PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPEELEE, VS. AUGUSTO ROGEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ELISEO RAMOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant Eliseo Ramos, Augusto Rogel, Sixto Rogel, Feliciano
Bugagao, Glicerio Cabingan, Vicente Padua, Felicito Martillos, Gerardo
Desacula and Prudencio Doe, were charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide. Before the trial, the case as against Gerardo Desacula and
Felicito Martillos was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, while
Vicente Padua was discharged and utilized as State witness. Sixto Rogel
and Prudencio Doe are still at large. Only appellant Eliseo Ramos,
Augusto Rogel, Feliciano Bugagao and Glicerio Cabingan stood trial, the
last one pleading guilty during the course thereof, and all four were
found guilty as charged, and sentenced each to reclusio perpetua,
to indemnify, jointly and severally, Teofila Asuero, Lo Han Suy and the
heirs of the deceased Ty Twi, in the respective sums of P5,000.00,
P300.00, and P3,000.00 and to pay proportionate costs. Only Eliseo
Ramos appealed.

It appears that in the early afternoon of August 10, 1955, after
arrangements previously had, appellant Eliseo Ramos and his co-accused
Feliciano Bugagao, Glicerio Cabigan, Prudencio Doe, Sixto Rogel,
Augusto Rogel and Vicente Padua gathered and met at the house of
Francisca Alday, the common-law wife of Feliciano Bugagao, in the
barrio of Calabangan, municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, and there
discussed the robbing of the Chinese owned Tigman Sawmill, located at
the barrio of Tigman, Sipocot. They agreed that they would rob the
Tigman Sawmill that night and kidnap the Chinaman for a P50,000.00
ransom, then divide the booty among themselves. Bugagao, who at the
time had a pending fey. criminal case in court, told the gathering that
his share in the ransom would be spent in his case, and that inasmuch
as he was known in the sawmill, he could not go with the party;
instead, he appointed his tenant, now apptllant Eliseo Ramos, as the
leader, who accepted the commission. Bugagao further informed the
gathering that there was nothing to fear about, because Gerardo
Desacula, the sawmill guard, had already an understanding with him.
Appellant Ramos thus suggested that they should tie Desacula as soon as
they got to the sawmill. Vicente Padua (turned State witness), then
left upon an excuse that he would ask permission from his wife. On
second thought, however, and because he did not want to be involved in
a robbery, instead of joining the party, he decided, later that
afternoon, to see Pelicito Martillos and invited him to cut lumber in
the mountain. On their way thither, however, they ran into appellant
Ramos and his gang who were heading for the sawmill. Thereupon, Ramos
ordered Glicerio Cabingan to point the latter’s gun at Martillos and
compelled him to join the band. Padua could not do anything, so all of
them proceeded to the sawmill at a slow pace so as to get there by
nightfall. In fact, they arrived at about six o’clock, at dusk, but the
sawmill was still in operation and they had to bide at a gasoline
station until the work stopped at about seven o’clock, when they
proceeded to the sawmill premises. Upon reaching the sawmill, Sixto
Rogel and Prudencio ordered the watchman Gerardo Desacula and three
others to lie down, after which appellant Ramos tied their hands;
Glicerio Cabingan, Sixto Rogel and Prudencio went upstairs, broke a
wardrobe open where they found and took P133.00 in cash and a .38 cal.
pistol. They then ransacked the place and took everything of vajue they
could lay their hands on and placed them in a sack and a box container,
while Ramos was on guard at the doors and supervised the plunder.
Augusto Rogel, in turn, entered the room of Chinaman Ty, Twi, took the
latter out and tied his hands. The malefactors left the sawmill taking
the Chinaman with them. On the way, Ty Twi was placed in front,
followed by Padua and Martillos who were the carriers of the loot, and
appellant Ramos stayed behind the group. When they reached the national
road, Padua and Martillos were relieved of their burden by Cabingan and
appellant Ramos. The latter delivered to Padua a bunch of clothes,
supposedly his share, and both Padua and Martillos detached from the
group and headed for their respective homes. The band then proceeded to
the house of Francisca Alday, and later the Chinaman was taken to an
isolated place about half a kilometer from Alda/s house. The following
day, August 11th, Cabingan dug a grave beyond the creek upon orders of
Bugagao and his companions. The Chinaman was blindfolded and made to
squat at the edge of the pit. Augusto Rogel then struck the Chinaman on
the neck with the blunt edge of a bolo, who fell into the grave, and
his body was right, away covered with earth. Two days later, or on
August 13th, Augusto Rogel dropped at the house of Padua and told the
latter not to wait anymore for his share in the ransom as Ty Twi had to
be slain because he was always shouting.

Going back to the sawmill, a rough inventory of the stolen goods
revealed that Teoiila Asuero, owner of the mill canteen, lost P8,000.00
in cash and P7,000.00 in kind; and that Lo Han Suy, the assistant
general manager, lost P600.00 in cash and his .38 cal. pistol worth
between P200 and P300. It was also revealed that Ty Twi was the
“cantinero” or canteen manager of Teofila Asuero.

A report of the robbery-kidnapping sent the Camarines Sur
Constabulary to Tigman. Three of the victims, Avelino Roda, Crispin
Loria and Federico Odiamar told the PC how they were hogtied during the
robbery. Finding Gerardo Desacula, one of the arrested suspects,
nervous and trembling during the investigation, and having learned that
previously Desacula and Feliciano Bugagao and others had a meeting in
the house of one Mrs. Hernando, P.C. Sergeant Bulalacao, concentrated
his investigation on Desacula. Desacula admitted that before the
robbery, Bugagao told him of their plan to rob the sawmill and kidnap
the chinaman for ransom of P50,000.00Bugagao confessed but pointed to
Eliseo Ramos as the master-mind. Eliseo Ramos who was arrested in his
house at Sipocot, also confessed and named Cabingan, Padua, Martillos
and Rogel as his companions and pointed to Cabingan as the one keeping
the firearms used in the robbery. Sgt. Bulalacao proceeded to
Cabingan’s house where Cabingan surrendered a shotgun (Exh. A) to the
officer, a .45 cal. pistol (Exh. B), with several rounds of ammunition
in it (Exhs. A-l to A-3), and part of the loot consisting of several
packages of cigarettes (Exhs. K. K-l to K-8). On August 14, 1955, Padua
and Martillos were arrested. Both confessed their participations and
Padua surrendered the clothing given him as his share of the loot
(Exhs. B-l to B-3). Augusto Rogel when arrested also confessed his
participation and surrendered the pistol he seized from the sawmill.

The body of Ty Twi was exhumed and the autopsy made by Dr. Macalino
disclosed that the deceased died of suffocation and asphyxia for having
been buried while still alive. It was also found that he had a broken
jaw as a result of a bolo blow, and that he could have survived had he
not been buried alive.

Appellant Ramos declared that on August 10, 1955, he was in the land
of Isaac Beltran in Calanog, Lupi, with Juan Joven, clearing the banana
plantation of the former the whole day; and because it was raining very
hard beginning the afternoon of that day which lasted through the
evening, he slept in the house of Isaac with Juan Joven; that he did
not know anything about the robbery in the Tigman Sawmill and the
kidnapping of the Chinaman, and if he signed the affidavit Exhibit J,
it was because he was maltreated by the P.C. soldiers who investigated
him, by boxing and hitting him with the butts of their guns and by
dipping his head in a drum full of water; that Exhibit J which was
prepared by the P.C. was signed by him by force and without knowing its
contents; that he was not able to submit to a medical treatment of his
injuries because he was well guarded and held incommunicado
even from his relatives, and that the imputations of Padua and Cabingan
against him were not true. The trial court gave absolutely no credence
to the defense of alibi, weak and feeble as it was, in the face of the
positive, direct and convincing testimony of Padua and Cabingan. There
was no reason at all shown why the Constabulary officers who took
Exhibit would have employed third degree methods upon appellant and his
co-accused who did not appeal anymore. They were not their friends or
foes. Moreover, he does not now seriously insist in his defense of alibi. In fact, in his lone assignment of error counsel alleges that the trial court erred:—

“In declaring that the appellant Eliseo Ramos was
also responsible for the killing of the chinaman Ty Twi although he was
not present when the chinaman was killed, and that said killing was not
the subject-matter of the conspiracy and neither did he know anything
about the killing.”

In other words, appellant claims that he should be convicted of
simple robbery only, considering that the subject matter of the
conspiracy was merely the kidnapping of the Chinaman and not his
killing; that the kidnapping should be disregarded in this appeal as it
was not alleged, the information being for robbery with homicide; and
besides, he did not take part in said killing nor was he present
thereat.

It is undisputed that on August 10th Ramos was among that group
which met in the house of Francisca Alday where they discussed and
agreed to rob the Tigman Sawmill owned by a Chinaman, and kidnap the
Chinaman for a P50,000.00 ransom to be divided among themselves; that
Ramos accepted his designation as the leader of the “gang”; that Ramos
suggested that Desacula, the sawmill guard, should be hogtied as soon
as they got to the mill; that Ramos, on their way, ordered Cabingan to
point the latter’s gun at Martillos and compelled him to join the band;
that once in the sawmill Sixto Rogel and Prudencio ordered Desacula and
three others to lie down, after which Ramos tied their hands; that
during the commission of the robbery in the premises by his companions
and when Chinaman Ty Twi’s hands were tied, Ramos stood guard at the
doors and supervised the plunder; and that in the act of kidnapping Ty
Twi, and during the march, Ramos stayed behind the group until they
reached the national road where Ramos delivered to Padua a bunch of
clothes as the latter’s share. It appears also that Padua, Martillos
and Ramos detached themselves from the group, as they were not present
at or participated actually in the killing of Ty Twi the following day,
August 11th, in a place one-half kilometer away from Francisca Alday’s
house. Contrary to appellant’s contention, kidnapping is alleged in the
information.

In connection with his assignment of error, appellant seeks shelter
under the ruling in the case of People vs. Basisten, 47 Phil., 493
(1925), wherein we held that where homicide has not been the subject
matter of the conspiracy to commit robbery, the conspirator committing
homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof, is alone guilty of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, and the rest who did not have
any intervention in the killing are guilty of simply robbery only.

We do not share appellant’s view, in this respect; for as early as
1926, one year after we enunciated the ruling in the Basisten case,
supra, We decided to revert to the 1, in the following language:

“x x x The Supreme Court of Spain, interpreting the
provisions of the Penal Code touching the complex crime of ROBO CON
HOMICIDIO, lias frequently decided that, where the complex crime has
been committed, all those who took part as principals in the
commission of the robbery are guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of ROBO CON HOMICIDIO, unless it appears that they
endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing. (Decisions of the supreme
court of Spain, April 30 and February 23, 1872, and June 19, 1890. See also Viada, Vol. 3, pp. 347, 354, and 366.)” (Italics supplied).

Thus, in People vs. Bautista, et al., 49 Phil., 389, (1926), We held that—

“x x x Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on
the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
commission of the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide,
unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide
(U. S. vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil., 1)”. (Italics supplied). We have
consistently followed and applied this doctrine thenceforth in People
vs. Morados, et al., (9th Supp. Off. Gaz. 40 No. 13, Sept. 27, 1941, p.
75) ; in People vs. De la Rosa, 90 Phil., 365, where We even went
further by saying that proof of conspiracy is not essential, as it was
sufficient that “by reason or on occasion of the robbery the crime of
homicide shall have been committed;” and in People vs. Flores de Garcia
et al., 111 Phil., 393, 58 Off. Gaz., [41] 6664. The subsequent killing
of the deceased without appellant’s knowledge or presence was merely
incidental to the execution of the conspiracy to rob and to kidnap for
ransom, which had to be resorted to as a convenient if not necessary
expedient (considering that the deceased was always shouting during his
detention) in order to hide the band’s deed from prying eyes, and/or to
silence a potential witness who might reveal the identity of the
scoundrels should they eventually be brought to justice.

“We see, therefore, that in order to determine the
existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a
homicide would result by reason or ON the occasion of the robbery
(Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26, 1892, and
January 7, 1878, quoted in Hidalgo’s Penal Code, pp. 267 and 259-260,
respectively). This High Tribunal speaking of the accessory character
of the circumstances leading to the homicide, has also held that it is
immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident (Decision of
September 9, 1886; October 22, 1907; April 30, 1910 and July 14, 1917),
provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons
intervening to the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into
consideration (Decision of January 12, 1889—see Cuello Calon’s Cddigo
Penal, pp. 501-502.” (People vs. Agustin Mangulabnan, et al., 52 O.G.
No. 15, November 15, 1956)

Furthermore, appellant Ramos did not only conspire with his
co-accused, but he also led and engineered the robbery and the
kidnapping. As a conspirator, he is liable for all the consequences of
the acts of his co-conspirators. The fact that appellant participated
in snatching the victim (Ty Twi) along, makes him liable as a principal
thereto; and it is immaterial whether or not the victim was killed by
his co-conspirators (People vs. Suares, 82 Phil., 484). It is not even
necessary that he takes part in every act; neither is it imperative
that he knew the exact role of the others in the conspiracy. It is
enough that they agreed on the plan to accomplish a purpose; by means
and methods, which from time to time, might be found expedient.
Appellant should have anticipated or known that when the Chinaman was
hogtied and kidnapped for ransom, by appellant and by his band, harm or
death awaited him, if the ransom was not given. Only objection to or resistance from taking part in the detention and killing of the victim
could have saved appellant from liability therefor (People vs.
Guerrero, et al., G. R. No. L-9559, May 14, 1958).

It is likewise immaterial that the killing was made
at another place the following day. To determine the existence of the
crime of robbery with homicide, the accessory character of the
circumstances leading to the homicide is not of much importance,
provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on the occasion of
the robbery (People vs. Mangulabnan, et al. (99 Phil., 992; 52 Off.
Gaz., [15] 6532, citing Decision of SC of Spain, Jan. 12, 1869; Cuello
Calon’s Codigo Penal pp. 501-502). In theinstant case, Ty Twi was
killed by reason of the robbery, or on the Occasion of the robbery. As
he was always shouting and by so doing, the malefactors could no longer
conceal the robbery, they killed him (U. S. vs. Palmadres, 7 Phil.,
120). As the intention to kill or the killing comprehends the robbery,
it is immaterial that the homicide may precede or follow the robbery in
point of time (People vs. Manuel, et al., 44 Phil., 333).

The record shows that the commission of the offense charged, was
attended by the following aggravating circumstances: (1) treachery, the
victim having been killed while bound and blind-folded; (2) cruelty,
the victim having been buried alive; (3) nighttime, which was purposely
sought; (4) evident premeditation of the killing; and (5) aid of armed
men (People vs. Suarez, et al., 82 Phil. 484), and there being no
mitigating circumstance to appreciate, capital punishment is in order.
In view, however, of the absence of the required statutory vote, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

The civil indemnities adjudged, should be increased as follows: to
Teofila Asuero, P15,000.00; to Lo Han Suy, P600.00; and to the heirs of
Ty Twi, P6,000.00.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.