G.R. No. L-44187. November 12, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GEORGE DAENG AND ROLANDO CASTILLO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
MANDATORY REVIEW of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court
at Pasig, Rizal, in Case CCC-VIII-847-Rizal imposing the death penalty on
George Daeng and Rolando Castillo the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused, George Daeng and Rolando
Castillo, both GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Murder, under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the information, the Court
hereby sentences each one of them to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify
the heirs of the offended party the
amount of P12,000.00; to pay the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages and
another P5,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.
“Pursuant to Section 32, Rule 138 of the New Rules of
Court, Atty. Suisito Sardillo,
who was appointed as counsel de oficio for the accused, is hereby ordered compensated in the
amount of P500.00 subject, however, to the availability of funds.
“However, the Court considers the mitigating circumstance
of plea of guilty of said accused and hereby recommends, pursuant to Article 5
of the Revised Penal Code, to the Chief Executive, the President of the
Philippines, thru the Dept. of Justice, that the penalty imposed upon the
accused be commuted to that of Reclusion Perpetua.
“SO ORDERED.”[1]
This is, to recall the antecedents of this
case, the third time that We are called upon to review the imposition of the
death penalty on George Daeng and Rolando Castillo.
In an information filed
with the Court a quo on June 18, 1971, appellants Daeng and Castillo,
together with Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin, were charged with the crime
of murder allegedly committed thus –
“That on or about December 13, 1970, in the New Bilibid
Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused while then confined at the said institution,
conspiring, confederating and acting together and each armed with improvised
deadly weapons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault
and wound therewith one Basilio Beltran, No. 71495-P, another convicted
prisoner serving final sentence in the same institution, then in the process of
serving the accused breakfast, inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds, while
then unarmed and unable to defend himself from the attack launched by the
accused, as a result of which the said Basilio Beltran died instantly.
“That the offense when committed by the accused was
attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness.
“Contrary to law.”[2]
On June 29, 1971, the
trial court, “in view of the spontaneous and voluntary confession of guilt
of the accused”, imposed the death penalty on George Daeng, Rolando
Castillo, Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin.[3] We reviewed this decision on automatic
appeal and, upon Our finding that the four accused were not at all made to
understand and appreciate the real nature and consequences of their decision to
enter a plea of guilty, the decision a quo was set aside and the case was remanded to
the criminal court for a new arraignment of the four accused.[4]
As We have ruled, George
Daeng, Rolando Castillo, Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin were arraigned on March
10, 1973 and all
four pleaded not guilty. However, before
the prosecution could rest its case, George Daeng and Rolando Castillo withdrew
their plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. Based on that plea of guilty, the court a
quo, on September 1, 1973, sentenced George Daeng to death. In a separate decision dated September
15, 1973, Rolando
Castillo was likewise convicted and the death penalty was imposed on him.[5]
What next ensued was
narrated by the decision rendered by the trial court on April 1,
1976. It appears there that the two prior decisions
of September, 1973 were elevated to and then remanded anew by Us to the
criminal court. The pertinent portion of
this decision reads that –
“On September 1, and 15, 1973, the two accused were
respectively sentenced by the Court to Death and the records were forwarded to
the Supreme Court for automatic review.
However, pursuant to the doctrine laid down by the Supreme in the case
of People vs. Epifanio Flores, the Highest Tribunal remanded the records
of this case to the Court of origin for mandatory presentation of
evidence.”[6]
During that third
arraignment of George Daeng and Rolando Castillo which took place on February
19, 1976, the two,
once more entered a plea of guilty. To
substantiate the charge of murder, the prosecution presented Ricardo Ibarola, medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation; Jesus Tumagan,
prison guard at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal; Ignacio Ferrer,
supervising prison guard; and Armando Miranda, another prison guard who was an
eyewitness to the killing of the victim Basilio Beltran. Thereafter, Daeng and Castillo were again
convicted of murder. And, on a finding
that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and
obvious ungratefulness attended the commission of the defense, coupled with the
fact that the accused have committed a felony while serving sentence by virtue
of a final judgment, the court a quo imposed the death
penalty on the accused. This decision,
with the abovecited dispositive portion, is now under review. Parenthetically, and harking back to the
arraignment done on March 10, 1973 pursuant to Our ruling in G.R. No. L-34091, People vs. George Daeng,
et al., trial proceeded against
Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin after they both pleaded not guilty. Both were, thereafter, convicted and
sentenced to death by the trial Court.
And on July 25, 1975, We affirmed the death penalty in G.R. No. L-38624, entitled People vs. Bautista,
et al.
The appellants herein
present the following:
“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
“FIRST ASSIGNED ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE MANDATE OF THIS
HONORABLE COURT DECREED IN G.R. NO. L-34091 THAT THE NEW TRIAL GRANTED THE
ACCUSED BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE VIEWS
HEREIN EXPRESSED.
