THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL., MIGUEL GAMAO AND KINOK PENDATUN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court at First
Instance of Davao finding the defendants Miguel Gamao and Kinok Pendatun guilty of the crime of robbery with double
homicide, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for
by law and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased
spouses Federico Planas and Saturnina
Singong de Planas in the
sum of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay the proportionate costs.

The evidence for the prosecution discloses that on the early
evening of January 3, 1957,
accused Miguel Gamao and Kinok
Pendatun, together with their other identified
companions who are still at large, broke into the house of the spouses Federico
Planas and Saturnina Singong de Planas at sitio Maybo, barrio Tacul, Bansalan, Davao.  Appellants were armed with bladed weapons – a
“kabasi” and a ‘barong”,
respectively.  The others were equally
armed with native bolos.  Entering by way
of the main and kitchen stairs, the intruders immediately started hacking the
couple who were eating their supper at the time.  Federico Planas
sustained, among others, “twelve (12) incised clean cut wounds at the
back”; his wife was found with “four (4) fatal big wounds at the back
almost a foot long and one foot deep which penetrated her intestines; one
shoulder punc­ture, 1 1/2 inches wide and 8 inches long.” After allegedly
taking a trunk belonging to the victims (which was later found in the bushes
nearby), the malefactors returned to the house of Kinok
Pendatun.

One Anselmo Mendoza dropped by the
spouses’ house on the morning of January
3, 1957+
to fulfill an appointment.  Finding the
couple already dead, he reported the matter to the barrio captain of Tacul, who in turn informed Lieutenant Januario
Maturan of the police force of Bansalan,
Davao.  Maturan, together
with three (3) of his policemen and one PC trooper, immediately proceeded to
the scene of the crime to make the proper investigation, arriving at Tacul on the morning of January 5.  The bodies of the victims were already in the
early stages of decomposition.  Evidently
they were killed while eating, as shown by the fact that there were still
unfinished portions of food on their plates when the policemen came.

The information filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Davao against appellants (the others had not been
apprehended) reads as follows:

“The undersigned accuses Miguel Gamao
and Kinok Pendatun Bila-an of the crime of Robbery in Band with Double Homicide,
under Art. 294 in relation to Art. 296 of the Re­vised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 18, committed as follows:

“That on or about January 3, 1957, in the Municipality of Bansalan, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-mentioned
accused, cons­piring and confederating together with Calim
Siya Bila-an, lranon Siya Bila-an,
Cutaysaban Bila-an and Ponso Bila-an, who are still at
large, and helping each other, armed with sharp cutting instruments and in a
band, with the use of violence upon persons, and with intent to gain, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the
following articles belonging to Federico Planas alias
Pedring and Saturnine Singong
de Planas, to wit:

One family trunk (contents undetermined)

One folded Maong cloth

Two men’s belt

Two women’s patadiong

Three women’s underwear (camison)

One rolled bundle of women’s clothes

Two maong pants

Six cans salmon

Three kilos sugar

One kilo salt

Two pieces working bolo

valued at 200.00 to their damage and preju­dice
in the aforesaid sum; and by reason and on occasion thereof, the said accused,
conspi­ring and confederating together and helping each other, with treachery
and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack Federico Planes
alias Pedring and his wife Saturnina
Singong de Planas with
sharp cutting instruments, thereby inflicting upon them mortal wounds which
caused their death.

“That the commission of the foregoing of­fense was attended by
the aggravating circumstances of (1) dwelling and (2) nightime,
the accused having purposely sought it to facilitate its commission.

x     x     x“

After the filing of the information, another one of the
malefactors, Ponso Bila-an,
was apprehended but was not charged as co-defendant, and was instead utilized
by the prosecution as a state witness.

The identification of the herein appellants as mem­bers of the
group which perpetrated the crime is conclusive.  It was furnished by Punso
Bila-an, an eye-witness to the occurrence.  In substance his version is as follows:  that some five (5) days before January 3,
1957, Miguel Gamao and Kinok
Pendatun, together with Ponso
Bila-an and the other malefactors, met in Kinok Pendatun is house in the
presence of the latter’s wife and daughter; that in that meeting Gamao broached the plan to kill the couple because
according to him, he had not been able to get a certain parcel of land from
them; that the other co-accused gave their assent to the plan; that on the
night of January 3, 1957, under the pretext of going fishing, Kinok Pendatun prevailed Ponso to join the group, which he reluctant did; that upon
reaching the Blocon river at a point nearest the
victims’ house, Gamao, Pendatun
and their two other companions excused themselves by saying that they were
going to ask for some tobacco from Pedring (Federico Planas), whose house was just nearby; that Ponso Bila-an stayed behind, but
had a clear full view of the house all the time; that he did not follow the
rest of the accused to the house because he was afraid that, they would really
carry out their earlier plan to kill the spouses; that he saw the accused
strike the victim almost simultaneously; and that when he saw Kinok Pendatun just the hacking
orgy, he left the place immediately.

Ponso Bila-an,
it should be noted, is a son-in-law of appellant Kinok
Pendatun, with whom he had had misunderstanding.  As stated by the trial court, he would not
have testified as he did unless his testimony was the truth for no motive has
been shown for him to bear false witness against his own kin.

Quite revealing is the affidavit (Exh.
“C”) exe­cuted by Kinok Pendatun,
wherein he denied having delivered any blow at all against the victims, but
pointed to Miguel Gamao as among the active
participants.  In the same affidavit he
traced the movements of his companions prior to, during and after the attack,
indicating that the plan to kill the couple was hatched a full five (5)
days in advance.  Thus:

“Q   Prior
to the killing of Pedring, was there any previous
meeting held planning how the killing will be made?

