THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JACINTO PARCON, PRIMITIVO SABULAO, ARTEMIO LANGGAO, SUPERIANO ORAYAN AND JULITO ORAYAN, ACCUSED.  JULITO ORAYAN AND SUPERI…

Superiano Orayan
appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Palawan, Coron Branch IV, finding
him guilty of two separate crimes of robbery with homicide and
sentencing him to two death penalties and to pay an indemnity of twelve
thousand pesos to each set of heirs of the three victims, Eusebio Rosete and his two sons,
Columbus and Hermogenes (Criminal Case Nos. 614 and
734).

Junto Orayan
appealed from the same decision, convicting him of two separate crimes of
robbery with intimidation of persons and sentencing him, for each robbery, to
an indeterminate penalty of four months of arresto
mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision
correccional as maximum.

In the same decision, the two accused (brothers) were ordered to
pay solidarily to the heirs of Eusebio
Rosete the total sum of P1, 150 as the value of the things taken from him
(less the sum of P340.95 in the custody of the clerk of court), with subsi­diary
imprisonment in case of insolvency as to Julito.  The per­sonal effects of Irenea
Manansala and the three victims, which were presented
as exhibits, were ordered to be returned to her and the victims’ heirs, respectively.

The trial court acquitted Jacinto Parcon,
Primitivo Sabulao and Artemio Langgao for insufficiency
of evidence and on the ground of reasonable doubt.

There is no doubt as to the corpus delicti.  Eusebio Rosete, a fifty-year old farmer, was feloniously killed in
the evening of Tuesday, April 4, 1972
in his farmhouse located at Barrio Tiniguiban, municipality
of El Nido,
Palawan.  His right cheekbone and right arm (humerus) were fractured. 
In the morning of April 7 his body was found floating in the sea about
thirty meters from the shore of Tiniguiban.  To that tragedy there was a sequel.

In the evening of Wednesday,
April 5, 1972, Eusebio’s two sons named Columbus,
17, and Hermogenes (Lito), 13, were ruthlessly
decapitated in Eusebio’s residence located at Barrio Dipnay (San Fernando),
El Nido.  Their
headless bodies, already in a state of decomposition, were discovered in the
house in the morning of April 8.  The
next day their heads were found by policemen about one hundred meters away from
the house.

There were bloodstains on the walls, floor and ground under­neath
Eusebio’s residence. 
A trunk (baul) near Columbus’
body was empty.  One of the three
containers (tabungos) for palay
was also empty.

In the farmhouse, the policemen found a green suitcase covered
with a mat and tied to the ceiling which Superiano Orayan had brought to that place.  He said that he had bought it from some­body.  It was identified by Irenea
Manansala, the common-law wife of Eusebio,
as her property.  When opened, it
contained several items of personal property such as clothes, a pillow case, flash­light and fishing line.  The robbery seemed to be linked with the
killing.

As background, it should be stated that Alejo
Orayan and his three sons, Mercalito,
Superiano and Julito
(Deolito), natives of Placer, Masbate, who went to El
Nido in December, 1971, became the tenants on the
coconut land of Eusebio Rosete
located at Tini­guiban.  They lived in Rosete‘ s farmhouse since March 6, 1972 (No.  15, Exh.
Y, 109 tsn Dec. 11, 1972).  Rosete himself resided in his big house located at Barrio San. Fernando (Dipnay),
El Nido (No. 27, Exh. W).  On Saturdays, Superiano and Julito worked in Eusebio’s house in Dipnay (80 tsn Dee. 6, 1972).  Superiano also worked in Eusebio’s
riceland in Dipnay (106 tsn Dec. 11, 1972).

In the morning of April 7, when Alejo
was queried as to the whereabouts of Superiano and Julito, he said that they went to Liminangcong
to contact someone about a pumpboat which would be
used in a trip to Quezon
Province.  The absence of Julito
and Superiano from the farmhouse generated the
suspicion that they were involved in the robbery with homicide.

Superiano and Julito
were arrested on April 9 in Sitio Maran­lao.  Cash amounting to about four hundred pesos
was found in the pocket of Superiano’s pants.  He admitted that it was stolen money (35 tsn Feb. 13, 1973).  Also found in Superiano’s
pockets were a pair of eyeglasses and a black wallet.  A necklace, two rings and a traveling bag
were in his possession.

Seized from Julito were a necklace and
four rings, the properties of Columbus, Irenea and Eusebio.  Superiano admitted to the police that he took the cash and
the green suitcase from Eusebio’s residence.  (21 tsn
Feb. 12, 1973.)

From the farmhouse, the police took a bloodstained empty tool
box, a buri bag (tampipi), a bamboo club and a
bloodstained coconut midrib (Exh. B, R, S and. U).

