G.R. No. L-22348. August 23, 1967
GREGORIO RAMOS AND CONRADO RAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
We have before Us an appeal via certiorari to review a decision
of the Court of Appeals[1]
affirming the conviction for murder of petitioners-accused Gregorio and Conrado Ramos and imposing upon each of them “an
indeterminate penalty of not less than ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor and not more than seventeen
(17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal”.
The decision under appeal provides Us
with the following background facts as found by the Court of Appeals, thus:
“In the national election held on November 11, 1957, the late Rufino
Gotangco, said to be a rabid and influential leader
of the Nacionalista Party, staunchly and vigorously
supported said party’s candidate, Dr. Jose D. Moreno, for Congressman for the
lone congressional district of Romblon. The four defendants above-mentioned were
die-hard followers of Atty. and ex-Governor Jovencio
Q. Mayor who was the candidate of the Liberal Party and whom they unconditionally
supported, being their political boss and personal idol. x x x
“It appears that on November 19, 1957, in the evening,
ex-Governor Mayor arrived in Cajidiocan, Romblon. Apparently,
to console him in his recent defeat, his leaders gave a party in his honor in
the house of Juan Ramiro where he put up.
A program was held in which a sound
amplifying system was used. Defendant
Benjamin Rovira, a school teacher, acted as master of
ceremonies. Among those who attended
were Conrado Ramos, then the incumbent vice-mayor of
Cajidiocan, and his younger brother, Gregorio
Ramos. Benjamin sang over the microphone
a song called ‘Sentimental Journey’, to Dodge City, which was followed by the
remarks: ‘Before I proceed to Dodge
City, I will bring first Rufino Gotangco
and his brother-in-law, Ernesto Calsado, to the
cemetery’. Undoubtedly, Benjamin
referred to his impending transfer as a barrio teacher to far away barrio Ayabag, which transfer he attributed to the work of Rufino Gotangco, a public health
nurse, and the latter’s brother-in-law, Municipal Judge Ernesto Calsado, on account of his having supported defeated
candidate Jovencio Mayor in the elections just
finished.
“The following day, November 20, 1957, in the afternoon at
about 5 o’clock, Benjamin Rovira and Gregorio Ramos were in the public kiosk in the Plaza
of Cajidiocan, with several friends. From there, they went to a certain corner
store where shortly afterwards Ludovico Rovira, a cousin of Benjamin,
arrived with his face swollen and reddish. Ludovico told
Benjamin that he was boxed by Rufino Gotangco in barrio Cambajao,
about 1-1/2 kms. from the poblacion, and that Rufino
was waiting there for Benjamin and Rizal
Gregorio. Upon being so informed,
Benjamin together with Gregorio Ramos proceeded to Cambajao. On the way, they were joined by Fortunato Galang who was armed
with a bolo. Benjamin also had a balisong.
There were two parallel roads – the new and the old – from the poblacion to Cambajao. Benjamin, Gregorio and Fortunato
took the new road. Conrado
Ramos was seen walking fast along the old road and picking up a stone. A bridge spanned the Cambajao
river. As Conrado reached the bed of the old river, Benjamin,
Gregorio and Fortunato were about to reach the
bridge. It was at this juncture that Conrado, in a voice loud enough to be heard by the three
and other people nearby, among whom being Pedro Dianco,
told the three: ‘You hurry so that we
can overtake them’. Benjamin cautioned Conrado, saying, ‘Keep quiet, we might be heard that we
have intentions’. When the trio were already approaching the bridge, Conrado further told them:
‘You advance (atraca)’. Conrado momentarily
joined the three at the new road, but subsequently separated and went down the
other side of the new road near the bridge.
“Meanwhile, Patrolman Alvaro Rabino,
who was told by Juanito Besas,
a school teacher, about the expected trouble, rushed to barrio Cambajao in time to stop Gregorio Ramos, Benjamin Rovira and Fortunato Galang at the bridge.
Pat. Rabino held Benjamin and Fortunato by the arms and succeeded in stopping them from
proceeding to Cambajao. He allowed Gregorio Ramos to proceed because
the latter said that he was just going to the barrio and that he was not
concerned with the two. Benjamin and Fortunato protested that they were being detained but
somehow Pat. Rabino was able to hold them at bay for
several minutes. He was advising them to
go back to town, but they said
‘Wait for a while’. At this instant, Conrado Ramos was seen
deviating to the right to avoid the policeman.
“From the bridge, Gregorio Ramos proceeded to the place where Rufino Gotangco was with several
companions in front of the store of Atanacio
Ramiro. When about 6 meters from Rufino,
Gregorio bent down to roll up his trousers, once on the left side and once on
the right side, and on straightening up, he took out of his pocket his balisong which he opened at once. Suddenly, he told Rufino
Gotangco, ‘Pinong, celebracion ta na‘, at the same
time charging at Rufino with the open knife. Apparently,
taken by surprise, being unarmed, and having had no ill-feeling or misunderstanding
with Gregorio, Rufino took to his heels. Gregorio chased after him. While running, Rufino
slipped and fell down, face up. In that
position, he was stabbed three times in rapid succession by Gregorio, the most
fatal being the stab into the heart.
Gregorio then ran towards the town.
Salvio Dianco, who
was with Rufino, threw a stone at Gregorio. The other companions of Rufino
made no move to go to the latter’s rescue during the stabbing as the trio,
Benjamin, Conrado and Fortunato,
were in sight. On seeing his brother
stoned at, Conrado, in turn, threw a stone at Salvio. When
Gregorio, running, passed by Benjamin and Fortunato
on the bridge still being held by Pat. Rabino,
he told them shouting, ‘I have already stabbed Gotangco;
he is already dead’. Gregorio
surrendered to the Chief of Police with his balisong, telling said officer that he had stabbed to death Rufino Gotangco. That same night, in the municipal building,
Benjamin’s knife was confiscated from him.
“The certificate of death issued by the Health Officer of San
Fernando, Romblon, shows that the cause of death of Rufino Gotangco was ‘severe
hemorrhage and shock secondary to stab wounds, multiple’, one in the abdomen;
two on the chest, and one on the upper left arm.
“Complaint for murder was filed on November 21, 1957, with the Justice of the
Peace Court of Cajidiocan, Romblon,
against the said Gregorio Ramos, Benjamin Rovira, Conrado Ramos and Fortunato Galang. In the
course of the trial before the Court of First Instance of Romblon,
Benjamin Rovira and Fortunato
Galang were killed and the case as to them was
dismissed.
x x x x x
“After the trial, defendants Gregorio Ramos and Conrado Ramos were found guilty of the crime charged [sic]
of murder ‘qualified by treachery and attended by evident premeditation as a
generic aggravating circumstance’, with the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender in favor of defendant Gregorio Ramos; and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, they were sentenced ‘to suffer the penalty of from
sixteen (16) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law; to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P10,000.00,
and to pay the proportionate part of the costs.'”[2]
On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the judgment of conviction was affirmed but the penalty imposed was
slightly reduced on the conclusion that evident premeditation did not attend
the killing of the victim.
The first question for
resolution is the nature of the crime committed by petitioner Gregorio Ramos,
i.e., whether murder or plain homicide.
We agree with petitioner’s submission that treachery did not attend the
killing of the victim. Both the lower
court and the Court of Appeals based their conclusion of treachery on the
finding that the attack, though frontal, was sudden. But suddenness of attack alone does not conclusively
show treachery.[3] It is required also that the victim be
completely deprived of a chance to either prepare for a fight or retreat.[4] Thus, where a warning precedes the assaults,
there is no treachery.[5]
The facts before Us show that Gregorio, who was alone, was about 6 meters away from the victim, who was
with several companions, when he hurled what appears to be a challenge – and a
warning also – to the latter simultaneously
or just shortly before he charged with his
open balisong. Thus,
though surprised, in the sense that he did not expect any attack at that
precise moment, the victim was not however deprived of opportunity for
countering or evading the attack. In
fact, he was able to run away. The 6-meter distance between them and the
challenge hurled at him made this possible.
And he probably would have made good his escape from harm but for his
unfortunate slipping down which enabled the pursuing Gregorio Ramos to
overtake and stab him. Moreover, even
while down on his back, the victim was not deprived of opportunity to render
less easy the assault upon him. As
testified to by the medico legal expert, the victim was most probably trying to
cover himself with his free arms from the thrusts administered by Gregorio. These considerations all
negative treachery.
Withal, the killing of Gotangco cannot
be characterized as simple homicide only.
The facts on record sufficiently establish evident premeditation. Gregorio Ramos and Rovira
started for Cambajao immediately after Ludovico related to them his tiff with the decedent. On the way, Galang,
who was also armed, joined them.
Together, they headed for Cambajao which was
1-1/2 km. away. Galang and Rovira each had a score to settle with the decedent. Before reaching the bridge, there was an
exchange of words between the group and Conrado
Ramos, who was walking along the old road, wherein Rovira
exclaimed: “Keep quiet, we might be
heard that we have intentions.” The existence of a
criminal plan is clearly inferable from this statement. And considering the distance of Cambajao, the three had sufficient time to reflect and
deliberate on what they were set out to do.
But while on the bridge, a policeman stopped them. Their plan would have been frustrated right
there but for the quick thinking of Gregorio Ramos who was able to convince the
policeman to allow him to proceed on his representation that he had nothing to
do with the other two and was just going to the town. That this was a mere pretext is confirmed by
his subsequent actuation culminating in the decedent’s death. Gregorio’s giving this pretext is also the
overt act showing that he was bent on making a success of their original plan.
Allowed to proceed, Gregorio lost no time locating the
decedent. He stopped about six meters
before Gotangco, and with cool composure, bent down,
rolled up his trousers and then with an open balisong
and a loud challenge, charged at the latter.
The decedent managed to flee. In
grim determination, Gregorio gave chase and overcoming the decedent, stabbed
him repeatedly, inflicting mortal wounds.
The killing was therefore qualified by evident premeditation.
However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender must
be credited to Gregorio. With no aggravating
circumstance to offset it, this places the penalty for murder in the minimum
period which ranges from 17
years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
years of reclusion temporal.
The maximum term of the indeterminate penalty imposed by the Court of
Appeals is within this range, and must therefore be affirmed.
The second question refers to the criminal liability, if any, of petitioner Conrado Ramos. The
case against him is built solely on the following circumstantial evidence: (1) Two days before the killing of the
victim, or on November 18, 1957, Conrado had a heated
argument, and almost came to blows, with the former in the municipal building;
(2) he belonged to the opposite political group and had supported a candidate defeated by the one
backed up by decedent; (3) in
the afternoon of November 20, 1957, he was seen walking fast along the old road
to Cambajao and picking up a stone while Gregorio
Ramos, Rovira and Galang
were trudging along the new road; (4) as
the latter neared the bridge, Conrado was heard to
have exchanged words with them, after which he walked up to the new road, momentarily
joining the three, and continued on down to the other side of the new road near
the bridge; (5) when the three were stopped on the bridge by the policeman, he
was seen deviating to the right to avoid the latter; and (6) after Gregorio, his brother, had
stabbed the decedent and on seeing him being stoned at by Salvio,
Conrado threw a stone at Salvio.
These circumstances do not,
however, lead Us to the moral conviction regarding Conrado’s guilty participation. There is room for reasonable doubt. First, it must be noted that there was no
evidence showing a prior
agreement between the four accused to do away with the decedent. Based upon the facts on record, Gregorio
Ramos and Rovira were impelled to go to Cambajao on the afternoon of November 20, 1957, when the latter’s cousin told the
two that the decedent boxed him and was waiting for Rovira
and one Rizal Gregorio in Cambajao. Prior to this, no occasion is shown in the record when all the four
met together.
Second, Conrado could not have known about the incident between Ludovico and the decedent.
He was not with his brother Gregorio and Rovira
when Ludovico told them about his encounter with the
decedent. Conrado
did not even walk with them on the way to Cambajao. He was merely seen walking along the old
road. His presence, therefore, can
reasonably be attributed to chance. On
the other hand, his statements to the three accused as they approached the
bridge cannot be interpreted conclusively to refer to a plan to avenge
the boxing of Ludovico by the decedent.
Third, Conrado could not possibly have
been a participant in the plan to harm the decedent. Such a plan must have been hatched while the
three accused were on their way to Cambajao. But Conrado was not
with them. While he later on joined them
near the bridge, it was momentary only as he proceeded to cross the new road on
to the other side thereof. Again it is
entirely possible that it was while he was thus crossing the new road that he
was seen to be “deviating to the right to avoid the policeman.”
Lastly, the records show that only Gregorio Ramos stabbed the
decedent. Conrado
was nowhere nearby at the moment of the assault. The only time when he appeared on the scene
again was when he threw a stone at Salvio who was
throwing a stone at his brother Gregorio.
There is no evidence on record that Conrado
saw the stabbing of the decedent by Gregorio.
Hence, it is possible that he did not see it. On the other hand, there is positive finding
that what he saw only was the stoning of his brother Gregorio, and this was
what impelled him to act. The stoning of
Salvio was therefore done to protect Gregorio. Hence, innocently done in
defense of a relative. The
foregoing circumstances and conclusions are therefore compatible with innocence. Since there is no proof beyond reasonable
doubt of Conrado’s direct participation in Gotangco’s killing, he cannot be considered as a
co-principal.
Neither can Conrado be liable as an
accomplice, nor even as an accessory.
The facts on record do not sufficiently establish his guilty
knowledge. It was hardly possible for
him to have known of the plan of the three other accused to harm Gotangco. He was not
at the scene of the stabbing. Moreover,
it was Salvio he stoned, not the decedent. His motive for doing so was not to assist a
principal to escape, but rather to counter the aggression of Salvio who was then stoning his brother Gregorio. As already stated, it was not shown that Conrado was aware of the stabbing of the decedent at that
particular time; hence, he is
not even an accessory.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, in
so far as petitioner Gregorio Ramos is concerned, but reversed as to
petitioner Conrado Ramos who is hereby acquitted. Proportionate costs against
petitioner Gregorio Ramos.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
In CA-G.R. No. 02693-Cr., promulgated on October 21, 1963.
[2]
See Decision of CA, pp. 1-5, 7-8.
[3]
Perez v. Court of Appeals, L-13719, Mar. 31, 1965.
[4]
People v. Pengzon, 44 Phil. 224.
[5]
People v. Sagayano, L-15961-62, Oct. 31, 1963; People v. Flore, 87 Phil. 739.