G. R. No. L-16176. July 31, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ISMAEL LAMPITOC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ISMAEL LAMPITOC, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
LABRADOR, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Isabela, Honorable Manuel Arranz, presiding, finding Ismael Lampitoc,
Bernardino Jimenez, Serapio Jimenez, David Pacho, and Nemesio Gozum,
guilty of the complex crime of robbery in band with double homicide,
and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
etc. All of the accused except Ismael Lampitoc withdrew their appeals;
hence the present decision concerns appellant Ismael Lampitoc alone.
The evidence submitted at the trial shows that at about one o’clock
in the early morning of June 18, 1957, a group of men with firearms
appeared at the front door of the house of the spouses Aurelio tagata
and Brigida Baingan in the barrio of Gayong-gayong, municipality of
Ilagan, Isabela. They tried to break the door open but because of the
door was locked, they could not do so. So they got an ax and tried to
break the door open. Besides they fired shots at the place where the
shutter was, causing holes to be made in the door. However, the door
could not be opened. The husband, Aurelio Tagata, went to the door and
asked what the malefactors wanted and the latter demanded from him that
he bring out the money that he realized from the sale of his leaf
tobacco and pigs. Aurelio asked his wife to bring out the money that
they had and the wife did so, bringing out of their wardrobe the sum of
P2,000 in paper bills, which she gave to her husband. The latter gave
the money to the male factors through the hole in the door.
After he had given them the money Aurelio asked them to leave some
twenty pesos to them for his children who were sick, but the
malefactors did not heed his request; instead they demanded an
additional Pl,000 alleged to have been the price of the pigs. But as
the inmates did not do as demanded, they forcibly opened the door,
breaking it open by the use of the ax with which they were provided.
The door having been broken open, some four of the malefactors
entered, each of them provided with firearms. The malefactors ordered
them to lie down. Aurelio Tagata was asked if he had any firearm and he
answered them that he did not. The malefactors ordered them to lie down
effectively with firearms. Aurelio Tagata tried to grab the firearm of
one of the intruders and as he did so, another fired at him and Aurelio
fell on the floor, wounded. A son of his by the name of Petronilo tried
to grab the gun of one of the malefactors but the assailant fired his
pistol at him, and Petronilo also fell down dead on the floor. Cesar
Pacho who was the one who shot Petronilo looked around and as he did so
he saw that another son of Aurelio was coming over to him with a drawn
bolo. Before he could shoot he hacked Cesar on the forehead. Upon
receiving the blow Cesar Pacho ran to the “batalan” and fled, his
companions following him.
The barrio lieutenant, having been notified, went to the house of
Aurelio Tagata and begun to find out if the inmates had recognized the
malefactors. Aurelio Tagata declared that he did and so he took down
Aurelio’s statement, Exhibit “I-Lampitoc and Jimenez”, in which Aurelio
pointed out to Francisco Aquino and Regino Manuel as two of those who
had assaulted them early that morning. The constabulary was also
notified and a captain by the name of Arsenio M. Cada, and a
constabulary sergeant by the name of Fermino C. Santos, went to the
house to conduct inquiries. They found that the assistant barrio
lieutenant was already in the house. They questioned the inmates of the
house, namely: Honorato Tagata, Anastacia Tagata, and the wife of
Aurelio Tagata, and the assistant barrio lieutenant. They examined the
house and they found many bloodstains on the floor. The door of the
house was broken and they were presented by the occupants with an ax, a
bolo, a maong hat, and a buri hat. They found empty rifle shells. The
dead body of Petronilo Tagata was lying on the floor inside the house,
whereas that of Aurelio Tagata had been brought to the hospital for
medical treatment.
In the afternoon of that same day at about five o’clock when the
constabulary sergeant was about to take the statements of the inmates
of the house in writing, one of the accused, Nemesio Gozum, appeared at
the barracks voluntarily, bringing with him a pistol, caliber 380.
Gozum declared that he and his companions were the ones who committed
the assault on the house of Aurelio Tagata, and that his companions
were Eulalio Angangan, David Pacho, Cesar Pacho, Serapio Jimenez,
Bernardino Jimenez and Ismael Lampitoc. He did not mention as his
companions the names of Francisco Aquino and Regino Manuel.
