truck. you cannot inform the Honorable Court whether they were having sidearms with them at that time? — A. How long after the silence by the time allegedly your husband mentioned the name? — A. but I saw that when they disappeared. Emilio Generalao. I was asked. Were you able to recognize these persons behind those (that) pile of wood? — A. xxx xxx xxx Q. and after I called to him. how long have you known them? — A. You said that you observed those persons leaving the place where you saw them before. on the right side of the truck. 113-114. xxx xxx xxx . sir. the truck was moving? — A. 1970)." (229-230 tsn September 3. How (What) do you mean by like that? — A. Cerna testified: Q. Q. sir. The place where you saw Emilio Generalao and Dido Baricuatro. He asked me Who were they. Maybe more than "two arms length. Q. the driver. Did he ask you whether you saw this Dido (Rodrigo Baricuatro)? . where did you see those persons? . How about the others you have mentioned. Q. Vedasto Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro I know them since their boyhood. was these pile of logs across the street and not the pile of logs on the side of the road. 1970). Vedasto Moreno. can you tell whether they passed from the precise spot where you saw them before? — A. Upon noticing the shots. After two to five minutes. All I saw were guns held like this (witness demonstrated a position by holding something in her hands in a port arms position). Near the end of the pile of wood at the side of the road.5 Romeo) At the trial Mrs. Did he (the chief of police) ask you whom you saw — A. I turned my head to the right and I saw Dido Baricuatro and Emilio Generalao like this (witness demonstrating a position as if holding firearms in his hands). I only saw the barrel placed on top of the wood which they were holding. because of the beams of the lights on the front of the truck and the moonlight. because the light is scattered as adjusted. he spat and then he said: 'Dido and Bidi Day'. Still moving and that was the time I saw clearly the persons standing by the side of the road. But. The first that I saw because of the light of the moon was the log blocked across the road and when I saw I immediately turned to the side of the road and I saw the pile of logs and behind it were some persons. tsn September 3. is that right? — A. " (1 10-1 11. Mrs.xxx xxx xxx Q. That the lights (of the truck are) in not straight but it is scattered on the sides. together with the accused to be arrested. Q. When you saw Emilio Generalao and Dido Baricuatro. Romeo Baricuatro. But you will agree with me that when you saw that pile of wood across the street. De los Reyes. Yes. So. Do you want us to understand that they cross(ed) the bridge toward the south? — A. Since you said that after the shooting those persons you mentioned. xxx xxx xxx Q. Cerna further testified that the headlights (with 12 volts) of the truck were on during the shooting and a long time thereafter and that she saw the malefactors retreating (lbid. (62-64 tsn September 2. Q. Q. how far were they from the truck? — A. xxx xxx xxx Q. They were firing their guns because I have seen fire flashes coming from their direction and they were guns like the (witness demonstrating right and left hand in an aiming position). Q. I came to know them when they were already of age because they live in the barrio. recognize because their faces were covered. Those persons you have named to the court. It is not towards the front an the time. You are quite sure that what lie said were those wounds: 'Dido and Bidi Day and the rest who were the accused? — A. I did not know where they went. Q. is that right? — A. they passed by the side of the truck towards the end of the truck. Very much. Carlos Paslon and there were some whom I did not. But the beams of the front lights of your truck was directed forward. what did you do? — A. Will you name those persons to the court the you recognized behind the pile of wood? — A. Q. xxx xxx xxx Q. I do not know where they were. Q. Dido and Bidi Day and also the accused who are to be arrested. (Ibid 131 tsn). Carlos Paslon and somebody behind whom I do not know because he was obstructed from my sight. But definitely.A. what you saw first. Q.

the truck ("Estela") of Jose Pena companions arrived. As testified by him from that coign of Advantage he saw and recognized Moreno. He was acquainted with them because they were well-known residents of Pinamungajan Their figures were silhouetted by the headlights of his truck which were on during the shooting. Mayor Cerna could not have made a dying declaration to Mrs. De los Reyes. The shots came from the right side of the road. Q. the headlights were on and you said that you saw two persons. Do you know those two persons whom you saw because of the headlights? — A. Dido Baricuatro and Emilio Generalao. Emilio Generalao and next was the person whom I do not know by name. At that moment. You said that when you jumped out of the truck. Probably. Q. Yes.45 (issued to Constabulary Sergeant Mamerto Generalao). Sometime later. Rodrigo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon still holding their firearms. F). It was permanently deformed. Who else? — A. Q. While in that position at the right rear wheel of the truck. is he the same Vedasto Moreno who is one of the accused in this case? — A. Carlos Paslon. Were there other persons aside from the persons you named — A. Q." (116118 tsn Exh. you were able to see those persons. sir. replied that "they said they did not know" [269 tsn January 5. Yes. and left leg. He was confined in the hospital for eleven days (Exh. is he the same Rodrigo Baricuatro who is accused of this case? — A. At that juncture. Romeo Baricuatro followed him only an interval of one arms' length. Injuries inflicted and results of the investigation at the scene of the crime. Immediately after the truck had halted in front of the roadblock. Q. and after Romeo Baricuatro followed in the same position as Vedasto Moreno. turned his head and saw Rodrigo Baricuatro and Generalao at tile end of the roadblock. am I right? — A. The truck showed down and swerved to the left. and then Romeo Baricuatro. Q. J) De los Reyes had abrasions on the chin and a lacerated wound on his right arm was extracted (Exh. Then. They were moving along the small path towards the upper portion of the hilt " Ibid 232234 tsn). I saw. 5-Romeo). on hearing the shots. After the firing had ceased. Cerna perceived that her husband was gravely wounded. no one answered her clamor for succor. and the next was Dido Baricuatro. After seeing this Vedasto Moreno in that position you have described. Mrs. The driver jumped out of the truck and sought cover under the truck near the left rear tire which was about four arms length from the pile of lumber. An operation was performed on her left hand. 19721. I saw Emilio Generalao followed also on the same position and in the same manner and had an interval (distance) of only one arms' length and then was followed by another man whom I did not know and the last one was Dido Baricuatro. The injuries caused by that slug involved the blood vessels. he was placed in another car and taken to the Don Andres Soriano Memorial (Atlas Consolidated Mining Company) Hospital at Lutopan where he died. Q.) The mayor was brought to Toledo City fifteen kilometers away. because of the wound in his jaw. Mrs. while I was already behind the right rear wheel of the truck. the contusions were the consequence of her having jumped out of the truck and having fallen on the hard ground (Exh. with the place). (On the witness stand. As there were no houses in the vicinity. The fusillade lasted only for a brief interval. That answer of Pena has been capitalized upon by the defense to counteract Mrs. E). She shouted for help. and four exit wounds. what did you notice? — A. Candida Comahig suffered contusions on her right knee and thigh which were not caused by buffets but by some hard objects. Romeo Baricuatro. A to A-2). Cerna and the chief of police that he was shot by Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro and their companions. What happened more? — A. Cerna sustained fractures in the ring and middle fingers and metacarpal of her left hand. whose house was about 400 meters away and who was familiar. Q. tissues and nerves of the injured portion of the jaw. sir. When you said Bedi Moreno. Q. Do you know those persons personally? — A. Yes. the driver (a resident of Barrio Tutay. twenty-five empty caliber. Generalao. Who were those persons whom you saw? Name them one by one — A.—The autopsy on the body of Mayor Cerna disclosed six entrance gunshot wounds. Cerna and her companions who shot the mayor. After seeing Vedasto Moreno in that same position. what else happened? — A. Jabido had a gunshot wounded on his right cheek. sir. located in the mandibular region. Those persons you have noted and observe to what direction did they go? — A. Recovered at the scene of the crime were a grease submachine gun caliber . right arm. De los Reyes showed up. right shoulder. Q. Cerna's testimony that she knew the assailants of Mayor Cerna. 2-Moreno and Exh. The defense argues that. aside from abrasions and contusions (Exh. When you said Dido Baricuatro.Q.45 . I know them. anterior chest wall. or while it was about to stop. The first was Vedasto Moreno. She spent P2. A slug was recovered at the right side of the lower lip of Mayor Cerna. Q. Barrientos remained in the back of the truck.000 for her hospitalization Exh D-12). After the firing had stopped. He drove the mayor's truck and took him to the poblacion. came Carlos Paslon. volleys of gunfire were directed at its front and right side which was near the cliff. On arriving at that place. he stationed himself behind the right rear tire. Pena in answer to a leading question of whether he asked Mrs. Penas companions removed the roadblock. When you d that when you were already hiding on the left rear portion of the truck. Jabido and Candida Comahig jumped out of the truck after the firing had started. It was lodged between the lower lip and the teeth of the victim or at his gums. I saw Vedasto Moreno moving backwards from the truck with a gun on his hand.

45 caliber submachine gun. Cerna testified that after the fusillade Mayor Cerna bent forward. he cried Agoy Evidently. Then. And at the scene of the ambuscade. a heavily built man. who was on the lawn of the mayor's residence. In that place. The mayor asked the same question of his wife when he was being brought to the hospital at Lutopan. (Exh. Possibly. Cerna. Rodrigo Balicuatro and their companions were his assailants. The mayor replied that he was shot by Dido Baricuatro and the other accused already known to the chief of police. a Pepsi-Cola bottle. caliber. Mayor Cerna retained his power of speech in spite of his wounds (180 tsn June 19.— The fact that Mayor Cerna was wounded in the jaw generated a controversy as to whether he could have made the antemortem declaration. He sat on the left thigh of Barrientos while he was in Barba's car. who was being held by Barrientos. he emerged from his hiding place and saw Mrs. their ice candy business. the remains of food. Mrs. After the priest said that it might not be good to transfer the mayor to the jeep. Chief of Police Lesigues driver De los Reyes. the wounded mayor allegedly told her not to leave the place. The mayor directed to go after Moreno. he was suffering much pain. 1971). the roadblock was removed. He saw the cliff or elevated ground but he did not comply with the mayor's directive e went back to the bridge. he would tell the latter to let him "lay flat" on his back. The session had to be suspended at that juncture (72-73 tsn September 2. that maneuver could not be accomplished. and P7. As long as he was in the truck. B. Even after Mrs. was endowed with a strong . 1970). human waste matter.000 for the metal casket. When the mayor was being transferred from his truck to Barba's car. The mayor told Barrientos to raise the mayor's right hand and to lift his left leg so that he (the mayor) could rest. Anacleto Barrientos remained inside the mayor's truck when the ambuscade was being perpetrated. the chief of police. When the truck reached the mayor's garage in the poblacion. the mayor ordered that he be brought to the West Coast Hospital at Toledo City. the mayor even asked Barrientos to take out something inside the back pocket of his pants since it caused him pain. (See Exh. According to the medicolegal officer. Mayor Cerna allegedly told her not to leave him. Cerna from time to time would call her husband "Do" and he would answer "Day". Mrs. He died seven minutes after his arrival at the hospital. the transfer of Mayor Cerna from the truck to Mayor Barba's car in Toledo City and the trip from Toledo City to the hospital at Lutopan and the transfer to the stretcher of the hospital sapped his last reserved of resistance. when she informed Mayor Cerna that Penas truck had arrived.Cerna. On the way to that place. Romeo Baricuatro. Later. Cerna shouting. After the gunfire had ceased and when he heard Mrs. was stopped. 1970. his mental faculties appeared to be unimpaired in spite of the gunshot wounds. Barrientos seated himself on the right of the wounded mayor and placed his left arm around his left shoulder. He wondered why the mayor had not left the Truck He went to the right side of the front seat to find out what had happened to the mayor. The mayor. She shouted for help and when nobody answered her. While there. Rodrigo Baricuatro and their companions who had fled to the elevated Portion near the scene of the ambuscade. obviously.000 for the twelve days during which the mayor's remains lay in state. The mayor replied in the affirmative (10-14 tsn September 2. But because the road was narrow. the mayor would tell Barrientos to let him recline and then. two empty caliber . which was old. The mayor was leaning on the truck's steering wheel. 1970). as a consequence of the death of her husband.1971). He saw that here was blood on the mayor's white shirt. She spent P4. Cerna. C and II-I ) On the right side of the truck. it was Mayor Cerna who suggested that the jeep of the priest be used in bringing him to the hospital because the cargo truck. Cerna walking to and from front of tile truck. spat saliva mixed with blood and said that he saw Moreno. He left the truck and hid under the bridge. Mayor Cerna's physical condition after the ambuscade. five slugs and a magazine with 25 rounds of ammunition. that Moreno. Pena truck arrived.30 shells. H-1-B and H-3A) On the high ground near the curve. who was the family's breadwinner. indicating that certain persons ate their supper there before the ambuscade. According to De los Reyes. the investigators found empty cans. Barrientosdemonstrated on the witness stand how he complied with the mayor's instruction (552-553 tsn September 1. The mayor saw him and asked him who he was. On the way to the poblacion. January 22. This was tearfully recounted on the witness stand by Mrs. Anacleto Barrientos and Candida Comahig. the driver of the mayor's truck appeared and started it. Rodrigo Baricuatro and the other persons to be arrested. he thought that there was a Hold up. there were bloodstains on the road and footprints on the swamp nearby. The latter asked the mayor if he was referring to Moreno. He was restless and. might break down. Mayor Cerna allowed her to leave the truck and go with Jabido to look for help. ?4. The chief of police cautioned him not to talk much because talking was not good for a wounded person. Cerna had gone down from the truck and failed to find Jabido.30 caliber rifle and twenty-six other bullet holes. (The same sound was heard by Mrs. there were fifteen bullet holes from a . Mrs.000 for his marble tomb with a canopy.shells. lt seemed to him that the vehicle was in the of barrio schoolhouse. and the wrappers for cooked rice known as "puso". From time o time. attributed to him by Mrs. 241-2 tsn September 3. the mayor told her that Penas truck should be parked alongside their truck so that he could be transferred to Penas truck. the aroma of tuba could still be smelt at seven o'clock in the morning of the following day. Carlos Paslon and Generalao.1970 (67. subjected to paroxysms of pain. from which they derived a considerable daily income. if the place is still far. 70 and 72 tsn November 15. Mayor Cerna asked the chief of police. who was sitting at his feet. Cerna and was informed that the mayor had been ambushed. The chief of police approached the mayor. he heard the sound of the engine of a motor vehicle which was ahead of the cargo truck. Candida Comahig and Jabido. was called by Mrs. and asked him who had shot him. He Identified himself as a passenger who had boarded the truck in Cebu City. After about ten minutes.1972). and De los Reyes. two bullet holes on the right side of the front and windshield from a . Cerna testified that.45.

Crispin Baraga. (5) Victoriano Baraga. (7) Elpidio Baricuatro and (8) Ely Baricuatro. 95. Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon went into hiding.. 11(T) and 14(T)I.130. Lourdes Cerna and Jose R. the guilt of the seven appellants implicated by him was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Carlos Paslon. 131. (3) Rodrigo Baricuatro. Norteza was given the option to select what firearm he would use. a 37-year old mason and a high school undergraduate. they were drinking tuba mixed with Pepsi-Cola. The Solicitor General regards him as a perjured witness. Emilio Generalao. Elpidio Baricuatro. Romeo Baricuatro. that is to say. Miguel. On the basis of that affidavit. Lesigues Lourdes Cerna and Jose de los Reyes. He weighed 198 pounds (102 tsn September 3. having found probable. Crispin Baraga and Victoriano Baraga blocked the road with logs.warrants were issued for the arrest of Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro. claimed to be privy to the conspiracy to ambush Mayor Cerna (Exh. Roberto Paslon and Victoriano Baraga. Norteza. It is not merely the long delay in the giving of his testimony that impairs its veracity and engenders the notion that it might be fabricated. 1970 the fiscal filed amended informations charging attempted murder only in connection with the assaults against Candida Comahig and Jose de los Reyes [Criminal Cases Nos. The trial started on September 2. 1970 the provincial fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu at Toledo City five informants charging Moreno. 2-Romeo). Rodulfo Umbay and Salvador Pena allegedly went to his house at Barrio Mangoto and invited him to go to Barrio Tutay for a drinking spree. passed by. arriving there at about seven o'clock. Kyamko Jose de los Reyes (the driver) and Placido Mondejar. He also saw his friends. The plan was for Ely Baricuatro to go to his house at Sitio Mohon Aloguinsan. 1970). Moreno and Baricuatro were released on bail on February 2 1970. (1) Crescencio F. Using only one glass. 3-Moreno). Our conclusion is that it cannot be accorded any credence.1970 (Exh. and fire a shot as a signal announcing the approach of Mayor Cerna's truck. 1971.—On January 26. They went to the cliff or the elevated portion in The barrio near the bridge.constitution. One important issue in this appeal is Norteza's credibility. and 132. On February 4 1970 the municipal judge elevated the record to the Court of the Court of First Instance because of the nonappearance of the accused at the second stage of the preliminary investigation which they had presumably waived. That meant that Mayor Cerna's truck was approaching. He did not witness the ambush. Generalao. On February 24. Generalao. after the witnesses. 129. he issued a warrant for the arrest of the five accused. Jose B.000 each in his order of January 28. a gunshot was heard. On June 22. 427 tsn September 1. The roadblock was removed when three trucks. Crecencio F. 1970 Moreno was arrested at Dumaguete City on January 28. (3) Salvador Pena (4) Roberto Paslon. 10(T) to 14(T)]. Appellants' contention that Mayor Cerna was already in a comatose condition alter he was shot and that lie could no longer talk is unfounded. 1970. A piece of logs on the right side of the road near the bridge would be used as a barricade to block the truck. none of which belonged to Mayor Cerna. Generalao. Rodrigo Baricuatro. fixing the bail a t P50. Lesigues the chief of police. the fiscal filed amended informations against the five accused originally named and against eight new defendants. the Solicitor General agrees with the appellants that Norteza is a perjured witness. Patrolman Eulogio B. Kyamko also executed affidavits dated January 28 and 30. After the third truck had passed. Norteza saw firearms (grease gun. The credibility of Avelino Norteza on the complicity of the seven appellants. Nemenzo (2) Rodulfo Umbay. Roberto Paslon. garand rifle) dumped under a tree. Consequently. In case No. 1970 in Cebu City. Norteza allegedly sneaked out of the place. The complaint was supported by the affidavits of Jose B. Ely Baricuatro. eventually. At that juncture. Rodrigo Baricuatro allegedly disclosed to him that the group would kill Mayor Cerna. it is not believable that he . or on March 12. At the trial. (4) Romeo Baricuatro and (5) Carlos Paslon a single complaint for murder and multiple frustrated murder. He changed his mind because he realized that. testified that at about six o'clock in the evening of January 21. Roberto Paslon. Thompson. Norteza explained that he kept silent about the ambuscade for more than one year because he was fearful that he might be prosecuted and he was allegedly warned that if he squealed he and his family would be liquidated. The foregoing testimony was the trial court's basis for convicting appellants Elpidio Baricuatro. We have conscientiously evaluated Norteza's uncorroborated and contradicted testimony. Nemenzo Pena Umbay. The Court of First Instance transferred the five cases to the Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City where they were docketed as Criminal Cases CCC-XIV-95. as mentioned earlier. Can credence be given to Norteza's testimony? As already stated. a Constabulary officer filed in the municipal court against (1) Moreno (2) Generalao. 1970. Nemenzo et al. Others were stationed in the upper portion near the bridge. Carlos Paslon and three unknown persons with murder with atentado and four frustrated murders [Criminal Cases Nos. Carlos Paslon. 1970. namely. had testified at the trial. 1970 Crescencio Nemenzo Rodrigo Baricuatro. About six months the trial had started. therefore. 1970. it would be known that he had some knowledge of the conspiracy and because he surmised that if he disclosed what he knew about the killing of Mayor Cerna. on January 31. The basis of the amended informations was the affidavit dated February 24. (6) Crispin Baraga. The municipal judge Conducted a preliminary examination and. Some members of the group stationed themselves behind the roadblock. On his home through the fields. What strongly militates against his credibility is the undeniable fact that he was a follower of Mayor Cerna and. he heard the gunshots coming from the place which he had left. Rodrigo Baricuatro was arrested on January 29. There. The three were to be given a separate trial. the fiscal conducted another preliminary investigation. other persons would follow his example and disclose what they knew about the unsolved killing of his brother. Victoriano Baraga. No bail was recommended. 1971. 1971 of Avelino Norteza who. Romeo Baricuatro and Moreno. In accordance with that suggestion.

the seven appellants. wherein he was charged with serious physical injuries for having assaulted Teodoro Alpas (Exh. Having disposed of the appeal of the additional seven defendants. 47'6-RP of the municipal court. he was in the house of his sweetheart. we now address ourselves to the appeal of the original five defendants against whom criminal actions were filed in the municipal court of Pinamungajan in four of which cases Mayor Cerna conducted the preliminary examination and issued the warrants of arrest. Actually.—He relied on an alibi the details of which his counsel did not bother to discuss in his brief. Case No. as in the case of small communities. was well-known in the small town of Pinamungajan and its environs where.1971). Maria Milan. Records of Crim. had informed Norteza of what had transpired. as Jose Kyamko. He made it appear that although the conspirators or the appellants had already decided on killing the and . as a tough guy. the brother-in. might have convinced the trial court that Norteza was present when the preparations for the ambuscade were made. he was appointed a municipal caminero (1249 tsn November 16. Beside him was Rodrigo Baricuatro. he could have easily ascertained the kind of weapons carried by his companions. as shown in the telltale wrappers of "puso" rice and the empty tins of canned food (59 tsn July 24. But it is certain from the record that Norteza's uncorroborated testimony is not sufficient to prove the complicity of the seven appellants in the assassination. a 1968 case.I had foregathered ill the upper portion of Barrio Tutay to wait for he mayor's truck. or in the evening of January 21. 1972). considering that (according to Norteza's version) there were already thirteen armed persons present who were ready to perform their nefarious task. The fact that he did not join in the conversation. It cannot erase the impression that he was a rehearsed witness whose testimony was concocted in order to strengthen the prosecution's case. contradicted her and testified that Moreno called at their house at around nine o'clock in the evening of that day or after the ambuscade had been perpetrated. who had actual knowledge thereof but who was not indicted. and that he played a passive role or was a mere spectator makes it hard to believe that the conspirators would have taken him into their confidence. It appears that the conspirators had to converse aloud in his presence and agree on the blocking of the road and the giving of the signal announcing the approach of the mayor's truck and that they had to invite him to implement their plan. 37. Norteza could not tell the kind of firearms carried by the conspirators. they had not yet agreed On the specific measures to be employed in accomplishing their diabolical purpose. He testified that when the ambuscade was perpetrated. that he did not make any suggestions. which exhibits earmarks of fabrication.law of Mrs. In a grave case. And because he was a follower of Mayor Cerna. Norteza did not mention that the conspirators were provided with food which they ate while on the cliff. He did not mention any special qualifications on his part. Norteza's explanation as to his long silence is not convincing and satisfactory. the guilt of the accused cannot be predicated on delayed testimony. These facts of his story appear to be incredible. 1972). At around eight-thirty of that night. In July. Maria Portes corroborated Romula's testimony. His father was leader of Mayor Cerna. Cerna. If he was a coconspirator trusted by the appellants and was present on the cliff. like the instant case. Norteza. 2-Moreno). political affiliations are noted-secret. It is within the realm of possibility that the seven appellants had some participation in the ambuscade and that someone. (1846 tsn January 11. it is not surprising that he was used as a production witness in this case. Such details as the giving of the signal and the placing of the roadblock. (147. who lived with her. the father of Vedasto. Dejito and Flores are the brothers-in-law of appellant Nemenzo who in turn is a first cousin of the brothers. appellants Rodrigo and Elpidio Baricuatro. 1971). The appellants could not be ignorant of the fact that Norteza and his father belonged to Mayor Cerna's faction The mayor was one of Norteza's three bondsmen in criminal Case No. They imagined that it was an concurring truck. Juan Dejito and Casiano Flores corroborated Moreno's alibi. and the passing of three trucks before Mayor Cerna's truck passed.) . they heard the sound of the engine of a vehicle. Norteza's testimony contains details that convey the impression that he was a co-conspirator. But the record also reveals that other details were not mentioned by Norteza and that such omission casts doubt on the veracity of his testimony. that he did not even participate in placing the roadblock and in removing it when certain trucks passed.would have been invited by the appellants (some of whom were confirmed political enemies of Mayor Cerna to join the conspiracy to kill the mayor. was crossing the highway. at Barrio Bakit Pinamungajan Maria Milan. It may be recalled that Mrs. 1970. 1971. a jeep without any light passed by him. after the gunfire had ceased. He did not explain why his presence was still indispensable for the execution of the scheme to kill the mayor. He merely said that something was bulging at their waists. Barrientos and Candida Comahig testified that. or after Norteza surfaced as a procecution witness. However. should be acquitted. like that of Norteza's. From Norteza's story. already name. Kyamko recognized it as the passenger jeepney which Leon Moreno. Cerna. Romula Gleocam the mother of Maria Milan. (See p. Exh. For example. he noticed that it was driven by Moreno. When the jeep passed Kyamko. The fact that he did not confide to his wife and parents his knowledge of the ambuscade (1239 tsn November 16. That sound came from that part of the highway near the schoolhouse or near Moreno's house at Barrio Tutay (69 tsn. had converted into a private vehicle. lt came from Barrio Tutay and was driven to the poblacion. that he was a mere listener.150 tsn November 17. ) Norteza voted for Mayor Cerna in 1967 election and for Mayor Cerna's son in the 1971 election. With the rejection of Norteza's testimony. it was leaving the scene of the crime. which induced the conspirators to invite him to join them. 7 to 7-F Moreno. 1971) is quite unusual and may signify that he was not privy to the conspiracy. 95-Cebu. It would be highly injudicious to relay on such testimony because blanket acceptance thereof might result in the conviction of an innocent person. Nortezas version as to the conspiracy contains improbabilities. Case of appellant Moreno.

the chief of police and Barrientos. Moreno went to the Constabulary headquarters at Dumaguete City and slept there (Exh. We are convinced that Moreno's complicity in the perpetration of the ambuscade was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of Mrs. 3. 1970. Victoria Gabon. Maria Portes declared that after Moreno was arrested. 5-Moreno). instead of showing his innocence. his brother-in-law. Moreno (Vidi) departed in his jeep. testified that and Umbay did not play mahjong in his house at that time. and the declaration of Mayor Cerna to his wife. or on January 23. Moreno did not make any reply. He and his wife took supper at six o'clock. with training and experience in perpetrating ambuscades. January 23. went to the house of her daughter. an inventory of the arms at the armory was made. They passed by the store of Maria Portes where Moreno bought cigarettes. He went to the house of his aunt and passed the night there. she observed that Moreno was always looking out of the window. he went to Bais City to visit his uncle. Moreno testified that after bringing Maria Milan to the high school he went to his residence at Barrio Tutay and took his lunch there. left Batitay's place. Rodrigo had reason to surmise to Mayor Cerna instigated the criminal action for grave threats filed against him. He visited his aunt. Mrs. When she handed the cigarettes to him. there was no reason for him to sleep in his sweetheart's house. and this is a decisive point. Moreno's alibi. Rodrigo was in charge of the armory. arriving there by boat in the early morning of January 24. Coronel Jose Nazareno. his uncle. De los Reyes. 1970.—This appellant was 44 years old when he testified in 1972. she told Moreno that some persons in the street comer were saying that Moreno had killed Mayor Cerna. Moreno called and asked Rufina Milan (Romula's sister) that he be allowed to pass the night in her house because no one was allowed to pass Barrio Tutay. Moreno). He was later detained at the enlisted men's quarters and then at the guardhouse after a criminal charge was filed against hint He denied any complicity in the ambuscade. Francisco Gabante. Rodrigo Baricuatro was identified by the eyewitnesses.. After talking with Maria for about an hour. She refused to testify in his favor. riding in a jeep. T). Felix Moreno. accompanied by Umbay and Loreto Quesido. arrived from San Carlos City. She said that if he had not done anything wrong. he left the house together with Maria Milan. he went to the residence of a lawyer at Dumaguete City in order to seek legal advice. He was a Constabulary sergeant connected with the reserve officers training corps (ROTC) unit of the University of the Visayas at Cebu City. San Carlos City. as being present at the scene of the crime. Maria Milan. The mahjong game was stopped after nine o'clock when news of the ambuscade was relayed to the mahjong players (156-7. Then. to confirm his guilt because. However. Antonio Batitay. to s and to the chief of police. On the following morning. the owner of the house where Rodrigo Baricuatro and Umbay y played mahjong from seven o'clock in the evening of January 21. After taking breakfast. Case of Rodrigo Baricuatro. tsn March 6. he was arrested in that city by three Constabulary sergeants of the Cebu City Constabulary detachment. Like Moreno. Se asked Moreno what was wrong with m He answered that he was being implicated in the killing of Mayor Cerna. Batitay's testimony nullified Rodrigo Baricuatro's alibi and cancelled the testimonies of Eleazar Pena Loreto Quesido. Then. he went to see her and requested her to testify that she saw him at the house of Rufina Milan at six o'clock in the evening of January 21. Moreno felt aggrieved by Mayor Cerna's issuance of the warrant for his arrest and by his incarceration and posting of four bail bonds which entailed the payment of a substantial amount as premiums. 1970 (the night of the ambuscade). he is already dead". the cutting of the bamboos and the plowing of the family lands. she noticed that he looked pale and that his hands were trembling In fact. He offered her money. He and the Constabulary sergeants took a boat on the following day and arrived at Cebu City on January 30 (Exh. Two days later. 1970. He testified that in the afternoon of January 21. to buy read in the market and to listen to the rumors being Spread around. according to Romula Gleocam at around nine o'clock on. 1970. the next day. On January 28. he went to Barrio Pandacan and supervised the gathering of the coconuts. The motive for the killing was sufficiently established. Cerna and the driver. He stayed at Batitay's place until nine o'clock when the brother Eleazar and Jose Pena came with the information that Mayor Cerna had been ambushed at Barrio Tutay. On the following day. Cerna and De los Reyes. if he had no participation in the ambuscade. Romula noticed that Moreno spoke in a quevering voice and that he look untidy f e I ed and attempt on prior occasions. that same night. While Romula was preparing breakfast.As already stated.1972). Moreno requested Luz. he dropped the cigarettes on the ground. The falsity of his alibi removes any doubt as to his guilt. Then he allegedly went to the house of Tonying Batitay to play mahjong. After Luz had returned. the Constabulary zone commander who was in Pinamungajan took him into custody because of the suspicion that the firearms used in the ambuscade might have come from the armory of the University of the Visayas. January 25. He was accompanied by appellant Umbay. They rode in the jeep. Moreno. He arrived at Pinamungajan at past five o'clock. Being a potential candidate of the Liberal Party for . on the following day. and by Mayor Cerna himself in his declaration to them. Romula heard a man's voice outside calling Moreno and saying: "Boss. He went with his uncle to Trozo. at barrio Bakit which was near the poblacion (Exh. a daughter of Romula. When Moreno was already inside the use. and Beato Pefia and Sergeant Norberto Alvarado. supporting that alibi. They arrived in the mahjong den shortly before nine o'clock or after the ambuscade was committed. 1970. On that night Moreno slept at Rufina's house. Rodrigo Baricuatro. he had a well-groomed appearance. he refuted Norteza's statements implicating him in the assassination of Mayor Cerna. he had no reason to be afraid. three kilometers away from his residence in Barrio Tutay where the ambuscade was committed His flight to San Carlos City clearly signified that he had guilty conscience. and went home. he was given by his commandant a three-day pass so that he could go to Pinamungajan and transfer to a new residence on the lot of his parents. Upon his arrival at Cebu City. Shortly thereafter Romula heard again the drone of the jeep.

