THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TANJALALI GAJALI ALIAS TANJA AND GOLDAM TOTO ALIAS PABLO, DEFENDANTS; TANJALALI GAJALI ALIAS TANJA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Gajali

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Tanjalali Gajali, also known as Tanja, and Goldam Toto, also known as Pablo, a criminal case for the complex crime of robbery in band with homicide and frustrated homicide. The accused were charged with swooping down upon a store and a house in Busay, Isabela, Basilan City, robbing the owners of money and valuables worth more than 5,000 pesos, killing Esteban Maningo, and wounding Epifanio Maquilan. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of how conspiracy is proved by circumstantial acts, how the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all, and how alibi crumbles against positive identification. It also shows the Supreme Court correcting the civil liabilities of a trial court judgment even as it affirms the conviction.

Procedural History

The amended information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Basilan City, docketed as Criminal Case Number 1827, against Tanjalali Gajali and Goldam Toto, together with five other persons who were never apprehended. Both accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Court of First Instance found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and of frustrated homicide, and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua for the first crime and to an indeterminate penalty for the second, with orders to indemnify the heirs of Esteban Maningo and to return or reimburse the robbed articles. Only Tanjalali Gajali appealed. The case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the judgment of conviction, and the Court reviewed the entire record.

Facts

In the late afternoon of 28 February 1967, at kilometer 9, Maligue, Isabela, Basilan City, Saham Muldam agreed with Alih Batoto, driver of the jeepney Hermax II, to hire the vehicle for a special trip to a show for a fare of 4 pesos. The trip began about an hour later. Along the way the group picked up more companions, and the driver recognized Usman Muldam and Goldam Toto, while the conductor, Antonio Sumilang, identified Tanjalali Gajali as part of the group. On the road, Saham asked the driver to change the destination to barrio Busay for an additional 2 pesos, and the group alighted near the bridge at about seven o'clock in the evening.

At about 7:25 that evening, Esteban Maningo's store in Busay was open and lighted by a petromax lamp. Esteban was seated on a shelf, his driver Jesus Angeles sat on a can of sugar near the door, and Epifanio Maquilan sat on a bench, all in conversation. Suddenly Tanjalali and the others rushed in through the door facing the Isabela to Lamitan road. Tanjalali poked a gun at Maquilan's stomach and shouted to his companions to go upstairs. One intruder tried to hack Jesus Angeles with a barong, but Angeles escaped through the back door. Another hacked Maquilan twice on the head and once on the shoulder, and he fell unconscious. Upstairs, Basilisa Maningo was praying before an altar when two men kicked open her door, held her by the hair, and demanded her money, holding a barong at her neck. Her hands trembled so badly that she could not open her wardrobe, and she handed the key to one of the men, who emptied it of money, watches, jewelry, and eyeglasses. Another man, later identified as Goldam Toto, guarded Mercedes Jalon and Emerita Uyao in the dining room and demanded to know where the old man kept his pistol.

Half an hour after his escape, Jesus Angeles returned with policemen. They found the lamp destroyed, the drawers opened, and Esteban Maningo sprawled under the stairs, killed with eleven slash wounds. The robbers had taken money and articles worth more than 5,000 pesos. Tanjalali's defense was alibi: that he worked as a coconut husker at a plantation from Monday to Thursday of that week and was asleep in the plantation quarters at seven o'clock that Tuesday evening. Goldam Toto claimed he was at home, and that Usman Muldam, with whom he was not on good terms, had invited him to join the group, an invitation he refused.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that a conspiracy existed among the malefactors.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the defense of alibi and in finding that the appellants were sufficiently and positively identified as participants in the crime.
• Whether or not the civil liabilities imposed by the trial court were correctly fixed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on criminal liability for conspiracy under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Article 17. Principals. The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

This bears on the case because, once conspiracy is established, every conspirator is a principal by direct participation, and the criminal act of one is the act of all.

The decision also applies the rule on the civil liability of principals under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

This bears on the case because it is the basis for holding both appellants jointly and severally liable for the indemnity and the restitution of the robbed articles.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the existence of a conspiracy was clear. The malefactors hired a jeep together to bring them close to the place of their intended victim; Saham hid their true destination by claiming they were going to a show, then asked the driver to bring them to Busay upon paying additional fare, without objection from his companions; they took the same jeep and alighted at the same place; and their acts in the store and house showed concerted action, down to Tanjalali's command to go upstairs while he held Maquilan and the deceased at bay. Since conspiracy was established, the criminal act of one is the act of all. Thus, even without direct evidence of who hacked and killed Esteban Maningo, and even though the widow did not recognize the person who took her money and articles, the killing and the asportation are chargeable to the appellants as much as to those who actually performed the acts.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellants were positively identified by prosecution witnesses who were in a position to recognize them. The conductor recognized Tanjalali as a passenger seated behind the driver. Maquilan, the surviving hacking victim, recognized Tanjalali as the one who thrust a gun at his stomach, and identified him again at the clinic. Jesus Angeles pointed to Tanjalali as one of the men who entered the store and gave the command to go upstairs, and recognized his voice even while outside the police station. Goldam Toto was also a passenger in the special trip, and Mercedes Jalon easily recognized him because he guarded her in the dining room lighted by a kerosene lamp, and she noticed his gold tooth. Against this positive identification, Tanjalali's alibi could not prevail. The Court also found no credence in the plantation work record, since it showed work from 27 February to 4 March while Tanjalali himself testified that he went home on Thursday and went with the police on Friday. As to Goldam Toto, the Court agreed with the trial court that his own declaration, that his enemy Usman invited him to join the robbery, defied logic and betrayed his participation.

On the third issue, the Court corrected certain errors of law in the dispositive portion. The indemnification to the heirs of Esteban Maningo should be increased to 12,000 pesos. That sum, the reimbursable value of the robbed money and articles in the amount of 5,295 pesos, and the indemnification to Epifanio Maquilan of 2,000 pesos should all be joint and several liabilities of the appellants, in view of the presence of conspiracy.

Doctrine

Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the malefactors before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing a common design and concerted action. Once conspiracy is established, the criminal act of one conspirator is the act of all, and each is liable as a principal for the entire crime, including the killing and the asportation, even if he did not personally perform every act. Alibi, a defense of denial and place, cannot prevail against positive identification by credible witnesses who had the opportunity to recognize the accused. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and where conspiracy exists, the civil liabilities of the conspirators for indemnity and restitution are joint and several.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modification, increasing the indemnity to the heirs of Esteban Maningo to 12,000 pesos and declaring the appellants jointly and severally liable for that indemnity, for the reimbursement of 5,295 pesos, and for the 2,000 pesos awarded to Epifanio Maquilan, with costs against Tanjalali Gajali.

Remember This

Memorize this line: once conspiracy is proved, the act of one is the act of all, and alibi cannot stand against positive identification. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy inferred from circumstantial acts and the joint and several civil liability of conspirators.