G.R. No. L-30116. November 20, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FAUSTO DAMASO, VICTORIANO EUGENIO, ALIAS TURING, ESTANISLAO GREGORIO ALIAS ISLAO, LORENZO ALVIAR ALIAS ORING AND BONIFACIO…
PER CURIAM:
Eugenio, Lorenzo Alviar and Bonifacio Espejo by the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac in its Criminal Case No. 2253 for “robbery with
double homicide” is now before this Court on automatic review together
with a related case No. 2293 “for illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition” involving only the accused, Lorenzo Alviar.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 2253 charged the accused
therein of “robbery with double homicide” alleged to have been committed
as follows:
“That on or about the 21st day of November, 1959, at nighttime, in
the Municipality of Victoria, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, four of whom are armed with a scythe and firearms, namely:
Fausto Damaso with a rifle, springfield Cal. 30, Victoriano Eugenio with
a paltik Cal. 12 ga., Estanislao Gregorio with a scythe, and Lorenzo Alviar with a paltik
Cal. 22, confederating, conspiring, helping and aiding one another, by
means of force, violence, threats and intimidation upon the persons of
Donata Rebolledo, Victoriano de la Cruz and Susana Sabado, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, take,
steal and carry away with them the following:
PROPERTY OF DONATA REBOLLEDO: One jacket valued at – – – – – – – – – – – – – P25.00 One necklace valued at – – – – – – – – – – – 50.00 One earring valued at – – – – – – – – – – – – 25.00 One ring valued at – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 15.00 One hat valued at – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 5.00 Three scythes valued at – – – – – – – – – – – 3.60 A document valued at – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.30 P125.90
PROPERTY OF VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ Cash money in the amount of – – – – P 15.00 PROPERTY OF SUSANA SABADO: Cash money in the amount of – – – – 15.00 Ten bottles of liquor Bicolana;Six bottles of Caña Rum; One dozen Ligo Sardines;One dozen Eatwell Sardines;
Six packages of Golden Star
cigarettes;three packages
of cigarettes (Inyog); and
four packages of cigarettes
(La Ventaja) with a total
valued of- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –P 21.02 P 36.02 P176.92 to the damage and prejudice of the said owners in the respective
amounts of P25.00, P15.00 and P36.02, Philippine currency; that the said
accused, on the occasion of the commission of the crime
above-mentioned, held and brought Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado,
daughters of the said Donata Rebolledo, to a sugarcane field which is a
secluded and uninhabited place, at Barrio Bangar, Victoria, Tarlac, and
once there and after tying together the respective forearms of the said
Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado, in pursuance of their concerted
conspiracy, by means of force and grave abuse of superior strength, the
said accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
stab the said Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado on different parts of
their body and cut their necks with a sharp pointed instrument (scythe),
as a result of which the latter died instantly.“That in the commission of the crime abovementioned, there
concurred the aggravating circumstances of (1) abuse of superior
strength, (2) nighttime, (3) uninhabited place, (4) by a band, (5)
treachery, and (6) disregard of sex.” (pp. 116-117, rollo)
In Criminal Case No. 2293 Lorenzo Alviar was also charged of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, viz:
“That on or about November 24, 1959, in the Municipality of
Victoria, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without authority of
law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his possession and under his control a firearm, to wit: a paltik
revolver caliber 22 with eight (8) rounds of ammunition, without first
obtaining the corres-ponding license or permit to keep and possess the
same.” (pp. 117-118, ibid.)
The two cases were jointly heard by the trial court, In a joint
decision rendered on December 10, 1968, by then Presiding Judge, Hon.
Arturo B. Santos, all the accused were found guilty as charged. In
Criminal Case No. 2253 (robbery with double homicide) the accused Fausto
Damaso, Lorenzo Alviar, Bonifacio Espejo and Victoriano Eugenio were
each sentenced to suffer the “penalty of death, to indemnify the legal
heirs of the victims, Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado, jointly and
severally in the amount of P12,000.00 for each of the victims, plus the
sum of P15.00 which was the money taken by the accused, and to pay the
costs, share and share alike.” One of the accused, Estanislao Gregorio,
was no longer included in the sentence because he died on April 6, 1967
while the cases were still undergoing trial.
