[ GR Nos.
L-7618-20, Jun 30, 1955 ] horses, and many personal belongings, especially of Datu
PEOPLE v. CRISPIN LAWAS +
In G.R. No. L-7618 (Crim, Case No. 180, Court of First Instance of
Lanao), Crispin Lawas, Agustin Osorio, Clemente Osorio, Felipe Si-it,
Generoso Osorio and Agapito Gumisad have appealed from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance finding each of them guilty of
the crime of robbery, and sentencing each to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of from two months and one day of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to three years, eight months and one day of prision
correccional, as maximum, and to indemnify the offended party
Manaronsong Lomangcolob, in the following manner; Crispin Lawas
and Agapito Gumisad, P50.00 each; Clemente Osorio, Felipe Si-it
and Generoso Osorio, P266.00 each; and Agustin Osorio, P500.00,
and in case of insolvency to suffer the corresponding subsidiary
imprisonment. The appeal of Agapito Gumisad has, however, been
dismissed for failure on his part to file a brief. This appeal in this
Court, therefore, only refers to the others.
In G.R. No. L-7613 (Crim. Case No. 444, Court of First Instance of
Lanao), Crispin Lawas, Agustin Osorio and Clemente Osorio hava
appealed from a judgment of tha Court of First Instance of Lanao,
finding them guilty of multiple murder and sentencing each of them to
suffer tha indeterminate penalty of from ten years and one day of
prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years four months and one
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of each of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and
to pay the costs.
In G.R. No. L-7620 (Crim. Case No. 373, Court of First Instance of
Lanao), Hermenegildo Tabacon, Felipe Si-it, Agapito Gumisad,
Generoso Osorio and Patricio Pinos were also found guilty of tha
crime of multiple murder and sentenced to the same penalty imposed
upon Crispin Lawas, Agustin Osorio and Clemente Osorio in Criminal
Case No. 444. They have also appealed from the decision. But the
appeals of Agapito Gumisad and Hermenegildo Tabacon have been
dismissed for failure on their part to file briefs. The case now
proceeds on appeal only as to Felipe Si-it, Generoso Osorio and
Patrocinio Pinos.
The evidence shows that on July 3, 1042 various Moros (Maranaos)
from Barrio Baris, Municipality of Kolambugan, province of Lanao,
raided the barrio of Malingao, killing 11 Christian residents including
men and women, wounding two of them, and, thereafter, robbing
them of their belongings. This incident was reported to the home
guards, an organization composed of ex-Philippine Constabulary
soldiers and civilians whose duty it was to preserve peace and order
among the inhabit ants, protect them, and prevent the infiltration of
the Japanese in their communities. The report was made to appellant
Crispin Lawas, head of the home guards in Balimbing and to Sgt.
Benaojan, also head of home guards in Salong. Upon learning of the
incident, Lawas and Benaojan and some home guards proceeded to
the barrio of Malingao to check up the report. There they found the
asad bodies of the Christian Filipinos killed by the Maranaos and
learned that the Maranaos who had committed the act came from the
barrio of Baris. So they proceeded to the barrio of Baris in the
afternoon of July 10. Upon reaching Baris, they divided themselves
into two groups, one headed by Sgt. Benaojan and the other by
Crispin Lawas. That headed by Sgt. Benaojan gathered the Maranaos
around the place of ex-Mayor Gunti, while that headed by Crispin
Lawas, those that live around the house of Datu Lomangcolob. Some
seventy of them, including Manaronsong Lomangcolob. school
teacher, Datu Lomangcolob Sumala, his wife and children, Gunti
Ampaso, his wife and children, Pasintao, his wife and four children,
Laito, his wife and four children, Pacpac, his wife, niece and nephew,
Mainanding Lomangcolob and two children, Dibton and children,
Garagabos and wife, Rutum, his wife and children, Aboli and a child,
Adki's children, and others were brought by the home guards to the
barrio of Salong, where they arrived in the evening of July 10th,
between seven and eight o'clock. When the home guards were in the
barrio of Baris, they or some of them took away three carabaos, two
Lomangcolob. This is the basis of the charge of robbery.
The Maranaos were confined during the night of July 10 under guard
in the house of one Restituto Requino. The next morning, Crispin
Lawas and Agustin Osorio began investigating the principal Moros.
Some 15 of them were brought down in groups of five before Lawas
and Osorio. A table was set up near the rice mill of Pedro Lacson and
there Lawas and Osorio questioned them. In the course of the
investigation, and for reasons which are disputed, the home guards
then on duty and present at the investigation fired at the Moros and
most of them were killed. In the course of the melee that followed,
some of the home guards and others who could not be identified,
went up the house of Restituto Requino and fired at the woman and
children who were on the second floor of the house. Some of the
women and children were stabbed. No less than 35 women and
children were killed and no less than 16 of the Moros down below
were also killed. Among the killed were Datu Lomangcolob Sumala,
Gunti Ampaso, Pasintao, Laito, Pacpac and Rutum. For this killing,
two charges of multiple murder were filed, one against Crispin Lawas,
Agustin Osorio and Clemente Osorio, and another against
Hermenegildo Tabacon, Felipe Si-it, Agapito Gumisad, Generoso
Osorio and Patricio Pinos.
Insofar as the crime of robbery is concerned, principal witness
Manaronsong Lomangcolob, son of. Datu Lomangcolob. Sumala,
declared that the Home guards who gathered them in . the barrio of
Baris and later brought them to the barrio . of. Salong took from them
(the Maranaos) 3 carabaos worth P800, 2 horses worth P100, and
jewelry and other personal belongings worth P500. The animals were
taken away by the following home guards: Lawas, 1 horse; Agapito
Gumisad, 1 horse; and Clemente Osorio, Felipe Si-it and Generoso
Osorio, one carabao each. Of the accused, the following were seen
coming down from the houses of the Maranaos, bringing with them
malongs, bracelets and other personal belongings: Generoso Osorio,
Felipe Si-it, Hermenegildo Tabacon, Agustin Osorio, Clemente Osorio
and Agapito Gumisad.
Of the above-named accused, only Lawas testified, but he made no
denial of the taking by him of one of the horses. None of the briefs or
memoranda filed on behalf of the appellant claims or mentions
grounds why appellants should not be held guilty of robbery, although
certain discrepancies appear in Lomangcolob's testimony as to the
manner in which the said horses and carabaos ware taken. Admitting
that there are discrepancies in tho said testimony as to the details of
the taking, the evidence conclusively shows that the accused
designated above took the animals and properties in question. No
denial of this fact was ever made. There is insinuation that some of
the animals may have been some of those taken at the raid of
Malingao, but no satisfactory evidence exists on which a finding to
that effect can be predicated. The evidence also shows that the
accused were armed at the time of the taking of the animals and other
personal properties. The finding of the trial court that the accused are
guilty of robbery as above-indicated is fully supported by the
evidence. There is no evidence, however, of the existence of any
conspiracy among the accused in the commission of tha acts of
robbery and each one must respond for his own individual act.
As to the charge of multiple murder, tha death of about fifty of the
Maranaos, including fifteen men, twenty five women and ten children
is not questioned; but the circumstances under which their death took
place are the object of conflicting evidence. The three witnesses for
the prosecution claim that the Moros were fired at when Datu
Lomangcolob refused to be tied at the hands, while the defense
claims that they were fired at because they attempted to grab the
arms of the home guards. The evidence submitted by both sides on
this issue may be summarized as follows:
Manaronsong Lomangcolob testified that while he and four of his
companions namely, Gunti Ampaso, lacpac and Datu Lomangcolob
ware in front of the table before which Crispin Lawas and Agustin
Osorio were making the investigation, Lawas first asked them to sign
blank papers, and that they, the Maranaos, refused; but they were
beaten with rifles and boxed, so Datu Lomangcolob enjoined him and
his companions to sign the blank papers as demanded by the
investigators; that afterwards Crispin Lawas informed the Maranaos
that they would be brought to Captain Morgan at Balimbing and for
this purpose their hands were to be tied; that for the purpose of tying
their hands, Hermenegildo Tabacon, one of the home guards, brought
some pieces of split rattan; that as Datu Lomangcolob was
approached to have his hands tied, he refused and, thereupon,
Crispin Lawas fired his revolver at him and ordered the guards to fire;
that following instructions, the home guards fired at the Moros and
many of them fell down dead; that those Moros who tried to escape
were also fired at; and that after a short time Crispin Lawas ordered
his men to "cease fire", and the firing stopped.;
Pedro Lacson, a resident of Barrio Salong, corroborated tha principal
parts of the above testimony of Manaronsong Lomangcolob, declaring
that he (Lacson) was under the eaves of his house observing the
investigation that Lawas and Osorio were conducting; that he noticed
Lawas ordering the men to be brought down from the house of
Restituto Requino; that in the course of the investigation, Lawas said
that the Moros would be brought to Balimbing where Captain Morgan
was and that the Moros were to have their hands tied; that Datu
Lomangoolob expressed willingness to go to Captain Morgan, but that
he was not willing to have his hands tied; and that then a commotion
ensued and then Crispin Lawas gave his men the order to fire. In
connection with the massacre of the women in the second floor of the
house of Restituto Requino, it is very clear that in the course of the
shooting two persons, not companions of Lawas, went up the house
of Requino and, perhaps, helped in boloing the 15 women and
children in said house.
A third witness corroborated the most important details of the above
testimonies. Manking Aguam, claiming to be 11 years old when the
incident took place, testified as follows: That he was with the women
and children in the upper floor of the house of Restituto Requino
before the investigation began; that he saw some of the accused as
they brought down the male Maranaos for the purpose of
investigation; that the firing was caused by the refusal of the
Maranaos to accede to have their hands tied as ordered by Crispin
Lawas: that in the course of the shooting, Agapito Gumisad, Felipe Si-
it, Clemente Osorio, Tito Requino and Patricio Pinos shot at the
women and children and stabbed them with boloes; and that Gumisad
was trying to stab him and what he did was to jump down and run
away.
Only two of the accused took the witness stand, namely, Crispin
Lawas and Agustin Osorio. Other witnesses testified for them, but
their testimonies are of no material value insofar as the main issue is
concerned. Crispin Lawas testified that upon the receipt of the report
of the raid on the Christian Filipinos by the Maranaos on July 9, he
met with Captain Morgan, the head of the home guards and tha PC;
that thereupon Captain Morgan instructed him to accompany Sgt,
Benaojan and proceed to Barrio Malingao to investigate the incident;
that in pursuance of said order, he and Sgt. Banaojan went to Barrio
Malingao and saw the dead persons there; that he found out after
investigation that some of the Moros who made the raid came from
Barrio Baris, so he and Sgt, Benaojan and their men proceeded to
Baris; that the people of that place were gathered together in the
afternoon of July 10 and that they took them along to Barrio Salong;
that when they reached that place, Sgt. Benaojan ordered the Moros
to stay in the house of Restituto Requino and that this was done; that
at dawn the following day, Lawas went to Captain Morgan to make a
report, and that Captain Morgan ordered him to investigate the
leaders of the Moros and, afterwards, send the result of his
investigation to him; that he returned to the barrio of Salong the
following morning; that at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of the
following day (July 11), he ordered a table to be placed on the ground
and that the investigation of the Moros be conducted; that the
investigation took place in the following order: first Mayor Gunti, Datu
Lomangcolob, Datu Pacpac and Manaronsong Lomangcolob
together; that as said investigation proceeded, the Moros suddenly
rushed at the home guards to grab their guns and so a commotion
arose; that he and Agustin Osorio did not know what had happened
and upon hearing gun fire he stood astounded; that because of the
presence of the women and children, he ordered his guards to cease
fire, which was done; that throughout the time of the firing, he could
not do anything but stand up; that his companion Agustin Osorio in
the meanwhile lied flat on the ground; and that afterwards he went to
the middle of the place where the gathering was and found out that
many Moros were dead.
For his part, accused Agustin Osorio testified that on July 10, he was
ordered by Sgt. Benaojan to go to Camp 5 with 4 soldiers to
investigate the maltreatment of a Christian Filipino; that on their way
back from the investigation, they heard shots coming from Barrio
Malingao and so they went to that barrio and upon arriving there they
found 11 Christian Filipinos dead and 2 wounded; that he received
information about the incident from one, Piano Taborada, who said
that the ones who made the raid were from Barrio Baris; that when he
returned to Barrio Salong, he reported the incident to Sgt. Benaojan;
that he accompanied Sgt. Benaojan and Crispin Lawas on July 10 to
Barrio Malingao where they saw 11 Christians dead and 2 wounded;
that after the investigation conducted in Barrio Malingao, they went to
Barrio Baris where they arrived at five o'clock in the afternoon; that
upon reaching Barrio Baris, Mayor Gunti sounded the "agong" and the
people of the barrio swarmed around them; that they brought some of
the men to the barrio of Salong and there they were ordered to sleep
in the house of Restituto Requino; that after breakfast the following
morning, July 11, an investigation was to be made and after the male
Moros were brought down he and Lawas began investigating them;
that after investigating 6 of the Moros, and while investigating the 7th,
he immediately noticed a commotion among the Moros and the
soldiers because of the fact that the former were grabbing the
firearms of the latter; that in the course of the struggle the guns of the
soldiers were exploded; that because of the noise Lawas could not
give any order so he and Lawas laid themselves down flat on the
ground and after one minute in this position, Lawas ordered that the
guards cease firing and the firing stopped; that he could not tell where
the firing started because at the time when it began Lawas was
dictating to him and he was writing down what Lawas dictated; and
that after the firing had ceased, ha looked around and found many
teoros. dead, while the soldiers (home guards) had run away.
There is no question that before Lawas fired at Datu Lomangcolob
and the home guards also fired at the other Monos, there was a sort
of commotion, evidently produced by the announcement made by
Lawas that the Moros were to be brought to Captain Morgan at
Balimbing and that their hands were to be tied. The existence of this
commotion is admitted by Pedro Lacson, eye witness to the incident,
who said "But then the Moros refused that they will go there with the
Christian and immediately a commotion started and because of that,
Crispin Lawas ordered them to be fired at." The issue lies on the
cause or origin of said commotion, for while the prosecution contends
that this was produced by the refusal of Datu Lomangcolob to have
his hands tied, the defense claims that the commotion was produced
by the Moros suddenly rushing at the soldiers to grab their firearms,
arid so they were fired at. The theory of the defense is not warranted
by the facts and circumstances proved and admitted. Had the Moros
actually rushed at the soldiers to grapple with these for the
possession of the firearms, they would have mixed up with the
soldiers in body struggles and it would have been impossible for the
soldiers to fire at them without hitting their own companions. Had
there been a free for all struggle for the arms of the soldiers, the latter
could not have fired at and hit the Moros without hitting others or theiract of defiance or hostility, and while the soldiers were given an order
own companions. But only one of the home guards was wounded by to fire at the Moros then on the ground, said order could not imply or
a stray bullet; no others received any injury in the course of the include an order to go up the house and massacre the innocent and
commotion. Besides, a volley of shots appeared to have been fired defenseless women and children therein. Persons who participated in
immediately when the commotion started, as a result of which many the killing of the women should be made to suffer the penalty
Moros fell down dead. This would not have been the case had real commensurate with the degree of perversity which attended this act.
grappling for the possession of the guns taken place as claimed by While evident premeditation may not be assumed, because the
the defense. If a struggle for the possession df the firearms had taken massacre of the women and children was part of the impulse that
place, the shots would have come intermittently. If there were shots resulted in the killing of the Moros on the ground, yet the women and
made after the first volley had been fired they were aimed at the children were defenseless and could offer no resistance at all. Their
escaping Moros. All the above circumstances belie the claim of the defenseless condition should be considered as included in the
defense that the Moros tried to grab the firearms of the solders, and qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, not as an
that the latter fired at them as a consequence of the said attempt. independent circumstance of treachery. We find, therefore, that only
one aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime,
On the other hand, neither can the theory of the prosecution that upon or the killing of the women and children, and that is tha abuse of
refusal of Datu Lomangcolob to have his hands tied, Lawas gave the superior strength, which aggravating circumstance raises the offense
order to fire at the Moros, be admitted on its face value. Witness to that of murder.
Pedro Lacson, who appears to be the most impartial of the witnesses,
admits that there was a commotion, although he did not specify the The question which still has to be considered is tha determination
nature and character thereof. If any commotion ever existed at all, it from among the appellants of those who may be convicted of the
must have bean caused by the announcement that the Moros were to murder of the women and children.in the house of Restituto Requino.
be tied. This announcement must have angered the Morors, who Witness Pedro Lacson declared that he saw two men armed with
must have protested the act; theretofore, they had submitted bolos going up the house as the shooting of the Moros on the ground
themselves to the arrest without protest or resistance. The most was in progress, but he asserted that these did not belong to the
reasonable inference is that upon hearing that their hands were to be group of home guards led by Crispin Lawas. But Manking Aguam
tied and as the leader was going to have his hands tied and he identified Agapito Gumisad, Felipa Si-it, Clemente Osorio, Pedro
refused or resisted, the Maranaos must have angrily protested, Benaojan, Tito Requino and Patricio Pinos as among those who went
showing an attitude of hostility or resistance; and this attitude must up and shot or stabbed the women and children in the house. The
have been interpretted by Lawas and the soldiers as a determination identification is not contradicted nor denied by the defense, but except
to resist and even to fight, Perhaps, this belief also must have as to Gumisad, who was well known to the witness before the
produced the impression upon the mind of Lawas that the Moros were incident, the identification is not as positive and certain as to amount
bent on something like the use of force, such as the grabbing of the to proof of their identities beyond reasonable doubt. Thus witness
firearms of the soldiers, and perhaps it may have been in an attempt identified Tito Requino as one of the assailants; but Requino was
to forestall such a frantic and unexpected attack that Lawas gave the never known before that time by the witness. He also identified
order to fire and that he himself fired at Datu Lomangcolob. We think another as Benaojan, but the other evidence submitted by the State
that this must have happened; that Lawas believed that the Moros itself shows that Benaojan was not present at the time of the incident.
were about to resist and even attempt to fight for the arms, so he In another part of his testimony, the witness said that Tabacon, Pinos
gave the order to fire. and Generoso Osorio were among those who brought down the
Moros; while in tha same testimony, he asserts it was one old man,
There can not, therefore, be any circumstance that would qualify the Mauricio Macasarte, who also went up. There was no corroboration
killing of the Maranaos as murder; there was no evident offered by any more competent and disinterested witness. This
premeditation; neither was there treachery because the Moros were vacillating and doubtful identification, coupled with tha fact that the
face to face with the soldiers; and neither could there be abuse of witness was only eleven years of age at tha time of the incident and
superior strength because the soldiers did not expressly take made tho identification seven years later, and that he had an interest
advantage of their arms to commit the offense. in the conviction of the accused, can not serve as legal basis for a
finding that the persons pointed out at tha trial were in fact the very
On the other hand, there is no circumstance present in the killing persons who committed the murder of the women and children, With
which may sufficiently serve to mitigate the offense that has been the exeeption of Agapito Gumisad and Hermenegildo Tabacon,
committed. It is possible that an attitude of hostility accompanied the whose appeals have been dismissed, the other appellants Felipe Si-it,
refusal of Datu Lomangcolob to have his hands tied, which attitude Generoso Osorio and Patricio Pinos can not, therefore, be found
must have been shared by his companions; and it is also possible that guilty of murder.
the fear of well-known Moro ferociousness could have made Lawas
and his companions believe that the Moros were bent on refusing to As to whether Crispin Lawas and .Agustin Osorio can be held
be tied. But there is no evidence that they went beyond showing their responsible therefor, it is true that the authors of the murder were
refusal or hostility, or an apparent act on their part such as would home guards under their immediata command. But the evidence
induce a reasonable belief that the Maranaos were about to begin an submitted fails to disclose any previous common design to massacre
aggression against their captors. Their peaceful conduct at the time of all the Moros under detention, including the women and children. The
their arrest and before the investigation showed that they were evidence is to the effect that the women and the children were not
submissive and obedient. No circumstance, therefore, can sufficiently arrested or taken into custody, but that they only accompanied their
justify a finding that the offense was committed with any mitigating husbands and relatives who were brought for investigation. There was
circumstance. The offense committed is plain, simple homicide, with no evidence of a previous conspiracy by reason of which Crispin
respect to Crispin Lawas and Agustin Osorio, as it is also with respect Lawas and Agustin Osorio, as leaders, may be held for the murder of
to thos3 soldiers who fired at the Moros at the time the commotion the women and children.
arose.