Cerna and De los Reyes that he was among those who ambushed Mayor Cerna. 1970 his wife came from Pinamungajan to inform him at his boarding house in Cebu City of the warrant of arrest issued against him in the four criminal cases pending in the municipal court. She also apprised him that Moreno had already been arrested. Cruz. After eluding arrest for more than twenty-two months. Romeo's alibi is that he was in the house of Atty. His landlord. Felicisimo Maturan. the nephew of Rodrigo Baricuatro. a thirty-nine year old barber. so he just laid low and talked from time to time with Carlos Paslon and Romeo Baricuatro. Mario Saromines.) Carlos Paslon. He is married with five children. he saw Avelino Norteza who was working as a mason in Cebu City. some of whom were armed and drunked. of Calibasan Cantutay corraborated his alibi. 1971 by certain Constabulary men named Aldaba Nebres and Carding and other whose names he did not know He said that he was brought to the Constabulary station at Pinamungajan where he was mauled by the Constabularymen and by Jesus Cerna and Jose Kyamko in the presence of several persons. 1970. Four prosecution witnesses. -Rodrigo made a blanket denial of that imputation. He reached the first year of high school. Mario Saromines. His alibi was that from November. He declared in support of his alibi that in the afternoon of January 20.—This appellant. Acido whom he had hired as his counsel in the four criminal cases. 1970 he stayed in the house of his elder brother. Candida Comahig stopped her narrative about the ambuscade when she noticed that Rodrigo was among those listening to her. he took his wife to the bus station for her return trip to Pinamungajan At the station. He was already in the boarding house when the whistle announcing the curfew for minors was sounded at ten o'clock.ang. namely. he threw away his Garand rifle and it was recovered by the Constabularymen and that his companions in that encounter were Carlos Paslon and Gavino Layar (Translation. was thirty-eight years old when he testified in 1972. the employees of Vedasto Moreno's family.mayor in the 1971 election. in Barrio Lawaan. stopped the Moreno bus at the public market of Pinamungajan and wanted to be brought to Sitio Tubod where Rodrigo Baricuatro was residing. The affidavit. He returned to Barrio Tutay on May 3. Filomeno Cantutay. Generalao. Lazaro Deroy and Sergio Perito testified to certain incidents which reveal that Rodrigo Baricuatro had nursed the design to kill Mayor Cerna before the 1971 elections and had recklessly made an open avowal of that intention. Pinamungajan on November 20. corroborated Romeo's alibi. with seven children. one had to walk from Matab. Romeo's alibi cannot prevail against tile testimonies of Mrs. Doming. the finger of suspicion would be pointed at them by their fellow townsmen as individuals implicated in that iniquitous and dastardly deed. In that affidavit. was taken by Sergeant Benjamin Solante in the presence of Sergeants Nicanor E. He was arrested in his father's house on November 25. Cebu. that. His theory was Chat Norteza was angry with him because he refused to help Norteza and his Brother in gathering the coconuts of Clemente Yanong. a resident of Barrio Tutay. was with him when he conferred with Atty. It would seem that before the ambuscade Rodrigo Baricuatro and Moreno had already prepared their alibis. he was taken to the Constabulary headquarters at Salonga where he was again maltreated. Cases of Emilio Generalao and Carlos Paslon. I970 to May 3. Rodrigo. Bancog and Edmundo Panistante and sworn to before Fiscal Benicio Arzadon who prosecuted this case. a resident. the bus could not proceed to Barrio Tutay. because of that killing. was thirty six years old in 1972. 1970. Barrio Sacsac Pinamungajan on May 3. Rodrigo would be in the mahjong den while Moreno would be in his girl friend's residence. 1971 in order to surrender but he was not able to do so because he feared that he might be killed. 1970. that in November. in the course of an encounter with Constabulary soldiers. Acido whom he had hired as his counsel in the four criminal cases. 'There. he signed an affidavit which he did hot read. But Acido (Moreno's counsel in the preliminary investigation). He was working as driver at six pesos a day . he could believe that the elimination of Mayor Cerna would insure his election. he went into hiding at Sitio Calibasan and Barrio Guingkamote. to conclude that it was dangerous for Moreno to remain in Pinamungajan Because of that incident. married. lie denied shall lie was with Norteza in Barrio Tutay in evening on January 21. did not testify in court. Cerna implicated him because she hated his uncle. Mario Saromines. 1971 in order to confer with his brother and his white regarding his surrender. Angela Yanong. Placido Mondejar. He was a student of criminology at the University of the Visayas in Cebu City.—Generalao. He testified that at around noontime. His landlord. And Fiscal Alfredo S. Romeo conferred with Atty. a bus passenger bound for Aloguinsan. That circumstance led Fiscal Pancho. or for about one year and five months. his friend Marcelo Tante and his mother's cousin. Case of Romeo Baricuatro. 1969 to February. It had to take a roundabout route via Carcar to Aloguinsan Fiscal Pancho rejected the offer that Moreno himself would drive the bus to Aloguinsan by way of Barrio Tutay. his white went to Calibasan to inform him that he was Implicated in the killing of Cerna. 1970. immediately after the ambuscade. Hence. lie was doing farm work in Barrio Calibasan Toledo City which was fifteen kilometers away from the provincial road at Matab and to go to that place. Romeo returned to his boarding house after nine o'clock in the evening. Thus. he killed Juanita Gabonada. was with him when he conferred with Acido. on cross-examination by Fiscal Arzadon. His alibi was that from January 6. Toledo City. 1971. Then. Generalao testified that in May. He finished the fifth grade. Romeo was arrested by Sergeant Servando in his house at Sta. Romeo denied Norteza's testimony that he was in Barrio Tutay in the evening of January 21. denied that he signed freely that affidavit. was thirty-three years old in 1970. Talisay. The group harassed the bus driver and the conductor. Romeo explained that Norteza testified against him because the Cerna family had helped Norteza in a certain case and that Mrs. corroboration would be vital in establishing the truth of Romeo's alibi. What they did not foresee was that. Exhibit B-Generalao. Pancho testified that on the day following the ambuscade a group of around fifteen persons. whose. staying with his brother-in-law Cantutay. Generalao admitted that on January 2. 1971. 1971. Rodolfo Acido in Cebu City at the time when the ambuscade was perpetrated. that he returned to his fathers house at Sitio Santa Cruz.

) In the other four cases. Norteza was angry with him because he refused to sell a pig to him. People va. where Aureliano Carag. U. it may be noted that in People vs. Neither did Doctors Florante Batucan and Ramon Arcenas who examined the injuries of Jabido and De los Reyes and issued the corresponding medical certificates (Exh.000. the more serious offense. These refer to the cases where the victims were Lourdes Cerna and Jose de los Reyes. the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death for murder. (See People vs. the occasion was a "yearly devotion". like Romeo Baricuatro. Cerna. Paslon testified that in the evening of January 21. 2. 43 Phil 82. Criminal Cases Nos. was killed by eight persons led by Tomas Ubina. or on occasion on such performance". Generalao. 1970. on cross examination. Carlos Paslon and Emilio Generalao are convicted as coprincipals in the crime of murder with assault upon a person in authority. Carlos Paslon would be a State witness." His four companions. They should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The killing of Mayor Cerna was indisputably treacherous. For lack of the requisite votes. wherein not all those convicted as principals were sentenced to death. 97 Phil. he lived in Duljo. Appellants' criminal liability. 14[161. S. 76). 148 and 248. The trial court overlooked that there were only two informations for demonstrated murder. 27. as charged in the information. Cabrera. Pinamungajan by certain Constabularymen named Aldaba. In this connection. Revised Penal Code). Sakam 61 Phil. 99 Phil 453. 1971 in the house of Sabina Intong at Barrio Sambagon. E and F testify at the separate trial of Generalao. vs. Cabuenas corroborated his alibi However. appellants Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro . Cabuenas declared when he testified on August 26. the trial court convicted the appellant of frustrated murder. 515. L-37804. Court of Appeals. Revilla Penal Code. should be imposed in the maximum period. appellants Vedasto Moreno Rodrigo Baricuatro. 131-Cebu. 129-Cebu. Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon and the issuance of warrants of arrest which resulted in the incarceration of Moreno and constrained him to pay P1. the law must be applied to its full force and to its full extent. And the fact that. However. were considered accomplices. Cagayan. that caused resentment. Carlos Paslon denied the imputation of Norteza that he was in Barrio Tutay on that date. hiding in the mountain barrios of Pinamungajan conveys the impression that they had a guilty conscience. Garcia. L37802. Chua Huy 87 Phil. was established to a moral certainty. Undoubtedly. Afterwards. Revised Penal Code). Gumban 39 Phil. who were present at the killing but did not conspire with Ubina. the death penalty should be imposed on the principals. The impelling motive for the direct assault was Mayor Cerna's performance of his official duty in conducting the preliminary examination of the four criminal cases against appellants Moreno. They stopped maltreating him when Sergeant Nebres told them that according to Mrs. 130-Cebu. L-37803. 1972 that the current month was July. Cerna. it was the birthday of his wife. and 132 Cebu. capital cases. the crime committed is attempted murder only because the injuries suffered by the victims could not have caused their death. L-37805. According to Cabuenas. Carlos Paslon and Romeo Baricuatro. 358). the offense committed was correctly categorized as the complex crime of murder with direct assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 152. the death penalty cannot be imposed on appellants Generalao. Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro are each sentenced to death.000 as premiums on his bail bonds. The trial court correctly imposed the death penalty upon Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro. In these four cases. He was brought to Sibonga where he signed an affidavit after having been mauled. In the other four cases. The ambuscade exhibited the characteristic features of alevosia (Art. 258. 1970 he attended a party in the house of Eutiquio Cabuenas in Barrio Lawaan. (Justo vs. 95-Cebu.with the Cebu United Enterprises. the mayor of Solano. Band (cuadrilla) is aggravating in addition to nocturnity Only the five appellants originally charged should be held responsible for the attempted murders. "For him justice cannot be tempered with mercy. 20 Phil. The other two informations charged attempted murder only in the cases where the victims were Candida Comahig and Francisco Jabido. Ubina.—As to Mayor Cerna. Romeo Baricuatro. S. they were fugitives from justice for around twenty-two months. Paslon could not remember the birthdays of his children. and People vs. his political enemy only Ubina was sentenced to death because he was the one who conceived the plan and utilized his influence to perpetrate the killing. Alpon and Carding who maltreated him. In Criminal Case No. Cabuenas admitted that he was requested by the wife of Carlos Paslon to testify that Carlos was in the house of Cabuenas in the evening of January 21. Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon cannot be held responsible for the attempted murder committed against Jabido and De los Reyes because these two offended parties did not testify at their separate trial. were sentenced only to reclusion perpetua. We have already ruled that the seven additional appellants implicated by Norteza should be acquitted. WHEREFORE. Ging Sam 94 Phil 139. People vs. who were indebted to him for personal favors. The killing constituted a direct assault against a person in authority (Art. L-37801. According to Paslon. Paslon and Generalao are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Hence.U. Three others. while Romeo Baricuatro. The alibis of Generalao and Carlos Paslon cannot be accorded any credence because they were positively Identified by Mrs. The five appellants are ordered to pay solidarity to the heirs of Mayor Samson Cerna an indemnity of P50. This is a glaring error. Generalao. Cebu City where his wife established a dress shop. he was returning from Cebu City where he had transacted official business with the governor. et al. whose guilt as co-principals in the assassination of Mayor Cerna. At the time Mayor Cerna was ambushed. vs. As the crime is complex. because the rule is that the person in authority or his agent should have been assaulted "while engaged in the performance of official duties. He was arrested on November 24. He left Duljo in Ap 1971 and returned to Pinamungajan. the trial court's decision is modified and the following judgment is rendered in these five cases: 1. 48. Nocturnity is aggravating because the appellants took advantage of the night for the consummation of their nefarious enterprise.

000). involving Candida Comahig and Lourdes Cerna. to indemnify the of the deceased Simeon Valera (or Barrela) in the sum of P2. 1950 . PER CURIAM. minimum. The other seven appellants. as charged in the information. Upon arraignment the accused entered a plea of not guilty *Complex Crimes (Compound Complex Crime) G. Roberto Paslon. and to pay solidarity an indemnity of two thousand pesos (P2.000 and to pay the costs. Francisco Jabido and Jose de los Reyes. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. J. involving Francisco Jabido and Jose de los Reyes. are imposed upon appellants Generalao. 37802 and 130. L-1477 January 18. 3. to seven (7) years of prision mayor. Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon These three appellants have no liability in Cal Cases Nos. is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder. as maximum. Crescencio F.000) to each of the three victims. The penalty and civil liability in Criminal Cases No. Ely Baricuatro.R. or Julio C. L-37804 and L-37805. The same two appellants are further ordered to pay solidarity to Lourdes Cerna an indemnity of ten thousand (P10. plaintiff-appellee. defendant-appellant. and Victoriano Baraga. JULIO GUILLEN. whereby Julio Guillen y Corpus.are convicted of four attempted murders and are each sentenced to four indeterminate penalties each consisting of four (4) years of prision correccionalmedium as minimum. Candida Comahig. are acquitted in the five cases on the ground of reasonable doubt. Nemenzo Elpidio Baricuatro. and is sentenced to the penalty of death. 2746. and by virtue of appeal from.: This case is before us for review of. 131 and 132. 129. the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in case No. The convicted appellants will pay the costs. No. SO ORDERED. L-37803. Salvador Pefia Rodulfo Umbay. vs. Guillen.

Julio C. he became disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during the presidential election campaign. His version of the circumstances of the crime. In this connection it should be stated that. Final Diagnosis Not insane: Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority. the Solicitor General and their respective memoranda. and notwithstanding the contrary opinion of one Dr. as to the essential facts which caused the filing of the present criminal case against this accused. but sometime when an employee in la Clementina Cigar Factory he engaged in a boxing bout Mr. The motive behind the commission of the crime is stated above. Alvarez. Manzano. rendered judgment as above stated. for the offenses he committed on the date in question. accompanied by his wife and daughter and surrounded by a number of ladies and gentlemen prominent in government and politics. the motives. at the beginning of the trial and before arraignment. reads: FORMULATION AND DIAGNOSIS Julio C. according to him. after the submission of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense. without psychosis. assumed the office of President of the Commonwealth and subsequently President of the President of the Philippine Republic. Quiapo. that he was not under observation. Said report (Exhibit L). Guillen was placed under constant observation since admission. This is seen not only in the present instance. The court. and. Fernandez of the National Psychopathic Hospital. President Roxas. Hence he determined to assassinate the President. sponsored and campaigned for the approval of the so-called "parity" measure. stood on a platform erected for that purpose and delivered his speech expounding and trying to convince his thousand of listeners of the advantages to be gained by the Philippines. could be tired. THE FACTS Upon careful perusal of the evidence and the briefs submitted by counsel for the accused. He even challenged Congressman Nueno to a fight sometime before when Mr. Guillen is not insane but is an individual with a personality defect which in Psychiatry is termed. The veracity of this motivation was determined in the Narcosynthesis. after hearing him deliver one of his apparently outspoken speeches. and his disappointment was aggravated when. there to be examined by medical experts who should report their findings accordingly. presided over by Dr. fully aware of the nature of the crime he committed and is equally decided to suffer for it in any manner or form. the court ruled that Guillen. Our observation and examination failed to elicit any sign or symptom of insanity in Mr. that he was not suffering from any mental derangement. After he had pondered for some time over the ways and means of assassinating President Roxas. President Roxas. according to the report of the board of medical experts. Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority. his conduct and conversation relative thereto. when at a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda. the successful candidate. as he was tired. irrespective of consequences and as in this case. Manila attended by a big crowd. the opportunity presented itself on the night of March 10. The narco-synthesis proved not only reveal any conflict or complex that may explain a delusional or hallucinatory motive behind the act. Nueno was running for a seat in the Municipal Board of the City of Manila. According to Guillen. In view of the above findings it is our considered opinion that Julio C. the commission of the act at Plaza Miranda. and felt it his duty to defend them. What is of some interest in the personality of Julio C. Julio Guillen y Corpus. 1947. counsel de oficio for the accused moved that the mental condition of Guillen be examined. notwithstanding that it had found out from the answers of the accused to questions propounded to him in order to test the soundness of his mind. Manuel A. In view of the above-quoted findings of the medical board. Those facts may be stated as follows: On the dates mentioned in this decision. Julio Guillen was not insane. should the constitutional amendment granting American citizens the . instead of looking after the interest of his country. That the narcosynthesis was successful was checked up the day after the test.to the charges contained in the information. Guillen is his commission of some overt acts. One time he ran after a policeman with a knife in hand after being provoked to a fight several times. a Span-wanted to abuse the women cigar makers. temptations and provocations that preceded the act. we find that there is no disagreement between the prosecution and the defense. This was done. Guillen. He was found to be intelligent. Roxas. although not affirmed with any particular political group. All these mean a defect in his personality characterized by a weakness of censorship especially in relation to rationalization about the consequences of his acts. Then the case was tried in one of the branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila presided over by the honorable Buenaventura Ocampo who. There was not a single moment during his whole 24 hours daily. On the other hand he is an man of strong will and conviction and once arriving at a decision he executes. who was asked by the defense to give his opinion on the matter. not being insane. ordered that Julio Guillen be confined for Hospital." at pages 13 and 14. were all those of an individual with a sound mind. has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections held in 1946. under the heading "Formulation and Diagnosis. always able to differentiate right from wrong.

May God pity on me. but some detectives. kicked it away from the platform. Garcia pursued him. 1947. for instance. to Tayabas (now Quezon) where the President was scheduled to speak. until I reached my conclusion. that I have only displayed a high degree of patriotism in my performance of my said act. It was my duty. The grenade fell to the ground and exploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. and I carried it out all by myself alone. Guillen had first intended to use a revolver for the accomplishment of his purpose. Guillen was arrested by members of the Police Department about two hours after the occurrence. got loose from Garcia and managed to escape. In the meantime. after the explosion. I t matters not if others will curse me. covering the President with his body. and there are millions now suffering. Jose Fabio. either by going to Malacañan. He had likewise been weighing the chances of killing President Roxas. he even went to the extent of risking the heritage of our future generations. as the same person who hurled towards the platform the object which exploded and whom Garcia tried to hold when he was running away. who was one spectators at that meeting. These are the reasons which impelled me to do what I did and I am willing to bear up the consequences of my act. he thought of two hand grenades which were given him by an American soldier in the early days of the liberation of Manila in exchange for two bottles of whisky. For these reasons he should not continue any longer. And had I expected to lives to spare. their hopes were frustrated. saw how a person who was standing next to him hurled an object at the platform and. I would not have hesitated either ton sacrifice it for the sake of a principle which was the welfare of the people. and towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm. placed him under arrest. Time and history will show. 1947. Garcia went after him and had almost succeeded in holding him. He buried one of the hand grenades (Exhibit D). and when he decided to carry out his evil purpose he stood on the chair on which he had been sitting and. but having encountered many difficulties. was being congratulated by Ambassador Romulo and was about to leave the platform. Suspecting that person was the thrower of the object that exploded.same rights granted to Filipino nationals be adopted. brought to the police headquarters and identified by Angel Garcia. who was on the platform. I did not expected to live long. of about seven meters. I am sure. JULIO C. His life would mean nothing as compared with the welfare of eighteen million souls. Confusion ensued. I conceived it. ran away towards a barber shop located near the platform at Plaza de Miranda. Their deeds bore no fruits. for which reason said Exhibit B-1 appears unsigned. When he reached Plaza de Miranda. when they met at the premises of the Manila Jockey Club on the occasion of an "anti-parity" meeting held there. On the morning of that he went to the house of Amando Hernandez whom he requested to prepare for him a document (Exhibit B). Thousands have died in Bataan. or following his intended victim in the latter's trips to provinces. while the City Mayor and some agents of the Manila Police Department were investigating the affair. GUILLEN A copy (Exhibit B-1) of the original in Tagalog (Exhibit B). grenade and without losing his presence of mind. I planned it. hissing. And why should I not give up my life too if only the good of those eighteen million souls. that he (Manuel Robles) was acquainted with Julio Guillen for the previous ten years and had seen each other in the plaza a few moments previous to the explosion. he hurled the grenade at the President when the latter had just closed his speech. one Manuel Robles volunteered the information that the person with whom Angel Garcia was wrestling was Julio Guillen. of their sons. Amen. Manila. to my God. but having lost said firearm. he decided to carry out his plan at the pro-parity meeting held at Plaza de Miranda on the night of March 10. saw the smoking. and the crowd dispersed in a panic. shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down. which was duly licensed. in accordance with their pervious understanding in the preceding afternoon. mistaking the former for the real criminal and the author of the explosion. An English translation (Exhibit B2) from its original Tagalog reads: FOR THE SAKE OF A FREE PHILIPPINES I am the only one responsible for what happened. and. from a distance . within two hours after the occurrence. I was told by my conscience and by my God that there was a man to be blamed for all this: he had deceived the people. It took me many days and nights pondering over this act. Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang. It appears that one Angel Garcia. Cheers for the happiness of every Filipino home. many more have mourned the loss of their husbands. found in his home at 1724 Juan Luna Street. because he was in a hurry for that meeting at Plaza de Miranda. in a plant pot located close to the platform. made at the request of Guillen by his nephew. Guillen was carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag which also contained peanuts. but Guillen offered stiff resistance. On account of its materially in this case. was handed to him only at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon of March 10. he had astounded them with no other purpose than to entice them. along the stairway. talking to my own conscience. I only had on life to spare. we deem it proper to quote hereunder the contents of said document. The police operatives interrogated Garcia and Robles. It was found that the fragments of the grenade had seriously injured Simeon Varela (or Barrela ) — who died on the following day as the result of mortal wounds caused by the fragments of the grenade (Exhibits F and F-1) — Alfredo Eva. and Julio Guillen was. Hurrah for a free Philippines. General Castañeda.

supported by the brazen statements made by the accused. "in considering the concurrence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and of contempt of public authorities in the commission of crime. shows beyond any shadow of doubt that. which was then unsigned by him and subsequently signed at the police headquarters.During the investigation conducted by the police he readily admitted his responsibility. Re-enacting the crime (Exhibit C). and fourth. THE ISSUES In the brief submitted by counsel de oficio for this appellant. and. third. Quintos of the Manila Police. he knew fully well that. due to the highly explosive nature of the bomb employed by him to carry out his evil purpose. we are satisfied that it tallies exactly with the declarations and made by him on the witness stand during the trial of this case. carrying with him two hand grenades. he could not prevent the persons who were around his main and intended victim from being killed or at least injured. who investigated him soon after his arrest (Exhibit E). in answer to questions propounded by the trial judge (page 96 of transcript) . several errors are assigned allegedly committed by the trial court. From a perusal of his voluntary statement. testifying in his own behalf. he pointed out to the police where he had buried (Exhibit C-1) the other hand grenade (Exhibit D). namely: first. second. in the presence of witnesses he signed a statement which contained his answers to question propounded to him by Major A. although at the same time he tried to justify his action in throwing the bomb at President Roxas. Guillen. "in finding the appellant guilty of murder for the death of Simeon Varela"." The evidence for the prosecution. by throwing one of those two hand grenades in his possession at President Roxas. to put into execution his preconceived plan to assassinate President Roxas. and causing it to explode. He also indicated to his captors the place where he had hidden his so called last will quoted above and marked Exhibit B. "in declaring the appellant guilty of the complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder". when Guillen attended that meeting. "in applying sub-section 1 of article 49 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the penalty to be imposed upon the accused".

for in accordance with article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. although it was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the President. in view of the appropriate allegation charging Guillen with the commission of said offense. aparte de otros articulos del Codigo. the appellant acted with malice. where such intention exists. he felt no conjunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President.0 de agosto. (Gaceta de 1. in view of the fact that those persons. In the case of People vs. a las ocho de la noche. 48. the same to be applied in its maximum period. this court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery may be properly considered. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act.. although there is abundant proof that . it should be stated that . the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him. we shall refrain making a finding to that effect. We think it is the above-quoted article and not paragraph 1 of article 49 that is applicable. as held by this Court. Jose Fabio. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other." For the same reason we qualify the injuries caused on the four other persons already named as merely attempted and not frustrated murder. debio imponerse al reo la pena del delito de asesinato en el grado maximo. 232. the act should qualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced. y condeno al procesado a catorse anos de reclusion por el homivcidio y a un año de prision correctional por la imprudencia. by throwing at him in his official capacity as the Chief Executive of the nation the hand grenade in question. "in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that either malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene. Mabugat. 90 del Codigo. vol. hallandose el estanquero despachando a C. Aparte de que la muerte del estanquero debio calificarse de assesinato y no de homicidio. supra. were identified with the latter. the sum total of which shall not exceed three times the penalty to be imposed for the most serious crime in accordance with article 70 in relation to article 74 of the Revised Penal Code. The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva. o sea la pena de muerte.. cabe calificar la muerte de este de homicidio y la de c de imprudencia temeraria? — La Sala de lo Criminal de la Auudiencia de Granada lo estimo asi. in violation of the provisions of article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The case before us is clearly governed by the first clause of article 48 because by a single act. supuesta la no intencion en A de matar a C y si solo al estanquero. The killing of Simeon Varela was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. that a throwing highly explosive hand grenade at President Roxas. In other word.supports our conclusion. being loyal to the President being loyal to the President. trnscurrido un cuarto de hora. claramente que en el antedicha sentencia. of which Simeon Varela was the victim. In criminal negligence. In this connection. (People vs.7. (People vs. Alfredo Eva. a tenor de lo dispuesto en el art. a tenor de lo puesto en este apartado ultimo del articulo. Se presenta A. the injury caused to another should be unintentional. de 18 junio de 1872. en el estanco de B a comprar tabaco. but he did not succeed in assassinating him "by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.) And. Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang. a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. se oye la detonacion de un arma de fuego disparada por A desde la calle. o sea por un solo disparo. 43 Phil. p. yet. y habiendose negado este a darselo al fiado. He stated that he performed the act voluntarily.) (I Viada. p. .) Where such unlawful act is wilfully done. Se ve. 54 Phil. no pudo calificarse de imprudencia teme raria. Gona. 42. In the same case it was held that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation may not be properly taken into the account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became his victim. of which President Roxas. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack. 55 Phil.. por haberse ejecutado con aleviosa. pero. and (2) multiple attempted murder.' (Viada's Comments on the Penal Code. Penalty for Complex Crimes. a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. quedando muertos en el acto C y el estanquero. Sara. the accused Guillen has committed among others the offense of assault upon a person in authority. the accused committed two grave felonies. (People vs. criminal liability is incurred by any person committing felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. There can be no question that the accused attempted to kill President Roxas by throwing a hand grenade at him with the intention to kill him. or become aware of it. namely: (1) murder.) In the words of Viada. pues. Nanquil. se retira a quel sin mediar entre ambos disputa alguna. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. y asi lo declaro el Tribunal Supremo en S. because the killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to killing the President. for in fact his efforts were directed towards the execution of his main purpose of eliminating President Roxas for his failure to redeem his electoral campaign promises.. thereby commencing the commission of a felony by over acts. Jose Fabio. es evidente que la muerte de C. sino que tambien debio declararsele responsable de la misma. se infringio por la Sala la disposicion de este apartado ultimo del articulo muy principalmente. 605) Squarely on the point by counsel is the following decision of the Supreme Court of Spain: Cuestion 62. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill.. 939. suponiendo que no se propusiera ejecutaria el procesado. that his purpose was to kill the President. and that he should be sentenced to the corresponding penalties for the different felonies committed. 5th ed. it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. 5th Ed. y que siendo ambas muertes producidas por un solo hecho. 7. Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the injured parties.) Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows: Art. but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the President when he hurled that bomb.

The cargo truck was made to stop at Magpatao. After they were through they tied her up again. Iligan City. No. It was already 8:00 o'clock in the evening when she by left the movie house to go home. Further. Bay. Myrna's hands and feet were tied. defendant-appellant. The death sentence shall be executed in accordance with article 81 of the Revised Penal Code. another barrio of Lala where she was forced to alight and taken to a small house along the highway. Two men continued to hold her arms. then 16 years old and a student of the Immaculate Concepcion College in Ozamis City left the residential home at Kapatagan. and we hereby do so by a unanimous vote. another held her left arm and the other two covered her mouth. Finally he is sentenced to pay the costs of this proceedings. in Criminal Case No. The four men rode with her at the rear of the truck. 1966. once in the truck and twelve times in the house of Teodoro Engio where the four men took turns in ravishing her three times each. 1974.) It is our painful duty to apply the law and mete out to the accused the extreme penalty provided by it upon the facts and circumstances hereinabove narrated. PER CURIAM: This is a review on appeal of the decision dated December 18. Lanao del Norte. Then she heard one of the men say. WHEREFORE. mayron babae She tried to run away from them but her efforts proved futile for she was no match to the four men who immediately caught up with her. (Art. Lala.00 for actual damages representing her expenses in coming to testify in this case in Iligan City from San Carlos City. After that night's ordeal. Lanao del Norte. 1980 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the Court finds the accused Eulalio Bohos GUILTY as principal and beyond reasonable doubt of the common crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code with the attending aggravating circumstances of nighttime and taking advantage of superior strength and number with no attending mitigating circumstance and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the supreme penalty of death for each of the thirteen (13) separate acts of rape committed on the person of Myrna de la Vega.00 for exemplary damages.. One man held her right arm.The complex crimes of murder and multiple attempted murder committed by the accused with the single act of throwing a hand grenade at the President. L-40995 June 25. All in all Myrna was violated seventeen times. 1966. her panty was removed and right there on the truck one of the men abused her sexually. Everytime she was abused one man held her right hand. 1440 convicting Eulalio Bohos of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and sentencing him to die for each of the thirteen (13) separate acts of rape committed on the person of the complaint the dispositive portion of which reads. Myrna was ravished thirteen times. on such working day as the trial court may fix within 30 days from the date the record shall have been remanded.000. the accused is sentenced to indemnify Myrna de la Vega in the amount of P500. On September 17. without any mitigating circumstance. By that time the highway was already deserted and although there were houses along the way the occupants had already gone to bed. at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon to see a movie in barrio Maranding. her abductors untied Myrna and each one again took turns in having carnal knowledge of her while the others held her hands and her legs apart. was attended by the various aggravating circumstances alleged in the information. The following morning. A handkerchief was then placed inside her mouth. *Complex Crimes (Complex Crime Proper) G. accompanied by a small child who tagged along when Myrna went to the child's house in Maranding. ET AL. After walking for sometime she noticed several persons approaching and as they came nearer they turned out to be four men. "Bay. plaintiff-appellee. . The sentence of the trial court being correct. Branch IV.R. A passing cargo truck bound for Iligan City was stopped and she was dragged along it. Myrna de la Vega.000. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. September 18. of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. another held her left hand and another held her legs wide apart. It is so ordered. That night. P12. 248.00 for moral damages and P6. a Saturday. we have no alternative but to affirm it. In going to Maranding Myrna walked a kilometer via the highway and she had to take the same route in going home to Kapatagan. under authority of the Director of Prisons. But we do not deem it necessary to consider said aggravating circumstances because in any event article 48 of the Revised Penal Code above-quoted requires that the penalty for the most serious of said crimes be applied in its maximum period. At about 4:00 o'clock the child got thirsty so Myrna took her home but returned alone to view the rest of the film. EULALIO BOHOS. vs. belonging to Teodoro Engio.