He further questioned Brigida Baingan, the wife of Aurelio Tagata,
who said that at first she gave Pl,000 and the second time she gave
another P1,000. He also questioned Honorato Tagata, who said that he
was the one who hacked one of the malefactors. Upon being asked if he
could identify the persons who assaulted the house that evening,
Honorato stated that he would be able to identify them, so he was
brought to the barracks where Bernardino Jimenez, Ismael Lampitoc and
Serapio Jimenez were detained, and Honorato declared that he was the
one who hacked Cesar Pacho, and he was able to identify Serapio Jimenez
and Ismael Lampitoc. (t. s. n., p. 208) Sergeant Santos took down the
statement of Nemesio Gozum and this was presented at the trial as
Exhibit “D”. He also took down the statement of David Pacho which was
introduced also as Exhibit “A”. Still another who made a statement
which was submitted at the trial as Exhibit “E” was Bernardino Jimenez.
In all of these three confessions, the malefactors mentioned as having
participated in the commission of the crime were Cesar Pacho, David
Pacho, Mely Lampitoc, Serapio Jimenez, Bernardino Jimenez and Eulalio
Angangan.
The officer who accompanied sergeant Santos in conducting the
investigation was Captain Cada with whom Corporal Santos made the
inquiries in the assaulted house of the spouses Tagata. This witness
declared that when he questioned Honorato Tagata, Honorato told him
that he would be able to identify the assailants if he could see them,
and that Honorato was able to identify David Pacho, Ismael Lampitoc,
and Serapio Jimenez. He further declared that while he was
investigating in the house of the assaulted persons he received news
that one by the name of Cesar Pacho, who was living in the barrio of
Cabannungan across the river, had received a wound in the forehead, so
he went to the place where he was to investigate Cesar Pacho, but when
he arrived there Cesar was already dead. He further declared that he
was also able to investigate Nemesio Gozum who was brought to him by
the chief of police to whom Gozum had surrendered, and that Gozum
informed him that his companions were Cesar Pacho, Ismael Lampitoc,
Bernardino Jimenez, Serapio Jimenez and Eulalio Angangan. When he
learned the names of these persons from Nemesio Gozum he and some
soldiers went to Cabannungan, the place of Pacho. When the persons
indicated by Gozum as his companions were apprehended he investigated
them. The questioning took place on June 19 and 20. He investigated
Bernardino Jimenez, Ismael Lampitoc and Eulalio Angangan. Cada
testified that Ismael Lampitoc confessed to him his participation in
the assault but that when the testimony of Lampitoc was about to be
taken down in writing the father-in-law of Lampitoc arrived and
thereafter Lampitoc refused to make anymore statements.
It is to be noted that the accused who made confessions are David
Pacho, Exhibit “A”, Nemesio Gozum, Exhibit “D”, and Bernardino Jimenez,
Exhibit “E”. At the time of the trial these three accused, with the
exception of Gozum, rejected their confessions, but the Court below
found that they were freely and voluntarily given. According to these
affidavits, Cesar Pacho was armed with a .38 caliber revolver, Serapio
Jimenez with a .38 caliber revolver, Nemesio Gozum without any firearm,
Ismael Lampitoc with a .45 caliber pistol, Eulalio Angangan with a .380
caliber pistol, and David Pacho with a shot gun, 12 gauge. In arriving
at the conclusion that the accused actually committed the crime the
Court below said:
“* * * But be that as it may, even if the
eyewitnesses have not been able to recognize the herein defendants, we
believe that there is sufficient evidence of record such as (l) the
interlocking confessions of some of the defendants; (2) that Cesar
Pacho, their confederate was hacked with a bolo on the forehead by
Honorato Tagata on the occasion of the robbery; (3) that the 38 caliber
pistol used in the commission of the crime was found in the possession
of Nemesio Gozum; (4) that the latter in open court had admitted the
commission of the crime and pointed to his co-defendants as the
perpetrators of the robbery and shooting. The combination of said facts
and circumstances overwhelmingly show that the defendants, and no other
else, were the authors of the complex crime of robbery with homicide
and, that all of them are equally responsible as principal, although some
did not actually take active part in the homicide (U.S. vs. Macalalad et al., 9 Phil. 1; People vs. Bautista, 49 Phil. 380; People vs.
Morados et al. 70 Phil. 558). Further, the evidence shows that David
Pacho, Cesar Pacho, Bernardino Jimenez, Eulalio Angangan and Nemesio
Gozum carried firearms. Therefore, all of the defendants are equally
responsible for the complex crime of robbery in band with homicide
because none of the defendants attempted to prevent the homicide
(People vs. Evangelista et al., 86 Phil., 112; 47 Off. Gaz., p. 5658).”
