G.R. No. L-14044. August 05, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENEDICTO BALILI, LEONARDO AMOGUIS ALIAS BIG BOY, JOHN DOES, AND RICHARD DOES, DEFENDANTS, BENEDICTO BALILI, DEFENDANT-APP…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
of robbery with homicide, attended by two aggravating and two
mitigating circumstances, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of the victim Federico So in the sum of
P6,000.00, and to pay half of the costs. The other accused Leonardo
Amoguis was acquitted.
The following facts found by the lower court are not disputed:
“That on September 9, 1956, and for sometime
previous to that date, the spouses Federico So, nicknamed “Diko” or
“Dikoy,” were living in their store located at the Serra Street, in the
sitio of Bungtud, municipality of Tandag, of this province of Surigao;
that during that time, September 9, 1956, on the occasion of the
celebration of the town fiesta, there was a carnival being held in the
town plaza; that in that evening of September 9, 1956, said Juliana
Respicia, together with her children, went to the carnival ground to
attend the coronation of the carnival queen while her husband remained
at home; that at about ten o’clock in that same evening said Juliana
Respicia returned home with her children and her husband opened the
door for them to get in, after which he closed said door and went to
sleep on his bed situated at the back part of the store on the ground
floor, while she and her said children went up to sleep on their beds
situated at the upper floor of the building; that before she went to
bed she placed the carnival season’s ticket inside a drawer where money
in the sum of P1,000.00 was kept; that all their doors and windows were
closed and locked, the former by means of cross bars inside and the
latter by means of nails; that said Juliana Respicia slept at about
eleven o’ clock that evening; that about three o’ clock the next
morning she was awakened by a shout for help from her husband telling
that he was wounded; that she immediately stood up, took a flashlight
and went down to where her said husband was, followed by her children
and their woman-storekeeper; that she found her husband Federico So
lying on the floor face down and as she held him on her arms and asked
him what happened he could not answer anymore; that she saw blood on
his abdomen and he had a wound on the breast near the left nipple and
another wound on the arm; that she saw the club Exhibit B under the
body of her said husband; that after some moment her husband died and
she cried and shouted for help and people in the neighborhood came to
see what happened; that it was found that the doors of the store, as
well as the door leading to the kitchen in the upper floor, were
opened; that the robbers entered the house by climbing a calamungay
tree near the window and once inside they went down to the store on the
ground floor; that after the incident was reported to the police,
Patricio Malubay, who was then the chief of police of the town,
together with sergeant Emilio Espinosa arrived and the premises were
investigated and policemen were sent out to search for the marauders;
that the drawer in the store was opened and the cash money amounting to
P1,000.00 was gone; that an examination of the dead body of the
deceased Federico So was made by the municipal health officer Dr. Pedro
Serra who was called at about six o’ clock that morning of September
10, 1956; then when said doctor arrived he found the body already lying
on his bed face up in rigor mortis and that he must have died
four hours before he examined it; that he did not perform autopsy on
the body for lack of facilities; that he found that the deceased had
five groups of wounds which he described in the medical certificate
Exhibit A he issued as follows: wounds at the right forearm, one and a
half inches long; wounds at the index and middle fingers of the right
hand; wound at the index finger of the left hand; and wound one-half
inch long, on the left breast, two inches from the tip of the zyphoid
process, penetrating and perforating the heart; that this last is fatal
and the victim might have died about four hours before the body was
examined; that as usual police investigations and inquiries followed to
identify the author or authors of the tragedy.”
There was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime. Appellant
was prosecuted on the basis of his confessions, verbal and written, and
on evidence of his presence in the vicinity of the crime during or
immediately after the commission.
Martiniano Ajos, a rural policeman, testified that at about 2:00
o’clock in the morning of September 10, 1956, while he was on his way
home from the carnival where he had been on guard duty, he passed
through the street in front of the victim’s house. Because the night
was dark, he had a flashlight with him. At the street corner, as he was
about to make a left turn, he happened to focus the light on the face
of a man lurking near the front door of the victim’s store. The man,
whom Ajos recognized to be Balili, ran away. Ahead of him, also
running, were two other men, but Ajos failed to recognize them. Hearing
the commotion inside the house of the victim, Ajos went in to
investigate and found Juliana Respicia wailing over the dead body of
her husband.
At once Ajos thought of Balili’s suspicious actions outside the
house. But he did not tell the widow about them since he had not seen
appellant commit the crime. He kept his suspicions to himself until he
learned, on November 25, 1956, that Balili had already confessed. It
was then that he informed the widow about Balili’s presence at the
scene of the occurrence and signed an affidavit to that effect the next
day.
Appellant assails the credibility of Ajos and points out that he did
not even know who the policeman was who had relieved him as carnival
guard or what were the streets where he passed in going home from the
carnival that night. Little importance can be attached to such lack of
knowledge in so far as his credibility is concerned. The one who
relieved Ajos did not have to report to him, but rather to the
officer-in-charge of the carnival guards. There was no particular
reason why he should note or remember the names of streets which he
took that night.
Asuncion Buenaflor, former chief of police of Tandag, testified that
in the morning of September 13,1956 , while he was on his way to
market, Balili asked him to come inside his house and there solicited
his assistance. Asked to explain the unusual request, Balili said, “I
do not know why I go (sic) with the robbery case (sic) in the house of
Chinaman Dikoy,” adding that his companions were “three moros and one
‘mestizo’ and Big Boy. [1] After advising Balili to consult a lawyer, Buenaflor left.
It is not true, as contended by appellant, that it took a long time
before Buenaflor informed the authorities of what Balili had told him.
Buenaflor made his affidavit only on November 26, 1956, but the fact is
that on the very day Balili made the confession to him, he revealed it
to the widow’s uncle Vicente Respicia, who in turn lost no time in
relaying the information to Emilio Espinosa, one of the police officers
who were working on the case. After verifying the report from
Buenaflor, Espinosa investigated Balili.
We see no reason to doubt the testimony of Ajos and Buenaflor. They
had no motive to testify falsely against appellant. Buenaflor was in
fact a friend of his, to whom he saw fit to unburden himself and whose
advice and help he even sought.
Buenaflor’s testimony was corroborated by Emilio Espinosa, who first
interrogated appellant on September 13, 1956. Balili then admitted his
participation, but refused to put his admission in writing. It was on
November 3, 1956 that he agreed to make a written statement (Exhibit C
or Exhibit 5).
Appellant now disowns said statement on the ground that he did not
sign it voluntarily. To prove his point, he presented an affidavit he
made on December 13, 1956 (Exh. 6), which he claims to have signed
after he had been maltreated by the policemen who were investigating
him. It is possible that Exhibit 6 was signed by him under duress, and
for that reason was not presented by the prosecution although it
contains statements more incriminating to him. Such possibility,
however, does not justify a similar inference with respect to the first
confession. Furthermore, Espinosa and Pastor Cabrera, municipal
secretary of Tandag, both denied appellant’s allegation that they,
together with some other persons, had threatened appellant into signing
Exhibit C. And Vicente Murillo, the Justice of the Peace before whom
the affidavit was sworn to, affirmed that it was voluntary and denied
that Balili protested against the portions therein that were
incriminating. Appellant claims that he signed the affidavit because he
was given to understand that he would only be utilized as a prosecution
witness; and that not being able to read or write, it was only when the
Justice of the Peace read the contents to him that he learned that he
was made to appear therein as having participated in the offense. But
if that was so he surely could have insisted in having the
incriminating portions deleted from the affidavit without in any way
jeopardizing his usefulness as a witness for the prosecution.
The fact that Exhibit C is in narrative form does not prove
appellant’s contention that it was a prepared statement which he was
forced to sign. Its recitals are: On September 8, 1956, in answer to a
question asked by one of the “Moros” boarding at his house, Balili gave
the information that the only rich persons in the town of Tandag were
the Chinese residents. The one who asked the question then left with
two other “Moros”. Later that day, appellant saw the three of them
talking with “Big Boy” and a “mestizo” whose name he did not know. The
next day, September 9,[2] at
about 2:00 a.m. , the “Moro” who had questioned him woke him up and,
threatening him with a dagger, forced him to go with them (the three
“Moros”) to the store of Chinaman Dikoy, where “Big Boy” and the
“mestizo” were already waiting. The five men made their plans to enter
the store. “Big Boy” and the “mestizo” climbed a “calamungay” tree and
used a piece of wood as bridge from the tree to the ledge of a window
on the second floor of the house. Then the two opened the door to the
first floor in order to let in two of the “Moros”. The third “Moro”
remained outside, at the same time guarding Balili. Not long thereafter
Balili heard a commotion inside the house. The four men came out and
and proceeded inside the “bodega” of Chinaman Dikoy. The one guarding
Balili followed; and Balili, finding himself alone, quickly left the
place. He did not know what the four men did inside the store of the
victim. However, when he went home later in the morning of that day, he
saw the “Moros” washing bloodstained clothes in the bathroom of his
house. The one who had threatened him the night before then warned him
not to tell anybody about what they had done; otherwise, he and the
members of his family would be killed. From that time he never saw any
one of the “Moros” again.
Appellant’s declaration that he was forced by the Moros to go with them deserves no credence.[3]
The phrase “pina-ague pag holga sa balisong” (by threatening to kill me
with his dagger) was inserted in handwriting at the request of
appellant after the affidavit was read to him, obviously as an
afterthought so he could escape criminal liability. There appears to be
no reason why the malefactors should force him to go with them to the
victim’s house, where his involuntary presence would only increase the
risk of discovery; and certainly if he were as innocent as he now
pretends, he would not have appeared so nervous and remorseful as he
was described to be by the chief of police when he told the latter
about the occurence three days after it happened.
There is no evidence, however, that appellant had conspired with the
malefactors, nor that he actually participated in the commission of the
crime. He cannot, therefore, be considered as a principal. But in going
with them, knowing their criminal intention, and in staying outside of
the house with them while the others went inside the store to rob and
kill, appellant effectively supplied the criminals with material and
moral aid, making him guilty as an accomplice. His consciousness of
guilt is confirmed by his silence for several days and by his own
confession made to Asuncion Buenaflor.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified by
reducing the penalty imposed by the lower court upon appellant to an
indeterminate sentence of from six(6) years and one(1) day of prision mayor to fourteen(14) years, eight (8) months and one(1) day of reclusion temporal. In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
[1] Referring to Leonardo Amoguis who was acquitted by the lower court.
[2] Should be September 10, 1956.
[3] Even if the
extrajudicial confession contains exculpatory statements exonerating
the accused from guilt, the court need not believe the confession in
its entirety. (People vs. Villanueva, L-12687, July 21, 1962.)