May they be held guilty of murder by induction on the basis of the
But with respect to the killing of the women and children in the upper order given by Lawas to fire at the Moros as the commotion started? It
story of the house of Restituto Requino, the killing is plainly attended is true that Lawas was the leader of the home guards in Balimbing
by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The women and among whom were Agapito Gumisad, Felipe Si-it, Hermenegildo
children were defenseless; there is no evidence that they showed any Tabacon and Patricio Pinos. But the order given was to fire at the
Moros (on the ground), and nothing else; the order was to fire at the 1905). And in the case of People vs. Guillem, 47 0.G. No. 7, 3433, a
Moros who showed resistance or protest against his order that they single act, that of throwing a highly explosive hand grenade at
be tied. The order could not have been interpreted to mean that the President Roxas, resulting in the death of one victim and in physical
women and children in the house, who did not appear to have shown injuries on others was considered as a single act, also falling under
any resistance or hostility at all, should also be fired at. Lawas clearly
the first part of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It may be added
did not intend that the women and children inside the house should that there is absolutely no evidence as to the number of persons killed
also be fired at. He can not be held guilty of the crime committed, as it
by each and every one of the appellants, so even if we were induced
has been held that in order to make the inducer responsible for the to hold each appellant responsible for each and every death caused
crime committed, it is necessary that the inducement is material land by him, it is imposible to carry that desire into effect as it is impossible
precedes the commission of the act, and that such inducement was to ascertain the individual deaths caused by each and everyone. We
the determining cause thereof. are, therefore, forced to find the appellants guilty of only one offense,
that of multiple homicide for which the penalty to be imposed should
"xxx, it may be stated as a general proposition that, where the be in the maximum period.
inducement offered by the accused is of such a nature and made in
such a way that it become the determining cause of the crime, and Wherefore, in G.R. No. 7618, for robbery, the judgment of conviction
such inducement was offered with the intention of producing that appealed from is hereby affirmed, but the maximum of the penalty
result, then the accused is guilty by inducement of the crime imposed is hereby raised to 6 years 10 months and 1 day of prision
committed by the person so induced. The inducement to the crime mayor, in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of
must be intentional on the part of the inducer and must be made superior strength in the commission of the offense. The individual
directly for the purpose in view. liabilities of each of the persons sentenced for said crime are hereby
also affirmed. In G.R. Nos. 7619 and 7620, the appellants Crispin
"The verb 'induce' is sufficiently broad, generally speaking, to cover Lawas, Clemente Osorio, Agustin Osorio, Felipe Si-it, Generoso
cases where there exists on the part of the inducer the most positive Osorio and Patricio Pinos are each found guilty of the crime of
resolution and the most persistent effort to secure the commission of multiple homicide and each sentenced to suffer the penalty of not less
the crime, together with the presentation to the person induced of the than 15 years 6 months and 21 days nor more than 18 years 2
very strongest kind of temptation, as well as words or acts which are months and 21 days, both of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the
merely the result of indiscretion or lack of reflection and which carry heirs of each of the deceased, jointly and severally, in the amount of
with them, inherently, almost nothing of inducement or temptation. A P3,000.00, and to pay the costs proportionately.
chance word spoken without reflection, a wrong appreciation of a
situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtless act, may give birth to a G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997
thought of, or even a resolution to, crime in the mind of one for some THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
independent reason predisposed thereto without the one who spoke MARIO TABACO, accused-appellant.
the word or performed the act having any expectation, that his In four related informations, Mario Tabaco was charged with four
suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it produces a counts of Murder for shooting to death on March 22, 1987 Capt.
result. In such case, while the expression was imprudent and the Oscar Tabulog (Criminal Case No. 10-259), Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola
results of it grave in the extreme, he would not be guilty of the crime (Criminal Case No. 10-270), Felicito Rigunan (Criminal Case No. 10-
committed. Therefore, in applying the principles laid down to concrete 284) and Pat. Romeo Regunton (Criminal Case No. 10-317). Except
cases it is necessary to remember only that the inducement must be for the names of the victims, the informations in these four (4) cases
made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the identically read:
crime and that such inducement must be the determining cause of the
crime." (U. S. vs. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203, 218) That on or about March 22, 1987, in the Municipality of Aparri,
Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Neither Crisipin Lawas nor Agustin Osorio may, therefore, be held Court, the said accused Mario Tabaco, armed with a gun, with intent
responsible for the crime of murder in connection with the massacre to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did then and
of the women and children by inducement, and they must be there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one
acquitted of the charge of murder. [name], inflicting upon him several wounds which caused his death.

One last question involves the determination of the number or crimes
for which each of the appellants may be found guilty, whether each
one should be considered as having committed as many crimes as
there were persons who were killed, or only for one complex crime of
multiple homicide. The information is for multiple murder, and no
inference can be made therefrom, that the accused are being charged
of as many offenses as there were victims. Then the evidence
positively shows that the killing was the result of a single impulse,
which was induced by the order of the leader to fire, and continued
with the intention to comply therewith, as the firing stopped as soon
as the leader gave the order to that effect. There was no intent on the
part of the apellants either to fire at each and everyone of the victims
as separately and distinctly from each other. It has been held that if
the act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal impulse,
it constitutes a single offense (Article 43 of the Revised Penal Code;
People vs. Acosta, 60 Phil. 158). So also it has been held that the act
of taking two roosters belonging to two different persons in the same
place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having
an independent existence of their own, because there are not two
distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize two
separate crimes (People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 237, citing decisions of
the Supreme Court of Spain of November 2, 1898 and October 4,
Contrary to Law. 1
In Criminal Case No. 10-316, accused was charged in the following
information with the complex crime of Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide for shooting to death Jorge Siriban, Jr. and the wounding of
Sgt. Benito Raquepo:
That on or about March 22, 1987, in the municipality of Aparri,
province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, Mario Tabaco, armed with a gun, with intent
to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,
attack and shoot Jorge Siriban, Jr., and S/Sgt. Benito Raquepo,
inflicting upon them wounds on their bodies, which wounds sustained
by Jorge Siriban, Jr., caused his death.
That the accused had performed all the acts of execution (with
respect to the victim Sgt. Benito Raquepo) which would have
produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence but which
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
his own will.2
All cases were consolidated before Branch 10 of the Regional Trial near Raquepo. Siriban died on the spot while Raquepo survived his
Court of Aparri, Cagayan. wounds on his legs due to adequate medical treatment.

The mass of evidence for the prosecution, as found by the trial court, There were other persons injured that evening namely: (1) Antonio
is as follows: Chan — injured on his right foot; (2) Salvador Berbano — injured on
his right forearm and on his right abdomen and (3) Rosario Peneyra
In the evening of March 22, 1987, the 117th PC stationed at Aparri, on his Face and right shoulder. But, the three, did not file their
Cagayan, under then Lt. James Andres Melad, sponsored a cock complaints. 3
derby, under the name of Jose Ting, at the Octagon Cockpit Arena
located at Aparri, Cagayan. Upon the other hand, the evidence for the defense as stated in the
Brief for the Accused-appellant is as follows:
This being so, peace officers in uniform with long firearms were
assigned as guards to maintain peace and order at the cockpit arena Ordered by his commanding officer in the 117th PC Company to
namely: (1) Sgt. Benito Raquepo; (2) CIS Roque P. Datugan, both assist in the maintenance of peace and order at the Octagon Cockpit
from the 117th PC and (3) Pat. Andres Semana, INP, Aparri, Arena located at Talungan, Aparri, Cagayan on March 22, 1987,
Cagayan. Accused Mario Tabaco who was in civilian clothes claims to accused Mario Tabaco with his officially issued M-14 rifle and with the
have been also assigned by his Commanding Officer of 117th PC, to basic load of ammunition went to the Octagon Cockpit arena on
verify the presence of NPAs and assist in the protection of VIPs in the March 22, 1987 in compliance to the orders of a superior officer
cockpit arena, bringing with him his M-14 issued firearm. arriving thereat at about 12:00 o'clock noon, more or less. He directly
went inside the cockpit arena to make some observations and found
Other peace officers who came to participate were: (1) Policeman out that there were several persons inside the said cockpit who were
Mariano Retreta of INP, Buguey, Cagayan, who arrived with the in possession of firearms, some short and some long, and were seen
deceased Jorge Siriban and Licerio Antiporda, Jr., Licerio Antiporda in different places and/or corners of the cockpit. Accused did not
II; (2) Sgt. Rogelio Ferrer of 117th PC Company; (3) Policeman bother to verify as to why the said persons were allowed to carry their
Romeo Regunton (deceased) who was also armed, arrived in firearms because of his impressions that if they did not have the
company with the deceased Ex-Mayor Arreola; (4) Fireman Rogelio authority, the guards of the main gate of the cockpit would surly have
Guimmayen, INP Buguey; (5) Pat. Barba; and (6) CIC PC Paragas. confiscated the same from them. It was his belief then that they may
have come from other agencies of the government, assigned to help
At about nine (9) o'clock in the evening of same date, the group of the in the maintenance of peace and order in the cockpit. Accused thus
late Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey, Cagayan, arrived at the cockpit seated himself at the lowermost seat (first step) of the slanted
arena. His companions were (1) Antonio Villasin; (2) Rosario bleachers of the Octagon Cockpit arena on March 22, 1987.
Peneyra; (3) victim Loreto Pita, Jr. and/or five (5) of them including
the Mayor. They occupied and were (4th row) north western part At about 9:00 o'clock that very night of March 22, 1987, while accused
cockpit-gate. Others seated with the Mayor were: (1) the late Capt. was seated at the lowermost seat of the slanted bleachers of the
Oscar Tabulog; (2) the late Pat. Romeo Regunton, who was at the Octagon Cockpit arena, he heard a gun report fired atop his head.
back of the mayor; (3) the late Felicito Rigunan. The accused CIC Having been officially assigned to help in the maintenance of peace
Tabaco was seated on the arm of the bench situated at the lower and order in the cockpit and that his presence must be known, his
portion of the arena about more than three (3) meters away, (infront immediate reaction upon hearing the gun report was to fire a warning
and a little bit in the west), from the place where the late Mayor and shot in the air and directed to the ceiling and/or roof of the Octagon
his group were seated (at the 4th row of seats upper portion). During cockpit arena. After firing a warning shot, his warning was answered
the ocular inspection conducted, the Court noticed the distance to be by burst of gun fire coming from different directions inside the cockpit
more than three (3) meters, and/or probably 4-5 meters. arena, for which reason, he forced to leave and rush outside, holding
his M-14 rifle with the muzzle pointed downwards. As he (accused)
At about ten (10) o'clock 1987, while the accused Mario Tabaco was rushed towards the main gate of the cockpit arena, Mariano Retreta
seated as described above, he suddenly without warning or and Sgt. Benito Raquepo saw him and who told him, (accused) to
provocation, shot the late mayor Jorge Arreola, with his M-14 rifle, relax lang. Accused testified that when Mariano Retreta and Sgt.
followed by several successive burst of gunfire, resulting in the Benito Raquepo told him to relax lang, he all the time thought that the
shooting to death of the late Mayor Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, gun reports fired inside the cockpit arena was nothing to said persons.
Felicito Rigunan and Pat. Romeo Regunton, although the latter Accused however, insisted to go out, but in so doing, Mariano Retreta
managed to run passing through the western gate near the gaffers pressed the gun which he was holding downwards and grabbed said
cage but was chased by accused Tabaco. Regunton was later found gun from accused. As the gun was pressed by Mariano Retreta, said
dead inside the canteen of Mrs. Amparo Go inside the Octagon gun went off, hitting Sgt. Benito Raquepo and the death of Jorge
cockpit arena. Siriban, Jr. That because of such incident, accused had to run away,
out of fear to Sgt. Benito Raquepo and the family of Jorge Siriban who
Pat. Mariano Retreta of INP Buguey, who was then at the Co's may lay the blame on him. The following morning, accused
canteen, saw the accused going out rushing from the cockpit arena, surrendered to the police authorities of Lallo, Cagayan, who
at a distance of one meter. Pat. Retreta is a relative and neighbor of happened to pass by, not on account of the death of Ex-Mayor Jorge
the accused Tabaco in Buguey, Cagayan. He tried to pacify Tabaco Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and Oscar Regunton
telling him "what is that that happened again Mario." Meanwhile, Sgt. which he did not know at the time he surrendered, but on account of
Benito Raquepo of 117th PC, and one of those assigned to maintain the death of Jorge Siriban, Jr. and the injury sustained by Sgt. Benito
peace and order at the Octagon cockpit arena, who was at the Raquepo.4
canteen taking snacks, heard five (5) successive gun reports coming
from inside the cockpit arena. In a little while, he saw the accused After trial, the court a quo, in a joint decision dated January 14, 1991,
Tabaco coming from inside the cockpit arena. Raquepo advised found accused-appellant guilty as charged on all counts. In giving
Tabaco — "Mario relax ka lang" — "Mario keep calm." They stood credence to the version of the prosecution over that of accused-
face to face holding their rifles and when Tabaco pointed his gun appellant, it found that:
towards Sgt. Raquepo, Pat. Retreta grappled for the possession of
the gun to disarm Tabaco, and in the process, the gun went off hitting From the evidence adduced, it is easily discernible that the
Sgt. Raquepo and also the late Jorge Siriban who happened to be prosecution and defense cannot agree on what actually transpired
that night of March 22, 1987, at the Octagon Cockpit Arena, Aparri,
Cagayan leading to the shooting to death of subject victims. For, while
the prosecution maintains that it was the accused Mario Tabaco who
shot the victims, the defense insists that he is not the assailant, but
somebody else or others, since the accused merely fired a warning
shot upwards the roof of the cockpit arena.
In fine, the Court is called upon to resolve the issue of credibility
versions. "Where there are directly conflicting versions of the same
incident, the Court, in its search for the truth, perforce has to look for
some facts and circumstances which can be used as valuable tools in
evaluating the probability or improbability of a testimony for after all,
the element of probability is always involved in weighing testimonial
evidence. (Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., et
al., L-46908, May 17, 1980, 97 SCRA 734; Lacsan vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., L-46485, November 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 461, both
citing the case of People vs. Boholst Caballero, L-2349, November
25, 1974, 61 SCRA 180).
Towards this end, the prosecution presented three (3) eyewitnesses,
namely: Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra and Fireman Rogelio
Guimmayen in the shooting to death of the deceased victims, Ex-
Mayor Jorge Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Romeo Regunton and
Felicito Rigunan. Also, the prosecution presented Sgt. Benito
Raquepo, Pat. Mariano Retreta and PC Sgt. Rogelio Ferrer, and three
(3) eyewitnesses in the shooting to death of Jorge Siriban and the
wounding of Sgt. Raquepo. So too, the prosecution presented PC
Sgt. Antonio Domingo, Pat. Andres Semana, PC Sgt. Jose Algeria
and Pat. Merlin Bautista, as corroborative witnesses in both
situational cases/incidents. As well stated in the above findings of
facts, prosecution witnesses Antonio Villasin and Rosario Peneyra
actually saw the accused Mario Tabaco stood up from his seat at the
lower front row and in port arm position directed his M-14 rifle towards
the place of the late Mayor Arreola, and his group at the 4th row
upper portion of the bleachers and fired three successive automatic
gun shots that felled Mayor Jorge Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Pat.
Romeo Regunton and one Felicito Rigunan. This was corroborated by
prosecution witness Fireman Rogelio Guimmayen who was then ten
(10) meters away from the accused, which was not far, considering
that the cockpit arena was well lighted at that time.
Not only that, immediately after the gun burst of automatic fire, the
accused was seen coming out rushing from inside the cockpit arena
by INP Pat. Mariano Retreta and PC Sgt. Raquepo, the former being
a relative and neighbor, pacified accused Tabaco, telling — "what is
that happened again Mario," while the latter told him — "Mario relax
ka lang keep calm." After which Mariano Retreta grappled for the
possession of the gun assisted by PC Sgt. Rogelio Ferrer when
Tabaco refused to stop. Sgt. Ferrer got the gun M-14 and surrendered
it to his Commanding Officer, as corroborated by Sgt. Antonio
Domingo, while in the process of disarming the accused Mario
Tabaco, when the gun went of, hitting the deceased victim Jorge
Siriban and Sgt. Raquepo. 5
The accused admitted that the M-14 rifle which he brought with him to
the cockpit arena was heavily loaded, but when the gun was taken
from his possession by Pat. Retreta and PC Sgt. Ferrer, the gun's
magazine was already empty.
The court a quo said further:
ATTY. VILLENA:
Q: When you took that M-14 from the accused, do you remember if it
had a magazine that time?
A: Yes, sir with magazine.
Q: Do you have the magazine now?
A: It is with 117th PC Company, sir.
Q: After taking that M-14 from the accused, did you examine the rifle?
A: Yes, sir, I examined it.
Q: Did you examine the magazine of that rifle?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you examine if there are live bullets?
A: No live bullets, sir. (TSN, direct examination, Sgt. Ferrer, pp. 44-45,
March 26, 1990 session, stenographer L. Tamayo).
Further, Sgt. Ferrer continued:
PROSECUTOR ATAL:
Q: You likewise mentioned in your direct examination that when you
surrendered this gun, M-14, and this magazine, there were no live
ammunitions in the magazine?
A: There were two remaining bullets, sir.
Q: How many bullets in all?
A: Twenty, sir.
Q: You said you heard first seven gun reports?
A: Yes, sir I heard seven gun reports. (TSN, continuation of direct
examination, Sgt. Ferrer, May 14, 1990 session, Stenographer L.
Tamayo).
MORE, there is evidence that empty/spent shells of bullets were
found inside the cockpit arena (Exh. "R" & "R-l", pp. 157-158, record).
ATTY. ARRIOLA:
Q: Showing to you Exh. "R", do you know whose picture is this?