R. Myrna Identified them as the companions of Nodado who kidnapped her and took turns in raping her. 26. in response to a report of Florencio Morilla a neighbor of the De la Vegas. the said accused stopped the truck and forced her to alight thereon. and who are still at large. The three others are still at large. 46 Phil. Dec. L-40694. No. Lala. Immediately after the arrest of the three. No witness testified to having seen or heard the accused conspire or confabulate. did then and there wilfully. As this Honorable Court had aptly observed in its previous decisions. this province. Neither could we ignore the circumstance that appellant escaped. . Estrada. instead of insisting on an early trial which an innocent man would have done. and with the use thereof. L-22517. no country lass would allow herself to be so humiliated publicly unless she had really suffered and been so victimized. Both were interrogated right in the house and Agustin Nodado gave the names of his companions as Teotimo Babanto. March 30. People vs. conspiring together. L-26458. Pangilinan that she was kidnapped and abused by four men including Nodado. 1976. Jan. Ramon Abragan.R. (People vs. People vs. G. 22 SCRA 111. People vs. who was in his underwear. Felix Palcis and Eulalio Bohos. Cutura. appellant's counsel has raised certained points in an effort to mitigate his criminal liability.R. as detained prisoners in Crim. G. 1968. 1311 together with Agustin Nodado. "B") had to be interpreted by Dr. as a farmer. Jan. Felix Palcis and Eulalio Bohos. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 1962. also sleeping was Agustin Nodado. and that appellant had guilty participation in its commission. 4 SCRA 1403. 1967. It is true that there is no evidence in the record of a previous plan among the accused to abduct Myrna in order to rape her. The whole incident happened because the four accused met a woman walking alone at a deserted place at night. Aug. dragged her to a certain house at Magpatao where she was detained. Furthermore. states in her brief: At the outset. Teotimo Babanto. Province of Lanao del Norte. L-12702. the said accused abused her and upon reaching the barrio of Magpatao. Pablito P. 1968. Municipality of Kapatagan. The verified complaint filed by Myrna de la Vega with the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte on January 18. we must confess to an inner conflict as to whether we should proceed as counsel de oficio for the appellant after we found ourselves compelled to accept that indeed the crane of forcible abduction with rape had been committed. she was able to tell Mayor Nietes and Sgt. In addition. G. Felix Palcis and Eulalio Bohos alleges: That on or about the 17 the day of September 1966 in the barrio of Maranding. Felix Palcis and Eulalio Bohos were also arrested.R. And Dr. He pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. People vs. in company with Teotimo Babanto. At the time of the trial Teodoro had already died. who have escaped from confinement in the Provincial Jail last November 25. G. 30. That same afternoon. Felix Palcis. who is a very capable lawyer. Teotimo Babanto and Eulalio Bohos escaped from the provincial jail while Agustin Nodado escaped on September 26. 775 [1923]. armed with a deadly weapon. They found Myrna in the house of Teodoro Engio fast asleep wearing only a "sando" while a small towel was wrapped around her waist to cover her private parts. No. Thus she argues that there was no conspiracy among the four accused hence the appellant should not be held liable for the acts of his co-accused. No. confederating and mutually helping with one another and with lewd designs. the accused Agustin Nodado. 1967. unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away the undersigned by force and violence or intimidation in a cargo truck which happened to pass by bound for Iligan City and while in the said truck. Eulalio Bohos was arrested right along the highway of Maranding where the raiding team passed him on their way back to the Police Station of Kapatagan after the rescue of Myrna while Teotimo Babanto and Felix Palcis were picked up in Baroy where they were apprehended for pick-pocketing. Mary Concepcion-Bautista. No. No. Bukidnon. L-26103. 1966 and in the courtroom.00 for her expenses in going to Iligan City in order to testify. Case No. was tried and convicted as aforesaid. Abragan Municipal Health Officer of Kapatagan who performed the examination on Myrna was killed in 1971 during an ambuscade so that his findings (Exh. 1968. Provincial Health Officer who gave the opinion that force was used on the person of Myrna when she was sexually used.R. against Agustin Nodado. 1967. Beside her. alias Toting alias Ernesto Ybanez. However. 1966 by then Kapatagan Mayor Bernardo Nietes together with some of his policemen led by Desk Sergeant Apolonio Pangilinan in coordination with Philippine Army soldiers. Teotimo Babanto. Philippines. Mayor Nietes had abandoned politics and moved to Quezon. Myrna had transferred her residence to San Carlos City (Pangasinan) which explains the award of P500. 69 SCRA 172. On November 25. G. after he had stabbed to death the guard on duty (Report of the Provincial Warden. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense all the accused acted in concert showing that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution. the half-nakedness of the victim at the time of her rescue was an indication of what she had gone through and one can surmise that she fell asleep out of sheer physical weakness and exhaustion. Nonetheless. Jr. 1974. Crisostomo. 31. Aleta.. Appellant's counsel de oficio. But for collective responsibility to be establish it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. 17. Teodoro Engio was also apprehended for questioning but he explained that he allowed the four who were his friends just to pass the night at his house. At the time of the trial in 1974. there was no reason to question her Identification of the appellant when he was apprehended on September 18. People vs.Myrna was rescued at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 18. Exhibit "A" Only Eulalio Bohos had been rearrested as of arraignment date on March 18. one of the accused. Verzo. the said accused alternately and successively had sexual intercourse with her against her wilt to the damage and prejudice of the offended party. Myrna looked weak and pale. she could not talk very well and was trembling during the interrogation. Pajenado. 4 SCRA 663.

R. 37 SCRA 450. No. Lala. Tenderness upon lactation of the cervix. G. No. 3. Agustin Nodado Identified his three companions as Teotimo Babanto. and one each the following morning while one held complainant's right arm. 1961. 1966. another held her left arm and another stretched her legs wide apart together with other circumstances." (At p. 1964. L-28232. The simultaneous acts of the four accused — two of them holding Myrna's hands and the other two covering her mouth as they accosted her on the highway. 72 SCRA 542. No. and Apolonio P former Desk Sergeant in the Kapatagan Police Force. Lanao del Sur. 3 SCRA 331. 6. 1966. No.1976. the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated. Internal examination revealed: 1. People vs. 1966. (SGD) PABLITO P. 21. Findings: Ocular inspection of the vulva revealed (1) Fresh blood along the external os. Tanso del Norte. Municipal Health Officer . 46 Phil. and considered independently of. People vs. concerning their rescue of Myrna in the afternoon of September 18. And the evidence is overwhelming so as to satisfy even the most skeptical reviewer that the crimes were in fact committed. 1966. Verzo. L-18892. People vs. G. where the four accused forcibly abducted Maggie de la Riva and each of them raped her. 1977. Jan. G. L-14150. 86 Phil. 2. Castro. Roncal.R. We have Myrna's testimony that she was forcibly abducted and then raped seventeen (17) times. citing People vs. the former can no longer be complexed with the latter. Any subsequent acts of intercourse in the house against her wig would be only separate acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. Cabiling.D. 87 SCRA 1. No. to the effect that Myrna was abused when she was sexually used according to Exhibit "B" which reads as follows: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FIELD OPERATIONS REGIONAL HEALTH OFFICE NO. 16 years old. Nov. Thus in People vs. single of Kapatagan. L-17465. People vs. more prominent along both sides of he clitoris. (2) Peri-vulvar hyperomia moderate. Jose. There was only one forcible abduction with rape which was the one committed in the truck. No. Corroborating her were Bernards Nietes. Sr. 7 RURAL HEALTH UNIT KAPATAGAN. Macul. 17. Akiran.R. No. where she was brought by her abductors. 31. Appellant's other point is: "Even if we may assume purely for the sake of argument that the complaining witness was forcibly abducted and then raped thirteen times. 31. 423 [1950]. We are satisfied that there was conspiracy among the four accused to abduct and rape Myrna so that the act of any one was also the act of the others. 1978. an indicia of a conspiracy to abduct complainant forcibly for the satisfaction of their carnal desire against her will . 1966. Pangilinan further testified that Teodoro Engio who was also apprehended on the same date for questioning Identified the four accused as his friends who asked his permission to pass the night in his house. but can admit 2 fingers with difficulty on the part of the examiner and severe pain on the part of the patient. supra. Laceration of the cervix slight at 6:00 o'clock with slight bleeding from the laceration. One finger can be admitted with slight pain.R. citing People vs. Mandayag. the four of them alternately and successively ravishing her inside the house of Teodoro Engio three times each on the night of September 17. make evident a community to design.R. Oct. that of forcible abduction and. this Court held "that even while the first act of rape was being performed. People vs. Both Nietes and Pan testified that in that investigation. Cercano. Lanao del Norte. 1971. People vs. Reyes. 17 SCRA 309. Dec. L26857-58. 18 SCRA 239). LANAO DEL NORTE September 19. 11 SCRA 699. 79 SCRA 509. Clarit.) The degree of participation by each of them is immaterial (People vs. G.R.R No. Jr 18760. L-37853. Oct. 475. and their investigation of the case immediately after the rescue which lead to the arrest of appellant Eulalio Bohos and his companions Agustin Nodado. therefore. No.R. 4.R.. 838 [1923]. 16 SCRA 57. we submit that there was only one forcible abduction. et al. Feb. And then we have the testimony of Dr. Sept. G. at Magpatao. with rape and that was the one allegedly committed on the truck or jeep. the four of them dragging Myrna aboard the truck which they stopped and where she was violated by one of them with the assistance and encouragement of the three others. G. L-38091. Eulalio Bohos and Felix Palcis. so that each of the three succeeding crimes of the same nature can not legally be considered as still connected with the abduction — in other words. 74 SCRA 285. 1966 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that I personally performed the examination of MYRNA DE LA VEGA. former Municipal Mayor of Kapatagan. 21. G. Teotimo Babanto and Felix Palcis. ABRAGAN M. People vs. 31. Hymen incomplete with slight laceration at 8:30 o'clock. L-18997. This point is well taken. People vs. G. they should be detached from. Aug. Bautil. May 30.) We have examined the record to ascertain if there was indeed forcible abduction with rape and other rapes in order to set our minds at ease. 29. 1976. Ramon Abragan. G.

. For alibi to prosper it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere when the crime was committed but that he must likewise demonstrate that it *Complex Crimes (Complex Crime Proper) G. The prisoners belonged to two gangs: the Oxo gang. So. (35) AGUSTIN VILLAFLOR alias Tisoy. Reynon lost consciousness and collapsed on the floor. June 27. (12) Jose Villarama and (13) Sofronio Villegas. (6) JOSE BARBAJO. (28) EUGENIO PROVIDO. according to defendant Cabcaban) prisoners were incarcerated in the big cell. (11) FELIX HERNANDEZ.squaremeter big cell when the massacre occurred. 1965. We reject this defense. 1979 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (9) Vicente Quijano. (18) JOSE VILLARAMA and (19) SOFRONIO VILLEGAS. 14 SCRA 702). Reynon locked that cell. (25) CIRIACO OPSIAR alias Simaron. (22) ALFREDO LAGARTO. 61 SCRA 73). Leocadio Gavilaguin. (32) MARCELO SARDENIA. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated by the trial court but it erred when it also added nocturnity for there is no evidence to show that nighttime was purposely chosen to facilitate the commission of the crime. Davao del Norte. A prisoner took the bunch of keys which were in Reynon's custody and opened the door of the big cell. (4) MAXIMO APOLONIAS. When Reynon refused to open the door. He claims that on September 17 and 18. The seventeen inmates of the three small cells.. Nov. there were around eighty-six prisoners in the eighty. The name Sigue-Sigue was tattooed on their thighs or buttocks. (16) SINDOLFO GALANTO. 1958 (People vs. (14) ABSALON ENRIGAN. as if on cue.R. (11) Eleuterio Taboy. it is affirmed in all other respects. They were armed with improvised weapons. a prisoner from the small cell. 1974. the other thirteen prisoners from the small cells rushed into the big cell. One prisoner stabbed Reynon while the others hit him on the chest and right temple with fistic blows.) Led by Kulot (Emerito Abella). It was indubitably congested. The defense of alibi. (16) ELEUTERIO TABOY. L-19067-68. "the close-confined" prisoners from the small cells surrounded Reynon and assaulted him. Confined ill the three small cells were seventeen prisoners who liad committed grave misconduct and who were known as "close-confined" prisoners to distinguish them from the prisoners in the big cell who were just undergoing punishment. (10) LEOCADIO GAVILAGUIN. (12) GUILLERMO IGNACIO. (33) ELEUTERIO TABOY. vs.. Gavilaguin was simply employing a ruse to inveigle Reynon into opening the door to the big cell. an inmate of the big cell. all members of the Oxo gang.R. (4) Sindolfo Galanto. was performing guard duty at the jailhouse of the penal colony in Panabo. The crimes thus proved to have been committed are forcible abduction with rape and sixteen (16) separate rapes attended by the aggravating circumstances of superiority and use of a motor vehicle without any mitigating circumstance. (2) GORGONIO AÑOVER (3) RODOLFO APOLINARIO. plaintiff-appellee. (1) EMERITO ABELLA alias Kulot. 15. As it turned out. had also taken their lunch but Reynon did not lock their cells because he was waiting for the prisoner-janitor to bring out from those cells the cans used as urinals. he was in the house of Vicente Pangilinan at Kapatagan. Reynon himself opened the door. The record reveals that in the morning of Sunday. July 30. (12) FRANCISCO DIONISIO alias Satud. (36) JOSE VILLARAMA and (37) SOFRONIO VILLEGAS. (3) Absalon Enrigan. (19) ROMULO GELLE. JR. No. See People vs. AQUINO. Reynon told Gavilaguin.The defense of the appellant is alibi. The prisoners used a drum to dispose of their waste matter. Costs de officio. (10) RUSTICO CIDRO. SO ORDERED. (9) RODOLFO CARBALLO. cannot prevail over the positive Identification of the accused by the prosecution witness as the author of the crime (People v. (26) ROBERTO PANGILINAN. (7) ELINO DURAN. approached Reynon and asked permission to pawn his pillow to Rodolfo Carballo. No. and the Sigue-Sigue gang whose members hailed from Luzon. (8) CATALINIO CABCABAN alias Inday. (8) Ciriaco Opsiar alias Simaron. L-32205 August 31. They were (1) Gorgonio Anover. The aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle should also be appreciated. JR. De los Santos. The existence of these gangs in the New Bilibid Prison was traced by Judge (now Justice) Andres Reyes in the De los Santos case. (7) Eleuterio Maldecir alias Aswang. supra. (17) LEOCADIO GAVILAGUIN alias Cadio. (10) Juanita Rebutaso. (18) ALFREDO GAYLAN.: This case is about the massacre of certain prisoners in the Davao Penal Colony. J. Cortez G. Shortly before noontime of that Sunday. June 27. (23) BENEDICTO LORAÑA alias Payat. May 31. (13) ELINO DURAN. (20) FELIX HERNANDEZ. (15) VICENTE QUIJANO. (6) FRANCISCO DIONISIO. 1965 Numeriano Reynon a prisoner-trustee. 1965. WHEREFORE.R. was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission (People v. (6) Benedicto Lorana alias Payat. (21) GUILLERMO IGNACIO. 57 SCRA 308). (15) JOSE FRANCISCO alias Karate. 1966. (5) Felix Hernandez. L-31106. (3) JOSE BARBAJO. (31) ROMEO RICAFORT alias Romy. (24) ELEUTERIO MALDECIR alias Aswang. On the opposite side were three small cells. that Carballo would not accept his pillow because it was very dirty. Tisoy (Agustin Villaflor) and Cadio (Gavilaguin). which can be easily concocted. On one side was a single cell about ten meters long and eight meters wide. (14) EUGENIO PROVIDO. (5) RODOLFO CARBALLO. Then. (According to some extrajudicial confessions. Cortez. (34) ANGEL TAGANA. No. At that juncture. Gavilaguin grabbed him from behind. (29) VICENTE QUIJANO. (5) DOMINGO ASTROLOGIA alias Blackie. (2) MAXIMO APOLONIAS. (8) ABSALON ENRIGAN. accused whose death sentences are under automatic review. It was a reprise of a similar riot which occurred in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa Rizal on Sunday morning February 16. (11) CRESENCIO CUIZON. Around seventy (seventy-five. 1974. (17) ANGEL TAGANA. (30) JUANITO REBUTASO. or after the inmates of the big cell had taken their lunch. (1) EMERITO ABELLA. L-31104. G. whose members were Visayans with an Oxo mark tattooed on their bodies. the judgment appealed from is modified in that Eulalio Bohos is sentenced to suffer not thirteen (13) but seventeen (17) death penalties. (7) PERFECTO BILBAR alias Porping. The jailhouse (bartolina) was a two-story building whose second floor was divided by a corridor or passageway one and half meters wide. (27) ROLANDO PANGILINAN. Peralta. (4) CATALINO CABCABAN. (2) Rustico Cidro. accused. Lanao del Norte. (9) JOSE FRANCISCO. (13) BENEDICTO LORAÑA. 25 SCRA 759.

(7) Carlito Padilla.. (4) Gualberto Fuentes.murder.murder and theft. murder and frustrated murder.robbery. (26) Roberto Pangilinan . (30) Rebutaso . right side of the neck and the left arm. On September 24. stayed in the small cell.(2) Añover . Perfecto Bilbar alias Proping. six counts. Del Rosario and De Guzman would have died had there been no timely medical attendance. double homicide and evasion of service of sentence: (25) Opsiar . a stab wound on the neck which penetrated the larynx and two superficial punctured wounds on the left and right sides of the chest. Castro). He gave them and the bunch of keys to Geronimo Jorge. frustrated murder. No one among the assailants was injured. a prisoner in the big cell suffered a lacerated wound in the head and six incised wounds on the right cheek. (4) Jose Barbajo alias Joe. (16) Galanto . Arsenio Guevarra. (8) Generoso Palino. Those weapons consisted of five sharp-pointed wooden daggers. three wire ice picks.The seventeenth closely confined prisoner. Although three whistles were sounded at the start of the massacre and prison officials rushed to the corridor near the big cell. and theft. (3) Apolinario .robbery with habitual delinquency. (21) Ignacio .murder. the overseer of the penal colony. (8) Cabcaban theft. Jr. According to the eyewitnesses. theft of large cattle and evasion of service of sentence. a stone wrapped with cloth (caburata). (18) Gaylan murder.murder and robbery. Manuel Cayetano and Armando Sanchez died in that hospital. (22) Lagarto . (17) Gavilaguin . (4) Apolinias homicide. were (1) Rodolfo Apolinario. Davao City Branch II. who joined the sixteen raiders from the three cells in assaulting the victims. (3) Jose Castro. who were unarmed. Juan del Rosario (a victim). It was only after they were assured that they would not be maltreated that Abella advise his companions to surrender. (10) Cidro . (15) Romeo Ricafort alias Romy. Ten victims. cerebral hemorrhage and severe external and internal hemorrhage. homicide and evasion of service of sentence.theft. (36) Villarama . (29) Quijano . all prisoners. Bartolome de Guzman had a lacerated wound on the head. He was confined in the hospital for nineteen days. placed pieces of wood and a blanket on the door to keep it closed (16 tsn July 25.(11) Cuizon . supervising prison guard and senior investigator of the Davao Penal Colony. they could not do anything because the door was locked and the key was held by one of the raiders. filed in the municipal court of Panabo a complaint for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder against thirty-seven prisoners of the penal colony who allegedly took part in the assault (Criminal Case No. Juan del Rosario. slander by deed. and Roberto Rodrigo. (9) Jacinto Refugia and (10) Delfin San Miguel.murder. Inside the big cell. frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence. Jr. Villaflor (Tisoy) shouted: "Tumabi ang Bisaya!" ("Visayans go to the sides"). Villaflor gathered all the weapons used by his group. (27) Rolando Pangilinan . seven sharp. (13) Rolando Pan (14) Eugenio Provide. at the time the massacre occurred the thirty-seven accused were quasi-recidivists because they were serving sentences for different crimes after having been convicted by final judgment. two counts. four counts. Many of them were lying flat on the floor with raised hands or clinging to the walls made of steel-matting. 9405). Reynon sustained a lacerated wound on his eyebrow and a stab wound on the left shoulder. (6) Barbajo . 1965 the statements of several jail inmates were taken by the prison investigator. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay.robbery.murder. (20) Hernandez . inmates from the big cell. two incised wounds at the nape and at the left hypochondriac region. 1965. . Report of Jose T. frustrated murder. Identified as (1) Romeo Bulatao. two counts and violation of articles 157 and 178 of the Revised Penal Code. (8) Francisco Dionisio (he pleaded guilty).murder. (19) Gelle .homicide. Three other victims survived. two Gillete blades with wooden handles.murder.homicide. two bamboo ice picks. a special counsel of the provincial fiscal's office filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Davao. were pronounced dead on arrival at the penal colony hospital. (16) Marcelo Sardenia and (17) Angel Tagana. (2) Manalo Castillo. (7) Bilbar . as indicated below: (1)Abella cualified theft. frustrated homicide and qualified theft. The affray lasted for about an hour. (12) Roberto Pangilinan alias Pagong. (6) Severino Pacon. a wooden club (Reynon's balila) and twenty-two pieces of wood. 1773).murder.murder.murder.frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence. alias Junior. In July.robbery.murder and evasion of service of sentence. Afurong. Salvador Abique Demetrio Camo. (10) Jose Francisco alias Karate. As specified in the information. (2) Maximo Apolinias alias Max. slander with slight physical injuries and violations of Manila ordinances.homicide. attempted robbery with homicide and robbery with serious physical injuries. 1965 Vicente B. (5) Jose Magpantay.homicide. charging the thirty-seven accused with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. The accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. (33) Taboy . Some of these seventeen prisoners destroyed the floor of the big cell removed the wood therefrom and used the pieces of wood in clubbing to death some of the victims. (5) Astrologia . through the holes of the steelmatting.pointed aluminum daggers. (12) Dionisio . (32) Sardenia robbery. The offenders at first did not surrender to prison officials who had arrived at the scene after the alarm was sounded. mid-anterior side of the neck. (24) Maldecir . (9) Elino Duran.robbery. Record. On October 22. They were sworn to before the municipal judge of Panabo. (7) Cresencio Cuizon alias Sianong Kulot. The fourteen victims died of shock. and (37) Villegas . 9. The examining physician testified that Reynon. . (5) Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday. (35) Villaflor. (9) Carballo . (28) Provide.murder. The assaulted prisoners. homicide. (6) Rodolfo Carballo alias Rudy. the.murder. arson. He locked its door and closed the padlock of the big cell (Page. four counts. (13) Duran homicide. did not resist the attack. (3) Domingo Astrologia alias Blackie. (15) Francisco . evasion of service of sentence and frustrated murder.homicide. an inmate of the big cell.frustrated murder and evasion of service of sentence. (34) Tagana robbery with physical injuries malicious mischief. 1967). (23) Lorana murder. (11) Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. (31) Ricafort homicide and attempted homicide.qualified theft. robbery in an inhabited house. (14) Enrigan . frustrated murder and qualified theft.

Then. I then asked Pakpak as to where is Jimmy (Refugia) and he pointed Refugia to me who was then at the ceiling. (16) Sardenia and (17) Tagana. B. (4) Barbajo. I saw trusty police Budoy and (he) closed the door and said. While the rest of my companions continued stabbing and beating our victims. (16) Taboy. Jorge for whom we made the surrender by giving to him our weapons such as sharpened stakes and others. Cidro. of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. and I grabbed the key from the hand of Reynon. (15) Provide. he asked me: 'Ano ba ito Cusa (Agustin ). (14) Roberto Pangilinan. (14) Rebutaso (15) Ricafort. on July 14. After the lunch. Fernandez.confinement cells were also sent out to have our noon meat But before we went out from our cells.' I saw some who were still alive and I told 'Beat them on the head with the wooden clubs. (11) Gaylan. Please come and I'll tell you something. (2) Anover. When I got inside the cell I said: 'Visaya at Ilocano ay tumabi. — At about 11:55 a. I also went inside the big cell Ruding Pakpak met me and said to me: 'Saan ang sa akin?' I pulled from my waist his weapon and gave it to him. at first pleaded guilty but when he repudiated his extrajudicial confession.. the employees arrived and shouted: 'You surrender' and we called Mr. Abiki released me and I continued stabbing for several others (sic). The fiscal submitted as exhibits the extrajudicial confessions of the nineteen accused which were sworn to before the municipal judge. Record). I stabbed him and after that I left Jimmy (Jacinto) who was already fatally wounded. aamin rin ba ako?'. was appreciated against Abella. (9) Lorana (10) Maldecir (11) Opsiar (12) Rolando Pangilinan (1. Quijano. Maldecir. recidivism. the inmates of the big cell opposite our cell were already inside their cell after they have eaten their noon meal and after they were locked in the big cell. I went near them and I stabbed Bundat once. we had already agreed that we are going to get inside the big cell and we also made an agreement that one of us from the closeconfinement cells by the name of Cadio (Gavilaguin) would find a way so that we can get inside the big cell. 76-77 or 55-56. The seventeen accused who pleaded not guilty were (1) Apolinario. the accused were represented by two lawyers de oficio. he called Rudy Pakpak and said: 'Will you buy this pillow?" and Rudy said. When I saw Refugia. Then. Then. (5) Bilbar. (9) Duran. he mixed with the rest. (3) Astrologia. When I saw him down. which was alleged in the information. Taboy. (8) Hernandez. . Guillermo Ignacio.' Afterwards. The trial court forthwith rendered a partial decision convicting the nineteen accused. (Exh. Reynon opened the door of the big cell and Ruding Pakpak said: 'Abi. we were instructed to go to the place near the toilet until the Judge arrived. (2) Apolonias. I left him and went to the others. we were ordered to go down asked with hands tied and thereafter. a plea of not guilty was substituted for his plea of guilty. the trial court ordered the interpreter to ask individually the nineteen accused whether they confirmed their confessions.. Q . Then. m.'Open the door so that I can see it. Villaflor and Villegas. (5) Enrigan (6) Galanto. pp.' Pilay approached us and I gave him the blade and he used the same to cut off the neck of Abiki.sigi tatoo. E. 1965. (7) Carballo. we inmates in the close. Anover. I pushed him away and opened the door. Q. he went to his cell and got a pillow which was to be sold to our contact inside the big cell. You may inspect it if you wish. I rested. we were sent out of the cell for our lunch. . 1965 at the so-called "reading center" of the penal colony. 'Sigi na pare. qualified by treachery and premeditation (alleged in the information) and with the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism which was not offset by their plea of guilty In addition.pointed stakes) taken from me. (17) Villaflor. I began looking for another of our enemies. an investigator. 63-64. I then began looking for the inmate who had incriminated me in the previous incident in the prison compound which caused my being jailed in the close-confinement cells. And Bundat lessened his grip from Pakpak then began stabbing Bundat (sic) and when he saw that Bundat is (was) dead. The dead ones were brought down . Of the nineteen who pleaded guilty.. I then continued my rest until at (sic) the employees and guards arrived at the jail. (12) Gelle.' Reynon opened the door and when it was opened. When Cadio was already at the aisle between the big cell and the close-confinement cells. I took the club from Emerito Abella and began beating Cayetano with it until I stopped beating him when I saw that he was no longer moving. Opsiar. who pleaded guilty. (10) Francisco.' After (he) inspected. I gave the club to Kulot (Emerito Abella )and rested for a while. . After Cadio had finished eating. he told me: 'Kalugar (sic). Jr. I saw that Reynon was grappled by some of my coinmates from the close-confinement cell and then my companions began entering the big cell When. Galanto. Malaki masyado ito. Enrigan. I also stabbed them after which I told Rudy Pakpak: 'Hilahin mo dito and mga patay. When I got (it). Rolando Pangilinan. Pilay. and requested him (Reynon) that he (Cadio) is going to pledge the said pillow to Ruding Pakpak (Carballo) but the said trusty was hesitant at first.' Then.. Alicarte. Villaflor said: 13. (13) Lagarto.' Then. June 27. we finished our meal. Typical of the confessions of the accused was Villaflor's statement taken by Ramon C. (6) Cabcaban. our contact in the big cell by the name of Ruding Pakpak (Arsenio Guevarra) (should be Rodolfo Carballo) came near the door of their cell and asked Cadio if the pillow he (Cadio) was holding is made of cotton. (7) Gavilaguin. When Cadio's request was seconded by Emerito Abella by saying. The nineteen accused who pleaded guilty were (1) Abella. 1965)? A. I also climbed and pulled him down. Dionisio. Ricafort. (4) Dionisio. I then saw Pakpak grappling with Bundat and Pakpak called for me to help him. Sofronio Villegas (prisoner) held him (Reynon) tightly. I saw some Sigi-sigi members. all of them ratified their confessions. I then saw Manuel Cayetano who was already wounded. you help me. The information was read and explained to them in the Tagalog dialect.'Mamatay kayong lahat diyan. he approached and said: 'What?' 'I have a pillow to be given to Rudy Pakpak for sale. Lorana. Abi tingnan ko ang unan kung bulak ang laman.. I called the jailer (trusty police) the person of Reynon and told him 'Pare. I told him: 'siempre tapos na rin iyon and he kept quiet. In open court. When he fell down the floor. 1966. pp. Cadio then called the trusty police on duty. the trial court required the fiscal to present evidence as of those who had pleaded guilty.' When I went to the middle part of the big cell I met Abiki having Sigi. — On that particular time and date.Will you narrate to me the story of said incident? A. (18) Villarama and (19) Villegas.Will you please narrate to me what you know about that unusual incident (in the morning of June 27. Tulongan mo ako. Record Gavilaguin's narrative of the massacre is as follows: 15.At the arraignment on March 5. When he held my hand. sixteen were "closeconfined" prisoners from the three small cells while three Dionisio Pangilinan and Ricafort were from the big cell. dahil sa wala kaming pangbili ng cigarilyo. I stabbed him and he was able to grab the weapon (sharp. Gavilaguin.' My companions followed me inside in the big cell and I told them to watch on the door. (EXH. (8) Cuizon. prisoner Numeriano Reynon.3) Quijano. The thirty-seventh accused. At the fiscal's behest. After the pleas were entered. (3) Cidro.

The tenth Dionisio. an escapee. 6 Phil. As already indicated in our recital of the proceedings below. in order to comply with the procedure in capital cases when a plea of guilty is entered. Eighteen accused who pleaded guilty were sentenced to death. 770. 19491. we find that their admission of guilt therein is corroborated by evidence of thecorpus delicti or the fact that the massacre described therein actually took place. 767. Padilla. was appreciated against Abella. 171. (2) Astrologia. death ended the agonies of ten of the twentynine accused who were sentenced to death. Manguera. (5) Hernandez. page 400. 1973. For lack of evidence. on the ground of lack of evidence. Expediente of Criminal Case No. Cayetano. The ten dead defendants were Anover Cidro. It is true that the trial judge did not adhere to the ritualistic formula of explaining to the accused the meaning and consequences of their plea of guilty and the nature of the aggravating circumstances. 717 and 750. . All of them were ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen victims (Decision of March 5. See People vs. Castro. The death penalty imposed on the remaining nineteen accused named in the title of this case (Including Abella. the trial court dismissed the case as to Perfecto Bilbar (page 299. 1969 he was erroneously paroled because the Board of Pardons and Parole was not informed that he was sentenced to death in the Davao court's decision of September 14. (2) Dionisio.3720102. Volumes I and II of the Rollo). Refugia. Article IV of the Constitution with respect to extrajudicial confessions are not applicable to the confessions herein because they were taken before the effectivity of the Constitution or before January 17. (9) Villarama (he allegedly killed on February 12. 662. (11) Provido. The case of Rebutaso who was sentenced tocadena perpetua and who did not appeal. Sanchez and San Miguel. Abique. Castillo. Expediente). After the trial. Lagarto and Sardenia (Decision of September 14.. L38929. 817). ten. August 30. fun significance and consequences of his plea" (People vs. (6) Loraña (7) Quijano. (6) Cuizon. (8) Francisco. (7) Duran. (1) Apolonias. On October 10. vs.Reiteration. Gelle. (9) Ignacio. namely (1) Abella. Palino. the trial court. 181. including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated. Rollo). (3) Enrigan (4) Gavilaguin. 1968. (8) Taboy. Expediente). 24 SCRA 798. Those who were convicted were sent to the national penitentiary. (3) Barbajo. The latter presented the confessions of those who pleaded guilty. Juan del Rosario and Bartolome de Guzman. Magpantay. is not under review. And the long settled rule is that in case a plea of guilty is made in capital cases "the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information. Fuentes. January 31. 1969 (Pages 413-4 of Expediente and pages 1. Bulalake. 9405). is the one under automatic review "as law and justice shall dictate". Simeon vs. he was returned to the national penitentiary for security reasons. 1969 convicted twelve of the said eighteen defendants. 1969. Talbanos. (5) Carballo. Rollo). Pacon. Apolinario. After a perusal of their confessions. required the fiscal to present evidence. 336-B. namely. Isnani. Upon motion of the fiscal. The twelve defendants were further ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of three thousand pesos to each of the frustrated murder victims. Galanto. was sentenced to cadena perpetua (should be reclusion perpetual. The trial court sentenced to death each of the said twelve accused (in addition to the eighteen "close-confined" prisoners who pleaded guilty and were already sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision) and ordered them to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen victims. 1966. Maldecir Opsiar. Counsel de oficio contends that the accused made an improvident plea of guilty because the lower court did not apprise them of the meaning and consequences of their plea. L. Ricafort and Villaflor (Pages 98. Nine of the ten were among the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in the three small cells who invaded the big cell. all decided on March 3. 1975. and (10) Villegas. 176. Gaylan. (4) Cabcaban. (10) Pangilinan. 543). Rolando Pangilinan. Jr. and (12) Tagana. Roberto Pangilinan. an escapee. So. the lower court in its decision of September 14.S. 212. The requirements of section 20. Numeriano Reynon. 1976 a fellow prisoner in the national penitentiary. Bilbar. — It may be recapitulated that of the nineteen accused in the death row. of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation and quasi-recidivism (treachery was not mentioned). 63 SCRA 4). After trial. Villaflor. Apduhan. namely. Review of death sentence on those who pleaded guilty. The eighteen accused (including Ignacio) who pleaded not guilty were tried. namely. Cuizon. Volume II of Rollo). Villarama and Dionisio. After the rendition of that decision or during the pendency of this case. 1977. I -D 2 and 159. Camo. 541. which was also alleged in the information. 125. Magtoto vs. Villaluz. was confined in the big cell. Also cited is the admonition that "judges are duty-bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction" (People vs. Reliance is placed on the dictum that in capital cases "it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant" (U. 75 SCRA 148). L-32752-3. Gavilaguin. rot only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning. 106 Phil. Maldecir. thirty of the thirty-seven accused were sentenced to death. p. 238. page 158. Jr. L-37424 and People vs. The death sentence imposed upon Astrologia is likewise not under review because it was not promulgated. page 712. pleaded guilty upon arraignment and in open court ratified their extrajudicial confessions which were sworn to before the municipal judge. a verdict of acquittal was rendered for six accused. Rebutaso the nineteenth accused who also pleaded guilty. Apolonias and Villegas who escaped from confinement. They were sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision. Bulatao. Baluyot.

1964. In the Yamson case two prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison killed their fellow convict. He testified that at the time the massacre was being perpetrated he was clinging to the wall made of steel-matting. In his statement of August 9. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15. a prisoner acting as a special policeman. 1965. Jose Barbajo alias Joe. Negros Occidental. He was imprisoned in the national penitentiary on December 26. We find that the prosecution's evidence does net establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Apolonias. held that the trial judge must have been fully satisfied that the accused entered the plea of guilty with fun knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof. 1965. Cebu City. He was eighteen years old when he was convicted of robbery. 109 Phil. — He was born in Villadolid. They were forthwith convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death. 1965. 1968. He said that he was not a member of any prison gang. he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang but he denied that he helped the sixteen raiders in assaulting the victims. Cabcaban. Yamson. As to him. He declared that he was sick when the massacre occurred. He finished grade three. Witness Guevarra said that he did not see Apolonias assaulting the victims (109 tsn November 16. 1966). Jamad. 1967 when he testified. In his statement (Exh. but Rodrigo was probably referring to the victim named Salvador Abique who was also Identified by a witness as Tabique.— He is a native of Mabolo. The name "Cabile" might be an error in transcription. There is no victim surnamed Cabile. 793. It was tattooed but not with the letters "OXO". some comprehension of what a plea of guilty signifies. 1964. 2. they pleaded guilty with the assistance of a counsel de oficio. 111 Phil. DD). He was convicted of theft and evasion of service of sentence. the trial court did not do so. — He was born in Barrio Anas. Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday. lie repeatedly declared that he could not have been involved in the massacre because he was a new arrival in the penal colony. At their arraignment for murder. 1966). 943 and People vs. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Masbate and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correctional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor. This Court. He finished grade four. Perete. Phil. therefore. Carballo. Maximo Apolonias alias Max. He climbed the wall of steel-matting. Provide. he denied having joined the sixteen raiders. Those nine accused were in the big cell (bartolina). Barbajo. Rodolfo Carballo alias Ruding Pakpak.Sigue gang in the big cell. 115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 13. The Court of First Instance of Cebu imposed upon him a penalty of six years and eight months of prision mayor (as a habitual delinquent he was not entitled to an indeterminate sentence) plus three years. Tanjay. 1967). Francisco. Witness Guevarra identified Barbajo as a member —of the Oxo gang and as having beaten with a piece of wood one "Bandes" (108. in resolving the contention of the counsel de oficio that the accused had made an improvident plea. 4. 3.— He was born in Barrio Asagna. Witness Del Rosario implicated Barbajo and witness Rodrigo definitely testified that Barbajo supplied to his companions the pieces of wood which they used in beating the victims (10 tsn July 25. 1962. 37 Phil. Tondo. 1964. and Tagana. vs. — As to the other nine accused. He finished the fourth grade. Apolonias. He resided at 958 Antipolo Street. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. Jr. the companions of Cabcaban in the big cell. 111. As held in U. He testified that when the massacre occurred he climbed the wall of steel-matting. Witness Rodrigo. He was confined in the national penitentiary starting August 29. not only because the judicial confessions of the accused (pleas of guilty) were reinforced by their extrajudicial confessions. The prosecution's theory is that they conspired with the sixteen raiders from the three small cells to kill the fourteen victims and inflict injuries on the three other victims. Witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario. namely. People vs. it is not sufficient to justify the judgment of conviction. six months and twenty-one days for habitual delinquency. He finished grade six. He was twenty-five years old when he testified on March 12. Negros Oriental. 318. Masbate. He was . Yamson and Romero. He was brought to the New Bilibid Prison on December 8. 1968. (Same holding in People vs. Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo implicated Apolonias but did not state definitely the acts perpetrated by the latter during the assault. Dimasalang. He was twenty-six years old on October 20. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8.S. He was twenty-four years old when he testified on March 13. it is necessary to make a painstaking examination of the evidence in order to ascertain whether their guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. 1967). He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on June 20. 1964 and was recaptured on March 15. Duran. 305. He escaped from the penal colony on August 12. That observation may be applied to the instant case.Presumably. 406. pointed to Cabcaban as the person who beat Cabile with a piece of wood (4 tsn July 25. being quasi-recidivists The accused appealed. testified that Cabcaban was a member of the Oxo gang and that he helped Abella's group in attacking the members of the Sigue. 1964. 1. Ignacio. The massacre took place fifty days after Ms arrival. We hold that in this case the accused did not make an improvident plea of guilty. His body was examined while he was on the witness stand. as maximum. 1962. is a case similar to the instant case.) Review of the death sentence on those who pleaded not guilty. He allegedly did not know what transpired when the sixteen "close-confined" raiders entered the big cell. but also because it was cognizant of the fact that all the accused were quasi-recidivists who had already acquired experience in criminal proceedings and had. who pleaded not guilty and were tried and sentenced to death. Manila. He was received in the national penitentiary on July 9. 1964. it lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge whether he is satisfied that a plea of guilty has been entered by the accused with fun knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof. as reported in the transcript.

114-115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18. 1968. He was received in the national penitentiary on December 3. or two days before the riot. 7. Prosecution eyewitnesses Guevarra. 1967). — He was born in Catbalogan. Francisco and one Roberto Gonzales (an actor) had charged Liwanag with extorting money from the Karate Club. On the witness stand. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Samar and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal. After the riot. who died (108. He admitted in his statement to the investigator that he was a member of the Oxo gang and had the Oxo tattoo mark. Rolando Pangilinan. It was that ruse which started the commotion (9598 tsn November 16. He was convicted of theft and violations of articles 157 and 178 of the Review Penal Code. Lagarto. He said that during the riot he climbed the wall of steel-matting. he denied any participation in the massacre.matting. 1966). Witness Rodrigo. 12. He said that during the investigation of the case. Barbara. He escaped three times from prison (Exh. EE ). He admitted that he executed a statement and that the contents thereof were true (Exh. as maximum (Exh. Carballo. Ricafort.1967). He was confined in the national penitentiary on February 15. According to counsel. 1962. EE). J-12). — He was born in Pila. 1964. . in his wholesale Identification of the twelve prisoners who took part in the assault. took part in beating the victims (15-16 tsn July 25. In his statement and testimony. He finished grade five. identified Ignacio as a member of the Oxo gang and as the prisoner who. He used to be a judo instructor. Laguna and resided at San Andres Extension. Tagana. 8. He was convicted of murder. Eugenie Provido. 18. In his statement. a prisoner acting as a special policeman. Astrologia. 1966). 1966). 1966). He said that he did not read his statement but he was just made to sign it and he signed it so that he would not be maltreated. beat the victim. frustrated murder. and. He finished the sixth grade. Jose Francisco alias Karate. He saw his fellow prisoner. 93 or 115. He said that he was not a member of the Oxo gang but he believed that he was counted as an Oxo sympathizer because he is a Visayan. he Identified Cuizon. Counsel de oficio. Witness Del Rosario. 6. 127 tsn Nov. 1968. No evidence was presented in the lower court by Francisco to prove that he was convicted on a trumped-up charge of robbery. He said that he did not know what actually happened because he was solicitous about his own personal safety. He was brought to the national penitentiary on December 18. 1968.1968. He finished grade five. armed with a wooden club. armed with a wooden club. Guevarra Identified Carballo as one of those who helped the sixteen raiders (107 tsn November 17. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. Cabcaban and Carballo alias Rudy as among those who took part in the massacre. he was investigated. 5. Cabcaban. Guevarra fingered Provido and Identified him as a member of the Oxo gang and as having beaten the victims with a piece of wood (Ibid. climbed the wall of steel-matting and prayed. Jr. of which Francisco was a member. — He was born in Sta. Arsenio Guevarra (the prosecution witness). he stood beside the steel-matting. witness Guevarra Identified Francisco as a member of the Oxo gang who helped the raiders and who. 1959. who filed a brief for Francisco only. during the riot. — He was born in La Carlota. 1968. 1961. 1953. 1965. covered the door of the big cell with a blanket and pieces of wood and who.twenty-seven years old when he testified on January 8. 108 and 11 5. J-17). Said counsel alleged that Francisco was convicted of robbery (snatching) because he was framed up by a certain Patrolman Liwanag of the Manila police. contended that the trial court erred in holding that Francisco was a co-conspirator. he was convicted of robbery by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months of prision correctional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor. Samar. In his statement. 1966). In 1964. That testimony was corroborated by witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo. Witness Guevarra testified that Gavilaguin. wanted to sell his pillow to Carballo (who is Identified in the confessions as Ruding Pakpak). 1964 and confined in the big cell on June 25. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on March 5. Liwanag fabricated a complaint for robbery against Francisco who was convicted and sent to the Davao Penal Colony. he was told that he would be utilized as a State witness. he pointed to Ignacio alias Pilay. Witness Guevarra testified that he did not know Provido (90 tsn November 16. Tagana and Dionisio as having taken part in the killings (See No. He was twenty-six years old when he testified on July 10. 1966). Rosario and Rodrigo Identified Duran as having ellaborated with the sixteen raiders in perpetrating the massacre. Elino Duran. Apolonias. Gualberto Fuentes. He testified that during the massacre he climbed the wag of steel-matting but someone pulled his feet and he fell down on the floor. Manila. He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell he was driven to a comer and was shielded by the other prisoners and in that situation he heard the shouts of the rioters. He did not climb the steel. However. Negros Occidental. J-5). He was received in the national penitentiary on July 27. He was twentynine years old when he testified on March 12. Roberto Pangilinan. because he was suspected of having smuggled deadly weapons into the prison compound (pp. a prisoner in the big cell. a closelyconfined prisoner. 1964 (Exh. Record). He declared that when the massacre began. Witness Del Rosario included Francisco in his wholesale Identification of twelve assailants who helped the raiders from the small cells. He was thirty-eight years old when he testified on March 12. in revenge. included Ignacio (222 tsn February 10. He finished the first year of high school. when he was asked to point to his (Guevarra's) companions in the big cell who helped Abella's group. Guevarra said that he did not see Ignacio helping the group (108 tsn November 17.five years old when he testified on January 8. Ignacio. Del. He declared that when the raiders entered the big cell he :stepped aside. Iloilo. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on February 29. Exh. 1963. He was received in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15. however. He denied that he was a member of the Oxo gang. arson and evasion of service of sentence. he admitted he was a member of the Oxo gang. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 22. carrying a pillow. He was twenty. Astrologia.

as shown particularly by the order of the two "close-confined" prisoners. — On October 30. The accused had deliberately planned the attack as shown by the manner in which they executed the massacre. Tagana. it should be shown that the offender against whom it is appreciated had already served out his sentences for the prior offenses (People vs. Gavilaguin. Manila. joined and combined forces with their friends and associates-inmates of the big cell who were waiting for the go signal to commence the attack in pursuance of their criminal objective". October 31. The other contention of counsel de oficio that all the accused should be given the benefit of the extenuating circumstance of voluntary Surrender to the authorities is not correct. according to counsel. The victims did not offer any resistance. 1963. 1977). Barbajo. He was received in the national penitentiary on June 15. Villaflor and Villarama to whom reiteration was considered aggravating. 1967). who were armed with bladed weapons. Ignacio. the overseer. Jorge. united and concerted movement that could easily indicate a community of purpose. The Layson case is similar to the instant case. ten accused. Villarama and Villegas. No one among the accused sustained any injuries or was exposed to any risk arising from any defense that the victims might have made. They were still serving sentence for their previous crimes at the time the riot occurred. 1969. He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell and started stabbing his companions he ran to the side of the cell. personally or without the assistance of counsel. Cuizon (who died on November 6. Motion for new trial. Duran. Hernandez. (who died on April 2. October 31. Dionisio. Enrigan. there was abuse of superiority which absorbed cuadrilla In People vs. Counsels de oficio contend that the trial court erred in holding that there was a conspiracy among the accused. They surrendered after Prison officials armed with guns demanded their surrender. Quijano. that the Visayans in the big cell should stay on one side so that it could be ascertained that they were the allies of the sixteen raiders. evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism. closeness of association and concurrence of will". namely. He finished grade two. 1967). 1967). 97). 1-25177. J-9). unexpectedly attacked the unarmed and defenseless Sigue-Sigueinmates in the big cell who had no means of escaping from that cell and who could not avoid their assaults. Dionisio. 1967 and 14-15 tsn July 25. 1976).Witness Rodrigo Identified Provido as having beaten the deceased Jose Magpantay with a piece of wood (10-11 tsn July 25. It was held that the crime was murder aggravated by treachery. They had sufficient opportunity to observe what took place during the hour-long riot. Taboy. He was twenty-six years old when he testified on January 9. The record supports the trial court's finding that "conspiracy can logically be inferred from the simultaneous and concerted acts of (the) sixteen raiders who. They chose the person to whom they would surrender. The massacre had been planned by the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in collaboration with the other members of the Oxo gang in the big cell. 9. In his statement. Gavilaguin.1965 (Exh. Nine of the ten . Moreover. Enrigan Francisco. 1974). Of those twenty. Those twenty movants are Anover alias Abarca (who died on June 18. 30 SCRA 92. Carballo. Maldecir. filed. Gavilaguin. Taboy. Hernandez. The accused did not surrender voluntarily and unconditionally. Witness Guevarra Identified him as a member of that group and as having used a piece of wood in beating one victim (115 and 127 tsn November 17. who were sentenced to death. 1973 or after the Solicitor General had filed his brief. the said accused were still serving sentence for their prior convictions. The victims were not able to make any retaliation. after putting down the guard and entering the big cell. In order that the aggravating circumstance of reiteration may be taken into account. The accused. Angel Tagana. The conspiracy among the accused was manifest and indubitable. L-25177. 1966). Cabcaban. Lorana. the four accused. Dionisio. Opsiar.—He was born in Dulag. Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo also pointed to Tagana as one of those who helped Abella's group (222 tsn February 10. Defense counsel's contention that treachery and evident premeditation are not aggravating in this case is untenable. On the contrary. These two witnesses were prisoners in the big cell. Layson. a motion for new trial. Counsel de oficio contends that reiteration is not aggravating because there is no evidence that the said accused had been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. Lorana. 119 or 143. Witness Del Rosario included Provido as among those who participated in the assault (222 tsn February 10. more prisoners were involved and there were seventeen victims. 1969. He resided in Pandacan. They provided themselves with improvised weapons. The difference between the two cases is that in the instant case. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8. Layson. malicious mischief and slander by deed and violations of city ordinances. Leyte. he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang (p. Record). locked the door thereof and stabbed him to death. Counsel's contention is correct as to Abella. Opsiar. twenty of the thirty accused. also inmates of the Davao Penal Colony. He had six convictions for robbery with physical injuries. But since the accused are quasi-recidivists the fact that reiteration cannot be appreciated against them and that their Plea Of guilty is mitigating will not affect the imposition of the death penalty for the murders and frustrated murders which they had committed. who were all armed. That contention has no basis in the evidence. 1964 the cell of their fellow prisoners. entered on January 17. 30 SCRA 92. namely. They rejected the initial requests for their surrender. 1968. The trial court added that the acts and conduct of the accused from the start of their aggression until the riot was suppressed were characterized "by a swift. Abella and Villaflor. Villarama and Villegas had pleaded guilty. Del Rosario was himself a victim. He was not assaulted by anyone. Quijano. Counsel de oficio assails the credibility of witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario. Provide.

The tenth. Thus.) In People vs. They further alleged that one of the "fabricated (prosecution) witnesses" was Guillermo Ignacio who made a retraction and that another witness. The group was going to attend the inauguration of a monument in honor of President Manuel L. in People vs. nineteen Moros. where the falsification of one hundred twenty-eight warehouse receipts during the period from November 1930 to July 6. was in the big cell. 236. the acts constitute two distinct crimes. harassment and intimidation applied by the prison authorities" or due to "third degree" and other brutalities. which were not given credence. 831. 61 Phil. This Court imposed upon Manantan and Viray only one death penalty for the multiple murder but for lack of necessary votes.S. Ferrer. the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. respectively. Nueva Ecija. they relied on alibis. killing one party and wounding another. However. The other ten of the twenty accused were from the big cell. around eighty persons stationed on both sides of the highway in Sitio Salabusab. 102. 4 Phil. two Constabulary lieutenants. The case as to three of the accused was dismissed on the ground that their confessions were taken after they had been tortured. 97 Phil. The twenty movants alleged in their motion for new trial that those who pleaded guilty did so due to "the coercion. Antonio San Agustin. vs. Quezon. Duran never claimed that he was intimidated into making his statement. 61 Phil. It was commuted to reclusion perpetua for lack of necessary votes. by fourteen death penalties and three penalties for the frustrated murders because the killings and injuries were effected by distinct acts. quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which justifies the imposition of the penalty for murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death) in its maximum period or death. 522 where the killing of three Constabulary soldiers on a single occasion was punished as a single homicide. On the other hand. the fourteen members of the Sigue-Sigue gang who took part in the killing were convicted of multiple murder (a complex crime) and not of nine separate murders. 94 Phil. Recidivism is aggravating as to some accused As to all the eighteen accused. that mitigating circumstance is offset by evident premeditation. those who pleaded not guilty were given a fair trial. where on a single occasion around fifty Maranaos were killed by a group of home guards (formerly Constabulary soldiers). Cabrera. for complicity in the ambuscade. We hold that the Solicitor General's submission is not well taken. fired at the group of Aurora Vda. In the De los Santos case. They were charged and convicted of multiple murder. the Solicitor General submits that the accused should be convicted of fourteen separate murders and three separate frustrated murders and punished. The trial court sentenced them to death. The ruling in the De los Santos case is predicated on the theory that "when. The other eighteen accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 96 Phil. 185. various acts are executed. massacred fourteen Constabularymen. They testified and they had the opportunity to prove their innocence. Quezon. Five persons were charged with multiple murder. Rule 121 and section 13. There is no compelling reason for not deciding this case in the same way as the De los Santos case. In People vs. The fiscal and the trial court treated the fourteen killings and the injuries inflicted on the three victims as a complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. forming part of a band of one hundred. They pleaded not guilty and they were tried. Two other accused. Mayor Ponciano Bernardo of Quezon City. Quezon Province. 64 and 82. a complex crime. At the trial. The trial court imposed a single death penalty. they were convicted of multiple murder with grave injuries. 975. After an evaluation of the said motion.S. 27. He correctly observed that Ignacio and Duran were not utilized as prosecution witnesses. Dionisio. 43 Phil. 1931.were "close-confined" prisoners in the three cells. executed extrajudicial confessions. supra. 682. They appealed. . Sakam. Bongabong. Killed as a result of the ambuscade were eleven persons. Manantan. de Quezon riding in five cars which were proceeding to Baler. a complex crime. we find that it is devoid of merit and is not in order. See People vs. The eleven sergeants and corporals were Sentenced to death while the sixty-six privates were sentenced to reclusion perpetua (See People vs. It is argued that article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this case. 687. one corporal and a soldier. Baby Quezon Felipe Buencamino III. Only one death penalty was imposed. was forced to sign his affidavit. The Solicitor General commented that the grounds relied upon by the movants are not the grounds for a new trial under sections 2 and 3. Primitive San Agustin. Action on the motion for new trial was deferred until the case is decided on the merits.103. Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. The record does not show that Ignacio retracted his statement. for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense. namely. Elino Duran. vs. Fresnido. 302 and 906. the killing was held to be only one complex offense of multiple homicide because it 4 resulted from a single criminal impulse" and it was not possible to determine how many victims were killed by each of the accused. Cu Unjieng. 66 Phil. a complex one (People vs. Pedro Manantan and Raymundo Viray. Lawas. 56 that "where the defendant has fired two shots. Mrs. Those movants who pleaded guilty were convicted on the basis of their confessions which they ratified during the trial. Umali. The two cases are very similar. such acts must be considered only as one offense". (See U. where seventy-seven Constabularymen murdered six policemen (including the assistant chief of police) and two private citizens and gravely wounded three civilians. Their testimonies (except Apolonias' testimony) did not generate any reasonable doubt as to their guilt. a complex crime. re sedition and multiple murder. Cited in support of that stand is the ruling in U. 1 Phil.) In People vs. Propriety of the imposition of the death penalty on the eighteen accused — As to the fourteen deceased victims. each of which must be tried separately". which enabled the accused to swindle the bank in the sum of one million four hundred thousand pesos was treated as only one complex crime of estafa through multiple falsification of mercantile documents and only one penalty was imposed). Penas. Pedro Payumo. Their ring leader was sentenced to death. the crime is murder qualified by treachery which absorbs abuse of superiority and cuadrilla As to those who pleaded guilty. That holding in the De los Santos case is buttressed by some precedents. which involved two riots on two successive days in the national penitentiary wherein nine prisoners were killed (five on the first day and four on the second day).

etc. Costs de oficio. knives. qualified by treachery (absorbing abuse of superiority and cuadrilla and aggravated by quasi-recidivism and evident premeditation (offset by plea of guilty) and recidivism. The indemnities for the frustrated murders are affirmed. L-30271. Defendant Maximo Apolonias is acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. No. sticks and other weapons. and LUIS B. FERIA. abetted by the inability of the outnumbered guards to enforce discipline. 1947. the death penalty should be commuted to reclusion perpetua. and which culminated in violent riots. J. The government cannot evade responsibility for keeping prisoners under such sub-human and Dentesque conditions. following the precedent established in the aforecited De los Santos case. J. SO ORDERED. Judge of First Instance of Manila. it has no right at all to confine them under circumstances that strangle all sense of decency. one excursionist was killed. Petitioner. vs. In the Leaño case. further. where the number of persons killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery does not change the nature of the crime. Ricardo Parulan vs. Moran. L-1536. Sotero Rodas. a group of twenty-five persons armed with bolos. with Justices Pedro Concepcion. Sison and Paras concurring). because they find it impossible to ignore the contributory role played by the inhuman conditions then reigning in the penitentiary. the death penalty imposed by the lower court is reduced to reclusion perpetua. and predisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize from their owners the meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their miserable existence. The felonious agreement produces a sole and solidary liability: each confederate forms but a part of a single being" (People vs. as shown in the record. Respondents. The following observations of this Court in the De los Santos case have some relevancy to this case: But the members of the Court cannot in conscience concur in the death penalty imposed.R. 1 ACR 447. and convert a prison term into prolonged torture and slow death. June 15. SOTERO RODAS. The death penalty should be commuted to reclusion perpetua.R. All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed like wolf packs on the weak. The holding that there is a complex crime in cases like the instant case is similar to the rule in robbery with homicide. et al. Society must not close its eyes to the fact that if it has the right to exclude from its midst those who attack it. dated July 8. No. 160 and 248 of the Revised Penal Code. the accused have been in confinement and in fact they have been in confinement for other offenses even prior to 1965. The indemnity of six thousand pesos is increased to twelve thousand pesos. The indemnity of six thousand pesos should be increased to twelve thousand pesos for each set of heirs of the fourteen victims. 461 per Albert. attacked a group of excursionists coming from the Vintar Dam in Ilocos Norte. As a result of the attack. *Complex Crimes (Complex Crime Proper) G. The Court of Appeals held that the appellants were guilty of the complex crime of homicide with lesiones menos graves. that taxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance of ten centavos per meal for each prisoner. The trial court convicted the assailants of homicide only. Considering the circumstances which drove the accused to massacre their fellow prisoners. REYES.. three suffered lesiones menos graves and four suffered light injuries.As persuasive authority.. 3649 of said respondent Court as well as petitioner's motion for reconsideration and praying. where. 1947. We have already stated that the conviction for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder.: chanrobles virtual law library This is a motion for reconsideration of our resolution dated July 11. reduce convicts to the level of animals. they deserve clemency.) Justice Barredo believes that in a case like the instant case. 1947 RICARDO PARULAN. justice should be tempered with mercy. (See People vs. However. Assistant City Fiscal of Manila. which reads as follows: Passing upon the petition for certiorari in G. it may be noted that the Court of Appeals rendered the same ruling when it held that where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose "their individual acts in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act — the act of execution — giving rise to a complex offense. L-1536 July 31. as to some accused. must have rubbed raw the nerves and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates. Dahil. should be affirmed. a special complex crime. as a complex crime. vividly described by the trial judge in his decision. praying for relief from the order of the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. 1979. and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry for the control of the prisoners. after shouting to one another "Remember the agreement! Don't be afraid!". The Solicitor General recommended that they be convicted of lesiones menos graves and lesiones leves in addition to homicide. since the commission of the multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder in 1965 or more than fourteen years ago. denying petitioner's motion to quash the information filed in criminal case No. The death penalty was properly imposed in conformity with articles 48. WHEREFORE. for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondent Judge from arraigning the petitioner of July 12. Leano. It is evident that the incredible overcrowding of the prison cells. who were riding in a Ford coupe and omnibus. 1947: the Court .

unlawfully. abduction is. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library For example. says that "when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other. has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense. the abduction being in such a case a necessary means to commit the rape. And although homicide or murder may be committed wherever the victim may be found. The crime charged being a complex crime of kidnapping and murder. the crime of falsification of a private document is not in general. in accordance with their definition by law." that is. not an essential element of rape because rape may be committed anywhere without necessity of forcibly abducting or taking the victim to another place for that purpose. From a cursory examination of the foregoing it clearly appears that the crime charged is kidnapping and murder and the former was committed by the defendants as a necessary means "for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given. therefore.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime. Also. . . or stealing of personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence. with treachery. after having taken him to an uninhabited place by means of a motor boat. that the defendants had to kidnap or carry the victim to a faraway and secluded place in order to better secure the consent of the victim through fear to pay the ransom. feloniously. the court of first instance of any province in which any one of the essential elements of said complex offense has been committed. being then private individuals. 1947. and for purpose of extorting ransom from one Arthur Lee or of killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given. Section 48 of the Penal Code. the question for determination in the present case is whether the offense charged in the information is a complex crime of kidnapping and murder. and that in fact he was killed by the defendants because of his refusal to pay the ransom. The motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. detain. thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which directly caused the death of the said Arthur Lee almost instantaneously. because this offense may be committed through many and varied means. one of them is an essential element of the other. we should not find out whether. but if a defendant is charged in a complaint or information with having committed falsification of a private document as a means for committing estafa. an essential element of the crime of estafa. the former as a necessary means for committing the latter. such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim. for in such cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the second case. the said accused. providing for penalties for complex crime. did then and there wilfully. the crime charged would be a complex crime of rape through abduction. the offense charged would evidently be a complex crime of murder through kidnapping. and later. fracturing the right 5th and 6th ribs and the skull and lacerating the brain. the offense charged would be a complex offense of estafa through falsification. fire upon him with a ." Therefore.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The pertinent part of the information reads as follows: That on or about the 10th day of June. in general. . and kill him with certain sense of impunity and certainty that no other person may witness the commission of the offense by the defendants if the victim refused to accede to their demand. . to wit: while the said Arthur Lee was deprived of his liberty and was very weak as a result of the physical injuries which had been previously inflicted upon him by the said accused. if it were the two offenses constitute one complex crime. otherwise the complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another. the Court of First Instance of Manila from where the victim was kidnapped has jurisdiction over the offense committed in Manila and continued all the way to the place where the victim was taken and murdered. Philippines. the latter being a necessary means to commit the former. yet if the charge in a complaint or information is that the victim was kidnapped and taken to another distant place in order to demand ransom for his release and kill him if ransom is not paid. the one charged in the information. the same to be applied in its maximum period.45 caliber pistol several shots thru the chest and head. But we should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged therein was committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. but if the offense charged is that the defendant abducted or carried by force the victim from one place to another wherein the latter was raped by the former. carry away in an automobile. in the City of Manila.resolved to dismiss said petition on the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the complex offense of kidnapping with murder. and. kidnap.

