THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELIODORO ORTEGA @ DORING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Eliodoro Ortega and Victoriano Castillo were charged in the Court
of First Instance of Zamboanga with the crime of robbery with homicide
(Case No. 1353). Eliodoro Ortega was further charged in the same court
with the crime of illegal possession of firearm (Case No. 1352). Upon
arraignment, Ortega pleaded not guilty to the charge of illegal
possession of firearm, and both Ortega and Castillo also pleaded not
guilty in the case of robbery with homicide. However, when the two
cases were called for a joint trial, Castillo changed his plea to guilty
with the approval of the court. After trial, the court, in a single
decision, found Eliodoro Ortega guilty of illegal possession of firearm
and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment, to pay a fine of P1,000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs; it likewise found Eliodoro Ortega and Victoriano Castillo guilty
of robbery with homicide and sentenced each of them to reclusion
perpetua, to pay the heirs of the deceased Felicito Lagradante in
the sum of P2,000.00, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law,
and to pay the costs. From this judgment, both accused appealed.

With regard to the crime of illegal possession of firearm, the
Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of Eliodoro Ortega on the
strength of Republic Act No. 482 in the light of the evidence presented
by the prosecution. It appears that the only evidence against the
accused is his own confession wherein he states that a homemade
revolver, caliber .38, was taken in his house on March 13, 1951, which
he bought for self-defense and that he had no license to possess said
firearm. Considering that, under Republic Act No. 482, a person who
possesses a firearm may, without incurring any liability, surrender the
same within a period of one year, except when he makes use of it or
carries it on his person, and the firearm in question was found in the
house of the accused before the expiration of the period therein
provided, the recommendation of the Solicitor General is well taken.

With regard to the case of robbery with homicide, the evidence
for the prosecution has established the following facts: On the night of
March 7, 1951, appellants Eliodoro Ortega and Victoriano Castillo went
to the house of Felicito Lagradante, who was then a guard of the lumber
concession of Martha Lumber Company, pretending to ask for some
cigarette. Lagradante was at the time preparing chocolate. After
offering them cigarette he told them to wait and shortly thereafter
offered them chocolate. Suddenly Castillo grabbed a bolo from a table
and hacked the neck of Lagradante and when the latter offered
resistance, Castillo continued hacking him until he fell. Thereafter,
Ortega got hold of Lagradante’s carbine and fired at the latter.
Believing that Lagradante was already dead, Castillo and Ortega left the
house taking with them Lagradante’s carbine, bolo and flashlight.

On March 8, 1951, the incident was reported to the authorities
by one Ricardo Garus and the cadaver of Lagradante was taken to the city
of Basilan for an autopsy. This was performed by Dr. Conrado Yumul,
Charity physician of Lagmitan, who found the injuries described in his
report exhibit “B”. On March 11, 1951, a report was received in the
office of the chief of police of Basilan City that Ortega had sold a
carbine to a certain moro Hassan several days after the incident and
policeman Cornelio Cuevas was commissioned to get the carbine. This was
done and the carbine of Lagradante was found in Hassan’s house. The
flashlight of Lagradante was found in the house of Castillo while
Lagradante’s bolo was found about 75 meters from the scene of the
killing. When Castillo and Ortega were investigated, both confessed to
the killing and then and there reenacted the crime. These facts appear
in their confessions which were subscribed and sworn to before Municipal
Judge Doroteo de Guzman.

The accused admitted having caused the death of Felicito
Lagradante but tried to justify the killing by giving the following
version: While the two accused were in the house of the deceased, the
latter told them that he was good in fencing and could kill even five
persons who dared face him. To prove it Lagradante took a piece of wood
and told Ortega to get hold of a bolo. As Ortega refused, Castillo
volunteered to take his place. Thereupon, Lagradante asked Castillo to
hit him and obligingly the latter raised his right hand and slowly
brought down the bolo. Lagradante urged Castillo to hit him harder and
when he did so Lagradante was not able to parry the blow and was hit on
the left side of the neck. Then Castillo thrushed the bolo at
Lagradante, hitting the latter in the abdomen. Upon being hit both
grappled with each other until Lagradante fell down dead. Ortega took
the carbine from a corner of the house and pressed its trigger to see if
it was loaded but he could not tell if the shot hit the deceased.
Ortega and Castillo left the house bringing with them the carbine and
flashlight.

The version thus given by the accused is too absurd to deserve
consideration. It is belied not only by the confessions of the two
accused but by the nature of the wounds found in the body of the
deceased. The report of Dr. Yumul shows that the deceased received
three incise wounds and one penetrating, besides two gunshot wounds,
which certainly run counter to those allegedly inflicted by Castillo in
the fencing demonstration narrated by him. A circumstance which weakens
this defense is the fact that Castillo who is given practically the
whole blame for the killing was not presented to corroborate the
testimony of Ortega, and instead he pleaded guilty to the charge.

The claim that Ortega cannot be held responsible for the death
of the deceased because the two gunshot wounds he inflicted upon the
latter were apparently not serious cannot be sustained it appearing that
Ortega and Castillo have conspired to commit the crime, as shown by the
fact that both went to the house together and did not leave until after
they were sure that he was dead. They went to the house of the
deceased with the common design of committing the robbery and in
perpetrating it they cooperated in taking his life.

The claim that the confessions of the accused cannot be given
any evidentiary value because they were not given voluntarily cannot
also be entertained in the light of the testimony of Municipal Judge
Doroteo de Guzman and the reenactment of the crime made by them which
tallied in its essential parts with the facts appearing in said
confessions.

Finding no error in the decision appealed from with regard to
the crime of robbery with homicide, the same is hereby affirmed, with
costs.

With regard to the charge of illegal possession of firearm, the
accused is acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,
Reyes, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.
Feria, J., no part.