 A    I have not attended any meeting, sir, but I know that there was a
plan to kill the couple.

 Q   Who planned the killing and how did you know the plan?

 A    This was what happened sir.  Five days before the killing of Pedring and his wife, Calim Lasiya and Iranon Lasiya, arrived at my house at Tacul.  During their first two days, the two used to
go out every after breakfast and would return late in the afternoon.  On the third day, just after supper, Calim started convincing me to accompany them to kill Pedring and his wife but then I re­fused because Pedring and myself do not have any misunderstanding and
besides I know him to be good to me.  The
fourth day, Calim repeated his request to me but I
also put down his plan.  On the fifth
day, just after supper x x x
Calim again repeated his proposal to bring me to
kill Pedring but still I refused.  This time Calim
threatened me with death if I refuse because according to him, I might report
him later because I know his plan, telling me further, that they have already
agreed with Miguel Gamao regarding the matter.  And because of his threats, I was forced to go
with them.  x x
x (but) I was then afraid and besides it was really
against my will to kill Pedring because we are friends and he has
been very good to me.  x x x” (Exh.
“C-1”)

Kinok Pendatun
now denies the veracity of his sworn statement and says that he affixed his thumbmark thereon without fully understanding its
contents.  He testified that he was
prevailed upon to do so because he was afraid a Sgt. Reyes of the local PC
command, who had earlier maltreated him inside the PC barracks where he was
confined and who had even threatened him with mere harm should he fail to make
the statement.

Kinok Pendatun’s
pretention deserves little con­sideration.  The then acting mayor of Bansalan,
Claudio Villariz, positively affirmed that he himself
translated the contents of the questioned statement into the Visayan dialect in order that Kinok
Pendatun would fully understand its meaning, if he
had been maltreated as he alleged, Kinok Pendatun would have complained to the acting mayor.  This he did not do.  Besides, any maltreatment would have been
done to make him admit his participation in the commission of the crime.  Yet his affidavit is self-exculpatory in
nature, and throws the whole blame to his companions.  Of course this particular circumstance
benefits him not at all, considering the other evidence against him.

With respect to Miguel Gamao his
defense consists in a simple avowal of innocence, without any attempt to
discredit the evidence of his participation as given by Ponso
Bila-an.  And
no ulterior motive is ascribed to Bila-an for him to
implicate Gamao unjustly.  It has been held that the testimony of one
witness, if credible and positive, if it satisfies the court beyond reasonable
doubt, is sufficient to convict (People vs. Argana,
L-19448, February 28, 1964).

While appellants’ guilt is established beyond doubt, we do not
agree that the crime is robbery with homicide. 
The evidence concerning the robbery is too tenuous and
inconclusive.  Ponso
Bila-an’s testimony on this point reads:

“Q   You
said you saw them hacking, who were hacking?

 A    The first one was Kalim.

 Q   Then?

 A    When my father-in-law hacked, I ran away.

 Q   You said that you ran, where did you proceed?

 A    To where I live.

 Q   You mean to say in the house of Kinok?

 A    Yes, sir.

 Q   Did Kinok Pendatun and his companions go back to the house of Kinok at any time after you saw the hacking of Pedring and his wife?

 A    The only persons whom I saw were my
father-in-law, Kalim and Iranon.

 Q   Did they have anything with them when they
came to the house of Kinok Pendatun
(after the killing)?

 A    Yes, sir.

 Q   What were those things?

 A    Clothings, patadiong, maong pants, belt and
salmon.” (t.s.n., hearing of January 19, 1959, pp. 12-13)

As may be noted, Bila-an did not see
the accused take anything from the victims’ house for the obvious reason that
he left immediately upon seeing his father-in-law striking them.  Considering that the things al­legedly stolen
were not recovered and presented at the trial and that the contents of the
trunk found somewhere in the vicinity of the victims’ house were not
identified, there is no separate and sufficient proof of corpus delicti to support a conviction for robbery.  No robbery having been proved conviction
for robber with homicide impossible (People vs. Manobo,
L-19798, September 20, 1966)

“A complaint charging the commission of the complex crime of
robbery with homicide must necessarily charge each of the component offenses
with the same precision that would be necessary if the were made the subject of
separate complaints.  It is well recog­nized
in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charge and the evidence
fails to support the charge as to one of the component it offenses the
defendant can be convicted of the other.” (U.S.
vs. Lahoylahoy, 38 Phil. 330, 334)

The slaying of Federico Planas and his
wife Saturnina must be considered as double
murder.  The confirmed facts show that
treachery attended the commission of the offense in that appellants, without
risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victims might put up,
suddenly and without warning attacked and hacked them from behind, as
eloquently attested by the numerous back wounds they sus­tained.  Furthermore, evident premeditation was also
present since appellants together with the other male factors, started to plot
the killing five (5) days before its actual commission.

These aggravating circumstances – treachery and evident
premeditation – are alleged in the information, and either one suffices to
qualify the offense to murder (see People vs. Jaravata,
L-22029, August 15, 1967).  There being no mitigating circumstance, the
remaining aggravating circumstance – even without appreciating the circumstance
that the killing had been perpetrated in the dwelling of the victims – would
justify the supreme penalty of death, but for lack of the necessary number of
votes among the members of the Court, only the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed.

Wherefore, the sentence appealed from is modified by
finding appellants guilty of double murder (instead of robbery in band with
homicide) with the qualifying and aggravating circumstances aforesaid, and is
affirmed with respect to the penalty and the civil indemnity imposed, with
costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

+
The date given is not accurate inasmuch as the victims were killed on the
evening of January 3, 1957.  Mendoza,
however, categori­cally manifested in court that it was on a Friday morning
when he discovered the bodies of the victims; and Friday was, the 4th and not
the 3rd of January, 1957.