by means of force and intimidation. Basilio Pineda. Theresa's College. Eduardo Aquino and Basilio Pineda.. reads as follows: The undersigned complainant accuses JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ. 45 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment. BASILIO PINEDA. New Manila.. 12th Street. Edgardo Aquino. On the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accomplices Wong Lay Pueng. was driving her bantam car accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon. aiding. Abuse of superior strength. Silverio Guanzon y Romero and Jessie Guion y Envoltario. vs. forcibly abduct the undersigned complainant against her will. Jr.000. pursuant to their common criminal design. for practical purposes all of them shall hereafter be referred to as appellants." EDUARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO alias "EDDIE" and ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLA alias "ROGER. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for the commission. by cooperating. with lewd design. in an order dated July 11. then and there. 3." Upon the other hand.*Complex Crimes (Complex Crime Proper) G. PER CURIAM: The amended complaint filed in this case in the court below. L-28232 February 6. That the aforestated offense has been attended by the following aggravating circumstances: 1.00 to P200. 1967." and which Jaime Jose in his testimony admitted belonged to him. then and there cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. 25 years old and single. Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. committed as follows: That on or about the 26th day of June. abetting and permitting the principal accused in sequestering the undersigned complainant in one of the rooms of the Swanky Hotel then under the control of the accused Wong Lay Pueng. and JESSIE GUION y ENVOLTARIO without taking a direct part in the execution of the offense either by forcing. Silverio Guanzon y Romero. Use of a motor vehicle. Rogelio Cañal. or cooperating in its execution by an indispensable act. the Court hereby orders its confiscation. alias "BOY. 1967." EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLA. the Motion to Dismiss filed for and in their behalf is hereby granted. Her house was at No. then and there take her. confederating with and mutually helping one another. as amended. the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE. Miss De la Riva. the court below rendered its decision on October 2. However. pleaded guilty to the charge imputed in the above-quoted amended complaint. the court reserved judgment "until such time as the prosecution shall have concluded presenting all of its evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances listed in the complaint. and 5. Movie actress by profession. JR. wilfully. the above-named principal accused. JR. and did. where she was paid P800. the Court finds the accused Jaime Jose.. She was already near her destination . and each to indemnify the complainant in the amount of ten thousand pesos. Insofar as the car used in the abduction of the victim which Jaime Jose identified by pointing to it from the window of the courtroom and pictures of which were submitted and marked as Exhibits "M" and "M-1. who was also at the front seat. Jr. which requires the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. 1967. ET AL. After the merits. Night time sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime and to make its discovery difficult. Pasay City. BASILIO PINEDA. inducing the principal accused to execute. and from P100. Alias "BOY. This case is now before us by virtue of the appeal interposed by Basilio Pineda. thus supplying material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense. 4. The complainant. So it was that at about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of June 26. and Jessie Guion y Envoltario. Jr. was. conspiring together. in Quezon City. to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City. defendants. and with the use of a deadly weapon. to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to her under the provisions of the civil code. she was receiving P8. SILVERIO GUANZON Y ROMERO and JESSIE GUION Y ENVOLTARIO as accomplices. It was part of her work to perform in radio broadcasts and television shows. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape as described under Art.00 per picture. did. and Jaime Jose. the rest of the defendants went to trial on their respective pleas of not guilty. have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her will.00 per month in permanent shows. CONTRARY TO LAW. Quezon City.00 per month in live promotional shows.00 per appearance as guest in other shows. That WONG LAY PUENG. where each of the four (4) accused. that is. That means were employed or circumstances brought about which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act. however. and the case dismissed against the aforementioned accused. WONG LAY PUENG. and hereby sentences each of them to the death penalty to be executed at a date to be set and in the manner provided for by law. and for automatic review as regards Rogelio Cañal. did. 1967. at the time of the incident. SILVERIO GUANZON y ROMERO." as principals. No. plaintiff-appellee. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ. she graduated from high school in 1958 at Maryknoll College and finished the secretarial course in 1960 at St. pursuant to Art. 2. homeward bound from the ABS Studio on Roxas Blvd. 48. defendants-appellants. of the crime of Forcible Abduction with rape. P300.. 1971 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. unlawfully and feloniously.

according to them. Shaw Boulevard. The latter. By now Miss De la Riva was beginning to realize the futility of her pleas. thence to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. Miss De la Riva entreated the appellants to release her. The complainant heard them say that they had to revive her so she would know what was happening. however. Mention must be made of the fact that while each of mention must be made the four appellants was struggling with the complainant. to make the proceedings more exciting. another unhooked her brassiere. Her blindfold was removed. and Jose and Cañal sitting beside her. the car came to a stop at the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City The blindfolded lady was led out of the car to one of the rooms on the second floor of the hotel. but all she got in response were jeers. who said that it would be more pleasurable for them if the light was on. leaving Pineda and the complainant After some struggle during which Pineda hit her. Mesa Street. together with her brassiere. after all. was able to drag Miss De la Riva toward the Pontiac convertible car. who succeeded in pulling her out of her car. whose motor was all the while running. the three men inside started to assist their friend: one of them held her by the neck. This ordeal lasted for about ten minutes. Jose succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the complainant. in all her nakedness. The car reached a dead-end street. The complainant was now completely naked before the four men. at which moment she was already in front of her house gate. The girl held on tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and. but so slowly did she proceed with the assigned task that the appellants cursed her and threatened her again with the Thompson and the acid. the two cars almost collided for the second time. and then pressed on the gas and swerved her car to the left. They poured water on her face and slapped her to revive her. was very near the Pontiac car. Jose. Her strength. Seeing her mistress' predicament. The complainant crossed her legs tightly. he hit the complainant on different parts of the body and succeeded in forcing his carnal lust on her. Pineda opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and grabbed the lady's left arm. The complainant was made to sit between Jaime Jose and Edgardo Aquino at the back seat. They started pushing Miss De la Riva around. implored him to ask his friends to release her. The girl was now in a state of shock. Aquino took a handkerchief from his pocket and. Miss De la Riva. Afterwards. The latter was told not to shout or else she would be stabbed or shot with a Thompson. the three other men went into the room again poured water on the complainant's face and slapped her several times. Then the car proceeded to Araneta Avenue. One of them pulled down the zipper of her dress. the former succeeded in forcing his carnal desire on the latter. He then left the room. Jr. Jose reentered the room and began undressing himself. Before she was completely in. was rejected by the others. who were kneeling in front of her and feasting their eyes on her private parts. while the two others held her arms and legs. She held on tightly to her dress to prevent it from being pulled down. When the car reached Makati. was at the wheel. Jr. When Miss De la Riva. Then Pineda picked up her clothes and left the room with his other companions.when a Pontiac two-door convertible car with four men aboard (later identified as the four appellants) came abreast of her car and tried to bump it." The other three expressed their approval and ordered Miss De la Riva to disrobe. however. Sta. fell on the floor. The idea. Miss De la Riva and Jose struggled against each other. the maid jumped out of the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an effort to free her from Pineda's grip. She continuously implored her captors to release her. Instead of answering her. and because the complainant was putting up stiff resistance. She made the sign of the cross and started to pray. with the help of Jose. A struggle ensued between him and Miss De la Riva during which he hit. but her efforts were in vain: her dress. who was being pulled by Pineda. Basilio Pineda. It was now appellant Canal's turn. Aquino and Pineda then left the room. they gave Miss De la Riva her clothes. Aquino remarked that the situation was much better than he thought since no one could take revenge against them. Every now and then Aquino would stand up and talk in whispers with Pineda. She saw Pineda and Aquino standing in front of her. In the meantime. blindfolded Miss De la Riva. three of the accused left the room. Aquino entered the room next.) also accelerated his speed. started to scream. Pineda turned the car around and headed towards Victoria Street. to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith. who was sitting on the bed trying to cover her bareness with her hands. jumped out of it and rushed towards her. Aquino succeeded in abusing the complainant. was asked twice or thrice to turn around. telling them that she was the only breadwinner in the family and that her mother was alone at home and needed her company because her father was already dead. she did as directed. abusive and impolite language that the appellants and threats that the appellants would finish her with their Thompson and throw acid at her face if she did not keep quiet. but she could not find one. Inside the room Miss De la Riva was made to sit on a bed. Jose cursed her and hit her several times on the stomach and other parts of the body. the two men seated on each side of Miss De la Riva started to get busy with her body: Jose put one arm around the complainant and forced his lips upon hers. but because the driver of the other car (Basilio Pineda. he pushed her backward and pinned her down on the bed. all of them smiling meaningfully. Aquino called the others into the room. during which the complainant. When the complainant went into a state of shock for the second time. The other three took their turns. who was justifiably annoyed. proved no match to that of Pineda. however. together with her maid. told her to . Upon learning of the demise of Miss De la Riva's father. Very soon. Pineda told the complainant: "Magburlesque ka para sa amin. threatening the complainant with acid and telling her to give in because she could not. Like the other three appellants before him. while Rogelio Cañal was seated beside him. but her attacker was able to force them open. The appellants became angry and cursed her. Pineda stopped the car which he was driving. There was a struggle between him and Miss De la Riva. appellant Pineda jumped unto the driver's seat and sped away in the direction of Broadway Street. escape what with their presence. Miss De la Riva was told to remove her stocking in order. Reluctantly. her on different parts of the body. All three were now pulling Miss De la Riva inside the car. Undaunted. The girl tried to resist them. just behind the door. The complainant tried to look for a blanket with which to cover herself. The maid was left behind. the other three were outside the room. One of the appellants suggested putting off the light so that the complainant would not be ashamed. after which the two would exchange knowing glances with Cañal and Jose. Not long after. while Aquino placed his arms on her thighs and lifted her skirt. This prompted Miss De la Riva. The complainant ignored the command. After the appellants had been through with the sexual carnage. She stepped on her brakes to avoid a collision. The girl became so frightened at this turn of events that she tooted the horn of her car continuously. Like Jose.

With the aid of the photographs and the medical reports. they would simply post bail and later hunt her up and disfigure her face with acid. she was released without being harmed. She was warned not to inform the police. and that. on learning that Miss De la Riva was there. and kept it in that position during the trip. if any. the complainant family gathered to discuss what steps. were at the house. There he received a telephone call from the police headquarters to the effect that one of the suspects had been apprehended. "Mommy. "I-l"). the police officer who had been sent by the desk officer. 1967. the complainant and Pat. Miguel F." The mother brought her daughter upstairs. treated the complainant for external physical injuries. That evening. "G"). 1967. The same picture was shown to Jose. "B") wherein she narrated the incident and gave descriptions of the four men who abused her. Dr. All four of them raped me. mother and daughter were still undecided on what to do. The older woman also instructed her daughter to douche himself two or three times daily with a strong solution to prevent infection and pregnancy. On the witness stand the doctor was shown several photographs of the complainant taken in his presence and under his supervision. the words "Bahala na Gang. but he would make it appear that insofar as he was concerned the complainant yielded her body to him on condition that he would release her. arms and fore-arms. that upon the initiative of Pineda. the complainant ran toward her and said. Pascual proceeded to the headquarters where Miss De la Riva identified appellant Jaime Jose from among a group of persons inside the Office of the Chief of Police of Quezon City as one of the four men he abducted and raped her. Her mother. and was involved in. Pat. and that when the group found out that she was a movie actress. "I" was executed by Jose. that the complainant had just come from the studio. At that time. In his medical report (Exh. the June 26 incident. for if she did and they were apprehended. In his statement. After some agonizing moments. went to the Quezon City Police Department Headquarters. and to wash her face and comb her hair. he and the other three waited for Miss De la Riva to come out of the ABS Studio. to the De la Riva residence when the latter received from a mobile patrol a report of the snatching. After they warned again Miss De la Riva not to inform anyone of what had happened to her. Brion on June 29. They told her to tell her mother that she was mistaken by a group of men for a hostess. .get dressed and put on her stockings. In the afternoon of the same day. Miss De la Riva executed a sworn statement (Exh. 1967. early on the morning of June 29. During the physical examination of the complainant by Dr. told about the sexual assaults. "I") before Pat. He would make it appear." Appellant Cañal and Pineda executed and swore to separate statements on the day of their arrest. The picture was shown to Miss De la Riva. Regina O. Marcos G. Vinas with a picture of appellant Edgardo Aquino. in the province of Batangas. She kept asking the driver if a car was following them. but Ben Suba requested him to postpone the interrogation until she could be ready for it. Benitez. Inside the car. Brion noted the presence of multiple contusions and bruises on different parts of the complainant's body. Upon her mother's instruction. that his group gave chase to the complainant's car. but to choose one which did not come from a wellknown company. Pineda asked Jose to alight and call a taxicab. Jose stated. a decision was reached: the authorities had to be informed. they made plans to wait for her and to follow her. policemen and reporters. He named the other line appellants as his companions. the other three soon fell into the hands of the authorities: Pineda and Cañal on July 1. Pascual attempted to question her. who was afterwards summoned. The doctor was not. however. Meanwhile. On the evening of July 1. Upon seeing her mother. After the apprehension of Jose. He admitted that his group followed her car and snatched her and took her to the Swanky Hotel. that it was Pineda who blindfolded her and that only Pineda and Aquino criminally assaulted the complainant. who declared in her sworn statement (Exh. Jose did as requested. adding that appellant Cañal had tattoo marks on his right hip. imprinted on the said appellant's right hip. Ernesto Brion. that the complainant voluntarily acceded to having sexual intercourse with him. The time was a little past 6:00 o'clock. After Exh. The appellants then blindfolded Miss De la Riva again and led her down from the hotel room. and that they had planned to abduct and rape her. "B-1") wherein she made a formal identification of Jose and related the role played by him. according to them. the doctor explained to the court that he found contusions or bruises on the complainant's chest. Viñas. NBI Chief Medico-Legal Officer. as well as of genital injuries. I have been raped. letting several taxicabs pass by before flagging a UBL taxicab. When Miss De la Riva was already inside the cab and alone with the driver. accompanied by her lawyer. Because she was stumbling. as well as several PC officers. and he saw. Pineda executed a statement (Exh. appellant Jose executed a statement (Exh. right arm index finger. Dimla. Neither was Pat. She executed another statement (Exh. 1967. the four appellants were discussing the question of where to drop Miss De la Riva. and Aquino on July 5. should be taken. They finally decided on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not far from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 to make it appear. Pat. appellant Canal accompanied her to the taxicab. to prevent her from being seen by others. who. identified the man in the picture as appellant Aquino. one of the policemen took appellant Cañal downstairs and undressed him. 1967. It was 6:30 o'clock — or some two hours after the abduction — when Miss De la Riva reached home. Pascual was also at the NBI office. Jose admitted that he knew about. an informant furnished Pat. In his statement (Exh. Mommy. At about 9:00 o'clock of the same evening. When Miss De la Riva arrived home from her harrowing experience. Later in the same evening. shoulders. in another sworn statement (Exh. After the identification. appellant Cañal confirmed the information previously given by Jose that the four of them waited for Miss De la Riva to come down from the ABS Studio. she broke down and cried. and each time the driver answered her in the negative. filed a complaint and executed a statement (Exh. "B-3") that the man in the picture was one of her abductors and rapists. Pablo Pascual. however. Appellant Cañal admitted that all four of them participated in the commission of the crime. Miss De la Riva pointed to Pineda and Cañal as among the four persons who abducted and raped her. a appellant Jose held her head down on his lap. Campos. 1967. Atty. among other things. her brother-in-law Ben Suba. "K"). she had to be carried into the car. Miss De la Riva. B-2)wherein she made the same identification of the two appellants from among a group of persons in the Office of the Chief of the Detective Bureau. the complainant submitted herself ito a medico-internal examination by Dr. Thus. and by some members of the family. in Lipa City. which was duly sworn. to give the impression that nothing had happened to her. "J") stating that he and his other three companions wept to the ABS Studio. On the afternoon of June 28. She picked them out from among several person in the Office of the Chief of Police of Quezon City. Sgt. the complainant immediately took a bath and a douche. or on the fourth day after the incident. The family doctor.

'are you kidding?': that after a little while she consented to do the performance as long as it would not last too long and provided the spectators were limited to the four of them. not to mention the possibility that the subject might have douched herself. who helped the girl struggle to get free from Pineda's grip. Whereupon. striding to the small car. Pineda gave chase and coming abreast of the small car he shouted. Between them they had consumed a whole bottle of whisky. kamuntik na kaming mamatay. The injuries. according to Dr. She turned to Jose in appeal. Maggie de la Riva asked the boys to close the windows before she. and that the struggle lasted about ten minutes before Pineda finally succeeded in pushing the girl into the red convertible. so much so that at least Aquino became drunk. Now Pineda saying "let us teach her a lesson. We quote hereunder the portions of the decision under review relative to the theory of the defense: Their story is that they and their coaccused Pineda had gone to the Ulog Cocktail Lounge somewhere in Mabini street in Manila. their new acquaintance asked to be dropped at his home in Cubao. and with Pineda at the wheel repaired to Cubao After dislodging their new friend. and could have been inflicted on the subject while she was being raped. Both Jose and Aquino confirm the presence of another woman inside the girl's car. "Putang ina mo. At the cocktail lounge they had listened to the music while enjoying some drinks.00 and the girl taunted. 1967. and that on pressing the said injuries. Pineda steered the car to España Extension to bring Aquino to his home in Mayon Street.00 with which to pay Maggie the balance of her "show" and he was afraid that if he did not pay. which was about 3:30 in the early morning of the next day.000. 1967. 'why don't you do a strip tease for us.00 later. but not before Maggie had borrowed a handkerchief from one of them to cover her face as she went up the Hotel." The three accused declared that they saw Boy Pineda hand P100. and when they saw the pair enter a room. They had been joined at their table by a certain Frankie whom they met only that night. but then suddenly changing his mind he said. They saw that the driver was a woman.00 to Maggie and they heard him promise her that he would pay the balance of P900. The three followed. all of them dressed up once more and the three accused (Jaime Jose. But somewhere in España Extension before the Rotonda a small car whizzed to them almost hitting them.thighs. Come time to go home. They themselves also removed their clothing. In connection with the genital examination. Aquino and Cañal) took the witness stand. black topped two-door convertible Plymouth (Pontiac) car of Jaime Jose. He also declared that when he was examining her. and there killed time from 9:30 in the evening of June 25 until closing time. Brion. they quickly caught up. Pineda stopped his car behind being hurriedly got down. but this one told her he could net do anything as the "boss" was Pineda. Aquino testifies how. Now the defense contends that Pineda cruised around and around the area just to scare the girl who was in truth so scared that she begged them to let her be and return her to her home. Maggie would have her goons after him. Miss De la Riva complained of slight tenderness around the neck. The three appellants who pleaded not guilty (Jose. Two of them removed their pants retaining their briefs. All the three accused testify that as soon as they got into the room. right knee and legs. Aquino heard her plead with Jose "do you not have a sister yourself?" but did not bear the other plea 'do you not have a mother?' Then Pineda stopped at the corner of the street where he had forcibly snatched the girl presumably to return her. Jaime Jose was picked by the police on the morning of June 29 along Buendia Avenue. The five men piled into the red-bodied. on the abdominal wall and at the sites of the extragenital physical injuries. the question of how and where to drop Maggie came up and it is testified to by the accused that it was Maggie's idea that they should drop her near the ABS Studio so that it would appear as if she had just come from her work. undressed in front of them. Eduardo Aquino and Rogelio Cañal) left the room to wait in the car for Boy Pineda and Maggie de la Riva who were apparently still discussing the mode of payment of the balance. Pineda sped the car until they got to Swanky Hotel where he and Maggie alighted first." sped after her and when she swerved ostensibly to enter a gate. He wanted Aquino to go with him to Lipa City where he had relatives and where . He explained. the doctor declared that he found injuries on the subject's genitalia which could have been produced by sexual intercourse committed on June 26. He said that he failed to find spermatozoa. however. he elicited a sigh of pain or tenderness on the part of the subject. the show which lasted about 10 minutes began with the naked girl walking back and forth the room about 4 to 5 times. while Boy Pineda and Cañal stripped to the skin "because it was hot. on June 29 Pineda went to him with a problem. He did not have the P900. Three minutes later Maggie de la Riva and Boy Pineda joined them. All the three accused insist they did nothing to aid Pineda: but they also admit that they did nothing to stop him. This accomplished. that spermatozoa are not usually found in the vagina after the lapse of three days from the last intercourse. could have been caused blows administered by a closed fist or by the palm of the hand. according to his own testimony. I'll pay you P1. It was the doctor's opinion that they could have been sustained on or about June 26. Now. opened the door and started dragging the girl out." The woman continued on her way.

Aquino detached himself from his compassions and proceeded alone to the barrio allegedly to visit his relatives. Only a stupid woman. Aurelia Leviste. gone to live in a house very close to the municipal hall building. Then there is the incident of the men's stripping themselves." What kind of men were these who were so devoid of any sense of decency that they thought nothing of adding insult to injury by not only inducing a woman a strip before them. Maggie would in so short an interval of time forget her indignation and so readily consent to satisfy their immoral curiosity about her. The Court cannot believe that after the rudeness and meanness of these men to her. Aquino readily obliged. There is no fury to match a woman stirred to indignation. desperate attempt to save the day for the accused. her intelligence and her alertness. At Lipa. but not for men of torrid regions like ours where quick passions and hot tempers are the rule rather than the exception! All of these consideration set aside. The Court cannot believe that any woman exists.00 and the balance to be paid God knows when. How was Maggie to collect later when she did not even know who these man were. the three accused advance the proposition that nothing happened in Swanky Hotel except a strip-tease exhibition which the complaint agreed to do for them for fee of P1. P100. Brion's medical report and testimony. For males of cold and phlegmatic blood and disposition it could be credible. It truly underscores the hopelessness of their stand and projects all the more clearly their guilt.00. it is quite obvious that the version of the defense has not been able to explain away a very vital piece of evidence of prosecution which. The woman in her would urge her to turn the men's hankering as a weapon of revenge by denying them their pleasure. even one habitual engaged in this kind of entertainment (which Maggie de la Riva has not been proven to be) who would consent (and as easily and promptly as defense claims) to do a performance. One cannot escape the very strong suspicion that this story is a last ditch. In the meantime his two companions had remained in the City and had. when having read in the newspapers that he was wanted. and her revenge much more keen. it is her courage. the person who negotiated their surrender (as in the case of Aquino) or even their counsel. We quote with approval the able dissertion of the trial judge on this point: As main defense in the charge of rape. and had utterly to counteract the evidence for the prosecution. defies one's credulity and reason.00 down and the balance to be paid "later. Finally. their police interrogator. They used another car of Jaime Jose.he could help raise the money. Aquino was the last to be apprehended. A woman's pride is far stronger than her yen for money. The only attempt to an explanation made by the defense is either one of the following: (1) the insinuation that when . Besides. whether they could be trusted with a promise to pay later (!) whether she could ever find them again? If there is anything that had struck the Court about the complaint. either the press. Assuming that the woman whom the accused had abducted was in this kind of trade assuming that the price offered was to her satisfaction. where they lived. establish beyond doubt that at the time that Maggie de la Riva was examined she bore on her body traces of physical and sexual assault. could have been persuaded to do what the defense want this Court to believe Maggie de la Riva consented to do. particularly the complainant's testimony and Dr. wife of the governor of Batangas. whom woman would be willing to perform first and be paid later? It is simply preposterous to believe that Maggie de la Riva should have consent to do a striptease act for a measly down-payment of P100. the defense concocted the sickeningly incident story that the four men removed their underclothing in the presence of a woman simply "because it was hot. but for forcing her to perform before a naked audience? And then they have gall to argue that "nothing" happened. They later moved to another house where the PC and Quezon City police posse found and arrested them. different from the one they had used the day before. Since when are exposition of the flesh paid on the installment basis? By the very precautious nature of their pitiful calling. if unexplained. cannot but reduce any defense unavailing. and a most stupid one that. not even for all money in the worlds after the rough handling she experienced from these wolves in men's clothing who now hungered for a show. it is odd that not one of these men should have mentioned this circumstances during their interview with anyone. The striptease-act-for-a-fee story on which the defense theory is anchored. women who sell their attractions are usually very shrewed and it is to be expected that they could demand full payment before curtain call. he surrendered on July 5 to Mrs. notwithstanding. and to make the company complete they invited Cañal to join them. the manner of payment offered for the performance is again something beyond even the wildest expectations. Why was there need for this? The Court realizes that in its desperate need of an explanation for Maggie's positive identification of Cañal as the man with the tattoo mark on his right buttock. The result of the physical (external and internal) examination conducted on the person of Maggie de la Riva in the afternoon of June 29. according to Canal." The flaw in this connection lies in its utter inverisimilitude. the pertinent findings of which quoted earlier in this decision.000.

the cases cited by the accused in their Memorandum notwithstanding which the Court does not consider in point anyway. 151. (Ricarte 44 OG 2234. more than suffices to establish the crimes charged in the amended complaint. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that all the appellants participated in the forcible abduction. Aquino's suggestion that the abrasions on the cervix were caused by the tough tip of a noozle deliberately used by the complainant to strengthen her alleged fabricated tale of rape. negated the existence of the element of lewd design. It is difficult to imagine that any sane woman. Besides. 25523. between whom she was seated. 7666.A. 49 Phil. Aquino and Canal contend that the absence of semen in the complainant's vagina disproves the fact of rape. 338. it is claimed. (3) it could also be argued that the contusions and bruises could have been inflicted on Maggie during her struggle with Pineda when the latter pulled and pushed her into the red convertible car. L-6302. declared that semen is not usually found in the vagina after three days from the last intercourse. it should be borne in maid that in the most detestable crime of rape in which a man is at his worst the testimony of the offended party most often is the only one available to prove directly its commission and that corroboration by other eyewitnesses would in certain cases place a serious doubt as to the probability of its commission. as held by the court below. 2.. C. the defense itself says that these two persons rejoined the three after three or four minutes! It is physically impossible. in such a short time. and the latter touching her thighs and raising her skirt. the more prone to be biased or polluted. the more logical. the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape. that meaningful and knowing glances were in the meanwhile being exchanged among the four. In the light thereof. Medina y Puno. as well as in her sworn statements. Dr. however. CA 55 O. discount this possibility. but penetration (People vs Hernandez. April 24. for Boy Pineda to have attacked the girl and inflicted on her all of these injuries. that they helped one another in dragging her into the car against her will. if not cruel. her honor and that of her family. VIII ACR 530). toyed with her body. the important consideration being. 1. Aquino and Cañal deny having had anything to do with the abduction of Miss De la Riva. so trial courts of justice are most often placed in a position of having to accept such uncorroborated testimony if the same is in regards conclusive. Other evidence and considerations exist which indubitably establish the commission of successive rapes by . logical and probable (Landicho. the more reasonable. In the first place. The telltale injuries. it is not correct to say that Maggie's declaration was uncorroborated — she has for corroboration nothing less than the written extra-judicial statements of Jose and Canal.G. In their Memorandum the accused contend that Maggie's sole and uncorroborated testimony should not be rated any credence at all as against the concerted declaration of the the accused. CA O. Galamito. 980). appellants' protestation that they were not motivated by lewd designs must be rejected as absolutely without factual basis. Appellants Jose. August 25. 1959). This testimony.Maggie de la Riva and Boy Pineda were left behind in the hotel room the bruises and the sexual attack could have taken place then. for the location in which many of the bruises and traumas were located (particularly on the inner portion of her thighs) could not have been cause by any struggle save by those of a woman trying to resists the brutal and bestial attack on her honor.G. Brion of the NBI. that while inside the car. Miss De la Riva declared on the witness stand. Furthermore. 1943 O. but they generously contend that even as to him the act was purged at any taint of criminality by the complainant's subsequent consent to perform a striptease show for a fee. and for what purpose? Was P900. would inflict injuries on her genital organ by puncturing the same with a sharply-pointed instrument in order to strike back at four strangers who allegedly would not pay her the sum of P900. This line of defense has evidently leg no to stand on. What is more important is which of the declarations is the more credible. likewise been clearly established. Jose and Aquino. Brion testified that the insertion of such an instrument in the genital organ would not result in the kind of injuries he found in the mucosa of the cervix. who testified as an expert. They point to Pineda (who entered a plea of guilty) as the sole author thereof. Jose. not the emission of semen. 1954). The contention is untenable.G. But even assuming that Maggie stood alone in her statements. that she did not know them personally. But then. the examination was conducted on the fourth day after the incident. whose evidentiary weight has not in the least been overthrown by the defense.00 due her for a striptease act. jurisprudence has confirmed the ruling that numbers is the least vital element in gauging the weight of evidence. especially if the subject has douched herself within that period. Damian CA-GR No. The commission of rape by each of the appellants has. Dr. the former forcing his lips on hers. (2) it was suggested by the defense that Maggie de la Riva could have inflicted all of those injuries upon herself just to make out a case against the accused. embarrassment and publicity she would (as she eventually did) expose herself to? If she really had not been raped would she have gone thru all of these tribulation? A woman does not easily trump up rape charges for she has much more to lose in the notoriety the case will reap her. who is single and earning as much Miss Dela Riva did. than in the redress she demands (Canastre 82-480. a circumstance which. Besides. The examining physician rules out this preposterous proposition. and the complainant had douched herself to avoid infection and pregnancy. 3. Medina.00 which she had failed to collect worth that much selftorture? And what about all the shame. is absurd. In the present case. and that all of them later took turns in ravishing her at the Swanky Hotel. We shall now consider the points raised by the appellants in their briefs. verily it does not take much stretch of the imagination to see how utterly impossible this would be.

. 23 Phil. 1961. and People vs.S. Aquino and Canal would make capital of the fact that Miss De la Riva stated to the reporters on the morning of June 26. the complainant even allegedly suggesting that she be dropped on a spot where people would reasonably presume her to have come from a studio? Equally important is the complainant's public disclosure of her tragedy. Section 18)..) The case of U. Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda's plea of guilty. The admissibility of his extrajudicial statements is likewise being questioned by Jose on the other ground that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogations." The only instances where an accused is entitled to counsel before arraignment. that she was not abused.S. Appellant Pineda claims that insofar as he is concerned there was a mistrial resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. of course. could they possibly have been inflicted by appellant Pineda alone. or that any detail in the statements was supplied by them or by anyone other than the affiants themselves. "did not intend to admit that he committed the offense with the aggravating circumstances" mentioned in the information. each of them attempted in the same statements to exculpate himself: appellant Jose stated that only Pineda and Aquino criminally abused the complainant. Implementing the said constitutional provision.S. We are not in a position to make a similar finding here. enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel . much less to require his presence in court. et al. Upon Miss De la Riva's arrival at her house in the morning of June 26. that the said two appellants did not see it fit to inform any of their friends or relatives of the alleged use of force and intimidation by the police. for then it would be the better part of discretion on the part of the trial court to grant his request. The contention is untenable. and considering. I have been raped. Dr. Escobedo vs. L-15515. They are replete with details which could hardly be known to the police. found no trace of injury on any part of the said appellant's body in spite of the claims that he was boxed on the stomach and that one of his arms was burned with a cigarette lighter. which led to the examination of her private parts and lay her open to risks of future public ridicule and diminution of popularity and earnings as a movie actress. The provision of the Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III (Bill of Rights). as can be deduced from the absence of unanimity in the voting by the members of the United States Supreme Court in all the three above-cited cases. 1961). L-14783. at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information. she immediately told her mother. 4. and it matters not that the offense is capital. February 28.S. U. who examined appellant Canal after the latter made his statement. He cites the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Messiah vs. Had the statements been prepared by the authorities. Boyles. citing People vs. who had not yet consulted her family on a matter which concerned her reputation as well as that of her family. vs. 258 (1912). the traumas found by Dr. vs. We see no reason to depart from the trial court's wellconsidered conclusion that the statements were voluntarily given. too. It would be different had appellant Pineda requested the court to allow him to prove mitigating circumstances. 17 of which provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ." While the said provision is identical to that in the Constitution of the United States. which is part of theres gestae. While in their statements Jose and Canal admitted having waited — together with the two other appellants — for Miss De la Riva at the ABS Studio. in U. L15308. but also because in interpreting a provision of the Constitution the meaning attached thereto at the time of the adoption thereof should be considered. and that they came out to join them in what they would picture to be a cordial atmosphere. Her statement to the press is understandable. if proved. it was not incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence. At that time the complainant. We have provided in Section 1. or that the details recited therein were concocted by the authorities. (Cf. However. considering that it was made by the complainant to her mother who. The transcript of the proceedings during the arraignment shows that . they would hardly have contained matters which were apparently designed to exculpate the affiants. Beecham. Could they. 201). would raise the penalty to death. no evidence at all was presented to establish the truth of such allegation. as suggested. Section 1. We are not convinced that the statements were involuntarily given.. have been self-inflicted? Or. 1962. Brion on different parts of the complainant's body. Section 11) and after the arrest (Rule 113.. to whom neither of the aforesaid appellants intimated the use of inordinate methods by the police. was not then in a position to reveal publicly what had happened to her. (377 U. Agcaoili (31 Phil. from the arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment. Parete. that the police officers who took down their statements categorically denied on the witness stand that the two appellants were tortured.. even disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Canal. in this jurisdiction the termcriminal prosecutions was interpreted by this Court. We find that the mass of evidence for the prosecution on record will suffice to secure the conviction of the two. in connection with a similar provision in the Philippine Bill of Rights (Section 5 of Act of Congress of July 1. It is significant. commands strong probative value. that is.. Illinois (378 U. further. if he so requests. And even there the said rule is not yet quite settled. too. 1967. for there this Court ordered a new trial because it found for a fact that the accused.the four appellants. it was the duty of the court to insist on his presence during all stages of the trial. and that the incriminating details therein were supplied by the police investigators. (b) to be present and defend in person and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings. 1964. While a plea of guilty is mitigating. in cases of this nature was the most logical person in whom a daughter would confide the truth. and her career. which. 91). Jose and Canal seek the exclusion of their extrajudicial statements from the mass of evidence on the grounds that they were secured from them by force and intimidation." This utterance.. 436).S. including the aggravating circumstances. Ama. for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime (People vs. 5. He contends that because the charge against him and his co-appellants is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating circumstances.S. April 29. are during the second stage of the preliminary investigation (Rule 112.. 1902) to mean proceedings before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the judgment. And there were. People vs. is not in point. This is one reason why the complainant did not immediately inform the authorities of the tragedy that befell her. Rule 115 of the Rules of Court that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled . Mariano Nario of the Quezon City Police Department. In the circumstances. par. April 29. L16175. Another reason is that she was threatened with disfiguration. when the story given by the other three is that Pineda and the complainant were left in the hotel room for only three or four minutes. not only because it has no binding effect here. The statements were given in the presence of several people and subscribed and sworn to before the City Fiscal of Quezon City. while appellant Canal would make it appear that the complainant willingly allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her. 478) and Miranda vs. Arizona (384 U. The rule in the United States need not be unquestioningly adhered to in this jurisdiction. All four of them raped me. who had pleaded guilty.. cited by Pineda. and although it is suggested that the authorities could have secured such details from their various informers. May 29. Arconado. " Mommy Mommy.

