THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ROSARIO LAO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ROSARIO LAO AND ALBERTO PADIAMAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Lao

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Rosario Lao and Alberto Padiamat, together with several others, for the abduction and killing of Rosa Baltazar, the mistress of Rosario Lao's common-law husband. The trial court convicted Rosario Lao and Alberto Padiamat of kidnapping with murder. The Supreme Court's decision matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it recharacterizes the crime from kidnapping with murder to murder alone, on the theory that the conspirators planned the killing from the start; and it illustrates the fine line between a principal by direct participation and a principal by induction, as well as the effect of a conspiracy to kill on the criminal liability of each participant.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, presided over by Judge Hermogenes Caluag. The information charged Vicente Lao, Rosario Lao, Osias Feliciano, Alberto Padiamat, and Bienvenido Santos, also known as Ben Culot, with kidnapping with murder. Vicente Lao was acquitted. The case against Osias Feliciano was dismissed, and he was utilized as a government witness. Bienvenido Santos had not yet been apprehended at the time of the trial. The trial court found Rosario Lao and Alberto Padiamat guilty of kidnapping with murder and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua, and jointly and severally to pay the heirs of Rosa Baltazar the amount of 6,000 pesos. Rosario Lao and Alberto Padiamat appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in January 1961.

Facts

Vicente Lao and Rosario Lao were common-law husband and wife, residents of Echague, Manila, engaged in poultry raising at a farm in San Francisco del Monte. They had a store in Echague where they sold poultry products and feed. Osias Feliciano was a helper at the store. Vicente Lao had another common-law wife, Rosa Baltazar, with whom he had two children. In November 1953, Rosa was brought to the poultry farm to supervise the work there.

About two weeks before December 1953, Ben Santos came to the store, and Rosario Lao told Osias that she wanted Rosa taken away from the poultry farm because, since Rosa had been living with Vicente, their business had suffered bad luck. Ben Santos and Alberto Padiamat later conferred with Rosario Lao at the store, and she gave Ben money. Ben told Osias that they were taking Rosa from the farm and instructed him not to cry for help and not to tell the truth if asked. On the night of December 4, Ben and Padiamat entered the farm but failed to take Rosa because her doors were locked. When Osias reported this to Rosario Lao the following morning, she remarked that they were weak and asked why they did not enter. On December 5, Ben and Padiamat returned to the store, and Ben promised to take Rosa away on the seventh.

On the evening of December 7, Vicente and Rosario Lao, together with Osias, went to the poultry farm. That night, Osias heard Rosa calling his name, and he saw Ben Santos and Alberto Padiamat, both wearing fatigue uniforms with military police arm bands, walking beside her toward the hatchery. They took Rosa to the back of the hatchery and climbed over the wall with her. On January 9, the mortal remains of Rosa Baltazar were found in a shallow hole beside a creek, together with her clothing. The post-mortem findings confirmed the remains were those of a female below twenty-two years of age. Padiamat later executed a confession admitting that he and Ben Santos took Rosa away, killed her with a blow from a mason's sledge hammer, and buried her body. He also admitted receiving money from Rosario Lao through Ben Santos after the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of Osias Feliciano, the government witness, is worthy of belief despite the alleged improbabilities pointed out by the defense.
• Whether or not the confession of Alberto Padiamat, Exhibit S, contains the true facts surrounding the killing, and whether or not it was voluntarily executed.
• Whether or not the crime committed is kidnapping with murder, as charged in the information, or murder alone.
• Whether or not Rosario Lao is guilty as a principal by induction, and Alberto Padiamat as a principal by direct participation.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on principals in a conspiracy, as provided in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code:

The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

This provision bears on the case because the Court classified Rosario Lao as a principal by induction for having induced Ben Santos and Padiamat to kill Rosa Baltazar, and Alberto Padiamat as a principal by direct participation for having taken a direct part in the execution of the act.

The decision also applies the rule on qualifying and aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code, particularly evident premeditation, nocturnity, abuse of superior strength, and consideration of a price or reward, which the Court appreciated against the appellants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the testimony of Osias Feliciano was worthy of belief. It found no improbability in the incidents he described, explaining that Osias worked directly under Rosario Lao and owed loyalty to her rather than to Vicente Lao. His presence at the conferences was natural because he was a helper at the store, and his presence at the farm on the night of December 7 was explained by the order of Rosario Lao to check whether the plan was being carried out. The Court also gave weight to the fact that the trial judge, who heard the witnesses testify, believed Osias. The Court observed that a person who refuses to believe can always find fault with any minor incident inconsistent with his own belief, but the Court is duty-bound to review the evidence free from bias or prejudice.

On the second issue, the Court held that the confession of Alberto Padiamat, Exhibit S, contained the true facts and circumstances surrounding the killing. It rejected the argument that the absence of a skull fracture and of blood stains on the sledge hammer rendered the confession false, reasoning that the blow may have been slight and that the hammer may have been used for other purposes after the killing. The Court also rejected the argument that the hammer and shovel were found in the house of Ben Santos rather than in the quarry, explaining that Ben may have removed them to avoid detection. The Court found no satisfactory evidence that the confession was secured through force, intimidation, or threat.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime committed was not kidnapping with murder but murder alone, because the conspirators had planned to commit the latter crime, not that of kidnapping Rosa first and killing her later. The Court cited People versus Camo for this rule. The crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, and, on the part of Padiamat, by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, abuse of superior strength, and consideration of a price or reward.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Alberto Padiamat participated as a principal by direct participation and Rosario Lao as a principal by induction. Padiamat was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death, but because he played merely a secondary role and there was a lack of sufficient vote to impose that penalty, his sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Rosario Lao was also sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Both were ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally, in the sum of 6,000 pesos, with costs.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that when the conspirators planned the killing from the start, and the taking of the victim was merely a means to accomplish that plan, the crime is murder and not kidnapping with murder. The Court's reasoning turns on the statutory language of Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, which classifies as principals those who take a direct part in the execution of the act, those who directly force or induce others to commit it, and those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. A principal by induction is one who directly forces or induces others to commit the crime, and a principal by direct participation is one who takes a direct part in its execution. The appreciation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances, such as evident premeditation, nocturnity, abuse of superior strength, and consideration of a price or reward, determines the penalty to be imposed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but recharacterized the crime as murder, and sentenced both Rosario Lao and Alberto Padiamat to reclusion perpetua, with joint and several indemnity of 6,000 pesos to the heirs of Rosa Baltazar, with costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that when the killing is planned from the start and the taking of the victim is merely incidental, the crime is murder, not kidnapping with murder. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between a principal by direct participation and a principal by induction, and the appreciation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances in a conspiracy.