G.R. No. L-38625. October 23, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO ROSALES, LUIS ROSALES AND SANTOS CARCER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
PER CURIAM:
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of
the death sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal,
on Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer on December 24, 1971 and of the
decision promulÂgated by the same court on March 24, 1973 imposing likewise, the death penalty on
Eduardo Rosales.
Eduardo Rosales, Santos Carcer and Luis
Rosales, together with one Guillermo Natural were charged, in an information[1]
filed with the Criminal Circuit Court on December 22, 1971, with the crime of Murder, thus:
“That on or about November 16, 1970, in the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, all said accused, while then confined at the said institution
and identified as Bicol Region Masbate
Gang (BRM)-members conspiring, confederating and acting
together, the said accused Eduardo Rosales and William Natural being then gang
leaders of the BRM who gave the orders to kill and
the accused Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer being then
each armed with an improvised deadly weapon, did then and there wilÂfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and wound
therewith one RENATO MARTIN, another convicted
prisoner serving final sentence in the same institution inflicting upon the
latter multiple stab wounds, while then unarmed and unable to defend himself as
a result of which the said Renato Martin died
instantly.
“That the offense when committed by the above accused was
attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and the generic
aggravating circumstances of premeditation, the accused Santos Carcer being a recidivist having been convicted for MURDER
on AugÂust 30, 1968 by the CFI of Camarines Sur an offense identical with the present case, the accused
Eduardo Rosales, being a habitual delinquent having been convicted for
frustrated homicide on December 1, 1962 by the CFI, Manila and an escapee twice
convicted on March 16, 1966 and July 5, 1967.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
The four accused,
assisted by counsel de officio Atty. Jose O. Galvan, were
arraigned on December 24, 1971. Luis
Rosales and Santos Carcer pleaded guilty. The prosecution was not required to present
evidence. On the same day, the trial
judge “dictated and promulgated in open court” the following death
sentence on Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer:
“When the accused were arraigned today, pursuant to Section
1, Rule 116 of the New Rules of Court, in relation to Rule 118 thereto, duly
assisted by their counsel de officio, Atty. Jose O. Galvan, then pleaded
GUILTY.
“The Court apprised the accused of
the consequence of their plea of
guilty and the latter manifested that they are aware of the fact that they will be punished in accordance with law, probably
death.
“The Court further asked them to make a thorough soul
searching and to examine their hearts and minds as to the
consequence of their acts to the effect that the Court may impose upon them the death penalty and the
accused manifested that they are
ready to die in the electric chair, and that they thought of pleading guilty a year ago.
“Pursuant to
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court has no alternative but
to impose the death penalty, they having been serving sentences for crimes
committed by final conviction.
“WHEREFORE, in view of the spontaneous and voÂluntary
confession of guilt made by the accused Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer, the Court finds them GUILTY, beyond reasonable
doubt, of the crime of Murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as charged in the information, and hereÂby sentences each one of them to
suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of
the offended party in the amount of P12,000.00; to pay jointly and severally
the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages plus another P10,000.00 as exemplary
damage’ and to pay their
proportionate share of the costs.
“x x x x
x x x x x.”[2]
The Order setting the trial of Eduardo Rosales and Guillermo
Natural, who both pleaded not guilty was likewise
issued on that date.
Trial on the merits against Eduardo Rosales commenced on January 2, 1972 with the presentation
by the prosecution of Guillermo Natural who turned state witness. And on March 24, 1973, the Court a quo convicted Eduardo
Rosales of murder and imposed the death penalty on him in a decision[3]
the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Eduardo Rosales, GUILTY, as
mastermind, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Murder, as defined in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the inÂformation, the
Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the
heirs of the offended party the amount of P12,000.00, jointly and severally
with the other two accused, Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer;
to pay the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages, jointly and severally with
the other accused and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, jointly and
severally also with the other accused; and to pay his proportionate share of
the costs.”
Following the imposition by the lower court of the death penalty
on Eduardo Rosales, his case was elevated to Us for
manÂdatory review. The elevation of the
death sentence imposed on Santos Carcer and Luis
Rosales would come later for the reason, noted by the Solicitor General in his
Comment[4] dated August 13, 1975, “that the
Clerk of Court of the trial court perhaps through oversight, failed to forward
to this Honorable Court a copy of the judgment of the lower court dated
December 24, 1971 against the two accused Santos Carcer
y Severino and Luis Rosales y Rivera
also for the automatic review thereof pursuant to Section 9, Rule 122 of the
Revised Rules of Court, since said two accused, although they pleaded guilty to
the charge, were still sentenced to the capital penalty of death, nor was the
attention of this Honorable Court called to the existence of said judgÂment
against said two co-accused when the records of this case were forwarded to
this Honorable Court for review of the judgÂment of conviction imposing the
death penalty on appellant Eduardo Rosales.” Acting on the subsequent
motion of the Solicitor General for the consolidation in the instant case of
the two trial court’s judgments, respectively, dated December 24, 1971 and March 24, 1973, We
allowed the filing by the Solicitor General of a consolidated plaintiff-appellee’s brief against appellants Eduardo Rosales, Luis
Rosales and Santos Carcer.