48 of the Revised Penal Code. vs. (b) abuse of superior strength. People vs. the first of the crimes committed. they should be detached from.—Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. With respect to appellants Jose. Appellant Pineda should. Agcaoili. 6. Jose himself admits in his brief that the Trial Judge "had not been influenced by adverse and unfair comments of the press. was a necessary if not indispensable means which enabled them to commit the various and the successive acts of rape upon her person. however. that of forcible abduction and. the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. Nevertheless. Two of the appellants — Jose and Cañal — bewail the enormous publicity that attended the case from the start of investigation to the trial. It bears noting. the same counsel stated in court that he had always been averse to Pineda's idea of pleading guilty. 335. none of these aggravating circumstances has been offset by any mitigating circumstance. the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated. it is that which is punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetuato death. and considered independently of. the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape. unmindful of the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to fair trial. to put matters in their proper perspective and for the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be imposed in each of the other three crimes of simple rape. As regards. Three days after the arraignment. because "I know the circumstances called for the imposition of the maximum penaltyconsidering the aggravating circumstances. Lota prefaced his client's plea of guilty with the statement that . before raping her. be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty. there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes. the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. the penalty shall be death. that even while the first act of rape was being performed. even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. To be sure. and we have given said accused time to think. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. 2. any such recommendation does not bind the Court. therefore. so that each of the three succeeding (crimes of the same nature can not legally be considered as still connected with the abduction — in other words. it behooves Us to make a definite finding in this connection to the effect that the commission of said crimes was attended with the following aggravating circumstances: (a) nighttime. The situation here. hence. a homicide is committed. a factor which does not in the least affect the . By using force or intimidation. What kind of rape was committed? Undoubtedly. supra. three of the seven (7) original accused were acquitted. Article 335. the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. 4111 which took effect on June 20. is far different from that obtaining in U. De Guzman. for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed. however. the penalty shall be likewise death.Pineda's counsel. brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating. Atty. 105. After a while I consulted him — for three times — and his decision was still the same. et al. as amended by Republic Act No. therefore. it appears that the court a quo was able to give the appellants a fair hearing. appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes. When the woman is under twelve years of age. pursuant the provision of Art. and (d) use of a motor vehicle. In spite of the said publicity.. 51 Phil. In this regard. the victim has become insane. the penalty shall be death. the former can no longer be complexed with the latter. under paragraph 3. There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of the complainant from in front of her house in Quezon City.S. For another thing. Aquino and Ca_¤_al. When and how rape committed." but that he acceded to his client's wish only after the fiscal had stated that he would recommend to the court the imposition of life imprisonment on his client. and which provides as follows: ART. Consequently. For one thing.. and 3." We are convinced that the herein four appellants have conspired together to commit the crimes imputed to them in the amended information quoted at the beginning of this decision. 1964. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. therefore. 113). the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. (c) ignominy. the latter is definitely the more serious. however. I have advised him (Pineda) about the technicalities in plain simple language of the contents of aggravating circumstances and apprised him of the penalty he would get.

The foregoing opposition to the multiple imposition of death penalties suffers from four basic flaws: (1) it fails to consider the legality of imposing multiple capital penalties. that a death convict. 55 Off. to reiterate. the act of one conspirator is attributable to all. Granting. the possibility of a grant of executive clemency is justifiably reduced in no small measure. however. not in the imposition of the penalty (People vs. here only one offense is charged. As a result. All that go into the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties. that the Chief Executive. then each conspirator must be held liable for each of the felonious acts committed as a result of the conspiracy. has practical importance. the ends of justice would be served. the imposition of multiple death penalties could effectively serve as deterrent to an improvident grant of pardon or commutation. In the case of multiple capital penalties. 623). found the accused guilty of two murders and one homicide and imposed upon him two death sentences for the murders and a prison term for the homicide. if only one death penalty were imposed on each of the appellants. for the fact remains that in the case of Balaba this Court did not hesitate to affirm the two death sentences imposed on the accused by the trial court. grant of executive clemency or natural death of the prisoner. 63. where this Court. It is contended. and society and the victim would be vindicated just as well.) In refusing to impose as many death penalties as there are offenses committed. the trial court ignored the principle enunciated in the very case it cited. for while in the former case the accused was found to have committed three distinct offenses. In holding that only one death penalty should be imposed because man has only one life. et al. gravity and number of the offenses charged and proved and the corresponding penalties prescribed by law. appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes of rape. The imposition of a penalty and the service of a sentence are two distinct. The imposition of the proper penalty or penalties is determined by the nature. We said that "since it is the settled rule that once conspiracy is established. Balaba. which should not exceed forty years. regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed by law. In People vs." In the said case (which was promulgated after the decision of the court a quo had been handed down) We had occasion to discuss at length the legality and practicality of imposing multiple death penalties. The imposition of multiple death penalties. 1968. U. October 29. even if complex. an exercise in futility. the court does not concern itself with the possibility or practicality of the service of the sentence.S. the trial court applied by analogy Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.. like all mortals. Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously. In the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties. thus: The imposition of multiple death penalties is decried by some as a useless formality. undeniably enough. in affirming the judgment of the trial court." The said court is of the opinion that since a man has only one life to pay for a wrong... Escares. 37 Phil. (2) it fails to distinguish between imposition of penalty and service of sentence. A cursory reading of article 70 will show that there are only two moves of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. (3) it ignores the fact that multiple death sentences could be served simultaneously. four crimes were committed. concepts. We cannot agree with the trial court. no substantial difference between the two cases insofar as the basic philosophy involved is concerned. it is reasoned that the imposition of multiple death penalties is impractical and futile because after the service of one capital penalty. the court a quo said that the case of Balaba is different from the present case. whereas service of sentence is determined by the severity and character of the penalty or penalties imposed. L-19060. for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining. Revised Penal Code. Hence. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code can only be taken into account in connection with the service of the sentence imposed. charged and proved. since actual service is a contingency subject to varied factors like the successful escape of the convict. are the nature. gravity and number of offenses charged and proved. (Art. in the exercise of his . 260. Showing thus the reprehensible character of the convict in its real dimensions. Peralta. therefore. vs. As We have explained earlier herein. the nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but actually necessitates simultaneous service. In not applying the said principle. 2. par. has only one life to forfeit.nature of the proper penalties to be imposed. namely. which provides that "the maximum duration of all the penalties therein imposed upon the appellant shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon the appellant. The sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his extreme criminal perversity. The first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. the execution of the rest of the death penalties will naturally be rendered impossible. There is. the proper penitentiary authorities would exercise judicious restraint in recommending clemency or leniency in his behalf. which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of only one death sentence irrespective of the number of capital felonies for which he is liable. Gaz. and (4) it overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties. far from being a useless formality. though related. in which this Court imposed on each of the six accused three death penalties for three distinct and separate crimes of murder. And because of this physiological and biological attribute of man. Faced with the utter delinquency of such a convict.

1968.00. WHEREFORE. that the court a quo having found that appellant Jose is the owner of the car. The intervenor then filed a petition for relief from judgement. the intervenor filed. Jose. could not enforce the writ of replevin because the car was not in Mrs. The mortgage lien was annotated on the motor registration certificate. and then is commuted to life imprisonment. Although not notified of the said decision. that the chattel mortgage on the car and its assignment in the favor of the intervenor were made several months before the date of commission of the crimes charged. Mrs. 69993. 1970. and only insofar as his criminal liability is concerned. Mrs. Gomez failed to pay any of the installments due. to the intervenor.constitutional power to pardon (one of the presidential prerogatives which is almost absolute) deems it proper to commute the multiple death penalties to multiple life imprisonments. Considering that the car in question is registered in the name of Mrs. the court issued an order for the seizure of the car. . each of them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties. 1967. H-33284. a claim of ownership over the car adverse to his mother. Gomez' possession. the same having been used by her son. The sheriff. 2376752110777. attorney's fees. As a result of this development. the trial court rendered its judgment in the present case ordering the car's confiscation as an instrument of the crime. 1967. this case is hereby dismissed as to him alone. on October 17. must be considered as the lawful owner thereof. with one-fourth (1/4) of the costs declared de oficio. Gomez were unavailing. for value received and with notice to Mrs. the order of confiscation is correct. On October 2. who refused to surrender it to the sheriff on the ground that it would be used as evidence in the trial of the criminal case. During the pendency of that criminal case in the court below. the present petition for intervention was filed with this Court. as a result of which the car was seized by the Quezon City police and placed in the custody of Major San Diego. The judgment became final and executory. as well as the chattel mortgage. File No. On February 5. Serial No. but were made simply in answer to questions propounded in court for the sole purpose of establishing the identity of the defendant who furnished the car used by the appellants in the commission of the crime. in the abduction of Miss De la Riva. The car is registered in the name of Mrs.00 in each of the four crimes. Basilio Pineda. which was stipulated to be payable in 24 monthly installments of P550 beginning May 4. as well as of the presence of aggravating circumstances. intended to be. 1967. On July 7. but the same was denied on October 31. the writ of execution was returned by the sheriff unsatisfied.200 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from July 5. Gomez. one of the herein appellants. bought the car from the Malayan Motors Corporation and simultaneously executed a chattel mortgage thereon to secure payment of the purchase price of P13. or. The said petition was not. On July 26. and each shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs. a motion for reconsideration of the order of confiscation.000. If only one death penalty is imposed. or a total of 40. On April 17. on the ground that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the automatic elevation thereof to this Court. and the costs of suit. The mortgage was duly registered with the Land Transportation Commission and inscribed in the Chattel Mortgage Registry. As a consequence thereof. 1967. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. 1969. which circumstance forecloses the possibility of collusion to prevent the State from confiscating the car. Jr. 1967. WT-222410. The aforesaid car is a 1965 two-door Pontiac sedan with Motor No. judgement was rendered in the replevin case ordering Mrs. 11584171. in the alternative. ———— Before the actual promulgation of this decision. The assignment was duly registered with the Land Transportation Commission and annotated on the registration certificate. that the only basis of the court a quo in concluding that the said car belongs to appellant Jose were the latter's statements during the trial of the criminal case to that effect. and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. all of them shall.. the convict will have to serve a maximum of only thirty years corresponding to a single life sentence. that the final judgement in the replevin case can only be executed by delivering the possession of the car to the intervenor for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Gomez. to pay the intervenor the sum of P13. In his brief the Solicitor General contends. jointly and severally. 1967." it is the sense of this Court that the order of the court below for confiscation of the car in question should be set aside and that the said car should be ordered delivered to the intervenor for foreclosure as decreed in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the replevin case. in view of which the intervenor filed on July 5. appellant Jaime G. Court of First Instance of Manila) as a preliminary step to foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. and the Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if such "be the property of a third person not liable for the offense. or on July 26. 1968. 69993. Jose. Civil Case No. acted upon. but the same was also denied. then the practical effect is that the convict has to serve the maximum forty (40) years of multiple life sentences. Dolores Gomez. mother of an appellant Jaime G. ———— Before Us is a petition for intervention filed by Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation asking for reversal of that portion of the judgment of the court below ordering the confiscation of the car used by the appellants in abducting the complainant. Dolores Gomez. 1967 up to April 4. Attempts to execute the judgment against the properties of Mrs. We are. 1967. 1967. the Malayan Motors Corporation assigned its credit against Mrs. Dolores Gomez. the premium bond. of the opinion that in view of the existence of conspiracy among them and of our finding as regards the nature and number of the crimes committed. that the said statement were not. an action for replevin against her (Civil Case No. nor could constitute. the intervenor filed with the said court a petition for intervention. in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. died in prison on December 28. this Court received a formal manifestation on the part of the Solicitor General to the effect that Rogelio Cañal. indemnify the complainant of the sum of P10. which allowed the intervenor to file a brief. among others. alleged by the intervenor to be in the custody of Major Ernesto San Diego of the Quezon City Police Department. however. four death penalties should be imposed in the premises. together with the other appellants in this case. 1968. however.000. however. the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants Jaime G.200. Gomez to deliver the car to the intervenor so that the chattel mortgage thereon could be foreclosed. who. therefore. On April 4. Plate No. Jose. and Edgardo P.

unlawfully and feloniously take and rob (sic) the spouses Mr. Nicanor called for his daughter Elizabeth to take her turn in using the toilet. while Pablito Nang remains at large to this day. both accused-appellants entered a plea of "not guilty. Epifania Gonzales. Zamboanga del Sur. and whoever is in custody thereof is hereby ordered to deliver its possession to intervenor Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation in accordance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. As Nicanor struggled with the assailants. and Mrs. Elizabeth. Philippines. Epifania placed a lighted gas lamp on the windowsill overlooking the toilet to illuminate the place. Ambrosio and Ronnie were in their house at Sitio San Pedro. the abovenamed accused did then and there willfully. Barangay Lubusan. 1990 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening at Sitio San Pedro. Upon arraignment. Feeling the urge to relieve himself before going to bed. 3 Of the three accused. enabling Elizabeth to recognize them with the aid of the light emanating from the gas lamp on the window overlooking the toilet and the scene of the crime.m.R. and daughter. No. Elizabeth went downstairs and walked towards the direction of the toilet. 1998 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. farmer Nicanor Gonzales. vs. with intent to gain and by means of violence did then and there willfully. two masked men she met immediately grabbed her by the hands and poked knives at her. Since it was already dark. unlawfully and feloniously stab and inflict injuries upon Nicanor Gonzales which caused the latter's death immediately thereafter. 1990. the three malefactors rushed inside the house. only herein accused-appellants Gamo and Gabasan. Municipality of Lapuyan. Nicanor Gonzales of the sum of Five Hundred (P500. plaintiff-appellee. the two of said accused being armed with a pistol and a knife respectively. the order of the court a quo for its confiscation is hereby set aside. on May 16. She recognized the two culprits who held her father's hands as accused-appellants Sumiba Gamo and Lumonsog Gabasan. having heard the commotion coming from the direction of the comfort room. ROMERO. only to be hit on the head by Gabasan who then stood as lookout beside the stairs. Province of Zamboanga del Sur. Before she could even step out of the door. 5 To her surprise. Epifania recognized the two who gripped her hands as Pablito Nang and Sumiba . 7 Having subsequently eluded Gabasan. J. Elizabeth." The prosecution's version of the crime. decided to investigate. Lapuyan." accused. Forthwith. Celso. namely: Monina. his wife Epifania and six of their eleven children. *Complex Crimes (Special Complex Crime) G. 6 After stabbing Nicanor. 69993 thereof. The information reads: That on the 16th day of May. Elizabeth followed them. 107799 April 15. is as follows: At around 7:00 o'clock p.00) Pesos and pursuant to said conspiracy and by reason and on the occasion thereof. Nicanor proceeded downstairs to the comfort room adjacent to the house.: Pablito Nang alias "Batutto" (Batuto) and accusedappellants Sumina 1 Gamo and Lumonsog 2 Gabasan alias "Dodong" were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. and the third who stabbed her father. Act contrary to Article (sic) 293 and 294 of the Revised Penal Code. she saw her father being attacked by three masked men. Elizabeth managed to reach the upper floor of the house where she saw her mother Epifania struggling against Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo." accused-appellants. 8 Earlier Epifania Gonzales. Elizabeth positively identified the three assailants because she was familiar with their faces since they used to pass by their place. were apprehended. as accused Pablito Nang. Branch 19. Lubosan. Basilio. Out of fear. she was able to pry loose their masks. the abovenamed accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another. PABLITO NANG alias "Batutto. Aided by the light coming from the gas lamp on the window.Insofar as the car used in the commission of the crime is concerned." (at large) SUMINA GAMO and LUMUNSOG GABASAN alias "Dodong. In the ensuing scuffle. as testified to by the deceased victim's wife. 4 After a while. their T-shirt masks dropped. SUMINA GAMO and LUMUNSOG GABASAN alias "Dodong.

000. Both accused Sumina Gamo and Lumonsog Gabasan having been in prison since June 5. together with Temie. II .m.00) PESOS to the heirs of victim Nicanor Gonzales which is the amount taken by them and to pay FIFTY THOUSAND (P50. One stab wound at the middle of the chest measuring 1 3/4 inch in length and 1 inch wide and 4 inches deep. 21 The appeal is devoid of merit.. . took the money in it. The post mortem examination prepared by Rural Sanitation Inspector George Bayamban revealed that Nicanor Gonzales sustained the following injuries: 1.00) PESOS as to compensation for the death of the victim Nicanor Gonzales to the latter's heirs without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. She pleaded with them to spare her life. Upon arrival at their destination. . The three intruders were familiar to her as Lumonsog Gabasan used to sell copra to them and buy on credit from her store. Temie and Mamerto Masulog. Lapuyan. they then returned to their place of work. 1992. Zamboanga del Sur. 18 On February 21. they heard gunshots coming from the neighboring barangay. She also saw Lumonsog Gabasan standing by the stairs. instead to keep quiet. Ansaling Lingating conducted an investigation and drew a sketch of the crime scene 14 which indicated the window of the Gonzales house overlooking the toilet. accused-appellants cooked and prepared the chickens for supper. 2. While there. they decided to go to the house of Lumonsog Gabasan in order to rest. to discuss the impending marriage between Temie and Ernie's cousin Myrna. 17 The defense presented Ernie Gandamon. While having dinner. Appellants insist on their innocence and contend that the trial court erred: I . III . 13 The following day. "Tabang mo kay gitulis me!" (Help us. 11 When the neighbors arrived. she sustained wounds on her left wrist and neck. both of whom were then armed with hunting knives. ." being notorious in the community. the four-meter distance of the toilet from the mango tree where the bloodstains were found and the distance of the house from the road where the victim died. Unfortunately. Nang was known as "bugoy. stayed behind and slept at the house of Ernie that evening. In the morning of May 16. the guardian of the bride-to-be.m. Epifania immediately shouted for help crying out. 9 Gabasan demanded money from Epifania who replied that they had no money. Sumiba Gamo searched their trunk. Upon waking up at 7:00 o'clock a. The two men warned her. SO ORDERED. . Accused-appellants Sumiba Gamo and Lumonsog Gabasan interposed the defense of denial and alibi. One stab wound at the middle of his back measuring 1 3/4 inch in length and 1/2 inch wide and 4 inches deep. Poblacion. 16 The defense had an altogether different version of the occurrence. he named Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo and could make no more utterance as he was choking in his own blood due to his grave condition. When she asked him to identify his assailants. . the brother of accused-appellant Lumonsog Gabasan. 10 As the three intruders fled.m. the one meter distance of the toilet from the house. and told Nang about it. Accused-appellants Lumonsog Gabasan and Sumiba Gamo. the trial court 19 rendered its judgment of conviction. 1990. she found out that the money consisting of paper bills and coins totalling some P500.. 15 Hemorrhage due to stab wounds at middle back and chest was the cause of Nicanor's death. WHEN IT IGNORED MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION AND MADE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS AND THE EVIDENCE. 1990. While Pablito Nang was restraining her. After the three had left. are hereby credited FOUR-FIFTH (4/5) of such preventive imprisonment in the service of their sentence herein imposed. this appeal. 12 When Epifania inspected the family trunk that was ransacked by the intruders.Gamo. they placed the wounded Nicanor on a bench which they carried towards the road to bring him to a doctor. one of them shouted threatening that they would come back. The group brought two chickens to symbolize the plighted troth between Temie and Myrna.00 were taken by the three men. after which a wedding covenant was forged between the father of the prospective groom and Mamerto Masulog. But as Epifania continued to struggle with the two. . 20 Hence. Ernie Gandamon arrived and summoned Temie Gabasan. however. Nicanor expired after only a few minutes. they were hired by Lamberto Lingating Lusay to make copra at Guili-an. He was accompanied by accusedappellants Lumonsog Gabasan and Sumiba Gamo. she saw her husband Nicanor seriously wounded beside the mango tree. thereby prompting the father of accused-appellant Lumonsog and his younger brother to go home at once out of concern for the rest of the family. After they had finished their work at about 4:00 o'clock p. disposing thus: WHEREFORE. They started making copra after breakfast at about 7:00 o'clock a. Patrolman Alfren Humpa and Pfc. Lapuyan. hurriedly scampered downstairs. Epifania. WHEN IT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS WERE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. Dugang. WHEN IT GAVE CREDENCE AND FULL WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WIFE AND THE DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED VICTIM NICANOR GONZALES. . with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to return the sum of FIVE HUNDRED (P500. we were robbed!) There being no immediate response to her cries for assistance. As she left the house. the Court hereby finds "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt accused SUMINA GAMO and LUMONSOG GABASAN of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentences them to RECLUSION PERPETUA or LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Mamerto Masulog and Pendatun Bandatun to corroborate accusedappellants' alibi. The father of Lumonsog Gabasan agreed to go to the house of Myrna in Sitio Guilian.

. only two persons entered their house and it was appellant Gamo who opened the trunk. Witnesses cannot be expected everytime. hence. which is therein used in a generic sense. however. the alleged inconsistencies between the affidavits and testimonies of witnesses are minor and do not affect their credibility as witnesses. 24 but the records show that she only testified that she was hit on the head without mentioning a gun. It bears stressing that ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Minor inconsistencies serve . . 26 but witness Epifania said that she was able to remove the masks of the culprits while she was struggling with them. accused-appellants point out that what was stated therein was that Lumonsog Gabasan whipped her with a pistol but she made no mention about the gun in her court testimony. but these lapses are not so grave as to suffice to reverse the verdict of conviction against accused-appellants. . They merely show that their affidavits are incomplete with respect to certain details that do not in any way detract from the overall veracity of their testimonies. 36 In the case at bar. inconsistencies between the declaration of the affiants in their sworn statements and those in court do not necessarily discredit them. (and thus) . who. that are not supported by the records . What she stated was that Sumiba Gamo pointed a knife at her while Pablito Nang ransacked the trunk. Differences in the narration of an incident between the sworn statements and the testimony of a witness are not unknown. Reyes. . . appellant Gabasan.Clearly. 34 viz. 33 this Court observed thus: . 35 Affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because the administering officer generally prepares them and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to him. all the elements of the crime of robbery with homicide are shown to exist. Miranda. More important. Upon careful examination of the assailed decision and the evidence on record. Contrary to what accused-appellants assert. was committed. . while the third. the crime of homicide. . Elizabeth. except when told. An extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. nothing was mentioned about her being stabbed by her attackers. was waiting by the stairs. It is therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. wife and daughter categorically identified all three accused as the ones who killed Nicanor. as between sworn statements taken ex parte and testimonies given in open court. 23 These supposed errors are: (1) that the daughter of the deceased victim. submit that this case comes within the exception to the rule that the findings of the trial court with regard to the credibility of the witnesses and the findings as to facts are not to be disturbed on appeal. Epifania. Predictably. this Court noted in People v. the latter are generally held to be superior. greatly prejudiced their constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. only her allegation that she was whipped by Lumonsog Gabasan. therefore. The infirmity of affidavits as evidence is a matter of judicial experience. 28 (4) that the victim's wife. at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries. (b) the property thus taken belongs to another. because they did not know them. What is material is that their testimonies agree on the essential fact that the three accused were present and they participated in the commission of the crime. It is doctrinal that this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of witnesses. 29 but in their respective testimonies. the lower court failed in its duty to conduct a real examination as to the credibility of the testimony of the two key witnesses for the prosecution. 31 This Court is satisfied that all the elements of the crime attributed to accused-appellants had been adequately established. Accused-appellants attempt to discredit the testimonies of prosecution witnesses by pointing out certain alleged inconsistencies and contradictions between their affidavits or sworn statements given to the police investigatorsvis-avis their testimonies in open court. hence the two told the truth. there is no serious incongruence in the prosecution eyewitnesses' sworn declarations and their testimonies. having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Hence. the core issue raised is factual and involves the credibility of the testimonies of witnesses. 27 but in the testimony of Epifania. . In court. testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements. therefore. to distinguish between what may be inconsequential and what may be mere insignificant details. was hit on the head with a gun by one of the three assailants. Accused-appellants point to certain errors committed by the trial court in its "findings of fact . and that she recognized them as she was able to snatch their masks. 30 Accused-appellants. 25 (2) that Pablito Nang was identified by Epifania because he removed his mask while ransacking the family trunk. In the same vein. were categorically and positively identified by eyewitnesses as the perpetrators of the crime being imputed to them. (3) that Epifania was grabbed by two masked men and a third masked person followed and entered the house and then ransacked the trunk. conclude that because of these errors in its factual findings and appreciation of the evidence. Thus. did not identify Lumonsog Gabasan while the victim's daughter Elizabeth did not identify Sumina Gamo. she testified that Nang stabbed her and that Gamo was the one who opened the trunk. this Court agrees with accusedappellants' observation that the trial court may indeed have committed some errors. . 32 In People v. . The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question. The crime of robbery with homicide is primarily classified as an offense against property and not against persons. omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent.: . As regards the affidavit of Elizabeth. unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misapprehended or misinterpreted." They. The infirmity of an extrajudicial statement is a matter of judicial experience. The rationale is that affidavits are oftentimes executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident that has transpired. Ex parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for varied reasons. as the records show. attacked them and robbed them of their money. 22 There is no cogent reason for the Court to depart from this well-settled rule. They allege that in Epifania's affidavit.

such trivial differences in fact constitute signs of veracity. unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. It also carries with it accessory penalties. The determination of whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements is addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court. Barangay Guili-an where Lumonsog Gabasan and Sumiba Gamo claimed to be at the time of the commission of the crime is not far from Sitio San Pedro. Lubosan where the crime was committed. . It is quite understandable when the witnesses do not immediately report the identity of the offender after a startling occurrence more specifically when they are related to the victim as they just had a traumatic experience. 54 This Court has distinguished between the two penalties in previous decisions. accused-appellants' alibi cannot prevail in light of the positive identification of prosecution eyewitnesses Epifania and Elizabeth Gonzales who have not been proved to harbor any ill-motives in testifying against the accusedappellants. In view of the presence of conspiracy. 48 The trial court correctly found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide as defined in Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized not by the . in carrying out their intention to rob them of their money. 39 The requirements of a child's competence as a witness are: (a) capacity of observation (b) capacity of recollection and (c) capacity of communication. going as far back as People v. 51 Such exception does not apply in the instant case. Accused-appellants' defense of alibi is. the proper imposable penalty upon accused-appellants is reclusion perpetua in the absence of proven mitigating or aggravating circumstances. and grief. By their concerted action. 38 On this score. as repeatedly pronounced. According to defense witness Ernie Gandamon. etc. Brgy. on which occasion they killed Nicanor to facilitate their criminal intent. can be negotiated in 20 minutes by riding a carabao or by hiking. the trial court erroneously imposed on accused-appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The prosecution has established with moral certainty through the eyewitness testimonies of Epifania and Elizabeth that accused-appellants used violence and intimidation against the members of the Gonzales family in carrying out their intention to rob them. Indeed. accused-appellants and Pablito Nang obviously conspired to rob the Gonzales family. In the case at bar. They stabbed to death Nicanor Gonzales to facilitate the commission of the robbery and attacked his wife Epifania and 11-year-old child Elizabeth causing them injuries. Code but by the special law. and perceiving. does not affect the credibility of witnesses.00 from the Gonzales family trunk. 40Accordingly. not only because it is inherently unreliable but because it is rather easy to fabricate. Relationship per se. There being proof of asportation. namely: perpetual special disqualification. can be a competent witness if he can perceive. without more. all the perpetrators of the crime shall bear equal responsibility." Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous penalties — these are distinct in nature. . In the instant case. 44 Evidence of physical impossibility had not been adduced in the case at bar. the rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery. inPeople v. 41 Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution's witness who has no motive to testify falsely against them. It was likewise amply shown through eyewitness testimony that accusedappellants took away some P500. intelligence and common sense. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide. 56 thus: The Code (Revised Penal Code) does not prescribe the penalty of "life imprisonment" for any of the felonies therein defined. therefore. The most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes and fall into confused and inconsistent statements but such honest lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility. 45 Moreover. credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable. What is essential is that there is a nexus. for one thing.instead to strengthen their credibility as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood. 46 Challenge is also made as to the credibility of the key witnesses being the wife and child of the deceased victim. the delay of witnesses in revealing to the authorities the identities of the accused may be attributable to trauma. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" which. courts have invariably looked upon it with caution. it is well-established that any child regardless of age. this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's assessment regarding Elizabeth's credibility as a witness. 47 Moreover. animus lucrandi is presumed. 43 The accused must show that he was at such other place for such a period of time that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. an intimate connection between robbery and the killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. can make known his perception to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully facts for which he is examined. after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. it would be unnatural for the relatives of the victims who seek justice to commit another injustice by imputing the crime on innocent persons and not on those who were actually responsible therefor. in duration and in accessory penalties. 52 The special complex crime of robbery with homicide carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. 49 In the crime of robbery with homicide. Antonio Magana. 50 Likewise. 37 What is clear is that their affidavits and testimonies concur on all material points and establish the presence of accused-appellants at the scene of the crime and the manner in which they executed the same. that accused-appellants merely held the arms of Nicanor Gonzales while Pablito Nang stabbed him. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least (30) years. 42 For alibi to be believed. Far from eroding the effectiveness of the testimonies of the two witnesses. one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke. recently. does not . the distance between Guili-an and San Pedro Lubosan. confusion. if not suspicion. Lapuyan. 53 However. the homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery. Accused-appellants also assail the trial court's utmost reliance on the testimony of 11-year-old Elizabeth considering her tender age and alleged low level of understanding. It is immaterial. Mobe 55 and.

