G.R. No. L-50300. October 26, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO YAP AND HERMINIO AMAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
The accused, Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar, having been meted the death penalty for the crime of Murder, the case was elevated to this Court for automatic
review.
The People’s version of the facts, as set forth in the Brief
filed by the Solicitor General, reads as follows:
“After drinking ‘tuba’ in the evening of March 11, 1976, appellants, Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar, proceeded
to the house of a certain Teofilo Fernandez located
at Barrio Magsikap, Rizal,
Occidental Mindoro (Exhibits ‘G’ & ‘H’). Upon
arriving there, the two woke up and challenged Teofilo
to come out of his house. The latter peeped through the window, and upon seeing
the appellants fully armed with a bolo and a gun, he did not go out of his
house. He recognized appellant Romeo Yap as the one with a bolo while the other
appellant Herminio Amar,
whose name he only came to know later when Herminio
was arrested by the authorities had a gun. (pp. 159-163, tsn.)
“From there, appellants left (pp. 163-164, Ibid) and proceeded
to the house of Antonio Alonsabe, also located in the
same barrio. Upon reaching the latter’s house, Romeo called out for Antonio.
Awakened the latter stood up to find out who the caller was and in effect saw
appellant Romeo Yap. The latter asked him to go down, which he did. There he
saw Romeo with his companion, Herminio Amar, armed with a bolo and gun, respectively (pp. 4-7,
Ibid).
“After informing Antonio where they came from earlier that
evening, Romeo asked the former to accompany them to Antonio’s father-in-law,
Felipe Santiago because his (Romeo’s) father wanted to meet them (pp. 9-10, Ibid;
Exh. ‘A’). At first, Antonio
refused; but he was forced to go with them when Romeo threatened to kill him.
The trio arrived at Felipe Santiago’s house at about midnight. Forthwith, Romeo instructed Antonio to call his
father-in-law, which the latter did (pp. 26-30, Ibid). Waking up, Felipe
proceeded to the balcony near the stairways. Thereupon, Romeo who meanwhile had
climbed the stairs introduced himself by saying ‘Ako si Miroy‘. Then he continue, Natatandaan
mo ba ang ginawa mo sa
aking kapatid?’ To which
Felipe answered, ‘Wala akong
ginawa sa iyong kapatid.’ To this, Romeo
said, “Magtapat ka ng totoo, pag hindi
ka nagtapat ikaw ay papatayin ko.’ Sensing trouble,
Felipe turned towards the door and was about to enter the room when all of a
sudden Romeo hacked him on the back with a bolo. Simultaneously, Herminio cocked his gun and pointed its muzzle towards
Antonio. The latter immediately ran towards the woods nearby, even as Romeo
continued hacking to death the helpless Felipe inside the room of his house
(pp. 32-35, 58-62, Ibid).
“When appellants left, Felipe was already dead, lying
frustrate (sic) on the floor. Immediately, Felipe’s wife who witnessed the
hacking of her husband, called for her brother, Bartolome
Bandiola, residing about a hundred fifty meters
away. The latter responded and came to her sister’s succor. Another brother, Rosauro Bandiola, also arrived
(pp. 62-64, 74-75, Ibid ). Rosauro
immediately reported the incident to the Police Headquarters of Rizal, and came back that same morning with Pat. Arnulfo Dimalaluan and a police photographer. Shortly
thereafter, Substation Commander Prudencio Miranda
with another policeman also arrived. Upon instruction of his
chief, Pat. Dimalaluan moved the body of the
deceased Felipe to verify the wounds he sustained. He then prepared a sketch of
Felipe’s cadaver (Exhibits ‘C’) showing the location of the wounds. (Exhibits
‘C-1’ to ‘C-11’). Another sketch was also prepared showing the place where the
cadaver of Felipe was found lying frustrate inside the house (Exhibit ‘D’).
Thereafter, the photographer took picture’s of the
body of the deceased (Exhibits ‘E’, ‘E-1’ to ‘E-7’). Follow-up investigation
was also conducted (pp. 79-89, 95, Ibid).
“Subsequently, persons who had knowledge of the incident were
invited to the police headquarters where their sworn statements were taken.
Then on March 16 and 17, 1976, Romeo and Herminio
were arrested, one after the other by the police (pp. 233-234, 292, Ibid).