Superiano’s statement was taken on
April 12 by the chief of police (Exh. X).  His second statement was taken by the mayor
on April 14 in the presence of the chief of police and two police­men and sworn
to before the mayor.  The mayor
propounded the questions in English, then translated
them into Tagalog, a dialect known to Superiano because he grew up in San Andres, Quezon Province,
and the answers were translated into English also by the mayor (Exh. W).

Julito‘ s statement was taken also on April 14 by the chief of
police and sworn to before the mayor (Exh. Y).  He signed his
statement while Superiano thumbmarked
his two state­ments.

Superiano‘ s second statement is a reiteration of his first statement
with the slight modification that in his second statement he admitted having
received P200, and not P250, out of the esti­mated P800 cash which was taken
from Eusebio‘ s residence.  The chief of police testified that the three
statements were voluntarily given.

Jacinto Parcon (Entong), Primitivo Sabulao and Artemio Langgao, who, by means of
the said statements were implicated in the robbery with homicide, were
arrested, with Superiano”s assistance, in Pirate
Island or Barrio San Jose of Taytay, Palawan.  Eighteen
bottles of explosives were found in Parcon’s
possession.

On April 17, the police, together with Julito,
found in Eusebio’s farmhouse the bolo with the green
handle which according to Supe­riano was used by him
in killing Hermogenes in Barrio San Fernando (Exh. N; 25-27 tsn
Feb. 12, 1973).  Julito also pointed to the police the place near Eusebio’s residence in San Fernando
where the victims’ heads were thrown away after the killing.

During the trial, the prosecution was not able to present any
eyewitness to the killings and the robbery. 
So, the judgment of conviction was based mainly on the sworn statements
of Julito and Superiano
which were not unqualified confessions of guilt but declarations against penal
interest.

Superiano in his confession said that
he stabbed Eusebio while the latter was asleep
because a man pointed a gun at him and ordered him to kill Eusebio.  When Eusebio was
awakened, two other men stabbed him. 
When Eusebio was already dead, the three men
(later identified as Parcon, Sabulao
and Langgao) placed a piece of wood at his back and
bound him with rope and rattan.  They
ordered Superiano to help them in carrying Eusebio’s body, which was weighted with a stone, and they
jettisoned the body into the sea between Daracoton Island
and Tiniguiban. 
The three men returned to Pirate
Island.

Superiano further stated that in Eusebio’s residence Parcon, Langgao and Sabulao ordered him
to stab Hermogenes. 
He stabbed Hermogenes with a bolo with a green
handle while Sabulao (Tibo)
stabbed Columbus.  They took the palay
and loaded it in the motor banca.  Superiano and Julito, who was hiding in the sugarcane field, boarded the banca.  The two
disembarked at Tiniguiban.  Superiano was given
P200 by the man with gold teeth (Exh. W).

Julito in his confession declared that
at a distance of about two and a half meters he witnessed Parcon,
Sabulao and Langgao
stabbing Eusebio and then his body was thrown into
the sea (Nos. 33, 34 and 44, Exh. Y).  On the following
night, the same three malefactors fetched Julito and Superiano from the farmhouse and they proceeded to Eusebio’s “big house”.  At about nine-thirty in the evening, they
beheaded Columbus and Hermogenes and placed their
heads in a kerosene can (Exh. Y).

Julito further declared that after the
killing they took the green suitcase and ten cavans
of palay which they loaded in the motor banca after
throwing away the heads of the two victims at some distance from the
house.  The three men allegedly forced
the two brothers to receive two suitcases and cash amounting to P250.  Julito and Superiano went to the farmhouse.  Their three companions returned to Pirate Island (Exh. 4).

The chief of police in an amended complaint dated May 25, 1972, filed in the municipal
court of El Nido, charged Parcon,
Sabulao, Langgao, Superiano and Julito with robbery
with multiple murder.

When arraigned before the municipal judge, Superiano
and Julito pleaded guilty with the qualification
“dahil kami ay inuutusan” or “dahil inutusan lamang ako“.  The municipal
judge understood that statement as an admission of guilt.  (pp. 10, 55-56, Record of Crim. Case No. 346; 35, 42 tsn Nov. 20, 1973).

The provincial fiscal filed against Parcon,
Sabulao, Langgao and the Orayan brothers two informations
for robbery in band with homicide (Criminal Cases Nos. 614 and 734).  The two cases were tried jointly.

At the trial, Superiano and Julito relied on an alibi. 
They declared that they had never been to Barrios Tiniguiban
and San Fernando and that they had
always stayed with their cousin Jesus Abela in Sitio Maranlao where they worked
as carpenters.  They said that they did
not know Eusebio Rosete and
his two sons.

