G.R. No. L-32205. August 31, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. (1) EMERITO ABELLA ALIAS KULOT, (2) GORGONIO AÑOVER, (3) RODOLFO APOLINARIO, (4) MAXIMO APOLONIAS, (5) DOMINGO ASTROLOGIA …
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the massacre of certain prisoners in the Davao Penal Colony.
It was a reprise of a similar riot which occurred in the national
penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal
on Sunday morning, February 16, 1958
(People vs. De los Santos, L-19067-68, July 30, 1965,
14 SCRA 702).
The record reveals that in the morning of Sunday, June 27, 1965 Numeriano Reynon, a
prisoner-trustee, was performing guard duty at the jailhouse of the penal
colony in Panabo, Davao del
Norte.
The jailhouse (bartolina) was a
two-story building whose second floor was divided by a corridor or passageway
one and a half meters wide. On one side
was a single cell about ten meters long and eight meters wide. On the opposite side were three small cells.
Around seventy (seventy-five, according to defendant Cabcaban) prisoners were incarcerated in the big cell. It was indubitably congested. The prisoners used a drum to dispose of their
waste matter. Confined in the three
small cells were seventeen prisoners who had committed grave misconduct and who
were known as “close-confined” prisoners to distinguish them from the
prisoners in the big cell who were just undergoing punishment.
The prisoners belonged to two gangs: the Oxo gang, whose
members were Visayans with an Oxo
mark tattooed on their bodies, and the Sigue-Sigue
gang whose members hailed from Luzon. The name Sigue-Sigue
was tattooed on their thighs or buttocks.
The existence of these gangs in the New Bilibid
Prison was traced by Judge (now Justice) Andres Reyes in the De los Santos
case, supra. See People vs.
Peralta, 25 SCRA 759.
Shortly before noontime of that Sunday, June 27, 1965, or after the inmates of the big
cell had taken their lunch, Reynon locked that
cell. The seventeen inmates of the three
small cells, all members of the Oxo gang, had also
taken their lunch but Reynon did not lock their cells
because he was waiting for the prisoner-janitor to bring out from those cells
the cans used as urinals.
At that juncture, Leocadio Gavilaguin, a prisoner from the small cell, approached Reynon and asked permission to pawn his pillow to Rodolfo Carballo, an inmate of the big cell. Reynon told Gavilaguin that Carballo would
not accept his pillow because it was very dirty. As it turned out, Gavilaguin
was simply employing a ruse to inveigle Reynon into
opening the door to the big cell.
When Reynon refused to open the door, Gavilaguin grabbed him from behind. Then, as if on cue, “the
close-confined” prisoners from the small cells surrounded Reynon and assaulted him.
One prisoner stabbed Reynon while the others
hit him on the chest and right temple with fistic blows. Reynon lost
consciousness and collapsed on the floor.
A prisoner took the bunch of keys which were in Reynon’s custody and opened the door of the big cell. (According to some extrajudicial confessions,
Reynon himself opened the door.) Led by Kulot (Emerito Abella), Tisoy (Agustin Villaflor) and Cadio (Gavilaguin), the other thirteen prisoners from the small
cells rushed into the big cell. They
were (1) Gorgonio Añover,
(2) Rustico Cidro, (3) Absalon Enrigan, (4) Sindolfo Galanto, (5) Felix
Hernandez, (6) Benedicto Loraña
alias Payat, (7) Eleuterio
Maldecir alias Aswang, (8) Ciriaco Opsiar alias Simaron, (9) Vicente Quijano,
(10) Juanito Rebutaso, (11)
Eleuterio Taboy, (12) Jose Villarama and (13) Sofronio
Villegas. They were armed with
improvised weapons. So, there were
around eighty-six prisoners in the eighty-square-meter big cell when the
massacre occurred.
The seventeenth closely confined prisoner, Perfecto Bilbar alias Porping, stayed in
the small cell. He locked its door and
closed the padlock of the big cell (Page 9, Record, Report
of Jose T. Castro).
Inside the big cell, Villaflor (Tisoy) shouted:
“Tumabi ang Bisaya!” (“Visayans go
to the sides”). Guillermo Ignacio
alias Pilay, an inmate of the big cell, placed pieces
of wood and a blanket on the door to keep it closed (16 tsn
July 25, 1967).
According to the eyewitnesses, Arsenio Guevarra, Juan del Rosario (a victim), and Roberto Rodrigo,
all prisoners, the inmates from the big cell, who joined the sixteen raiders
from the three cells in assaulting the victims, were (1) Rodolfo Apolinario, (2) Maximo Apolonias alias Max, (3) Domingo Astrologia
alias Blackie, (4) Jose Barbajo alias Joe, (5) Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday, (6) Rodolfo Carballo alias
Rudy, (7) Crescencio Cuizon
alias Sianong Kulot, (8)
Francisco Dionisio (he pleaded guilty), (9) Elino Duran, (10) Jose Francisco alias Karate, (11)
Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay, (12) Roberto Pangilinan alias Pagong, (13)
Rolando Pangilinan, (14) Eugenio
Provido, Jr. alias Junior, (15) Romeo Ricafort alias Romy, (16) Marcelo
Sardenia and (17) Angel Tagana.
Some of these seventeen prisoners destroyed the floor of the big
cell, removed the wood therefrom and used the pieces
of wood in clubbing to death some of the victims.
The assaulted prisoners, who were unarmed, did not resist the
attack. Many of them were lying flat on
the floor with raised hands or clinging to the walls made of
steel-matting. The affray lasted for
about an hour. Although three whistles
were sounded at the start of the massacre and prison officials rushed to the
corridor near the big cell, they could not do anything because the door was
locked and the key was held by one of the raiders. No one among the assailants was injured.
The offenders at first did not surrender to prison officials who
had arrived at the scene after the alarm was sounded. It was only after they were assured that they
would not be maltreated that Abella advised his
companions to surrender.
Villaflor gathered all the weapons used
by his group. He gave them and the bunch
of keys to Geronimo Jorge, the overseer of the penal colony, through the holes
of the steel-matting. Those weapons
consisted of five sharp-pointed wooden daggers, seven sharp-pointed aluminum
daggers, three wire ice picks, two bamboo ice picks, two Gillette blades with
wooden handles, a stone wrapped with cloth (caburata),
a wooden club (Reynon’s balila)
and twenty-two pieces of wood.