After waiving their constitutional rights to remain silent and be assisted by
counsel (Exhibit ‘F’), appellants voluntarily gave their extrajudicial
confessions to the police (Exhibits ‘G’ and ‘H’). (pp. 99-107, Ibid ).”[1]
Dr. Rodolfo F. Jaravata, Municipal Health Officer San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, did not autopsy the cadaver of Felipe Santiago but
he certified that the cause of death was “Hemorrhage, secondary to
multiple hacked wounds.[2] The
sketch of the front and back of
the body of the deceased and the photographs of his cadaver showed that he
sustained two wounds at the back (Exhibits “C-10”,
“C-11” & “E-2”); two gaping wounds behind the left
shoulder (Exhibits “C-8”, “C-9” & “E-2”); one
slashed wound across the face (Exhibits “C-1”, “E-1” &
“E-3”) and a smaller one on the left cheek extending to below the ear
(Exhibit “C-2”); one wound across the neck (Exhibit “C-3”);
another in front of the left shoulder (Exhibit “C-4”); a wound on the left arm (Exhibit “C-‘5”); three wounded fingers on the
left hand (Exhibit “C-6”); and a wounded toe
on the left foot (Exhibit “C-1”).
On April
12, 1976, an Information was filed against both accused, charging them
with the crime of Murder before the former Court of First Instance of
Occidental Mindoro, reading as follows:
“That on or about the 11th day of March, 1976, in Sitio Curimas, Barangay Magsikap, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery
and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Felipe Santiago, in the following
manner, to wit: accused Romeo Yap wounding said Felipe Santiago with a bolo on
different parts of the body and accused Herminio Amar Acting as guard while holding a home made gun (pugakang) and preventing succor from other person, thereby
inflicting upon said Felipe Santiago several wounds which had been the cause of his untimely death.
“That as a consequence of the unlawful acts of the accused, the heirs of said Felipe Santiago
suffered actual damages in the amount of not less than P12,000.00, as well as compensatory and moral damages in such
amount that this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.”
Upon arraignment, both
accused pleaded not guilty.
In his defense, ROMEO
Yap, a fisherman, 30 years of age, married, residing at Barrio Rumbang, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, insists that he did not hack Felipe Santiago in
the evening of March 11, 1976, as he was at Barrio Rumbang,
where he resides, at the time; that he did not know the latter personally
during his lifetime; that he did not know where Antonio Alonsabe
was residing on that date; that HERMINIO Amar was not
with him that evening; that he was made to sign a document which was already
prepared and which he did not understand because he does not know Pilipino;
that he did not subscribe nor swear to a document purporting to be his
extrajudicial confession before Mayor Bartolome H.
Miranda; and that he was never informed of his constitutional rights but was
merely made to sign a typewritten statement.
For his part, HERMINIO Amar, a laborer, 36 years old, married, residing at Barrio Rumbang, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, testified that he came to know ROMEO only in December
of 1976 during the town fiesta; that he was not with ROMEO in the evening of
March 11, 1976; that he was never in Barrio Magsikap,
Rizal, Occidental Mindoro,
where the fatal incident occurred nor was he carrying a gun that evening; that
he knew nothing of the killing
of the victim nor did he know the latter personally; that he was arrested by
the police without being informed of the reason for his arrest; that he was
maltreated and forced into signing his extrajudicial confession, with his
counsel manifesting before the Court that he had contusion marks on several
parts of his body; and that he was never informed and advised of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer if he desired.
After trial, the lower
Court rendered a judgment of conviction, the decretal
portion of which is quoted hereunder:
“WHEREFORE, after due consideration of the evidence herein
presented, the accused Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar are both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code attended by the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, without any mitigating circumstance to offset them, each one of them
to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased, the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS, and to pay their proportionate
shares of the costs.”
Although the lower Court
had mentioned only the aggravating circumstance of treachery in the aforesaid dispositive portion, it also found as present the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength,
nocturnity, and dwelling.
In seeking acquittal,
appellants claim that the lower Court erred:
“I
“In
giving full credence and weight to the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses,
Antonio Alonsabe and Eliberda
Santiago.
“II
“In
outrightly ignoring the testimony of the accused
denying their commission of the crime.
“III
“In
finding the commission of the crime to be attended with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation, superior strength and night time.
“IV
“In finding conspiracy between the accused.
“V
“In not acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt.”
