THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FORTUNATO BUCO ALIAS RAMSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, FORTUNO BUCO ALIAS RAMSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

An information for murder was filed on November 1, 1959 in the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga against Fortunato
Buco alias Ramsey and six others, designated as
“Does”,* for the killing of Conrado G. Dizon.  A com­plaint filed earlier included two other
accused, Tomas Calma alias Commander Sol and Cornelio
Caparas alias Eden Lee, but these persons
subsequently died and were dropped from the charge.  All the remaining accused were at large
except Fortunato Buco who
was arrested in 1956.  Buco was arraigned, pleaded not guilty and proceeded to
trial.

The prosecution, thru Dr. Elpidio G. Yumul’s testimony, established the fact of the killing,
thus:

At around 7:30 to 800 P.M. of the 17th of May, 1955 in Sta. Ana
municipality, Pampanga, Dr. Yumul,
municipal health officer, and his wife were passing by the market.  They saw their municipal mayor, Conrado G. Dizon, standing near
the market, Dr. Yumul’s wife asked him to inquire
from the mayor whether he could join the rigodon
dance for a forthcoming (May 22) celebration.  As the doctor approached the mayor, his wife
left for home.

Dizon told Dr. Yumul
that he was too busy and could not join. 
As it was Dr. Yumul who was supposed to
supervise the rigodon practice, the mayor told
him to go home lest he would be missed thereat. 
As Dr. Yumul turned to go, he saw a blaze of
gunfire cut down the mayor who was 1-1/2 to 2 meters from him.  Scampering for cover, he hid in a house near
the church.  After 20 or 30 minutes, when
shouting had subsided, Engineer Maglalang passed by
and told him that it was probably over. 
They went to the spot where the mayor fell and found him dead, lying
flat on the cement, with nine gunshot wounds. 
Dr. Yumul later performed the autopsy at the
hospital.

Philippine Constabulary Staff Sgt. Reny
Hechanova in­vestigated Francisco Buco
after his arrest.  And before him, Buco signed a statement on February 6, 1956 (Exhibit B)
admitting, that Eden Lee and he killed Conrado G. Dizon with an automatic carbine and a garand
rifle, respectively; he further identified his other companions.

Salud Dizon,
the deceased’s widow, testified inter alia
that her husband was administrator of the 90-hectare land of his father.  This point, as will be seen later, has a
bearing on the question of why Dizon was
killed.

The defense sought to prove that the act of killing Dizon was but part of the crime of rebellion for which the
accused had already been charged on August
17, 1954 in the same Court of First Instance of Pampanga
(Crim. Case No. 1940); that on July 16, 1959 Buco
pleaded guilty to said rebellion charge and was sentenced, thus:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the court finds the sad accused Fortunato Buco guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rebel­lion, as defined and penalized
under Art. 135, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code; and considering the
mitigating circumstances of (1) plea of guilty (Art. 13, par. 7); (2) that he
acted under the impulse of an irresistible force (Art. 12, par. 5); and (3)
lack of ins­truction (Art. 15, par. 1), which were admit­ted by Fiscal Kayanan, the court hereby sen­tences said Fortunato Buco, on recommendation
of Fiscal Kayanan, to suffer the straight pe­nalty of
one (1) year and six (6) months of prision correccional and to pay his proportio­nate share of
the costs.

“Considering the fact that Fortunato
Buco was apprehended on February 3, 1956, and has
been detained up to the present, the provincial warden is hereby authorized and
directed to release said accused from further confinement, in so far as this
case is concerned, it appearing, that he had been under detention for a period
at least double the penalty herein imposed; pro­vided, that there are no other
pending charges against him in any of the two branches of this court.

 “SO ORDERED.’

And from this the defense argued that the
prosecution for murder constitutes double jeopardy for the same offense.

As to the statement (Exhibit B) taken by the PC, with is in
English, Fortunato Buco
testified that he does not know how to read English; that Sgt. Reny Hechanova asked him to sign
it, saying that after his sign­ing it, he can go home; that for this reason he
signed it tho said statement was not made by him;
that after signing it, he was not sent home but to the provincial jail instead.

Ruling that Dizon’s killing accomplished
on May 17, 1955, was an act of murder not included in the charge of rebellion
which covered the period from May 28, 1946 to August 17, 1954, the Court of
First Instance on March 15, 1962 rendered judgment rejecting the plea of double
jeo­pardy, finding Buco guilty of murder and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua to
pay P6,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, and proportionate
costs.

Appealing therefrom to Us, Buco contends that (1) the killing of Dizon
was absorbed in the rebellion for which he had been charged and sentenced; and
(2) that he was not sufficiently identified as one of the killers.

The act of killing Dizon, which
appellant is now charged with, is not among those acts alleged in the pre­vious
case as constituting the offense of rebellion. 
Said act could not have been so charged since it was committed after
the filing of the rebellion charge.  Not
having been included in the rebellion charge, said killing is not absorbed in
the rebellion offense therein charged. 
(People v. Egual, G.R. Nos. L-13469, L-14240,
L-14209, May 27, 1965)

Appellant has also failed to establish that the reason for the
killing of Dizon was to further or carry out
rebellion.  True, Dizon
was a mayor, and true, at the time of said killing, Buco
was still a Huk and at large, as the dates may be
outlined, thus:

August 17, 1954
– charge of rebellion

May 17, 1955 –
murder was committed

February 3, 1956
– accused was apprehended

1956 – ceased to be a Huk

July 16, 1959 –
conviction for rebellion

November 1, 1959
– information for murder

Yet the record shows that Dizon was
ordered killed not because of said position or the functions of said office but
because of a private matter having to do with his capacity as administrator of
his father’s 90-hectare land.  As the court
a quo found, and as related in de­fendant’s statement (Exhibit
B), Tomas Calma alias Commander Sol was moved by a
certain Luna, a mere civilian, to cause Dizon to be
killed because, according to said Luna, Dizon
“was not good when it comes to the land” re­ferring to 90-hectare
land administered by Dizon and in which Luna was
believed privately interested.

Apellant’s identification as among the
killers is found only in his statement (Exhibit B), which was first explained
to him in Tagalog, but also in his testimony in court
wherein he admitted the truth of the answers given said statement to the effect
that he and Eden Lee actually killed Dizon, using a garand rifle and carbine, respectively; and that Luna, a
civilian who wanted to join Huks “ordered”
the killing of Dizon because the latter was “not
good when it comes to the land.” This negates appellant’s contention that Dizon was killed because he was responsible for the killing
of so many Huks.

As to the penalty, We notice that the lower court took defendant’s
admission during the trial that he killed Dizon as
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty to offset the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation, af­ter considering treachery as a
qualifying circumstance.  Considering
that the admission of the killing took place after the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution, the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty
cannot be considered (Art. 13, No. 7, Revised Penal Code; People v. Quijano, 74 Phil. 225). 
However, for lack of the required number of votes to impose the death
penalty, the penalty next lower in degree thereto, that is, reclusion perpetua, has to be imposed on the accused (Sec. 9,
Republic Act 296).

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is herby af­firmed.  Costs against appellant.

 SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.

*Peter
Doe alias Sampaguita, Paul Doe alias Miranda, Robert Doe alias Totoy,
John Doe, Richard Doe and Jack Doe.