In Criminal Case No. 2293, accused Lorenzo Alviar was sentenced “to three years imprisonment and to pay the costs.”[1]
The evidence of the prosecution as found by the trial court establish the following incidents:[2]
Donata Rebolledo and her son-in-law, Victoriano de la Cruz were
residents of Barrio Bangar, municipality of Victoria, province of
Tarlac. At about 9 o’clock in the evening of November 21, 1959, Donata
and Victoriano heard the barkings of dogs outside their house. Shortly,
two men armed with guns, entered, pointed their weapons at them, tied
up the hands of Victoriano, covered him with a blanket and asked Donata
for the whereabouts of her daughter Catalina Sabado. Stricken by fear,
Donata kept silent and blocked the door leading to her daughter’s room
but was promptly pushed aside. Donata was then ordered to open an “aparador”
from which the two men took valuables like jewelry, clothing,
documents, and cutting instruments. All the while, Donata and
Victoriano could hear the movements and voices of some three to four
other persons beneath the house. The two men brought Catalina Sabado
down from the house and then asked where they could find Susana Sabado,
Donata’s other daughter who was then in her store located about five
meters away in the same house. Thereafter, Donata heard the men opening
the door to Susana’s store. After several minutes, feeling that the
intruders had left, Donata untied the hands of Victoriano and asked him
to go to the store to see if her daughters were there. When the two
women could not be found, Donata sent Victoriano to the barrio
lieutenant to report the incident. Accordingly, Victoriano went to the
barrio lieutenant and the two later went to town to inform the police of
the occurrence.
On the same night, Chief of Police Pedro Valdez, with the aid of
several policemen and a handful of civilians went out in search for the
Sabado sisters. It was only the following morning when the two women
were found already dead with wounds in several parts of their bodies.
They were found in a sugar plantation belonging to one Ignacio Fabros,
located about one hundred meters from Donata Rebollado’s house.
Dr. Carlos Briones, Municipal Health Officer of Victoria
performed the autopsy on the two bodies and reported that the deaths
were caused by profuse hemorrhage due to a fatal, big, wide, gaping and
deep lacerated wound just above the Adam’s apple. He also testified in
court that the death weapon must have been a sharp instrument with a
pointed tip, like a scythe.
A few days after the incident, Donata Rebolledo singled out the
accused Fausto Damaso from a police line-up as one of the men who went
up to her house on that evening. She and Victoriano had recognized
Damaso because of the light coming from a kerosene lamp placed on a
small table near the “aparador.” Damaso, however, initially
denied ever having been to Donata’s house that night. Later, the PC
rounded up four other suspects in the persons of co-accused Gregorio,
Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo.
As further evidence, the prosecution presented separate
extra-judicial statements, sworn to before Municipal Judge Conrado de
Gracia of Paniqui, Tarlac, wherein all the five accused admitted having
participated in the crime.
In his sworn statement marked as Exhibit “J”, Fausto Damaso
stated that he was with his co-accused Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and
Espejo on the night the Sabado sisters were killed; that he never went
into the house of Donata Rebolledo as Eugenio and Gregorio were the ones
who did; that it was Gregorio and Eugenio who actually did the killing
while he, Alviar and Espejo merely stood by; that the victims were
stabbed and their throats cut with a reaping knife (pangapas or lait);
that the killing was motivated by the failure of the older woman
(Catalina) to pay for a carabao bought from Gregorio; and that on that
evening, Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo were carrying caliber .45
pistols while he was unarmed.
In a subsequent statement marked as Exhibit “P”, Damaso
reiterated his claim that it was Gregorio who actually stabbed and cut
the throats of the victims in the presence of all the accused; that
Catalina was killed ahead of Susana; that Gregorio killed Susana as she
was being held by Eugenio; and that while still in the house, they were
able to get P15 from Susana’s store. Contrary to what he confessed in
his previous sworn statement, he admitted that it was he and Eugenio who
went up to Donata Rebolledo’s house and not Eugenio and Gregorio. He
also changed his theory as to the motive for the killings, declaring
this time that the two women were killed because the latter had already
recognized them. He further stated that on that night, he was armed
with a caliber .22 (paltik) revolver, Eugenio with a 12-gauge paltik, Gregorio with two reaping knives (lait), Lorenzo with a long firearm and Espejo with two stones.
