THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO SARIP, ALIAS POOR, MANUEL RAOP, ALIAS ONOT, CONDALLA SARIP AND DONATO (DUMATO) MABPAN, ACCUSED.  ERNESTO SARIP AND…

The Court of First Instance of Bukidnon in its decision of August
22, 1969 convicted Ernesto Sarip and Manuel Raop (Raup) of robbery with triple
homicide and sentenced each of them to death and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Ciriaco Mision, Pamposa Mision and Amparo Mision in the sum of P30,000
(Criminal Case No. 1591).  They did not
appeal from that decision.  Their death
sentences are now under man­datory review (Sec. 9, Rule 122, Rules
of Court).

The lower court also convicted Raop of robbery in band and
illegal possession of firearms in Criminal Cases Nos. 1609 and 1611,
respectively, and sentenced him to imprisonment penalties.  Raop did not appeal from the two sentences.  Hence, the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 1609
and 1611 were impro­perly elevated to this Court which
has not acquired any appellate jurisdiction over the two cases.  The offenses charged in the two cases did not
arise out of the same occurrence, and were not committed on the same occasion,
as the robbery with triple homicide.

Ernesto Sarip pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery in band in Criminal
Case No. 1609 (wherein Raop was his co-accused).  That offense was committed on April 24, 1966.  In the lower court’s partial decision of November 11, 1968, Ernesto was
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months and one day of prision
correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor and to
indemnify Alfredo Mataya in the sum of P180. 
He did not appeal from that decision.

In Criminal Case No. 1591, the case now under review, five
persons were involved, namely, Raop, Ernesto Sarip, Condalla Sarip, Dumato
Mabpan (Madpan) and Macadatar Tayao Mabpan. 
Macadatar was not arrested.  The
four were tried and after trial, Condalla Sarip and Dumato Mabpan were
acquitted in the lower court’s order of July
15, 1969.  The acquittal was
based in part on the affidavit of Ernesto Sarip, dated August 10, 1967, wherein
he swore that Dumato had no participation in the robbery and that he (Ernesto)
and Raop forced Condalla “at the point of a gun” to take part in the
robbery (Exh. 5).

In said Criminal Case No. 1591, Ernesto Sarip was
arraigned on March 29, 1968.  He was assisted by his counsel, Manuel Valdez.  At first, he pleaded not guilty.  A few minutes later, Ernesto told his lawyer
that he wanted to plead guilty.  His
lawyer manifested to the court that Ernesto wanted to change his plea.  The trial judge, addressing Ernesto, asked
him whether it was true that he wanted to plead guilty.  He replied in the affirmative.  So, it was made of record that he had pleaded
guilty with the assistance of his lawyer.

The trial court did not then and there pronounce the judgment of
conviction on Ernesto Sarip.  It heard
the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.  Ernesto was present through­out the trial and
was identified by the prosecution witnesses. 
He was represented by a counsel de oficio who
cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. 
He did not present any evidence.

Maybe, he realized the futility of presenting any defense because
the prosecution offered in evidence his confession (Exh. J) dated
August 1, 1966 which was
taken down by a Constabulary sergeant and was sworn to before a special deputy
clerk of court who, like the sergeant, was cross-examined by Ernesto’s counsel
when he testified on the circumstances under which the oath was administered to
Ernesto.

In that confession, Ernesto stated that Datu Damiano Madpan, the
barrio captain of Malipayon (brother of Dumato Madpan), convinced him and Raop
to rob and liquidate a certain family in Malipayon (referring to, but not
naming, the Mision family) and that Damiano gave him two American rifles and a paltik
to accomplish that diabolical mission.

Ernesto revealed in his confession that upon arriving at the
place to be robbed, Makadatar Madpan and Dumato Madpan took the chickens and
carabao under the house while he and Raop stood guard at the stairs and that
Makadatar and Dumato assaulted the occupants of the house and Dumato took their
personal be­longings and the sewing machine. 
That version does not dovetail in all details with the story told by the
prosecution witnesses.  But the decisive
fact is that Ernesto in his confession admitted that he participated in the
robbery and that he was a co-conspirator of Raop and Makadatar.

It is now feebly contended by Ernesto’s counsel de oficio
that Ernesto did not understand the full implication and import of his plea of
guilty because his counsel and the trial court did not explain to him the
consequences of his plea.  No serious
consideration can be accorded to that contention because Ernesto Sarip in
pleading guilty simply ratified his extrajudicial confes­sion which was
corroborated by indubitable evidence of the corpus delicti.  The due execution and voluntariness of that
confession have not been assailed.

