G.R. No. L-15052-53. August 31, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. ROMEO PAZ ALIAS COMMANDER ROMY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS, MAXIMO STA. ANA, MARIO PATENIA, PABLO CASTALONE, JUANITO SAN MARCOS, CRIS…
PAREDES, J.:
disguised in army-fatique uniform, surprised commando-like the drivers,
conductors and other employees in the RIZ-MAN TRANSIT, Inc.
(Rizal-Manila) garage in Pililla, a town in the remote hills of Rizal
Province and after killing one Antonio Lee, an employee of the Transit
and looting the place, they set the vehicles and garage on fire. The
properties burned or set fire to were:
Fourteen
(14) trucks and garage with personal effects therein, belonging to the
Biz-Man Transit, all valued at Two Hundred-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred
Three Pesos and 15/100Two (2) trucks belonging to the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., all valued at Twenty Thousand Pesos One (1) store, together with its contents, belonging to Amelio Sioson valued at Eight Hundred Pesos One (1) house belonging to Valeriano Sioson, valued at Seven Hundred
Pesos
__________
=========
On July 6, 1956, an amended information for arson alleging
conspiracy and aggravating circumstances of night time deliberately
sought; with the aid of armed men or persons to insure or afford
impunity and that the accused took advantage of their superior strength
and the circumstances that the appellants know that the buildings were
occupied or inhabited at the time, was filed against the appellants. On
the same date, also an amended information for robbery with homicide,
was filed against the same accused, alleging therein conspiracy, intent
to kill, shot with firearms Antonio Lee, causing his death; and that
the accused on the occasion thereof, with intent of gain and in the
furtherance of their conspiracy, unlawfully carried away the sum of Two
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (P2.750.00), which Lee had in his
custody, belonging to the company, to the damage of the latter in said
amount. The information likewise alleged the same aggravating
circumstances. A protracted trial was held, and a voluminous record 13
now before us. The trial court found the accused Maximo Sta. Ana, Pablo
Castalone, Mario Patenia, Juanito San Marcos, Crisostomo Unida,
Agripino Reyes and Ariston Mallari, guilty of the crimes charged; and
in view of these aggravating circumstances, with no mitigating
circumstance to appreciate, the trial court sentenced all the accused
to life imprisonment in the arson case and to suffer the death penalty
in the robbery with homicide case and order them to indemnify the heirs
of Antonio Lee in the sum of P3,000.00 and each to pay 1/7 of the costs
in both cases. They appealed and filed separate briefs and the cases
are now G.R. Nos. L-15052 and L-15053, arson and robbery with homicide,
respectively.
The chain of antecedent facts leading to the event on the night of June 10, 1956 , are as follows:
The Riz-Man Transit operated several lines in Rizal Province , one
of which was the Pililla-Manila line. Among the operators on the same
routes of the Riz-Man was the Raytranco. The Raytranco was beset with
financial losses, aggravated by internal dissensions of the
stockholders, the claims of creditors and the strike of its employees.
In July, 1955, the Raytranco employees union of drivers, conductors
inspectors, mechanics and others, headed by appellant Maximo Sta. Ana,
staged a strike, directed against the fraudulent management of Toribio
Raymundo, president of the Board of Directors of Raytranco thereby
paralyzing the operation of the company. The strikers demanded, among
others, the ouster of Toribio Raymundo and his nephew Ruben Romero from
the Board. In view of the fact that creditors have filed collection
suits against the Raytranco and that the Manila Trading Company, and
the U.S. Royal Company had foreclosed mortgages on several trucks of
the Raytranco, the latter decided to lease the Pililia-Manila and the
Jalajala—Manila lines of the Raytranco, together with one truck, to the
Riz-Man Transit, the lease contract exhibit E, executed on September
23, 1955, having been authorized by the Raytranco’s Board of Directors
and approved by the Public Service Commission. Under the lease
contract, the Raytranco was prohibited from operating its buses along
the leased lines and the Riz-Man (lessee) was not bound to retain in
employment any officer or employee of the Raytranco. Said contract,
therefore, affected adversely the livelihood of the employees of the
Raytranco. On the day the lease contract was executed, Toribio Raymundo
received an order from the Rizal Court , placing the Raytranco under
receivership, in virtue of Civil Case No. 3782 for receivership,
accounting and damages, filed on September 13, 1955, by some rival
stockholders against Toribio Raymundo and several officers of the
Raytranco (Exh. 7).
