G.R. No. L-33951. September 28, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL COMPACION ALIAS MANING, ERNESTO PIALAGO, DECEASED – (PATERNO BARBECHO), CRISANTO MANTALABA ALIAS SANTOS AND ELACIO …
PER CURIAM:
Before Us for review is the death sentence imposed upon the
above-named accused, by the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato after
their conviction for the crime of robbery with double homicide and double
frustrated homicide, committed, according to the trial court, with the
attendance of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity, evident
premeditation, craft, band and treachery, without any mitigating circumstance.
Two separate briefs were filed, one jointly for Manuel Compacion
and Ernesto Pialago, and the other, also jointly for Crisanto Mantalaba and
Elacio Laoglaog. The fifth appellant
Paterno Barbecho did not file a brief.
From the decision of the court a quo, We could
quote the following as an accurate and fair recital of the facts as proven by
the evidence for the prosecution, as well as that for the defense:
“Felipe Gabutan, 50 years old, resident of Kibol, Taluya,
Glan, South Cotabato, married to the late Andrea Barbecho, was blessed with six
children, namely, Ponciano, 26 years old; Ricardo; Adelaida, 16 years old,
Anecita, 11 years old; Neria, 10 years old and Teofila, 10 months old. Previous to that hapless evening of September
17, 1970, he and his two sons were in their farm at Akon, Glan, South Cotabato,
seventeen Kilometers from Kibol, Taluya, Glan, thus leaving at home the women
members of his family, his wife and daughters.
“Paterno Barbecho, brother of Andrea Barbecho Gabutan, owns
also a farm in Akon, Glan, adjoining that of Felipe Gabutan, with his family
residing in Kibol, Taluya, Glan, in a house of their own. Crisanto Mantalaba, his brother-in-law, had
been helping him in his farm in Akon, Glan where they had a house. Hilacio Laoglaog had been their neighbor in
said farm as a tuba gatherer and their townmate in Aluginsan, Cebu.
“Manuel Compacion is a third cousin of both Paterno Barbecho
and the late Andrea Barbecho Gabutan, their respective grandmothers being
sisters. Ernesto Pialago is the
brother-in-law of Manuel Compacion, his wife being a sister of the latter. Both were residing also in Kibol, Taluya,
Glan with Compacion’s house only about 150 meters from that of Felipe while
that of Pialago is 300 meters to that of the Gabutans. In between the houses of Manuel Compacion and
Felipe Gabutan is that of Paterno Barbecho.
“By the admissions of Paterno Barbecho, Crisanto Mantalaba and
Hilacio Laoglaog, they have seen Felipe Gabutan on and before September 17,
1970 in his farm at Akon, Glan. Manuel
Compacion and Ernesto Pialago, being neighbors of the Gabutans, must have known
of the absence of Felipe Gabutan and his two sons, Ponciano and Ricardo, from
their residence in Kibol, Taluya, Glan.
It was with this knowledge that on September 17, 1970, at about six
o’clock in the evening, the five indictees who are relatives by consanguinity
and/or affinity with the exception of Hilacio Laoglaog who was their neighbor
and close friend of Paterno Barbecho and Crisanto Mantalaba and all of whom are
natives of Aluginsan, Cebu, proceeded to execute a plan to rob and kill, if
necessary, the family of Felipe Gabutan at Kibol, Taluya which plan, according
to the confessions of Hilacio Laoglaog, was conceived on the same hour and
date, according to that of Paterno Barbecho, on September 15, 1970, at Akon,
Glan, South Cotabato, in his farm where he had a house with a pile of corn, and
according to Compacion, long after Paterno Barbecho acquired his paltik
revolver, caliber 22 (Exhibits H, I, I-1, J, J-1, J-2, K). Hiking from Akon, they arrived at the house
of their unknowing victims at about nine o’clock in the evening. Paterno Barbecho was armed with a 22 caliber
paltik revolver (Exhibit “K”), and the rest with bolos and knives. Paterno Barbecho, Crisanto Mantalaba and
Hilacio Laoglaog remained in the yard of the house taking cover in the coconut
trees ten meters away as guards while Compacion and Pialago went up the house
after an agreement with their companions to throw stones at the galvanized iron
roofing of the house to warn them of anybody coming to the succor of their
intended victims. Before going upstairs,
Ernesto Pialago got from Paterno Barbecho his paltik revolver, so he was armed
with a knife and firearm, while Compacion was armed with a sharp-pointed bolo
fifteen inches long. As both went up,
Ernesto was whistling, knocked at the door, called for Andrea saying,
“Mother, mother, open the door for me” (Ma, Ma, abrehan ako),
identifying himself as Ricardo, son of Andrea Barbecho Gabutan, who was then
with his father and brother Ponciano in Akon, Glan. Andrea, thinking that the caller was her son,
Ricardo, instructed Adelaida to open the door to which the latter obliged,
after which, she went back to their bedroom which adjoins the living room but
was without any door. So from the main
door, one could freely enter their bedroom.
Soon after the door was opened, Pialago and Compacion entered the house,
proceeded to the bedroom which was lighted with a kerosene lamp and stabbed
Andrea who was then standing, hitting her above the mammary gland causing her
instantaneous death as Adelaida shouted for help and mercy to Compacion not to
kill them. Her pleas were ignored as she
was stabbed by Compacion, hitting her on the breast, followed by Pialago’s
shooting her, hitting her left forearm (leaving now a scar of 1/2 inch in
length and 1/4 inch width) and stabbed again by Manuel Compacion which she
parried, hitting her right wrist (with a scar of 3/4 inch long and 1 inch
wide). Immediately followed the stabbing
of Aniceta by Manuel Compacion on her epigastrium, who died instantly; the
stabbing of Neria Gabutan on her right abdomen who became unconscious. Only Teofila Gabutan, the 10 months old baby
was spared. Then the intruders got the
sum of P2,820.00 wrapped with a handkerchief and placed inside the wrapped
table cloth hidden in the mat placed behind the post of the bedroom. Adelaida Gabutan ran towards the house of her
grandparents, Apolinar Barbecho and Perpetua Barbecho. Also there were her uncle, Gerundio Barbecho,
and his wife, with their eight children.
With her wounds bleeding, she informed them of being robbed by Manuel
Compacion and Ernesto Pialago. Gerundio
Barbecho proceeded immediately to the poblacion reporting the matter to the
police authorities. After the robbery,
Paterno Barbecho, Crisanto Mantalaba and Hilacio Laoglaog, informed by
Compacion that their victims were dead, went home to Akon bringing the loot
with the understanding with his companions that they will divide the same in
barrio Tower of Glan, South Cotabato, as there are few people there, a week
after. Paterno Barbecho further
instructed Compacion and Pialago to follow Adelaida to the house of his father
in an apparent effort to veil their acts and identities. Thirty minutes after the arrival of Adelaida
at the house of Apolinar Barbecho, Compacion and Pialago arrived, the former
calling in the yard, “Open the door, Manang, help Andrea Gabutan for they
were robbed.” Adelaida who was inside told them not to open the door as
they were the ones who robbed them. Not
heeded to, both defendants left and were found later in the house of Compacion.
“Gerundio Barbecho, on the other hand, arrived in the
municipal building of Glan at about 11:00 o’clock and reported the robbery to
Patrolman Ernesto Sulacito, a subpoena and warrant officer of the Police
Department, who was also assigned then as officer of the day. Patrolman Sulacito reported the matter to
Acting Chief of Police Wenceslao Ruelan who instructed him to proceed
immediately with Patrolman Macatimbol to the crime scene with Gerundio
Barbecho. After interviewing Adelaida in
the house of Apolinar Barbecho who told them about the gruesome killing of her
mother and her sister Anecita as well as her being stabbed by Compacion and
shot by Pialago, Sulacito instructed them to bring immediately Adelaida for
medical treatment at the poblacion while they proceeded to the crime
scene. There, he saw the dead bodies of
Andrea Gabutan and Anecita Gabutan with Neria Gabutan still alive but
unconscious due to a stab wound. From there,
he with Patrolman Macatimbol, went to the house of Manuel Compacion. Thereat, he made known to them that they were
peace officers and demanded for their surrender, at the same time seeking cover
behind a coconut tree. At this instant,
Pialago jumped from the window, armed with a bolo, and not knowing where the
policemen were, ran towards the coconut tree where Patrolman Sulacito was. When Ernesto Pialago was seven meters away
from him, Sulacito shot him, hitting his right thigh (according to Dr. Elizar
Deoquino, the wound was not fatal as it was healed after a few days of his
treatment). Thereafter, Manuel Compacion
went down and surrendered. He was then
armed with a scythe and carrying his child whom he told the policemen to be
sick. That was about 2:00 o’clock in the
morning of September 18. Brought to the
municipal building for investigation, he readily admitted his participation of
the crime, pointing to Hilacio Laoglaog, Paterno Barbecho, Crisanto Mantalaba
and Ernesto Pialago as his co-perpetrators.
Pialago was loaded on a sledge to town.
“At about eight o’clock on September 18, 1970, Pablo Abella,
neighbor of Felipe Gabutan at Kibol, Taluya, Glan, arrived in Akon, informed
Felipe Gabutan and his sons of the tragic incident. Felipe Gabutan with his two sons immediately
proceeded home and not knowing about the participation of his brother-in-law,
Paterno Barbecho, informed him of the incident.
Felipe Gabutan was with Ponciano and Paterno Barbecho, followed later by
Crisanto Mantalaba and Pablo Abella.
Upon reaching a crossing which was two kilometers away from the house of
Felipe Gabutan and equidistant also to the poblacion, Paterno Barbecho,
Crisanto Mantalaba and Ponciano Barbecho proceeded to the municipal building,
having been informed of the arrest of Manuel Compacion and Hilacio
Laoglaog. There, Paterno Barbecho and
Crisanto Mantalaba were arrested as previously Compacion confided to Patrolmen
Ibali and Carmona his co-conspirators.
“Manuel Compacion was formally investigated on September 20,
1970 by Patrolman Ibali and his confession was subscribed and sworn to before
Judge Modesto Vallinas of Glan on September 21, 1970 (Exhs. “J”,
“J-1”, “J-2”, infra).
Likewise, Paterno Barbecho was investigated on September 20, 1970 by
Patrolman Ibali and his admission was subscribed and sworn to on September 22,
1970 (Exhibits “I”, “I-1”, infra). Hilacio Laoglaog confessed before Patrolman
Millona on September 21, 1970 and the same was subscribed and sworn to on
September 22, 1970 (Exhibit “H”, infra). Crisanto Mantalaba, upon inquiries of Acting
Chief of Police Wenceslao Ruelan, confided that the revolver used in the
commission of the crime, that is, the 22 caliber paltik revolver owned by
Paterno Barbecho, was hidden by him in his house in Akon, Glan, South Cotabato,
in a pile of corn. By reason thereof,
Patrolmen Wilfredo de la Cruz and Ferolin, Acting Chief of Police Wenceslao
Ruelan and Crisanto Mantalaba went to said house. Patrolman Ferolin and Acting Chief Ruelan,
however, waited at a place one kilometer, more-or less, from the house, as it
was situated on top of a hill. Patrolman
De la Cruz and Crisanto Mantalaba only repaired to the premises. There, Crisanto Mantalaba pointed to
Patrolman De la Cruz the gun hidden inside the house covered in a pile of corn
which has a bronze under its barrel (Exh. “K”). Thereafter, Patrolman De la Cruz gave the
gun to the Acting Chief of Police. That
was September 22, 1970, at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon.” (pp.
16-24, Rollo)
From the People’s brief, We could also quote the following
undisputed facts to make out a more complete picture of this case, for a proper
evaluation of the correctness of the verdict of conviction, with its
accompanying penalty of death, and the merit or lack of it, of appellants’
defense:
“Adelaida and Neria were brought to the St. Elizabeth Hospital
at General Santos City, where they were examined and treated by Dr. Jesus
Veneracion, physician surgeon and owner of said hospital. Dr. Veneracion issued a medical certificate
(Exh. A, p. 1, Folder of Exhibits) describing Adelaida’s wounds as follows:
‘Stab wound, chest, thru and thru, left side, above breast hitting
lungs.
‘Gunshot wound, left forearm, thru and thru.
‘Superficial laceration, wrist, right.’
“Dr. Veneracion also issued a medical certificate for Neria
Gabutan, stating that she suffered a ‘stab wound, abdomen, right side with
laceration (3) of intestines (Exh. B, p. 2, Folder of Exhibits; pp. 8-16,
tsn).’
