THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE RAMIREZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Jose Ramirez was originally charged in the Justice of the Peace
Court or Opon, Cebu, with frustrated robbery with homicide together with
George Sadler, James Davis and William Franch. Because Davis and
Franch turned out to be desserters of the United States Army and Sadler
was a United States seaman, they were claimed by the United States Army
and Navy authorities and were transferred to their custody pursuant to
Executive Order No. 151 of the President of the Philippines. The three
Americans underwent a court martial trial with the result that Davis and
Franch were sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead and Sadler to
24 months confinement. The case was continued against Jose Ramirez
who, after trial, was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of from 6 years and one day of prison mayor
to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P2,000, to suffer
the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals but was certified
to this Court on the ground that the penalty involved includes reclusion
perpetua.

The evidence shows that sometime before the commission of the
crime, Sadler, Davis, Franch and the accused agreed to take from the
navy boat pool situated in Mactan Island two LCM boats with the idea of
selling them for profit. It was arranged that they would meet Sadler in
Opon. This was done on January 11, 1947, and with the exception of
Sadler, the three spent the night in the house of a girl friend by the
name of Mary Watkins. On the following day, January 12, they attended
some errands and when night came, after joining a party that was held in
the house of Sadler, the four took a tartanilla and proceeded towards
the boat pool. That night, the pool was under the guard of Roberto
Baniel who was in the employ of the United States Naval Airbase in Opon.
The place was located along the seashore at a certain distance from
the main road and from the houses occupied by the navy officers and
personnel. It was lonely and secluded. Civilians were not allowed to
enter the pool, especially at night, the only ones allowed being
uniformed men. After being informed that none of the officers or
personnel was present in the place and that the guard was alone, the
four men proceeded to the pool. They approached the guard whom they
informed that they were on a mission to take some of the boats out and
were authorized to do so. Suspicious of their errand, the guard tried
to reach the phone to report the matter but was prevented by them who,
making use of a ruse, disarmed him and forced him to allow them to go to
the boats. While some attempted to start the motor of the boats the
others took care of the guard and when they failed to take the boats
out, they decided to kill him. The last time the guard was seen alive
was at about 9 o’clock that evening when sergeant Godornez of the
security guards made an inspection of the post and found him performing
his duty. Early in the following morning, his dead body was found lying
on the beach with wounds on the neck, face and head. In the written
confessions made by these men when they were investigated by the
authorities, they all admitted that the guard was killed on the night
they attempted to steal the boats but gave a different version as to who
actually inflicted the blows that killed him. Franch and Ramirez tried
to put the blame on Davis, while the latter said that it was Franch who
killed the guard.

The post-mortem examination of the body of Roberto Baniel was
performed by Dr. Leon R. Horlanda, President of the Sanitary Division of
Opon, who found contusions and wounds on the face and the head which
must have been caused by heavy blows with a butt of a rifle or blunt
instrument.

The manner and circumstances under which the victim met death
wore narrated in detail not only in the written confessions signed by
the accused but also in those signed by the three Americans who
accompanied him in the ghastly errand. The facts therein narrated show
that the accused and the three Americans agreed to steal two LCM boats
of the United States Navy that were anchored at the boat pool with the
idea of selling them for profit and that in their attempt to carry out
their plan, which was frustrated by circumstances beyond their control,
they deemed wise, for their own security, to put out of their way the
unfortunate guard. While in the confessions signed by the accused and
his companions the blows that killed the victim were inflicted by Davis
and the rest did not have any actual participation in the killing, this
circumstance cannot obliterate the responsibility of the accused because
he not only failed to forestall the act but it is a necessary
consequence of their preconceived plan to rob the United States Navy of
its property. The rule is well-settled that when conspiracy has been
established, like in the present case, the act of one conspirator is
imputable to the others.

The only defense of the accused is alibi. Although he admitted
having been in the company of Sadler, Davis and Franch in Opon in the
night in question, he denied having gone with them to the boat pool
alleging that after having attended the party in Sadler’s house, he
separated from them and went with two girl friends for a walk along the
beach somewhere near the pool and thereafter went to Opon and slept in
the house of a girl friend by the name of Mary Watkins. He also
repudiated the written confession he made during the preliminary
investigation conducted by the Justice of the Peace of Opon alleging
that, if he signed said confession, it was because he was subjected to
torture and intimidation. But the lower court found this alibi too weak
to be entertained considering the strong circumstantial evidence
obtaining in this case as well as the imputations made against him by
his co-conspirators, to which we agree. On the other hand, his claim of
torture and intimidation stands sufficiently refuted by the Justice of
the Peace who merely intervened in the case as a matter of official
duty. The chain of circumstances which show that the accused and his
companions conspired together to rob the United States Navy and in the
course of which the security guard was killed, are narrated in detail by
the Solicitor General in his brief which, for the purpose of this
decision, we need not repeat here. These circumstances conclusively
prove the guilt of the accused.

The crime committed falls under Article 297 of the Revised
Penal Code, which imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal in the
maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Considering the aggravating
circumstance of night time, which is not offset by any mitigating, said
penalty should be imposed in the maximum period, or reclusion
perpetua.

Thus modified, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed,
with costs.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor,
Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.