G.R. No. L-28582. March 25, 1970
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO BALURAN Y YAON AND ROSARIO MORANTE ALIAS CHARING, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
PER CURIAM:
Appeal taken by Rodrigo Baluran and
Rosario Morante from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan finding them guilty, beyond
reasonable doubt, of the crime of robbery with homicide, committed with one
aggravating circumstance and without any mitigating circumstance to offset the
same, and sentencing both to suffer the penalty of death, to indemnify, jointly
and severally, the heirs of the deceased Melchor
Mariano in the sum of P6,000.00, and each to pay
one-half of the costs.
In the morning of June 15, 1966 the Police Department of Malolos, Bulacan was informed
that the body of a dead man had been found on the shoulder of a certain portion
of the MacArthur Highway located in barrio Dakila of said municipality. Sgt. Antonio Cailipan,
who was dispatched immediately to investigate the case, found on a slope of the
shoulder of the highway, partly hidden by tall grasses, the dead body of a man
apparently a victim of foul play because his right eye was swollen, his neck
bore scratches and the back of his head had a big gaping wound. Searching the body, he found money in the
pockets of the dead man’s pants, one ring with the initial “M”, and a
piece of, paper. He had the cadaver
taken to the morgue of the Provincial Hospital of Malolos
where it remained until noon of that
day.
Earlier that morning, one Macaria
Garcia had reported to Justo Cruz, Chief of Police of
Plaridel, Bulacan,
that, contrary to what her son-in-law, Melchor Mariano,
used to do everyday after he was through with his work as a tricycle driver, he
failed to return home the previous night.
Chief Cruz called up the Chief of Police of Malolos
by telephone to relay the information to him and he was, in turn, informed that
the dead body of a man, who apparently answered the description of the missing
person, had been found in barrio Dakila, within the
jurisdiction of Malolos. Chief Cruz and some relatives of the missing
man then went to the Malolos
Provincial Hospital
where they found and identified the dead body of Melchor
Mariano. As the Medico-Legal Officer of Bulacan could not be contacted, the cadaver was brought to
the NBI office in Manila where an
autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola, the
NBI Medico-Legal Officer, whose findings are as follows:
“Blood coming out of the nostrils; cyanosis
of the fingernailbeds.
Abrasion, lumbar region, left, posterior aspect,
3.5 x 0.6 cm.
Contused abrasions, neck, anterior aspect, 9.0
x.7.0 cm. and posterior aspect, 2.0 x 1.0 cm.
Contusions, purplished
blue; orbital region, right, 5.5 x 3.2 cm. with marked swelling of the soft
tissues; lumber region, right, posterior aspect, 4.0 x 2.5 cm.
Lacerated wounds; temporo-parieto
occipital region of scalp, right, 1.0 x 0.4 cm., with an adjacent contusion
inferiorly, 1.5 x 0.3 cm. and the surrounding tissue slightly depressed and
compressible; occipital region of scalp, left side, 4.2 x 0.9 cm.
Fractures, compound, depressed and comminuted; parieto-temporal
bone, right, 6.0 x 2.5 cm., extending to the right middle cranial fossa; occipital bone, left side, 1.0 x 0.1 cm.
Tracheal ring, 1st, right posterolateral
aspect partially severed.
Hematoma:
epicranial, fronto-parietotemporal
right, 13.0 x 11.0 cm.; neck, anterior aspect,
intramuscular and around the larynx, trachea and esophagus, massive, with
softening and loosening of the muscles; thyroid gland, bilateral, also massive.
Contusion, tracheal mucosa, upper part.
Hemorrhages: subarachnoidal, both cerebral hemispheres; cerebral, both
lateral ventricles.
Lacerations, parietal and temporo-occipital
lobes, both right, moderately extensive.
Brain, markedly congested; other visceral organs,
slightly congested.
Heart contains dark fluid blood.
Stomach, about half-full of partly digested rice
and food materials.”
That same day – June 15,
1966 – having received confidential information that
appellants herein had been seen around midnight
of June 14 at the crossing of Plaridel, Bulacan, Chief of Police Cruz of said municipality ordered
that Baluran be fetched from his residence at barrio Banga. While he was
evasive at the beginning of the investigation to which he was subjected, he
broke down later on and disclosed to Lt. Felipe Adriano the circumstances
surrounding the killing of Melchor Mariano between 12
o’clock midnight of June 13 and 1:00 o’clock in the morning of June 14, both of
1966; how his co-appellant dumped the body of their victim along the McArthur
Highway; how the two tried to go to Baguio to sell
the Honda tricycle driven by their victim until they were intercepted at the
constabulary checkpoint at Bamban, Tarlac and later on brought to Concepcion,
Tarlac; how he was allowed to go home to get the
license of the Honda in San Fernando, Pampanga, while
his co-appellant was left in the custody of the constabulary detachment at Concepcion. His
statement was reduced to writing that same day, signed by him before the
Investigating Officer and later sworn to by him before Municipal Judge Santiago
of Plaridel (Exhibit B).