The defense avers that
the testimony of Antonio Alonsabe, son-in-law of the
victim and one of the eyewitnesses, is of doubtful veracity because (1) at the
trial, when first asked to identify ROMEO, he pointed to HERMINIO. As pointed
out by the Special Counsel, however, the witness had pointed to ROMEO but the
interpreter did not notice.[3] Furthermore, when subsequently asked to
point at the two accused one after the other, Antonio correctly pointed to
them.[4]
(2) The defense also calls attention to a portion of Antonio’s
testimony where he answered:
“Q. Did you leave your house that night?
“A. No sir.”[5]
This
was satisfactorily explained by
Antonio himself, however, when he declared on cross-examination that he did not
quite understand and was “mixed up.”
“Q Now,
You said you left your house that evening of March 11, 1976, what time did you
left (leave) your house?
A Around 11:00 o’clock,
sir.
Q When you left your house at 11:00 o’clock
was Romeo Yap still there?
A We left, sir.
Q When you said we left, to whom do you
refer?
A Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar, and myself, sir.
Q Do you remember having answered the Fiscal
in your direct examination that you did not leave your house that evening?
A I did not quite understand before, sir.
Q Now, where did you go when you left your
house together with Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar?
A In the house of my
father-in-law, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Why did you go with Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar?
A Because they will
kill me if I will not go with them, sir.
Q You did not say that before during the
direct examination of the Fiscal is it not?
A That is true, sir.
Q And you only thought of that after the
recess and you have talked with some people is it not?
A No, sir, I did not talk with anyone.
Q Did you not talk with other people during
the recess?
A No, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q You remember your answer to the Fiscal that
you did not go downstairs inspite of the fact that
Romeo Yap asked you to come down the evening of March 11, 1976?
A Because I was
mixed up, sir.”[6]
Being mixed up was quite
understandable because Antonio had refused to go with ROMEO and HERMINIO in the beginning and only agreed to do so when they
threatened to kill him.
3) The defense further submits that Antonio could not have
witnessed the hacking of his father-in-law because of his actuation immediately
thereafter in merely running to
the forest and spending the night there instead of calling for help or informing
the authorities. As testified to by Antonio, however, simultaneously with the
hacking of the victim by ROMEO, HERMINIO had cocked his gun and was aiming it
at Antonio. Fearful of his life, he ran towards the woods and stayed there till
the next morning. In fact, when he met Orlando Pablo that early morning the
latter greeted Antonio by saying: “Mabuti buhay ka pa. Diyan ka lang, pupunta
ako sa kapatid
mo. Kakaway ako mamaya“. The reason was because Orlando Pablo
“thought Miroy Yap killed me”.[7]
There was reason, therefore, for Antonio to be fearful of has own life.
Besides, the next morning at the crime scene, Antonio revealed to the police
what had happened and what he had witnessed the night before.[8]
The fact that Antonio
gave his statement (Exhibit “A”) to the police only 3
1/2 days after the incident, or on March 14, 1976, does not necessarily detract from his testimony
because that was not the first time that he had revealed his knowledge of the
crime to the authorities having done so already the morning after the incident.
Next, the defense asserts
that the testimony of Eliberda Santiago, widow of the
victim, is equally unworthy of credence
because of the inconsistency of her
version with that of Antonio. She testified that she saw ROMEO stab her husband to death inside the house whereas Antonio stated that ROMEO did so at the balcony. There is no real contradiction, however. The
wounds sustained by the victim indicate that he was hacked several times. ROMEO hacked the deceased
for the first time while the latter was still
in the balcony about to enter the room and thereafter, successively,
after the deceased was inside that room. It is likely that Eliberda
did not see the stabbing at the balcony because she was inside the room. The
photographs taken of the victim (Exhibits “E”, “E-1” to
“E-3”) actually show him prostrate on the floor inside the house.
Thus, there lurks no doubt in our minds that the two eyewitnesses, Antonio Alonsabe
and Eliberda Santiago, saw the actual stabbing and that their testimonies deserve
credence. They identified appellants without hesitation. Their testimonies
were also substantially corroborated by Teofilo
Fernandez, who declared that the accused had passed his place first but because
he refused to go down they left. Teofilo recognized
ROMEO as the one with the bolo, and HERMINIO, whose name he did not know at the
time, as the one carrying a gun. Thereafter, appellants went to the house of
Antonio Alonsabe around 11:00 o’clock in the evening.