The receivers started operation of the buses and tried to get back
the lines of the Raytranco leased to the Riz-Man Transit and the LTB
Trans. Co. They filed a petition with the Public Service Commission to
rescind the lease contract with the Riz-Man, but failed (Exh. MM). The
strikers, who were sympathizers with the group fighting Toribio
Raymundo, returned to work upon the placing of the Raytranco under
receivership. But when they learned of the execution of the lease
contract by Toribio Raymundo, accused Maximo Sta. Ana called a strike
and the union of which he was the president, filed a motion to
intervene in the receivership case to annul the lease contract. On
October 1, 1955 , when the Riz-Man Transit began operating on the two
lines acquired from Raytranco, the striking unionists began also all
kinds of harassments and caused all sorts of difficulties, to obstruct
its operation. Raytranco men placed nails on the roads where Riz-Man
buses run. They also attacked Riz-Man personnel. During the strike, the
following occurred:
Accused Sta. Ana figured in an incident with a lawyer of the
Riz-Man which led to the filing of grave threats against said lawyer
and his companions. The charges were dismissed (Exh. P).
As a result of the fight between the strikers and employees of the
Riz-Man Transit, a complaint was filed in the JP Court of Morong, Rizal
(Case No. 96), against accused Crisostomo Unida and Agripino Reyes,
etc. for mauling and boxing Roque Omelinjo, a driver of the Riz-Man, on
Oct. 1, 1955 (Exh. 00); a complaint against accused Unida and Reyes and
seven others, for malicious mischief (Case No. 97), in that on October
1, 1955, they stopped Riz-Man bus No. TPU 22968 and hurled stones at
the bus (Exh. NN) ; a complaint for grave coercion (Case No. 98)
against the same accused Unida and Reyes and others, for having used
force and violence upon a Riz-Man driver to prevent him from proceeding
to his destination (Exh. PP); a complaint for less serious physical
injuries (Case No. 99) against accused Ariston Mallari, Unida, Sta. Ana
and Reyes for injuring Gregorio Ermita, a Riz-Man driver on October 1,
1955 (Exh. RR); a complaint for malicious mischief (Case No. 100),
against accused Mallari, Unida, Sta. Ana and Reyes, etc. for stoning
Riz-Man Bus No. TPU 21300 in Morong, on October 1, 1955 (Exh. SS); a
complaint for grave coercion against accused Sta. Ana, Mallari and
Unida, filed by a Riz-Man driver (Exh. QQ). Criminal Case Nos. 98 and
101 reached the Court of First Instance; and the Fiscal filed the
corresponding informations. The JP Court found the accused guilty in
criminal cases Nos. 96, 97, 99 and 100 (Exhs. NN-1; VV-1; PP-1; QQ-1,
against which they appealed (Exhs. RR-2, SS-2, NN, 00).
While the struggle between Riz-Man Transit and the Raytranco
employees Union was in progress, the following events and developments
were also taking place in the Hacienda Gonzales, at Pililla, Rizal.
Daniel Vidanes, an employee in the Hacienda had known Romeo Paz alias Commander Romy, who frequented the hacienda and who, in 1951, killed Santiago Paso, a companion of Vidanes in the same hacienda.
Since 1951, Comdr. Romy used to employ Vidanes for errands, such as
getting food, money, water, etc. for him. Accused Januario Patenia
alias Mario Patenia, a striker of the Raytranco, knew that Comdr. Romy
could be contacted through Vidanes.
So, in the night of May 6, 1956 , Patenia accompanied by his
co-workers, accused Ariston Mallari, Crisostomo Unida and Juanito San
Marcos, went to see Vidanes. Patenia inquired from Vidanes of Comdr.
Romy’s whereabouts. Vidanes told him he might meet Comdr. Romy the next
day at Mapuputing Paa, a place inside the hacienda, and they could go to the hacienda the next morning.