A: Picture of spent shells.
Q: How about Exh. "R-l", do you know what is this?
A: The same, sir spent shells. (TSN, PC/CIS Sgt. Investigator Jose
Algeria, p. 29, Oct. 1, 1990 session, Stenographer L. Tamayo).
Finally, another circumstance which maybe considered as adverse
against the accused, is the fact that he was really arrested and not
that he voluntarily surrendered as appearing in the INP Lallo Police
Blotter, as testified to by Pat. Melin Bautista (Exh. "S", p. 188, record).
Furthermore, it appears that the same accused Mario Tabaco, has
still a pending case for murder before Branch 6, of this Court. (Exh.
"T", p. 187, record).
The Court is impressed with the testimonies of the three prosecution
eyewitnesses namely: Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra and INP
Fireman Rogelio Guimmayen who narrated their versions of the
incident with ring of truth, which are both clear and convincing, in
regard to the shooting to death by accused Mario Tabaco of the
deceased victims Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola (Crim. Case No. 10-270),
Capt. Oscar Tabulog (Crim. Case No. 1259), Pat Romeo Regunton
(Crim. Case No. 10-317) and the late Felicito Rigunan (Crim. Case
No. 10-284).
Such positive testimonies were corroborated by the testimonies of PC
Sgt. Raquepo, PC Sgt. Ferrer and Pat. Mariano Retreta, who saw the
accused rushing outside the cockpit arena holding his M-14 rifle,
immediately after the burst of successive and automatic gunfire inside
the cockpit arena. Although they have not seen the accused shoot the
four victims (Arreola, Tabulog, Rigunan and Regunton), yet their
corroborative testimonies constitute sufficient combination of all
circumstances, so as to produce a conviction of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. (People vs. Pimentel, 147 SCRA 251; People vs.
Trinidad, 162 SCRA 714), even as such circumstances proved
reasonable leads to the conclusion pointing to the accused Tabaco, to
the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. (People vs.
Magallanes, 147 SCRA 92; People vs. Macatana, 161 SCRA 235).
And, in the face of all these circumstances, the burden of proof to
establish his innocence LIES on the accused, as the ONUS
PROBANDI from that moment is now shifted to the accused. (Dulpo
vs. Sandiganbayan, 150 SCRA 138). A resort to circumstantial
evidence is in the very nature of things, a necessity, and as crimes
are usually committed in secret and under conditions where
concealment is highly probable, and to require direct testimony would
in many cases result in freeing criminals and would deny the proper that Siriban died due to gunshot wounds — inflicted upon him during
protection of society. (People vs. ROA, 167 SCRA 116). the grappling of the subject gun (Exh. "K").

As to the death of Jorge Siriban (Crim. Case No. 10-316) and the The Court believes in the reliability and intrinsic credibility of the
wounding of Sgt. Raquepo, there is no adventure of doubt, that prosecution witnesses, there being no competent evidence presented
accused Mario Tabaco was the author of the crime charged and thus for them to falsely testify against the accused. There is no issue of
be held responsible for the same. The evidence adduced in this case motive, as the accused was clearly and positively identified.
is overwhelming, coming no less from accused's brothers PC
personnel, who, aside from their direct testimonies, are entitled to the
All told, the Court believes and so holds that herein accused Mario
settled rule that they have regularly performed their official duty. Tabaco is the author/culprit in the shooting to death of the deceased
(Section 5(M), Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court). victims, Jorge Arreola, Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo
Regunton, as well as the deceased Jorge Siriban and the wounding of
Accordingly, the Court is not impressed with the defense put up by the Benito Raquepo. 6
accused, even as it does not inspire confidence, hence, the same
deserves no credence. The dispositive part of the decision reads:

The accused contends that he merely fired his gun up towards the WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing, and fortified by the
roof, and that he could have not shot the four (4) deceased victims balm of clear judicial conscience, the Court finds the accused Mario
with the group of Ex-Mayor Arreola considering the elevation of the Tabaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all the crimes charged
4th step or row in the upper bleachers of the cockpit arena, in relation against him:
to where the accused was, the front row, in much lower elevation. The
accused further contends that he could not have shot aforesaid 1. In Criminal Cases Nos. (a) 10-259 (Oscar Tabulog); (b) No. 10-270
victims, as maybe gleaned from the testimony of Dr. Rivera, (Jorge Arreola); (c) 10-284 (Felicito Rigunan); and (d) 10-317 (Romeo
especially to wound No. 2, inflicted upon the body of the late Mayor Regunton), involving four (4) murder victims, but declared to have
Arreola. been prosecuted in one Information; the same being a complex crime
under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, the accused Mario Tabaco is
The Court believes otherwise. In the first place, the three (3) sentenced to a single penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, in its
eyewitnesses Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra and INP Fireman maximum period, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law,
Rogelio Guimmayen, testified that they saw the accused stood up and to pay the heirs of the deceased victims — Oscar Tabulog,
from his seat and directed his gun M-14 towards the group of Ex- Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, the amount of P50,000.00
Mayor Arreola who were then at the upper 4th row of cemented seats each for a total of P150,000.00 subject to the lien herein imposed for
at the bleachers. They could have been inaccurate of the distance of payment of the appropriate docket fees if collected, without subsidiary
meters, as it could have been around 5 meters from where the imprisonment in case of insolvency. However, in Criminal Case No.
accused stood up, which is a little bit west of the group of Ex-Mayor 10-270, the accused Mario Tabaco is further ordered to pay the heirs
Arreola, who were then facing south, face to face with the accused. of the late Mayor Jorge Arreola, the grand total amount of
This is true and the same will jibe with the findings of Dr. Rivera, P633,500.00, by way of total civil liability, subject to the lien herein
where the gun shot wounds inflicted upon the body of the late Capt. imposed for payment of the appropriate docket fees, in case of
Tabulog, were on the left portion of his forehead front to back (Wound successful collection, both without subsidiary imprisonment in case
No. 1); Wound No. 2, in his left temple; Wound No. 3, below his right insolvency.
clavicle of his right shoulder and Wound No. 4, on his left thigh
downward. 2 In Criminal Case No. 10-316 for Homicide with Frustrated Homicide,
the accused Mario Tabaco is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
In the case of the late Mayor Arreola his wounds are: Wound No. 1, is penalty ranging from, ten (10) years and one (1) day Prision Mayor as
on the left side of his head above the hairline; Wound No. 2, right MINIMUM, to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months, one (1) day of
base of his neck and exited at the upper shoulder base through and RECLUSION TEMPORAL as MAXIMUM, and to pay the heirs of the
through. Wound No. 3, was on his left lower abdomen and his lower deceased Jorge Siriban, the amount of P50,000.00, by way of death
back as exit for wound Nos. 1 and 2, the relative position of the indemnity, plus P30,000.00 to Sgt. Benito Raquepo, by way of
assailant and the victim is face to face, so with Wound No. 3. For medical expenses incurred, subject to the lien herein imposed for
wound No. 2, the point of entry is higher than the point of exit, but payment of the appropriate docket fees in case of successful
there is a possibility that the victim Arreola, probably bent forward and collection; both without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
the bullet ricocheted.
3. The M-14 rifle (Exh. "K" and "K-2") the corpus delicti, presently
It must be noted that the seats in the upper bleachers where the deposited with 117th PC Company, Aparri, Cagayan, is hereby
group of the late Mayor stayed were all cemented including their back ordered forfeited in favor of the government; Perforce, the
rests and the bullets fired from the gun of the accused must have Commanding Officer of the 117th PC, Aparri, Cagayan, is
rebounded or deflected from surface to surface, on the cemented peremptorily ordered to deposit to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court of
back rests and seats hitting wound No. 2, on the body of the Mayor this court, the said M-14 rifle with magazines, for proper disposition in
and the bodies of Romeo Regunton and Felicito Rigunan. The bullets accordance with law and the rules.
RICOCHETED, at the place where the group of the Mayor stayed.
Anent the cemented railguard dividing the lower and upper bleachers, 4. The accused to pay the costs.
the same is not too high so as to obviate the possibility of hitting the
group of the late Mayor Arreola, especially as in this case, when the 5. In the service hereof, the accused shall be entitled to the full length
accused stood up from his seat and fired at his victims. Witness of time, he underwent preventive imprisonment (March 23, 1987),
Rosario Peneyra testified that his wound on his face and right provided he voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the same
abdomen must have been caused by the debris of the said cemented disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he
railguard which was hit by the bullets. shall be credited to only four-fifth (4/5) thereof. (Art. 29, NCC; as
amended by RA 6127, June 17, 1970; U.S. vs. Ortencio, 38 Phil. 341;
In the case of the death of Jorge Siriban, there is not much dispute as People vs. Chavez, 126 SCRA 1).
the evidence adduced is overwhelming and even the defense admits
SO ORDERED. 7 (Emphasis ours) Q: You said that the accused shot Ex-Mayor Arreola, what kind of
weapon did he use if you know?
Notwithstanding the single penalty imposed by the trial court, accused A: M-14, sir.
still interposed the present appeal on the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the incident (precedent) have you come to learn what
(1) The trial court erred in convicting Mario Tabaco of the crime of happened to Regunton?
murder in connection with the deaths of Oscar Tibulog, Jorge Arreola, A: I came to know that he was dead, sir.
Felicito Rigunan, and Romeo Regunton. Q: Was that all you gathered?
(2) The trial court erred in holding Mario Tabaco liable for homicide on A: Also Capt. Tabulog, sir.
the death of Jorge Siriban and the injury sustained by Benito xxx xxx xxx
Raquepo. Q: How many shots did you hear?
(3) The trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of A: Three (3) shots, sir.
accused-appellant Tabaco. Q: All those three (3) shots were directed to Ex-Mayor?
A: Yes, sir.
The pivotal issue presented in this case is one of credibility. Time and Q: You heard three shots according to you, was that successive or
again, we have ruled that when the issue hinges on the credibility of automatic?
witnesses vis-a-vis the accused's denials, the trial court's findings with A: Successive, sir.
respect thereto are generally not disturbed on appeal, 8 unless there Q: You were seated at the left side of Ex-Mayor Arreola, who was
appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and seated on his right side?
influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has A: None, sir.
been misinterpreted. 9 The reason for the rule is eloquently stated in xxx xxx xxx
the case of People vs. de Guzman, 10 thus: Q: Mr. witness, you said that you saw the deceased holding a gun
when you first heard gun shot, will you please describe the stands
In the resolution of factual issues, the court relies heavily on the trial (position) of the accused?
court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having A: Like this. (The witness demonstrated that the accused was
the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to standing on a forth (port) arm position).
detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will xxx xxx xxx
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be Q: What did he do with the gun when you saw him?
discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the A: He fired the gun, sir.
reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will Q: To what the gun was directed when he fired the gun?
affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an A: To Ex-Mayor Arreola, sir.
insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the ATTY. VILLENA:
tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a Q: You said earlier that after the incident you left the cockpit and
ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in returned, when you returned, what did you see?
evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a A: I saw two dead persons, sir.
serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not Q: Whose cadavers were these that you saw?
show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered A: The cadavers of Ex-Mayor Arreola and Capt. Tabulog, sir.
pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see Q: How far was the cadaver of Tabulog to Arreola?
all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed A: Less than a meter, sir.
and reasoned verdict. 11 xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you saw the corpse of Capt. Tabulog, can you identify the
After a careful examination of the records, we find no ground or person passing as you mentioned?
reason to set aside or disturb the trial court's assessment of credibility A: They have similarity, sir.
of the eyewitnesses when they testified pointing to accused-appellant xxx xxx xxx
as the assailant in the shooting of the group of Ex-Mayor Arreola and Q: When you heard first gun shot, can you tell the position of Arreola,
his companions. you and your companions?
A: We were sitting at the backrest of the 4th seat, sir.
1. Eyewitnesses Antonio Villasin and Rosario Peneyra, who were with Q: Where were you facing?
the group of Ex-Mayor Arreola on that fateful night of March 22, 1989, A: We were facing south the arena.
categorically testified that it was accused-appellant, whom they Q: Where did the first gun shot came from?
positively identified in court, who fired his M-14 Rifle at their direction A: It came from Mario Tabaco, sir.
hitting the ex-mayor and his companions. Q: From what direction?
A: Infront of us, sir.
Villasin's testimony on this point is as follows: Q: Where was he, was he in your front?
A: He was in the first row of seats.
COURT: Q: After the first gun shot, what happened?
Q: You heard gun report, what can you say? A: Somebody was killed, sir.
A: I saw that he was the one who made the gun report, sir. Q: Who was that?
ATTY ARRIOLA: A: Ex-Mayor Arreola, sir.
Q: Who was that "he" you are referring to? xxx xxx xxx
A: Mario Tabaco, sir. (p. 19, tsn, March 19, 1990) COURT:
Q: Why do you say that Mario Tabaco was the one from whom those Q: How many gun shot reports did you hear?
gun reports come from? A: Many, sir.
A: Because he was the only person from whom I saw a gun, sir. ATTY. VILLENA:
Q: What did you do also upon hearing those gun reports? Q: You said that you heard more gun shots, can you tell the nature,
A: I had to seek shelter, sir. was there in succession or automatic?
Q: What happened to Ex-Mayor Arreola? A: Automatic, sir.
A: He was hit, sir. xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR MIGUEL: Q: Can you tell us your previous occupation?
A: An army man, sir. A: He also stayed at the back of Mayor Arreola, sir.
Q: How long have you been employed with the army? xxx xxx xxx
A: Five (5) years, sir. Q: While you were in that position together with your companions, do
Q: As an army before, have you ever been handled an M-14? you remember if there was untoward incident that happened?
A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you tell us if you are familiar with a M-14 being fired? Q: What was that untoward incident that happened?
A: Yes, sir. A: That was the time when Mario Tabaco shot the late Mayor Arreola,
Q: Now, you said earlier that you heard many more shots after you sir.
run, would you say that these gun shots you heard were fired from M- Q: Do you know what did Mario Tabaco use in shooting the late
14 rifle? Arreola?
A: Those are that came from M-14, sir. A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where were you at the time when you heard the automatic gun Q: What kind of firearm?
shot? A: M-14, sir.
A: I was outside the cockpit, sir. 12 Q: And do you know if Mayor Arreola was hit when Mario Tabaco shot
On cross-examination by the defense counsel, witness Villasin him?
testified, thus: A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. CONSIGNA: Q: How do you know that Mayor Arreola was hit?
Q: You said that after the first gun shot or gun report, Mr. Tabaco was A: Because I saw it, sir.
on the first seat downward, is it not? Q: What did you do also?
A: When Mayor Arreola was already dead, I sought cover because I
A: Mr. Tabaco placed his left foot on the first seat aiming his gun, sir. was also wounded.
Q: Directly toward the first seat, is that what you mean? Q: Do you know what happened also to Romeo Regunton?
A: It was directed to Ex-Mayor Arreola. A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx Q: What happened to him?
Q: I want to make it clear, Mr. witness, it was the first gun that you A: When I was wounded he also said, "uncle I was also wounded."
went to hide yourself at the gate of the cockpit, is that correct? Q: What did you tell when he told you that?
A: After the 3rd gun shot, sir. A: I told him, "you seek cover also my son".
Q: And these three (3) gun reports, they were in a single successive Q: How did Romeo Regunton took cover?
shot, is it not Mr. witness? A: He moved slowly by dragging his body along the ground, sir.
A: Yes, sir. xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx Q: By the way, how far were you from Mario Tabaco who fired upon
Q: That person who allegedly passed by you or infront of you prior to the person of Mayor Arreola?
the first gun report, did you notice if he had a gun with him? A: Probably more than 3 meters, sir. 14
A: He passed by our back, sir. On cross-examination, this witness testified as follows:
xxx xxx xxx ATTY. CONSIGNA:
Q: And that person according to you was still there when the late Q: When for the first time when you were already in the cockpit arena
Mayor Arreola was shot? did you see the accused Mario Tabaco?
A: He was directly behind him when the gun reports were made, sir. A: Before the shooting, sir.
Q: You mean to say the first gun report? Q: And approximately how many minutes or seconds did you see
A: Yes, sir. Mario Tabaco for the first time prior to the shooting incident?
Q: And that first gun report was hit Ex-Mayor Arreola? A: Probably 5 minutes before, sir.
A: The three gun reports hit the Mayor, sir. 13 Q: And in that place of the cockpit arena have you seen the accused
For his part, Peneyra testified as follows: herein Mario Tabaco?
ATTY. ARRIOLA A: He sat on the first row of the seats.
Q: Do you remember what particular place of the cockpit when you go Q: And sitting on the first row of the bleachers, on what part of the
with Mayor Arreola? cockpit arena did Mario Tabaco, the accused sit?
A: Yes, sir. A: He sat a little bit west of us, sir.
Q: What part of the cockpit? COURT:
A: We went up to the bleacher, sir. Q: How far?
Q: Do you remember how the bleachers were arranged inside the A: Probably more than 3 meters, sir.
cockpit? Q: A little bit to the west, do I get from you that he was seated on the
A: Yes, sir. western part of the cockpit?
Q: How were they arranged? A: A little to the west, sir.
A: In rows, step by step, sir. Q: An you together with the late Mayor Arreola were also on the
COURT: western part of the cockpit?
Q: How many rows? A: We were on the northwest.
A: Four rows, sir. Q: Mario Tabaco, therefore, the accused in these cases was not
ATTY. ARRIOLA: directly in front of you?
Q: And what row did you stay together with the late Mayor Arreola? A: A little bit west of us, sir.
A: The late Mayor Arreola and Antonio Villasin took the 4th step, sir. Q: It was on that position of the accused Mario Tabaco and your
Q: And how about you? position with the late Arreola on the northwest when you according to
A: We stood at their back west of them, sir. you saw Mario Tabaco fired his gun, is that what you mean?
Q: By the way, can you tell to the court what were your respective A: Yes, sir.
position of the place where you stayed? Q: That the accused Mario Tabaco was on the first row when he
A: The late Mayor Arreola and Antonio Villasin sat at the backrest of allegedly shot on Mayor Arreola who was on 4th row, is that what you
the fourth step, sir. mean?
Q: And how about you, where did you stay also? A: Mario Tabaco stood up and faced us, sir.
A: I stood at the right back of Mayor Arreola, sir.
Q: And how about Romeo Regunton?
Q: So while Mario Tabaco stood up and faced towards the direction A: When I went outside, I heard shots inside and outside. 17
where you were together with the late Mayor Arreola still Mario Set over against the foregoing positive and categorical testimonial
Tabaco was on the floor of the cockpit arena? declaration of the above-named eyewitnesses for the prosecution is
A: Yes, sir, on the cemented floor. the accused-appellant's bare denial of the charges against him. As
Q: And immediately after you heard the first shot coming from the between the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution
accused Mario Tabaco considering that you were right behind the late witnesses and the bare denial of accused, the choice is not difficult to
Mayor Arreola, as you have stated in your direct examination you make. For, it is a settled rule that positive identification by the
immediately sought cover? prosecution witnesses of the accused as perpetrator of the crime is
A: I only lay flat to the floor of the cockpit when Mario Tabaco fired entitled to greater weight than his bare denial and explanation. 18
three (3) shots.
xxx xxx xxx Likewise, there is no evidence from the record, as none was adduced
Q: At the time you laid flat facing down and you did not come to know by accused-appellant, of any ill-motive on the part of the prosecution
that Mayor Arreola was dead already? witnesses as to why would they testify adversely against accused-
A: Why not, the first and second shots, I know him that he was appellant in the way that they did. Well settled is the rule that where
already dead. there is no evidence and nothing to indicate, that the principal
Q: And the three (3) shots that you heard were all directed towards witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the
Mayor Arreola? presumption was that they were not so actuated and their testimonies
A: Yes, sir, in our place. are entitled to full faith and credit. 19
xxx xxx xxx
COURT: 2. Accused-appellant contends that eyewitnesses Villasin and
Q: To whom the 3rd shot directed? Peneyra were not telling the truth when they testified that it was
A: In our place, sir. accused-appellant who was the assailant in the shooting of Ex-Mayor
Q: No person was involved on the 3rd shot? Arreola and his companions considering that Dr. Rivera, who
A: That was also the time when Romeo Regunton came toward me examined the cadaver of Ex-mayor Arreola, testified that the trajectory
and told me that he was also hit. of the bullets that hit the ex-mayor shows that the assailant was on
xxx xxx xxx the same level as the ex-mayor, and the trajectory of the third bullet
COURT: shows that the assailant was at a higher level as the point of entry
Q: You don't know the person who shot him? was higher than the point of exit. Appellant states that he was seated
A: It was Mario Tabaco because he was still firing then, sir. at the first row which was the lowest while the ex-mayor and his
Q: You do not know the person who shot him? companions were seated at the fourth row which was the highest.
A: It was Mario Tabaco because he was still firing then, sir. 15 This contention, however, is untenable.
The above testimonies of Villasin and Peneyra pointing to accused-
appellant as the assailant in the shooting of the ex-mayor and his Eyewitnesses Villasin and Peneyra testified that accused-appellant
companions were corroborated further by the testimony of another was at the first row of seats of the slanted bleachers of the cockpit
eyewitness in the person of Rogelio Guimmayen. His account of the arena, when he stood up, stepped on one of the seats, aimed his rifle
incident is as follows: at Ex-Mayor Arreola and his companions and fired at them. 20
PROSECUTOR ABAD:
xxx xx x xxx The above-quoted testimonies explain very well why two gunshot
Q: How far were you from Tabaco when you saw him holding that wounds found on the cadaver of Ex-mayor Arreola appear to have
gun? been inflicted while he and his assailant were face to face and at the
A: More or less ten (10) meters, sir. same level.
Q: Where was he at that specific time and place?
A: Inside the cockpit, sir. Upon the other hand, according to Dr. Rivera, one of the gunshot
Q: Where were you also? wounds of Ex-Mayor Arreola had a point of entry higher than the point
A: I was at the stairs, sir. of exit because he must have already been lying down when his
Q: When you saw him what happened if any? wound was inflicted. 21
xxx xxx xxx
A: When he entered he stopped and then the gun fired and that was Well established, too, from the evidence on record is accused-
the time when I got down, sir. appellant's liability for the death of Jorge Siriban, Jr. and the near-fatal
Q: Did you see to whom he was directing the gun? wounding of Sgt. Benito Raquepo.
A: It was directed to the Mayor's place, sir.
Q: How far was the Mayor from the accused Mario Tabaco? Not seriously disputed by accused-appellant are the testimonies of
A: More or less three (3) meters only. There was only one bench Sgt. Benito Raquepo and policeman Mario Retreta. Sgt. Benito
between them, sir. Raquepo testified that at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of March
Q: Did you see the accused firing his gun towards the Mayor? 22, 1987 while he was taking his snacks at the canteen of Co located
A: With his first shot which was directed to the Mayor that was the at the left side of the gate of the cockpit arena, he heard five
time I got down to hide myself, sir. 16 successive gun reports coming from inside the cockpit arena. While
On cross-examination, this witness testified as follows: he was on his way inside the cockpit arena, he saw the accused-
ATTY. CONSIGNA: appellant coming from inside the cockpit arena. He told the accused
Q: So, it was at the time you were inside the cockpit arena that you "Mario relax ka lang", after which the accused pointed his gun at him.
heard gunfire? At that point in time, Mario Retreta who was among the persons near
A: Yes, sir. Mario Tabaco, grabbed the gun from the latter. It was at that point
Q: And you did not see who fired that gunfire while you were inside when the gun went off hitting him on the right thigh and the bullet
the cockpit arena? exiting on his left thigh. He also saw that Jorge Siriban, who was then
A: When I was inside, I saw Mario Tabaco pointing a gun to the Mayor about three meters away from his left side, was hit at his testicles.
and the gun went off and that's the time I took cover, sir.
xxx xxx xxx Mario Retreta, a policeman and relative of accused-appellant, on the
Q: And that was the last time you heard burst of gunfire inside the other hand corroborated in part the testimony of Sgt. Raquepo. He
cockpit arena? testified that at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of March 22, 1987,
he was at the canteen of Mrs. Co. While thereat, he saw accused-
appellant rushing out from the cockpit arena. Before he saw accused- In the cases at bar, the Provincial Prosecutor filed four (4) separate
appellant, he heard a gun report from inside the cockpit arena. He Informations of murder, which should have been otherwise, as the
was then about one meter away from accused-appellant when he shooting to death of the four (4) victims should have been prosecuted
noticed Sgt. Raquepo whom he is acquainted with, and Jorge Siriban under one information, involving four (4) murder victims.
who was then standing at the gate of the cockpit arena. Sgt. Raquepo
was facing accused-appellant and at that distance and position, he The evidence shows that the four (4) victims were FELLED by one
heard Sgt. Raquepo said: "Mario keep calm". He also told accused- single shot/burst of fire and/or successive automatic gun fires,
appellant: "What is that happened again, Mario." When he saw meaning continuous. Hence, it is a complex crime involving four
accused-appellant change his gun position from port arm to horizontal murdered victims, under the first category, where a single act of
position, he got near accused-appellant and pressed down the muzzle shooting constituted two or more grave or less grave felonies (delito
of the gun when accused appellant squeezed the trigger hitting Sgt. compuesto), as decided in the cases of People vs. Dama, CA 44 O.G.
Raquepo on both thighs and also Jorge Siriban. A certain Sgt. Ferrer 3339; People vs. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975; People vs. Pineda, L-26222,
joined in the grapple and was able to take away the gun from July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 748.
accused-appellant.
Paraphrasing a more recent decision of the Supreme Court, we say
Sgt. Raquepo survived the gunshot wounds due to adequate medical — as the deaths of Oscar Tahulug, Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan
assistance but Siriban was not as lucky. and Romeo Regunton, in Criminal Cases Nos. 259, 270, 284 and 317
respectively, were the result of one single act of the accused Mario
Accused-appellant claims that he did not have the criminal intent to Tabaco, (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307) the penalty — is the
kill Siriban or wound Sgt. Raquepo, and that the gun would not have penalty imposed for the more serious offense. The more serious
been fired in the first place had Mario Retreta, for no apparent reason, offense is murder, the killing have been attended by TREACHERY
not tried to grab the gun from him, are without merit. because the victims were completely taken by surprise and had no
means of defending themselves against Mario Tabaco's sudden
Retreta testified that he grabbed the gun from accused-appellant attack. The penalty is imposable in its maximum degree (People vs.
because the latter changed his gun from port arm position to Fernandez, 99 Phil. 515), but as the death penalty is no longer
horizontal position, and at that instance he thought accused-appellant permitted the same is hereby reduced to a single Penalty of
might harm Sgt. Raquepo. 22 RECLUSION PERPETUA for the four (4) murders. (People vs.
Herson Maghanoy, GR Nos. 67170-72, December 15, 1989).
Furthermore, even assuming that he lacked criminal intent in the
killing of Sgt. Raquepo and the near-fatal wounding of Siriban, his Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 10-316, for homicide with
claim of innocence cannot be sustained. His undisputed act of firing Frustrated Homicide and it appearing also that the death of Jorge
the gun, which is by itself felonious in total disregard of the Siriban and the wounding of Benito Raquepo, was the result of one
consequences it might produce, is equivalent to criminal intent. single act of the accused Tabaco, the applicable penalty is the penalty
imposed for the more serious offense. The more serious offense is
Accused-appellant cannot evade responsibility for his felonious acts, HOMICIDE, to be imposed in its maximum degree of reclusion
even if he did not intend the consequences thereof for, in accordance temporal, which is 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years. There being
with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by no modifying circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be Law, the penalty that should be imposed, and which is hereby
different from that which he intended. imposed, upon the accused Mario Tabaco is 10 years and 1 day of
Prision Mayor as the minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day of
We note that while the accused was found guilty in all four (4) murder Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, plus P30,000.00 actual damages
charges and the penalty of reclusion perpetua should have been for medical expenses of Benito Raquepo.
imposed on him in all four (4) murder charges, the trial court imposed
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for all four murder charges. The trial It was duly proved beyond doubt that the gun (Exhs. "K", SN No.
court explained the single sentence for four murder charges in this 1492932, "K-2" — magazine of M-14 and Exh. "L" — Memo Receipt
wise: of M-14 issued to Tabaco), used by the accused, is admittedly an
automatic powerful weapon, more powerful than an M-16 armalite
Whether or not the criminal cases Nos. 259, 270, 284 and 317, rifle. It is so powerful that the bullets can penetrate even more than
involving the killings of Oscar Tabulog, Jorge Arreola, Felicito five (5) persons resulting to their deaths. And, this was proven when,
Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, respectively, should have been according to witness Rosario Peneyra, the bullets even destroyed the
prosecuted under only one Information. cemented rail guard separating the lower and upper bleachers of the
cockpit arena, and causing wounds on his face and on his right
The law provides: shoulder. Additionally, we have the used/spent empty shells (Exh. "R"
and "R-1"). 23
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
We hold that the trial court was in error in imposing only a single
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave penalty of reclusion perpetua for all four murder cases. The trial court
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the holding that a complex crime was committed since "the evidence
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the shows that the four (4) victims were FELLED by one single shot/burst
same to be applied in its maximum period. (as amended by Art. No. of fire and/or successive automatic gun fires, meaning continuous
400). (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code). (emphasis ours) 24 does not hold water.

Read as it should be, this article provides for two clauses of crimes
where a single penalty is to be imposed; first, where the single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (delito
compuesto); and second, when the offense is a necessary means for
committing the other. (delito complejo) and/or complex proper (People
vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748).
Of course, to justify the penalty imposed, the trial court relied on the
doctrines enunciated in People vs. Pama 25 (not People vs. Dama, as
cited by the trial court), People vs. Lawas, 26 and People vs. Pineda.
27
The trial court misappreciated the facts in People vs. Pama. In said
case, there was only one bullet which killed two persons. Hence, Furthermore, the trial court's reliance on the case of People vs. Lawas
there was only a single act which produced two crimes, resulting in a 35 is misplaced. The doctrine enunciated in said case only applies
specie of complex crime known as a compound crime, wherein a when it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by
single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies. In the numerous killers. In the case at bench, all of the deaths are attributed,
case at bench, there was more than one bullet expended by the beyond a shadow of a doubt, to the accused-appellant.
accused-appellant in killing the four victims. The evidence adduced by
the prosecution show that Tabaco entered the cockpit with a fully Consequently, the four murders which resulted from a burst of gunfire
loaded M-14 sub-machine gun. 28 He fired the weapon, which cannot be considered a complex crime. They are separate crimes.
contained 20 rounds of bullets in its magazine, continuously. When The accused-appellant must therefore be held liable for each and
the rifle was recovered from Tabaco, the magazine was already every death he has caused, and sentenced accordingly to four
empty. Moreover, several spent shells were recovered from the scene sentences of reclusion perpetua.
of the crime. Hence, the ruling enunciated in People vs. Pama cannot
be applied. On the contrary, what is on all fours with the case at WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the trial
bench is the ruling laid down in People vs. Desierto. 29 The accused court in finding accused-appellant guilty of four (4) counts of Murder
in that case killed five persons with a Thompson sub-machine gun, an and one (1) count of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide, the
automatic firearm which, like the M-14, is capable of firing judgment appealed from should be, as it is, hereby AFFIRMED, with
continuously. As stated therein: the MODIFICATION that four sentences of reclusion perpetua be
hereby imposed.
In the case at bar, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable because the death of each of the five persons who were Costs against accused-appellant.
killed by appellant and the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the
two other persons injured were not caused by the performance by the G.R. Nos. 136149-51 September 19, 2000
accused of one simple act as provided for by said article. Although it PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. WALPAN
is true that several successive shots were fired by the accused in a LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias "WARPAN," appellant.
short space of time, yet the factor which must be taken into Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms,
consideration is that, to each death caused or physical injuries provided that the person arrested committed "no other crime."
inflicted upon the victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, illegal
fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for as possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a
many offenses as those resulting from every single act that produced separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct
the same. Although apparently he perpetrated a series of offenses assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14
successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person killed and each rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant,
person injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a separate he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession
crime of homicide or frustrated homicide. Except for the fact that five of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have
crimes of homicide and two cases of frustrated homicide were aggravated the direct assault.
committed successively during the tragic incident, legally speaking
there is nothing that would connect one of them with its companion The Case
offenses. (emphasis ours) Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as "Warpan," appeals before
us the September 17, 1998 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court
In Desierto, although the burst of shots was caused by one single act (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), which found him guilty of three
of pressing the trigger of the Thompson sub-machine gun, in view of out of the four charges lodged against him.
its special mechanism, the person firing it has only to keep pressing
the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is not Filed against appellant were four Informations,2 all signed by
the act of pressing the trigger which should produce the several Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Ricardo G. Cabaron and dated
felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them. 30 September 25, 1997. The first Information3 was for maintaining a den
for the use of regulated drugs. It reads as follows:
The trial court also misread People vs. Pineda. 31 True, the case of
Pineda provided us with a definition of what a complex crime is. But "That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,
that is not the point. What is relevant is that Art. 48, was not applied in Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
the said case because the Supreme Court found that there were above-named accused, Walpan Ladjaalam being then the owner of a
actually several homicides committed by the perpetrators. Had the residential house located at Rio Hondo,4 this City, conspiring and
trial court read further, it would have seen that the Supreme Court in confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x x x his co-
fact recognized the "deeply rooted . . . doctrine that when various accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini, did
victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said house
distinct crimes." 32 Clarifying the applicability of Art. 48 of the Revised as a den, where regulated drug [was] used in any form."5
Penal Code, the Supreme Court further stated in Pineda that "to apply
the first half of Article 48, . . . there must be singularity of criminal act; The second Information6 charged appellant with illegal possession of
singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law." 33 firearms and ammunition. We quote it below:
(emphasis supplied) The firing of several bullets by Tabaco, although
resulting from one continuous burst of gunfire, constitutes several "That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,
acts. Each person, felled by different shots, is a victim of a separate Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
crime of murder. There is no showing that only a single missile above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together,
passed through the bodies of all four victims. The killing of each victim mutually aiding and assisting with one another, without any justifiable
is thus separate and distinct from the other. In People vs. Pardo 34 reason or purpose other than to use it in the commission of crime, did
we held that: then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their
possession and under their custody and control, the following
Where the death of two persons does not result from a single act but weapons, to wit: one (1) M14 rifle with SN 1555225 with magazines
from two different shots, two separate murders, and not a complex and seven (7) rounds of live ammunition; two (2) magazines with
crime, are committed. twenty (20) and twenty[-one] (21) rounds of live [ammunition]; one (1)
homemade caliber .38 revolver with five (5) live ammunition; one (1)
M-79 (single) rifle with pouch and with five (5) empty shell[s]; one (1)
home made caliber .38 with SN-311092 with five live ammunition and
one empty shell of [a] cal. 38 x x x Smith and Wesson; two (2) .38
Caliber paltik revolver with Serial Number 311092 and one defaced
M79 grenade launcher paltik, without first having obtained the
necessary license and or permit therefor from authorities concerned,
in flagrant violation of the aforementioned law."7
The third Information,8 for multiple attempted murder with direct
assault, was worded thus:
"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused being then armed with M-14 Armalite Rifles,
M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives,
conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x
x x one another and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously try and attempt to kill SPO1 WILLIAM B.
JONES, JR., PO3 ENRIQUE C. RIVERA[,] SPO1 AMADO A.
MIRASOL, JR., and SPO1 RICARDO J. LACASTESANTOS, in the
following manner, to wit: by then and there firing their M-14 x x x
Armalite Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and
explosives, aimed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the
above-named police officers, well known to the accused as members
of the Philippine National Police, Zamboanga City Police Office, and
as such, agents of a person in authority, who at the time of the attack
were engaged in the performance of their duties, that is, on the
occasion when said officers were about to serve the Search Warrant
legally issued by the Regional Trial Court, this City, to the person of
the accused thus commencing the commission of crime of multiple
murder directly by overt acts, and if the accused did not accomplish
their unlawful purpose, that is, to kill the above-named Police Officers,
it was not by reason of their own voluntary desistance but rather
because of the fact that all the above-named police officers were able
to seek cover during the firing and were not hit by the bullets and
explosives fired by the accused and also by the fact said police
officers were able to wrestle with two (2) of the accused namely:
Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ and Ahmad Sailabbi y
Hajairani, who were subdued and subsequently placed under arrest;
whereas accused PO2 Nurhakim T. Hadjula was able to make good
his escape and has remained at-large."9
In the fourth Information, appellant was charged with illegal
possession of drugs.10
On December 21, 1997, the cases against Nur-in Ladjaalam and
Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini were dismissed upon motion of the Office
of the City Prosecutor, which had conducted a reinvestigation of the
cases as ordered by the lower court. The accused were consequently
released from jail.
The arraignment of appellant on all four (4) charges took place on
January 6, 1998, during which he entered a plea of not guilty.11 After
pretrial, the assailed Decision was rendered, the dispositive part of
which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused WALPAN LADJAALAM y
MIHAJIL a.k.a. ‘WARPAN’ -
"1. in Criminal Case No. 14636, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of Violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No.
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended, and SENTENCES said accused to the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (₱500,000.00) and to pay the costs;
"2. In Criminal Case No. 14637, NOT GUILTY of Violation of Section
16, Article III, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, of Republic Act No.
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended, and ACQUITS him of said crime with costs de oficio;
"3. in Criminal Case No. 14638, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition
penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by
Republic Act. No. 8294, and SENTENCES said accused to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as
minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum and to
pay a fine [of] THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) and pay the costs;
"4. in Criminal Case No. 14639, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted
Homicide and SENTENCES said accused to an indeterminate penalty
of TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision correccional
as minimum to SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as maximum
and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) and to pay the
costs." (emphasis in the original)
Hence, this appeal.12
The Facts
Prosecution’s Version
In its Brief,13 the Office of the Solicitor General presents the facts in
this wise:
"At 1:45 p.m. of September 24, 1997, PO3 Allan Marcos Obut filed an
application for the issuance of a search warrant against appellant, his
wife and some John Does (Exh. C). After the search warrant was
issued about 2:30 p.m. of the same day, a briefing was conducted
inside the office of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of the Zamboanga City
Police Office in connection with the service of the search warrant. The
briefing was conducted by SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Chief of the Anti-
Vice/Narcotics Unit. During the briefing, PO3 Renato Dela Peña was
assigned as presentor of the warrant. SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos
and PO3 Enrique Rivera were designated to conduct the search.