As already stated, the death sentence was imposed on Ernesto
Sarip in the lower court’s decision of August
22, 1969.  The judgment of
conviction was based on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Ernesto’s
confession and plea of guilty, the con­fession of Condalla Sarip and Raop’s
statement (Exh. G).

The prosecution’s evidence shows that at about eleven o’clock in the evening of Saturday, April 30, 1966, Ernesto Sarip,
Manuel Raop, Condalla Sarip (Ernesto’s first cousin) and Makadatar Tayao Mabpan
(Madpan) were in the vicinity of the house of the spouses Ciriaco Mision and
Pamposa Mision located at Barrio Malipayon, Pangantucan, Bukidnon.  Ernesto Sarip, Makadatar and Raop had
firearms.  They made known their presence
by means of gunshots.

Ernesto Sarip and Makadatar, who was wearing a turban, went under
the house and took the chickens which they gave to Raop and Condalla
Sarip.  The cackling of the chickens
awakened Diosdado Mision, 12, son of Ciriaco, and Loreto Palanog, 26, a farm
helper, who were upstairs.  Through the
bamboo slats of the floor, they peeped and saw what the intruders were doing
under the house.

The intruders wanted to get also the carabao which was inside the
corral under the house.  Makadatar asked
Ciriaco in a loud voice to open the corral but the latter kept silent.  Makadatar, who was armed with a gun and a
bolo, and Ernesto Sarip destroyed the corral, took the carabao and gave it to
Raop and Condalla who brought it to the plowed field nearby.

Makadatar and Ernesto Sarip (tall and short, respectively)
returned to the house and asked Ciriaco to give them rice and money but the
latter replied that he did not have any. 
Angered by Ciriaco’s refusal to comply with their demand, Makadatar and
Ernesto fired several shots directed at the inmates of the house.  Ciriaco, who was lying on the floor, was not
hit but his wife, Pamposa, and daughter, Amparo, were wounded.

Makadatar went up the stairs, cut the string which tied the door,
pushed the shutter, and, on seeing Ciriaco lying on the floor face down, hacked
him to death.  Ernesto Sarip, armed with
a rifle, followed Makadatar and went up the house.  Makadatar and Ernesto Sarip took clothes and
a sewing machine.  The carabao was later
released by the robbers.

After the intruders had left, two inmates of the house were found
dead.  Ciriaco, 37, suffered an incised
wound, eleven by three inches, across his back, two stab wounds also in the
back and a lacerated wound on the chin. 
His wife, Pamsosa, 35, sustained an entrance gunshot wound in the right
infra-clavicular region.  The bullet
penetrated her right lung and exited on her back.  Amparo Mision, a daughter of the said spouses
(who was older than Diosdado), sustained a mortal wound in the back and died in
the hospital.

The participation of Ernesto Sarip and Raop in the robbery was
confirmed by Condalla Sarip, a 22-year old farmer, who also made a confession,
with exculpatory allegations, which was sworn to before the municipal judge on August 1, 1966.

Condalla declared that in the afternoon of April 30, 1966 he encountered Ernesto Sarip, Raop
and Makadatar in Barrio Macatol.  They
were armed.  They forced him to join them
in robbing Mision’s house in Barrio Malipayon several kilometers away.  Condalla was Ernesto’ s
friend.

The group drank the liquor called “Kulafu” before pro­ceeding
via a trail to Mision’s house.  Condalla
said that on arriving near Mision’s house, he was stationed by Ernesto Sarip
near the banana, plants where he (Condalla) received the chickens and carabao
taken by Ernesto, Raop and Makadatar. 
While Raop guarded Condalla, Ernesto and Makadatar took clothes and the
sewing machine from the house.  Later,
they released the carabao because it impeded their flight from the scene of the
crime.

Diosdado Mision testified that before April 30, 1966, he saw Ernesto Sarip at Barrio
Malipayon with Muslim com­panions. 
Loreto Palanog had also seen Sarip in the cockpit prior to the
incident.  Diosdado and Loreto knew
Ernesto before the robbery was committed.

On the other hand, defendant Raop, 25, in his sworn statement
taken on June 6, 1966 by a
Constabulary corporal and in his testimony, admitted his participation in the
robbery but he averred that he acted under duress exercised by his friend,
Ernesto Sarip.