The two appellants repudiated their confessions.  Superiano denied
that the thumbmarks in his two confessions were his thumbmarks.  Julito denied the authenticity of his signatures.  Appellants claimed that they were maltreated
or subjected to third degree.  Their
testi­monies on that point were corroborated by Abela
and their mother, Pacita Tabor.  Superiano and Julito even denied being acquainted with their co-accused, Parcon, Sabulao and Langgao.

The mayor, testifying as a rebuttal witness, said that Julito and Superiano were not
tortured.  He declared that the thumbmarks of Superiano in his
confessions and the signatures of Julito in his
confession are authentic.  The chief of
police identified the thumbmarks and signatures of Superiano and Julito in their
confessions.

It should be stressed that credence should be given to the tes­timony
of Irenea Manansala, the
common-law wife of Eusebio Rosete,
that Superiano and Julito
worked as farmhands of Eusebio in his coco­nut land
located at Barrio Tiniguiban where he had a hut (kubo) and that the two worked on Saturdays in Eusebio‘ s
riceland and residence located at Barrio San Fernando
and were paid in cash and in palay (77-80 tsn Dec. 6, 1972; 98-100 tsn Dec.
7, 1972).  Irenea
in her sworn statement before the mayor on April 9, 1972 declared that the members of the Orayan family were tenants of Eusebio
(p. 32, Record).

We find that the testimonies of Superiano
and Julito that they did not know Eusebio
and his sons, that they had never been to Barrios Tiniguiban
and San Fernando and that they stayed all the time in Sitio
Maranlao with their cousin, Jesus Abela,
are brazen lies.

Their declaration that they had nothing to do with the robbery
must be regarded as another glaring prevarication because it is undeniable that
some of the stolen objects were found in their possession and, in the case of Superiano, his father informed the police that the green
suitcase of Irenea Manansala
which contained the personal effects of Irenea and Eusebio, was brought by Superiano
to the farmhouse.

Superiano accompanied the police to Pirate
Island where he fingered Parcon, Sabulao and Langgao as the three persons who took part in the killing
of Eusebio and his two sons and in the robbery com­mitted
in Eusebio’s family residence.

Julito accompanied the police to Eusebio’s residence where he pointed the place where the
heads of Columbus and Hermogenes were disposed of.

These circumstances show that the testimonies of Superiano and Julito that they
had nothing to do with the robbery with homicide are arrantly false.

If the appellants could lie so glaringly on those matters, then
it is not surprising that they would also lie that they were tortured by the
police, that they did not execute any confessions before the mayor and chief of
police and that they were not arraigned and did not plead guilty “dahil sa kami
ay inutusan lamang”.

Their confessions are replete with many details which they alone
could supply and which the mayor and chief of police would not be able to
concoct out of thin air.

Consequently, some probative value must be accorded to the ad­missions
in their confessions as to their participation in the robbery with
homicide.  In fact, their counsel de
oficio did not believe their alibi and their
pretension that they had no complicity in the commis­sion of the crimes
charged.

The trial court said that it could not believe that the mayor,
chief of police and municipal judge of El Nido had
diabolically framed up the appellants, there being no motive that would impel
them to commit such “an abominable act”.

The trial court found that the confessions of Superiano
and Julito were given voluntarily because they
contained details which had nothing to do with the robbery with homicide and
exculpatory statements such as that Superiano was
ordered to kill Eusebio and his sons.  The trial court cited the rule that an
exculpatory state- ment in a confession is an
indication of voluntariness because it is not usually
found in an extorted confession (People vs. Aquino,
L-3240, April 21, 1952, 91 Phil. 910, unpublished).

It also cited the holding that there may be instances, occasions
and circumstances which make it justifiably imperative for the trial judge to
believe or accept only a part of the confession and reject the rest (People vs.
Solaña, 116 Phil. 383, 390).

Appellants contend that with respect to Eusebio
Rosete the crime committed is murder (not robbery
with homicide), that only Superiano Orayan should be held responsible for that crime and that Julito did not commit robbery against Eusebio.

That contention is meritorious. 
There is no direct evidence whatsoever as to any robbery committed against
Eusebio when he was killed in his farmhouse where he
had temporarily lodged for the
night.  The prosecution did not prove
what personal effects of Eusebio, which were in his
farmhouse or on his person while asleep, were taken by the appellants.

The things belonging to Eusebio, which
were found in the pos­session of Superiano (money,
for example) could have been taken from his residence at Barrio Dipnay.  According to
Julito’s confession, the robbery took place in Eusebio’s residence (Nos. 47 and 48, Exh.
Y).

The Solicitor General, while conceding “that there really
seems to be no evidence to show that appellant Julito”
directly participated in the killing of Eusebio,
nevertheless, contends that he is liable as a co-principal because “he
conspired with” his brother Superiano.

That contention is devoid of merit.  The eight circumstances­ enumerated by the
Solicitor General in his brief, from which the conspiracy may allegedly be
inferred, do not exclude a reasonable doubt that Julito
had no complicity in the killing of Eusebio.

