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

People versus Orayan

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted five men for a night of terror in El Nido, Palawan: the killing of a farmer and the decapitation of his two sons. Two brothers, Superiano Orayan and Julito Orayan, were convicted by the trial court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it shows how the Court calibrates criminal liability when there is no eyewitness and conviction rests on extrajudicial statements, and because it draws the fine line between principal, accomplice, and mere accessory in a special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Procedural History

The chief of police filed an amended complaint for robbery with multiple murder in the municipal court of El Nido, where Superiano and Julito pleaded guilty with the qualification that they were merely following orders. The provincial fiscal then filed two informations for robbery in band with homicide, which were tried jointly in the Court of First Instance of Palawan, Coron Branch Four. The trial court convicted Superiano of two separate crimes of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to two death penalties, convicted Julito of two separate crimes of robbery with intimidation of persons, and acquitted the three other accused for insufficiency of evidence and on reasonable doubt. Superiano and Julito appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in December 1981.

Facts

The Orayan family were tenants on the coconut land of Eusebio Rosete in Barrio Tiniguiban, El Nido, and lived in his farmhouse. Eusebio himself lived in his bigger house in Barrio Dipnay, also called San Fernando. On the evening of Tuesday, April 4, 1972, Eusebio was killed in his farmhouse; his body, with a fractured cheekbone and arm, was found floating in the sea three days later. On the evening of Wednesday, April 5, his sons Columbus, seventeen, and Hermogenes, thirteen, were decapitated in the family residence in Dipnay. Their headless bodies were found on April 8 and their heads the following day.

Superiano and Julito were arrested on April 9. Cash, a pair of eyeglasses, a black wallet, a necklace, rings, a traveling bag, and a green suitcase belonging to Eusebio's common-law wife Irenea Manansala were found in their possession. Both gave sworn statements before the chief of police and the mayor, which they later repudiated, claiming maltreatment and raising alibi. The prosecution presented no eyewitness to either the killings or the robbery.

The trial court found the confessions voluntary because they contained details only the accused could supply and even exculpatory statements, such as Superiano's claim that he was ordered at gunpoint to kill Eusebio. On appeal, the appellants conceded that the killing of Eusebio was murder rather than robbery with homicide, and disputed the extent of Julito's participation.

Issues

• Whether or not the killing of Eusebio Rosete was robbery with homicide, or murder only.
• Whether or not Julito Orayan is liable as a co-principal in the killing of Eusebio Rosete by conspiracy.
• Whether or not treachery and dwelling are aggravating circumstances in the killings.
• Whether or not Julito Orayan is a co-principal, an accomplice, or a mere accessory in the robbery with double homicide in the Rosete residence.
• Whether or not Julito Orayan is entitled to a reduced penalty as a minor acting with discernment.

Applicable Provisions

Article 68, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempt from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.

This provision governs the reduction of Julito's penalty, since he was fourteen years and eight months old when the crimes were committed and acted with discernment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that with respect to Eusebio Rosete the crime is murder, not robbery with homicide. There was no direct evidence of any robbery committed against Eusebio in his farmhouse; the prosecution did not prove what personal effects were taken from him there, and the money found on Superiano could have come from the residence in Dipnay. Treachery attended the killing because Eusebio was asleep, nocturnity was absorbed by treachery, and dwelling was not aggravating because the farmhouse was also the dwelling of the accused. Superiano was therefore sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the Solicitor General's conspiracy theory. The eight circumstances enumerated did not exclude a reasonable doubt that Julito had no complicity in the killing of Eusebio, and there was no evidence that he participated in it.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was aggravating in the killings in the Rosete residence. The robbery with homicide by decapitation was committed at night, the victims wore only T-shirts and briefs, their bodies lay on mats, there were no signs of struggle, and the killings were easily consummated. These were conclusive indications that the victims were asleep. Dwelling was also aggravating. Superiano was convicted of robbery with double homicide, for which the penalty considering the aggravating circumstances is death, but for lack of the necessary votes the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Julito was neither a co-principal nor a mere accessory but an accomplice. He was with the group when the robbery with homicide was perpetrated, he assisted his brother in taking possession of the objects taken, he was present when the heads were placed in a kerosene can and thrown away, and he left the scene with his co-accused. He was apparently a lookout or guard.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that Julito, having acted with discernment, was entitled to a two-degree reduction of his penalty under Article 68, paragraph 1, but no longer to a suspended sentence because he was already more than twenty-four years old.

Doctrine

First, robbery with homicide requires proof that personal property was taken from the victim; absent such proof, the killing is prosecuted as murder, not as the special complex crime. Second, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; circumstances that do not exclude a reasonable doubt of complicity cannot sustain a finding of conspiracy. Third, one who is present at the scene, assists in taking the loot, and acts as a lookout or guard, without proof of participation in the killing, is an accomplice, not a co-principal. Fourth, a minor over nine but under fifteen who acted with discernment is entitled to a penalty lower by at least two degrees under Article 68, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

Superiano Orayan was convicted of murder and of robbery with double homicide, each punished with reclusion perpetua plus indemnity, while Julito Orayan's two robbery convictions were set aside and he was convicted as an accomplice in robbery with double homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, with the judgment superseding that of the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that without proof of taking, a killing is murder and not robbery with homicide, and that a lookout who assists in carrying away the loot is an accomplice, not a principal. Examiners use this case to test the elements of the special complex crime, the degrees of participation, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68.