Raop testified that at six o’clock in the morning of April 30,
1966, his friend, Ernesto Sarip, went to his house at Barrio Kalilangan and
requested him to accompany Ernesto to the house of the latter’s aunt located at
Barrio Lampanosan.  At first Raop refused
but when Sarip allegedly threatened him by pointing his rifle at Raop, Raop
consented to go with him.  Ernesto gave
him a homemade gun called “paliuntod”.  They arrived at Lampanosan at four o’clock in the afternoon.  Ernesto then told him that they were going to
Barrio Malipayon.  On the way, they met
Condalla Sarip.

Ernesto asked Condalla to accompany them to Barrio
Malipayon.  Condalla refused but Ernesto
poked his gun at him and he agreed to go along with them.  At Barrio Kitalo, they met Makadatar Tayao
(Mabpan) who joined them.  The four of
them arrived at Barrio Malipayon at about eleven
o’clock in the evening.

They proceeded to Mision’s house. 
Ernesto asked Mision to open the door of his house.  Mision refused.  Ernesto asked him to come down.  Mision likewise refused because he was
scared.  Upon Ernesto’s order, Makadatar
took Mision’s chickens and carabao under the house.

Ernesto allegedly reproached Raop for doing nothing.  So, Raop got hold of the carabao, took it to
the place near the banana plants, and stayed there with Condalla.  Raop allegedly advised Ernesto and Makadatar
not to kill any person inside Mision’s house. 
Ernesto did not heed Raop’s advice. 
After Ernesto and Makadatar entered the house, Raop and Condalla, who
carried the chickens, left the place. 
Raop let loose the carabao.  In
the distance, they heard gunshots being fired inside Mision’s house.  Later, Ernesto and Makadatar over­took Raop
and Condalla.  Ernesto allegedly warned
Raop that he would be killed if he squealed to the authorities.

Counsel de oficio, who filed through his assistant
a hardly legible typewritten brief (a practice which should not be encouraged),
contends that the trial court erred in holding that Ernesto Sarip was
responsible for the deaths of the three victims.  That contention cannot be sustained.  Ernesto was the mastermind and was a
co-conspirator.  Knowing that he was the
one primarily liable for the robbery with triple homi­cide, which the trial
court described as “most atrocious and cold-blooded”, he interposed a
plea of guilty or nolo contendere and did not bother to prove any
attenuating circumstances.

With respect to Raop, it is clear that his version of the robbery
with homicide does not exculpate him at all. 
His coun­sel de oficio argues that Raop acted against his
will.  That con­tention is belied by
Raop’s admission that he and Ernesto are close friends (89 tsn July 16, 1969; No. 4, Exh. J).  The two were
residents of Barrio Kalilangan.  Raop did
not prove that he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force or under
the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater in­jury.  His pretension that he was threatened with a
gun by his friend, Ernesto, is not credible because he himself (Raop) was armed
with a rifle (Exh. E).

Counsel’s third contention, that the crime of robbery and
homicide should be treated separately and that only Makadatar Tayao (Mabpan),
who is at large, should be held liable for the killings, is likewise bereft of
merit.

The evidence proves that Ernesto Sarip and Makadatar fired at the
inmates of the house before the clothes and the sewing machine were taken by
them.  Makadatar hacked Ciriaco Mision
before the robbery was consummated.  It is
evident that the killings were perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery.  Since Makadatar, Ernesto Sarip and Raop were
conspirators, Raop is equally liable for the assaults committed by Makadatar
and Ernesto.

We are satisfied that the guilt of Ernesto Sarip and Raop has
been established beyond reasonable doubt. 
Abuse of superiority, dwelling and nocturnity attended the commission of
the robbery with triple homicide.  Even
if the mitigating circum­stance of plea of guilty is appreciated in Sarip’s
favor, the death penalty should still be imposed upon him (Arts. 63 and 294[1],
Revised Penal Code).

The trial court failed to include in the indemnity the value of
the stolen articles which it found to be P1,000.  The indemnity for the three killings should be
raised from P30,000 to P36,000.

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 1591, the death penalty
imposed by the trial court on Ernesto Sarip and Manuel Raop (Raup) is affirmed
and they are ordered to pay solidarily to the heirs of the Mision spouses the
sum of P1,000 as the value of the articles taken
during the robbery and P36,000 to the heirs of the three victims or P12,000 for
each set of heirs.  Costs
de officio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez,
Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Castro, C.J., and Makasiar,
JJ., in the result.

Fernando, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Antonio, JJ., did
not take part.