Ten victims, identified as (1) Romeo Bulatao,
(2) Manalo Castillo, (3) Jose Castro, (4) Gualberto Fuentes, (5) Jose Magpantay,
(6) Severino Pacon, (7) Carlito Padilla, (8) Generoso Palino, (9) Jacinto Refugia and
(10) Delfin San Miguel, were pronounced dead on
arrival at the penal colony hospital.
Salvador Abique, Demetrio
Camo, Manuel Cayetano and
Armando Sanchez died in that hospital.
The fourteen victims died of shock, cerebral hemorrhage and severe
external and internal hemorrhage.
Three other victims survived.
Reynon sustained a lacerated wound on his
eyebrow and a stab wound on the left shoulder.
He was confined in the hospital for nineteen days.
Juan del Rosario, a prisoner in the big
cell, suffered a lacerated wound in the head and six incised wounds on the
right cheek, mid-anterior side of the neck, right side of the neck and the left
arm.
Bartolome de Guzman had a lacerated
wound on the head, two incised wounds at the nape and at the left hypochondriac
region, a stab wound on the neck which penetrated the larynx and two
superficial punctured wounds on the left and right sides of the chest.
The examining physician testified that Reynon,
Del Rosario and De Guzman would have died had there been no timely medical
attendance.
In July, 1965 the statements of several jail inmates were taken
by the prison investigator. They were
sworn to before the municipal judge of Panabo.
On September 24, 1965
Vicente B. Afurong, supervising prison guard and senior
investigator of the Davao Penal Colony, filed in the
municipal court of Panabo a complaint for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder against thirty-seven
prisoners of the penal colony who allegedly took part in the assault (Criminal
Case No. 1773).
The accused waived the second stage of the preliminary
investigation. On October 22, 1965, a special counsel of the
provincial fiscal’s office filed an
information in the Court of First Instance of Davao,
Davao City Branch II, charging the thirty-seven
accused with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder (Criminal
Case No. 9405).
As specified in the information, at the time the massacre
occurred the thirty-seven accused were quasi-recidivists because they were
serving sentences for different crimes after having been convicted by final
judgment, as indicated below:
(1) Abella – qualified theft, murder and
frustrated murder; (2) Añover – murder, theft of
large cattle and evasion of service of sentence; (3) Apolinario
– qualified theft; (4) Apolonias – homicide; (5) Astrologia – robbery, homicide, frustrated homicide and
qualified theft; (6) Barbajo – robbery with habitual
delinquency; (7) Bilbar – homicide; (8) Cabcaban – theft;
(9) Carballo – homicide; (10) Cidro – frustrated murder and evasion of service of
sentence; (11) Cuizon – murder and robbery; (12) Dionisio – murder, robbery in an inhabited house, six
counts, and theft, four counts; (13) Duran – homicide; (14) Enrigan
– homicide; (15) Francisco – robbery; (16) Galanto –
homicide; (17) Gavilaguin – murder, homicide and
evasion of service of sentence; (18) Gaylan – murder;
(19) Gelle – murder; (20) Hernandez – homicide;
(21) Ignacio – murder, arson, evasion of service of sentence and
frustrated murder; (22) Lagarto – murder; (23) Loraña – murder, frustrated murder, attempted robbery with
homicide and robbery with serious physical injuries; (24) Maldecir
– murder, frustrated murder, double homicide and evasion of service of
sentence; (25) Opsiar – murder, frustrated murder and
qualified theft; (26) Roberto Pangilinan – murder and
theft, two counts; (27) Rolando Pangilinan – murder;
(28) Provido, Jr. – theft, two counts and violation
of articles 157 and 178 of the Revised Penal Code;
(29) Quijano – murder; (30) Rebutaso – robbery; (31) Ricafort
– homicide and attempted homicide; (32) Sardenia –
robbery, four counts; (33) Taboy – murder; (34) Tagana – robbery with physical injuries, malicious
mischief, slander by deed, slander with slight physical injuries and violations
of Manila ordinances; (35) Villaflor – robbery,
frustrated homicide and evasion of service of sentence; (36) Villarama – frustrated homicide and evasion of service of
sentence, and (37) Villegas – murder and evasion of service of sentence.
At the arraignment on March
5, 1966, the accused were represented by two lawyers de oficio. The
information was read and explained to them in the Tagalog
dialect.
The nineteen accused who pleaded guilty were (1) Abella, (2) Añover, (3) Cidro, (4) Dionisio, (5) Enrigan, (6) Galanto, (7) Gavilaguin, (8) Hernandez, (9) Loraña,
(10) Maldecir, (11) Opsiar,
(12) Rolando Pangilinan, (13) Quijano,
(14) Rebutaso, (15) Ricafort,
(16) Taboy, (17) Villaflor,
(18) Villarama and (19) Villegas.
Of the nineteen who pleaded guilty, sixteen were
“close-confined” prisoners from the three small cells while three (Dionisio, Pangilinan and Ricafort) were from the big cell.
The seventeen accused who pleaded not
guilty were (1) Apolinario, (2) Apolonias, (3) Astrologia, (4) Barbajo, (5) Bilbar, (6) Cabcaban, (7) Carballo, (8) Cuizon, (9) Duran, (10) Francisco, (11) Gaylan,
(12) Gelle, (13) Lagarto,
(14) Roberto Pangilinan, (15) Provido,
Jr., (16) Sardenia and (17) Tagana.
The thirty-seventh accused, Guillermo
Ignacio, at first pleaded guilty but when he repudiated his extrajudicial
confession, a plea of not guilty was substituted for his plea of guilty.
After the pleas were entered, the
trial court required the fiscal to present evidence as to those who had pleaded
guilty. The fiscal submitted as exhibits
the extrajudicial confessions of the nineteen accused which were sworn to
before the municipal judge.
At the fiscal’s
behest, the trial court ordered the interpreter to ask individually the
nineteen accused whether they confirmed their confessions. In open court, all of them ratified their
confessions.
Typical of the confessions of the
accused was Villaflor’s statement taken by Ramon C. Alicarte, an investigator, on July 14, 1965 at the so-called “reading center”
of the penal colony. Villaflor
said:
“13. Q. – Will you please narrate
to me what you know about that unusual incident (in the morning of June 27, 1965)?
“A. – On that particular time and
date, the inmates of the big cell opposite our cell were already inside their
cell after they have eaten their noon
meal and after they were locked in the big cell, we inmates in the
close-confinement cells were also sent out to have our noon meal.