Delia Alonsabe, Antonio’s wife, also categorically
declared that both appellants had gone to their place in the evening of March
11, 1976, and forced her husband to go with them to the house of the victim, her father.
We are in accord with the
Trial Court’s rejection of the testimonies of appellants denying the commission
of the crime. Their denials do not ring with truth and cannot prevail over the
positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. HERMINIO denied
having known ROMEO for some time and declared that he came to know ROMEO only
in the Courtroom; but from his own testimony, he was even arrested in ROMEO’s house. It may he that ROMEO may not have known the
victim personally but in his (ROMEO’s) mind it was the victim who was responsible for his
(ROMEO’s) brother’s death. ROMEO attempts to
repudiate his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit “G”). However, he
admitted his signature at the bottom thereof and that he signed it before
Municipal Mayor Miranda.[9] In his statement, ROMEO even narrated how he
and HERMINIO first had a drink of “tuba” before
the incident how the victim seemed to be looking for something when he turned
to go inside the house for which reason he stabbed him first; how he and the
victim had struggled for possession of the bolo thereby alleging the
exculpatory circumstance of self-defense; how HERMINIO helped by firing into
the air; and that the entire incident was witnessed by the victim’s wife and a “dalagita“. Indeed, the details recited therein, which
could have been known by him alone, negate the defense theory that his
confession was involuntary.
In HERMINIO’s
statement (Exhibit “H”), he, too, described in detail how he was at ROMEO’s father’s house because the latter had “nagtalok ng palay“;
how he and ROMEO had a drinking spree afterwards, after which they went to Pilo Fernandez’s
place, thence to the house of another person to whom ROMEO spoke, and from
there to a house outside the barrio; the stabbing that occurred thereat; and
that he himself carried a gun which belonged to ROMEO. HERMINIO submits,
however, that he was maltreated and forced into signing his own confession.
During the trial, his lawyer called attention to signs of contusion on different
parts of his body. The trial Judge, however, made no comment and gave no
credence to the claim of involuntariness in his Decision.
The fact is that whether
or not the confessions were given voluntarily is of no moment.
Appellants’ confessions are unnecessary to prove their guilt and can even be
entirely disregarded. There is overwhelming evidence on record, through the
testimonies of eyewitnesses Antonio Alonsabe and Eliberda Santiago, corroborated by Teofilo
Fernandez and Delia Alonsabe, to prove appellants’
culpability.
The defense of alibi put
up by appellants was also correctly rejected by the Trial Court. Not only is it
the weakest of defenses but more so
because the defense has not
satisfactorily shown that it was impossible for appellants to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Appellants had met at Sitio Saligsig where they drank
“tuba”, which is near Sitio Curimas where the victim lived and where the killing took
place, and is also near Barrio Magsikap where Antonio
Alonsabe and Teofilo
Fernandez resided. The fact also is that appellants went back home to Barrio Rumbang after the fatal incident. Besides, in addition to
Antonio Alonsabe’s and Eliberda
Santiago’s testimonies, Teofilo Fernandez and Delia Alonsabe categorically testified that both accused were
together when they went to their respective homes that fateful evening of March
11, 1976. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused.[10]
In respect of the
aggravating circumstances, treachery was properly appreciated by the Trial
Court. The victim was attacked initially at the back as he was entering his
room from the balcony. It was treacherous because appellants employed means and
methods in the execution of the offense, which tended directly and specially to
insure its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense that
the victim might have made. The latter was unarmed and was just awakened from
his sleep, whereas ROMEO was armed with a bolo and HERMINIO with a local gun known as “pugakang“. That ROMEO had
previously warned the victim that he would kill the latter if he did not tell the truth, does not negate the treacherous
manner in which the victim was attacked. At that moment, appellants, both
armed, had already positioned themselves in such a way that it was impossible
for the victim to have evaded the attack as he turned around to enter the room,
specially considering that HERMINIO was also standing guard with a cocked gun in hand.
Evident premeditation has
also been adequately shown. ROMEO suspected the victim of being responsible for
the death of his (ROMEO’s) brother. In the evening of
March 11, 1976, they drank “tuba” in ROMEO’s
house presumably to embolden themselves. Then, with ROMEO armed with a bolo,
and HERMINIO with a gun given by
ROMEO, they proceeded
to the house of Teofilo Fernandez, a friend of
the victim, who foiled their evil
intent by refusing to go down his house. The fact that appellants were singing
noisily as they approached Fernandez’s place does not negate their intent to
avenge ROMEO’s brother’s death. From Fernandez’s
place, they walked all the way
to the victim’s house in the middle of the night right after threatening and
forcing the victim’s son-in-law to accompany them. Once face to face with the
victim, they acted in concert, with ROMEO hacking the victim several times
while HERMINIO stood by holding
his gun, cocking and thereafter pointing it at Antonio Alonsabe.
From the time appellants left ROMEO’s house, and even
from the time they left Teofilo Fernandez’s place,
sufficient time had elapsed for them to reflect on their plan. But they clung to their determination
and executed their plan to
avenge the death of ROMEO’s brother.
The circumstances of
abuse of superior strength, nocturnity and dwelling,
although not alleged in the Information, were also correctly appreciated by the
Trial Court as they were proven at the trial and should, therefore, be taken
into consideration in the
imposition of the penalty.[11]
There was abuse of
superior strength because although HERMINIO did not directly take part in
attacking the victim, he acted as look-out and his presence with a gun
prevented anybody from coming to succor the victim. HERMINIO even cocked his
gun while ROMEO was mercilessly hacking the victim and pointed the gun at
Antonio Alonsabe to ensure non-interference.
Nocturnity was also present because had it not been for
the darkness of night, the victim could have noticed the deadly weapons that
appellants were carrying and could have become suspicious. And because of the
darkness and lateness of the hour when everybody was fast asleep the victim’s
brother-in-law who was residing about a hundred and fifty meters away could not
come to the rescue. It was only when the victim’s wife shouted for help that he
arrived. Nighttime facilitated the commission of the offense.
Abuse of superior
strength and nocturnity are absorbed in treachery.
Dwelling was also
properly appreciated. The hacking and killing of the victim was committed in the
latter’s house without the latter having given any provocation. The evidence shows clearly that appellants entered the house of the
deceased to attack him.[12]
Craft or fraud, too,
although neither alleged in the Information, attended the commission of the
crime because had not ROMEO cunningly utilized the son-in-law, Antonio, to call
the victim in the middle of the night, the probability is that the victim would
have been more suspicious of a midnight caller and would not have been induced
to respond.[13]
As to the element of conspiracy, there should be no
room for doubt as to its
existence. Appellants acted in concert to attain the same objective. After
drinking “tuba” they were always together from Teofilo
Fernandez’s place where they threatened the latter, to Antonio Alonsabe’s house where they forced the latter to go with
them, and up to the victim’s house where the killing took place. HERMINIO stood
watch while ROMEO continued stabbing the victim to his death. HERMINIO also
cocked his gun and aimed it at Antonio Alonsabe to
prevent the latter from giving succor. The facts and circumstances of the
case indubitably indicate that appellants cooperated
and labored towards the same end. The degree of actual participation of HERMINO
in committing the offense is of no
consequence to prove conspiracy.[14]
The crime committed is
Murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by treachery, which
absorbed nocturnity and abuse of superior strength,
and by dwelling and craft. The capital punishment is imposable but for lack of
the necessary votes for its imposition, the penalty is commuted to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the judgment under automatic review is modified
in that the accused Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar are each sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Cost against
accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, Plana, Escolin, Relova, and Gutierrez,
Jr., JJ., concur.
De Castro, J., on sick leave.
[1]
pp. 3-6, Brief for the Appellee.
[2]
Exhibit “B”, p. 2,
Original Record.
[3]
T.s.n., June 7, 1976, p. 8.
[4]
ibid.
[5]
T.s.n., June 7, 1976, p. 11.
[6]
T.s.n., June 7, 1976, pp. 27-29.
[7]
T.s.n., June 7, 1976, p. 19.
[8]
Ibid., pp. 36-44.
[9]
T.s.n., December
10, 1976, p. 38.
[10]
People vs. Saliling, 69 SCRA 428 (1976).
[11]
People vs. Collado, 60 Phil. 610 (1934).
[12]
People vs. Lumasag, 56 Phil. 22 (1931).
[13]
People vs. Napili, et al., 85 Phil. 521, citing U.S. vs. Gampona,
30 Phil. 817 and People vs. Daos, 60 Phil.
143.
[14]
People vs. Reyes, et al., 17 SCRA 309 (1966).