In his sworn statement, Exhibit “O”, Victoriano Eugenio likewise
admitted that he was a party to the commission of the offense; that it
was Gregorio who conceived of the plot to commit the crime; that it was
also Gregorio who killed the two women with a reaping knife; that after
Catalina was killed, he held Susana by the arms as Gregorio stabbed her
and cut her throat; that Alviar, Damaso and Lorenzo were also with them
that night; that he did not know what motivated Gregorio to kill the
victims; that he had no previous agreement with his co-accused to kill
the two women; that he and Damaso were the ones who entered Donata’s
house, took P15 from the “aparador,” brought down Catalina and also got Susana from another portion of the house; that he was then armed with a 12-gauge paltik, Damaso with a caliber .22 paltik
revolver, Alviar with a Springfield caliber .30 rifle, Gregorio with a
reaping knife and Espejo with two stones; and that he was with the group
that night because at about 7 o’clock in the evening, Gregorio dropped
by his house and invited him to Barrio Bangar where the crime was
committed.
In his separate statement (Exhibit “Q”), Estanislao Gregorio
narrated that in the afternoon of November 21, 1959, his four co-accused
came and informed him of a plan to rob the Sabado sisters, to which
plan he agreed; that Damaso and Eugenio went up Donata Rebolledo’s
house, got P15 in cash and brought out Catalina and Susana by force;
that he stabbed and cut the throats of the victims with all his
co-accused present; that Eugenio held Catalina while Damaso held Susana
as he killed them both with a reaping knife; that the two women were
killed because they had recognized Eugenio and Damaso and might testify
against them in court; that during the commission of the crime, his only
weapon was a reaping knife while Alviar was carrying a caliber .22 paltik revolver, Damaso, a Springfield caliber .30 rifle, Eugenio, a 12-gauge single shot paltik and Espejo was unarmed.
Exhibit “N” is Bonifacio Espejo’s sworn statement. Here he
declared that he happened to be with the group because Damaso and
Eugenio invited him to Barrio Bangar and they dropped by the houses of
Alviar and Gregorio before actually proceeding to the barrio; that they
had a previous agreement to commit the crime; that they planned the same
in a lot owned by a certain Don Juan Garcia in Barrio Bangar; that it
was Damaso and Eugenio who entered Donata Rebolledo’s house while he,
Alviar and Gregorio were left downstairs to keep watch; that they were
able to get P15 from the house; that it was Gregorio who actually killed
the two women; and that Damaso and Eugenio were armed with a 12-gauge paltik and another long arm the caliber of which he did not know; that Alviar had a caliber .22 paltik revolver, Gregorio a knife and he had two big stones.
Substantially similar were the admissions of Lorenzo Alviar in
his sworn statement (Exhibit “R”). He likewise declared that he and his
co-accused took P15 from the house of the victims; that it was Gregorio
who stabbed and cut the throats of the victims with a reaping knife;
that the killing was done in a sugarcane plantation between 10:00 and
11:00 o’clock in the evening of November 21, 1959; that Catalina was
killed before Susana; that he was armed with a caliber .22 paltik revolver, Eugenio with a single shot, 12-gauge paltik,
Damaso with a Springfield caliber .30 rifle and Espejo with two stones.
He claimed, however, that he was only forced and intimidated by his
co-accused to join the group.
At the trial, the five accused set up the defense of alibi and
repudiated their respective sworn statements alleging that these were
obtained from them through duress, force and intimidation. Instances of
the use of third degree methods like boxing, pouring of “7-up” into the
nostrils, stripping of clothes, pricking of the penis, kicking and
slapping of the ears were narrated by the accused on the witness stand,
all of which were not believed by the trial court.
The accused-appellants are here represented by a counsel de oficio, Atty. Clemente A. Madarang, Jr., who filed an exhaustive brief for the accused.
Taken as a whole, the assigned errors boil down to the question
of credibility and sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction
of appellants for the special complex crime of robbery with double
homicide. It is argued that (a) there is no evidence of the alleged
robbery; (b) that the homicide was not committed by reason or on
occasion of the robbery; and (c) that the crime was not attended by the
aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited
place.
There is no merit to appellants’ submittal.