“But before we went out from our cells, we had already agreed
that we are going to get inside the big cell and we also made an agreement that
one of us from the close-confinement cells by the name of Cadio
(Gavilaguin) would find a way so that we can get
inside the big cell.
“After Cadio has finished eating, he
went to his cell and got a pillow which was to be sold to our contact inside
the big cell. When Cadio
was already at the aisle between the big cell and the close-confinement cells,
our contact in the big cell by the name of Ruding Pakpak (Arsenio Guevarra) (should be Rodolfo Carballo)
came near the door of their cell and asked Cadio if
the pillow he (Cadio) was holding is made of cotton.
“Cadio then called the trusty police
on duty, prisoner Numeriano Reynon,
and requested him (Reynon) that he (Cadio) is going to pledge the said pillow to Ruding Pakpak (Carballo) but the said trusty was hesitant at first. When Cadio’s
request was seconded by Emerito Abella
by saying: ‘Sigi
na pare, dahil sa wala kaming
pangbili ng cigarilyo‘, Reynon
opened the door of the big cell and Ruding Pakpak said: ‘Abi, Abi, tingnan
ko ang
unan kung bulak ang laman.’
“Then, I saw that Reynon was
grappled by some of my co-inmates from the close-confinement cell and then my
companions began entering the big cell.
When I also went inside the big cell, Ruding Pakpak met me and said to me: ‘Saan ang sa
akin?’ I pulled from my waist his weapon and gave it to him.
“I then began looking for the inmate who had incriminated me
in the previous incident in the prison compound which caused my being jailed in
the close-confinement cells. I then
asked Pakpak as to where is
Jimmy (Refugia) and he pointed Refugia
to me who was then at the ceiling.
“When I saw Refugia, I also climbed
and pulled him down. When he fell down
the floor, I stabbed him and after that I left Jimmy (Jacinto) who was already
fatally wounded. Then, I began looking
for another of our enemies. I then saw
Manuel Cayetano who was already wounded. I took the club from Emerito
Abella and began beating Cayetano
with it until I stopped beating him when I saw that he was no longer
moving. I gave the club to Kulot (Emerito Abella) and rested for awhile.
“I then saw Pakpak grappling with Bundat and Pakpak called for me
to help him. I went near them and I
stabbed Bundat once.
And Bundat lessened his grip from Pakpak then began stabbing Bundat
(sic) and when he saw that Bundat is (was) dead, he
mixed with the rest.
“Then, he asked me: ‘Ano ba ito
Cusa (Agustin), aamin rin ba ako?’. Then, I told him: ‘siempre tapos na rin
iyon‘ and he kept quiet. I then continued my rest until at (sic) the
employees and guards arrived at the jail.
While the rest of my companions continued stabbing and beating our
victims, I rested.” (Exh.
B, pp. 63-64, Record).
Gavilaguin’s narrative of the massacre
is as follows:
“15. Q. – Will you narrate to me the story
of said incident?
“A. – At about 11:55 a.m., June
27, 1965, we were sent out of the cell for our lunch. After the lunch, I called the jailer (trusty
police) the person of Reynon and told him: ‘Pare, we finished our meal. Please come and I’ll tell you something.’
Then, he approached and said: ‘What?’ ‘I
have a pillow to be given to Rudy Pakpak for
sale. You may inspect it if you wish.’
“After (he) inspected, he called Rudy Pakpak
and said: ‘Will you buy this pillow?’
and Rudy said: ‘Open the door so that I
can see it.’ Reynon opened the door and when it was
opened, Sofronio Villegas (prisoner) held him (Reynon) tightly, and I grabbed the key from the hand of Reynon. When I got
(it), I pushed him away and opened the door.
When I got inside the cell, I said:
‘Visaya at Ilocano
ay tumabi.’
“My companions followed me inside in the big cell and I told
them to watch on the door. I saw trusty
police Budoy and (he) closed the door and said: ‘Mamatay kayong lahat diyan.’
“When I went to the middle part of the big cell, I met Abiki having Sigi-sigi tatoo. I stabbed him
and he was able to grab the weapon (sharp-pointed stakes) taken from me. When he held my hand, he told me: ‘Kalugar (sic), Pilay, you help me. Tulongan mo ako. Malaki masyado ito.’
“Pilay approached us and I gave him
the blade and he used the same to cut off the neck of Abiki. Abiki released me
and I continued stabbing for several others (sic). When I saw him down, I left him and went to
the others. I saw some Sigi?sigi members.
I also stabbed them after which I told Rudy Pakpak: ‘Hilahin mo dito ang mga
patay.’
“I saw some who were still alive and I told him: ‘Beat them on the head with the wooden
clubs.’ Afterwards, the employees arrived and shouted: ‘You surrender’ and we called Mr. Jorge for
whom we made the surrender by giving to him our weapons such as sharpened
stakes and others.
“Then, we were ordered to go down naked with hands tied and
thereafter, we were instructed to go to the place near the toilet until the
Judge arrived. The dead ones were
brought down x x x.” (Exh. E, pp. 76-77 or 55-56,
Record).
The trial court forthwith rendered a partial decision convicting
the nineteen accused, who pleaded guilty, of the complex crime of multiple murder
and multiple frustrated murder, qualified by treachery and premeditation
(alleged in the information) and with the special aggravating circumstance of
quasi-recidivism which was not offset by their plea of guilty.
In addition, recidivism, which was alleged in the information,
was appreciated against Abella, Añover,
Cidro, Dionisio, Enrigan, Galanto, Gavilaguin, Hernandez, Loraña, Maldecir, Opsiar, Rolando Pangilinan, Quijano, Ricafort, Taboy, Villaflor and Villegas.
Reiteration, which was also alleged in the information, was
appreciated against Abella, Gavilaguin,
Maldecir, Villaflor, Villarama and Dionisio.
Eighteen accused who pleaded guilty were sentenced to death. Rebutaso, the
nineteenth accused who also pleaded guilty, was sentenced to cadena perpetua
(should be reclusion perpetua). All of them were ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs
of each of the fourteen victims (Decision of March 5, 1966, p. 238, Expediente of Criminal Case No. 9405).
Those who were convicted were sent to the national
penitentiary. The eighteen accused
(including Ignacio) who pleaded not guilty were tried. Upon motion of the fiscal, on the ground of
lack of evidence, the trial court dismissed the case as to Perfecto Bilbar (page 299, Expediente).
After trial, the lower court in its decision of September 14,
1969 convicted twelve of the said eighteen defendants, namely, (1) Apolonias, (2) Astrologia, (3) Barbajo, (4) Cabcaban, (5) Carballo, (6) Cuizon, (7) Duran,
(8) Francisco, (9) Ignacio, (10) Pangilinan, (11) Provido, Jr. and (12) Tagana, of
the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder with the
aggravating circumstances of premeditation and quasi-recidivism (treachery was
not mentioned).
The trial court sentenced to death each of the said twelve
accused (in addition to the eighteen “close-confined” prisoners who
pleaded guilty and were already sentenced to death in the trial court’s 1966
partial decision) and ordered them to pay solidarily
an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen
victims, namely, Abique, Bulatao,
Camo, Castillo, Castro, Cayetano,
Fuentes, Magpantay, Pacon,
Padilla, Palino, Refugia,
Sanchez and San Miguel. The twelve
defendants were further ordered to pay solidarily an
indemnity of three thousand pesos to each of the frustrated murder victims, Numeriano Reynon, Juan del Rosario and Bartolome de
Guzman.
For lack of evidence, a verdict of acquittal was rendered for six
accused, namely, Apolinario, Bilbar,
Gaylan, Gelle, Lagarto and Sardenia (Decision of
September 14, 1969, page 400, Expediente).
So, thirty of the thirty-seven accused were sentenced to death. The case of Rebutaso,
who was sentenced to cadena perpetua and who did not appeal, is not under review.
The death sentence imposed upon Astrologia
is likewise not under review because it was not promulgated. After the trial, he was returned to the
national penitentiary for security reasons.
On October 10, 1969
he was erroneously paroled because the Board of Pardons and Parole was not
informed that he was sentenced to death in the Davao court’s decision of September 14, 1969 (Pages 413-4 of Expediente and pages 1, 152 and 159, Rollo).
After the rendition of that decision or during the pendency of this case, death ended the agonies of ten of
the twenty-nine accused who were sentenced to death. The ten dead defendants were Añover, Cidro, Cuizon, Galanto, Maldecir, Opsiar, Roberto Pangilinan, Rolando Pangilinan, Ricafort and Villaflor (Pages 98,
125, 171, 176, 181, 212, 336-B, 662, 717 and 750, Volumes I and II of the Rollo).
The death penalty imposed on the remaining nineteen accused
named in the title of this case (including Abella,
Apolonias and Villegas who escaped from confinement,
page 158, Rollo), is the one under automatic review
“as law and justice shall dictate”.
Review of death sentence on those who pleaded guilty. – It may be recapitulated that of the
nineteen accused in the death row, ten, namely (1) Abella,
an escapee, (2) Dionisio, (3) Enrigan,
(4) Gavilaguin, (5) Hernandez, (6) Loraña, (7) Quijano, (8) Taboy, (9) Villarama (he
allegedly killed on February 12, 1976 a fellow prisoner in the national
penitentiary, page 712, Volume II of Rollo), and (10)
Villegas, an escapee, pleaded guilty upon arraignment and in open court
ratified their extrajudicial confessions which were sworn to before the
municipal judge. They were sentenced to
death in the trial court’s 1966 partial decision.
Nine of the ten were among the sixteen “close-confined”
prisoners in the three small cells who invaded the big cell. The tenth, Dionisio,
was confined in the big cell.
After a perusal of their confessions, we find that their
admission of guilt therein is corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti or the fact that the massacre described
therein actually took place.
The requirements of section 20, Article IV of the Constitution
with respect to extrajudicial confessions are not applicable to the confessions
herein because they were taken before the effectivity
of the Constitution or before January
17, 1973 (Magtoto vs. Manguera,
L-37201-02, Simeon vs. Villaluz, L-37424 and People
vs. Isnani, L-38929, all decided on March 3, 1975, 63
SCRA 4).
Counsel de officio contends that the accused made
an improvident plea of guilty because the lower court did not apprise them of
the meaning and consequences of their plea.
Reliance is placed on the dictum that in capital cases “it is
advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the
guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant” (U.S.
vs. Talbanos, 6 Phil. 541, 543).
Also cited is the admonition that “judges are duty-bound to
be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he
understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable
conviction” (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., L-19491,
August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798, 817).
And the long settled rule is that in case a plea of guilty is
made in capital cases “the proper and prudent course to follow is to take
such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material
allegations of the information, including the aggravating circumstances
therein enumerated, not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid
the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly
understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of
his plea” (People vs. Bulalake, 106 Phil. 767,
770. See People vs. Baluyot,
L-32752-3, January 31, 1977,
75 SCRA 148).
As already indicated in our recital of the proceedings below, the
trial court, in order to comply with the procedure in capital cases when a plea
of guilty is entered, required the fiscal to present evidence. The latter presented the confessions of those
who pleaded guilty.
It is true that the trial judge did not adhere to the ritualistic
formula of explaining to the accused the meaning and consequences of their plea
of guilty and the nature of the aggravating circumstances.
Presumably, the trial court did not do so, not only because the
judicial confessions of the accused (pleas of guilty) were reinforced by their
extrajudicial confessions, but also because it was cognizant of the fact that
all the accused were quasi-recidivists who had already acquired experience in
criminal proceedings and had, therefore, some comprehension of what a plea of
guilty signifies.
We hold that in this case the accused did not make an improvident
plea of guilty. As held in U.S.
vs. Jamad, 37 Phil. 305, 318, it lies within the
sound discretion of the trial judge whether he is satisfied that a plea of
guilty has been entered by the accused with full knowledge of the meaning and
consequences thereof.
People vs. Yamson and
Romero, 109 Phil. 793, is a case similar to the instant case. In the Yamson
case two prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison killed
their fellow convict. At their
arraignment for murder, they pleaded guilty with the assistance of a counsel de
oficio.
They were forthwith convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death,
being quasi-recidivists.
The accused appealed. This
Court, in resolving the contention of counsel de oficio
that the accused had made an improvident plea, held that the trial judge must
have been fully satisfied that the accused entered the plea of guilty with full
knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof. That observation may be applied to the
instant case. (Same
holding in People vs. Perete, 111 Phil. 943 and
People vs. Yamson, 111 Phil. 406.)