Thereafter Sgt. Elias Tuazon, Patrolmen
Lucas and de Mesa, of the Police Force of Plaridel,
were ordered to fetch appellant Morante from Concepcion, Tarlac. The constabulary authorities at that place
delivered to them the person of said-appellant for custody, as well as the
Honda tricycle. They then returned to Plaridel where they arrived at past 6:00 o’clock in the evening of June 15, 1966.
Hours later appellant Morante
gave a written statement describing her participation in the robbery of the
tricycle and in the killing of Melchor Mariano, which
was later subscribed and sworn to by her before Municipal Judge Santiago
(Exhibit A).
The Honda tricycle mentioned above worth P1,850.00
belonged to Fernando Garcia, father-in-law of the deceased Melchor
Mariano who was the one driving it to ferry passengers within the municipality
of Plaridel
and from said municipality to nearby towns such as Guiguinto
and Malolos.
At the time of his death, Mariano was 37 years of age, married to Agripina Garcia and with several children.
Aside from the Honda tricycle the Police Department of Plaridel recovered from appellant Baluran
a watch worth P60.00 (Exhibit C), and from appellant Morante,
the driver’s license of the deceased Mariano (Exhibit D), his residence
certificate (Exhibit E) and a prayer book (Exhibit F).
On the basis of the evidence thus gathered by the authorities, a
criminal complaint for robbery with homicide was filed against appellants in
the Municipal Court of Plaridel, Bulacan. As they waived in writing the preliminary
investigation (Record p. 16) the case was forwarded to the Court of First
Instance where the Provincial Fiscal filed the following information:
“That on or about the 15th day of June, 1966, in the
municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused Rodrigo Baluran y
Yaon alias Rod and Rosario Morante
alias Charing, armed with blunt instruments,
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent of gain and by means of violence, force and intimidation, take, rob and
carry away with them the following property, to wit: one (1) man’s wrist watch marked ‘Baybis‘, valued at P60.00, cash money in the amount of
P4.00, driver’s license, prayer book and residence certificate, all belonging
to Melchor Mariano; and one (1) motorcycle marked
‘Honda’, 65 cc, with side car, valued at P1,800.00, belonging to
Fernando Garcia, to the damage and prejudice of the said owners in the total
sum of P1,864.00; that during the commission of robbery or on the occasion
thereof, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and hit with blunt instruments they were then provided
the said Melchor Mariano, hitting the latter on the
vital parts of his body, thereby causing serious physical injuries which
directly caused the death of the said Melchor Mariano
and in order to conceal or destroy the body of the crime, the said accused, in
furtherance of their conspiracy, dumped the body of the said Melchor Mariano along the side of the MacArthur
Highway and the railroad track at barrio Dakila, Malolos, Bulacan.
“That in the commission of this crime, the following
aggravating circumstances were present to wit: (1) use of superior strength,
(2) nocturnity, (3) evident premeditation, and (4)
treachery.
“Contrary to law.”
It appears that at about midnight
on June 14, 1966 appellant Morante boarded the tricycle driven by the deceased Melchor Mariano and had herself taken to barrio Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan. Along the
way, she had the vehicle stopped to allow her co-appellant Baluran
to ride with her. Upon reaching barrio Tabang, Morante got off but
returned soon saying that the person she was looking for was not in his
house. They then motored back towards Plaridel, but before reaching the “crossing” Morante told Mariano to proceed to Bagong
Silang where she wanted to borrow some money from
someone. Once near the alleged house of
the latter, appellants ordered the tricycle to stop, and Baluran
got off and proceeded in the direction of the house. Returning shortly thereafter, he told Mariano
to wait for a short while because Romy was getting
ready. In the meantime, Morante also got off the tricycle and pretended to answer a
call of nature at a nearby place. Then,
the driver of the tricycle – who remained astride the driver’s seat – was
suddenly hit on the neck with a blunt instrument, and afterwards successive
blows rained on his head, face and other parts of the body, as a result of
which he fell down. Taking him for dead,
appellants put him on the side car of the tricycle. Then appellant Morante
started the engine and drove towards MacArthur Highway. Along the way Baluran
threw the iron bar on the road side, and when they reached barrio Dakila they dumped the body of their victim on the shoulder
of the highway near a ditch with growing tall grass the same place where it was
discovered later. Appellants then
searched the body of their victim and deprived him of P4.00, of his wrist
watch, residence certificate and a prayer book.