Other policemen were assigned as perimeter guards (TSN, March 3,
1998, pp. 33-36).
"After the briefing, more than thirty (30) policemen headed by Police
Superintendent Edwin Soledad proceeded to the house of appellant
and his wife at Rio Hondo on board several police vehicles (TSN,
March 4, 1998, p. 32; April 22, 1998, p. 54). Before they could reach
appellant’s house, three (3) persons sitting at a nearby store ran
towards the house shouting, ‘[P]olice, raid, raid’ (Ibid., March 3, 1998,
pp. 41, 43-44; April 23, 1998, p. 4). When the policemen were about
ten (10) meters from the main gate of the house, they were met by a
rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor of the house.
There was also gunfire at the back of the house (Ibid., March 5, 1998,
pp. 14-16).
"SPO1 Mirasol, SPO2 Lacastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and PO3 Dela
Peña who were with the first group of policemen saw appellant fire an
M14 rifle towards them. They all knew appellant. When they were
fired upon, the group, together with SPO2 Gaganting, PO3 Obut and
Superintendent Soledad, sought cover at the concrete fence to
observe the movements at the second floor of the house while other
policemen surrounded the house (Ibid., March 4, 1998, pp. 50-51).
"In front of the house was an extension building connected to the
concrete fence (Ibid., pp. 45-46, 57-59, 73-76). Gaganting, Mirasol,
Lacastesantos, Gregorio, and Obut entered the door of the extension
building. Gaganting opened the main (steel) gate of the house. The
other members of the team then entered. Lacastesantos and Mirasol
entered the house through the main door and went inside the sala of
the ground floor while other policemen surrounded the house. Two (2)
old women were in the sala together with a young girl and three (3)
children. One of the old women took the children to the second floor
while the young girl remained seated at the corner (Ibid., pp. 19-21).
 "After the search and before returning to the police station, P03 Dela
"Lacastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second floor where they Peña prepared a ‘Receipt for Property Seized’ (Exh. P & 3) listing the
earlier saw appellant firing an M14 rifle at them through the window. properties seized during the search. The receipt was signed by Dela
While they were going upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. He Peña as the seizure officer, and by Punong Barangay Hadji Hussin
went inside the bedroom and, after breaking and removing the Elhano and radio reporter Jun Cayona as witnesses. A copy of the
jalousies, jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house. receipt was given to appellant but he refused to acknowledge the
Seeing this, Mirasol rushed downstairs and asked help from the other properties seized (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 11-12).
members of the raiding team to arrest appellant. Lacastesantos went
to the second floor and shouted to the policemen outside not to fire in "An examination conducted by Police Inspector Mercedes D. Diestro,
the direction of the second floor because there were children. Mirasol Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on
and SPO1 Cesar Rabuya arrested appellant at the back of his house the paraffin casts taken from both hands of appellant yielded positive
after a brief chase (Ibid., pp. 21-23). for gunpowder nitrates (Exh. A-3), giving rise to the possibility that
appellant had fired a gun before the examination (TSN, March 3,
"At the second floor, Lacastesantos saw an M14 rifle (Exh. B-3) with 1998, p. 11). Gunpowder residue examinations conducted on
magazine on top of the sofa at the sala on the second floor (Ibid., P. September 26, 1997 showed that the following firearms ‘were fired’
27). The rifle bore Serial No. 1555225. He removed the magazine (Exh. B-5): a .38 caliber revolver (homemade) with Serial No. 311092
from the rifle and the bullet inside the chamber of the rifle. He counted (Exh. B-1), another .38 caliber revolver (homemade) without a serial
seventeen (17) live ammunition inside the magazine. He saw two (2) number (Exh. B-2), a Cal. 7.62 mm M14 U.S. rifle with Serial No.
more M14 rifle magazines on the sofa, one with twenty (20) live 1555225 (Exh. B-3), and an M79 rifle without a serial number (Exh. B-
ammunition (Exh. G-3) and another with twenty-one (21) live 4). They were fired within five (5) days prior to the examination (TSN,
ammunition (Exh. G-4). He likewise saw three (3) M16 rifle magazines March 3, 1998, pp. 16-21).
(Exh. G-2) in a corner at the second floor (TSN, March 5, 1998, pp.
23-32, 53-57). "With respect to the crystalline substances, an examination conducted
by Police Inspector Susan M. Cayabyab, likewise a Forensic Chemist
"After Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered appellant’s house, Rivera, of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on the fifty (50) pieces
Dela Peña, Gregorio and Obut followed and entered the house. After of folded aluminum foils each containing white crystalline granules
identifying themselves as members of the PNP Anti-Vice/Narcotics with a total weight of 1.7426 grams (Exh. J-1 to J-50) yielded positive
Unit, Obut presented to the old women a copy of the search warrant. results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
Dela Peña and Rivera then searched appellant’s room on the ground (Exh. L). However, the examination of one (1) crystalline stone
floor in the presence of Punong Barangay Elhano (TSN, March 3, weighing 83.2674 grams (Exh. K) yielded negative results for the
1998, pp. 41-43). On top of a table was a pencil case (Exh. J) with presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exh. L).
fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside (Exhs. J-1 to J-50), each
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘shabu’. "The records of the Regional Operation and Plans Division of the PNP
Firearm and Explosive Section show that appellant ‘had not
"Other items were found during the search, namely, assorted coins in applied/filed any application for license to possess firearm and
different denominations (Exh. W; TSN, April 28, 1998, pp. 23-25), one ammunition or x x x been given authority to carry [a] firearm outside of
(1) homemade .38 caliber revolver (Exh. B-2) with five (5) live his residence’ (Exh. X)"14
[ammunition], one (1) M79 single rifle with [a] pouch containing five
(5) empty shells of an M79 rifle (Exh. B-4), and one (1) empty shell of Defense’s Version
an M14 rifle (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 30-32).
Appellant Ladjaalam agrees with the narration of facts given by the
"Rino Bartolome Locson was an informer of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics lower court.15 Hence, we quote the pertinent parts of the assailed
Unit of the Zamboanga Police. [O]n the morning of September 24, Decision:
1997, he was instructed by SPO2 Gaganting to go to appellant’s
house to buy ‘shabu.’ Locson knew appellant as a seller of ‘shabu’ "Accused Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’, 30 years old,
(TSN, April 22, 1998, p. 5) and had been to appellant’s house about married, gave his occupation as ‘smuggling’ (tsn, p. 2, May 4, 1998).
fifteen (15) times before. He went to Rio Hondo and arrived at He used to go to Labuan in Malaysia and bring cigarettes to the
appellant’s house at 3:20 p.m. He bought P300.00 worth of ‘shabu’ Philippines without paying taxes (tsn, pp. 40-41, id). He said that his
from appellant. The latter got three (3) decks of shabu from his waist true name [was] Abdul Nasser Abdurakman and that Warpan or
bag. Appellant instructed Locson to go behind the curtain where there Walpan Ladjaalam [was] only his ‘alias’. However, he admitted that
was a table. There were six (6) persons already smoking. There was more people kn[e]w him as Walpan Ladjaalam rather than Abdul
a lighted kerosene lamp made of a medicine bottle placed on the Nasser Abdurakman (tsn. pp. 39-40; 46-47, id). He testified that [o]n
table. They asked Locson to smoke ‘shabu’ and Locson obliged. He the afternoon of September 24, 1997, when he was arrested by the
placed the three (3) decks of ‘shabu’ he bought on the table (Ibid., pp. police, he was sleeping in the house of Dandao, a relative of his wife.
8-15). He was alone. He slept in Dandao’s house and not in his house
because they ha[d] ‘a sort of a conference’ as Dandao’s daughter was
"While they were smoking ‘shabu,’ Locson heard gunfire coming from leaving for Saudi Arabia. He noticed the presence of policemen in his
appellant’s house. They all stood and entered appellant’s compound neighborhood at Aplaya, Rio Hondo when he heard shots. He woke
but were instructed to pass [through] the other side. They met up and went out of the house and that was the time that he was
appellant at the back of his house. Appellant told them to escape arrested. He said he was arrested ‘xxx [at] the other side of my house;
‘because the police are already here.’ They scampered and ‘ran away at the other side of the fence where I was sleeping. xxx. At the back of
because there were already shots.’ Locson jumped over the fence my house’ (tsn, p. 7, id.). He does not know who arrested him
and ran towards the seashore. Upon reaching a place near the ‘considering that the one who arrested me does not have nameplate.’
Fisheries School, he took a tricycle and went home (Ibid., pp. 17-19). He was arrested by four (4) persons. Not one of those who arrested
him testified in Court. He was handcuffed and placed inside a jeep
"The following day, September 25, 1997, he went to the police station parked at Rio Hondo Elementary School. According to him, he did not
and executed an affidavit (Exh. M) narrating what transpired at fire a gun at the policemen from [t]he second floor of his house. He
appellant’s house [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997. said the ‘policemen’ [were] ‘the one[s] who fire[d] at us’ (tsn, p. 5, id.).
If he fired a gun at the policemen for sure they [would] die ‘[b]ecause
the door is very near x x x the vicinity of my house’. He does not own
the M14 rifle (Exh. ‘B-3’) which according to policemen, he used in
firing at them. The gun does not belong to him. He does not have a
gun like that (tsn, p. 15, id.). A policeman also owns an M14 rifle but
he does not know the policeman (tsn, pp. 16-17, id). He said that the
M79 rifle (Exh. ‘B-4’), the three (3) empty M16 rifle magazines (Exh.
‘G’; ‘G-1’ to ‘G-2’), the two (2) M14 magazines with live ammunition
(Exh. ‘G-3’; ‘G-4’); the two (2) caliber .38 revolvers (Exhs. ‘B-1’; ‘B-2’),
the fifty (50) aluminum foils each containing shabu (Exhs. ‘J-1’ to ‘J-
50’) placed inside a pencil case (Exh. ‘J’, the assorted coins placed
inside a blue bag (Exh. ‘W’) and the white crystalline stone (Exh. ‘K’)
all do not belong to him. He said that the policemen just produced
those things as their evidence. The firearms do not belong to him.
They were brought by the policemen (tsn, p. 43, May 4, 1998).
Regarding the blue bag containing assorted coins, he said: ‘that is not
ours, I think this (is) theirs, xxx they just brought that as their
evidence’ (tsn, pp. 15-24, id.)
"Walpan Ladjaalam declared there were occupants who were renting
his extension house. He affirmed that he owns that house. Four (4)
persons were staying in the extension house. He could only recognize
the husband whose name is Momoy. They are from Jolo. They left the
place already because they were afraid when the police raided the
place. (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 4, 1998). He does not know prosecution
witness Rino Locson y Bartolome. Although Locson recognized him,
in his case he does not know Locson and he does not recognize him
(tsn, p.11, id). He did not sell anything to Locson and did not entertain
him. He is not selling shabu but he knows ‘for a fact that there are
plenty of person who are engaged in selling shabu in that place’, in
that area known as Aplaya, Rio Hondo. One of them is Hadji Agbi
(tsn, pp.11-14, id).
"After his arrest Walpan Ladjaalam was brought to the police station
where he stayed for one day and one night before he was transferred
to the City jail. While at the police station, he was not able to take a
bath. He smokes two packs of cigarette a day. While he was at the
police station, he smoked [a] cigarette given to him by his younger
sister. He lighted the cigarettes with [a] match. From the police
station, he was brought to the PNP Regional Office at R.T. Lim
Boulevard where he was subject to paraffin examination (tsn, pp. 24-
26, May 4, 1998).
"During the raid conducted on his house, his cousin Boy Ladjaalam,
Ating Sapadi, and Jecar (Sikkal) Usman, the younger brother of his
wife were killed. Walpan Ladjaalam said that he saw that ‘it was the
policeman who shot them[,] only I do not know his name." They were
killed at the back of his house. He said that no charges were filed
against the one responsible for their death (tsn, pp. 30-33- May 4,
1998).
"Anilhawa Ahamad, more or less 80 years old, a widow was in the
house of Walpan Ladjaalam whom he calls ‘Hadji Id’ at the time the
police raided the house. She is the mother of Ahma Sailabbi. She was
together with Babo Dandan, two small children and a helper when
‘soldiers’ entered the house. ‘(W)hen they arrived, they kept on firing
(their guns) even inside the house’ (tsn, p.5, May 5, 1998). They were
armed with short and long firearms. They searched the house and
scattered things and got what they wanted. They entered the room of
Walpan Ladjaalam. They tried to open a bag containing jewelry.
When Anilhawa tried to bring the bag outside the room, they grabbed
the bag from her and poked a gun at her. At that time Walpan
Ladjaalam was not in the house. Ahamad Sailabbi was also not in the
house. A Search Warrant was shown to Anilhawa after the search
was conducted and just before the policemen left the place. Anilhawa
Ahamad said that ‘it was already late in the afternoon[;] before they
left that was the time the Search Warrant (was) given to us by xxx
Barangay Captain Hussin Elhano’ (tsn, pp.6-8, May 5, 1998).
Barangay Chairman Elhano arrived ‘already late in the afternoon,
almost sundown’ (tsn, p. 9, id). Anilhaw declared that aside from a
bag containing jewelry and a bag full of money, she had not seen
anything else that was taken from Walpan Ladjaalam’s house (tsn,
pp. 9-12, id).
"Akmad (Ahmad) Sailabbi, 37 years old, married testified that about
4:00 o’clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, ha was
standing in front of his house when policemen arrived and
immediately arrested him. He was about to go to the City Proper to
buy articles he was intending to bring to Sabah. He had ‘around
P50,000.00’ placed inside a waist bag tied around his waist. The
policemen told him to lie down in prone position and a policeman
searched his back. They pulled his waist bag and took his DiaStar
wrist watch. He was shot three times and was hit on the forehead
leaving a scar. His injury was not treated. He was taken to the police
station where he was detained for one day and one night. He was
detained at the City Jail for three months and five days after which he
was released (tsn, pp. 25-29, May 5, 1998).
"Melba Usma, 20 years old, a widow, testified that [o]n the afternoon
of September 24, 1997, she was in the house of her parents lying
together with her husband Sikkal Usma. There is only one house
between her parents’ house and the house of Walpan Ladjaalam. Her
husband Sikkal Usman is the brother of Nur-in Ladjaalam, Walpan’s
wife. When Melba heard shots, she went downstairs. A policeman
was looking for her husband. The policeman called her husband.
When her husband went down, he was instructed by the policeman to
lie down in prone position. Then the policeman shot her husband. The
policeman had two other companions who also shot her husband
while he was lying down in prone position (tsn, pp.2-7, May 5, 1998).
"Murkisa Usman, 30 years old, married, declared that [o]n the
afternoon of September 24, 1997, she was sitting at the door of her
house watching her children playing when a motorcyle, driven by a
person, stopped near her house. The driver was Gaganting whom she
called a soldier. He went down from his motorcycle, pulled a gun and
poked it at Murkisa. Murkisa stood up and raised her hands. She got
her children and when she was about to enter the room of her house,
Gaganting again poked a gun at her and ‘there was a shot.’ As a
result of firing, three persons died, namely, Sikkal Usman, Boy
Ladjaalam and Atip Sapali Sali (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 5, 1998).
"Barangay Captain Hadji Hussin Elhano, 51 years old, testified that
about 4:00 o ‘clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, he was
fetched by two policemen at Catabangan where he was attending a
seminar. Because of traffic along the way, they arrived at the Rio
Hondo already late in the afternoon. He saw policemen were already
inside the house. Upon entering the gate, he saw Walpan at the gate
already handcuffed. Walpan called him but the police advised him not
to approach Walpan. The search was already over and things were
already taken inside the house. When he went inside the house, he
saw ‘the things that they (policemen) searched, the firearms and the
shabu‘ (tsn, p. 17. May 8, 1998). He did not see the Search Warrant.
What was shown to him were the things recovered during the search
which were being listed. They were being counted and placed on a
table. ‘Upon seeing the things that were recovered during the search,
I just signed the receipt (Exh. "P"; "P-1") of the things x x x taken
during the search" (tsn, pp. 17-18. May 8, 1998). He saw three dead
bodies at the side of the fence when he went to the other side of the
house. The three persons were killed outside the fence of Walpan
Ladjaalam (tsn, p. 18, id)."16
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court observed that the house of appellant was raided on
September 24, 1997 by virtue of Search Warrant No. 20 issued on the
same day. However, the lower court nullified the said Warrant
because it had been issued for more than one specific offense,17 in
violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.18 The court a
quo ruled:
 "The testimony of Rino Bartolome Locson, corroborated by SPO1
"It should be stated at the outset that Search Warrant No. 20 is totally Ricardo Lacastesantos and SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. clearly
‘null and void’ because it was issued for more than one specific established that Walpan Ladjaalam operated and maintained a drug
offense x x x contrary to Section 3, Rule 1[2]6 of the Rules of Court den in his extension house where shabu or methamphetamine
which provides that ‘A search warrant shall not issue but upon hydrochloride, a regulated drug, was sold, and where persons or
probable cause in connection with one specific offense xxx’. In customers bought and used shabu or methamphetamine
Tambasan vs. People, 246 SCRA 184 (1995), the Supreme Court hydrochloride by burning the said regulated drug and sniffing its
ruled that a search warrant for more than one offense - a ‘scatter shot smoke with the use of an aluminum foil tooter. A drug den is a lair or
warrant’ - violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the [R]evised Rules of Court hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or
and is ‘totally null and void.’"19 (emphasis in the original) are found. Its existence [may be] proved not only by direct evidence
but may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances,
Nevertheless, the trial court deemed appellant’s arrest as valid. It including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its
emphasized that he had shot at the officers who were trying to serve general reputation among police officers. The uncorroborated
the void search warrant. This fact was established by the testimonies testimony of accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. Warpan’ that he did
of several police officers,20 who were participants in the raid, and not maintain an extension house or a room where drug users who
confirmed by the laboratory report on the paraffin tests conducted on allegedly buy shabu from him inhales or smokes shabu cannot prevail
the firearms and appellant.21 Additionally, the judge noted that over the testimonies of Locson, SPO1 Lacastesantos, and SPO1
Appellant Ladjaalam, based on his statements in his Counter Affidavit, Mirasol. He admitted that he is the owner of the extension house but
impliedly contradicted his assertions in open court that there had been he alleged that there were four (4) occupants who rented that
no exchange of gunfire during the raid.22 The trial court concluded extension house. He knew the name of only one of the four occupants
that the testimonies of these officers must prevail over appellant’s who are allegedly from Jolo, a certain Momoy, the husband. Aside
narration that he was not in his house when the raid was conducted. from being uncorroborated, Walpan’s testimony was not elaborated
by evidence as to when or for how long was the extension house
Prescinding from this point, the court a quo validated the arrest of rented, the amount of rental paid, or by any other document showing
appellant, reasoning thus: that the extension house was in fact rented. The defense of denial put
up by accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. 'Warpan’ is a weak defense.