Review of the death sentence on those who pleaded not guilty. – As to the other nine accused, who pleaded
not guilty and were tried and sentenced to death, namely, Apolonias,
Barbajo, Cabcaban, Carballo, Duran, Francisco, Ignacio, Provido,
Jr. and Tagana, it is necessary to make a painstaking
examination of the evidence in order to ascertain whether their guilt was
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Those nine accused were in the big cell (bartolina). The prosecution’s theory is that they
conspired with the sixteen raiders from the three small cells to kill the
fourteen victims and inflict injuries on the three other victims.
1. Maximo Apolonias alias Max. – He was born in Barrio Anas,
Dimasalang, Masbate.
He finished grade four. He was
convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Masbate
and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to six years and one day of prision
mayor, as maximum. He was
imprisoned in the national penitentiary on December 26, 1964.
He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8, 1965. He was twenty-four years old when he
testified on March 13, 1968.
He testified that when the massacre occurred he climbed the wall
of steel-matting. He allegedly did not
know what transpired when the sixteen “close-confined” raiders
entered the big cell. In his statement
of August 9, 1965, he denied
having joined the sixteen raiders. He
repeatedly declared that he could not have been involved in the massacre
because he was a new arrival in the penal colony. The massacre took place fifty days after his
arrival.
Witness Guevarra said that he did not
see Apolonias assaulting the victims (109 tsn November 16,
1966). Witnesses Del Rosario
and Rodrigo implicated Apolonias but did not state
definitely the acts perpetrated by the latter during the assault.
We find that the prosecution’s evidence does not establish beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of Apolonias. As to him, it is not sufficient to justify
the judgment of conviction.
2. Jose Barbajo
alias Joe. – He is a native
of Mabolo, Cebu City. He finished grade three. He was eighteen years old when he was
convicted of robbery. The Court of First
Instance of Cebu imposed upon him a penalty of six
years and eight months of prision mayor
(as a habitual delinquent he was not entitled to an indeterminate sentence)
plus three years, six months and twenty-one days for habitual delinquency. He was received in the national penitentiary
on July 9, 1964. He arrived in the Davao
Penal Colony on September 13, 1964.
He was twenty-five years old when he testified on March 12, 1968. He declared that he was sick when the
massacre occurred. He climbed the wall
of steel-matting. He said that he was
not a member of any prison gang.
Witness Guevarra identified Barbajo as a member of the Oxo
gang and as having beaten with a piece of wood one “Bandes”
(108, 115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18, 1966). Witness Del
Rosario implicated Barbajo and witness Rodrigo definitely testified that Barbajo supplied to his companions the pieces of wood which
they used in beating the victims (10 tsn July 25, 1967).
3. Catalino
Cabcaban alias Inday. – He was born in Barrio Asagna,
Tanjay, Negros
Oriental. He finished the fourth
grade. He was convicted of theft and
evasion of service of sentence. He was
confined in the national penitentiary starting August 29, 1962. He
arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15, 1964. He was twenty-six years old on October 20, 1967 when he testified.
In his statement (Exh.
DD), he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang
but he denied that he helped the sixteen raiders in assaulting the
victims. He testified that at the time
the massacre was being perpetrated he was clinging to the wall made of
steel-matting. His body was examined
while he was on the witness stand. It
was tattooed but not with the letters “OXO“.
Witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario, the
companions of Cabcaban in the big cell, testified
that Cabcaban was a member of the Oxo gang and that he helped Abella’s
group in attacking the members of the Sigue-Sigue
gang in the big cell. Witness Rodrigo, a
prisoner acting as a special policeman, pointed to Cabcaban
as the person who beat Cabile with a piece of wood (4
tsn July 25,
1967). There is no victim
surnamed Cabile, as reported in the transcript, but
Rodrigo was probably referring to the victim named Salvador Abique
who was also identified by a witness as Tabique. The name “Cabile”
might be an error in transcription.
4. Rodolfo Carballo
alias Ruding Pakpak.
– He was born in Villadolid, Negros
Occidental. He resided at 958
Antipolo Street, Tondo, Manila. He finished grade six. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of
First Instance of Manila and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal.
He was brought to the New Bilibid
Prison on December 8, 1962. He arrived in the Davao
Penal Colony on June 20, 1964. He escaped from the penal colony on August 12, 1964 and was recaptured on
March 15, 1965. He was twenty-seven years old when he
testified on January 8, 1968.
He admitted in his statement to the investigator that he was a
member of the Oxo gang and had the Oxo tattoo mark. He
testified that during the massacre he climbed the wall of steel-matting but
someone pulled his feet and he fell down on the floor.
Witness Guevarra testified that Gavilaguin, a closely-confined prisoner, wanted to sell his
pillow to Carballo (who is identified in the
confessions as Ruding Pakpak),
a prisoner in the big cell. It was that
ruse which started the commotion (95-98 tsn November 16, 1966). Guevarra identified
Carballo as one of those who helped the sixteen
raiders (107 tsn November 17, 1966).
That testimony was corroborated by witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo.
5. Elino Duran. – He was born in Catbalogan,
Samar. He finished grade five. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of
First Instance of Samar and sentenced to six years
and one day of prision mayor to
fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal. He was brought to the national penitentiary
on December 18, 1962. He arrived in the Davao
Penal Colony on March 5, 1963. He was twenty-nine years old when he
testified on March 12, 1968.
In his statement and testimony, he denied any participation in
the massacre. He said that during the
riot he climbed the wall of steel-matting.
He said that he was not a member of the Oxo
gang but he believed that he was counted as an Oxo
sympathizer because he is a Visayan.
He admitted that he executed a statement and that the contents
thereof were true (Exh. EE). On the witness stand, He pointed to Ignacio
alias Pilay, Tagana, Astrologia, Cabcaban and Carballo alias Rudy as among those who took part in the
massacre.
In his statement, he identified Cuizon,
Roberto Pangilinan, Rolando Pangilinan,
Cabcaban, Lagarto, Apolonias, Astrologia, Ricafort, Carballo, Ignacio, Tagana and Dionisio as having
taken part in the killings (See No. 12, Exh. EE).
Prosecution eyewitnesses Guevarra,
Del Rosario and Rodrigo identified Duran as
having collaborated with the sixteen raiders in perpetrating the massacre.