Afterwards, with appellant Morante still at
the driver’s seat they proceeded northward with the intention of going to Baguio where they intended to sell
the tricycle, but at the Bamban, Tarlac
P.C. checkpoint, they were stopped at about 4:00
o’clock in the morning by the soldier on guard duty. When the latter questioned appellant Morante, she admitted that she had no driver’s license and
that the ownership papers of the vehicle were not with her but with the owner,
her uncle, living in Sat Fernando, Pampanga. As the guard noticed blood
stains on the bar handles of the tricycle and on the floor of the side
car, she told him that the same came from her nose. Upon further questioning, she also said that
they had hit a person riding in the tricycle.
Due to their suspicious behavior, both were taken to the P.C.
headquarters located at Concepcion, Tarlac.
Discussing the defense evidence, the trial court says the
following in the appealed decision:
“The two accused admit the killing of the driver, although
each points to the other as the one responsible for said death. Both admit having taken the body to a lonely
grassy place to hide it. They admit
having taken the tricycle from Plaridel, to Malolos, Pampanga, and Tarlac, with Baguio
as the terminal. The burden of proving
their innocence is shifted to them, but each one of said accused failed to give
a clear and convincing explanation. It
is noteworthy that each of the accused tried very hard to throw the blame on
each other for only the killing of the victim and not on the robbery of the
tricycle. Upon the other hand, the
written statements of both accused appearing on Exhibits A and B bore all the
marks of a true confession. The same
were written in Tagalog, the native language of
accused Morante who reached first year in the high
school. The said language is also fairly
spoken by accused Baluran. The details of said confessions tally with
the killing of the deceased driver, the taking of the Honda for sale to Baguio, the hiding of the dead driver, the taking of money,
driver’s license, wrist watch, residence certificate, and prayer book from the
victim; the interception by the PC at the checkpoint at Bamban,
Tarlac, the attempt on their part to mislead the
police about the presence of blood clots on the motor and on the footrest of
the cab of the tricycle, their attempts to show to the PC authorities in Tarlac that the said tricycle was owned by an uncle of the
girl who lived in San Fernando, Pampanga, the
surrender by accused Baluran of the watch of the
deceased, the surrender by Morante of the license,
residence certificate, and the prayer book belonging to the deceased. In fact, were it not for the immediate
confession of this accused Baluran, the detention of
Rosario Morante in Tarlac
PC Headquarters could not have been known to the local police of Plaridel. Lt.
Felipe Adriano and Municipal Judge Francisco Santiago of Plaridel
both testified to the voluntariness and freedom with
which the said statements had been given.
The father of Rosario Morante was only outside
of the room where her statement was taken and he could not have been unaware of
any maltreatment her daughter suffered, if indeed she suffered anything. In fact, from a perusal of his
statements in court, he appeared to be a resigned father who expected the worst
from his child in view of her boyish and wayward nature. Judge Francisco Santiago before whom the two
exhibits were subscribed and sworn to went beyond the ordinary norm of
conducting the preliminary investigation in this case by putting down in his
own penmanship additional questions and answers regarding the said statements. The Court is satisfied that said police
officer and Judge Santiago only did their duties, and were not biased in the
least.
“As to the claim of each of the accused that only one of them
is really responsible for the killing of the driver, the Court believes and so
holds that the proven acts of the accused in running away with the motor
vehicle after the said driver was killed, the asportation
of money and other articles belonging to the victim constitute the complex
crime of robbery with homicide. For
under Article 294, Paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, this complex crime
is committed when robbery is proven and a homicide shall have been committed
‘by reason or on occasion of the robbery.’
“So it does not matter whether one or the
other killed the herein victim because, the latter was killed ‘by reason of on
occasion of the robbery’. This is
apart from the consideration of the acts of the accused in this case which
fully show that in the commission of the robbery there is concerted action and
meeting of the minds of the two accused, so that conspiracy has been well
established by the prosecution. There
being a conspiracy, it is of no moment whether only one or both of them
delivered the fatal blows, for the act of one is the act of the other, and both
are equally responsible as principals.”
In her brief appellant Morante contends
that the trial court erred in admitting her confession (Exhibit A) as well as
that of her co-appellant (Exhibit B) as evidence against her and that, as a
result, said court erred in not acquitting her.
Similarly, Baluran’s counsel de oficio contends that the trial court erred: in admitting the latter’s extrajudicial
confession as evidence against him; in proceeding with the trial of the case
without a previous valid preliminary investigation and, as a result, erred in
finding him guilty of the crime charged.
Baluran’s contention that there was no
previous valid preliminary investigation is without merit, firstly, because the
same was not raised at any stage of the proceedings below; secondly, he and
his co-appellant had waived the preliminary investigation in the Municipal
Court of Plaridel (Record, p. 16).
Appellants also claim that the confessions in question should not
be given any probative value against them because they were obtained through
force and intimidation.
