G.R. No. L-6246. May 26, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIX RIPAS, RAMON ORBISTA, CARMO AGUDES, SANGGUBAN ESTO AND DUPIGAN ESTO, DEFENDANTS. RAMON ORBISTA, DEFENDANT AND AP…
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Danugan Basilio, Ramon Orbista, Carmo Agudes, Sanguban Esto and Dupigan
Esto were, before the Court of First Instance of Capiz, charged with
the crime of robbery with homicide for robbing the house of Eduardo
Apio and later killing him. Before the trial Danugan Basilio escaped
from the custody of the Philippine Constabulary. After trial of the
remaining five accused they were all found guilty of murder with the
aggravating circumstances of cruelty and sentenced to the penalty of
death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P5,000, and
to pay the costs.
The decision was promulgated on October 17, 1952, all the five
defendants signing or thumb marking a document attesting to the
promulgation. Thereafter, they were confined in the municipal jail of
Calibo, Capiz. Two days thereafter, that is to say, on October 19,
1952, there was a mass jailbreak in the course of which, besides other
prisoners, the five defendants in question escaped. In the afternoon
Ramon Orbista was recaptured but his co-defendants eluded the patrol
that went after them.
However, several days later the combined police of two
municipalities could make contact with the fugitives but although said
fugitives could not be recaptured, one of them, defendant Sanguban Esto
was killed.
Under the provisions of Rule 120, section 18, of the Rules of Court,
by their escape after promulgation of the sentence of conviction, all
the defendant including Ramon Orbista who was recaptured may be
considered as having waived or renounced their right to appeal.
However, because of the imposition of the death penalty, the case is
now before us for review of the case against Damon Orbista under the
provisions of Rule 118, section 9, of the Rules of Court.
We have carefully studied the evidence in the case and we agree that
the guilt of defendant Orbista has been established beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows. On or
before the month of May 1951, members of the Hukbalahap Organization
(huk) had infiltrated in the barrios of Luctuga, Taroytoy, Manikan, and
other places in the town of Libacao, Capiz. They were led by defendant
Felix Ripas. One day Eduardo Apio was captured by these dissidents but
he was afterwards released on his undertaking to pay them or their
chief Felix Ripas the sum of P100. Apio, however, did not keep his
promise either because he did not believe in the doctrines of the huks
or could not afford to pay P100 or possibly was afraid to contribute to
and support the dissident organization for fear of punishment by the
Philippine Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies. Presumably
as a measure of protection from the dissidents whom he expected to
resent his failure, to pay, he frequented the Constabulary garrison in
the neighborhood. This must have aggravated the resentment of the group
of dissidents led by Felix Ripas.
On May 24, 1951, the dissident group in question went on a foraging
expedition, according to them, to replenish their supplies and collect
contributions from the residents of the different barrios. From the
evidence it. would appear that the group never paid for anything but
merely confiscated supplies and money after torturing and intimidating
their owners. On that same day, May 24, 1951, this group of huks and
sympathisers composed of Danugan Basilo, Ramon Orbista, Carmo Agudes,
Sanguban Esto and Dupigan Esto led by Felix Ripas arrived at the
evacuation place of one Enrico Cocoy, a farmer, at about midnight and
after tying him up they proceeded to take from his house whatever they
needed including one kettle, chickens, articles of clothing and one
mat. After questioning him and obtaining the information that he had
just come from the evacuation hut of Eduardo Apio, they ordered him to
guide them to Apio’s place, which he did, with his hands still tied,
arriving at their destination early the next morning. Felix Ripas
called to Eduardo and when the latter came down he was searched for
weapons and his hands were forthwith tied behind him and he was beaten
with a piece of wood, Felix demanding the payment of the P100 promised
him and asking why it had not been given him. According to Apio’s wife
Crisanta who came down the house with her husband, defendants Ramon
Orbista and Carmo Agudes went up her house and took some cooked rice,
10 dresses, 3 pairs of soldiers’ uniforms, P90 in paper currency and
P50 in coins and one silver-plated bolo. Crisanta told the court that
she and her husband had borrowed some money from her godfather named
Ricamonte, used it as capital and had a little business of selling
things to their barriomates, thus explaining the presence of dresses
and uniforms and some cash in their house. The group thereafter left
taking Apio with them. Crisanta, sensing that her husband was being
kidnapped, perhaps to be later killed, pleaded with Felix Ripas, who is
her uncle, being a brother of her father, to spare her husband’s life
because he was the only support of their large family, even offering
herself to be taken away in his place, but her pleas were all in vain.
So, she and her eldest daughter Patria accompanied Apio or rather
trailed along despite the admonition of the kidnappers that her coming
to accompany her husband would serve no purpose.
Upon reaching the mouth of the Aibatung Creek about five kilometers
away the party stopped. It was then already bright and Felix Ripas made
preparations to execute their victim. Crisanta weeping, with her
daughter and almost hysterical, renewed her pleas for mercy, reminding
Felix that he was her father’s brother, even offering her own life for
that of her husband, but her uncle and his followers remained unmoved.
Felix, bolo in hand, approached Apio whose hands remained tied behind
him and slashed him in the stomach. Thereafter, all his five companions
followed their leader and each inflicted a bolo blow on the prostrate
victim. Not content with all this, Sanguban Esto cut Apio’s tongue,
saying that it was that member that had given information to the Army
soldiers. Ramon Orbista cut Apio’s ears and Danugan Basilio cut his
lips. Apio was in the agonies of death but since he still moved, Ripas,
Orbista, Sanguban Esto, and Carmo Agudes picked up stones and pounded
his head with them thereby crushing his skull. Then the group left
still with Cocoy as their guide. Later, perhaps realizing that he
(Cocoy) was completely under their control, the defendants untied his
hands and made him carry their supplies. Much later, upon his promise
to pay them P30, he was released.
Cocoy witnessed the killing of Apio and fully corroborated the
testimony of Crisanta on the point, including the acts of cruelty
performed by the defendants. It is not difficult to form, but yet
unpleasant to contemplate a mental picture of that tragic and
heart-breaking early morning scene in the forest where a grieving wife
and mother, between sobs, pleaded tho vainly for the life of her
husband, if not for her sake, at least for that of her six young
children, going to the extreme of offering her own life in exchange,
only to be ignored and rebuffed by her own uncle who had the heart to
cold-bloodedly kill his helpless and innocent victim whose only fault
was in failing to contribute P100 to promote outlawry and instead in
seeking the protection of law enforcing agencies.
The theory of the defense is that the dissident group in question
was led not by Felix Ripas but by one called “Commander Inday”, and
that it was the latter who ordered the kidnapping of Eduardo Apio and
his subsequent execution, and that although it was Felix Ripas who
killed Apio by slashing him four times with a bolo, Felix acted against
his will, because Commander Inday threatened to kill him with a gun;
that furthermore, some of the defendants including Ramon Orbista did
not witness the killing because they were sent ahead to act as scouts
and report the presence of soldiers. We are convinced as was the trial
court that although Commander Inday may have actually existed and may
have been in the Province of Capiz at that time, he never figured in
the kidnapping and execution of Apio, much less was he present at the
time. In the appreciation of this conflicting evidence, both
prosecution and defense, much depends upon the credibility of the
witnesses. The trial court which had the opportunity of gauging said
credibility has the following to say:
“The court believes the testimony of Crisanta and
Cocoy on how and by whom was Apio killed and that in that occasion
besides the accused, they did not see other persons. Their testimonies
are probable. They answered frankly and promptly the question put to
them. In the witness stand they appeared self-composed. They did not
exhibit any uneasiness that would indicate that they were not telling
the truth. No cause was shown why these two witnesses would declare
falsely against the accused. Ripas is uncle and the other accused,
cousins of Crisanta. It was admitted by Oteanta and the accused that
before the date of the killing, there was no ill-feeling between Apio
and his family, on one hand, and any one of the accused, on the other.
Cocoy, according to the accused, was also a Huk, so they did not
ill-treat him on that occasion. Inday only asked him to guide them to
Apio’s hut.”
Counsel de oficio for Orbista lays stress on the delay in
the filing of the complaint, the latter having been filed about a year
after the commission of the crime. This was satisfactorily explained by
the prosecution to the effect that it was inconvenient, if not
impossible, to file the complaint and go to trial earlier because of
the deterioration of peace and order; that people were afraid to act as
witnesses because of the presence of Huks in the vicinity; that the
dissidents were then being attracted by the Government with offers of
special considerations for their peaceful surrender, and that if the
complaint was filed then, said dissidents instead of surrendering would
resort to measures of reprisals. As a matter of fact, before trial,
many if not all of the accused in this case surrendered to the
authorities, only, as already stated, to escape when they found that
they were sentenced to death.