6. Jose Francisco alias Karate. – He was born in Pila,
Laguna and resided at San Andres Extension, Manila. He finished the first year of high
school. He used to be a judo
instructor. In 1964, he was convicted of
robbery by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to imprisonment
for two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimim,
to eight years and one day of prision mayor,
as maximum (Exh. J-5). He was confined in the national penitentiary
on February 15, 1964. He was received in the Davao
Penal Colony on May 15, 1964
and confined in the big cell on June
25, 1965, or two days before the riot, because he was suspected of
having smuggled deadly weapons into the prison compound (pp. 93 or 115,
Record). He was twenty-five years old
when he testified on January 8, 1968.
He declared that when the raiders entered the big cell he stepped
aside, climbed the wall of steel-matting and prayed. However, witness Guevarra
identified Francisco as a member of the Oxo gang who
helped the raiders and who, armed with a wooden club, beat the victim, Gualberto Fuentes, who died (108, 114-115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18, 1966). Witness Del
Rosario included Francisco in his
wholesale identification of twelve assailants who helped the raiders from the
small cells.
Counsel de oficio, who
filed a brief for Francisco only, contended that the trial court erred in
holding that Francisco was a co-conspirator.
Said counsel alleged that Francisco was convicted of robbery (snatching)
because he was framed up by a certain Patrolman Liwanag
of the Manila police.
According to counsel, Francisco and one Roberto Gonzales (an actor) had
charged Liwanag with extorting money from the Karate
Club, of which Francisco was a member, and, in revenge, Liwanag
fabricated a complaint for robbery against Francisco who was convicted and sent
to the Davao Penal Colony. No evidence was presented in the lower court
by Francisco to prove that he was convicted on a trumped-up charge of robbery.
7. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. –
He was born in La Carlota, Negros Occidental. He finished grade five. He was convicted of murder, frustrated
murder, arson and evasion of service of sentence. He was received in the national penitentiary
on July 27, 1953. He arrived in the Davao
Penal Colony on September 22, 1961. He escaped three times from prison (Exh. J-12). He was thirty-eight years old when he
testified on March 12, 1968.
He declared that when the massacre began, he stood beside the
steel-matting. He saw his fellow
prisoner, Arsenio Guevarra
(the prosecution witness), carrying a pillow.
After the riot, he was investigated.
He said that he did not read his statement but he was just made to sign
it and he signed it so that he would not be maltreated. In his statement, he admitted he was a member
of the Oxo gang.
Guevarra said that he did not see
Ignacio helping the group (108 tsn November 17, 1966).
Witness Rodrigo, a prisoner acting as a special policeman, identified
Ignacio as a member of the Oxo gang and as the
prisoner who, during the riot, covered the door of the big cell with a blanket
and pieces of wood and who, armed with a wooden club, took part in beating the
victims (15-16 tsn July 25, 1967).
Witness Del
Rosario, in his wholesale
identification of the twelve prisoners who took part in the assault, included
Ignacio (222 tsn February 10, 1967).
8. Eugenio Provido, Jr. –
He was born in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo. He finished the sixth grade. He was convicted of theft and violations of
articles 157 and 178 of the Revised Penal Code.
He was received in the national penitentiary on December 3, 1959.
He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on February 29, 1964 (Exh. J-17). He was twenty-six years old when he testified
on July 10, 1968.
He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell he
was driven to a corner and was shielded by the other prisoners and in that
situation he heard the shouts of the rioters.
He said that he did not know what actually happened because he was
solicitous about his own personal safety.
He did not climb the steel-matting.
He said that during the investigation of the case, he was told that he
would be utilized as a State witness. He
denied that he was a member of the Oxo gang.
Witness Guevarra testified that he did
not know Provido (90 tsn November 16, 1966). However, when he was asked to point to his (Guevarra’s) companions in the big cell who helped Abella’s group, Guevarra fingered
Provido and identified him as a member of the Oxo gang and as having beaten the victims with a piece of
wood (Ibid, 108 and 115; 127 tsn Nov. 18,
1966).
Witness Rodrigo identified Provido as
having beaten the deceased Jose Magpantay with a
piece of wood (10-11 tsn July 25, 1967).
Witness Del
Rosario included Provido as among those who participated in the assault (222
tsn February
10, 1967).
9. Angel Tagana. – He was born
in Dulag, Leyte. He finished grade two. He resided in Pandacan,
Manila. He had six convictions for robbery with
physical injuries, malicious mischief and slander by deed and violations of
city ordinances. He was received in the
national penitentiary on June 15, 1963. He arrived in the Davao
Penal Colony on May 8, 1965
(Exh. J-9). He was twenty-six years old when he testified
on January 9, 1968.
He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell
and started stabbing his companions he ran to the side of the cell. He was not assaulted by anyone.
In his statement, he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang (p. 119 or 143, Record). Witness Guevarra
identified him as a member of that group and as having used a piece of wood in
beating one victim (115 and 127 tsn November 17, 1966). Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo also
pointed to Tagana as one of those who helped Abella’s group (222 tsn February 10, 1967 and 14-15 tsn July 25, 1967).
Counsels de oficio
contend that the trial court erred in holding that there was a conspiracy among
the accused. That contention has no
basis in the evidence. The record
supports the trial court’s finding that “conspiracy can logically be
inferred from the simultaneous and concerted acts of (the) sixteen raiders who,
after putting down the guard and entering the big cell, joined and combined
forces with their friends and associates-inmates of the big cell who were
waiting for the go-signal to commence the attack in pursuance of their criminal
objective”.
The trial court added that the acts and conduct of the accused
from the start of their aggression until the riot was suppressed were
characterized “by a swift, united and concerted movement that could
easily indicate a community of purpose, closeness of association and
concurrence of wills”, as shown particularly by the order of the two
“close-confined” prisoners, Abella and Villaflor, that the Visayans in
the big cell should stay on one side so that it could be ascertained that they
were the allies of the sixteen raiders.
The conspiracy among the accused was manifest and
indubitable. The massacre had been
planned by the sixteen “close-confined” prisoners in collaboration
with the other members of the Oxo gang in the big
cell.
Counsel de oficio assails
the credibility of witnesses Guevarra and Del
Rosario. These two witnesses were
prisoners in the big cell. They had
sufficient opportunity to observe what took place during the hour-long
riot. Del Rosario was himself a victim.