“SECOND ASSIGNED ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME WAS ATTENDED WITH THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY.
“THIRD ASSIGNED ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CRIME WAS ATTENDED WITH
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
“FOURTH ASSIGNED ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED
WITH OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.
“FIFTH ASSIGNED ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE
CRIME WHILE SERVING SENTENCE BY VIRTUE OF A FINAL JUDGMENT.
“SIXTH ASSIGNED ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF
THE CRIME OF MURDER AND IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY.”
We do not find any reversible
error on the part of the trial court.
The appellants cite the
failure of the trial court to inquire from the accused their version of the incident as directed by Us in G.R.
No. L-34091 and argue thereby that the judgment under review should be nullified
and the case again remanded to the lower court.
The transcript of
stenographic note does show that the procedure outlined in G.R. No. L-34091 was not followed to the letter. But the appellants’ insistence on a remand
because of the cited failure on the part of the trial judge overlooks the
realities that –
(1) in their sworn statements Exhibits
“B” and “C” they unequivocally, and in detail, admitted
having stabbed the deceased while the latter was holding their breakfast
ration;[7]
(2) the regularity in the taking of the sworn
statements of George Daeng and of Rolando Castillo, both of which remained
unrefuted and undenied till the end of the proceedings, was proven,
respectively, by the testimonies of prison guard Jesus Tumagan and supervising
prison guard Ignacio Ferrer;[8]
(3) eyewitness Armando Miranda positively
testified that the appellants and the two other accused rushed out and
“without provocation they stabbed inmate Basilio Beltran” who was
then bringing breakfast to them, thereby confirming the details of the sworn
statements of the appellants.[9]
It cannot be denied then
that the circumstances attending the commission of the crime charged against
the appellants were definitely established.
From the evidence on record, the guilt and culpability of the accused
may be gleaned. These are the primary
objectives of the requirement enunciated in G.R. No. L-34091 that the trial Judge direct
searching questions to the appellants.
And the objectives having been attained in the case at bar, a remand and
rearraignment for that purpose would merely be a dilatory, nay useless, rite.
More than this, the appellants, as We have priorly noted, have
thrice pleaded guilty to the murder charge.
Their case had been sent back twice to the trial court for purposes of
rearraignment, and in both instances they were, after holding on to their
original plea, given the death sentence.
While there might have been, in the first instance, some doubts
regarding the appellants appreciation of the nature and consequence of a plea
of guilty, We are convinced that when
they entered the same plea for the third time, they did so wholly aware of the
large probability of a verdict of death.
The lesson learned from their past arraignments was then fresh and
recent. It was ignored. We do not see this as a continuing
misapprehension of the situation that they were in. Rather, We take it as a
carefully considered acceptence of guilt.
Appellants, however, submit that they committed the lesser crime
of homicide on the argument that its commission was attended neither by
treachery, by evident premeditation nor by obvious ungratefulness.
After having carefully considered the contents of the sworn
statements of George Daeng and Rolando Castillo and the corroborating
testimony and sworn statement of eyewitness Armando Miranda, We found it fully
established that: –
At about 6:15 o’clock in the morning of December 13, 1970 prison
guard Armando Miranda was with Inmate Cadet Basilio Beltran and one Mallari who
were then carrying the breakfast ration for the prisoners in Dormitory
8-C-2. When he opened the door of the
dormitory, George Daeng and Rolando Castillo together with Conrado Bautista and
Gerardo Abuhin, all armed with improvised deadly weapons suddenly rushed out from
their cell and, without provocation, stabbed to death IC Basilio Beltran. George Daeng confessed in his sworn statement
that he was the first one who stabbed the deceased hitting the latter in the
stomach while Rolando Castillo declared that he stabbed the victim when the
latter was lying on his back “nakatihaya na po sa pupa sa may harapan ng 8-C“. Daeng stated that they killed Beltran
because they were being threatened (pagbabanta) by Beltran and the other
inmate cadets. Rolando Castillo narrated
that the inmate cadets used to appropriate for themselves part of the
cigarettes, soap and money given to them by their friends and that he and his
co-inmates used to pay for the call slips delivered to them by the inmate
cadets during the times that they had visitors.
The necropsy report of Dr. Jose V. Villasin, Medico-Legal Officer
of the NBI shows that the victim sustained twelve stab wounds at the chest,
back, abdomen, left shoulder and arms.[10]
Eyewitness Miranda, during the trial, positively identified George Daeng and
Rolando Castillo to be two of the four persons who killed Beltran.
With the foregoing facts
then, We see no reason to depart from the findings in People v. Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-38624, July 25, 1975, where We affirmed the death sentence
imposed on Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin, the two other persons
originally charged with murder
together with the herein appellants.
Thus: ?
“The trial court correctly considered the qualifying circumstance
of treachery in the commission of the crime of murder. It was conclusively proven that the accused
in a sudden, concerted and unprovoked act, all of them being armed with
improvised deadly weapons, stabbed the victim to death after pushing their cell
door open, threatening and throwing off-guard Miranda when the victim who was
holding in both hands the bread and coffee intended for the breakfast of the
assailants was not in a position to defend himself from the unexpected
assault.
“As to the existence of evident premeditation, it was
established by the following circumstances:
(1) the sudden concerted attack, perpetrated and calculated to throw
off-guard the intended victim as he was in the act of giving food to the
assailants, which attack necessarily must have been planned; (2) that all of
the accused were armed with improvised deadly weapons which they were not
supposed to possess and which they must have secretly prepared for a long time
for committing the crime; and (3) the admission on the part of the accused in
their sworn statements that they killed the victim by ‘attacking first’ because
they had heard that the members of the rival gang would liquidate them, leading
to the conclusion that the accused must have planned how to counteract the
supposed attack of the rival gang by literally beating the latter to the draw.
“The aggravating circumstance of obvious ungratefulness
was present as the victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the
assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast. Instead of being grateful to the victim, at
least by doing him no harm, they took advantage of his helplessness when his
two arms were used for carrying their food, thus preventing him from defending
himself from the sudden attack.”
Appellants also submit that Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code
should not be applied to them since there is “no evidence on records as
(to) the exact status of the accused as prisoners at the New Bilibid Prison.” This argument need not detain Us
long because, as pointed out by
the Solicitor General, We have made a definitive
finding in People vs. Bautista, et al. that
all the four who were accused of
killing Basilio Beltran were, at the time of the commission of the crime,
serving sentence by virtue of a final judgment.
Then too, George Daeng stated in
his sworn statement that he was serving sentence for illegal possession
of firearms and Castillo affirmed that he was serving sentence for
“robbery hold-up.”
Having committed, therefore, the crime of murder, as the killing
was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery, at a time when the
appellants were both serving sentences by virtue of a final judgment, the
penalty of death was properly imposed on appellants George Daeng and Rolando
Castillo. However, for lack of necessary
votes to sustain the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty imposed upon
the appellants is reduced to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. But, the penalty imposed upon the appellants
should be, as it is hereby, reduced to reclusion perpetua.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Fernandez,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., see his brief
concurrence.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[2]
Ibid., p. 2.
[3]
Original Record, pp. 6-8.
[4]
People vs. George Daeng, et al., G.R. No. L-34091, January 30, 1973.
[5]
Original Record, pp. 175-178; pp.
211-213.
[6]
Ibid., p. 323.
[7]
x x x x x x x x x
3. T – Alam
mo ba ang dahilan kung bakit kita sinisiyasat ngayon dito sa tanggapan ng
Investigation Section?
S – Opo, Sir, tungkol po sa nasaksak naming isang
IC (Inmates Cadet) o bilanggong katulad ko sa harap ng building 8.
4. T – Kailan
ninyo sinaksak siya?
S – Ngayong ika-13 ng Desyembre 1970.
5. T – Humigit
kumulang anong oras ninyo sinaksak?
S – Mga bandang alas sais ng umaga (6:00 A.M.)
6. T – Sino
ang tinutukoy mong IC’s o bilanggong sinaksak ninyo?
S – Hindi ko po kilala sa pangalan ngunit kilala
ko sa mukha lamang.
7. T – Sino
sino ang kasama mong sumaksak sa bilanggong iyon?
S – Sina George Daeng, Gerardo Abuhin, at si
Conrado Bautista.
8. T – Mayroon
ba kayong kinaaanibang pangkat?
S – Ang aming pong pangkat ay Sigue-Sigue Sputnik.
9. T – Nalalaman
mo ba kung anong pangkat ang sinaksak ninyo?
S – Ang pagkakaalam ko sa pangkat niya ay kalaban
ng Manila Boy.
10. T – Bakit ninyo siya sinaksak?
S – Noong
mga nakaraang araw kung nagpapadala ang mga kasamahan namin na taga
building 4 ng mga cigarillo, sabon, at pera ay binabawasan ng mga IC or inmate
cadet dahil sila po ang nakabukas ang brigada kung kaya sila ang aming
inuutusan at ang dumi nila sa itaas ng aming brigada ay pumapasok sa brigada
namin at kung kami ay dinadalaw ay hinihingan kami ng pera para sa upa nila
bilang pagdadala ng calling slip at kapag hindi namin binigyan ay galit pa
sila.
11. T – Bakit ang mga Inmate Cadet (IC) ay nakabukas ang kanilang brigada
samantalang kayo naman ay nakasara?
S – Sapagkat ang mga IC o inmate cadet ay
gumaganap na Trustee Police sa loob ng prison compound samantalang kami ay nasa
bartolina bilang safekeeping at under punishment.
12. T – Saang iksaktong lugar ninyo sinaksak ang tinutukoy mong IC (Inmate
Cadet)?
S – Doon po namin sinaksak sa may harapan ng
bartolina 8-C
sa may tapat ng 8-A-2 sa may hagdanan sa ibaba.
13. T – Sino ang unang sumaksak sa inyo?
S – Hindi ko po alam sa amin kung sino ang unang
sumaksak sapagkat bagong gising palang ako at yong kasama kong tatlo ay
kasalukuyang sinasaksak na yong IC bago ako nanaksak at sinundan sila.
14. T – Saan nanggaling ang inyong sinaksak na IC (Inmate Cadet)?
S – Ang pagkakaalam ko ay escort ng mga nagraranso
(ration tenders) ng pagkain sa lahat ng brigada sa loob ng prison compound.
15. T – Papaano nabuksan ang inyong brigada?
S – Oras ng pag-aalmusal o agahan naming mga
bilanggo ng dumating ang aming tinapay at kape ay binuksan ang aming pintuan ng
aming tanod o keeper at sabay ang aming pag-rushed out sa aming pintuan.
16. T – Nang kayo ay nag-rushed-out ano ang ginawa ng inyong tanod o
Keeper or mga Keeper?
S – Ang ginawa ng aming keeper ay pumito ng mga
tatlong beses at kami ay hinaharangan sa may pintuan para kami makalabas.
17. T – Natatandaan mo ba kung sino ang inyong keeper?
S – Hindi po.
18. T – May mga matalas ako dito sa aking lamisa, ituro mo sa akin ang
tunay mong matalas na ginamit mong ipinanaksak doon sa IC (Inmate Cadet) na
pinatay ninyo?
S – Ito po.
(the declarant pointing to the improvise deadly weapon he used during
the stabbing incident.)
19. T – Noong saksakin mo ang IC o Inmate Cadet na nabanggit papaano ang
kanyang position?
S – Nakatihaya na po sa lupa sa may harapan ng
8-C.
20. T – Ilang beses mo siyang sinaksak?
S – Dalawang beses po.
21. T – Saan parte ng katawan mo siya tinamaan?
S – Dalawang beses ko siya sinaksak sa tiyan.
x x x x x x x
x x x x
x
3. T – Alam mo ba ang dahilan kung bakit kita
sinisiyasat?
S – Oho dahil ho sa pagkakapanaksak namin.
4. T – Sino ang sinaksak ninyo?
S – Hindi ko kilala.
5. T – Sinong namin ang tinutukoy mo?
S – Sina bilanggong CONRADO BAUTISTA, (pris.
Conrado Bautista, No. 71055-P), ROLANDO CASTILLO (pris. Rolando Castillo, No.
31087-P) at iyon (Declarant pointing to pris. Gerardo Abuhin, No. 61409-P).
6. T – Saang Lugar ninyo sinaksak ang taong sinaksak
ninyo?
S – Sa pintuan ng brigada 8-C sa silong ng hagdan
ng I-C.
7. T – Anong oras ninyo siya sinaksak?
S – Mga bandang ala 5:00 ng umaga.
8. T – Bakit
ninyo sinaksak ang tao?
S – Kaya po namin sinaksak ang namatay dahil po sa
pagbabanta nila sa amin.
9. T – Ano ang ginagawa nang namatay sa pintuan ng
Dormitoryo ninyo?
S – Naghatid ho nang tinapay na pagkain namin para
almusal.
10.
T – Sino ang nag-utos sa inyo na
patayin ninyo ang namatay?
S – Wala po.
11.
T – Saan galing ang matalas na
ginamit mong panaksak?
S – Dala ko galing sa brigada 4.
12.
T – Nasaan na ang ginamit mong
matalas?
S – Iyan po sir (Declarant pointing to an
improvised ice-pick more or less 10 inches long.)
13.
T – Sa inyong apat sino ang unang
sumaksak sa namatay?
S – Ako po sir.
14. T – Saan mo unang sinaksak ang namatay?
S – Sa tiyan po.
15. T – Ilang ulit mo sinaksak ang namatay?
S – Marami ho hindi ko na matandaan.
16.
T – Nang una mong saksak ang
namatay ano ang ginawa niya?
S – Naka tayo may dala-dalang tinapay.
x x x x x x x
x x
[8]
Original Record, t.s.n., pp. 19-33; pp. 38-53.
[9]
Ibid., pp. 53-58.
[10]
Original Record, pp. 161-162.