THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

In this case coming from the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Judge Bienvenido A. Tan declared the accused Dionisio Carpio y Estacio and Pablo
Carel y Mendoza guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. He sentenced the
first to a life term and the second to a period of reclusion temporal,
both to indemnify the heirs of the victim and to pay the costs. Carpio
appealed.

Early in the morning of September 26, 1947, Norman E. Lamb an
American citizen was held up and shot a few meters from his jeep which was
parked in front of the house numbered 400 on Leveriza Street, City of Rizal. He
had just conducted Gertrudes Castro to her home nearby. She heard the shots, ran
downstairs and shouted for help. When people arrived, Lamb was rushed to the
Philippine General Hospital and then to the Tenth Army Hospital where he expired
on account of his bullet wounds, notwithstanding blood transfusion and other
medical treatment. She testified, that a few minutes before the shooting, when
Lamb was bidding her good-night, she observed two persons walking slowly, by the
jeep and when she was about to enter her residence she heard several
detonations.

Prompt police activity led to the arrest and indictment of the
above-named defendants together with one James Craig y Ruben, who was
subsequently discharged to become a witness for the prosecution. He declared
more or less as follows:

“I am a taxi driver. At about two o’clook in the morning of
September 26, 1947, I parked my taxi on Harrison, Street, Pasay, behind a jeep
marked MPC. Pablo Carel and Jose Gutierrez were sitting inside. Pablo Carel
hired my taxi and told me to proceed to Bill’s Place, which I did Pablo Carel
entered that bar and a few moments later he returned to the taxi accompanied by
Dionisio Carpio and we went back to Harrison Street where Gutierrez was waiting.
Carel alighted, but Gutierrez entered the vehicle. There Gutierrez informed
Carpio that a jeep was usually seen parked in Leveriza, that it could be taken,
and that he had a ready buyer. Appellant agreed but suggested that they wait for
Carel. When the latter arrived we proceeded to Leveriza. Carel gave Carpio his
pistol Exhibit I. Then Carpio walked away with Jose Gutierrez. A short while
thereafter I was startled by the sound of several shots. Carpio came back
hurriedly and told me to drive him to his home in Galaz, Caloocan Rizal. I asked
him what happened. He informed me he had a duel with the American who was inside
the jeep. Upon arriving at his home he called for his mother. She advised him to
go to a hospital to dress his wound but he refused for fear the policemen might
locate him there. In payment for my services Carpio gave me the pistol Exhibit I
which I tried to pawn to Pedro Ambrosio. The latter had no money, so I threw it
away, being afraid.”

It appears that the American returned the fire of the
assailants. And when appellant was investigated some hours after the shooting,
he had a fresh gunshot wound.

The pistol Exhibit I was picked on the premises of Pedro
Ambrosio. Ballistics expert Julius H. Klinger, criminologist of Philrycom swore
that one of the bullets extracted from the corpse of Norman E. Lamb came out of
that gun.

Undoubtedly, the principal and positive evidence against
Dionisio Carpio is the testimony of James Craig, the taxi driver, who was an
accomplice. It must be taken cautiously, coming as it does from a polluted
source. Nevertheless we are satisfied from a carefull examination of the same
that he related the true story. He was practically corroborated by the discovery
of the revolver near the house of Ambrosio, the wound in the body of Carpio, and
partially by the declarations of these same defendants Pablo Carel and Dionisio
Carpio who admitted in open court they were present at the scene of the crime,
at the time mentioned by the witnesses for the prosecution and with the
individuals described by them.

Said defendants, asserted in exculpation, that they had no
previous conspiracy to attack the American, that Jose Gutierrez snatched the
pistol from Pablo Carel, that said Gutierrez ordered Dionisio Carpio to follow
him, that upon meeting the American, Jose Gutierrez held him up, that Carpio
tried to avoid the encounter by placing himself between the two, but that he was
unsuccessful, Gutierrez having started shooting. This line of defense is of
course understandable, because Jose Gutierrez is still at large and malefactors
are not averse to “passing the buck.”

On the other hand, as heretofore stated, the testimony of James
Craig is sufficiently convincing despite some of the alleged incongruities and
unlikely details which defense counsel has diligently pointed out. Such
deficiencies admit of reasonable explanation and do not refer to essentials. It
is noteworthy that these defendants were immediately apprehended and made
written statements which in many points confirmed the facts established by the
testimony and documents submitted by the prosecution.

The offense is attempted robbery with homicide. We are inclined
to think it was murder; but because no person witnessed the manner the attack
had begun, the defendant and appellant must be given the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway the information charged homicide.

The penalty prescribed by law for the felony is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua (article 297
Revised Penal Code) which is to be applied in its maximum period, there being
two aggravating circumstances to wit: nighttime and the use of motor vehicle.
The imprisonment meted out to appellant is therefore correct. But the indemnity
should be raised to P2,000. With this modification, the appealed judgment is
affirmed with costs. So ordered.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Perfecto, J., We concur subject to our consist opinion that the indemnity
must be raised to P6,000 in accordance with the doctrines in People vs. Amansec,
80 Phil., 424.