Counsel de oficio
contends that reiteration is not aggravating because there is no evidence that
the said accused had been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty. On the
contrary, according to counsel, the said accused were still serving sentence
for their prior convictions.
Counsel’s contention is correct as to Abella,
Dionisio, Gavilaguin, Maldecir, Villaflor and Villarama against whom reiteration was considered
aggravating. They were still serving
sentence for their previous crimes at the time the riot occurred. In order that the aggravating circumstance of
reiteration may be taken into account, it should be shown that the offender
against whom it is appreciated had already served out his sentences for the
prior offenses (People vs. Layson, L-25177, October
31, 1969, 30 SCRA 92, 97).
But since the accused are quasi-recidivists, the fact that
reiteration cannot be appreciated against them and that their plea of guilty is
mitigating will not affect the imposition of the death penalty for the murders
and frustrated murders which they had committed.
The other contention of counsel de oficio
that all the accused should be given the benefit of the extenuating circumstance
of voluntary surrender to the authorities is not
correct. The accused did not surrender
voluntarily and unconditionally. They
rejected the initial requests for their surrender. They surrendered after prison officials armed
with guns demanded their surrender. They
chose the person to whom they would surrender, namely, Jorge, the overseer.
Defense counsel’s contention that treachery and evident
premeditation are not aggravating in this case is untenable. The accused, who
were all armed, unexpectedly attacked the unarmed and defenseless Sigue-Sigue inmates in the big cell who had no means
of escaping from that cell and who could not avoid their assaults. The victims did not offer any resistance.
The accused had deliberately planned the attack as shown by the
manner in which they executed the massacre.
They provided themselves with improvised weapons. No one among the accused sustained any
injuries or was exposed to any risk arising from any defense that the victims
might have made. The victims were not
able to make any retaliation. Moreover,
there was abuse of superiority which absorbed cuadrilla.
In People vs. Layson, L-25177, October
31, 1969, 30 SCRA 92, the four accused, also inmates
of the Davao Penal Colony, who were armed with bladed
weapons, entered on January 17, 1964 the cell of their fellow prisoner, locked
the door thereof and stabbed him to death.
It was held that the crime was murder aggravated by treachery, evident
premeditation and quasi-recidivism.
The Layson case is similar to
the instant case. The difference between
the two cases is that in the instant case, more prisoners were involved and there
were seventeen victims.
Motion for new trial. – On October
30, 1973 or after the Solicitor General had filed his brief, twenty
of the thirty accused, who were sentenced to death, filed, personally or
without the assistance of counsel, a motion for new trial. Those twenty movants
are Añover alias Abarca
(who died on June 18, 1976),
Barbajo, Cabcaban, Carballo, Cuizon (who died on November 6, 1977), Dionisio, Duran, Enrigan,
Francisco, Gavilaguin, Hernandez, Ignacio, Loraña, Opsiar (who died on April 2, 1974), Provido,
Quijano, Tagana, Taboy, Villarama and Villegas.
Of those twenty, ten accused, namely, Dionisio,
Enrigan, Gavilaguin,
Hernandez, Loraña, Opsiar, Quijano, Taboy, Villarama and Villegas had pleaded guilty. Nine of the ten were “close-confined”
prisoners in the three cells. The tenth,
Dionisio, was in the big cell. The other ten of the twenty accused were from
the big cell. They pleaded not guilty
and they were tried.
The twenty movants alleged in their
motion for new trial that those who pleaded guilty did so due to “the
coercion, harassment and intimidation applied by the prison authorities”
or due to “third degree” and other brutalities. They further alleged that one of the “fabricated
(prosecution) witnesses” was Guillermo Ignacio who made a retraction and
that another witness, Elino Duran, was forced to
sign his affidavit.
The Solicitor General commented that the grounds relied upon by
the movants are not the grounds for a new trial under
sections 2 and 3, Rule 121 and section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. He correctly observed that Ignacio and Duran
were not utilized as prosecution witnesses.
Action on the motion for new trial was
deferred until the case is decided on the merits. After an evaluation of the said motion, we find
that it is devoid of merit and is not in order.
The record does not show that Ignacio retracted his
statement. Duran never claimed that he
was intimidated into making his statement.
Those movants who pleaded guilty were
convicted on the basis of their confessions which they ratified during the
trial. On the other hand, those who
pleaded not guilty were given a fair trial.
They testified and they had the opportunity to prove their
innocence. Their testimonies (except Apolonias‘ testimony) did not generate any reasonable doubt
as to their guilt.
Propriety of the imposition of the death penalty on the
eighteen accused. – As to the
fourteen deceased victims, the crime is murder qualified by treachery which
absorbs abuse of superiority and cuadrilla. As to those who pleaded guilty, that
mitigating circumstance is offset by evident premeditation. Recidivism is aggravating as to some
accused. As to all the eighteen accused,
quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which justifies the imposition
of the penalty for murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death)
in its maximum period or death.
The fiscal and the trial court treated the fourteen killings and
the injuries inflicted on the three victims as a complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. The trial court imposed a single death
penalty.
However, the Solicitor General submits that the accused should be
convicted of fourteen separate murders and three separate frustrated murders
and punished, respectively, by fourteen death penalties and three
penalties for the frustrated murders because the killings and injuries were
effected by distinct acts.
It is argued that article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable to this case. Cited in
support of that stand is the ruling in U.S. vs. Ferrer,
1 Phil. 56 that “where the defendant has fired two shots, killing one
party and wounding another, the acts constitute two distinct crimes, each of
which must be tried separately”.
We hold that the Solicitor General’s submission is not
well-taken. In the De los Santos case, supra, which involved two
riots on two successive days in the national penitentiary wherein nine
prisoners were killed (five on the first day and four on the second day), the
fourteen members of the Sigue-Sigue gang who
took part in the killing were convicted of multiple murder (a complex crime)
and not of nine separate murders. Only
one death penalty was imposed. It was
commuted to reclusion perpetua for
lack of necessary votes.
There is no compelling reason for not deciding this case in the
same way as the De los Santos
case. The two cases are very similar.
The ruling in the De los Santos
case is predicated on the theory that “when, for the attainment of a
single purpose which constitutes an offense, various acts are executed, such
acts must be considered only as one offense”, a complex one (People vs. Peñas, 66 Phil. 682, 687.