Ernesto Macalipis and Pedro Duldulao were charged with forcible abduction with rape.: Rape is chilling. Nos. 2823-15 resulting in the dropping of the latter from that related case. SO ORDERED.R. the city prosecutor committed the unfortunate mistake of not including Edwin Julian as an accused in Criminal Case No. Ilocos Norte. with lewd design. the decision appealed from convicting accused-appellants Sumina Gamo and Lumunsog Gabasan of the crime of Robbery with Homicide is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the phrase "or life imprisonment" in the dispositive portion thereof is DELETED. *Complex Crimes (Special Complex Crime) G. and for another. Branch 15 3 stationed in Laoag City. ERNESTO MACALIPIS. did then and sere wilfully (sic). in Criminal Case No. Thus. The crime was committed as follows: That on or about the 19th day of November. Mario Alonzoalias Marcos Obrero. First Judicial Region. 1993 of the Regional Trial Court. and PEDRO DULDULAO. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation which shall effect with dispatch the arrest of Pablito Nang in order that he may be put on trial for the crime charged and duly proved here. accused. does not appear to have any definite extent or duration. to an uninhabited place in Barangay 15 San Nicolas. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. unlawfully and feloniously.carry with it any accessory penalty. a severe penalty is meted our by the State. 1997 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. It is marked by the savagery and brutality of the assault on the helpless victim's person and privacy. forcibly abduct (sic) the undersigned complainant against her will. revealing the clear legislative intent to "protect women against the unbridled bestiality of persons who cannot control their libidinous proclivities. WHEREFORE. Philippines. 1984. J. and Pedro Duldulao by means of force and intimidation. EDWIN JULIAN. 113692-93 April 4. have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant. conspiring. Incidentally. where each of the accused Edwin Julian. together. for this abhorrent crime. In the amended Criminal Complaint 4 in Criminal Case No. and did then and there take her. to her damage and prejudice in such amount as maybe (sic) awarded to her under the provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. the above-named accused." 1 This is an appeal from the Decision 2 dated September 15. against her will. naked sadism. confederating with and mutually helping one another. plaintiff-appellee. 2822-15. pursuant to their common criminal design. PANGANIBAN. 2822-15 finding Accused-appellant Edwin Julian guilty of forcible abduction with rape plus three counts of rape. Alberto Bumanglag. . Accused-appellant Edwin Julian and Accused Alberto Bumanglag. as parens patriae. Mario Alonzo alias Marcos Obrero. ALBERTO BUMANGLAG. and with the use of a deadly weapon. in the City of Laoag. vs.

1993. The door was open and she was facing her three companions who were only one meter away from the car.00. 2-92 of the Supreme Court dated January 20. the Court finds ALBERTO BUMANGLAG and PEDRO DULDULAO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and two (2) separate crimes of Rape. the accused were threatening the complainants to keep quiet and forced them to stoop everytime a vehicle approached. sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime and to make its discovery difficult. Accused ALBERTO BUMANGLAG is sentenced in absentia having escaped from detention during the trial. Julian then . and to indemnify. was treated as the Information. a vacationing "balikbayan". Nighttime. Subsequently. They first went to the residence of Angeles in Nangalisan where she asked permission to go out with her friends. and both residents of Laoag City. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING.00. Roy and Jun got off while Nelia remained inside the car seated at the right front seat. near a streetlight. and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of THREE TERMS of reclusion perpetua. 1986. the two (2) cases are hereby ordered ARCHIVED insofar as he is concerned.000. jointly and severally." 6 who are thus deemed at large. Julian opened the car's left door and sat on the driver's seat." but that there was "no record of confinement of ALBERTO BUMANGLAG and PEDRO DULDULAO. filed with the certification of Assistant City Fiscal Constante C. the court a quo dropped Mario Alonzo alias Marcos Obrero from the information after the complainants had cleared him of participation in the crime charged. 2822. SO ORDERED. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. On the road to Suba. All this time. Duldulao also tied the hands and feet of Roy Valdez and Jun Alcon. After trial. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring EDWIN JULIAN.That the aforestated offense has been attended by the following aggravating circumstances: 1. ALBERTO BUMANGLAG. Angeles. While they were thus enjoying the breeze and taking their snacks four (4) men later identified as the accused approached from the western side of the bridge and surrounded them. Use of motor vehicle. Bumanglag pointed a gun at them and ordered them to get inside the car. In an order dated November 21. all the accused. When arraigned. and to indemnify. The Facts Version of the Prosecution The prosecution's version. Abuse of superior strength. CONTRARY TO LAW. Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 2823. They rode in the 2-door Gemini car of Roy Valdez. 1992. complainant Angeles Alonzo in the amount of P150. They returned to the poblacion to buy their snacks after which they proceeded to the Laoag City (Marcos) Bridge. Caridad after the latter had found a prima facie case against the accused. Once inside the car. one of the accused pushed them inside the car. and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) TERMS of reclusion perpetua. In the evening of November 19. respectively. the trial court rendered a judgment. 2. In Criminal Case No. 2822-15 and a witness in Criminal Case No. except Ernesto Macalipis who was not arrested and remained at large. When they hesitated. 1994 that Accused-appellant Edwin Julian "was received in the New Bilibid Prison on October 14. The foregoing amended complaint. Bumanglag jumped bail but the trial court correctly ordered his trial in absentia. the bailbond given for the provisional liberty of EDWIN JULIAN and PEDRO DULDULAO are hereby CANCELLED and they are hereby ordered committed to prison immediately. worked as beauticians at Ceasar's Beauty Parlor located in the Laoag City supermarket. 35 and 33 years old. Roy's friend. 1984 between 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock they left the beauty parlor in the company of two male customers who had invited them to go out for snacks. the accused put on masks. together with Jun Alcon.000. pleaded not guilty to the charge. to be automatically revived upon his arrest. and 3. and PEDRO DULDULAO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and three (3) separate Crimes of Rape in Criminal Case No. With respect to accused ERNESTO MACALIPIS who was not arrested and has remained at large. They stopped at the southern end of the bridge and parked their car on the eastern lane facing north. as gleaned by the trial court from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Angeles Alonzo (the complainant in Criminal Case No. 2823-15 and witness in Criminal Case No. 5 The Bureau of Corrections informed this Court in a letter dated July 7. 2823-15) is as follows: Angeles and Nelia. Julian backed up the car and drove towards Gabu and then turned left towards Suba. Duldulao and Macalipis tore the seat cover of the car and used it to blindfold Angeles and Nelia. complainant Nelia Agtarap in the amount of P150. jointly and severally. 2822-15) and Nelia Agtarap (the complainant in Criminal Case No.

to another place about 6 meters away from the place where Bumanglag led Angeles. Nelia was also taken to a secluded place by Julian and Duldulao. Macalipis also forced Angeles to undress and succeeded in raping her. She cried out for help and shouted. "Nelia. "I'm here' and Nelia was also crying. followed by Bumanglag and by Julian again for the second time. Julian threatened Nelia and Angeles not to report to the police and to consider what happened to them as just a bad dream and that henceforth they should call him "brod". even adding insult to injury by asking if she was enjoying it. After her pants and panty were removed. she was called to the telephone. Nelia was raped first by Julian. 1985 at the Laoag City Police headquarters. Bumanglag ordered Angeles to lie down and when she refused he pushed her to the ground. Duldulao did not rape Nelia but he held her while she was being raped by Julian but Nelia does not know who held her when she was raped by Bumanglag because she was by then hysterical. they cried out to each other for help. Bumanglag removed the blindfold of Angeles and led her to an open field about 10 to 12 meters away from the car. Julian also told Nelia. Julian repeated his threats and because of such threats Angeles and Nelia did not report the incident to the police and did not submit to a medical examination. Bumanglag and Duldulao. She managed to dress up but after walking about 2 meters toward the car she felt so exhausted that she sat on the ground. Duldulao took her back to the car but on the way they met Macalipis who grabbed her from Duldulao. Angeles . By then it was near dawn. particularly the complaint of one Alfredo Alcon. During all the time Nelia and Angeles were being raped. At the same time Julian and Duldulao led Nelia. when they had re-grouped. also with blindfold removed. While he was interrogating the suspects. Early the following morning. Bumanglag ordered her to remove her pants and panty. She felt very tried (sic) and had no more strength to resist. He forced her legs apart with his own legs and succeeded in raping her. Macalipis told her that they did what they did because they had just come down from the mountains and that they were deprived of sex for a long time. As previously stated. Nelia and Angeles ran towards their two companions and helped them remove their blindfolds and untie their hands. Poking his gun at various parts of Angeles' body. (sic) Roy Valdez and Jun Alcon had earlier left without bidding good-bye to either Angeles and Nelia. kissing and embracing her. Later. After Julian succeeded in removing her clothes. About ninety (90) meters further to the south. She felt so weak and had no more energy to fight and resist and so Duldulao also succeeded in raping her. From there they walked to the house of Angeles in Nangalisan. she heard Nelia crying. Chief Investigator of the Laoag City Police. While Nelia's hands were held together by Duldulao. He pointed a gun at her hand and told her to follow and do as told. Bumanglag was present. When Julian raped Nelia the second time. Angeles fought and resisted by pressing her legs together but Bumanglag was stronger. They came from the direction where. The two suspects had been earlier arrested by the Batac police for carnapping and Ventura had requested for their custody. Angeles and their two male companions to retrieve the car from (sic) Solsona because they will bring it there. when Bumanglag led Angeles to the place where he raped her. Nelia left Angeles' house and went home to Barangay Caaoacan. After Angeles had dressed up. He also told Angeles to tell their two male companions not to look for the car in Solsona because they left the car west of the provincial capitol building. It was then that Nelia approached them. Julian forcibly undressed her and when she resisted Julian slapped her and threatened her with a gun. where are you?" Nelia shouted back. minutes before. accompanied by Julian. Angeles first pleaded with Bumanglag to spare her and when she resisted Bumanglag kicked and boxed her thighs. 7 The prosecution also presented Policeman Rodrigo Ventura. 1984. Jr. He lay on top of her. Ventura was investigating Alberto Bumanglag and Ernesto Macalipis in connection with several carnapping incidents in Laoag City. They all re-boarded the car and with Julian at the wheel they drove eastward until they reached a place near the highway in San Nicolas where Nelia and Angeles were told to alight. She recognized the voice as that of Julian when he said he is their "brod". who gave the following testimony: On February 6. that carnappers forcibly took his Gemini car on November 19. threatening her if she refused. After Bumanglag was through with her she put back her panty and pants but Duldulao came along and forced her to undress again.M. their two male companions were also allowed to alight. About 9:00 A. Angeles reported for work at the beauty parlor.stopped the car at a narrow road in what turned out to be a forested area and all of them were told to get out.

1986 Pedro Duldulao was brought to the Laoag City Police Station by his relative. When her co-employees informed her about the cases against her husband.M. Julian's brother. She first learned of the case against her husband in March 1986. was assigned as security man of Mr. Mendoza together with a certain Maj. The two suspects admitted their participation in the rape and carnapping incident and identified their companions as Edwin Julian and Mario Obrero and others. His parents and his wife visited him in Pangasinan and his father showed him the affidavits of the complainants and that was the first time he learned of the charges filed against him. They then negotiated for his surrender to the police. Duldulao was assisted by CLAO lawyer Maria Calija. when Edwin Julian was arrested. Ernesto Macalipis and Mario Obrero sexually abused two women whom he (Duldulao) and his four-named companions abducted from the Marcos Bridge in the victims' car. Later. Rosacia accompanied Duldulao to the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO). Duldulao voluntarily confessed that on November 19. Mendoza was at that time the vice president of the Association of Barangay Captains of Pangasinan. 1984. together with two male companions. That was the time she reported for work as an employee of the then PCINP in Camp Juan.. for investigation in connection with carnapping and rape cases in Laoag City. testified that "Duldulao asked her for legal assistance and corroborated the testimony of Rosacia with respect to her participation in the preparation of Duldulao's extra-judicial confession. 9 Meanwhile. Pangasinan and was employed by one Ruben Mendoza as the latter's personal representative and spokesman in his construction firm. the issue boils down to the credibility of the witnesses.Alonzo and Nelia Agtarap arrived at the police station. erred in rejecting his defenses of denial and alibi unrebutted by the prosecution. 1984 at about 9:00 P. Edwin Julian. He told police investigators that he was in Pangasinan when the alleged abduction and multiple rape took place but he didn't execute a written statement. Laoag City. where Duldulao's extra-judicial confession was taken. Maria Calija. The trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's evidence relative to the identity of accused-appellant Edwin Julian and his involvement in the commission of the crime of forcible abduction with rape described in Nelia Agtarap's amended complaint in the face of the inconclusiveness and unreliability of the entire prosecution's evidence of the identities of the malefactors and consequently. When her husband arrived in Laoag in April 1986 he was immediately detained at the provincial jail. 8 Laoag City Police Investigator Alden Rosacio testified that: On April 17. Laoag City but visited her husband about five times and stayed in the house of Mr. she went to Alcala to inform him. Pangasinan. Samuel Barit. 1984 the car they were riding in was carnapped and that they were sexually abused by the carnappers. Edwin Julian didn't return to Laoag until March 1986. She testified that during all this time she and her children were living in Barangay Navotas. Fariñas where Julian admitted the accusation against him and named Pedro Duldulao as one of his companions. the complainants identified him as one of those who abducted them and who raped Nelia Agtarap. Duldulao told the police what he knew about the cases being investigated and asked for a lawyer to assist him in making a confession. Among these cases was the complaint of Roy Valdez that his car was stolen on November 19. 11 Error Assigned The defense posits denial and alibi as follows: The defense cites a single error: The accused Edwin Julian denied the charges against him and put up the defense of alibi. The identification was made in the Office of then City Mayor Rodolfo C. Alberto Bumanglag. They told Ventura that they heard over the radio about carnapping suspects being investigated by the police. Rosacia and lawyer Calija. Upon seeing Alberto Bumanglag and Ernesto Macalipis. 12 Ultimately. Whereupon. He testified that in the early days of October 1984 he went to Alcala. Pat. Credibility of Witnesses . Pedrino. This Court's Ruling We affirm the judgment of the trial court. CLAO lawyer. Angeles and Nelia immediately identified them as two of the men who sexually abused them on the night of November 19. now the Public Attorneys Office (PAO). Before giving his extra-judicial confession. 1984 and that his two lady companions were raped. 10 Version of the Defense Rosemarie Julian corroborated the testimony of her husband that from October 1984 to March 1986 Edwin was in Alcala. also of the Laoag City Police. Ruben Mendoza. They also told him that on November 19. Duldulao was duly apprised of his constitutional rights by both Pat. a member of the military.

tsn. and (6) the two private complainants' subsequent execution of an affidavit of desistance in favor of Accused Pedro Duldulao. As astutely and correctly observed by the trial court: The details of the abduction and multiple rape were clearly and graphically described by the complainant. They testified in a straightforward. 1994. the original meaning must have gotten lost in the process of translation. if considered. 14 In deciding this appeal. unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which. Hence. September 10. The record shows the unequivocal and unswerving testimonies of Nelia Agtarap and Angeles Alonzo faithfully recounting their harrowing experience that fateful night of November 19. based on the following: (1) the statement of Roy Valdez. 13). the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. 1986. 13-16. to identify Appellant Julian. Their version is significantly backed by the complaint filed by one of their male companions in their disastrous double date." 17 In assessing the credibility of witnesses. (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape where usually only two persons are involved. (3) the lapse of "almost three months" before the two private complainants reported to the police that they had been raped. 26-33). that "four unidentified men were the culprits". two fairly good-looking ladies in their late twenties and early thirties at the time of the commission of the crime. In fact. the defense points to Angeles Alonzo's testimony that she did not recognize the perpetrators of the crime committed against them. forthright and convincing manner. to disprove. October 23. the long-held doctrine is that "the trial court's evaluation as to the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude. Angeles testified in Ilocano and based upon the experience of undersigned presiding judge. 4. 1986. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. given at the Laoag City police station the next day. 19 Identification of Appellant The defense contends that the identification of Accusedappellant Edwin Julian by Private Complainant Nelia Agtarap was made doubtful by Roy Valdez's report that his Gemini car had been taken by four unidentified" men. No evidence was presented to show that the complainants had ulterior motives to falsely charge the accused. the Court is guided by certain wellestablished principles in reviewing rape cases. we find that the trial court did not overlook any such material fact nor did it commit any palpable error in its assessment of the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses. pp. during and after their forcible abduction and rape are replete with significant details that jibe on material points. December 16. Their accounts of the circumstances antecedent to. Alfredo Alcon Jr. we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and assessment of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses. The only import of the statement of Roy. (4) their failure to undergo medical examination. A reading of the purported testimony readily shows that Angeles Alonzo did not readily recognize the malefactors only at the time when they suddenly approached her and her companions. one of private complainant's male companions that fateful night. When the incident happened. a nonresident balikbayan. I was not able to recognize their faces. q What is that incident you are referring to? a It was when they took us from the Marcos Bridge. p. having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand. was that he did not recognize the four who had taken his car but this did not mean he would not be able to recognize and identify them if he saw them again. however. being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. September 10. though innocent. November 19. 1984 and sufficiently identifying Appellant Julian as one of their abductors who raped them.The defense questions whether "the entire evidence of the prosecution relative to the identities of the malefactors (are) conclusive and reliable to warrant the inference that the identity and involvement of accused-appellant in the crime described in Agtarap's amended complaint had been established beyond reasonable doubt. as in other rape cases. positively identifying the accused as their attacker (tsn. thereby contradicting her earlier sworn complaint against five suspects including Obrero. 1986. and the manner in which they gave their testimonies. the findings of the court a quo clearly and indubitably show that the private complainants had the opportunity. since they cited Alonzo's statement out of context. (Jun Alcon). the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. it is clear that what she meant was that she did not know their names (tsn. to support their argument. his assessment on credibility must be respected. and indeed were able. sir. 1989. "the credibility of the offended party's testimony is determinative of the outcome" 16 of the case because "when an alleged victim of rape says that she was violated. might affect the result of the case." 18 After a thorough review of the entire record of this case. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. pp. Furthermore. and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Thus: q Do you know the accused Pedro Duldulao? a No. Their argument is of no moment." 15 Furthermore. 27-33. pp. The trial judge therefore can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth. (2) Private Complainant Angeles Alonzo's testimony that "she was not able to recognize her and her companions' abductors". (5) Angeles' sworn statement that Marcos Obrero had no participation in the crime charged. tsn. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General: The claim misleads.: The evidence shows that the southern end of the Laoag bridge where the complainants parked their car on the ." 13 Appellant answers this question in the negative. that his Gemini car was forcibly taken from him that same evening of November 19. to wit: "(a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility. Nelia steadfastly charged Appellant Julian of raping her not only once but twice. Therefore. (p. 1986) 20 The trial court elucidated the matter stating that "from a reading of the transcript of her entire testimony." 21 Contrary to the defense's assertion. We find this contention puerile. TSN. viz.

such charges are overwhelmingly credible and probable. It was probably this confidence that led to Edwin Julian's audacity to stare at the victim's faces and say "may I look at your faces" (tsn. The doctrine of falsus in uno. 1986. On the way to Suba. what is important is that both Nelia Agtarap and Angeles Alonzo revealed they had been raped when they filed their sworn complaint with the Laoag Police. lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. the complainants did not know the names of the accused at the time of the incident although they recognized their faces (tsn. Duldulao himself testified that he knew Angeles Alonzo when he was still a passenger jeepney conductor (tsn. January 14. In fact. 1989. . in the case of Edwin Julian and Pedro Duldulao. Admittedly. is sufficient to convict the accused thereof . The fact that both private complainants each executed an affidavit of desistance in favor of Accused Duldulao does not destroy their credibility since each has satisfactorily explained her execution of the document. falsus in omnibus "deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law. No law requires a medical examination for the successful prosecution of rape. the testimonies of the private complainants Angeles Alonzo and Nelia Agtarap. a complaint was filed three months after the incident. 3). Rape stigmatizes the victim. Thus. should be discredited in whole. The Court reiterates that "(t)he failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of rime to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless. 23) and the faces of the accused were visible to the complainants. September 10. September 10. p. the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime. December 16. We disagree. the victims would not report to the police. 23). as her testimony alone. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. 1984 was welllighted (tsn. . Moreover. the complainants were blindfolded. As insightfully put by the trial court: As to the affidavits of desistance. Falsus in Omnibus? The defense further argues that since Private Complainant Angeles Alonzo had made a false accusation against Marcos Obrero.night of November 19. . The defense argues that this was a fatal defect in the prosecution of the instant case. who had both falsely charged Obrero. the accused had become bold enough to dispense with their masks. Angeles Alonzo testified that Julian had patronized their beauty parlor once or twice (tsn. in crimes against chastity. the complainants explained that they were virtually tricked into signing them by Duldulao's former counsel. The faces of the accused were therefore visible to the complainants as the accused approached from the western lane of the bridge. not the perpetrator. At this point the accused put on their masks." 24 In the final analysis. and this Court held that "three months is not too long a period to file a complaint for rape. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain. a mistake she herself later corrected resulting in Obrero's being dropped from the case. That is the present rule in the Philippines. November 19. .) Falsus in Uno." 27 Hence. p. 1986. All these circumstances show that the complainants had ample opportunity to look at and remember the faces of the accused. The modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in pan and disbelieved in part. p. 26 (Emphasis supplied. discredit such portions of her testimony as are otherwise credible. and appellant cannot . 1993. It was a moonlight (sic) night (tsn. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. it has been held: . November 27. . 22 Delay in Reporting the Forcible Abduction and Rape The mere fact that almost three months had passed before Nelia and Angeles decided to report to the police authorities the crime committed against them does not negate the veracity of their charge. untrue and fabricated. p. supra. and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application. 9). It is a sad reality that a non-virgin who has been deflowered against her will is nonetheless treated with scorn by society. 1986. Consequently. We are not persuaded. depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. surrounded the complainants and forced them inside the car. 13). p. 7) while Nelia Agtarap testified that Duldulao's face was familiar because he had passed by the beauty parlor a number of times (tsn. 1986. In one case. the fact that hymenal lacerations were found to he "healed round edge" and no spermatozoa was found does not necessarily negate rape. p. perhaps confident that they had so intimidated their victims that even if they were recognized. But once in the forested area their blindfolds were removed and that sometime during the rape episode the accused also removed their masks. rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims. p. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. Nelia's delay in filing the complaint does not in any way affect her credibility. It appears that there was an attempt to "settle" the case insofar as Duldulao was concerned." 25 Medical Examination Not Indispensable to Prosecution of Rape The defense points to the failure of the private complainants to submit themselves to medical examination prior to their filing a sworn complaint charging the accused of raping them. 24). from the evidence on record. obviously to avoid close-proximity recognition during the time it took to reach Suba. For that matter." 23 This is "understandable as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy and coy. the mere fact that Angeles and Nelia had mistakenly implicated Obrero in their complaint does not belie their charges against the other accused including the accused-appellant Edwin Julian when. By the time they drove back to San Nicolas. if credible.

apparently with the blessings of then presiding judge who suspended proceedings for six (6) months to give the parties a chance "to arrive at a final satisfactory settlement" (Order dated November 12, 1987, p. 214, Record of Crim. Case No. 2822). And obviously, the attempt failed because the complainants later repudiated the affidavits (tsn, September 4, 1990, pp. 16- 17). The Court takes note that the affidavits were signed on February 20, 1987 but the jurat is dated February 19, 1987 or the day before it was signed, evidencing haste in its preparation and giving credence to complainant's claim they were forced and virtually tricked into signing the affidavits. In his confession, Duldulao admitted he was with all the other accused when they forcibly abducted the complainants, but impliedly denied having raped them, pointing to the others as the ones who did. However, since conspiracy is alleged and duly proven, such disclaimer is for naught since the act of one is the act of all.28 Appellant's Defense of Alibi Debunked Courts have always looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and have always received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but because it is easily fabricated. For alibi to serve as basis for acquittal, it must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The requisites of time and place must be strictly met. Appellant must convincingly demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission." 29 Appellant Edwin Julian did not substantiate his claim of alibi with clear and convincing evidence. This was evident from the finding of the trial court that: In the case of Edwin Julian, the Court is not convinced that he was in Alcala, Pangasinan when the crime was committed. Not only did he fail to present the testimonies of his supposed

employer and that of his brother who allegedly recommended him to that employer, he also failed to present any documentary proof of his supposed employment in the construction firm of Mr. Ruben Mendoza at the time of the incident. From Julian's demeanor on the witness stand, it appeared obvious to the Court that he was acting out a concocted story. True, his wife testified in Court but her testimony must be regarded as naturally biased. Furthermore, Julian testified that he learned of the charges against him when his father showed him the affidavits of the complainants. On the other hand, his wife testified that her coemployees in the PNP told her about the charges and it was she who informed her husband. The Court believes that what happened is that when Julian learned of the arrest of Bumanglag and Macalipis, he fled to Pangasinan and hid there for more than a year. In fact, a warrant for his arrest was issued on May 2, 1985 (p. 8, Record of Crim. Case No. 2822). 30 Since, as previously discussed, Appellant Julian "was positively identified by the victim of rape herself who harbored no ill motive against the accused, the defense of alibi must fail." 31 In the light of the foregoing, this Court's conscience rests easy on the moral certainty that Accused-appellant Edwin Julian has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. However, we differ with the trial court's ruling in Criminal Case No. 2822-15 declaring coconspirators Edwin Julian, Alberto Bumanglag and Pedro Duldulao guilty of forcible abduction with rape plus three more counts of rape. For when the first act of rape was committed by Edwin Julian against Nelia Agtarap, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was then consummated. Hence, there were only two separate acts of rape remaining, directly and successively committed by Bumanglag and, for the second time, by Julian against Nelia Agtarap, for which they may be further held liable.32 In other words, Julian, Bumanglag and Duldulao are each guilty of one count of forcible abduction with rape and two counts of rape. This modification of the trial court's

judgment will benefit only Edwin Julian, as the two remaining accused (Bumanglag and Duldulao) are at large. Furthermore, this Decision is without prejudice to the filing of another information against Edwin Julian for his participation in the forcible abduction and rape of Angeles Alonzo for which he has not yet been prosecuted, as he had not been included in the amended complaint treated as the information in Criminal Case No. 2823-15. On the other hand, Appellant Julian and the other accused cannot be held liable for three counts of forcible abduction with rape. This is based on the pronouncement of the Court in People vs. Bohos 33 which was reiterated in People vs. Bacalso 34 that: Appellant's other point is: "Even if we may assume purely for the sake of argument that the complaining witness was forcibly abducted and then raped thirteen times, we submit that there was only one forcible abduction with rape and that was the one allegedly committed on the truck or jeep. Any subsequent acts of intercourse in the house against her will would be only separate acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. This point is well taken. There was only one forcible abduction with rape which was the one committed in the truck. Thus, in People vs. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-28322, February 6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450, where the four accused abducted Maggie de la Riva and each of them raped her, this Court held, "that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding crimes of the same nature cannot legally be considered as still connected with the abduction — in other words they should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of forcible abduction and, therefore, the former can no longer be

complexed with the latter. (Emphasis supplied.) WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated September 15, 1995 in regard to Appellant is hereby

MODIFIED. Appellant Edwin Julian is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of forcible abduction with rape in Criminal Case No. 2822, but he is guilty of only two separate additional crimes of rape therein. Three terms ofreclusion perpetua are hereby imposed on him. The indemnity due to the victim Nelia Agtarap in the amount of P150,000.00

stands. The trial court's decision in regard to Accused Albeno Bumanglag and Ernesto Macalipis, who are at large, remains unmodified. SO ORDERED.

*Penalties (Classification of Penalties) G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONRADO LUCAS Y BRIONES, accused-appellant. DAVIDE, JR., J.: In the decision in this case, promulgated on 25 May 1994, the First Division touched on the nature of the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the light of Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 1 which amended Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by specifically fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua at twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. It opined that since no corresponding amendment to Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code was made, the said laws has not made explicit an intention to convert reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty. Nevertheless, it applied Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code 2 and stated:

Accordingly, the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua (twenty [20] years and one [1] day to forty [40] years) can be divided into three equal portions with each composing a period. The periods of reclusion perpetua would then be as follows: minimum medium maximum — 20 years and 1 day to 26 years and 8 months — 26 years, 8 months and 1 day to 33 years and 4 months — 34 years, 4 months and 1 day to 40 years

Taking into account the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. Q-9118465, the accused may finally be sentenced to thirty-four (34) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion perpetua. It then modified the challenged decision of the trial court by changing the penalty in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 from reclusion perpetua, as imposed by the trial court, to "imprisonment of 34 years, 4 months and 1 day ofreclusion perpetua." In a motion for clarification seasonably filed by the appellee on 28 June 1994 which was not opposed by the accusedappellant in his comment, the appellee asks the Court to correct the duration of the maximum period ofreclusion perpetua from thirty-four (34) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to forty (40) years, as stated in the decision, to thirty-three (33) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to forty (40) years. Since the issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 has made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty is one of first impression and of sufficient importance, the First Division referred the motion for clarification to the Court en banc. The latter accepted the referral. After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an

indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. R.A. No. 7659 is a consolidation of Senate Bill (SB) No. 891 3 and House Bill (HB) No. 62. 4 SB No. 891 seeks to amend Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by inserting therein what are to be considered heinous crimes and to penalize these not with the death penalty, but which reclusion perpetua only, with the qualification that "any person sentenced to reclusion perpetua for . . . [such heinous] crimes under this Code shall be required to serve thirty (30) years, without entitlement to good conduct time allowance and shall be considered for executive clemency only after service of said thirty (30) years." HB No. 62 defines and enumerates the heinous crimes and seeks to penalize them with the death penalty. An amendment by substitution to SB No. 891 was introduced by the Senate Special Committee on Death Penalty. The amendment was entitled "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crime, Amending for that Purpose some Articles of Act No. 3815, as Amended, and for other Purposes." The substitute amendment sought to amend (a) Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code by providing in the scale of penalties the following: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: DEATH Afflictive Penalties: LIFE IMPRISONMENT Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion Temporal

and (b) Article 27 of the same Code by inserting therein the penalty of life imprisonment and providing a specific duration therefor as well as for reclusion perpetua. The proposed amended Article 27 pertinently reads as follows: Art. 27. LIFE IMPRISONMENT. — THE PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHALL BE FROM THIRTY YEARS AND ONE DAY TO FORTY YEARS. RECLUSION PERPETUA — THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA SHALL BE FROM TWENTY YEARS AND ONE DAY TO THIRTY YEARS. Thus, life imprisonment, therefore a penalty imposed by special penal statutes, was sought to be incorporated as penalty in the revised Penal Code with a specific duration. In his sponsorship of this substitute bill, Senator Arturo M. Tolentino explained the incorporation of life imprisonment as follows: But a very basic amendment was made, and that is, an amendment that will create a new penalty, known in this bill as life imprisonment. The new penalty was created in order to enable the committee to provide, in some crimes, a three-grade penalty that would be composed of reclusion perpetua, as now provided by the Revised Penal Code, as the lowest grade; on top of that, would

the Revised Penal Code provisions for the application of the higher penalty or the death penalty. 62. if there is no aggravating circumstance and there is no there is no mitigating circumstance. President. . then the penalty will be of lesser degree. That Senator Tolentino had this three-grade penalty in mind when he spoke of flexibility and divisibility and that he stood by his subsequent statement that reclusion perpetua is one of two indivisible penalties is further borne out by his explanations in relation to the rule in Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code on the application of mitigating circumstance. That is how it is going to operate. also means the same thing. Yes. Thus: Senator Tolentino. but there is also a mitigating circumstance. although listed here in the measure. composed of actually three periods or grades. It is a perpetual imprisonment. President." Even in this Chamber. it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the deed. Thus: Instead of having three penalties in the divisible [sic] penalty. . however. the penalty of death will not be applied because under the provisions of the revised Penal Code. President." 6 Although Senator Tolentino described reclusion perpetua as a "flexible or divisible" penalty. that aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance in which case the lesser penalty which is reclusion perpetua will be the one imposed. we would have only two indivisible penalties —reclusion perpetua to death. if there is an aggravating circumstance. the penalty reclusion perpetua to death. Senator Tañada. this means that the provisions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances will apply to them. as above adverted to. if there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances. With this new grade of penalty. That means that. Mr. Mr. 9 Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty. in all of these heinous crimes. then the crime. and if the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. there were some doubts as to the creation of this new penalty of life imprisonment becausereclusion perpetua. Second. Thus. yet in the portion of his sponsorship speech immediately succeeding the foregoing description.be life imprisonment. Unless otherwise provided in the bill itself. will not be punished by death but by the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. he explicitly stated that the said penalty is one of the two indivisible penalties in the Revised Penal Code. If we recall. 5 However the Bicameral Conference Committee eliminated from the proposed amendment of Article 27 the penalty of life imprisonment but extended the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (2) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. President. it became possible for this bill now under consideration to impose a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death. then generally speaking. we have this new consolidated session that is before the Members of this Chamber. So in order to still accommodate the increase of imprisonment by means of life imprisonment — while we eliminated the new penalty of life imprisonment which would last from 30 years and one day to forty years — what we did was simply to extend the period of reclusion perpetua by adding 30 to 40 years imprisonment to the original 20 to 30 years. 7 At first glance. This is how it is going to operate. and the principles on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code will be applicable to this penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. then the greater penalty shall be applied if there is present only one . Senator Tañada. if there is no aggravating circumstance. This would be what we had called one day before a "flexible or divisible penalty. without any mitigating circumstance. first. permit me to clarify the matter further. he mentioned the proposed three-grade penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death. In general. Senator Tolentino might have fallen into an inconsistency. That is right.. which means: life imprisonment. President. which is in the Revised Penal Code and retained in this bill. by stating that reclusion perpetua was "flexible and divisible" and then later referring to it as one of two indivisible penalties. then indeed he could also be correct in the sense that such three-grade concept would in fact be a complex penalty which would be divisible. . Senator Tolentino stated: By this. in his sponsorship of the Conference Committee report on both the substitute SB No. There is one part or one portion of the Senate version that we have agreed to be eliminated and that is the creation of the new penalty known as "life imprisonment. 891 and HB No. But even if there is an aggravating circumstance. But if there is an aggravating circumstance. and the third highest grade would be death penalty. making the reclusion perpetua in this new bill range from 20 years to one day to 40 years. Mr. what he stated in his sponsorship speech to substitute bill where.. Senator Tolentino. still death penalty will not be applied because it will still be the lesser penalty. . Mr. when there are two indivisible penalt[ies] such as reclusion perpetua to death. Therefore that means. with each grade composing a period and which could then be governed by Article 77 8 of the Revised Penal Code. Senator Tolentino. The Gentleman is saying that the principle of mitigating and aggravating circumstances is applicable in general to all these crimes listed in this consolidated version. Mr.

In People vs. as aforesaid. regardless of the attendant modifying circumstances. Now then. such as Article 41 on the accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 61. qualified piracy (Section 3). destructive arson (Section 10). in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code. It may. 11 At most then in fixing a specific duration for reclusion perpetua . 10 this Court. Since. the latter being specifically from twelve years and one day to twenty years. however. as set out in Article 25. there would be no occasion for imposingreclusion perpetua as the penalty in drug cases. It will be observed that Article 27 of the Code provides for the minimum and maximum ranges of all the penalties in the Code (except bond to keep the peace which shall be for such period of time as the court may determine) from arresto menor to reclusion temporal. therefore. there is no specification as to its minimum and maximum range.A. For reclusion perpetua. be pointed out that although the Revised Penal Code did not specify the maximum of reclusion perpetua . parricide (Section 5). then it should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code. as well. the Court resolved to MODIFY the decision of 25 May 1994 in this case by DELETING therefrom the disquisitions on whether reclusion perpetua is a divisible penalty and SETTING ASIDE its division into three periods . then there would be no statutory rules for determining when eitherreclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty. 7659. What then may be the reason for the amendment fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua? The deliberations in the Bicameral Conference Committee and in both Chambers of Congress do not enlighten us on this. for Presidential Decree No. is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties. Verily. other provisions of the Revised Penal Code involving reclusion perpetua ." The other applicable reference to reclusion perpetua is found in Article 70 of the Code which. The latter if the law on what are considered divisible penalties under the Code and what should be the duration of the period thereof. 6425 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated therein.A. If Article 63 of the Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be a divisible penalty. No. No.A. as the aforesaid article merely provides that "(a)ny person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years. or the maximum duration of reclusion temporal. Regalado. and plunder (Section 12). it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. Reyes. the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another taking into account their number and importance and then to apply preceding rules according to the result of such compensation. No. however. and if both mitigating and aggravating circumstances were present. the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended R. 818 to declare that any penalty exceeding twenty (20) years. both in law and logic. which have not been touched by a corresponding amendment. in laying down the rule on successive service of sentences where the culprit has to serve more than three penalties. the penalty ofreclusion perpetua to death is also imposed on treason by a Filipino (section 2). pursuant to Article 70. 7659 merely restated the existing jurisprudence. and the lesser penalty shall be applied when the commission of the act was attended by some mitigating circumstance but without an aggravating circumstance or when there was neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance. it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict's natural life although. murder (Section 6). To illustrate. stated: We hold that there is legal basis. Justice Florenz D. In fine. WHEREFORE. Section 21 of R. if reclusion perpetua was reclassified as a divisible penalty. speaking through Mr. Under the amendatory sections of R. unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. if Congress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as a divisible penalty. it is apparent that the maximum period for the service of this penalty shall not exceed forty (40) years. kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Section 8). provides that "the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. There are. 70 and 71. however. This problem revolving around the non-applicability of the rules in Article 63 assumes serious proportions since it does not involve only drug cases. then Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence." The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua.aggravating circumstance. rape committed under certain circumstances (Section 11). It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal but is less than thirty (30) years. reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal. is within the range of reclusion perpetua. robbery with homicide (Section 9). except the cryptic statement of Senior Tolentino adverted to above on the elimination of the "new penalty" of life imprisonmentby the Bicameral Conference Committee." and "(i)n applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties ( pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.

AMENDING the dispositive portion thereof to read as follows: WHEREFORE. the challenged decision of 28 October 1992 of Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. to eight (8) years of prision mayor.6On March 14. J. four (4) months and one (1) day of prision DOMINGO LAGROSA and OSIAS BAGUIN. as maximum. finally. and its Order denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. 1996. where it was docketed as CA-G. . 1996. which was reduced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. in addition to the penalty of reclusion perpetuaimposed by the trial court. as minimum.1 which affirmed the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. Chanda Lucas y Austria. in the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30. 2000. 152044 July 3.3 finding petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin guilty of violation of Section 68 of P. to one (1) year. *Probation G. SO ORDERED. As modified: (1) In Criminal Case No.R. 8243. eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional. Q-91-18466. and (2) In Criminal Case No. Two (2) Months and One (1) Day of prision correccional as minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor maximum. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.000. accused JOSE CONRADO LUCAS Y BRIONES is further ordered to indemnify the offended party.and.D. as amended (The Revised Forestry Code). 2000.5 Petitioners appealed their conviction to the Court of Appeals. and to indemnify the offended party. Q-91-18466 is hereby AFFIRMED. for having in their possession forest products without the requisite permits. No. accused JOSE CONRADO LUCAS Y BRIONES is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser offense of attempted rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from Four (4) Years. No. in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P5. 2003 petitioners’ Application for Probation. petitioners. the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City.000.2 The undisputed facts are as follows. the appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners. Q-91-18465 and Criminal Case No. CR No. Branch 2. vs. Q-91-18465. 20632.R. subject ot the modifications above indicated. as maximum. 67308.: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. respondents. The trial court sentenced them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years. 705. denying correccional. with the modification as to the penalty imposed.R. rendered a decision in Criminal Case No. YNARES-SANTIAGO. On October 29. Branch 2. as minimum.7 The decision became final and executory on April 12. Costs against the accused-appellant.00). Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the decision4 was denied by the trial court on November 21.00). Chanda Lucas y Austria.

1990. the trial court sentenced petitioners to a maximum term of eight years. from two (2) years. SP No. which reads: WHEREAS. this fact does not serve to remove them from the prohibition in Section 4 of P. 968 was amended by P. II. petitioners filed an Application for Probation with the trial court. which was beyond the coverage of the Probation Law. Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had affirmed their conviction. Grant of Probation. upon interposing an appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. petitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of availing of the Probation Law. (underscoring ours) Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. 20632. Under Section 9 (a) of the Probation Law. is very absurd and illogical considering that petitioners were not given the opportunity to apply for probation when they were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal. probation was not intended as an escape hatch and should not be used to obstruct and delay the administration of justice. the pertinent provision of which reads: SEC. to six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Provided. petitioners claim that what prompted them to appeal the decision of the trial court was the erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court. but should be availed of at the first opportunity by offenders who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated. claiming that their situation should be considered an exception to the rule. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Certainly. although already eligible. petitioners should be precluded from seeking probation. 2002. Petitioners repeatedly assert that their application for probation was made at the "first opportunity. For sure. as maximum. to eight (8) years of prision mayor.19 Although it has been suggested that an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is solely to reduce the penalty to within the probationable limit may be equitable. By perfecting their appeal.18 Petitioners are not being very candid. This fact alone merits the denial of petitioners’ Application for Probation. they raised the following assignment of errors: I. 1990.D.D.20 we are not yet prepared to accept this proposition. Hence this petition. It should be noted that before P.17 However. They only became eligible for probation after the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court and reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed on them to one year.11 Petitioners contend that they should be allowed to apply for probation even if they had already appealed the decision of the trial court.D. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. which was docketed as CA-G. 2001. because the penalty imposed by said court is more than six (6) years and therefore non-probationable.R. 968 for the law makes no such distinction. the protestations of petitioners connote a profession of guiltlessness.D.16 There is no question that petitioners appealed from the decision of the trial court. – Subject to the provisions of this Decree. In the case at bar. eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days as maximum which is clearly probationable. 968 prohibiting the grant of probation to those who have appealed their convictions. x x x. The fact that petitioners put the merits of their conviction in issue on appeal belies their claim that their appeal was prompted by what was admittedly an incorrect penalty.D. That the first opportunity for herein petitioners to apply for probation was when the Court of Appeals modified the sentence imposed by the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.9 On January 11. CA13 is not applicable because in that case. eight months and twenty-one days. 4.R. petitioners now ask us not to apply the letter of the law. G.. does not at once apply for probation. Hence. as amended by PD No.8 which. also known as the Probation Law. four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. the Office of the Solicitor General reiterates the express provision of P. 3) That the decision of the Court of Appeals herein sought to be reviewed is clearly contrary to the purpose of the Probation Law. the accused was allowed to apply for probation even after he had already filed an appeal. the accused appealed their conviction notwithstanding the fact that the maximum term of the prison sentence imposed on them by the trial court was less than six years. .On August 29.10 The law that is at the heart of this controversy is Presidential Decree No. suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. petitioners were clearly precluded from the benefits of probation. raising the following arguments: 1) That Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. No. Their petition is without merit.14 In its Comment.D." undoubtedly invoking the fourth "whereas" clause of P. if not complete innocence. petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. 108747. the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the questioned resolutions of the trial court. is not applicable to the instant case because in the said Francisco case the accused therein can apply for probation because the penalty imposed by the lower court was already probationable but the accused instead appealed the decision but in the case of herein petitioners they cannot apply for probation when they were convicted because the penalty imposed by the lower court was more than six (6) years and therefore nonprobationable. IF EVER ACCUSED ARE GUILTY. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PROPER PENALTY AS PROVIDED BY LAW. but did so only after failing in his appeal. as mentioned at the outset. To bolster this assertion. and do not simply assail the propriety of the penalties imposed. more so after asserting their innocence therein. 1990. 968. 968.R. as minimum. 1990. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the trial court. the trial court may.12They submit that the ruling in the case of Francisco v. petitioners never manifested that they were appealing only for the purpose of correcting a wrong penalty – to reduce it to within probationable range. CR No. was denied. offenders who are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years are disqualified from seeking probation. They argue that their case should be considered an exception to the general rule which excludes an accused who has appealed his conviction from the benefits of probation. as amended by P. In their appellant’s brief filed in CA-G. the purpose of which is simply to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an accused who.15 It argues that. even if the petitioners have appealed for the purpose of reducing an incorrect penalty. 2) That the ruling of this Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Pablo Francisco versus Court of Appeals. et al. as long as he had not yet begun to serve his sentence. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING BOTH ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM LACKS MORAL CERTAINTY. Branch 2. 67308. Branch 2. Hence. after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant.

1995 PABLO C. . respondents. 5 SCRA . and P5. which affirmed the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. Br. as well as the letter of the Department of Tourism advising ASPAC about its delinquent tax of P1. the petitioner does not allege anywhere in the petition that he had asked the respondent court to reconsider its above order. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the state of time. " the said defamatory words must have been uttered in the heat of anger which is a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation. 968. Tiangco. . No. Violation of the circular is sufficient cause for dismissal of the petition. effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. as a consequence.R. Secondly. as amended by P. Cases Nos. Thus — . 105206. . . . found petitioner guilty of grave oral defamation in four (4) of the five (5) cases filed against him. is AFFIRMED. But·before he could be arrested petitioner filed an application for probation which the MeTC denied "in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Llamado v. son of a bitches (sic). BELLOSILLO. . after nearly ten (10) years. each Information charging him with gravely maligning them on four different days. and its Order denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. Puro kayo walang utak . God damn you all. 174 SCRA 566 . the moment of truth well-nigh at hand. . 1 He was however acquitted in Crim. petitioner. Case No. 1990? Petitioner's woes started when as President and General Manager of ASPAC Trans. he had failed to give the court an. . petitioner elevated his case to the Regional Trial Court. 4 SCRA 436). perhaps this Court would have been more sympathetic to their plight. . . . On 2 January 1990. WHEREFORE. as alleqed in the information(s). FRANCISCO.000.R. . . Had the petitioners’ appeal from the decision of the trial court raised the impropriety of the penalty imposed upon them as the sole issue. Thus for humiliating his employees he was accused of multiple grave oral defamation in five (5) separate Informations instituted by five (5) of his employees. Victoria Gatchalian.D. in fact. i.2 million . in view of the foregoing.R. The law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation..: Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. petitioner was sentenced "in each case to a STRAIGHT penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS imprisonment . the Court notes that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Circular No. required to move for reconsideration of the questioned order before filing a petition for certiorari (Sy It v.e.opportunity to correct itself if it had. . Consequently. 61.00 for attorney's fees. Court of Appeals. the petition is DENIED. 2 Accordingly. from 9 to 12 April 1980. he must have been angry and worried "about some missing documents ." 4 Forthwith he went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari which on 2 July 1992 dismissed his petition on the following grounds — Initially. Crim. he now applies for probation as an "escape hatch" thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction. . Rowena Ruiz. sentenced him to a prison term of one (1) year and one (l) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional "in each crime committed on each date of each case. to appear and testify. Br. 29 June 1989. This failure is fatal to his cause. denying petitioners’ Application for Probation.Mga anak ng puta . i. 1991. " 3 After he failed to interpose an appeal therefrom the decision. 105208 for persistent failure of the offended party. P10. . . It is a ground for dismissal of his petition (Santos v. 1257 and P. probation should be availed of at the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated. 84850.specially given the factual circumstances of this case. Magkano ba kayo . *Probation G. in fact. . Not satisfied with the Decision of the MeTC. .. and the service of his sentence inevitable. vs. CONTRERAS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HONORABLE MAXIMO C. 105209 and 105210. As conceptualized. . who manifest spontaneity. however. 28-91 of September 4. Vda. contrition and remorse. The case was then set for execution of judgment by the MeTC which. Unfortunately. No. is petitioner entitled to probation within the purview of P. Costs against the petitioners. No.000. . bullshit. 67308. J. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 11. and insisting on his innocence. de Cerdenola.D. . affirmed his conviction but appreciated in his favor a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion or obfuscation. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused — to wager on the result of his appeal — that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal. committed any error on the matter. Linda Marie Ayala Pigar and Marie Solis. Branch 2.of the RTC became final. plus costs of suit. Edgar Colindres. SO ORDERED. 108747 April 6. He is. Company he failed to control his outburst and blurted — You employees in this office are all tanga." ordered him to indemnify each of the offended parties. .00 as exemplary damages. their misrepresentation has led to their own undoing. G. 59. 105207. issued a warrant of arrest.D. (he) was angry and shouting when he uttered the defamatory words complained of . On 5 August 1991 the Regional Trial Court of Makati. . 2002 in CA-G. the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati.e.

" 6 He contends that "he appealed from the judgment of the trial court precisely for the purpose of reducing the penalties imposed upon him by the said court to enable him to qualify for probation.823. it is obvious that respondent court did not commit any capricious. Probation is not a right of an accused. that the spirit of the law and the intent that is to be given effect are derived from the words actually used by the law-maker. but rather an act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the state which may be granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense of which he stands convicted. as plain and unmistakable as the nose on a man's face. . making. Del Pilar Transit. leave no room for doubt or interpretation. Estenso." Courts . . we are not yet prepared to accept this interpretation under existing law and jurisprudence. Neither Sec. 10 The Probation Law should not therefore be permitted to divest the state or its government of any of the latter's prerogatives. unless the intention of the legislature to this end is clearly expressed. . we might add. not a right. upon an application by the defendant within the period of appeal. [w]here language is plain. 4 of the Probation Law. have no authority to invoke "liberal interpretation" or "the spirit of the law" where the words of the statute themselves. offers any ambiguity or qualification. As such." 7 The central issue therefore is whether petitioneris still qualified to avail of probation even after appealing his conviction to the RTC which affirmed the MeTC except with regard to the duration of the penalties imposed. and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. Acquiao v. We do not believe that "the spirit of·the law" may legitimately be invoked to set at naught words which have a clear and definite meaning imparted to them by our procedural law. Court of First Instance warned. however. Accordingly. rights or remedies. . however. Accordingly. . . the petition for probation was filed by the petitioner out of time . but expressly rules out probation where an appeal has been taken . and no person should benefit from the terms of the law who is not clearly within them. The Courtis simply·reading Section 4 as it is in fact written. . not as he would like·it to be. Fourthly. . subtle refinements which tinge words as to give them the color of a particular judicial theory are . as amended." nor Llamado v. No. . The "true legislative intent" must obviously be given effect by judges and all others who are charged with the application and implementation of a statute. 8 Its benefits cannot extend to those not expressly included. mystical or metajuridical source independent of and transcending the words of the legislature. Court of Appeals 11 which interprets the quoted provision. . There is no need for the involved process of construction that petitioner invites us to engage in. . The Court is not here to be understood as giving a "strict interpretation" rather than a "liberal" one to Section 4 of the Probation Law of 1976 as amended by P. confusion and uncertainty will surely follow. 14 SCRA 18. Otherwise. In the present recourse. the Court notes that Section 4 of PD 968 allows the trial court to grant probation after conviction. It is absolutely essential to bear in mind.a "liberal interpretation. The first duty of the judge is to take and apply a statute as he finds it. the application of the law should not be subjected to any to suit the case of petitioner. Fifthly. . and not from some external. and·as illuminated by the history of that statute. Justice Feliciano speaking for the Court en banc in Llamado v. "Strict" and "liberal" are adjectives which too frequently impede a disciplined and principled search for the meaning which the law-making authority projected when it promulgated the language which we must apply. 31-SCRA 372). arbitrary. despotic or whimsical exercise of power in denying the petitioner's application for probation . petitioner squirms out of each ground and seeks this Court's compassion in dispensing with the minor technicalities which may militate against his petition as he now argues before us that he has not yet lost his right to avail of probation notwithstanding his appeal from the MeTC to the RTC since "[t]he reason for his appeal was precisely to enable him to avail himself of the benefits of the Probation Law because the original Decision of the (Metropolitan) Trial Court was such that he would not then be entitled to probation. 5 The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. as this Court in Yangco v. First. which clearly mandates that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. 1990. Court of Appeals— . we note at the outset that Probation Law is not a penal statute. upon terms and conditions and period appropriate to each case. Thirdly. . understand petitioner's argument to be really that any statutory language that appears to favor the accused in acriminal case should be given. . While the proposition that an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appealis solely to reduce the penalty to within the probationable limit may be equitable. the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court which is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society. we quote Mr. 9 It is a special prerogative granted by law to a person or group of persons not enjoyed by others or by all. stability and continuity in the law much more difficult to achieve: . That meaning is clearly visible in the text of Section 4. Petitioner is no longer eligible for probation. Probation is a mere privilege. Public Service Commission. Inc. .D. We. a process made necessary only because petitioner rejects the conclusion or meaning which shines through the words of the statute. v.

Petitioner thus proceeds on an erroneous assumption that under the MeTC Decision he could not have availed of the benefits of probation.i. disqualifies only those who have been convicted of grave felonies as defined in Art. which has made it so difficult for the public to understand and know what the law is with respect to a given matter." In Bersabal v. . giving them meanings which they do not ordinarily have cutting. then he is entitled to probation.D. the use of the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative. P. fitting. 9 in relation to Art. . To demonstrate the point. as amended. Under the rule of statutory construction. the penalties imposed by the MeTC were already probationable. although he did not. as amended. making them fit personal ideas of what the legislature ought to have done or what parties should have agreed upon.not only unnecessary but decidedly harmful. and another who has been found guilty of mutilation and sentenced to six (6) years and one (l) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum to twelve (l2) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum as maximuin. The number of offenses is immaterial as long as all the penalties imposed. the Rule is mandatory. For. 9.e. negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory. that the penalties imposed against him should be summed up. 13 we said — By its very language. separate days.. and should not be. as each prison term imposed on petitioner was probationable. That which has caused so much confusion in the law. 4 of the Probation Law. the law does not intend to sum up the penalties imposed but to take each penalty separately and distinctly with the others. The multiple prison terms are distinct from each other. 12 Therefore. however erroneous it may be. and thus may avail of probation. Consequently. Multiple prison terms imposed against an accused found guilty of several offenses in one decision are not. not more than six (6) years. 14 The Probation Law. changing and coloring until lawyers themselves are unable to advise their clients as to the meaning of a given statute or contract until it has been submitted to some court for its interpretation and construction. par. as amended. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years. Those sentenced to a maximum term not exceeding six (6) years are not generally considered callous. as alleged in the information(s). . 968. ." and in each of the four (4) informations. and if none of the terms exceeds the limit set out in the Probation Law.having defamed the four (4) private complainants on four (4) different. the latter offender is more perverse and is disqualified from availing of probation. Obviously. Since he could have. the sum of the multiple prison terms imposed against an applicant should not be determinative of his eligibility for. still he would not have qualified under the Decision rendered by the RTC since if the "STRAIGHT penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS . cutting the words here and inserting them there. hard core criminals. say. unless he is otherwise specifically disqualified. And. And. he was charged with. Second. Hence. taken separately. even if we go along with the premise of petitioner. Hence. is in considerable measure the unwarranted interference by judicial tribunals with the English language as found in statutes and contracts. 25 of The Revised Penal Code. At the outset. there was no need to appeal if only to reduce the penalties to within the probationable period. "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. . Sec. trimming. let ustake for instance one who is convicted in a single decision of. Salvador. thirteen (13) counts of grave oral defamation (for having defamed thirteen [13] individuals in one outburst) and sentenced to atotal prison term of thirteen (13) years. . his appeal now precludes him from applying for probation. (a). 15 and not necessarily those who have been convicted of multiple offenses in a single proceeding who are deemed to be less perverse. And where the law does not distinguish the courts should not distinguish. probation. nay his disqualification from. uses the word maximum not total when it says that "[t]he benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those . he was still·eligible for probation. are within the probationable period. which opens with a negativeclause. The point in this warning may be expected to become sharper as our people's grasp of English is steadily attenuated. even if petitioner was supposed to have served his prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional sixteen (16) times as he was sentenced to serve the prison term for "each crime committed on each date of each case." Evidently. Fixing the cut-off point at a maximum term of six (6) years imprisonment for probation is based on the assumption that those sentenced to higher penalties pose too great a risk to society. that an appeal should not·bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty is simply contrary to the clear and express mandate of Sec. the basis of the disqualification is principally the gravity of the offense committed and the concomitant degree of penalty imposed. added up. operating to impose a duty which may be enforced. where the law does not make exception the court should not except. not just because of their demonstrated capability for serious wrong doing but because of the gravity and serious consequences of the offense they might further commit.

and not sixteen (16) times. The assertion that the Decision of the RTC should be multiplied only four (4) times since there are only four (4) Informations thereby allowing petitioner to qualify for probation. From the records it is clear that the application for probation was filed "only after a warrant for the arrest of petitioner had been issued . as amended. the trial court could not have convicted him on the basis of the uncorroborative testimony of private complainants. petitioner ipso facto relinquished his alternative remedy of availing of the Probation Law the purpose of which is simply to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an accused who although already eligible does not at once apply for probation. (and) almost two months after (his) receipt of the Decision" 22 of the RTC. Jr. or that any of the cases. 8 of the same Rule 21 and he can be validly convicted. Consequently. Nothing more. Francisco GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in each of the above entitled cases and appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance which is analogous to passion or obfuscation. mostly private complainants. 17 Third. On the other hand. The fact that petitioner did not elevate the affirmance of his conviction by the RTC to the Court of Appeals does not necessarily mean that his appeal to the RTC was solely to reduce his penalties. albeit assailed. the RTC affirmed. and.imprisonment" imposed by the RTC is multiplied sixteen (16) times. in appealing the Decision of the MeTC to the RTC. according to petitioner." 18 Consequently. on the specific issue — . and do not simply put in issue the propriety of the penalties imposed. By perfecting his appeal. as follows: WHEREFORE. we will have to account for the twelve (12) other penalties imposed by the MeTC. Fourth. . more so after asserting his innocence therein. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. is quite difficult to understand. This is a significant fact which militates against the instant petition. Can we? What is clear is that the judgment of conviction rendered by the was affirmed with the sole modification on the duration of the penalties. he was afraid that the Court of Appeals would increase his penalties. Thus — Premises considered. plainly. The cold fact is that petitioner appealed his conviction to the RTC not for the sole purpose of reducing his penalties to make him eligible for probation — since he was already qualified under the MeTC Decision — but rather to insist on his innocence. 20 should have moved to quash as each of the four (4) Informations filed against him charged four (4) separate crimes of grave oral defamation. This is vital way beyond the period allowed by law and crucial. To illustrate: 8 months multiplied by 16 cases = 128 months. if not complete innocence. Perhaps it should be mentioned that at the outset petitioner. count or incident of grave oral defamation·There is no valid reason therefore why the penalties imposed by the RTC should be multiplied only four (4) times. as in the instant case. hence. if indeed thereafter he felt humbled. Thus. petitioner lost his right to probation. For sure. the Court hereby finds the accused Pablo C. counts or incidents was dismissed. of as many crimes charged in the Information. upon interposing an appeal. not one of them was presented as a witness. "Hence. Petitioner further argued that although the alleged defamatory words were uttered in the presence of other persons. 19 Certainly. of his former counsel who failed to seek possible remedies within the period allowed by law. (b) in giving full faith and credence to the bare statements of the private complainants despite the absence of corroborating testimonies. 128 months divided by 12 months (in a year) = 10 years and 8 months. or that any part of thejudgment of conviction was reversed. the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is AFFIRMED with modification. (e). petitioner cannot still be eligible for probation as the total of his penalties exceeds six (6) years. in accordance with Sec 3. following his argument. The appeal record is wanting of any other purpose. petitioner should have immediately filed an application for probation as he was already qualified after being convicted by the MeTC. par. Hence. considering that the RTC merely affirmed the MeTC as regards the culpability of petitioner in each of the sixteen (16) cases and reducing only the duration of the penalties imposed therein. instead of sixteen (16) times. the Court hereby sentences the said accused in each case to a straight penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS imprisonment. De Pano.. Conversely. His failure to do so however may now be deemed a waiver under Sec. in each crime committed on each date of each case. which is still way beyond the limit of not more than six (6) years provided for in the Probation Law. the RTC Decision had already become final and executory because of the negligence. In fine. with the accessory penalties prescribed by law. The application for probation was filed way beyond the period allowed by law. the protestations of petitioner connote profession of guiltlessness. which could be worse for him. Petitioner appealed to the RTC not to reduce or even correct the penalties imposed by the MeTC. he raised only three (3) statements of error purportedly committed by the MeTC all aimed at his acquittal: (a) in finding that the guilt of the accused has been established because of his positive identification by the witness for the prosecution. in his Memorandum before the RTC. Otherwise. Besides. but to assert his innocence. For. . petitioner insisted that the trial court committed an error in relying on his positive identification considering that private complainants could not have missed identifying him who was their President and General Manager with whom they worked for a good number of years. 16 Nowhere in the RTC Decision is it stated or even hinted at that the accused was acquitted or absolved in any of the four (4) counts under each of the four (4) Informatfons. according to him. ponencia of now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals Nathanael P. as alleged in the information(s). committed on four (4) separate days. coemployees and clients. but doing so only after failing in his appeal. The penalties imposed by the MeTC cannot be any clearer — "one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. considering that the multiple prison terms should not be summed up but taken separately as the totality of all the penalties is not the test. the accused never manifested that he was appealing only for the purpose of correcting a wrong penalty — to reduce it to within the probationable range. petitioner should suffer the imposed penalties sixteen (16) times. and to pay the costs. the law considers appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies. the total imposable penalty would be ten (10) years and eight (8) months. the judgment of conviction and merely reduced the duration of each penalty imposed by the MeTC "in each case to a STRAIGHT penalty of EIGHT (8) MONTHS imprisonment" on account of a mitigating circumstance for each case. petitioner should be precluded from seeking probation. We quote with affirmance the well-written. Hence. was ready to unconditionally accept the verdict of the court and admit his liability. (c)in not acquitting him in all the cases.

he filed an application for probation outside the period for perfecting an appeal granting he was otherwise eligible for probation. Section 4 of P. the instant petition for review should be as it is hereby DENIED. and petitioner appealed from his conviction by the MeTC although the imposed penalties were already probationable. . SO ORDERED. considering that prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies. Accordingly. place the defendant on probation . 968 says that the application for probation must be filed "within the period for perfecting an appeal." but in this case. and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal. the conviction already set for execution and a warrant of arrest issued for service of sentence. P. The law. simply. that appellate judgment had become final and was. Even granting that an appeal from the appellate court's judgment is contemplated by P.. the petitioner's attempt at probation was filed too late. and no appeal therefrom was possible under the law.D. in addition to the judgment rendered by the trial court. the petition for probation was filed by the petitioner out of time. The petitioner did not file his application for probation before the finality of the said judgment. The argument that petitioner had to await the remand of the case to the MeTC. In the petition is a clear statement that the petitioner was up for execution of judgment before he filed his application for probation. . for him to file the application for probation with the trial court. does not allow probation after an appeal has been perfected. in fact. provides thus: Sec. . . . as amended. the trial court may. after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant. 968. and finally. . 4. the proposition that an application for probation may yet be granted even if it was filed only after judgment has become final. No. and in his appeal. meaning to say that the Regional Trial Court's decision had attained finality.D. is to stretch the law beyond comprehension. The law in point. 968. . he asserted only his innocence and did not even raise the issue of the propriety of the penalties imposed on him. the petitioner's plea for probation was filed out of time. . Grant of Probation. and assuming that an application for probation from one who had appealed the trial court's judgment is allowed by law. such period for appeal had passed. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree. therefore.D. . up for actual execution before the application for probation was attempted by the petitioner. which necessarily must be after the decision of the RTC had become final. Our minds cannot simply rest easy on. Going to the extreme.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful