THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AVELINO RONCAL, ALIAS BELEN, AND FELICIANO GABRIELES, ALIAS FELING, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The defendants-appellants Avelino Roncal and Feliciano Gabrieles
were sentenced to death on April 27, 1966 by the Court of First Instance of
Samar.

Together with three others, namely, Faustino Rosario Rolly,
Salvador Cafranca and Rodolfo Enote who have remained at large, the appellants
were charged, in separate informations, with robbery with homicide (Crim. Case
4173) and robbery with physical injuries (Crim. Case 4182).  Upon arraign­ment, the two pleaded not guilty
to both charges which were later tried jointly. 
After the prosecu­tion had closed its evidence, however, Roncal was
allowed to change his original plea to that of guilty.

The victims in the case at bar were Pedro Paano, who died after
he was shot by Roncal, and his son, Felipe Paano, who also sustained a gunshot
wound but survived.  The offended parties
were shot in the ground floor of the house of Pedro Paano which was then used
as a combination bodega and store.

Based on the findings of the court below, it is established that
at about 1:30 o’clock in the morning of October 8, 1962, the deceased Pedro
Paano and several others, namely, Amado Maestre, Angel Tegio, Gerardo Paano,
Elena Detalo and Bonifacio Lazarra, were
on the ground floor of Pedro Paano’s house. 
Maestre’s abaca, which he had
sold to Pedro Paano, was then being weighed by Tegio.  After the abaca was weighed and Maestre paid
its price, Pedro Paano invited Maestre to a motorboat anchored nearby.  As the two were about to leave, the appellant
Roncal and a companion, with drawn pistols, entered the ground floor of Pedro
Paano’s house through a door facing the street. 
Roncal pointed a .45 caliber pistol at Pedro Paano and demanded
money.  Meanwhile, Roncal’s companion
levelled his gun at Maestre.  In the
course of the hold-up, Pedro Paano addressed Roncal with these words:  “Belen, do not kill me, if you only ask
for money I have.” But Roncal nevertheless shot Pedro who slumped to the
floor.

Apparently scared, Tegio ran to a window of the bodega with the
intention of jumping out.  On opening the
window, he saw four men just a few meters away from the door, one of whom he
identified later at the hearing as the other appellant Feliciano
Gabrieles.  Tegio had never met Gabrieles
before, but he attributed his recognition of the appellant to the moonlight
which then illuminated the area.  Tegio
further recounted that Gabrieles chased him for some distance after he jumped
out of the window.

Meanwhile, Roncal’s companion ordered Maestre to go up the house
through a staircase inside.  They were followed
by Roncal and Elena Detalo.  The sala
upstairs was lighted by an ordinary kerosene lamp.  Maestre, after some tine, heard Roncal’s
voice asking for money.  When Roncal’s
companion went to the bathroom and the kitchen, apparently to explore, Maestre
hid under an army cot in the sala and remained there until the robbers left.

Roncal who had previously followed Elena Detalo to her room tried
to forcibly open the door of another room which was later opened by Maria Paano
who was inside.  Roncal immediately
grabbed her neck, pulled off her necklace, levelled his gun at her, and
demanded money.  Roncal succeeded in
getting P19,426 in cash.

Meanwhile, Felipe Paano, who was in a motor launch anchored
nearby, and who had heard the gun report, arrived in a rush, and while yet on
the ground floor demanded to know what was happening, and what had happened to
his father, Pedro, who failed to respond to his inquiries.  Felipe picked up a crowbar and ran upstairs,
calling for his mother.  In the living
room, he was met by Roncal’s companion who ordered him to put down his crowbar
and warned him not to move one step farther or he would be shot.  Felipe moved, and was shot.  Hit at the base of his neck, he lost
consciousness.

Roncal and his companion,
with their loot in a handbag, ran downstairs and out of the house
through the same door they came in. 
Maria Paano opened a window facing the street and shouted for help; she
saw four persons near the door allegedly armed with pistols.  She saw them run away with Roncal.  One of them, a big man, was at the tail end
of the escaping group.  In court, Maria
Paano pointed to the appellant Feliciano Gabrieles as the big man she saw.

Pedro Paano and Felipe Paano were brought to the clinic of Dr.
Manuel Blanco in Dolores, Samar.  Dr.
Blanco did not conduct an autopsy on Pedro Paano whom he at once noted was
already dead.  Dr. Blanco treated Felipe
and advised that he be brought to the Leyte Provincial Hospital which had
suitable facilities.  Felipe was confined
there from October 9 to 23, 1962.  As a
result of the gunshot wound he sustained, half of Felipe’s body became
paralyzed.

Roncal was apprehended on October 10, 1962 by Philippine
Constabulary’ soldiers in Catomsan, Arteche, Samar.  At the time of his arrest, a .45 caliber pistol
was found on his person.  Ballistic
examination disclosed that the slug found in the body of Pedro Paano came from
that gun.  The sum of P940 was also found
on Roncal’s person at the time of his arrest. 
He named certain relatives with whom he had left P284 and who willing
turned over the said sum to the Philippine Constabu­lary, disclaiming awareness
that it was part of a loot.

Gabrieles was arrested in
Tacloban City where he lived with his common-law wife.

At the hearing, Gabrieles testified in his own behalf, and
presented two witnesses, Bienvenido Indoy and Jose Tobogoca, to corroborate his
defense of alibi.

According to Gabrieles, on October 5, 1362, he, his parents, his
common-law wife, his children and some friends went to Guiuan, Samar, by means of
a pumpboat operated by Jose Tobogoca. 
October 7, 1962 was feastday of Guiuan’s patron saint, and the group
stayed there until October 8.  Gabrieles
and his family stayed in the house of Alejandro Abrera while in Guiuan.  The daily routine of Gabrieles, his relatives
and friends, while in Guiuan, was going to church, hearing mass and going to
the cockpit.

In the afternoon of October 8, 1962, the group went by the same
pumpboat to Solangan, a sitio of Guiuan, to fulfill a religious vow relative to
the sickly condition of the appellant Gabrieles’ father, Felix Gabrieles.  The group passed the night in Solangan,
returned to Guiuan the next morning, and then proceeded back to Tacloban City.

In his testimony, Gabrieles never mentioned what specifically he
and his party did at Solangan.  His
witness, Jose Tobogoca, testified that on October 8, 1962, the group heard
mass.  Tobogoca, however, could not say
that he had seen a priest or that a priest said mass in Solangan.  The following day, October 9, Tobogoca went
to church; he did not see a priest.  When
asked whether there was a convent beside the church, Tobogoca, who was on his
second trip to Solangan, could not make a categorical reply, “because
after going to church I went out without paying attention to the surrounding
around.” But when asked whether he saw any “particular tree”
near the church, Tobogoca replied he saw a tree, “the same as Camayse
(but) I already forgot its name.” Tobogoca, who had been a waterfront
friend of Gabrieles for about 15 years and knew the members of the appellant’s
family, said that Ines Lacanaria, the appellant’s mother, was not with the
group that took his pumpboat to Guiuan, thereby directly contradicting
Gabrieles’ testimony, as well as that of Bienvenido Indoy, the appellant’s
other witness, who was allegedly with the appellant’s party through­out their
alleged religious pilgrimage.

Bienvenido Indoy testified that in the morning of October 9,
1962, the appellant and his family, as well as he, heard mass in Solangan.  On cross-examination, Indoy said that the
party heard mass upon their arrival in Solangan and also heard mass there the
next morning.  When asked whether there
was a priest in Solangan, Indoy said yes, but when asked whether a priest said
mass in Solangan on the days in question, his reply was that he was not sure.

Indoy also mentioned that the father of the appellant Gabrieles
never left the pumpboat at Guiuan and Solangan because he could not walk.  This matter was never mentioned by either
Gabrieles or Tobogoca.  Considering that
the main reason for the alleged religious pilgrimage was the health and
well-being of Gabrieles’ father, it is quite surprising and no explanation was
preferred why Gabrieles and the pumpboat owner Tobogoca never mentioned that
the appellant’s father stayed all the time in Tobogoca’s pumpboat, that is, he
never attended mass nor went to church either at Guiuan or Solangan.

1.  It is a well-known rule
in criminal jurisprudence that alibi is a weak defense, espe­cially when
it is advanced against the positive identification of witnesses who have
neither reason nor motivation to fabricate evidence.  In the case at bar, the testimonies adduced
to prove Gabrieles’ alibi show no consistency on vital matters; a
reading of the record as well convinces this Court that the said testimonies
were concocted to enable the appellant Gabrieles to escape criminal
liability.  Thus, the conclusion made by
the court below that the fact that Gabrieles was for years president of a
defunct waterfront union of which Indoy was secre­tary-treasurer and Tobogoca
was for years a member, has a measure of materiality and relevance in the
appraisal of the credibility of the defense of alibi foisted by the
appellant Gabrieles, is not without reasonable basis.

With regard to the other appellant, Avelino Roncal, his voluntary
plea of guilty, after the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence
which clearly established his direct participation in the crimes charged, constitutes a definite admission that he can
offer no plausible or credible defense to the mentioned indictments.  Indeed, in the pro­ceedings before this
Court, all that his counsel contends is that the prosecution failed to prove
that the bullet which felled Pedro Paano caused his death because no autopsy
was made on the victim’s body.

2.  The appellants contend
that the court below erred in concluding that the accused conspired to rob the
house of Pedro Paano.

It is settled that conspiracy need not be proved by direct
evidence and may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
per­petuated.^[1]

In our opinion, no error was committed by the trial court.  The presence, during the wee hours of the
morning, of six persons at the
scene of the crime, two of whom with drawn pistols entered the bodega of the
victims, with the rest standing guard outside, definitely points to a joint
purpose and coordination of design and effort to rob the victims.  This conclusion is further enhanced by
statements contained in the extrajudicial confession of Roncal, a native of
Can-avid, Samar, that the plan to rob certain places in Samar by the
co-conspirators was hatched in the house of the appellant Gabrieles in Tacloban
City, a place only several kilometers away from Can-avid, Samar.^[2]
Gabrieles claimed below that he did not
know his co-accused.  If this is true, it
seems next to a miracle that Roncal would be able to connect Gabrieles and his
residence in Tacloban City to the crimes charged.

3.  The appellants also aver
that the trial court erred in concluding that the crimes were com­mitted by a
band.  We agree.  The trial court’s con­clusion was based on a
single statement of Maria Paano that when she looked out of the window to shout
for help she espied four persons standing at the door of her house “armed
with pistols.” Such a statement, even if coming from the lips of a
credible witness, cannot be taken on its face value without the corroboration
of other circumstances which would definitely show that she could not have been
misled by what she saw.  It must be
further considered that Maria Paano was living in a rural area, and her
knowledge of, or familiarity with, pistols cannot be readily accepted without
corroborative evidence.

4.  The appellants further contend
that the court below erred in finding that the aggravating circumstances of
dwelling and evident premeditation are present in the case at bar.  The contention has merit as to the latter
circumstance, but none as to the other.

The rationale for appreciating this aggravating circumstance is
the offender’s deliberate invasion of the tranquility of one’s domicile which,
therefore, shows greater perversity.^[3]
The real objective of the culprits — to rob — was consummated on the second
floor of the house, which floor was used as a dwelling.  Hence, the trial
court correctly concluded that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
accompanied the commission of the crime.

As to evident premeditation, the Solicitor General agrees, quite
correctly, that the same was not sufficiently shown.  From neither the extrajudicial confession of
Roncal nor the evidence adduced below can it be inferred with absolute
certainty that there was previous concert among the culprits to deliberately
cause the death of or to inflict injuries upon the victims, or that they especially planned to rob the
Paano household.

5.  The trial court, however,
should have appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity as charged
in the information below.  The evidence
adduced clearly shows that nighttime was intentionally and specially selected
by the culprits in order to better insure the commission of the crime and make
good their escape.^[4]

6.  The plea of guilty
subsequently entered by Roncal cannot be considered mitigating as it was made after the prosecution had
presented its evidence.^[5]

7.  Although the appellants
were charged below in two separate informations, the crimes committed in the
case at bar should be classified, for purposes of imposing the appropriate
penalty, as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and
penalized under article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.^[6]
As held in People vs. Saquing,^[7]
the term “homicide” in par. 1 of article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code is to be understood in a generic sense.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment rendered below imposing the
death penalty on the appellants Avelino Roncal and Feliciano Gabrieles is
hereby affirmed.

With regard to civil indemnity, the sum of P6,000 awarded for the
death of Pedro Paano is hereby increased to P12,000.  Aside from the moral damages of P10,000 and exemplary damages of P5,000 awarded to the heirs of Pedro Paano
by the court below, moral and exemplary damages of equal amounts are hereby
also awarded to the other offended party Felipe Paano.  The burial expenses incurred by the family of
Pedro Paano in the sum of P800 are hereby awarded.  In all other respects, namely, (a) the return
of the unrecovered sum of P18,202 out of a total sum of P19,426 stolen from the
offended victims; (b) the award of P3,000 for medical expenses; (c) the return
by the clerk of court of the court a quo to Maria Paano of the sum of P1,224 recovered from the
appellant Avelino Roncal; and (d) the forfeiture to the Government of the .45
caliber pistol confiscated from the appellant Avelino Roncal, the judgment a
quo is affirmed.  Costs against the appellants.

Castro, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz
Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Martin, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., took no part.

^[1]
People vs. Pudpud, 39 SCRA 618; People vs. Alviar, 59 SCRA 136;
People vs. Cariño, 55 SCRA 515.

^[2]
An extrajudicial confession serves as a corroborative evidence when it is clear
from other facts and circumstances that other persons had parti­cipated in the
perpetration of the crime charged and proved. 
It is admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person
implicated to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the
commission of the crime.  (People vs.
Domondon, 43 SCRA 486; People vs. Aquino, 57 SCRA 43).

^[3]
See People vs. Magnaye, 89 Phil. 223.

^[4]
See People
vs. Luna, 58 SCRA 198.

^[5]
See People vs. Co Chang, 60 Phil. 273; People vs. Quesada, 107
Phil. 1068; People vs. Buco, 21 SCRA 5.

^[6]
See People vs. Cornelio, 39 SCRA 435; People vs. Genoquin, 56
SCRA 181.

^[7]
30 SCRA 834.