Appellants Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer,
through counsel de oficio, now
question the procedure followed by the trial court as defective and deficient
on the grounds that the steps necessary to ascertain whether the accused
understood the meaning of their plea of guilty were not taken and that evidence
needed to support the allegations of the information were not received. They pray for a remand of their case to the
court a quo for rearraignment and
further proceedings.[5]
Appellant Eduardo Rosales, upon the other hand, questions, as not
supported by evidence and the law, the trial court’s holdÂing that he was the
mastermind in the killing by Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer
of Renato Martin and that he conspired with his
co-accused in the commission of the crime.[6]
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of November 16, 1970, a member of the Bicol Region-Masbate (BRM) gang was killed at the back of Dormitory No. 4 of the
New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa,
Rizal. It was
suspected that the killer came from Dormitory No. 4, which housed the rival
gang of the BRM.
At about 6:30 o’clock
in the evening of the same day, Eduardo Rosales, BRM gangleader (bosyo) at and
inmate of Dormitory 6-A where most of the BRM’s were
placed, called for Guillermo Natural alias William Natural, their
dormitory squad leader. Called Mayor, Natural is some kind of spokesman of the inmates, appointed by
prison authorities who attends to the needs of and investigates his co-inmates.[7]
Eduardo Rosales informed Natural of the plan to kill Renato
Martin, a Tagalog who had been seen giving signals to the occupants of Dormitory No. 4 prior to the killing at the
back thereof of the BRM gang member, to avenge the
death of their comÂrade. Natural tried
to dissuade Eduardo from pursuing his plan but the latter was unmoved and
threatened to kill him if he would interfere with the plan. While they were conferring, Eduardo called
for Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer and presented them
to Natural as the persons who had been designated to carry out the plan. Eduardo then climbed the ceiling, took two
bladed weapons which he had concealed thereat and tossed them to Luis Rosales
and Santos Carcer below.
A little later, the supper rations of the inmates arrived. Instead of eating supper, Luis Rosales and
Santos Carcer proceeded to the comfort room. Eduardo stayed at a place about 12 meters
away from the comfort room while Guillermo Natural, as priorly
ordered by Eduardo, stationed himself at the door of the dormitory so that
nobody could report the matter to the dormitory keeper. Not long after, the victim Renato Martin, having had his supper, went to the comfort
room to wash up. While inside the
comfort room, Renato Martin was assaulted and
repeatedly stabbed to death, first, by Luis Rosales and thereafter, by Santos Carcer.
After the killing of Renato Martin,
Eduardo ordered Natural to report to the dormitory keeper that there was a dead
man at the comfort room. It took
sometime before Natural could comply with Eduardo’s order as it was then
raining but Natural did as he was told as soon as the keeper, Nilo Realibut, who came to remove
the drum container and supper left-overs, arrived at
about 8:00 o’clock in the
evening. Keeper Realubit
proceeded to the comfort room but found nothing inside, the dead man apparently
having been removed before Realubit’s arrival. As he was about to come out of the comfort
room, Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer rushed to him,
surrendered two bladed weapons, and told him that they were the ones who
stabbed Renato Martin dead with the use of the
weapons they were surrendering. The body
of Renato Martin was then brought out and sent to the
prison hospital.
It is on record that on the same night of November 16, 1970, immediately after their
surrender to Realubit, Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer were investigated at and executed sworn statements[8]
before the investigation section of the New Bilibid
Prison. Luis Rosales gave the statement
before prison guard Abraham de las Alas confirming
the details of his participation in the crime – that upon orders given by
Eduardo Rosales and William Natural, he and Santos Carcer
stabbed to death Renato Martin inside the toilet of
their dormitory using improvised deadly weapons (matalas)
furnished by Eduardo Rosales for the reason that Martin had been seen giving
signals to the Dormitory No. 4 inmates,
their gang-mate’s suspected killers.
Santos Carcer gave virtually the same story to
prison guard Francisco A. Cometa Jr. except that he
named only Natural as the one who gave both the orders
to kill and the weapons of the crime.
The following day, at 9:55 o’clock
in the morning of November 17, 1970, Eduardo
Rosales likewise executed a sworn statement[9]
before prison guard Buenaventura dela Cuesta. Confronted with the information that he had
been pointed to by Luis Rosales as the one who gave the order to kill Renato Martin, Eduardo stated “Yayamanding
tinuturo ho ako niya, a-aminin ko na“. He
confirmed Luis Rosales’ and Carcer’s statements that
vengeance was the reason behind the killing of Martin: “Bilang ganti po sa kasama naming
sinaksak ng mga Manila boy kahapon
din.” He
admitted that he was the leader of the BRM gang at
Dormitory No. 6-A and that during the time that Martin was killed,
he was inside their dormitory, about five arms-length away from the toilet
where Martin was slain. Guillermo
Natural, on the other hand, when investigated by prison guard Jesus B. Tomagan on the same day at about the same time, denied the
truth of Carcer’s statement that he (Natural) ordered
Carcer to stab Renato
Martin and that he was the one who gave Carcer the
death weapon.[10]
Natural, however, affirmed that Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer
were the ones who stabbed Martin at the comfort room, and like Eduardo Rosales,
he stated that the killÂing was motivated by revenge: “Dahil sa
ang kalugar namin ay sinaksak sa likod ng brigada 4 noong araw ding iyon.” Natural
also declared that Eduardo Rosales was the leader of the BRM
gang.
During the trial of Eduardo Rosales, prison guards Abraham de las Alas and Francisco A. Cometa
Jr. who took, respectively, the statements of Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer, testified to the regularity of the taking of the
statements of Luis and Santos,[11]
identified the statements presented before the trial court as the statements of
the latter executed before them and identified, as well, the signatures of Luis
Rosales and Santos Carcer. Guillermo Natural, who had, by then, turned
state witness, testified on the other details of the crime heretofore narrated.[12]
Ricardo Ibarrola Jr., medico legal officer of
the National Bureau of Investigation likewise testified[13]
and identified the necropsy report which he prepared showing that Renato’s death was caused by multiple stab wounds in the
body.
1
We cannot grant the plea of appellants Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer to have their case remanded to the trial court for rearraignment and further proceedings. It cannot be said that they did not
understand the meaning and consequences of the plea of guilty that they entered
before the trial court. Both Luis
Rosales and Santos Carcer had acquired some
experience in criminal procedure,[14]
the former having been priorly convicted of theft of
large cattle and the latter of the crime of parricide, a case similar to the
present one. And they both executed
extraÂjudicial confessions accepting their participation in the killing of Renato Martin, stating the full details of such
participation. As in People vs. Duaban,[15]
We find it reasonable to assume here that both Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer fully appreciated the nature and gravity of the
second crime that they were charged with and that, for such reason, the trial
court did not find any necesÂsity in requiring the prosecution to present its
evidence.
On top of this, it can be seen from the foregoing narration of
facts that all the evidence necessary to sustain the conviction of both Luis
Rosales and Santos Carcer were, in fact, presented
before the trial court. Though this was
done during the trial of Eduardo Rosales and not after the arraignment and plea
of Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer when the trial
court could have, more properly and prudently, taken the evidence, We are now,
nonetheless, in possession of all that is needed to make a careful and thorough
study on the correctness of the imposition of the death penalty on Luis Rosales
and Santos Carcer.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that aside from the witnesses that
had been presented in the trial of Eduardo Rosales, no others were available beÂcause
the rest of the inmates of Dormitory No. 6-A were afraid to testify[16]
on the case thus necessitating the services of Guillermo Natural as state
witness to shed fuller light on the crime done on November 16, 1970. And We now hold that
the guilt of Luis Rosales and
Santos Carcer have been proven beyond reasonable
doubt and that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 160 of the Revised Penal
Code, the death penalty was properly imposed on them. It would now be a useless ritual to remand
the case to the trial court for another arraignment and for further
proceedings.
2
We fully agree with the submission of the Solicitor General that
the guilt of Eduardo Rosales as the mastermind in the murder of Renato Martin has been proved by the prosecution’s evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. We have studied
the testimonies including the sworn statement dated January 9, 1972 of Guillermo Natural, the accused
turned state witness, with the greatest care, caution and circumspection[17]
and We are convinced of its credibility. Appellant Eduardo Rosales tried to make much
of the fact that during the hearing on January
3, 1972 and in the first written statement executed by Natural on November 17, 1970, Natural did not
reveal his (Rosales’) participation in the crime. As revealed by Natural during the hearing on January 21, 1972 and in his sworn
statement dated January 4, 1972,
he was, as early as the time when he was told by Eduardo about the plan to kill
Martin, subjected to threats of being himself killed should he interfere with
the plan. Such threat, coming as it did
from Eduardo Rosales, was a real one considering that, as testified to by
dormitory keeper Nilo Realubit,
Eduardo was the bosyo of the BRM gang. Realubit revealed that “if a bosyo
utilizes his power, he could even order anybody to be killed by any member of
his gang.”[18]
Eduardo even admitted his headship of the BRM gang in
the statement made a day after the crime.
The fear generated by Eduardo’s threat persisted until the hearing on January 3, 1972. Prison guard Buenaventura de la Cuesta testified[19]
that in the afternoon of January 3,
1972, Guillermo Natural, escorted by his guards, came to his office
and told him that he (Natural) had a problem which he would like to tell Fiscal
Guerrero. Thus was the statement of
Natural taken on January 4, 1972
where he stated that: [20]
“T – Bakit mo naman ako napiling kausapin
kahapon ng ikaw ay ihatid dito ng inyong
escort?
S- Dahil
kayo ho ang nakakaalam ng kaso namin
at gusto kong ipaliwanag sa inyo kung bakit
ako hindi nagsabi ng katotohanan
sa husgado noong ako ay natanong
kung si Eduardo Rosales ay leader
ng BRM. Ang nasagot ko
ay assistant mayor siya at sabi
ko pa na nasa labas ng
brigada namin si Eduardo Rosales noong tanongin ako kung saan siya noong
saksakin si Martin. Gusto ko sanang kausapin
si Fiscal bago pag bista pero
pagdating namin doon sa husgado, hindi nagtagal, nagumpisa man kagad. Hindi pa nga ako
natanggalan ng posas.
“T- Ano
ang binabalak mo sanang sabihin kay Fiscal kung nakausap mo siya bago nagumpisa
ang bista?
S – Sabihin ko sana
sir na ihiwalay ako sa kasamaÂhan
ko dahil
pinagbantaan ako na papatayin nila
kung magtetestigo laban kay Eduardo. Noon pa ako binantaan pagkatapos kaming bistahan ni Fiscal Guerrero. Nandodoon man din siya noong sabihin
ni Fiscal na magtetestigo ako. Ngayon sabi sa akin ni
Eduardo na maskina ano ang gawin
sa akin wag ako magsasabi ng totoo
at ipapapatay niya ako.
“x x x x x x x x
x.”
After requesting that he be placed separately from his gang-mates,
he revealed all that he knew of the participation of Eduardo Rosales in the
killing of Renato Martin. Natural’s statement on such participation
dovetails with Eduardo Rosales’ own statements executed on November 17, 1970, one day after the crime.
There was, in his appeal, an effort on the part of Eduardo
Rosales to disown what he had stated on November 17, 1970 alÂleging that it was secured from him
by the investigators through force and violence.
We cannot accept this.
The statement of Eduardo Rosales bears all the earmarks of voluntariness and spontaneity. It had details which only Eduardo Rosales was
capable of knowing. He even delineated
his place in the heirarchy of BRM
gang leadership. Thus, at the very top
was a certain Rudy Regala; that he was one of the
four leaders at the next level and that at Dormitory No. 6-A, he was the sole
leader. Then too, it should be noted
that aside from Eduardo’s statement, there were three other extrajudicial
statements taken in this case – that of Luis Rosales, Santos Carcer and Guillermo Natural. Not one of these latter three complained
about the manner by which their statements were taken. And no reason was given why Eduardo Rosales
could have been differently treated.
There is furthermore, the fact that there never was an instance when
Eduardo Rosales denounced the alleged torture that was done to him before the
higher authorities of the New Bilibid Prison even if
he had the chance to do so. We thus
find, as We did in the case of Luis Rosales and Santos
Carcer, that the death penalty was correctly imposed
by the lower court on Eduardo Rosales following the provisions of Article 160
of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the decisions of the lower court dated
DecÂember 24, 1971 and March 24, 1973, respectively, imposing
the death penalty on Luis Rosales and Santos Carcer
and on Eduardo Rosales are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo,
Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., took no part.
[1]
Original Record, p. 1.
[2]
Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[3]
Ibid., p. 209.
[4]
Rollo, p. 91.
[5]
Ibid., p.
157.
[6]
Ibid., pp.
100-113.
[7]
Original t.s.n., pp. 63-64.
[8]
Original Records, p. 157 (Exh.
“D”) and p. 159, (Exh.
“I”).
[9]
Ibid., p. 156 (Exh.
“F”).
[10]
Ibid., p. 150 (Exh.
“A”).
[11]
Original t.s.n., pp. 47-52.
[12]
Ibid., pp. 78-94.
[13]
Ibid., pp. 10-18.
[14]
People vs. Nierra, et al., G.R.
No. L-32624, Feb. 12, 1980
citing People vs. Duaban, L-31912, August 24, 1979, 92 SCRA 743.
[15]
L-31912, August 24, 1979, 92 SCRA 743.
[16]
Report of PG-Investigator Jesus B. Tomagan,
Finding No. 4, p. 158, Original Records, Exh.
“H”.
[17]
People vs. Tabayoyong, G.R. No. L-31084, May 19, 1981.
[18]
Original t.s.n., p. 57.
[19]
Ibid., pp. 27-29.
[20]
Original Records, p. 155.