G.R. No. L-29383. August 17, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AMADO CHANCOCO AND JOAQUIN CHANCOCO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
RELOVA, J.:
Appellants Amado Chancoco
and Joaquin Chancoco, father and son, together with Dioscoro Carimpong, Pedro Naui, Daniel Hermosa and Rosenio Obosa were charged before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya with the crime of
Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized in Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code. Before the arraignment, and over the opposition of the
other defendants, thru counsel, Daniel Hermosa was discharged so that he could
be utilized as state witness.
Upon arraignment, the
rest of the defendants pleaded not guilty. After the trial, the lower court
rendered its decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, and finding the accused Amado
Chancoco, Joaquin Chancoco,
Dioscoro Carimpong and Pedro Naui guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide without the attendance of any
qualifying circumstance, the Court hereby sentences each one of them to suffer
an indeterminate penalty ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to
SIXTEEN (16) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as
maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law, each to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased Uy Dit in the amount of P5,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay one-sixth (1/6) of the costs of
the proceedings.
“The accused Captain Rosenio Oboza is
hereby acquitted of the charge against him in the information.
“The accused Dioscoro Carimpong and Pedro Naui are
hereby credited with one-half of the time they have undergone preventive
imprisonment.” (pp. 20-21, Rollo)
From the above decision, the accused Dioscoro
Carimpong and Pedro Naui
did not appeal. Amado Chancoco
and Joaquin Chancoco appealed to the Court of
Appeals, assigning the following errors:
“1. The trial court erred in allowing the discharge
of accused Daniel Hermosa to become a state witness over and above objections
of counsels of the other
accused.
“2. The trial court erred in giving value and credence to the testimony of discharged
accused Daniel Hermosa as state witness even after it has totally discredited
the testimony of prosecution witness Feliza Gutierrez
Vda. de Ostaris.
“3. The trial court erred in declaring that the crime committed was that of
Homicide alone; that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt as against the herein
appellants together with their co-accused Dioscoro
Carimpong and Pedro Naui;
meting out to each of them the penalty embodied in the decision, Annex ‘A’
thereof.” (pp. 1-2, Appellants’ Brief)
From the evidence on record, We find the
facts stated in the People’s Brief to have been duly established, to wit:
“Appellants do not dispute the fact that Uy Dit, for whose death they were charged
with robbery with homicide, was in the afternoon of November 24, 1958 really
found dead in his own ‘bodega’ in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya (Appellants Brief,
p.2). Dr. Carlina V. Naldo,
who as municipal health officer of Aritao was called
upon by the police to examine the cadaver, declared on the Witness stand that
when she saw the cadaver of Uy Dit
at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of November 24, 1958, its state of rigor mortis indicated the time of death as around 15 or 17 hours previously, or sometime between 12 and
2 o’clock in the afternoon (tsn, p. 25).
“She further declared that when she first saw the cadaver,
there were three sacks of rice on it, one over the head and two over the body (tsn., p.
26).
“The day after, the doctor set down her findings as follows:
“AUTOPSY REPORT
Subject: UY DIT
Age: Between 55-60 years old (not exact)
Address: Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya
Place, Date, and Time of Autopsy: Inside the Bodega and home of Uy Dit; November 24, 1958 at 5:00 P.M.
Remark: Face and
body was found in prone position and in rigor mortis with three (3) sacks of
rice over the head and body and blood discharged from the nose, mouth and ears.
Injuries found:
(1) Triangular shaped contussion
with bluish discoloration over the right eyebrow;
(2) Depressed contussion
size of a peseta elongated and horizontal with irregular borders over the left
cheek;
(3) Lacerated wound 1½ inches
long below the left eyebrow;
(4) Lacerated wounds with swelling of the lips;
(5) Contussions with
considerable swelling in front, below and behind the left ear and the posterior
left side of the base of the
head;
(6) Lacerated straight wound 2 inches long just
behind the left ear;
(7) Abrasions on the anterior middle portion of
the neck surrounded with bluish discoloration;
(8) Depressed rounded contusions 1-1/3 inches and
½ inch in diameter respectively
over the left knee with free movement of the leg below the injury; and
(9) Abrasions 1 cm. and ½ cm. in diameter respectively over the
right knee.
Causes of Death: Hemorrhage
and shock due to fracture of the base of the skull and asphyxia due to
strangulation and heavy pressure on the head and body (Exh.
‘C’, Record, p. 7)”
Discharged defendant Daniel Hermosa
narrated how the luckless Uy Dit was killed by the accused for the money that Uy Dit hid in his ‘bodega.’
Having picked up Hermosa from a circus he was watching in the town of Aritao late in the night of November 23, 1958, Joaquin Chancoco and Dioscoro Carimpong set up Hermosa as look out outside Uy Dit’s ‘bodega’ by the national highway, where Hermosa
was presently joined by accused Pedro Naui (tsn, pp. 155-158). Hermosa saw Joaquin Chancoco open the door of the
‘bodega’ with a key, walk inside, and knock three times on the wall of the
‘bodega’ adjoining Amado Chancoco’s
residence. Soon, as on signal, Amado Chancoco arrived at the scene with two other men (tsn, pp. 167-159, 161).
“These three men now, together with Joaquin Chancoco and Dioscoro Carimpong, started looking around the ‘bodega’ until Amado Chancoco came upon a pile
of money under the flooring of the ‘camalig‘ just where the sacks of palay
were stacked (tsn, pp. 163-167, 196).
“Long before Uy Dit,
in the company of Feliza Gutierrez, came upon the accused in the ‘bodega.’ On the
instant, Amado Chancoco
pulled Uy Dit towards him
and struck Uy Dit a fistblow in the face, while Dioscoro
Carimpong hit Uy Dit in the shin with a club. Someone handed a gun over to Amado Chancoco with which he
struck Uy Dit on the
head. All this time the surprised Uy Dit was exclaiming:
‘Compadre (Amado Chancoco), why do you strike me?’ (tsn, pp. 163-167)
“When Uy Dit
lay prostrate on the floor, Amado Chancoco
pulled out a key from one of the victim’s pockets and with it opened the door
of the small office within the ‘bodega’ (tsn., pp. 168-169). Feliza Gutierrez,
with whom Uy Dit came upon
the accused in the ‘bodega’, supplied the fact that Amado
Chancoco was able to find more of Uy
Dit’s money inside the little office (tsn, pp. 228-229).
“Before the accused left the ‘bodega’, Joaquin Chancoco and Dioscoro Carimpong placed three cavans of palay on the dead or dying body of Uy
Dit (tsn, p. 177).”
(pp. 2-5, People’s Brief)
The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated July 16, 1966, said that the crime committed by
the appellants and their co-accused is not simple homicide but robbery with
homicide, as defined and penalized in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
“ART. 294. Robbery with Violence
against or intimidation of
persons – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
against, or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
“1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of
the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. x x x “
and, pursuant to
Section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1946, forwarded the records to Us for final
determination of the appeal.
The victim Uy Dit was killed “by reason or on the occasion of
robbery.” On this point, defendant – turned state witness – Daniel
Hermosa, whose testimony appeared to be absolutely necessary, declared that
before Uy Dit arrived at
the bodega where he was killed, the accused came upon a pile of money that they
were looking for under the floor where the sacks of palay
were stacked. Hereunder is the
testimony of Daniel Hermosa:
“Q How long did Joaquin Chancoco
and Dioscoro Carimpong
search, if you know?
A I cannot
tell, because I had no watch.
Q You stated that you saw Amado
Chancoco in that
place, did you see him enter the
bodega personally?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where did he pass?
A Thru the door, sir.
Q You mean in between you and Naui?
A Yes, sir.
Q With whom, if there were any?
A I saw three persons, sir.
Q And
you do not know them?
A No, sir.
Q And you do not know them?
A No, sir.
Q You never have seen them anywhere in Aritao?
A No, sir.
Q Armado Chancoco and the three entered the bodega in Aritao?
A Three men
approached us and I know one and recognized Amado Chancoco.
Q And these three men entered the bodega?
A Yes, sir.
Q They also searched?
A Yes, sir.
Q And it was at this juncture when Amado Chancoco during that search
found the money?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you came to know that because you were
also peeping?
A Yes, sir.
Q Because you did not enter
the bodega at all?
A Yes, sir.
Q And
in what place of the bodega did Amado Chancoco find the money?
A Under a vault under the cavans of palay that were piled.
Q On the ground floor?
A Between the vault where
the cavans of palay were
piled and the cement floor.
Q Was the money in bunch or contained in a
certain receptacle?
A It was in bunch, tied with rubber bands.
Q And
it was wrapped by certain paper,
is that right?
A It was wrapped in paper and he opened the
wrapper and I saw that they were tied with rubber bands.
Q And
during that time, the people you
identified were Amado Chancoco,
Joaquin Chancoco, Dioscoro Carimpong and two others whom you do not know?
A Yes, sir. (tsn., pp.
195-196, Dec. 20, 1962
hearing)
x x x x x x x x x
Q And
it was Amado Chancoco who
got the bundle of money?
A Yes, sir.
Q You stated that not long afterwards Uy Dit and a
certain Feliza arrived. How long do you think from
the time when Amado Chancoco allegedly took
from underneath the stack of palay up to the time
when the two arrived, that is Uy Dit
and Feliza?
A One hour more or less, sir, after when they arrived.
Q And within that period of time Amado Chancoco and the rest,
namely: Carimpong, Joaquin Chancoco
and the two unidentified were inside the bodega in possession of the bundle of money?
A Yes, sir.
Q And
after that one hour, Uy Dit
and Feliza came, is that what you mean?
A Yes, sir.” (tsn., pp.
199-200, Dec. 20, 1962
hearing)
Further, prosecution witness Feliza
Gutierrez testified that after Uy Dit
was killed, appellant Amado Chancoco
opened the door of the little office inside the bodega where he took more
money. We are quoting the testimony of Feliza
Gutierrez:
“Q What was that unusual incident?
A When Uy Dit and I entered the bodega Amado
Chancoco met him and grabbed his collar and Joaquin
Chancoco took hold of his neck to strangle him.
Q What
else?
A Oboza handed his
pistol and they gave him a blow in the head.
Q What happened to Uy
Dit when he was given a blow in the head with the pistol?
A He screamed, sir.
Q What else happened?
A Carimpong got hold of a wooden club this long and hit the
leg of Uy Dit which made
him fall down.
Q After he fell down what else happened?
A They dragged him near a big stack of cavans of palay, placed two cavans on top of his back and one on his head.
Q What did you do upon seeing Uy Dit punished?
A I was just standing, sir.
Q Then what happened?
A They took the key from his pocket and they
opened the bodega where his money was.
Q Were
you able to see all those incidents clearly?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why?
A I was then there, sir.
Q Was the bodega dark, because it was night
time?
A It was bright, because there was light.
Q You
said they opened the bodega and got money. How much money, if you know, did
they get?
A I do not know, sir, because I did not count
the money.
Q Have
you seen the denominations of
the money that was taken from the bodega of Uy Dit?
A I could only recognize then the P5.00 bills,
P10.00 bills.
Q Why were you able to recognize the P5.00 and P10.00 bills?
A Because
I was near, sir.” (tsn., pp. 227-229, Dec. 21, 1962 hearing)
It is clear that the crime of robbery, by reason or on the
occasion on which Uy Dit
was killed, has been established by evidence.
Against the People’s evidence, appellants put up the defense of
alibi. Amado Chancoco and Joaquin Chancoco
declared that in the morning of November
23, 1958 they were in the barrio of Kirang,
Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, which is about one kilometer from the town proper
of Aritao. They, together with tenant Launario Campos, were busy in the harvesting of peanuts the
whole day and the whole night until 3:00
in the following morning. It was between 3:30
and 4:00 in the afternoon of November 24, 1958 when they received
news that his (Amado) compadre
Uy Dit was killed. Thereafter,
they returned to their house at the poblacion.
Well settled is the rule that alibi has no weight against the
positive identification of the culprit. State witness Daniel Hermosa has
identified and pointed to appellants Amado Chancoco and Joaquin Chancoco, as
well as to the accused Dioscoro Carimpong
and Pedro Naui as the persons who took direct
participation in the crime in which the deceased Uy Dit was the victim. On the basis of the evidence on record,
appellants Amado Chancoco
and Joaquin Chancoco are guilty of robbery with
homicide as charged in the information against them.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction on appellants Amado Chancoco and Joaquin Chancoco is hereby AFFIRMED, but modified in the sense that
they are guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Acting C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.