The Solicitor General believes that in the commission of the crime
of murder the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and
voluntary surrender should be considered, but compensated by those of
cruelty and evident premeditation. We agree with Government counsel as
to voluntary surrender but not on the existence of the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction. It is for the trial court rather
than for an appellate tribunal to find and to consider the existence of
this alternative circumstance, which the lower court failed or declined
to do. The fact that Orbista thumb marked the document attesting of the
promulgation of the decision, a sign that he did not know how to write,
is not sufficient to prove the existence of this alternative
circumstance. Not illiteracy alone but also lack of sufficient
intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of this circumstance.
A person able to sign his name but otherwise so densely ignorant and of
such low intelligence that he does not realize the full consequences of
a criminal act, may still be entitled to this mitigating circumstance.
On the other hand, another unable to write because of lack of
educational facilities or opportunities, may yet be highly or
exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert that he easily and ever
realizes the full significance of his acts, in which case he may not
invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor.
As to the existence of the aggravating circumstance- of
premeditation, we are not in a position to agree with Government
counsel. There is no evidence to show when the dissident group,
particularly Felix Ripas, decided to kill Eduardo Apio. As already
stated, they were then on a foraging expedition, and it was only when
they came upon Cocoy who could guide them to the place of Apio that
they decided to go to the latter’s place. Anyway, Orbista as a mere
follower was not making the decisions; it was Felix Ripas as their
leader. It is possible that it was only at the last moment as they were
on their way to or when they arrived at Apio’s place, when his failure
or refusal to pay the P100 angered Felix, that his liquidation was
decided upon, to set an example to the rest of the barrio residents, as
to the fate awaiting anyone who did not fulfill his commitments with
the Huks. That leaves only the aggravating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Following the recommendation of the Solicitor General the
penalty of death imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. With this modification, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs.
This occasion is a good as any to say something about the escape of
prisoners accused or convicted of serious crimes. Of late, there would
appear to have been too many mass jailbreaks altogether, resulting in
the escape of many prisoners, due either to laxity in vigilance,
negligence in custody of dangerous prisoners or inadequacy of local
jails. The apprehension of persons accused of serious crimes like
robbery with homicide, kidnapping, murder, etc. is a difficult and
hazardous enough task for peace officers. Their trial which involves
the subpoenaing and maintenance sometimes of indifferent or unwilling
witnesses during a protracted and tedious hearing, affording them full
protection from reprisals all the while, is another task for the
judiciary and its officers. All this work, expense, and labor should
not be rendered in vain by making it possible for prisoners to so
easily escape. Before a person committing a crime is apprehended and
formally charged, his arrest and confinement may not be the direct
concern of the judiciary; but once arrested and accused before the
courts, the latter have jurisdiction and custody over him, and until
the case against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated by acquittal
or final conviction by the trial court or an appellate tribunal, his
safe confinement in prison must needs be and is the immediate concern
of the Judiciary because he is under its jurisdiction. In the present
case, of the six persons originally accused and of the five finally
convicted and sentenced to death, only Ramon Orbista was recaptured in
order to have his case reviewed by this Tribunal. One defendant is
dead. So, four remain at large. Have measures been taken to apprehend
these four or have they been recaptured, we do not know. What is worse
is that not infrequently, the most guilty are the ones that escape
punishment. In the present case, Felix Ripas, the leader, sentenced to
death is still at large, while his follower Ramon Orbista is in jail to
serve a sentence of life imprisonment. Not many people can agree that
at least in this case, there is real and full justice. A more strict
custody of prisoners especially those accused or convicted of serious
crimes particularly involving a sentence of death, would minimize the
evil. In municipal and provincial jails where due co lack of
facilities, measures of security are not so favorable, perhaps the
Philippine Constabulary could help. And drastic disciplinary action on
erring or negligent jail wardens or guards would go a long ways in
discouraging escapes of prisoners in the future. Let a copy of this
decision be furnished in the Office of the Chief Executive, the
Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of National Defense.
Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, A., Jogo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
[1] U. S. vs. Elicanal, 35 Phil., 209 and U. S. Estorico, 35 Phil., 410.