At 8:00 a.m. May 7, 1956 , accused Patenia, Mallari, Unida and San Marcos , arrived at the Hacienda. Having been asked to find out if they could see Comdr. Romy, Vidanes and Emilio Quitalig, went to Comdr. Romy at Mapuputing Paa.
Comdr. Romy told them he would not see Patenia, if the latter had
companions. Patenia agreed to see Comdr. Romy alone, and he left
accompanied by Quitalig. But after a while, Patenia returned to fetch
Mallari, Unida and San Marcos and the four met Comdr. Romy and his
companions. Comdr. Romy’s place was a forested area inside the Hacienda
Gonzales. Here, accused San Marcos urged Comdr. Romy: “Pinsalain si
Heras upang mawalan nang kalaban”, to which Romy remarked: “Tankilikin
ang puhunang Filipino at iwaksi ang Puhunang dayuhan”. Heras was then
the president of the Riz-Man Transit.
On the same day also, accused Pablo Castalone went to see Vidanea at the Hacienda
and inquired for Comdr. Romy, telling him (Vidanes) that he (Castalone)
was assigned by accused Maximo Sta. Ana to verify Comdr. Romy’s
arrival.
On the same day Comdr. Romy assembled some of his men, all armed,
including a woman, Anita Reyes, Numeriano Villapando, alias Noming
Villapando, alias Commander Noming (a notorious Huk), the latter’s
deputy called Tiburcio Pilarasio alias Wilfredo Villacorta, alias
Commander Flower, Daniel Vidanes, Pedro Miranda and Emilio Quitalig.
After telling them that Vidanes could be trusted, Romy gave Vidanes a
letter for delivery to accused Patenia. The letter was merely folded
and Vidanes read that the letter contained an instruction from Comdr.
Romy who signed his alias “Sali”, for Patenia to inform Maximo Sta. Ana
to gather the strikers and meet at a pre-arranged place. Vidanes,
however, gave the letter to Castalone in the Raytranco station at the Jalayjalayin crossing. Comdr. Villapando told Vidanes that same day, that the strikers should be at the meeting place early the next day.
On June 8, 1956 , accused Sta. Ana, San Marcos , Castalone, Patenia, Unida and Reyes, conferred with Comdr. Romy at the hacienda.
Sta. Ana asked -Comdr. Flower (Villacorta) to help them, as they were
oppressed and aggrieved (aping-api at agraviado) and they could not
seek help from the government. Accused San Marcos also remarked:
“Pinsalain pi Heras at patayin ang negosyo” and advised Comdr. Flower
that the strikers were ready to help the TTuks. Unida and Reyes
expressed their conformity to the statements. Vidanes left the
group.and took his lunch in his house; and when he returned to the hacienda in the afternoon, he saw Sta. Ana and his companions at the Raytranco waiting shed.
On June 9, 1956 , Pedro Miranda brought a can of paint ordered by the Huks to the hacienda.
Villapando and Villacorta used the paint to make propaganda posters,
containing “Tankilikin ang puhunang Filipino at iwaksi ang puhunang
dayuhan” (Exh. B).
On June 10, 1956 , Vidanes went to the Hacienda to de-
liver sugar. There, he saw San Marcos and Patenia conferring with
Villapando and Comdr. Flower and San Marcos was demonstrating to them
how to destroy gasoline tanks of trucks, with a pick mattock (Exh, C).
At About 11:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day ( June 10,
1956 ), the Riz-Man Transit Garage was raided by a group of
individuals. Some of the drivers were sleeping inside the trucks parked
in the garage. Mauro Tobana, an LTB driver was awakened by an armed man
in soldier’s uniform who told him to join the Riz-Man’s employees
guarded by two, who were also in soldier’s uniform. Two of the raiders
went to the office and had conversation with Antonio Lee, the Riz-Man
traffic manager. But Lee escaped and hid himself under an office table,
and the two pursued him. They grabbed a bag of one of the passengers
and ordered the cashier of the company, Remigio Fernandez, to put his
collections, amounting to about P2,500, inside the bag, which he
reluctantly did, after having been pistol whipped by one of the armed
men. The two armed men searched the room and after discovering Lee
under the table, they fired shots at him. Then and there, one of the
men took away Lee’s gun and placed it inside the bag with the cash.
