Case 8 of 15

People vs Madrid

FACTS: Yosua (S.B Young) a Chinese merchant in Manila, made a trip to Isabela in an
International truck, of which he was part owner, to buy palay. With him went Ponciano Felicisimo,
who drove the truck, and two laborers by the name Demetrio Sinio and Feliciano Guyapo. All four
went missing and unheard for.
Mrs. Cayetano, Young’s business partner, reported to the authorities the disappearance. In
Cabanatuan, in the course of investigation, the authorities found the missing truck, or most of
what remained of it, in the possession of one Valentin Magno. The truck was dismantled. The
motor under the house of one Sta. Romana in whose yard Magno had his house or shop; And
other part of it scattered near his yard.
The tires (12) of the truck were recovered from Cenon Buse and about 70 cavanes of rice from a
Chinese merchant, both in Cabanatuan.
Pursuant to an informant’s tip the authorities called for Paciano Madrid for questioning in which
he confessed:
Madrid was a driver by profession and currently special agent of the military police appointed by
Lt. Nicanor Estrada of the Nueva Ecija MPD garrison. On February 27, 1947, he went to Ilagan,
Isabela, in his own jeep and stayed in that town two days, returning to Cabanatuan on March 2,
which was Sunday, at 7:30 a.m.
In Isabela, Macario Soriano, Dalmacio Lacalinao and a mechanic, presumably Gaudencio
Manuel, his townmates, asked to ride in his jeep. On the road, which he then thought was in the
jurisdiction of Santa Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, they came upon on overturned bulldozer and he stopped.
Afterward, a southbound truck loaded with palay, empty drums and four men came along. He
requested the driver to pull the bulldozer out of the way and the driver replied that he had no
chain. After the driver made that remark, Vicente de los Santos boarded the truck, drew his
revolver and hauled down the Chinese, while Macario did the same with the two laborers. He
(accused) was also carrying a pistol as special agent of the military police. Vicente put the Chinese
in the jeep and Macario did likewise to the two laborers upon Madrid’s orders.
Madrid warned Manuel and Macario lest the three men would escape, and told Macario to tie the
hands of the two laborers. Macario obeyed. Vicente remained behind in the truck with the driver
while Madrid rode ahead in the jeep (with the Chinese, the two laborers, Manuel, Dalmacio and
Macario) to Piut (Putlan?) San Jose (Caranglan), Nueva Ecija. There he (Madrid) waited for the
truck and talked with Vicente about what they should do. Madrid and Vicente agreed to kill the
four men and the appellant attended to three of them.
The first one Madrid killed was the Chinaman, shooting him in the forehead them kileed the other
three; while Vicente killed the other one then truck to Cabanatuan where he sold the rice for
P2,300 to a man whose name he did not know but whose residence he did know, and gave the
truck to Valentin Magno to do with it as Magno pleased.

ISSUE: W/N Paciano Madrid is guilty for the crime of Robbery with homicide?
RULING: Yes. “In conclusion, we find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
as charged. The appellant’s acts constitute a complex crime of robbery with quadruple homicide
and not, as the trial court held, four separate crimes. The juridical concept of robbery with
homicide does not limit the taking of human life to one single victim making the slaying of human
beings in excess of that number punishable as separate, independent offense or offenses. All the
homicides or murders are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is robbery with homicide
so long as all the killings were perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Here all
the four assassinations were perpetrated with the sole end in view of removing opposition to the
robbery or suppressing evidence thereof, or both. There was no other conceivable motive for the
elimination of Young and his employees.

The commission of the crime at bar was attended by at least one aggravating circumstance, that
of treachery. At least the two laborers, Demetrio Sinio or Dina and Feliciano Guyapo, were killed
while bound in such a way as to be deprived of opportunity to repel the attack or escape with any
possibility of success.”
NOTE: Why Madrid was the only one indicted?
Gaudencio Manuel, Vicente de los Santos and Dalmacio Lacalinao, besides Paciano Madrid,
were accused in the information filed by the provincial fiscal with the Court of First Instance and
endorsed to the Justice of the Peace of Cabanatuan for purposes of preliminary investigation, but
only Madrid and Manuel were bound over for trial; De los Santos and Lacalinao had neither been
arrested nor appeared at the preliminary hearing. Consequently, in the court of first instance,
where a new information of the same tenor was filed, Madrid and Manuel alone were indicted;
and still later, before evidence was introduced, the provincial fiscal moved, and the motion was
granted, for Manuel’s discharge in order that he might be used as a state witness. This left
Paciano Madrid as the sole defendant to be put on trial.
People vs. Salazar:

Facts: Vicente Miranda, Jr. and his friend Nestor Arriola were standing in the corner of Road 1
and Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, near (12 meters) Lindas Supermarket. At about the same
time, Pedro Soriano, who was himself waiting for a ride, was standing in front of a restaurant
along Visayas Avenue and beside Lindas Supermarket. Moments later, they saw appellants
Domingo Salazar and Monchito Gotangugan together with an unidentified companion approach
the security guard of Lindas Supermarket

Salazar, Gotangugan and their companion talked to the security guard, who was later identified
as Crispin Gatmen. Miranda then saw Salazar pull out a 9-10 inches long dagger from his pocket,
and pass the same to Gotangugan. Armed with the dagger, Gotangugan suddenly started
stabbing Gatmen.

At that precise moment, Pedro Soriano, who was only about 10 to 15 meters from Lindas
Supermarket heard moans coming from the guardhouse in front of Lindas Supermarket. He
turned his head towards the place where the moans were coming from and saw Gatmen inside
the guardhouse being repeatedly stabbed by Gotangugan

Both Miranda and Soriano were able to witness and identify the malefactors because the place
where the incident happened was well-lighted.

While Gotangugan was stabbing Gatmen, Salazar stood close to Gotangugan, while their
unidentified companion acted as a lookout

Out of fear, Miranda and Arriola ran towards Tandang Sora. While running, however, they saw
Salazar and Gotangugan get the revolver of Gatmen. Soriano, on the other hand, left slowly but
saw Salazar get the gun of Gatmen.

After getting the gun, Salazar, Gotangugan, and their unidentified companion left the scene of the
crime. Gatmen died as a consequence of the following stab wounds.

Issue: W/N the accused are guilty of Robbery with Homicide?

Ruling: No. They are guilty of THEFT and HOMICIDE aggravated by generic(since it was not
alleged in the information) aggravating circumstance of treachery.
In prosecuting robbery with homicide cases, the government needs to prove the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is
committed.[21]
In this case, the prosecution has convincingly proven that (1) appellants asported a gun with
violence and intimidation against the victim; (2) the gun belonged to the deceased; and (3) the
security guard was killed. Animus lucrandi is presumed when there is proof of asportation.[22] All
of these facts are supported by the testimonies of competent eyewitnesses presented by the
prosecution.
There is, however, no showing that the death of the security guard occurred merely by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery. The prosecution was silent on appellants primary criminal intent.
Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a direct relation, an intimate connection, between
the robbery and the killing, even if the killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the
robbery
In the case under consideration, appellants primary intent remains an enigma. For this reason,
we cannot affirm appellants conviction for robbery with homicide. The fact that appellants took
the firearm after shooting the security guard did not prove that their primary intent was to commit
robbery. It shows that they committed an unlawful taking of property, but it does not exclude the
possibility that this was merely an afterthought. Any conclusion as to their primary criminal intent
based on the proven facts is speculative and without adequate basis.

In view of the facts established and consistent with jurisprudence, the Court can convict appellants
only of the separate offenses of theft and homicide, which were both duly proven.
People vs Barut:

Facts: On June 15, 1969, while Marcelino Grospe was pasturing his carabao in his farm, he saw
Herminio Barut, Alejo Ramiscal, Ernesto Quebral, Juan Agustin and Castor Acson, persons
known to him, going towards the hut or camarin of Francisco Lazaro, an octogenarian. Acson was
armed with a carbine. Sensing that the group had evil intentions, Grospe rode on his carabao,
crossed the Siffu River and informed his neighbors that Lazaro was in trouble.

Acson held up Lazaro and at gunpoint got his money amounting to twenty-three pesos. Acson's
companions went up the hut, ransacked it and took his carpentry tools worth one hundred pesos
and parts of a carbine. These articles were later recovered and presented as evidence.

Grospe and his neighbors, Lorenzo Soriano, Saturnino Sales, Maxims Saludares, Alejandro
Tuvera and Evaristo Tuvera, armed with guns and bolos, constituted themselves as a rescue
party and repaired to the vicinity of Lazaro's hut. They deployed behind the banana plants. There
was a brief exchange of fire between the two groups. Acson was killed while in Grospe's group
Evaristo Tuvera was the lone fatality. The malefactors fled from the scene of the fight. Alejandro
Tuvera saw them running away.

Evaristo sustained an entrance gunshot wound in the chest. The bullet penetrated his heart and
right lung and exited in the right scapular region or shoulder blade (Exh. A).

The incident was investigated by the Constabulary. The affidavits of Grospe, Lazaro, Alejandro
Tuvera (son of Evaristo) and Lorenzo Soriano were taken and sworn to before the municipal judge
of Roxas on June 23, 1969. On the basis of those affidavits, a complaint for robbery in band with
homicide was filed against Barut, Ramiscal, Quebral and Agustin in the municipal court of Roxas
by a Constabulary investigator

Issue: W/N the killing of Evaristo Tuvera qualify the crime of robbery in this case even if it occurred
after the taking of the property?

Ruling: Yes.

Although the killing of Evaristo Tuvera was perpetrated after the consummation of the robbery
and after the robbers had left the victim's house, the homicide is still integrated with the robbery
or is regarded as having been committed "by reason or on the occasion" thereof, as contemplated
in article 294(i) of the Revised Penal Code.

There is robo con homicidio even if the victim killed was an innocent bystander and not the person
robbed. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be also the victim of the homicide
(People vs. Moro Disimban, 88 Phil 120; People vs.- Salamuddin No. 1, 52 Phil. 670; People vs.
Gardon, 104 Phil. 371).

The three appellants, together with Agustin and Acson, were co-conspirators. They are all
responsible for the homicide. There being no modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial court is in conformity with articles 63(2) and 294(l) of the Revised
Penal Code. Band is not aggravating because it was not proven that four of the five malefactors
were armed.