See People vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 236, 302
and 906, where the falsification of one hundred twenty-eight warehouse receipts
during the period from November 1930 to July 6, 1931, which enabled the accused
to swindle the bank in the sum of one million four hundred thousand pesos was
treated as only one complex crime of estafa through
multiple falsification of mercantile documents and only one penalty was
imposed).
That holding in the De los Santos
case is buttressed by some precedents.
Thus, in People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64 and 82, 102-103, where
seventy-seven Constabularymen murdered six policemen
(including the assistant chief of police) and two private citizens and gravely
wounded three civilians, they were convicted of multiple murder with grave
injuries, a complex crime. The eleven
sergeants and corporals were sentenced to death while the sixty-six privates
were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. (See People vs. Umali,
96 Phil. 185, re sedition and multiple murder.)
In People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil. 27,
nineteen Moros, forming part of a band of one
hundred, massacred fourteen Constabularymen. They were charged and convicted of multiple murder, a complex crime.
Their ring leader was sentenced to death. The other eighteen accused were sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
In People vs. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975,
where on a single occasion around fifty Maranaos were
killed by a group of home guards (formerly Constabulary soldiers), the killing
was held to be only one complex offense of multiple homicide because it
“resulted from a single criminal impulse” and it was not possible to
determine how many victims were killed by each of the accused. (See U.S.
vs. Fresnido, 4 Phil. 522 where the killing of three
Constabulary soldiers on a single occasion was punished as a single homicide.)
In People vs. Manantan, 94 Phil. 831,
around eighty persons stationed on both sides of the highway in Sitio Salabusab, Bongabong, Nueva Ecija, fired at the group of Aurora Vda.
de Quezon riding in five
cars which were proceeding to Baler, Quezon Province. The group was going to attend the
inauguration of a monument in honor of President Manuel L. Quezon.
Killed as a result of the ambuscade were eleven persons, namely,
Mrs. Quezon, Baby Quezon,
Felipe Buencamino III, Mayor Ponciano
Bernardo of Quezon City,
Primitivo San Agustin, Antonio San Agustin, Pedro Payumo, two Constabulary lieutenants, one corporal and a
soldier.
Five persons were charged with multiple murder,
a complex crime, for complicity in the ambuscade. The trial court sentenced them to death. They appealed. The case as to three of the accused was
dismissed on the ground that their confessions were taken after they had been
tortured.
Two other accused, Pedro Manantan and Raymundo Viray, executed
extrajudicial confessions. At the trial,
they relied on alibis, which were not given credence.
This Court imposed upon Manantan and Viray only one death penalty for the multiple murder but for lack of necessary votes, the penalty was
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
As persuasive authority, it may be noted that the Court of
Appeals rendered the same ruling when it held that where a conspiracy animates
several persons with a single purpose, “their individual acts in pursuance
of that purpose are looked upon as a single act – the act of execution – giving
rise to a complex offense. The felonious
agreement produces a sole and solidary
liability: each confederate forms but a
part of a single being” (People vs. Leaño, 1 ACR 447, 461 per Albert, J., with Justices
Pedro Concepcion, Moran, Sison
and Paras concurring).
In the Leaño case, a group of
twenty-five persons armed with bolos, knives, sticks and other weapons, after
shouting to one another “Remember the agreement! Don’t be afraid!“,
attacked a group of excursionists coming from the Vintar
Dam in Ilocos Norte, who were riding in a Ford coupe
and omnibus.
As a result of the attack one excursionist was killed, three
suffered lesiones menos
graves and four suffered light injuries.
The trial court convicted the assailants of homicide only. The Solicitor General recommended that they
be convicted of lesiones menos
graves and lesiones leves
in addition to homicide. The Court of
Appeals held that the appellants were guilty of the complex crime of homicide
with lesiones menos
graves.
The holding that there is a complex crime in cases like the
instant case is similar to the rule in robbery with homicide, a special complex
crime, where the number of persons killed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery does not change the nature of the crime.
We have already stated that the conviction for multiple murder
and multiple frustrated murder, as a complex crime, qualified by treachery
(absorbing abuse of superiority and cuadrilla)
and aggravated by quasi-recidivism and evident premeditation (offset by plea of
guilty) and recidivism, as to some accused, as shown in the record, should be
affirmed.
The death penalty was properly imposed in conformity with
articles 48, 160 and 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The indemnity of six thousand pesos should be
increased to twelve thousand pesos for each set of heirs of the fourteen victims.
However, justice should be tempered with mercy. Considering the circumstances which drove the
accused to massacre their fellow prisoners, they deserve clemency. The death penalty should be commuted to reclusion
perpetua.
The following observations of this Court in the De los Santos
case have some relevancy to this case:
“But the members of the Court cannot in conscience concur in
the death penalty imposed, because they find it impossible to ignore the
contributory role played by the inhuman conditions then reigning in the
penitentiary, vividly described by the trial judge in his decision.
“It is evident that the incredible overcrowding of the
prison cells, that taxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance
of ten centavos per meal for each prisoner, must have rubbed raw the nerves
and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates, and predisposed them to all sorts
of violence to seize from their owners the meager supplies from outside in
order to eke out their miserable existence.
“All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed
like wolf packs on the weak, and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry for the
control of the prisoners, abetted by the inability of the outnumbered guards to
enforce discipline, and which culminated in violent riots. The government cannot evade responsibility
for keeping prisoners under such subhuman and Dantesque
conditions.
“Society must not close its eyes to the fact that if it has
the right to exclude from its midst those who attack it, it has no right at all
to confine them under circumstances that strangle all sense of decency, reduce
convicts to the level of animals, and convert a prison term into prolonged
torture and slow death.” (See People vs. Dahil, L-30271, June 15, 1979.)
Justice Barredo believes that in a case
like the instant case, where, since the commission of the multiple murder and
multiple frustrated murder in 1965 or more than fourteen years ago, the accused
have been in confinement and in fact they have been in confinement for other
offenses even prior to 1965, the death penalty should be commuted to reclusion
perpetua.
WHEREFORE, following the precedent established in the aforecited De los Santos
case, the death penalty imposed by the lower court is reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
The indemnity of six thousand pesos is increased to twelve thousand
pesos. The indemnities for the
frustrated murders are affirmed.
Defendant Maximo Apolonias
is acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., concurs. Please see my concurring opinion Peo.
Vs. Borja et al, G.R. No. L-22947.
Makasiar, J., in the result.
Santos, J., is abroad.