They were also about to shoot Fernandez, but he implored their mercy.
Another member of the raiders, entered the office and after seizing a
Borrough’s adding machine told his men, “That’s enough.”
Another member of the raiders gave orders to bore holes on all the
trucks (Butasan lahat ang truck). Some of his companions destroyed the
gasoline tanks with a pickmattock and set the trucks on fire. Some
employees were ordered to get empty cans and place them under the
punctured gasoline tanks and poured the accumulated gasoline inside the
trucks and the garage. The fire spread to the other buses inside the
garage. The raiders left the propaganda materials (Exh. U) prepared in
the hacienda by Miranda, ViHapando and Villacorta, the day
before. On June 11, 1956 , Comdr. Romy called Vidanes and warned him
not to reveal to any one what he knew about the burning of the Riz-Man
trucks. Comdr. Flower gave the pickmattock (Exh. D), to Quitalig. This
pickmattock was the same one appellant San Marcos was holding when he
was demonstrating to his companions how to destroy a gasoline tank with
it and this pickmattock fitted the punctured holes on the gasoline
tanks of the destroyed truck.
On June 26, 1956 , Comdr. Romy asked Vidanes about the carbines which had been promised by San Marcos to him.
As a result, fifteen buses and one patrol car of the Riz-Man
Transit were completely burned, valued at P162, 883.30 (Exh. IT). The
adding machine taken was valued at P902.15 and the electric generator
was worth P6,787.50. The amount of damages to the 10 partially burned
buses was P5.000.00. The patrol car, radio transmitter and pistol of
Antonio Lee were valued at P!,000 or a total of P197,443.55. Two buses
owned by LTD Co. body No. 193 and body No. 203, were valued at
P8,313.35 and P12.553.60, respectively. The store and contents,
belonging to Amelio Sioson and the house of his son, located near the
garage, were burned and were valued at P200.00 each. The adding machine
was one of the equipments whose possession was contested by the warring
groups of Raytranco stockholders and it was found by the PC men near a
river in sitio Malubang Pililla.
Antonio Lee suffered 6th degree burns and his body was completely
carbonized; and a gunshot penetrated the right lobe of the liver and
fractured the 10th rib on the right side. Dr. Pedro Solis, the necropsy
Doctor, (Necropsy Report Exh. KK, June 11, 1956) expressed the opinion
that judging from the direction of the bifllut, Lee was in a bending
position while his assailant was at a higher level when shot, and that
this death was due to shock secondary to the extensive burns.
On June 29, 1956, in an encounter between a P.C. patrol of 5 men and supposed Huks at Mapuputing Paa,
Tiburcio Palirasio alias Comdr. Flower alias Wilfredo Villapando was
killed. In a search of his belongings, the P. C. found a diary Exhibit
5, and some documents in Code. Capt. Jose Fernandez, P.C. concluded
after his examination, that the documents and diary were made by Comdr.
Flower and after deciphering the coded documents, he also found that
they mentioned meetings, “welgistas” (strikers) and the name of Vidanes
(Exhs. CC, DD, EE, FF, J, J-l to J-10). Daniel Vidanes was picked up
and he revealed his own and the participation of the accused herein, in
substantially the same manner as heretofore narrated. They were
interrogated one by one.
Capt. Fabian Ver, P.C. questioned accused Pablo Castalone.
The investigation was reduced into writing by an agent of the P.C.
(Exh. Q). Castalone subscribed his statement before the Provincial
Fiscal on July 5, 1956 . Castalone admitted that he received from
Vidanes a latter on June 7, 1956 for delivery to accused Mario Patenia
and that he was with Sta. Ana, Unida, Pieyes, San Marcos and Patenia
when the latter conferred with Comdr. Romy on June 8, 1956 , inside the
hacienda of Gonzales (Exhs. G to G-6). Col. Esmeraldo Lozano, P.C. helped in the questioning of Reyes,
who admitted that on June 8, 1956 , he was with accused Sta. Ana, San
Marcos and Unida in the conference with Comdr. Romy (Exh. G). They
corroborated the testimony of state witnesses Vidanes, Quitalig and
Miranda.
Appellant Sta. Ana alleged he had received a letter from Comdr. Romy demanding contributions, but he denied having gone to hacienda
Gonzales to meet him and that there existed bad blood between him and
his companions and Toribio Raymundo who threatened to put them in jail.
Appellant Patenia declared that he went to buy fish in Laguna de Bay and had stayed there the whole day of June 9, 1956 .
Appellants Sta. Ana and Patenia also claimed that they had been in
their respective homes, when the Riz-Man Station was burned on June 10,
1956 .
Appellant Unida declared that he had left his house in Morong at
7:00 P.M. of May 7, 1956 , for Pasig and returned home only at 2:30
P.M.
Appellant Mallari testified that on the evening of May 6, 1956 , he
was with San Marcos and Unida in the cockpit of Pililla, from 6:30 to
8:00 o’clock when they left to take their dinner in the house of the
Mayor, and after seeing the procession, he went home at 11:00 P.M.
Appellant San Marcos testified that on May 7, 1956 , he went to Pasay City , to look for work.
Appellant Castalone averred that he did not meet Vidanes at noon of
June 7, 1956 , at the Jalayjalayin station and that he did not receive
any letter that day from Comdr. Romy, through Vidanes.
Appellants Patenia, Unida, Mallari and San Marcos denied having
visited Vidanes on the night of May 6, 1956 , for and having been in
the hacienda Gonzales on May 7, 1956 for a meeting with Comdr. Romy.
Appellants San Marcos and Reyes denied having joined the meeting on June 8 and 10, 1956.
Appellant Mallari declared that he went home to Morong on June 10,
1956 at 6:00 P.M. and joined his wife at the movies at 7:00 P.M.; that
he and his wife went out and took some refreshment with accused Unida,
accused San Marcos, Simeon Pascual, Alfredo San Juan, the Chief of
Police and two policemen, and went home at 11:30 P.M. Unida and San
Marcos confirmed Mallari’s statement that they were together at the
restaurant in the night of June 10, 1956.
Appellant Reyes testified that he slept at the municipal building
of Morong on June 10, 1956, as he had done for several nights after
someone “took a potshot at him” on May 31, 1956. Reyes likewise averred
that the P.C. investigator told him to sign a typewritten statement
which he refused to do, he was then brought to a room by three men who
ordered him to undress and sign the papers given him; as he refused, he
was blind-folded, boxed on the belly, hips and mouth by the three men,
resulting in the breakage of a molar; that one of the three pulled out
his pistol and threatened to shoot him; that overcome with fear, he
signed the statement (Exh. G); that once in the stockade, the Fiscal
offered him money, if he would testify against Sta. Ana; that some of
his statements on Exhibit G were not the ones given to the investigator
and some of the questions were not even propounded; that he did not
make the diagram Exh. G-6, but he signed it after he was maltreated.
Accused Castalone asserted that he had refused to sign the
statements prepared by Capt. Ver, but the latter reminded him of what
had happened to one Jose Samson who was mauled by P.C. agents; and
because he feared he might be pushed out of the jeep and killed on the
pretext of attempting to escape, he signed Exhibit Q, without even
reading it; that he inserted the name “Mario Patenia” on page 2 of Exh.
Q upon orders of the agents; that the provincial Fiscal and Capt. Ver
had promised to give him work and that Vidanes had told him that the
two would have plenty of money if he (Castalone) would turn state
witness and corroborate his (Vidanes) testimony; that the questions he
marked with red ink were not even asked of him.
Predicated upon the above evidence, the trial court, found the
accused guilty and imposed the penalties, heretofore recited. The
appellants presented separate briefs. Their assignments of errors may
be grouped as follows—
- Degree of credibility in be attached to the testimony of
state witnesses Vidanes, Miranda and Quitalig (Briefs of Sta. Ana, San
Marcos , Reyes and Maltaii). - Existence of conspiracy
between appellants and Comdr. Romy to destroy the Riz-Man Transit
garage (Briefs of Sta. Ana, San Marcos , Reyes and Mallari). -
Admiesibility of (a) the statements of appellants Reyes (Exh. G) and
Castalone (Exh. Q), as evidence against each other and against Sta.
Aina and other accused (Briefs of Sta. Ana and Reyes); (b) Exh. A,
piece of folded paper; and (c) Exh. 5, the diary of Comdr. Flower
(Brief of San Marcos, et al.) - Assuming the existence of
conspiracy (a) whether appellants Patenia, San Marcos , et al., are
guilty as principals in the crime of robbery with homicide (Briefs of
San Marcos and Patenia); (b) The failure of the trial court to find
that appellant Mallari had desisted before the crime was committed
(Brief of Mallari). - In not holding that the crime committed was only simple rebellion (Briefs of Patenia an-d Mallavi).
- In not sustaining the appellant’s defense of alibi, closely related with credibility of witnesses (Briefs of Patenia and Mallari).
- In not granting new trial prayed for by appellant Patenia (Brief of Patenia).
State witnesses Vidanes, Quitalig and Miranda were participants in
the preliminary activities of the appellants. In fact they had served
as contracts and errand boys for the Huks. They knew whereof they
spoke—and they testified in a direct, clear and straightforward manner;
so sincere and convincing were their testimonies that the trial court,
not withstanding the intensive and extensive cross-examination by the
defense, had given them faith and credence. The findings and
conclusions of the trial court on the question of credibility of
witnesses, command great respect, especially, as in these particular
cases, the same are fully supported by the evidence of record.
The defense claims that (1) these witnesses being as guilty as the
other appellants, their testimony has little, if any value and (2) that
the conversation had between Comdr. Romy, Villasanta and Villapando, on
one hand and said three witnesses, on the other, particularly the
instructions given by the Huks to them are hearsay and inadmissible,
because the appellants had no opportunity to cross-examine these Huk
leaders. Vidane3 and the two other witnesses were victims of
circumstances; they just happened to work in hacienda Gonzales, a Huk
infested territory and had to fraternize and obey the Huks, for
self-preservation; which circumstance can not be said of the
appellants. As appellant Sta. Ana himself admitted, the defense did not
object to the admission of evidence regarding the said conversation.
Failure to object to hearsay evidence (in the supposition that the said
conversation is hearsay), is a waiver to the right to cross-examine and
said evidence becomes admissible. But the conversations are not hearsay
at all. Accused Comdr. Romy’s statement to Vidanes that he would not
see Patenia if the latter had companions, or Comdr. Romy’s introduction
of Vidanes to his companions, are not hearsay because Vidanes knew of
said facts of his own knowledge (sec. 30, Rule 130, Rev. Rules). While
the defense could not cross-examine Comdr. Romy and the other Huks,
still it did examine and cross-examine Vidanes. The same thing may be
said with respect to the statements as to what the Huks had done or
what third parties had promised, such as “they told me they scattered
this poster”; “Villasanta told me that he gave the pickmattock to
Emilio Quitalig”; “He said: ‘We distributed posters * * *. “He answered
that Juaning promised to give him these carbines”, all admitted without
objection.
It is alleged that the evidence for the State abounds with
contradictions and incongruities. The defense pointed out it was
incredible and surprising, unexplained and strange (a) that the killing
of Santiago Paso was announced in loud voices and thereafter to tell
those who heard it to hold the matter a secret; (b) that during the
first meeting of Vidanes and Comdr. Romy after liberation, they hardly
conversed with each other, in spite of the fact that Vidanes had known
said Comdr. Romy since the latter was a child; (c) that if Vidanes and
Comdr. Romy hardly conversed on their first meeting, the latter would
have told Vidanes that he (Romy) also used the alias “Sali”; (d) why
San Marcos, a mere conductor should teach Comdr. Villasanta, a good
mechanic, how to destroy a fuel tank of a truck; (e) why Vidanes had to
give the letter to Castalone when it was addressed to Patenia; (f) why
Comdr. Romy had told Vidanes, three days before the town fiesta, to go
and see him in Mapuputing Paa, only to tell him to bring him
(Romy) food; (g) why Vidanes had to leave the conference between the
strikers and the Huks, whenever the conversation reached an interesting
stage, on the pretext that he was hungry; (h) why Comdr. Romy and
Comdr. Villasanta had to tell Vidanes of their leaving the posters and
helmet on the scene of the crime and theburning of the garage and at
the same time, to warnhim to keep it a secret, etc. It should be noted
that the alleged contradictory and incredible statements, are more
apparent than real, and refer to collateral and minor matters and
could, as the State prosecutors did, explain them satisfactorily.
The next question posed is the existence of conspiracy among the
appellants and the Huks. Appellants contend that the meetings between
the Huks and appellants do not establish conspiracy. Appellant Sta. Ana
argues that during the raid, he and his co-appellants were not seen or
found in or near the destroyed garage. Appellant Reyes claims that mere
attendance in a conference where the plan for the commission of the
crime was discussed did not make him a principal therein. Appellant
Reyes us further argued that Vidanes’ testimony regarding his
attendance in one meeting with the Huks was uncorroborated. Appellant
Mallari averred that no evidence was adduced showing he had taken part
in the execution of any criminal act or that he had executed an act,
without which the crime could not have been committed. Appellant San
Marcos and ther appellants contend that they merely proposed the
commission of the crime to the Huks and cannot, therefore, be convicted
of conspiracy (citing Art. 8, Rev. Penal Code). In other words,
appellants submit that the conspiracy was based merely on conjectures.
If, one believes, as We do, the testimony of State witnesses Vidanes,
Quitalig and Miranda, (supra), then it can safely be concluded that the
evidence showing conspiracy is based on facts. Moreover, the
participation of appellant Reyes was established by his admissions
(Exh. G). Appellant Mallari was a privy to the conspiracy. Conspiracy
implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of
execution. It is sufficient that there is a general plan to accomplish
the result sought, by such measures as may from time to time be found
expedient. It is not material that Mallari or his co-appellants, for
that matter, had taken part in every act or that he knew the exact part
to be performed by the other conspirators, in the execution of the
conspiracy. Article 8, Rev. Penal Cede, is not applicable herein,
because the crimes subject of the conspiracy or proposal in question
were consummated.
In (his connection, appellant Mallari claims that in the assumption
that he was a party to the conspiracy, he desisted therefrom, long
before they were executed, and that robbery and homicide was not a part
of the original plan. It is to be noted, however, that he denied any
knowledge participation in the offers. Consistent with his theory and
defense, he was not able or did not prove such alleged desistance or
that the original plan did not include the commission of robbery and
homicide. We can not infer the truth of his desistance, by the fact
that he was not seen in all the conference and in the actual raid.
The defense assails the admissibility of Exhibits A, J, G and Q.
Exhibit A is a piece of paper, presented to prove the manner in which
an original letter was folded. Exhibit J, is the dairy of Comdr. Flower
which shows a tie-up between the Huks and the Raytranco. Exhibits G and
Q are the extra judicial admissions of appellants Reyes and Castalone,
respectively. Appellant Sta. Ana questions the admissibility of Exhs. G
and Q, as evidence against him, contending that he had not in any way
taken part in their preparation. It is a familiar rule, however, that a
vicarious declaration of a conspirator, made after the termination of
the conspiracy, may bind his co-defendants; that al- though a
co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is ordinarily not admissible
against his co-defendants, same becomes admissible against them, if
corroborated by other evidence of record (U.S. vs. Empeinado, 9 Phil.,
613). The objection to Exh. J, is that the same is hearsay on the
ground that Comdr. Flower was dead and could not be examined. Comdr.
Flower was a co-conspirator and an accused. This kind of evidence is
likewise admissible, as an admission by a co-conspirator and as a link
in the chain of circumstantial evidence around the appellants (Wigmore,
Secs. 2148-49; Sec. 12, Rule 123, now Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rev. Rules).
Appellants object to the admission of Vidanes’ testimony as to the
contents of a letter, to prove conspiracy, because, according to them,
proof of loss was not offered. It appears, however, that appellants did
not object to the testimony of Vidanes to prove the contents of the
letter, and moreover, evidence was presented showing that the letter
was actually delivered by Vidanes to Castalone and as Castalone is one
of the accused, the prosecution could not be legally allowed to compel
him to produce the said letter.