1. That robbery was committed is evident from the
declaration of prosecution witness Donata Rebolledo who testified that
the two men who barged into her house, one of whom she recognized as
Fausto Damaso, ordered her to open her “aparador” and then they
took therefrom the following items with their respective values: a
jacket- P25; a necklace- P50; earrings – P25; a ring- P15; a hat- P5;
scythes – P3.60; and documents worth P2.30.[3]
Moreover the appellants admitted in their separate statements that they
were able to get P15 from Donata’s house. On this point, We agree with
the Solicitor General that it matters not from what part of the house
the accused got the P15. What is important is that the culprits carried
away personal property belonging to another by the use of force,
intimidation or violence.[4]
2. Counsel points out that because there was a motive, at
least on the part of Gregorio, for the killing of the Sabado sisters,
the double homicide could not have been “committed by reason or on
occasion of the robbery” as the law contemplates. He calls Our
attention to the sworn statement wherein Fausto Damaso declared that
Gregorio killed Catalina and Susana because Catalina bought a carabao
from him and did not pay for it. Harping further on this motive theory,
counsel mentions such circumstances as why the accused specifically
asked for Catalina and Susana upon entering Donata Rebolledo’s house and
why Donata and Victoriano were not killed together with the sisters if
the purpose was to remove all opposition to the robbery or to eliminate
witnesses thereto.
As to Damaso’s declaration, it should be noted that Damaso
himself, in his subsequent sworn statement, changed his motive theory
and stated that the victims were killed in order to eliminate witnesses
to the crime. This was corroborated by Gregorio in the latter’s own
written confession. Even assuming, however, that such a motive for
vengeance existed on the part of Gregorio, it does not necessarily
exclude the fact that he and co-accused also intended, when they went to
Donata’s house that night, to rob the family. In a complex crime of
robbery with homicide, while an intent to commit robbery must precede
the taking of human life, the fact that the intent of the culprit was
tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against the person
killed does not prevent the punishment of the accused for the complex
crime.[5]
3. Counsel for appellants also argues that the trial court erred
in its appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of armed band,
treachery and uninhabited place.
The aggravating circumstance of band exists whenever more than
three armed malefactors act together in the commission of an offense.[6]
Counsel concedes that at least three of the accused-appellants, namely
Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio, were armed during the commission of the
crime. He doubts, however, whether accused Damaso carried any weapon
and whether the “two stones” carried by accused Espejo fall under the
category of “arms.” But even granting that Espejo’s stones do not
constitute arms, the prosecution presented the following evidence to
show that Damaso was also armed and, as such, there were more than three
of the accused who were armed: (1) the extrajudicial confession of
Damaso himself (Exhibit “P”) that he was carrying a caliber .22 paltik revolver; (2) the sworn statement of accused Eugenio (Exhibit “O”) that Damaso had a caliber .22 paltik
revolver; (3) the separate written confessions of Alviar, Gregorio and
Espejo (Exhibits “R”, “Q”, and “N”) that Damaso had a caliber .30
Springfield rifle; and (4) the testimonies of Donata Rebolledo and
Victoriano de la Cruz that both men who entered their house (one of whom
they later identified as Damaso) were carrying firearms.
It is clear them the above, that Damaso was armed during the
night of the commission of the crime, and it is immaterial what kind of
firearm he carried, the only important thing being that he was armed.
In this case, the presence of an armed band is to be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14(6) of the Revised
Penal Code inasmuch as the crime committed was that provided for and
penalized in Article 294, paragraph 1 and not under Article 295, Revised
Penal Code. (see People v. Apduhan, Jr., per Justice, now Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, 24 SCRA 798.)
Treachery is present if the victim is killed while bound in such a
manner as to be deprived of the opportunity to repel the attack or
escape with any possibility of success.[7]
The fact that the bodies of Catalina and Susana were found dead with
their arms tied behind their backs as well as the admission of Gregorio
in his confession (Exhibit “Q”) that he killed the sisters while their
arms were held by Eugenio and Damaso lead Us to conclude that the
killing of the two women was done under treacherous circumstances.
Anent the circumstance of uninhabited place, counsel disclaims
its existence by pointing to the proximity of the sugarcane field where
the victims were killed to the national highway as well as to certain
houses in the barrio. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not
by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but
whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help.[8]
Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the
sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors
and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to
receive any assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the
solitude of the place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought the
victims to the sugarcane field although they could have disposed of
them right in the house of Donata Rebolledo where they were found. Thus,
in People v. Saquing, the Court considered the crime as having
been committed in an uninhabited place because the killing was done in a
secluded place at the foot of a hill, forested, and uninhabited.[9]
The trial court considered separately the three circumstances of
armed hand, treachery and uninhabited place where under other situations
one may be considered absorbed or inherent in the other. There is
ample justification for this. The elements of each circumstance subsist
independently and can be distinctly perceived thereby revealing a
greater degree of perversity on the part of the accused.
4. In the third assignment of error, defense counsel assails the
sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution. He urges that the
extrajudicial confessions, having been repudiated during the trial, are
insufficient to sustain the trial court’s judgment of conviction,
specially so since no direct evidence was introduced of any conspiracy
of the involvement of appellants in the crime in question.
Regarding this matter, the following are strongly persuasive.
First, the appellants’ separate extrajudicial confessions were
subscribed and sworn to before Municipal Judge Conrado de Gracia of
Paniqui, Tarlac. On the witness stand, Judge de Gracia testified as to
the authenticity and due execution of the statements. He declared that
before the statements were sworn to before him, he had the appellants’
PC escorts excluded from the room. He then took pains in translating
and explaining to the appellants the contents of their written
statements and got their assurance that such statements were freely and
voluntarily made.[10] If it
were true that appellants were forced or intimidated into making the
confessions, they could have easily manifested before the judge that
they did not voluntarily give the same. Certainly, they could have then
been afforded the necessary protection from any untoward incident that
could happen. Their failure there and then to air any injustice or
misdeed committed upon them belies their stories of maltreatment. Too,
there is no credible proof of the alleged maltreatment that they
suffered in the hands of the police or other authorities as a result of
which they executed the confessions. Considering that repudiation of
confessions comes very easily, the same must be taken with a grain of
salt. It occurs all too often that guilty persons, after confessing to
crime, experience a change of heart and repudiate their confessions in
the hope of escaping liability.
Secondly, there was the reenactment of the robbery and the
killings. The movements reconstructed by the appellants conform
substantially with the details set forth in their individual sworn
statements. The reenactment was done in the presence of people,
including a photographer who had no connection with the police or the
prosecution.
Fiscal Magin Tañedo who was present during the reenactment
testified that the entire proceeding was spontaneous and free from
coercion. On several occasions, appellants even corrected themselves in
certain details. Nobody directed the whole show except the appellants
themselves.[11]
Fiscal Tañedo’s testimony was corroborated by photographer Manuel
Gamalinda who also declared that there was no dictation, violence,
force or intimidation employed upon the appellants during the
reenactment.[12] Gamalinda
also testified as to the authenticity of the pictures he took during the
re-enactment, which the prosecution also submitted as evidence.[13]
Again, concerning the confessions, other circumstances are
equally significant. Some of the statements made, specifically the one
of accused Alviar, were exculpatory in nature and would not have been
included had the confessant been coerced into making his confession.
Others cite plausible facts and details which only actual participants
in the crime could have known.
Also, partial corroboration of appellants’ statements are found
in the testimonies of Donata Rebolledo and Victoriano de la Cruz, more
particularly, as to the robbery. As such, the confessions, coupled by
evidence of the corpus delicti, the human remains of Catalina and Susana Sabado, are sufficient bases for the trial court’s declaration of guilt.
5. With regards to the defense of alibi, We find no justifiable
reason for discarding the findings of the trial court on this matter.
In People v. Berdida, et al., this Court held that the defense
of alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on credibility, which depends
much on the credibility of the witnesses who seek to establish it. In
this respect the relative weight which the trial judge assigns to the
testimony of the witnesses must, unless patently and clearly
inconsistent with the evidence on record, be accepted. The defense of
alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification by prosecution
witnesses, pointing to the accused as participants in the crime. (17
SCRA 520, citing People v. Tansiangco, L-19448, February 28, 1964; People v. Riveral, L-14077, March 31, 1964)
6. As to conspiracy, the trial court’s inference as to the
existence of the same is well-founded and is amply discussed in its
decision. Said His Honor:
“From the simultaneous and cooperative acts of the accused, the
Court finds and so holds that there was conspiracy among them. For
conspiracy to exist, direct proof is not essential. The same may be
inferred from the acts of the conspirators in the commission of the
offense. It is not essential that each conspirator takes part in every
act or that he should know the exact part to be performed by the others
in the execution of the conspiracy. Conspiracy merely implies concert
of design and does not require participation in every detail of
execution. Neither is it necessary to show any previous plan or that
the parties should actually come together and agree in express terms in
pursuing a common design. It is sufficient if it is proved that the
acts of the conspirators were in fact connected and cooperative in
accomplishing the unlawful object, thereby indicating a closeness of
personal association and concurrence of sentiments.“In the case of the accused herein, they got together and planned
the criminal act shortly before its execution; they proceeded together
to the house of the victims and, while Damaso and Eugenio went upstairs,
the other accused stayed under the house as lookouts once inside the
house, the two asked and demanded for the victims, forcibly dragged them
downstairs, handed them to those waiting under the house and, together
as a group, they brought the victims to the sugarcane field and
mercilessly stabbed them to death. Clearly, there was a concert of acts
among the accused aimed at one common design, and each act was
connected to and cooperative with the others.”
The basic rule is that when conspiracy is established, like in the
present case, the act of one conspirator is imputable to the others and
the criminal liability of each participant is the same as those of the
others.
7. On the matter of accused Lorenzo Alviar’s conviction for
illegal possession of firearms in Criminal Case No. 2293, two errors are
assigned. First, that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the
case because the same having been previously filed before the Justice of
the Peace Court of Victoria, Tarlac, which also acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused, the latter court acquired jurisdiction
to the exclusion of all other courts.
This is untenable. That the Justice of the Peace Court has
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance in this case is
not questioned. It, however, appears from the order of the Justice of
the Peace Court forwarding the records of the case to the Court of First
Instance[14] that the case
was brought before the former court merely for purposes of a preliminary
investigation. Where a Justice of the Peace acquires jurisdiction for
the purpose of preliminary investigation and not for trial on the
merits, such court does not necessarily acquire exclusive jurisdiction
to try the case on the merits.[15]
In the second assigned error, counsel attacks the flimsiness of
the evidence for the prosecution. He questions the sufficiency of a
document (Exhibit “B”), purportedly a receipt issued to Alviar upon the
confiscation from him of the alleged firearm. It is argued that from
the manner the receipt is worded as well as from the fact that it is
thumbmarked by Alviar and not signed by the person confiscating, it
appears to be a confession rather than a receipt.
The controversial receipt, however, is not the only evidence
presented by the prosecution. Sgt. Melencio Fiesta of the Philippine
Constabulary also declared on the witness stand that Alviar verbally
confessed to him his (Alviar’s) possession of a caliber .22 paltik revolver.[16]
He further stated that he properly translated from English to Ilocano
the contents of the receipt before Alviar affixed his thumbmark on the
same.[17] Whether Exhibit “B” is taken as a receipt or as a confession, it has its own weight as an evidence against appellant Alviar.
Still on the illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution also
presented as evidence Exhibit “C” properly sworn to before Judge Conrado
de Gracia, wherein Alviar confessed that he did own and possess a
caliber .22 paltik which he carried on the night the robbery
and killings were committed. The voluntariness of this confession has
not been disproved.
8. In conclusion, the crime committed by appellants in
Criminal Case No. 2253 is robbery with homicide defined in Article 294,
paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, to wit:
“Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
“1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
“xxx xxx xxx”
The penalty is to be imposed in its maximum period by reason of the
presence of three aggravating circumstances found by the trial court, to
wit: that the robbery was committed by a band,[18] with treachery,[19] and in an uninhabited place.[20]
There is likewise the additional aggravating circumstance that
the robbery was committed in the dwelling of the victim, Donata
Rebolledo which although not alleged in the Information is however
established by the evidence.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, We hereby affirm in toto the decision of the trial court in the two cases.
Without pronouncement as to costs at this instance.
SO ORDERED.
Castro, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Fernando and Aquino, JJ., no part.
[1] see pp. 130-131, rollo
[2] see pp. 118-121, ibid.
[3] tsn., October 11, 1962, p. 5
[4] Art. 293, Revised Penal Code
[5] US v. Villorente and Bislig, 30 Phil. 59
[6] Art. 14, par. 6, Revised Penal Code
[7] People v. Madrid,
88 Phil. 1; People v. Bakang, et al., 26 SCRA 840; People v. Mongado, et
al., 28 SCRA 642; People v. Lunar, 45 SCRA 119
[8] People v. Bangug, et al., 52 Phil. 87
[9] 30 SCRA 834
[10] tsn., July 29, 1963, pp. 69-83
[11] tsn., November 15, 1963, p. 72
[12] tsn., April 4, 1963
[13] tsn., April 4, 1963, pp. 245-246 and 262
[14] p. 20, rollo, Criminal Case No. 2293
[15] Nenaria, et al. v. Veluz, 91 Phil. 473
[16] tsn., October 4, 1963, p. 33
[17] tsn., October 4, 1963, p. 21
[18] Article 14, par. 6, Revised Penal Code
[19] ibid., par. 16, ibid.
[20] ibid. par. 6, ibid.