Former Solicitor General Edilberto Barot, appellants’ counsel de oficio, who conscientiously studied the record, including their hardly
legible confessions to the police (Exhs. X, Y and W),
agreed with the trial court that Superiano killed Eusebio and that his claim that he acted under duress was a
fabrication.  There is no evidence that Julito participated in the killing of Eusebio.

Treachery is aggravating because Eusebio
was killed while asleep.  Nocturnity is absorbed by treachery.  Dwelling is not aggra­vating because the
farmhouse was the dwelling of the accused.

Hence, Superiano should be sentenced to
reclusion perpetua for
the killing of Eusebio Rosete.

Counsel de oficio candidly admits that Superiano
committed robbery with double homicide with respect to the incident in Eusebio Rosete’s
residence in Barrio Dipnay or San Fernando. 
However, he contends that treachery was not aggravating because there is
no conclusive evidence that the victims were asleep.

We hold that the facts that the robbery with homicide (by
decapitation) was committed at night, that the victims were wearing T-shirts
and briefs, that their bodies were lying on mats, one on a papag
or bamboo bed and the other on the floor, that there were no signs of a struggle
or resistance and that the killings were easily consummated (as indicated in
appellants’ statements to the police) are conclusive indications that the
victims were asleep.  Hence, treachery is
aggravating.  Dwelling is also
aggravating.

Counsel de oficio
contends that Julito should not be regarded as a
co-principal in the robbery with homicide committed in Eusebio
Rosete’s residence but only as an accessory.  The Solicitor General argues that he is a
co-principal.

While there is no proof that Julito took
part in the killing of Eusebio in his farmhouse
in the evening of April 4, 1972,
there is no question that Julito was with his brother
Superiano and with Parcon, Langgao and Sabulao when the
robbery with homicide was perpetrated in
Eusebio’s residence.  His exact role in the perpetration of that
spe­cial complex crime is not shown.

He was riding in a motorized banca, Josie
Christ, with his brother and the three men when they went to Eusebio’s residence. 
He assisted his brother in taking possession of the objects taken from
the scene of the crime.  He was with his
co-accused when the heads of the two victims were placed in the kerosene can
and thrown into a place at some distance from the house.  He left the scene of the crime with his
co-accused.

He may not be a co-principal but certainly he was not a mere
accessory.  He should be held liable at
least as an accomplice in robbery with double homicide.  He was not a mere spectator
nor just a recipient of the loot. 
He was apparently a lookout or guard.

Julito’s unrebutted
testimony is that he was born on August
28, 1957 (17 tsn Aug. 21, 1973). 
So, he was fourteen years and eight months old when the crimes were
committed.  His statement to the police
shows that he acted with discernment.

As he is now more than twenty-four years old, he is no longer
entitled to a suspended sentence whether under article 80 of the Re­vised Penal
Code or under article 192 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, Presidential
Decree No. 603, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1179 and 1210.  However, he is entitled to a two-degree
reduction of his penalty under article 68(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, Superiano Orayan is convicted of murder for having killed Eusebio Rosete.  He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay an indemnity of twelve
thousand pesos to Eusebio’s heirs (Criminal Case No.
614).

He is also convicted of robbery with double homicide for which
the penalty, considering the aggravating circumstances, is death.  But for lack of necessary votes the penalty
is reduced to reclusion perpetua.  He is ordered to pay an indemnity of twelve
thousand pesos to each set of heirs of the victims, Columbus Rosete and Hermogenes Rosete (Criminal Case No. 734).

The two convictions of Julito Orayan for robbery are set aside.  He is convicted as an accomplice in
the robbery with double homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto
mayor as minimum to five years of prision
correccional as maximum.  He is ordered to pay an indemnity of six
thousand pesos to each set of heirs of the victims Columbus and Hermogenes.  Up to
that amount, he has solidary liability with his
brother Superiano (Criminal Case No. 734).

Considering that he has undergone preventive imprisonment, he may
now be released unless he is detained for some other offense.  The sum of P340.95 in the possession of the
clerk of court of the trial court should be returned to the heirs of Eusebio Rosete.  The personal effects presented as exhibits,
which belonged to Irenea Manansala,
should be returned to her.  Those
belonging to the three victims should be turned over to their respective heirs.

This judgment supersedes the trial court’ s
judgment.  Costs de
oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Ericta, Plana, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., concurs with J. Makasiar
and Abad
Santos that appellant Julito
Orayan is likewise guilty as co-principal of robbery
with double homicide.

Makasiar, J., appellant Julito Orayan
is guilty of robbery with double homicide as co-principal.

Abad Santos, J., in the result. He believes that Julito
Orayan is guilty as co-principal in the robbery with
double homicide.

Barredo and Concepcion,
Jr., on leave.