"Under the circumstances, the policemen ‘had authority to pursue and Denial is the weakest defense and cannot prevail over the positive
arrest Walpan Ladjaalam and confiscate the firearm he used in and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denials, if
shooting at the policemen and to enter his house to effect said arrest unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and
and confiscation of the firearm.’ Under Rule 113, Section 5 (a), of the self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be
Rules of Court, ‘A peace officer or a private person may, without a given evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who
warrant, arrest a person xxx (w)hen in his presence, the person to be testify on affirmative matters. As between the positive declaration of
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the
commit an offense.’ An offense is committed in the presence or within accused, the former deserve more credence."29
the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an
arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although In conclusion, the trial court explained appellant’s liability in this
at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and manner:
proceeds at once to the scene thereof. At the time the policemen
entered the house of accused Walpan Ladjaalam after he had fired "x x x. The act of the accused in firing an M14 rifle to the policemen
shots at the policemen who intended to serve the Search Warrant to who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant
him, the accused was engaged in the commission of a crime, and was constitutes the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted
pursued and arrested after he committed the crime of shooting at the homicide[,] not multiple attempted murder with direct assault[,]
policemen who were about to serve the Search Warrant."23 considering that no policeman was hit and injured by the accused and
no circumstance was proved to qualify the attempted killing to
As a consequence of the legal arrest, the seizure of the following was attempted murder.
also deemed valid: the M14 rifle (with a magazine containing
seventeen live ammunition)24 used by appellant against the police "The accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ cannot be held
elements, two M14 magazines, and three other M16 rifle liable [for] the crime of Violation of Section 16, Article III, in relation to
magazines.25 The trial court observed that these items were in "plain Section 21, Article IV, of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as the
view" of the pursuing police officers. Moreover, it added that these Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992, as amended, because the fifty (50)
same items were "evidence [of] the commission of a crime and/or pieces of folded aluminum foils having a total weight of 1.7426 grams
contraband and therefore, subject to seizure"26 since appellant "had all containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu allegedly
not applied for a license to possess firearm and had not been given found in his house are inadmissible as evidence against him
authority to carry firearm outside his residence."27 considering that they were seized after [a] search conducted by virtue
of Search Warrant No. 20 which is totally null and void as it was
For being incredible and unsupported by evidence, appellant’s claim issued for more than one offense, and were not found in ‘plain view’ of
that the items that were seized by the police officers had been planted the police officers who seized them. Neither could the accused be
was disbelieved by the trial court. It ruled that if the police officers held liable for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition except
wanted to plant evidence to incriminate him, they could have done so for the (1) M14 rifle with Serial Number 1555225 and with magazine
during the previous raids or those conducted after his arrest. To its containing fifteen (15) live ammunition and two more M14 rifle
mind, it was unbelievable that they would choose to plant evidence, magazines with twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) live ammunition
when they were accompanied by the barangay chairman and a radio respectively considering that the policemen who recovered or seized
reporter who might testify against them. It then dismissed these the other firearms and ammunition did not testify in court. The blue
allegations, saying that frame-up, like alibi, was an inherently weak bag containing assorted coins cannot be returned to the accused
defense.28 Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ because according to the accused
the blue bag and assorted coins do not belong to him[;] instead the
The trial court also convicted the accused of the crime of maintaining said assorted coins should be turned over to the National
a drug den. It reasoned as follows: Treasury."30
The Issues A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
In his Brief, appellant submits the following Assignment of Errors: Q: How far were you from the concrete fen[c]e when you were met by
a volley of fire? ... You said you were fired upon?
I A: More or less, five (5) meters.
xxx xxx xxx
"The trial court erred when it concluded that appellant Walpan PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Ladjaalam y Mihajil [had] fired first at the police officers who went to Q: Now, you said you were able to enter the house after the gate was
his house to serve a search warrant upon him which led to an opened by your colleague Felipe Gaganting ... I will reform that
exchange of fire between Ladjaalam and the police officer. question.
Q: Who opened the gate Mr. Witness?
II A: SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Efren Gregorio and Allan Marcos Obut.
Q: And, at that time you were hiding at the concrete fence?
"The trial court erred when it denied the appellant the right and A: Yes.
opportunity for an ocular inspection of the scene of the firefight and Q: Now, when this gate was opened, you said you went inside the
where the house of the appellant [was] located. house, right?
A: Yes.
III Q: What did you see inside the house?
A: I, together with SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos, entered the main
"The trial court erred when it ruled that the presumption of regularity in door of the house of Walfran [sic] Ladjaalam at the ground floor. We
the performance of their duties [excluded] the claim of the appellant went inside the sala on the ground floor of his house[;] I saw two old
that the firearms and methamphetamine hydrochloride (i.e. shabu) woman.
were planted by the police."31 xxx xxx xxx
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
In the interest of simplicity, we shall take up these issues seriatim: (a) Q: Now, what did you do with these two old women?
denial of the request for ocular inspection, (b) credibility of the A: I did not mind those two old women because those two women
prosecution witnesses, and (c) the defense of frame-up. In addition, were sitting on the ground floor. I was concentrating on the second
we shall also discuss the proper crimes and penalties to be imposed floor because Ladjaalam was firing towards our group so, I, together
on appellant. with Ricardo Lacastesantos, went upstairs to the second floor of the
house.
The Court’s Ruling Q: Were you able to go to the second floor of the house?
A: Yes.
The appeal has no merit. Q: What happened when you were already on the second floor?
A: While we were proceeding to the second floor, Walfan [sic]
First Issue: Denial of Request for Ocular Inspection Ladjaalam, noticed our presence and immediately went inside the
bedroom [o]n the second floor and he went immediately and jumped
Appellant insists that the trial court erred in denying his request for an from the window of his house x x x leading to the roof of the
ocular inspection of the Ladjaalam residence. He argues that an neighbor’s house.
ocular inspection would have afforded the lower court "a better xxx xxx xxx
perspective and an idea with respect to the scene of the crime."32 We COURT:
do not agree. Reform. That is leading
Q: What happened when you entered and he jumped to the roofing of
We fail to see the need for an ocular inspection in this case, the neighbor’s house?
especially in the light of the clear testimonies of the prosecution A: Immediately, I myself, we immediately went downstairs and asked
witnesses.33 We note in particular that the defense had even the assistance of the members of the raiding team to arrest Walfan
requested SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr. to sketch the subject premises to Ladjaalam.
give the lower court a fairly good idea of appellant’s house.34 Viewing xxx xxx xxx
the site of the raid would have only delayed the proceedings.35 PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Moreover, the question whether to view the setting of a relevant event Q: Were you able to go down?
has long been recognized to be within the discretion of the trial A: Yes.
judge.36 Here, there is no reason to disturb the exercise of that Q: What happened when you were there?
discretion.37 A: We immediately went out and I asked the assistance of the
members of the raiding team and the investigator of the unit
Second Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses especially SPO1 Cesar Rabuya. I was able to manage to arrest
Walfan Ladjaalam."42
Appellant, in essence, questions the credibility of the prosecution What happened thereafter was narrated by Senior Police Officer
witnesses.38 Suffice it to state that the trial court’s assessment of Ricardo Lacastesantos,43 as follows:
their credibility is generally accorded respect, even finality.39 After "Q: What did you notice [o]n the second floor?
carefully examining the records and finding no material A: I went where the firing came from, so, I saw [an] M14 rifle and I
inconsistencies to support appellant’s claim, we cannot exempt this shouted from the outside, ‘do not fire at the second floor because
case from the general rule.40 Quite the contrary, the testimonies of there [are] a lot of children here.’
these witnesses positively showed that appellant had fired upon the Q: Now, that rifle you said [was an] M14, where did you find this?
approaching police elements, and that he had subsequently A: At the sala set.
attempted to escape. SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr.41 testified thus: Q: This sala set where is this located?
A: Located [on] the second floor of the house.
"PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Q: Is there a sala [o]n the second floor?
Q: And, this trail is towards the front of the house of the accused? A: Yes.
A: Yes. Q: Can you still identify that M14 rifle which you said you recovered
Q: And it’s there where you were met by a volley of fire? from the sale set?
A: Yes. A: Because of the traces of brown residue, it could be possible that
Q: Why can you identify that? the gun was fired before the incident x x x.
A: The Serial No. of M14 is 1555225 and I marked it with my initial. COURT:
Q: Now, I have here M14 rifle[;] will you please tell us where is the Q: There is also black residue?
Serial No. of this? A: Yes.
A: 1555225 and I put my initial, RJL. Q: What does it indicate?
A: It indicates that the firearm was recently fired.
FISCAL NUVAL: Q: And, where is this swab used at the time of the swabbing of this
This is already marked as our Exhibit ‘B-3’ with magazine, one Exhibit?
magazine and seven round [ammunition]. A: This one.
Q: After recovering this, what did you do with this firearm? PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
A: When I recovered it I removed the bullets inside the chamber[.] I May we ask that this be marked as Exhibit ‘B-3-A’.
removed the magazine and I turned it over to the investigator. COURT:
Q: Where did you turn it over? Q: The firing there indicates that the gun was recently fired, during the
A: At the crime scene. incident?
Q: Now, that magazine, can you still identify this? A: Yes.
A: Yes. Q: And also before the incident it was fired because of the brown
Q: Why? residue?
A: I put x x x markings. A: Yes, Your Honor."45 (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx Duly proven from the foregoing were the two elements46 of the crime
COURT: of illegal possession of firearms. Undoubtedly, the established fact
So, a[si]de from the magazine attached to the M14 rifle you found six that appellant had fired an M-14 rifle upon the approaching police
more magazines? officers clearly showed the existence of the firearm or weapon and his
A: Yes, so, all in all six magazines, three empty M16 rifle magazines possession thereof. Sufficing to satisfy the second element was the
and three M14. prosecution’s Certification47 stating that he had not filed any
Q: The M16 magazines [were] empty? application for license to possess a firearm, and that he had not been
A: Empty. given authority to carry any outside his residence.48 Further, it should
Q: How about the M14? be pointed out that his possession and use of an M-14 rifle were
A: Found with [ammunition]. obviously unauthorized because this weapon could not be licensed in
xxx xxx xxx favor of, or carried by, a private individual.49
Q: So, where are the three M16 magazines?
A: In the corner. Third Issue: Defense of Frame-up
Q: What did you do with [these] three magazines of M16?
A: I turned [them] over to the investigator. From the convoluted arguments strewn before us by appellant, we
Q: Can you identify them? gather that the main defense he raises is frame-up. He claims that the
A: Yes, because of my initials[.] items seized from his house were "planted," and that the entire
Q: Where are your initials? Zamboanga police force was out to get him at all cost.
A: On the magazines.
Q: RJL? This Court has invariably held that the defense of frame-up is
A: RJL."44 inherently weak, since it is easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to
These were confirmed by the results of the paraffin tests conducted disprove.50 Absent any showing of an improper motive on the part of
on appellant and on the weapons seized during the raid. Both of his the police officers,51 coupled with the presumption of regularity in the
hands as well as the weapons, particularly the M-14 which he had performance of their duty, such defense cannot be given much
used, were positive for gunpowder nitrate. Police Inspector Mercedes credence.52 Indeed, after examining the records of this case, we
Delfin-Diestro explained in open court: conclude that appellant has failed to substantiate his claim. On the
"Q: Okay. Now, what was the result of your examination, Madam contrary, his statements in his Counter Affidavit are inconsistent with
Witness? his testimony during the trial.53 He testified thus:
A: The result of the examination [was] that both hands of the subject"Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you remember having executed an Affidavit/
person, ha[d] presence of gun powder nitrates. a Counter-Affidavit?
Q: What do you mean Madam Witness, what does that indicate? A I could not remember.
A: It indicates there is presence of powder nitrates. Q I have here a Counter-Affidavit and it was signed before this
Q: Can we conclude that he fired a gun? representation on the 8th day of December 1997[;] tell us whose
A: I cannot conclude that he fired a gun because there are so many signature is this appearing above the typewritten name
circumstances [why] a person [would be] positive on his hands for gunFISCAL NUVAL:
powder nitrates. Q . . . . Walpan Ladjaalam, whose signature is this?
Q: But, most likely, he fired a gun? (Showing)
A: Yes. A Yes, Sir. This is mine.
xxx xxx xxx Q Now, in paragraph[s] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8; you stated in this
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Counter-Affidavit which I quote: ‘that I was resting and sleeping when
I heard the gunshots and I noticed that the shots were directed
Q: What about, Madam Witness this Exhibit ‘B-3’, which is the M14 towards our house.. and I inspected and x x x we were attacked by
rifle. What did you do with this? armed persons.. and I was apprehended by the persons who attacked
A: SPO3 Abu did the swabbing both in the chamber and the barrel x x x our house’; [the] house you are referring to [in] this paragraph,
wherein I observed there [were] black and traces of brown residue on whose house [are you] referring to, is this [what] you are referring to
the bolt, chamber and in the barrel. [as] your house or the house of your neighbors [from] which you said
Q: And, that indicates Madam Witness...? you heard gunshots?
A: It indicates that the gun was fired. A Our house.
Q: Recently? Q Now, in paragraph 6 of your Counter-Affidavit you stated and I
quote: ‘that [o]n that afternoon of September 24, 1997, I was at home
in my house Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim, my companions any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
in my house [were] the two old women and my children, is this dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire
correct? handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
A They were not there. firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or
Q Now, in that statement Mr. Witness, you said that you were at home intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition:
in [your] house at Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim[;] which is Provided, That no other crime was committed.
which now, you were in your house or you were in your neighbors[‘]
house at that time when you heard gunshots? "The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of
A I was in the house near my house. Thirty thousand pesos (₱30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is
Q So, your statement particularly paragraph 6 of your Counter- classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores
Affidavit that you were at home in [your] house at Aplaya Riohondo bigger in diameter than .30 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .
Bo. Campo Muslim, is x x x not correct? 40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered
A Yes, Sir. This is not correct."54 powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 centerfire magnum and
Crime and Punishment other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of
The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes: (1) maintenance of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed
a drug den, (2) direct assault with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal by the person arrested.
possession of firearms. We will discuss each of these.
Maintenance of a Drug Den "If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
We agree with the trial court that appellant was guilty of maintenance firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
of a drug den, an offense for which he was correctly sentenced to aggravating circumstance.
reclusion perpetua. His guilt was clearly established by the testimony
of Prosecution Witness Rino Bartolome Locson, who himself had "If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in
used the extension house of appellant as a drug den on several connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
occasions, including the time of the raid. The former’s testimony was attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element
corroborated by all the raiding police officers who testified before the of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
court. That appellant did not deny ownership of the house and its d’etat.
extension lent credence to the prosecution’s story.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private
firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
The trial court was also correct in convicting appellant of direct allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation
assault55 with multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found that or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating
"[t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,] the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly
who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x" allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any
constituted such complex crime.56 legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of
their employment.
We note that direct assault with the use of a weapon carries the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, "The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
while attempted homicide carries the penalty of prision shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal
correccional.57 Hence, for the present complex crime, the penalty for authority therefor."
direct assault, which constitutes the "most serious crime," should be
imposed and applied in its maximum period.58 Citing People v. Jayson,59 the OSG argues that the foregoing
provision does not cover the specific facts of this case. Since another
Illegal Possession of Firearms crime -- direct assault with multiple unlawful homicide -- was
committed, appellant cannot be convicted of simple illegal possession
Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct assault with multiple of firearms under the second paragraph of the aforecited provision.
attempted homicide, the trial court convicted him also of the separate Furthermore, since there was no killing in this case, illegal possession
offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as amended cannot be deemed as an aggravating circumstance under the third
by RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to 8 paragraph of the provision. Based on these premises, the OSG
years of prision mayor. concludes that the applicable law is not RA 8294, but PD 1866 which,
as worded prior the new law, penalizes simple illegal possession of
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disagrees, on the ground firearms even if another crime is committed at the same time.60
that the trial court should not have applied the new law. It contends
that under the facts of the case, the applicable law should have been Applying a different interpretation, the trial court posits that appellant
PD 1866, as worded prior to its amendment by RA 8294. should be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, in addition to
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. It did not explain its
The trial court’s ruling and the OSG’s submission exemplify the legal ruling, however. Considering that it could not have been ignorant of
community’s difficulty in grappling with the changes brought about by the proviso61 in the second paragraph, it seemed to have construed
RA 8294. Hence, before us now are opposing views on how to "no other crime" as referring only to homicide and murder, in both of
interpret Section 1 of the new law, which provides as follows: which illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance.
In other words, if a crime other than murder or homicide is committed,
"SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as a person may still be convicted of illegal possession of firearms. In
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: this case, the other crime committed was direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide; hence, the trial court found appellant guilty of
"Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or illegal possession of firearms.
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or Intended
to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. -- The We cannot accept either of these interpretations because they ignore
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not the plain language of the statute. A simple reading thereof shows that
less than Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000) shall be imposed upon if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Congress of the
Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal possession of Philippines for a possible review, at its sound discretion, of RA 8294.
firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted G.R. No. 110037 May 21, 1998
homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
liable for illegal possession of firearms. EDUARDO PULUSAN y ANICETA, ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ y
MACALINO, ROLANDO TAYAG and JOHN DOE Alias Ramon/Efren,
Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. EDUARDO PULUSAN y ANICETA And ROLANDO
accused.62 In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294’s simple RODRIGUEZ y MACALINO, Accused-Appellants.
language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other Four men held a robbery of a passenger jeepney along the Bulacan-
interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law Pampanga highway, divesting all passengers of their valuables. Four
demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused.63 of the jeepney's passengers were killed by the robbers and the only
Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses female passenger raped repeatedly. Three victims, however, lived to
of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted tell the story - the jeepney driver, a fifty-year old man and the ravaged
homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault girl.
and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be
deemed an aggravating circumstance. The Solicitor General summarized the prosecution evidence as
follows:
We reject the OSG’s contention that PD 1866, as worded prior to its
amendment by RA 8294, should be applied in this case.1âwphi1 On January 20, 1986 at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Constancio
When the crime was committed on September 24, 1997, the original Gomez was then plying his route from Balagtas, Bulacan along the
language of PD 1866 had already been expressly superseded by RA MacArthur Highway going towards Malolos, Bulacan on board a
8294 which took effect on July 6, 1997.64 In other words, no longer in passenger jeepney with six (6) passengers (pp. 5-6, TSN, June 10,
existence was the earlier provision of PD 1866, which justified a 1986). They included Marilyn Martinez, a seventeen (17) year old
conviction for illegal possession of firearms separate from any other student and Cresenciano Pagtalunan (p. 2, TSN, March 10, 1987; pp.
crime. It was replaced by RA 8294 which, among other amendments 2-3, TSN, June 10 1986). The four (4) other male passengers were
to PD 1866, contained the specific proviso that "no other crime was later identified to be Rodolfo Cruz, Magno Surio, Constancio Dionisio
committed." and Armando Cundangan (pp. The 2-3, TSN, Dec. 16, 1986; pp. 5-14,
TSN, Aug. 5, 1987; pp. 3-4, TSN, Jan. 27, 1987; pp. 3-5, TSN, Feb.
Furthermore, the OSG’s reliance on People v. Jayson65 is misplaced. 17, 1987; pp. 3-5, TSN, April 8, 1987; Exhibits "Z", "AA", "BB", "CC").
True, this Court sustained the conviction of appellant for illegal
possession of firearms, although he had also committed homicide. Upon reaching Bgy. Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan, a group of four (4) male
We explained, however, that "the criminal case for homicide [was] not passengers boarded the jeepney (pp. 5 - 6, TSN, June 10, 1986).
before us for consideration." Two of them sat at the rearmost portion of the jeepney fronting each
other; the third man sat behind the driver's seat while the fourth man
Just as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial court. We find no sat in the middle of the other passengers (pp. 6-7, TSN, June 10,
justification for limiting the proviso in the second paragraph to murder 1986; pp. 3-4, TSN, July 22, 1986; pp. 3-5, TSN, March 10, 1987).
and homicide. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of Suddenly the man who was later identified to be appellant Eduardo
simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime Pulusan, who sat behind the driver, poked a knife at Constancio
was committed by the person arrested." If the intention of the law in Gomez and announced: "Hold-up ito, huwag kayong kikilos'' (pp. 5-6,
the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it TSN, June 10, 1986; pp. 5-6, 9, TSN, March 10, 1987; pp. 4-6, TSN,
should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, March 18, 1987). Thereafter, appellant Pulusan's three (3)
where the law does not distinguish, neither should we. companions followed suit, poked their knife and "sumpak"
(homemade shotgun) at the passengers and divested them of their
The Court is aware that this ruling effectively exonerates appellant of valuables (p. 6, TSN, June 10, 1986; pp. 3-5, TSN, July 22, 1986; pp.
illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an offense which normally carries a 5-9, March 10, 1987). Gomez was divested of his P100.00 cash
penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While the penalty for the money, a lighter valued at P50.00 and a fancy ring of unknown value
first is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision correccional. (pp. 7-8, TSN, June 10, 1986). Cresenciano Pagtalunan, one of the
Indeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of passengers was similarly divested of P110.00 in cash and a diver's
firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter watch worth P1,000.00 (TSN, pp. 3-4, July 22, 1986). Marilyn
offense,66 like alarm and scandal67 or slight physical injuries,68 both Martinez, another passenger was divested of a wristwatch worth
of which are punishable by arresto menor.69 This consequence, P350.00 together with her books, notebooks and handbag (pp. 5-7,
however, necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose TSN, March 10, 1987). Rodolfo Cruz was likewise divested of a watch
wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review. Any perception that the valued at P700.00, a wedding ring worth P500.00 and P750.00 in
result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to cash (pp. 3-8, TSN, Jan. 27, 1987). Magno Surio's watch worth
Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give statutes a new P400.00, camera with flash bulb and batteries inside and cash of
meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language of the more than P2,000.00 were also taken during the incident (pp. 3-7, 9-
legislature. Our task is constitutionally confined only to applying the 10, TSN, Feb. 17, 1987; Exhs. "A", "B", "C" to "C-3"). Thereafter,
law and jurisprudence70 to the proven facts, and we have done so in appellant Pulusan took over the wheels from driver Gomez and drove
this case. towards Pampanga. He later stopped at Quezon Road, Bgy. San
Pablo, San Simon, Pampanga (pp. 7-8, TSN, June 10, 1987). He
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the parked the jeepney in a "talahiban" where there were no people
MODIFICATION that appellant is found guilty only of two offenses: (1) around except for the occupants of the passenger jeepney (pp. 7-8,
direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a TSN, June 10, 1986; pp. 7-8, TSN, March 10, 1987). Afterwards,
weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months to 6 years appellant Rolando Rodriguez (Rodriguez) dragged Marilyn Martinez
of prision correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug den, for which he to the "talahiban" a few meters away from the parked jeepney where
was correctly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua. Costs his three (3) companions, including appellant Pulusan, were left
against appellant. guarding Gomez and his other passengers (pp. 7-8, TSN, June 10,
1986; pp. 10-11, TSN, March 10, 1987; pp. 1-13, TSN, March 18,
1987). Once at the "talahiban," appellant Rodriguez, then armed with cadavers (pp. 3-4, TSN, Dec. 2, 1986). Thereafter, Pat. Maniago
a kitchen knife, through force and intimidation, succeeded in having prepared an "Initial Investigation Report" addressed to Corporal
carnal knowledge of Marilyn Martinez who was then still a virgin Santiago Rodriguez, Station Commander of the San Simon Police
(Exhibit "W"; pp. 10-13, TSN, March 10, 1987). Subsequently, Station at San Simon, Pampanga concerning the "Robbery In Band,
appellant Pulusan followed appellant Rodriguez and Marilyn Martinez Rape, Multiple Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms/Deadly
at the "talahiban" and likewise sexually abused her (pp. 14-15, TSN, Weapons" committed on or about 9:30 to 10:30 PM. of January 20,
March 10, 1987; Exh. "W"). Later, appellant's two other companions 1986 at Quezon Road, San Pablo Propio, San Simon, Pampanga
similarly took turns in having carnal knowledge of Marilyn Martinez at (Exh. "P", "P-1"; pp. 2-5, TSN, Dec. 16, 1986; pp. 2-16, TSN, Jan. 6,
the "talahiban" (pp. 15-16, TSN, March 10, 1987). After the fourth 1987; pp. 2-3, TSN, Nov. 18, 1986).
man had succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her, he held
Marilyn Martinez's wrist and they both proceeded towards the jeepney On January 21, 1986, Cpl. Santiago Rodriguez was informed of the
(pp. 16-17, TSN, March 10, 1987). aforesaid incident (pp. 2-3, TSN, Nov. 18, 1986). He then instructed
his men to continue investigation on the case considering that
Meanwhile, at the place where the jeepney was parked, Gomez and preliminary investigation thereon had been made by Pat. Maniago
one of his passengers who were then inside the vehicle were called (pp. 3-4, TSN, ibid.; pp. 3-6, TSN, Nov. 25, 1986).
outside by one of appellants' companions and asked Gomez ''pare,
gusto mo bang mamatay?" (p. 10, TSN, June 10, 1986). Gomez On the same day, Marilyn Martinez, one of the surviving victims, was
pleaded with them that he be spared because his wife recently gave brought by her relatives to the Central Luzon General Hospital in San
birth and he was the only breadwinner for his family (ibid). Thereafter, Fernando, Pampanga where she underwent physical examination by
he was boxed at the right jaw and told to board the jeepney while said Dr. Evelyn Macabulos, a resident of the Hospital's Obstetrics and
man, together with appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez, clubbed and Gynecology Department (pp. 19-20, TSN, March 10, 1987; pp. 6-15,
stabbed the passenger who was called with him (pp. 10-11, TSN, TSN, May 27, 1987; Exh. "W", "W1"). Dr. Macabulos found that the
June 10, 1986). Subsequently, the four called three other passengers patient was "conscious, coherent, slightly uncooperative, distraught,
inside the jeepney one by one. When the three (3) passengers were untidy with soiled clothes and underwear" and that her blood pressure
about to alight at the "estribo," they were clubbed and stabbed by was 130/80 while her pulse rate was 105 per minute (pp. 7-9. TSN,
appellants and their companions (pp. 10-111, TSN, June 10, 1986). May 27, 1987). She noted that "her eyes were swollen but without
One of the three (3) passengers managed to run towards the contusions; her heart was slightly tachycardic, regular rate rhythm
"talahiban" but his captors pursued and eventually killed him (pp. 10- with no murmur (pp. 9-10, TSN, ibid). She also observed that she had
11, TSN, June 10, 1986). Subsequently, Cresenciano Pagtaluan was clear breath sounds; her breasts are conical, well-developed,
hit with a pipe and clubbed by appellants and their companions but symmetrical with light brown nipple and areola, no contusions noted"
one of them uttered "Pare, huwag na yan, matanda na yan, hindi na (ibid.). She also noted that her trunk has linear hematoma at the back
papalag" (pp. 12-13, TSN, ibid.' p. 7, TSN, July 22, 1986). Thereafter, which looked like finger marks while in her extremities, there were 2 x
Gomez was ordered to start the jeepney while a shotgun was aimed 1.5 cm. Round hematoma at posterior aspect of her right upper arm
at his temple and threatened not to report the incident (ibid.) and multiple hematomas at posterior upper pan of the left thigh (pp. 9-
Eventually, their captors boarded Marilyn Martinez in the jeepney and 10. TSN, ibid). Dr. Macabulos further observed that in her external
threatened her not to report the incident and sent them home. genitalia there was "scanty pubic hair, well coaptated but moderately
Appellants and his companions then dispersed to different directions swollen labia minora, labia mahora also confested (sic)". She noted
(pp. 12-13, TSN, June 10, 1986). that the hymen had fresh lacerations at 12 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 5 and 7
o'clock; scantily bleeding from the lacerations; there was a .3 x .3 cm.
Accordingly, Gomez and his two surviving passengers Marilyn Hematoma (sic) at 12 o'clock; the patient cried and was hysterical in
Martinez and Cresenciano Pagtalunan, left their four (4) co- the examination of her genitalia and complained of pain when
passengers who had been killed by their captors and proceeded to application was inserted for smear; the patient's panty was stained
the Municipal Building of Apalit, Pampanga to report the incident to with blood and when smear for spermatozoa was done, none was
the Apalit police (p. 14, TSN, June 20, 1986; pp. 8-9, TSN, July 22, found (pp. 10-11. TSN, May 27, 1987; Exh. "W") Later that day,
1986; p. 19, TSN, March 10, 1987). Accompanied by the Apalit police, Marilyn was confined at the Rosary Hospital in Bulacan for 2 1/2 days
Gomez, Marilyn Martinez and Crescenciano Pagtalunan reported the so that she can recover her strength (p. 11, TSN, March 25, 1987).
incident to the San Simon police who questioned them on the incident
(pp. 2-3, TSN, Dec. 2, 1986; pp. 2-3, TSN, Dec. 26, 1986). Eventually, Meanwhile, the widows of the passengers who were killed during the
Marilyn Martinez was transferred to another vehicle which brought her January 20, 1986 incident at Bgy. San Pablo, San Simon, Pampanga,
to a clinic (p. 14, TSN, June 10, 1986; pp. 2-3, TSN, Dec. 2, 1986, p. including Susana Bautista Vda. de Surio, Lucila Cruz and Corazon
19, TSN, March 10, 1987). Gomez and Cresenciano Pagtalunan, Dionisio, were informed that their respective husbands were among
were immediately interviewed by Pat. Maniago, Investigator of the the four (4) passengers of a jeepney who were killed in San Simon,
San Simon Police at San Simon, Pampanga (pp. 2-3, TSN, Dec. 16, Pampanga and were invited to go to the funeral parlor in Pampanga
1986). Later, Pagtalunan stayed at the municipal building of San to make the necessary identification of the cadavers (pp. 3-5, TSN,
Simon where he remained for more than a day (p. 10, TSN, July 22, April 8, 1987; pp. 3-4, TSN, January 27, 1987; pp. 3-5, TSN, Feb. 17,
1986). Thereafter, the joint team of the San Simon and Apalit police, 1987). Lucila Cruz confirmed her husband's death when she went to
including Pat. Maniago. Pfc. Nicolas Yambao and Umali, was San Simon, Pampanga on January 23, 1986 at 2:00 o'clock pm. (pp.
accompanied by Gomez to the crime scene at Quezon Road, Bgy. 3-4, TSN, January 23, 1987; Exh. "Z", pp. 8-9, TSN, Aug. 5, 1987).
San Pablo, San Simon where the bodies of his four (4) male The death of her husband Constancio Dionisio was confirmed by his
passengers were found and which were later brought to the Funeraria widow Corazon when she went to the funeral parlor in San Simon on
Punzalan for autopsy (p. 14, June 10, 1986; pp. 3-5, TSN, Dec. 2, January 25, 1986 (pp. 3-5, TSN, April 8, 1987). The death of Magno
1986). Pat. Emerito Maniago prepared a sketch of the crime scene Surio was also confirmed by his widow Susana Bautista Surio when
(Exh. "S", p. 4, TSN. Dec. 2, 1986). Eventually, Pat. Maniago, Pfc. she went to the funeral parlor in San Simon accompanied by a
Nicolas Yambao and Lino Umali returned to the station and policeman from Malolos (pp. 3-5, TSN, Feb. 17, 1987; Exh. "AA"; pp.
interviewed Gomez and Pagtalunan about the description of the 10-11, TSN, Aug. 5, 1987).
suspects and conducted follow-up investigation of the case (pp. 3-4,
TSN, Dec. 2, 1986; Exh. "P", "P-1"; pp. 3-6, TSN, Dec. 16, 1986; pp. Dr. Maria Teresa F. Santos, Rural Health Physician of San Simon,
2-9, TSN, Jan. 6, 1987). They also proceeded to Malolos, Bulacan to Pampanga, who conducted autopsy of the four (4) cadavers
coordinate with the Malolos INP for the identification of the victims' recovered at Bgy. San Pablo, San Simon, Pampanga, issued
Certificates of Death of Rodolfo C. Cruz, Magno Surio, Constancio
Dionisio and Armando Cundangan (pp. 3-4, TSN, Aug. 5, 1987; Exhs.
"Z", "AA", "BB" and "CC"). The cause of death of Rodolfo C. Cruz was
"Cardio-respiratory arrest, shock hemorrhage, multiple stab wounds"
(Exh. "ZZ", pp. 8-9, TSN, Aug. 5, 1987). The cause of death of Magno
dela Cruz y Surio is the same as that of Rodolfo C. Cruz (Exh. "AA";
pp. 10-11, TSN, Aug. 5, 1987). The stated cause of death of
Constancio Dionisio and Armando Cundangan was also the same as
those indicated in the certificates of death of the other victims (Exhs.
"BB", "CC"; pp. 12-14, TSN, Aug. 5, 1987).
Meanwhile, in the early morning of January 23, 1986, Cpl. Rodriguez
received a tip from a civilian informer that the description of one of the
four (4) suspects given by Marilyn Martinez tallied with that of
appellant Eduardo Pulusan who previously had a record in their file
(pp. 6-8, TSN, Nov. 25, 1986; pp. 4-6, TSN, Sept. 7, 1987).
In the afternoon of January 23, 1986, Cpl. Rodriguez, Pat. Maniago
and several policemen of San Simon, Pampanga, together with the
Pampanga P.C. Command, including Sgt. Mario Dulin, proceeded to
the residence of appellant Pulusan at Bgy. San Pablo, San Simon,
Pampanga (pp. 10-11, TSN, Nov. 25, 1986). When their group
reached San Pablo, San Simon, Pampanga, they found Honwario
Pulusan, appellant Eduardo Pulusan's brother there (pp. 10-11, Nov.
25, 1986; p. 6, TSN, Sept. 9, 1987). After interviewing him, the team
learned from Honwario that appellant Pulusan was with Rolando
Rodriguez, Rolando Tayag and one Efren alias Ramon at Bgy. Moras
dela Paz, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga, where Rolando Rodriguez resided
(pp. 2-5, TSN, Nov. 18, 1986; pp. 10-11, TSN, Jan. 6, 1987; pp. 5-7,
TSN, Dec. 2, 1986). Immediately thereafter, the joint San Simon
police and Pampanga PC team coordinated with the Station
Commander of Sto. Tomas and proceeded to Moras dela Paz
together with Honwario Pulusan (pp. 3-5, TSN, Nov. 18, 1986). Upon
reaching Bgy. Moras dela Paz, the team parked their vehicle a few
meters away from the residence of appellant Rolando Rodriguez (pp.
5-6, TSN. Oct. 7, 1987). As the members of the joint PC and police
team approached the residence of appellant Rodriguez about 20 or
30 meters therefrom, they noticed four (4) persons, including
appellants Rodriguez and Pulusan, jumping and scampering away
from the house (pp. 7-8, TSN, Dec. 2, 1986; pp. 7-8, TSN, Nov. 18,
1986). Honwario Pulusan pointed to the police team appellants
Rodriguez and Pulusan and also said "Kuya, sumuko na kayo" (p. 8.
TSN, Dec. 2, 1986). The joint police and PC team pursued them and
eventually apprehended appellants Rodriguez and Pulusan (pp. 7-8,
TSN, September 9, 1987, pp. 4-6, TSN, Nov. 11, 1986).
Thereafter, Pat. Maniago Sgt. Dulin and the Barangay Captain,
returned to the house of appellant Rodriguez, conducted a search
thereon in the presence of one Gloria Bautista, sister-in-law of
Rolando and eventually confiscated several items, to wit: "one (1)
camera, nikon type with cover (Exh. "A"); one (1) pair of men's shoes,
colored brown (Exh. "E"); one pair Grosby men's shoes (while) (Exh
"G"); one (1) pair ladies shoes colored black (Melvin Trade Mark (Exh.
"H"); one (1) knife 12 inches long (Exh "J"); one (1) knife 10 inches
long (Exh. "K"); one (1) sunglass (Unisex) (Exh "I"); one (1) ladies
wrist watch (Urika) (Exh. "M"); four (4) pcs of batteries (Exh. "C" to "C-
3"); two (2) pieces of steel pipes which turned out to be an improvised
12 gauge shotgun "paltik-sumpak" (Exh. "L", "L-1"); one (1) pants
Haruta (Exh. "F"); one (1) jacket colored green (Exh. "D"); one (1)
camera flasher (Exh. "B"); two (2) pieces (live) 12 gauge shotgun
ammos (Exh. "N"); and one (1) piece empty shell for 12 gauge
shotgun" (Exh. "N") (pp. 8-10, TSN, Dec. 2, 1986; pp. 8-9, TSN, Sept.
9, 1987; pp. 3-9, TSN, Dec. 9, 1986; pp. 6-10, TSN, Nov. 18, 1986).
Afterwards, Sgt. Dulin prepared an inventory of the recovered items
(Exh. "R", "R-1", "R-2"; pp. 8-11, Sept. 9, 1987). Subsequently,
appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez, together with the recovered items,
were brought to the Station of the Pampanga P.C. Command at St.
Nino, San Fernando Pampanga, for further investigation (p. 15, TSN,
Sept. 9, 1987). A "Progress Report" relative to the arrest of appellants
Pulusan and Rodriguez and the recovery of the items from their
possession was also made by Cpl. Rodriguez (Exh. "Q", "A-1").
In the afternoon of January 23, 1986, the joint police and PC team
informed the three (3) surviving victims Gomez, Pagtalunan and
Martinez that the suspects had been arrested and invited them and
the wives of the victims who were killed, including Lucila Cruz,
Susana Surio and Mrs. Cundangan, to go to the PC Headquarters in
the morning of January 24, 1986 (pp. 15-16, TSN, Sept. 9, 1987; pp.
10-11, TSN, Nov. 11, 1986; pp. 23-24, TSN, Nov. 25, 1986; pp. 4-11,
TSN, Nov. 11, 1986).