Appellants advanced the theory that, if at all they may be liable
for simple rebellion only, and not for robbery and homicide, because
they never intended or agreed to commit the latter crimes; the only
objective, according to their allegations now, having been only to burn
the Riz-Man Transit buses. There was no evidence presented by them to
this effect. Such a defense must be established by appellants, in the
same manner that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to
commit so grave an offense, is a matter for the defense to prove (Sec.
13[3] Rev. Penal Code). The appellants’ defense is alibi, weak and
unsupported, as it is. Moreover, the appellants were prosecuted for
arson and robbery with homicide; they were arraigned and tried on the
basis of these charges, and appellants had not assailed the correctness
and propriety of the crimes charged. There is no evidence presented to
show that appellants had risen publicly and taken arms against the
government, for the purpose of removing allegiance to said government
or its law, Philippine territory or any part thereof (Art. 134, Rev.
Penal Code). There is no taint of political complexion in the crimes
committed. The fight was between appellants, disgruntled strikers, and
the supposedly abusive management of the Riz-Man Transit. While in the
commission of the crimes, the appellants were aided by a Huk band in
the locality, it is a fact, however, that the Huks were merely
recruited by appellants “to help execute their criminal design to
settle a grudge against a private individual.” The Huks’ aid did not
alter the intrinsic nature of said crimes and reduce them into simple
rebellion. They have been aided by goons, or any band of malefactors,
not as known, notorious and decided, as the Huks, and appellants’ act
could not have been branded a simple rebellion only.
It is true that the plan of the strikers was to destroy the Riz-Man
transportation in order to prevent the latter from competing with them,
and that nothing clear was said about robbery (looting) and homicide
(killing of Antonio Lee). It should be well, however, to remember, that
in a plan to destroy a garage, where trucks, valuables, money, of lice
equipments were kept, and people were working and staying, robbery and
looting were to be expected, and violence or killings might ensue,
either to silence or prevent them from making any effort to resist or
repel the raiders (appellants in this particular case). As adequately
commented by the trial court, “and this is more to be expected when we
take into consideration that the burning of the Riz-Man garage was
entrusted for execution to Commander Romy and his Hukbalahop followers,
who were wanted by the government not only for acts of vandalism and
murder but some other crimes.” So that it can be said, that the robbery
and on the occasion thereof, the killing of Antonio Lee, was a
necessary ingredient of the conspiracy, to destroy the Riz-Man garage
in order to put them out of competition. Looting and robbery, is,
clearly one form of committing destruction.
And Lastly, appellants had a powerful motive to destroy the Riz-Man
buses and kill the Manager thereof Antonio Lee. As heretofore stated,
the rivalry between the Riz-Man Transportation and the strikers had
developed to court litigations which resulted in the invariable
conviction of the appellants. No other persons would and/or could have
any strong reason to sabotage and do violence upon the Riz-Man
Transportation than the appellants and their Huk cahoots. And the
appellants could not point to any other.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the trial Court was
correct in denying appellant Petania’s petition for new trial, based
upon the statements given by accused Commander Romy, when he was
arrested, before the appealed decision could be promulgated. Commander
Romy tried to exculpate appellants, by asserting that the raid was Huk
inspired and a link undertaking. This testimony, if presented, would
have only repeated the denials of appellants, which had been
discredited by positive and direct assertions of the state witnesses,
and would not alter in any manner, the result of the case.
The decision appealed from, is in conformity with the evidence of
record and the law on the matter. In the case of arson, No. L-15052,
the decision is AFFIRMED, with proportional costs. However, in the case
of robbery with homicide, No. L-15053, for failure to obtain the
requisite vote, the death penalty imposed by the trial court on the
appellants, is reduced to life imprisonment, with proportional costs,
affirming the decision in said case, in all other respects.
Pending decision of these cases, appellant Juanito San Marcos died.
Upon joint petition of his lawyer and the Solicitor General, the
above-entitled cases were dismissed as to said appellant in a
Resolution dated April 22, 1964 , which is hereby reiterated.
Bengzon, C. J., Bautista, Concepcion, Reyes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.