“On September 18, 1970, a post mortem examination was
conducted by Dr. Elizar Deoquino, Municipal Health Officer of Glan, Cotabato on
the dead bodies of Andrea Gabutan and Anecita Gabutan. According to his report (Exh. D, p. 4, Folder
of Exhibits), deceased Andrea Gabutan sustained the following injuries:
1. Wound, stabbed, thru and thru 1 1/2 inches above the mammary
gland, left.
‘Cause of death:
shock
secondary to
hemorrhage
secondary to stabbed
wound.’
while deceased Anecita Gabutan was found to
have been inflicted with the following:
‘1. Wound 1 inch wide, 3 inches deep, epigastrium.
‘Cause of death:
Shock
Secondary to hemorrhage
Secondary to stabbed wound.’
(Exh. F, p. 6, Folder of Exhibits; pp. 19, 22 tsn)
“The death certificates of Andrea (Exh. E, p. 5, Folder of
Exhibits) and Anecita (Exh. G, p. 7, Folder of Exhibits) were likewise issued
by Dr. Deoquino (pp. 21-23, tsn).” (pp. 8-9, Brief for the Appellee.)
In their joint brief, appellants Compacion and Pialago contend
that the prosecution failed to establish that robbery was committed. On the other hand, also in their joint brief,
appellants Laoglaog and Mantalaba allege that the lower court erred in not
finding them guilty only of simple robbery.
That robbery was committed is, therefore, accepted by two of the herein
appellants–an admission that robs the contrary claim of the other two, of any
vestige of truth and credence. The
admission is in the nature of a positive evidence which should prevail over the
denial, the latter being in the nature of a negative evidence.[1]
Robbery was proved overwhelmingly. The loss of P2,820.00 which was kept in the
house, wrapped with a handkerchief and placed in the tablecloth hidden in a mat
behind a post of the house was testified to positively by Felipe Gabutan, the
father of the hapless family. He
discovered the loss upon his arrival from his farm at Akon.[2]
When Adelaida Gabutan ran towards the house of her grandparents, after she had
been stabbed and shot, she told them, in the presence of her uncle, Gerundio
Barbecho, and the latter’s wife, Fabiana Dimol, that their family was robbed by
appellants Compacion and Pialago.[3]
The statement made was clearly part of the res gestae, Adelaida
being then in a state of shock after going through the startling occurrence, an
evidence, likewise, entitled to great weight.
Appellant Compacion himself who followed Adelaida to the latter’s
grandparent’s house, together with appellant Pialago, arriving thereat thirty
minutes later, and betraying himself of the evil deed committed by them, called
on the inmates to open the door saying:
“Open the door, Manong. Help
Andrea Gabutan for they are robbed,”[4] a
fact testified to by among other witnesses, Fabiana Dimol, sister-in-law of
appellant Barbecho. In his statement
(Exhibits J and J-1),[5]
appellant Compacion does not deny the commission of robbery by him and his
confederates.
That appellants Compacion and Pialago were the ones who went up
the house and inflicted the fatal wounds on Andrea and Aniceta, and also
stabbed and shot Adelaida and Neria, was testified to by Adelaida, corroborated
by Neria, the ten-year old sister who was likewise gravely wounded and left for
dead by the malefactors. Both testified,
according to the trial court, in a clear, positive and straight-forward manner
in identifying the two aforenamed appellants.
They could not be mistaken in their identification, for they saw the two
culprits as they entered the house, for it was Adelaida who unlocked the door,
through which appellants Compacion and Pialago freely entered the house as they
opened it, believed as they were, mistakenly, to be the brothers of Adelaida
who had come home from their farm that night,[6]
but turned out to be brutal intruders who inflicted wounds on the two sisters
and fatal ones on their mother, Andrea, and their sister, Aniceta.
Futile and unavailing, therefore, is the claim of appellant
Compacion that he did not go up the house but posted himself only
downstairs. Even more so was appellant
Pialago’s alibi that he was all the time in his house during the commission of
the crime, belied, as it is, by his having been positively identified by
witnesses without evil motive, as the other ruthless intruder inside the house
who shot Adelaida, rendering the alibi totally worthless.[7]
From the evidence just examined with close scrutiny, there should
not be the slightest misgiving in pronouncing the guilt of appellants Compacion
and Pialago as having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Theirs was a direct participation in the
commission of the crime charged, and their denial of the existence of
conspiracy with their co-appellants would, therefore, be of no materiality or
purpose. It is to the other appellants,
Laoglaog, Barbecho and Mantalaba that a claim of non-participation in the
conspiracy may be of vital effect in the determination of the degree of their
culpability, for no reliable proof has been adduced to show their direct
participation, at least in the killing of the victims committed on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery.
Only appellant Compacion pointed to the three appellants, Laoglaog,
Mantalaba and Barbecho, as the ones who went up the house and committed therein
the heinous crime charged. Upon the
other hand, in their second assignment of error, appellants Laoglaog and
Mantalaba admit that, assuming that there was conspiracy, they could be found
guilty only of simple robbery, indicating a disposition of admitting their
involvement through conspiracy, although only to the extent of the crime of
simple robbery.
By more than mere circumstantial evidence, conspiracy to rob has
been sufficiently proven. The presence
of all the appellants during the robbery at the scene, with participation of
each directly and mutually aiding in the commission of the offense, is a most
eloquent proof of conspiracy. Their
presence as just stated is also proved by the admission in the extrajudicial
statements of appellants Compacion, Barbecho and Laoglaog.[8]
Also by the testimony in court of Compacion, the presence of appellants
Mantalaba, Laoglaog and Barbecho is established. Mantalaba led the policemen to where he hid
in his house the gun of Barbecho used in the robbery on September 22,
1970. This fact was testified to by the
policemen who went to the place indicated from which they recovered the
gun. Appellant Mantalaba’s denial of
being with the other appellants during the commission of the robbery,
therefore, cannot merit or inspire belief.
Conspiracy was thus more than adequately proven.
Mantalaba’s attempt to show motive on the part of Compacion in
implicating him falsely cannot but fail.
He claims to be the creditor of Compacion who refused to pay his debt of
P30.00, a year before the incident.
Appellant Compacion had, therefore, no reason to give further cause for
resentment against him by one he should try instead to gain his trust and
continued generosity. This observation
holds true with appellant Laoglaog who paid for the bet lost by appellant
Compacion in a cockfight which the latter could not pay, and therefore,
deserves the gratitude of Compacion, not hate or resentment, as would be
generated by the latter’s testifying falsely against his benefactor, as it
were, appellant Laoglaog.
With the presence of appellants Barbecho, Laoglaog and Mantalaba
during the commission of the crime abundantly proven, the next issue to be
resolved is whether they were in league, by prior conspiracy, with appellants
Compacion and Pialago who, as convincingly shown, were direct participants in
both the killing and the robbery.
The Court is fully convinced from the evidence that as far as the
robbery is concerned, there was previous conspiracy among all the appellants as
found by the trial court, based on the confession of appellants Laoglaog,
Barbecho and Compacion. The plan to rob
and kill was hatched two days before the actual commission of the crime at the
farm of appellant Barbecho at Akon, Glan.
The pre-conceived plan was executed on September 17, 1970, the day
apparently chosen with deliberateness when all the menfolks in the Gubatan family
had gone to their farm in Akon, leaving only five women in the family dwelling
in Kibol, including a 10-month old baby girl.
While the confessions were repudiated by the declarants who
claimed to have been maltreated into making them, the trial court rejected the
claim saying:
“Neither is the court prepared to discard these three written
extrajudicial confessions, executed before the Police Investigators and
subscribed and sworn to before Municipal Judge of Glan, South Cotabato, after
having satisfied himself of the spontaniety of each and every one of
them. More so where immediately
thereafter, upon the request of Patrolman Ibali, Dr. Elizar Deoquino, in his
capacity as Municipal Health Officer, examined them physically and found them
to be with no visible external injuries.
The presumption is that these public officials and peace officers
regularly performed their duties. So
with the voluntariness of these confessions.
(People vs. Casillar, 30 SCRA 352, 357; People vs. Baluran, 32 SCRA.)
There is no scintilla of proof proffered that these officials and officers have
any interests whatsoever in the success or failure of the cause of the
prosecution, nor was there any motive assigned why they will falsely testify
against them.” (pp. 69-70, Rollo).
Studying the evidence carefully, the Court is satisfied that the
confessions were made voluntarily. The
exculpatory tone which pervades each of the confession, with the declarants
pointing to each other as the real culprit in the slaying and wounding of the
four adult women in the house, with the 10-month old baby the only one spared
from harm, is an index of voluntariness.[9]
The claim of appellants Laoglaog and Mantalaba that even assuming
that they took part in the conspiracy, at the most they should be held liable
only for simple robbery is untenable. In
effect, they would contend that if ever, as far as they are concerned, there
was conspiracy, it was only to rob, but not to kill on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery, since they had no part in the killing, or in the
infliction of wounds on the victims, nor could they have known that Compacion
and Pialago were to commit the violent acts, and so could not have prevented
the perpetration thereof. To show that
the conspiracy did not contemplate killing to eliminate witnesses, they point
to the fact that they did not kill Adelaida who slipped out of the house, as
they should have done in pursuance of the conspiracy to rob and to kill, if
they were involved in such conspiracy, since they were downstairs standing on
guard. Accordingly, they contend that
their liability should not extend to that for the more grievous offense of
robbery with homicide, but only for simple robbery.
From the manner the crime was committed, there can hardly be any
doubt that the conspiracy was not limited to committing robbery. It included the killing, if necessary, of all
the inmates, as when witnesses who would point to them as the malefactors had
to be eliminated. Appellants Compacion
and Pialago stabbed and shot all the inmates instantly upon entering the house,
except the 10-month old baby. If their
only intention was to rob, they could have accomplished their purpose without
resorting to the liquidation of the entire family then in the house. Threats and intimidation would have sufficed
for the successful execution of a mere plan to rob. If killing accompanied or preceded the
robbery, as actually happened, it was because the intention was to eliminate
witnesses, the eventuality that made necessary the plan also to kill for the
successful commission of the robbery without risk of prosecution. The conspiracy as was hatched, therefore, had
included the idea of killing from the very beginning, and not as a sudden
brainstorm only on the part of appellants Compacion and Pialago who came face
to face with the inmates who witnessed their misdeeds. It may be true that had the conspiracy
included killing, they (Laoglaog and Mantalaba) should have also killed
Adelaida when she went down the house to escape after being wounded. But from where Laoglaog and Mantalaba posted
themselves behind coconut trees, ten meters away from the house, they might not
have seen Adelaida; or that having seen her wounded, they might have thought
that death would surely overcome her too.
Such wounds as “stab wound chest, through and through hitting
lungs,” and a “gunshot wound, through and through, left
forearm,” which might have splashed blood all over her body made it appear
to appellants Laoglaog and Mantalaba that Adelaida’s death was so certain and
imminent that they need not do anything more to insure its occurrence. The participation of Laoglaog, Mantalaba and
Barbecho in the conspiracy, not only to rob but to kill, has thus been shown
to be beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the case of People vs. Ubaldo, L-19490, August 26, 1968, 24 SCRA
735, 763, cited by the Solicitor General,[10]
it was held:
“The precision which characterized the movements of the
accused in carrying out their plan to rob the victim, strongly suggests a unity
of purpose and design to the end that the accused intent may be expeditiously
consummated. As planned and later on
carried out, three of the accused, namely:
Gorgonio Ubaldo, Norberto Lumpay and Severo Caigoy entered the store in
order to secure things of value; Superable, Villablanca, Jr. and Hembra posted
themselves on one corner of the road while Calabia, Antonio Pacli and Benjamin
Pacli stood guard on the other corner of the street to insure protection
against any interference from the outside that may hamper the success of the
whole operation. They acted accordingly,
primarily obsessed with the unity of their intent to gain from the
undertaking. Thus, Ubaldo shot and
killed policeman Cotoñer even before the latter could render any help to the
victims of the robbery; while the lookouts posted on opposite corners of the
road fronting the store effectively halted policeman Glore by wounding him even
before he could come near the store and assess the gravity of the
situation. Such precision displayed by
them in the execution of the robbery, coupled with the evidence that they came
together to the house of Antonio Pacli earlier that afternoon and agreed to
commit the same against Eng Wan, leave no room for doubt that they have acted
pursuant to a conspiracy. Consequently,
it is not absolutely necessary to pinpoint specifically, who fired the shot
that killed either policeman Cotoñer or the Chinese woman Co Gui Hui; all the
conspirators are liable irrespective of the fact that some had limited
themselves to the act of robbery while the others participated in the act of
homicide and less serious physical injuries.” (People vs. Ubaldo, 24 SCRA
735, 763.)
Similarly, cited is the case of People vs. Pujinio, L-21690,
April 29, 1969, 27 SCRA 1185, 1189, where it was held:
“Pujinio’s counsel further claims that although the latter
entered a plea of guilty, he, however, explained to the court that it was
Balbuena who killed Aquilino Sebial, and that, therefore, he should be found
guilty only of robbery. This contention
finds support only in the sworn statement mentioned heretofore and which, as
already stated, can not be considered in connection with Pujinio’s case.
“Moreover, even assuming that Pujinio testified to that
effect, it would not justify a finding that he was guilty only of robbery, for it
is settled that one who participated in the commission of the crime of robbery
in connection with which homicide was also committed– as in this case–will
be equally guilty as principal of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless
there is clear evidence that he tried to prevent the commission of the latter
offense (People vs. Morados, 70 Phil., 558; People vs. Carunungan, et al., G.
R. No. L-13283, September 30, 1960)”[11]
From the rulings above-quoted, there should be no hesitation in
finding the evidence in the case at bar legally and factually sufficient to
prove the existence of a previous conspiracy to rob and to kill, not only to
insure successful execution of the plan, but also to prevent prosecution of the
offense. With conspiracy duly proven, it
would not matter that the participation of each of the conspirators varies in
extent and character, as long as it tended to help in the consummation of the
evil design. A co-conspirator may not
have even helped physically in the actual commission of the crime, or even at
the scene thereof. He is, nevertheless,
liable equally as those who directly participated therein.[12]
Appellants maintain that “band” should not be
considered as aggravating as was done by the court a quo. This Court has serious doubts from the
evidence that four of the appellants were armed as to make “band” as
an aggravating circumstance present. In
his extra-judicial statement, Laoglaog said he was not armed. In the extra-judicial statement of Compacion,
he stated that Barbecho had a 22 Cal. revolver, but this is the gun taken from
him by Pialago. While he said that
Laoglaog was also armed, Compacion cannot be believed on this particular score,
because he was clearly lying when he pointed to Laoglaog as one of the three
who went up the house, for the evidence shows convincingly that it was he
(Compacion) and his brother-in-law, Pialago, whom he tried to exculpate, who
went up the house and killed and wounded the adult inmates. The Solicitor General himself appears not
unyielding in supporting the finding of the court a quo as to the
existence of “band,” although he is correct in saying that even
assuming that the crime was not committed by a band, the imposition of the
death penalty would still be proper, considering the presence of other
aggravating circumstances as previously indicated, without any mitigating
circumstance to offset them.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court is constrained to affirm
the judgment of conviction and finds no reason to disturb the penalty of death
as imposed by the court a quo.
Costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Acting C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino,
Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., on leave.
Santos and Abad Santos,
JJ., took no part.
[1]
People v. Español, 51 OG # 4-6 2423-2425; People v. Gonzales, 76
Phil. 473-479; People v. Borbano, 76 Phil. 702-707.
[2]
Page 51, t.s.n.
[3]
Pages 32-33, t.s.n.
[4]
Pages 34-35, 156, t.s.n.
[5]
Pages 12-13, Folder of Exhibits.
[6]
Pages 28-32, 46-47, t.s.n.
[7]
People v. Artieda, L-38725, May 15, 1979; People v. Barut,
L-42666, March 13, 1979; People v. Moises, 66 SCRA 151-161; People v.
Tizon, 66 SCRA 372-379.
[8]
Exhibits J, J-1, pp. 12-13; Exhibits I, I-1, pp. 10-11; Exhibits H, pp. 8-9, Folder
of Exhibits.
[9]
People v. Magsilang, 82 Phil. 271, 274-275; People v. Alcantara,
21 SCRA 906, 912.
[10]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 13-14.
[11]
Pages 14-15, Appellee’s Brief.
[12]
People v. Mangulabnan, et. al., 99 Phil. 992, 998; People v.
Rodolfo Cabiling & Roberto Lopez, 74 SCRA 285; People v. Mitra, 108
Phil. 788, 799.