In the early morning of January 24, 1986, Gomez, Marilyn Martinez
and Pagtalunan, together with the wives of those who were killed,
proceeded to the PC Headquarters in San Fernando, Pampanga (pp.
15-16, TSN, June 10, 1986; pp. 5-6, TSN, July 29, 1986). Three
persons, including appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez, were presented
to Gomez, Martinez and Pagtalunan and they were asked if they
knew them (pp. 2-3, TSN. Oct. 14, 1986). Pagtalunan pinpointed only
two of them, appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez as the persons who
held them up in Malolos on January 20, 1986 (ibid.; pp. 15-17, TSN,
July 22, 1986) Gomez and Martinez also positively identified
appellants to be among the four (4) persons who committed the
robbery, killing and rape in the evening of January 20, 1986 (pp. 10-
11, kTSN, Dec. 2, 1986; pp. 20-21, TSN, March 19, 1987 Exhs. "O".
"O-1" to "O-3"). Pictures of the identification of appellants Pulusan
and Rodriguez by the three (3) surviving victims were taken by a
commercial photographer under the supervision of the police
authorities (pp. 16-17, TSN, June 10, 1986; pp. 5-6, TSN, July 29,
1986; pp. 10-11, TSN, July 22, 1986; Exhs. "O", "O-1", "O-2" and "O-
3").
Susana Bautista Surio, widow of the victim Magno Surio, in her
"Sworn Statement" identified the camera, flash and batteries, among
the items confiscated by the police at the house of appellant
Rodriguez, to be the property of her husband who used them in his
work as commercial photographer (pp. 4-11, TSN, Feb. 17, 1987;
Exh. "U", "U-1"; Exhs. "A", "B", "C", to "C-3").
An information charging Pulusan and Rodriguez with the crime of
highway robbery attended with multiple homicide and multiple rape
was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Malolos. 1 The
information was later amended to include Rolando Tayag and one
John Doe alias Ramon or Efren. The amended information reads:
That on or about the 20th day of January, 1986, along the MacArthur
highway in the municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused Eduardo Pulusan y Anicete and Rolando Rodriguez y
Macalino, Rolando Tayag and one John doe alias Ramon/Efren,
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another,
armed with an improvised firearm and bladed instruments, with intent
of gain and by means of violence against and intimidation persons
(sic), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob
and carry away with them the following articles from the driver and the
passengers of a passenger jeepney bound for the said municipality, to
wit:
From Constancio Gomez, driver:
Cash P 100.00
Lighter (Zippo brand) 100.00
2 fancy rings 60.00
From Cresenciano Pagtalunan, passenger:
Cash P 110.00
Wrist watch 1,500.00
From Magno Surio, passenger:
Wrist watch, Seiko brand P 800.00
Camera, Nikon brand 8,000.00
From Armando Cundangan, passenger:
Wrist watch, Seiko brand P 700.00 Eduardo Pulusan testifying in his defense asserted that on January
Cash 80.00 20, 1986, he was repairing his house in preparation for the coming
From Rodolfo Cruz, passenger: fiesta. His helper then was a certain Tony. The following day, he also
Cash P 700.00 stayed at home because he helped his father in their fishpond. He did
Wrist watch, Seiko brand 700.00 not leave his house until around 1:30 p.m. on January 23, 1986 when
From Constancio Dionisio, passenger: he went to the house of his nephew, Rolando Rodriguez, to invite him
Cash P 200.00 to the fiesta. Pulusan presented in court his mother, Agapita, and
From Marilyn Martinez, passenger: Antonio Libid, the carpenter who allegedly repaired his house, to
Wrist watch Urika brand P 350.00 corroborate his alibi. Both testified that Pulusan did not leave the
house on the night of January 20, 1986. 8
To the damage and prejudice of the above-enumerated persons in the
amounts above-mentioned; and that by reason or on the occasion of He professed innocence because he had never been implicated in a
the said highway robbery and in pursuance of their conspiracy, the crime, not even vagrancy. He denied the testimony of prosecution
said Eduardo Pulusan y Aniceta, Rolando Rodriguez y Macalino and witness Sgt. Dulin that he once had a rape case against him. 9
Rolando Tayag and one John Doe alias Ramon/Efren, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd designs and by On June 5, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 12 at
means of force, violence and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of Malolos, rendered a Decision in Criminal Case No. 9217-M as follows:
said Marilyn Martinez one after the other, and with intent to kill, abuse
of superior strength, cruelty, treachery and evidence premeditation, WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the
further assault, attack strike and hack/stab with the weapons they accused EDUARDO PULUSAN y ANICETA and ROLANDO
were then provided the said Magno Surio, Armando Cundagan, RODRIGUEZ y MACALINO beyond reasonable doubt, this Court
Rodolfo Cruz and Constancio Dionisio, inflicting on the said persons finds them guilty of the offense of Robbery with Homicide penalized
serious physical injuries which directly caused their instantaneous under Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, and hereby
death. sentences each of them to suffer and undergo imprisonment for life or
RECLUSION PERPETUA, with costs against said accused.
Contrary to law. 2
Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby ordered, jointly and
Rolando Tayag and John Does alias Ramon or Efren remain at large. severally, to indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Cruz, Magno
Pulusan and Rodriguez pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Surio, Constancio Dionisio and Armando Cundangan the amount of
THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) for each dead victim as
In his defense, Rodriguez testified that he was a nephew of co- civil indemnification for their death.
accused Eduardo Pulusan. He denied knowledge of the crime
charged against him. He asserts that he had not committed any Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are also hereby ordered to pay,
crime, and that in fact, he was able to get an NBI clearance as a jointly and severally, as indemnification to the rape victim Marilyn
requirement for his work as a driver in Iraq. 3 Martinez, the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60.000.00).

As a kabo ng jueteng, he would collect bets three times a day, the last Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby further ordered,
jueteng draw being at 9:30 in the evening. He would thus be home jointly and severally, to pay moral damages to the respective heirs of
only between 11:30 and twelve midnight, as on the night of January the deceased Magno Surio, Rodolfo Cruz, Constancio Dionisio and
20, 1986. Rodriguez presented in court to corroborate his alibi fellow Armando Cundangan, the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
kabo Oscar Nocum, a jueteng collector named Sara Lee, and a (P20,000.00).
jueteng Marilou Garcia.
Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby further ordered,
Oscar Nocum testified that Rodriguez was with him from about 9:30 in jointly and severally, to pay moral damages to the respective heirs of
the evening of January 20, 1986, which was the time of the last the deceased Magno Surio, Rodolfo Cruz, Constancio Dionisio and
jueteng draw, until midnight. 4 Armando Cundangan, the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00) to each victim and to rape victim Marilyn Martinez the
Sara Lee, who lived nine houses from Rodriguez, testified that on the amount of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40.000.00).
night of January 20, 1986 she saw Rodriguez at around eight o'clock
to remit her collection. Rodriguez then came back to her house Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby furthermore
between 10:30 and eleven o'clock because she had invited him to her ordered, jointly, and severally, to reimburse the heirs of the dead
daughter's birthday celebration and because they expected to hear victims for the funeral expenses incurred by them as follows.
from him the results of the jueteng draw. 5
TWENTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY PESOS
Marilou Garcia, also a neighbor of Rodriguez who lived six houses (P21,830.00) for deceased Rodolfo Cruz;
away, testified that she placed a bet with Rodriguez at his house at
around eight o'clock to 8:45 in the evening of January 20, 1986, TEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY PESOS (P10,170.00)
afterwhich Rodriguez left. She next saw him later that evening at for deceased Magno Surio;
around 10:30 to eleven o'clock when he passed by Garcia's house
where a bingo game was in progress. 6 ELEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P11,000.00) for deceased Constancio
Dionisio.
When arrested at his house in Moras, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga,
Rodriguez was with his two children, his uncle Eduardo Pulusan and Finally, both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby ordered,
jueteng collectors, one of which was Rolando Tayag, one of those jointly and severally, to return to the victims or their heirs the items
charged with Pulusan and Rodriguez in the amended information. they have taken during the robbery or to reimburse the value thereof
Pulusan was in Rodriguez's house to invite the latter to their town as follows:
fiesta. 7
Constancio Gomez - a lighter worth P50.00 and cash of P100.00;
Cresenciano Pagtalunan - a driver's watch Worth P1,000.00 and cash xxx xxx xxx
of P110.00; Q In fact Mr. Witness when these persons announced the hold-up,
specifically when one of them was poking a knife at your back and
Marilyn Martinez - a wrist watch worth P350.00; you were terribly afraid of these four persons, you were afraid much
more to look at their faces, correct?
Rodolfo Cruz - a watch worth P700.00, a wedding ring worth P500 A Yes, sir, I am not looking at their faces because something was
and cash of P750.00. poked at me.
Q Now even if you were ordered to go inside the jeepney, together
As regards accused ROLANDO TAYAG and a John Doe alias with the passengers and even after one of the four men took the
"Ramon/Efren", let the record of this case be committed to the wheels of the jeep, you were still very afraid to look at them, correct?
Archives to await their arrest and for this purpose, let an alias warrant A Even if I am so afraid, sir, once in a while I glanced at them and
of arrest be issued against accused Rolando Tayag. tried to recognize them.
Q Is it not a fact Mr. Witness that when you were ordered to go inside
SO ORDERED. 10 the jeep to sit with your passengers, they ordered the light of the jeep
to be put off?
Pulusan contends before this Court that the trial court erred in giving A When that was said, we were already far and all the valuables were
credence to his identification by prosecution witnesses as one of the already taken from us, sir.
perpetrators of the crime; in giving evidentiary weight to the Q The light were (sic) ordered put off when you were still driving the
"incredible, unreliable and inconsistent if not conflicting testimonies of jeep, correct?
the prosecution witnesses;" in failing to give "exculpatory weight" to A They were the ones who put off the light, sir.
his alibi which was supported by witnesses, and in convicting him Q When you said that you take a look at their faces, it means to say
even if his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 11 that you take only a passing glance at their faces, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Rodriguez asserts that the trial court erred in convicting him and Q When you were just taking a passing glance of the faces of those
imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and giving four men, you did not actually describe (sic) their faces, is that
credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution. 12 correct?
A Some of them I can describe but the others I cannot, sir.
The arguments of Pulusan and Rodriguez are anchored mainly on the Q When you arrived at the place where the jeep stopped, is it not a
issue of credibility. fact that the place was dark?
A Darked (sic), sir.
The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is Q While you were there, you were not able to recognize the faces of
best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who, unlike the four men, correct?
appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the A No more because it was dark, sir. 17 (Emphasis supplied).
declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is hereby The quoted portion, rather than support Pulusan's contention, shows
placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the true that Gomez, although gripped by fear, was able to look at and see the
and the false. 13 Thus, the trial court's findings on the credibility of malefactors. While it may be true that Gomez had only occasional
witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be glances at the men, this does not mean that he could not have been
disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that it overlooked, able to recognize them. The most natural reaction of victims of
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight violence is to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the
or substance which could have affected the result of the case. 14 crime and observe the manner in which the crime was being
There is no showing in the instant case of an oversight, committed. 18
misunderstanding or misapplication of facts on the part of the trial We also consider the following testimony of Cresenciano Pagtalunan,
court that may warrant reversal of that court" findings and thus:
conclusions. Q When these four passengers boarded the jeepney, was the jeepney
inside lighted or not?
Pulusan avers that the prosecution witnesses' identification of him as A The jeep was lighted, sir.
one of the robbers was not enough to hurdle the test of certainty. 15 Q Did you look at the faces of these four persons who boarded the
Pulusan quotes the following portions of the testimony of Constancio jeepney?
Gomez: 16 A I came to know their faces when they passed by me and
announced that it was a hold-up, I happened to look at them, sir.
Q Mr. Witness before the wheel of your jeep was taken from you and Q In fact you looked at their faces and you have only a glimpse of
(you were) told to sit at the back, you did not recognize the faces of their faces, correct?
those persons? A Yes, sir.
A No, sir. Q Did you have glimpses of these four persons who boarded at
Q Because you did not give a glance at their faces, correct? Malolos or only one of them?
A When something was poked at me, I have not yet recognized them. A I saw their faces because there was still light inside the jeep, sir. 19
But when I was sitted (sic) at the back, once in a while I glanced at This testimony was corroborated by Marilyn Martinez who affirmed
them, sir. that when the four men boarded the jeep, the light inside the jeep was
Q Mr. Witness when one of the persons you mentioned who boarded still on. She was able to recognize the men because they entered the
your jeep at Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan poked a knife at your back and jeep one by one. Moreover, Marilyn testified that even though the light
announced a hold-up, you became greatly afraid Mr. Witness, inside the jeep was off, because they travelled quite a long distance,
correct? lights from the vehicles following them provided enough illumination.
A Of course, sir. 20 When they arrived at the isolated talahiban in Sto. Tomas, one of
Q You were even terrified of being killed harmed by such happening, the robbers switched on the headlights of the jeep. After the repeated
Mr. Witness? rape of Marilyn, the light inside the jeep was already
A Yes, sir. on. 21 Furthermore, appellant Rodriguez, who was the first to rape
Q And you were very much afraid of these four men who announced Marilyn, dragged her to the talahiban by passing in front of the jeep
the hold-up, correct? with its headlights on. She was looking at him, pleading for mercy. 22
A Yes, sir, of course, I am afraid.
This Court has time and again held that the relative weight and (t)he seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful
significance of evidence on visibility depend largely on the attending purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of
circumstances and the discretion of the trial court. The Court has violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things or other
considered as sufficient for identification illumination from a kerosene unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.
lamp 23 from a flashlight, 24 in the same way that the Court
considered as enough lighting for identification purposes the As manifest in its preamble, the object of the decree is to deter and
"medium" light inside a jeepney which was passing through a dark punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon
place. 25 In the instant case, the factor of visibility was in favor of the
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who
eyewitnesses. Such identification by all of the three prosecution travel from one place to another thereby disturbing the peace and
eyewitnesses, not only by one, could not have been coincidental or tranquillity of the nation and stunting the economic and social
contrived. progress of the people. A conviction for highway robbery requires
proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing
In an attempt to discredit the eyewitnesses and their testimonies, robbery indiscriminately. There is no such proof in this case. Neither
Pulusan points out these "conflicting testimonies:" (1) Gomez and is there proof that the four men previously attempted to commit similar
Marilyn testified he poked a knife at Gomez while Pagtalunan said robberies indiscriminately. 33
that he was holding a sumpak; (2) Gomez testified that it was Pulusan
who brought Marilyn to the talahiban while according to Marilyn, it was The trial court thus correctly found Pulusan and Rodriguez guilty of
Rodriguez who brought her first to that place; (3) Gomez testified that the crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape under Article
they went to the PC headquarters the day following January 20, 1986 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. In the interpretation of an
while Pagtalunan testified that they did so four days later; and (4) information, controlling is not the designation but the description of the
Gomez contradicted his testimony on direct examination that the offense charged. Under the allegations in the information, Pulusan
crime transpired on January 20, 1986 by his testimony on cross- and Rodriguez are liable under the aforesaid article of the penal code.
examination that the incident happened on February 20, 1986. 34

We find these alleged contradictions too trivial to affect the We must state that regardless of the number of homicides committed
prosecution's case. Far from eroding the effectiveness of the on the occasion of a robbery, the crime is still robbery with homicide.
testimonies of these eyewitnesses, such trivial differences are in fact
In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is
indicative of veracity. 26 Witnesses testifying on the same event do immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Art. 294 of
not have to be consistent in every detail considering the inevitability of
the Revised Penal Code. 35 There is no crime of robbery with multiple
differences in their recollection, viewpoint or impression. Total recall
homicide under the said Code. 36 The same crime is committed even
or perfect symmetry is not required as long as the witnesses concur if rape and physical injuries are also committed on the occasion of
on material points. 27 said crime. Moreover, whenever the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide is proven to have been committed, all those who took
The prosecution, contrary to appellants' contention has also proven part in the robbery are liable as principals therein although they did
beyond reasonable doubt that the four men. Pulusan and Rodriguez not actually take part in the homicide. 37
included, conspired in the commission of the crime. In conspiracy,
direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not Rape had not been proven to be the original intention of the
necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which appellants, the crime having been committed simply because there
the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused was a female passenger in the jeep. Hence, rape can only be
themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted considered as an aggravating circumstance and not a principal
action and community of interest. 28 offense. 38

Pulusan and Rodriguez boarded the jeep together with two
companions at the same time in Barangay Tikay. When Pulusan
announced the hold-up, Rodriguez and their companions
simultaneously brandished knives and the sumpak and divested the
passengers of their money and valuables. When the jeepney reached
an isolated place, the men took turns in raping Marilyn, inflicting
physical harm on four male passengers who all succumbed to
repeated clubbing and stabbing. After the carnage, the four
malefactors walked towards the same northerly direction. Apparent
then is the unity of purpose and design in the execution of the
unlawful act. 29 And where conspiracy is shown, the precise extent of
participation of each accused in the crime is secondary and the act of
one may be imputed to all the conspirators. 30
Under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide
is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the
attendance of rape as a generic aggravating circumstance, the
maximum penalty of death should be imposed. However, by reason of
Section 19(1), Art. III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which
proscribes the imposition of the death penalty and considering further
that at the time the crime was committed, Republic Act No. 7659
entitled "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes" reimposing the death penalty had not yet been enacted, the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. Because reclusion perpetua
is a single indivisible penalty for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, the same shall be imposed regardless of the attending
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 39

Pulusan's and Rodriguez's respective alibis cannot prosper. Apart
from the fact that they situated themselves in places not too far from
the crime scene, there was no proof that it was physically impossible
for them to have been at the locus criminis during its commission. 31
Most of all, their respective alibis collapse in the face of the positive
identification of them as the perpetrators of the crime. 32
The Court gives credence to the findings of the trial court as to the
items to be returned or the equivalent amount to be reimbursed to the
victims of robbery, as well as the actual damages claimed and proven
by the widows of the slain victims. However, the civil indemnity for the
heirs of the deceased victims should be increased to P50,000.00 in
conformity with jurisprudence. 40

The crime of charged in the information was "highway robbery
attended with multiple homicide with multiple rape." Highway robbery
or brigandage is defined in Sec (2) of Presidential Decree No. 532,
otherwise known as the "Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
of 1974," as:
As to the moral damages awarded to Marilyn Martinez, the same
should be increased pursuant to this Court's ruling that the offended
party in the crime of rape is entitled to moral damages in the amount
of at least P50,000.00; but in cases where multiple rapes are
committed against one victim, as in this case where the victim
suffered four rapes by four men, the victim should be awarded no less
than the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages. 41

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 5, 1990 of the Regional Trial

Court, Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12 convicting appellants Eduardo
Pulusan and Rolando Rodriguez of the crime of robbery with homicide
is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modifications that the heirs of the
four (4) slain victims shall each be entitled to an indemnity of
P50,000.00 and the rape victim, Marilyn Martinez, shall be awarded
moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00. Appellants shall be
liable jointly and severally for the monetary awards.

SO ORDERED.