After going over appellants’ testimony (transcript of October 6,
1966, pp. 1-45 and 45-75) and other evidence presented to support their
contention, we find that the same is too weak and unreliable to overcome the
testimony of Lt. Felipe Adriano of the Plaridel
Municipal Police, and of Francisco Santiago, municipal judge of the same
municipality (pp. 4-19 of the transcript of the stenographic notes
corresponding to August 11, 1966, respectively) showing that the aforesaid
confessions were made freely and voluntarily.
While it is true that they were taken in the police department of Plaridel, it is equally true that the affiants were
subsequently taken to the presence of Municipal Judge Santiago who had said
confessions read to them as they were, asking them afterwards whether they were
the questions made to them and the answers given by them. Both replied in the affirmative and further
affirmed in the presence of said judge that they had not been subjected to any
violence, threat or intimidation.
Moreover, Judge Santiago, whose credibility has not been assailed by
appellants, asked them additional questions now forming part of their
respective confession.
In the particular case of appellant Morante,
who claims that she was given face blows and karate blows, the following
excerpts from the testimony of her own father would be sufficient, We believe,
to show that her claim deserves but scant consideration –
“Q You
stated that you were able to talk with your daughter here the following days
after she was taken from Tarlac and that she
complained to you that her hair was pulled by a police officer, did you come
to know that police officer?
A I
did not inquire from her who that policeman was, because I was not interested
in knowing who.
FISCAL
Q Did
you ask your daughter if she was hurt?
A Yes, sir.
Q What
was the answer?
A She
said – not very much.
Q Your
daughter also told you that somebody gave her a karate blow, did you ask her
who gave that karate blow to her?
A She
complained to me, sir. I did not ask who
that person was.
Q You
stated you did not ask her who that man was but did she tell you who that man
was?
A She
told me; I have forgotten, sir.
Q You
mean to say she has given the name of the man who gave her that karate blow?
A Yes, sir.
Q But
you have forgotten the name of that man already?
A Yes, sir.
Q But
on the day it was told you, you knew the name of the man?
A I
know that person by name but I do not know his face.”
Moreover, the questioned statements (Exhibits A and B) are in Tagalog, the native language of Morante,
and a dialect fairly spoken and understood by Baluran. Their contents tally substantially in many
important respects with their respective testimony during the trial. Each of them, however, claims that it was the
other who did the killing we agree with the lower court that while upon the
evidence it was appellant Baluran alone who inflicted
the fatal blows that killed Mariano, appellant Morante
is likewise responsible therefor, the conspiracy to
rob and kill said deceased having been established. The fact that appellant Morante
engaged the services of Mariano and the use of his tricycle on the night in
question; the fact that she later fetched her co-appellant and both directed
Mariano to take them to barrio Tabang pretending
that Morante was going there to borrow money from
someone; the fact that while they were motoring back towards Plaridel, Morante told the
tricycle driver to proceed to barrio Bagong Silang where she intended to see a relative by the name of Romy to borrow money from him; the fact that upon hearing
the alleged house of the latter, appellants ordered the tricycle driver to stop
and then appellant Baluran got off pretending to look
for Romy in the house just to come back later saying
that the latter was already getting ready; the further fact that Morante then got off of the tricycle and while she was
pretending to answer a call of nature at a nearby place, Baluran
attacked the unsuspecting tricycle driver with a blunt instrument, hitting him
on the neck, head and face, which injuries caused his death; the fact that they
afterwards took the body of their victim aboard the tricycle and dumped it on
the shoulder of the road along the MacArthur highway;
the fact that both appellants run away with the tricycle of the deceased with
the intention of selling it in Baguio City but were
unable to do so because they were apprehended at Bamban,
Tarlac; lastly, the fact that both were found in the
possession of money and other things belonging to the deceased; all these can
lead us to but one conclusion, namely, that both appellants had conspired to
rob and kill the deceased Melchor Mariano. This makes one completely liable for the acts
of the other.
The foregoing makes it unnecessary for us to consider appellant Morante’s contention that the trial court erred in
considering the confession made by her co-appellant as evidence against
her. It is clear from what has been
stated heretofore that, even disregarding the confession of Baluran,
the rest of the evidence of record is sufficient to support the judgment of
conviction against her.
The crime of robbery with homicide charged having been proven
beyond reasonable doubt, We come now to the
consideration of the manner and circumstances under which the crime was
committed. We agree with the trial court
that the evidence of record shows that the deceased was attacked and killed
treacherously with a blunt instrument.
The crime committed, considering all the foregoing, is robbery
with homicide penalized under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code with reclusion perpetua to death. This penalty should be imposed in its maximum
degree, the commission of the offense having been attended by one aggravating
circumstance without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same.
WHEREFORE, it is our painful duty to affirm the appealed
judgment, except that the indemnity of P6,000.00 is
increased to P12,000.00 to be paid, jointly and severally, by the appellants to
the heirs of the deceased Melchor Mariano. With costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.