The following were found in the house that was assaulted: an ax,
Exhibit “S”; parts of the door that was destroyed, Exhibit “T”, “T-1”
to “T-3”; shells and slugs, Exhibits “U”, “U-1” to “U-5”, “V-1” to
“V-2”. These shells and slugs were examined and they were found to have
been fired from the .38Q caliber pistol surrendered by Nemesio Gozum.
As indicated above all the accused were convicted, three of the
accused withdrew their appeals; so we are concerned in this decision
only with the appeal of Ismael Lampitoc.
The gist of the argument of counsel for applicant is the alleged
insufficiency of the evidence presented to convict him of the crime.
There is no question .that on the occasion of the assault two
individuals died, namely Petronilo Tagata and Aurelio Tagata.
There is also no question that four individuals entered the house
of Aurelio Tagata in the evening in question, all of whom were armed,
and that others were down below guarding the house while their
companions were inside the house. Therefore the crime was committed by
a band or more than three armed men.
The defendant-appellant Ismael Lampitoc alleged the defense of
alibi and the issue, therefore, is whether there is sufficient evidence
to identify him as one of those who entered the house or guarded it on
the evening in question. On this issue the evidence adduced by the
prosecution are as follows:
(1) On his direct examination Honorato Tagata, who was the one who
hacked Cesar Pacho on the forehead and inflicted on him a wound a5 a
result of which Cesar Pacho ran away, followed by his companions,
testified as follows:
two, sir, witness indicating at one of the accused who gave his name as
Ismael Lampitoc, and he also indicated at the other defendant who gave
his name as Serapio Jimenez.* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
And when you were investigated in the PC barracks, did they show to you some persons? Yes, sir.
* * * * * * *
(2) This same witness was able to identify the hat belonging to
Lampitoc. At the trial he was shown three hats, one of maong identified
as that of Cesar Pacho, another a buri hat, as belonging to Serapio
Jimenez, and another buri hat, belonging to Ismael Lampitoc (t. s. n.,
p. 157.)(3) Sergeant Fermino C. Santos, testifying for the
government corroborated the identification of defendant-appellant
Lampitoc by Honorato Tagata in the constabulary barracks in the
following manner:“* * * Now I brought this Honorato Tagata
to the place where Bernardino Jimenez, Ismael Lampitoe and Serapio
Jimenez were because they were then inside the stockade and showed him
these persons and he pointed to me the persons of Ismael Lampitoc and Serapio Jimenez.” (t.s.n., p. 208)(4) Fermino C. Santos, further testifying for the prosecution, declared
that he had obtained the confession of Ismael Lampitoc in writing but
the latter refused to sign it. His testimony reads thus:
(5) Captain Cada corroborates the making of the statement by Ismael
Lampitoc and the fact that subsequently Ismael Lampitoc refused to sign
the statement. His testimony reads as follows:
“Q. Did you also put in writing your investigation of Ismael Lampitoc?
“A. He confessed to me his participation but when I was about to
take his testimony or statement, his father-in-law arrived and he did
not want to give his statement anymore.” (t.s.n., p. 257)
(6) One of the buri hats declared by Honorato Tagata to be the hat
of Ismael Lampitoc was presented in court as one of the objects found
in the house of Aurelio Tagata where the robbery took place.
(7) The judge of the court below who heard the witnesses testify
considered all the above circumstarices as having been proved, which
means that the witnesses who testified did so in a manner worthy of
credence, otherwise the judge would not have believed them. As to the
truthfulness of the statement of Captain Cada that defendant-appellant
Lampitoc admitted his participation in the offense, it is to be noted
that at that time the other three accused, namely, David Pacho, Nemesio
Gozum and Bernardino Jimenez, had made their own confessions and it is
most likely that Ismael Lampitoc, following the course taken by his
colleagues and believing that his protest of innocence would be of no
avail, did follow their footsteps making his own confessions, although
when his father- in-law came he desisted and refused to sign his
confession.
In the opinion of the Court, the above circumstances in the face of
the defense of alibi testified to by relatives, are sufficient to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Ismael Lampitoc was one of the persons who
participated in the robbery committed in the house of the deceased
Aurelto Tagata, even without considering that he was implicated in the
confessions of his co-accused.
The crime having been committed by a band or armed persons, and two
persons having been killed as a result the crime, the penalty that
should be imposed is the penalty of death. However, in view of the fact
that the trial court had imposed only the penalty of reclusion temporal
on the others, who had made their confessions, the imposition of the
penalty of death is not concurred in by eight of the Justices, for
which reason the penalty that should be imposed is that of reclusion perpetua,
together with the accessory penalties and indemnities provided for in
the decision appealed from. The decision of the lower court should,
therefore, be affirmed in toto, with costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur