G.R. No. L-27903. December 26, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRISOSTOMO SAQUING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ANTONIO SAQUING ALIAS TONIO, DEFENDANT IN REVIEW.
PER CURIAM:
Prosecuted for the crime labeled as “robbery with double
homicide and double frustrated homicide” were Edmundo
Macarubbo alias Dummun, Melencio Battung alias Melis, Crisostomo Saquing alias Timoy, Antonio Saquing alias Tonio, and Macario Corpuz alias Cario, all of Cattaran, Solana, Cagayan. Melecio Battung alias Melis remains at
large. First to face the court were CrisosÂtomo Saquing, Macario Corpuz and Edmundo Macarubbo. After the prosecution had rested its case on
direct evidence and the respective turns of each of the three came to present
his evidence, each of the latter, one after another and at different times,
withÂdrew his plea of not guilty, pleaded guilty, and threw himself to the
mercy of the court. First was Crisostomo Saquing. On December
16, 1963, he was sentenced, inter alia,
to life imprisonment. Then
followed Macario Corpuz
who, on September
11, 1964, was sentenced to life
imprisonment. The last to
withdraw his plea of not guilty and to substitute the same with that of guilty
was Edmundo Macarubbo, who,
on October 24, 1966, was
similarly sentenced to life imprisonment.
This case refers solely to 46 year-old Antonio Saquing alias Tonio – the father
of 19 year-old defendant Crisostomo Saquing – who was heard on a separate trial. Thereafter, Antonio Saquing
was sentenced by the trial court to the supreme penalty of death with the
accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Antonio Cacayan and Florentino Guerra,
jointly and severally, with the other co-accused already convicted, in the
amount of P6,000 for the death of each of said Florentino Guerra and Antonio Cacayan,
and to pay the costs.
The case is now before us on automatic review.
About 3:00 o’clock in
the afternoon of October 23, 1961,
Gavina Burgos Vda. de Guerra, wife of Florentino
Guerra, was seated in the balcony of their home in Barrio Alba, Municipality
of Baggao,
Province of Cagayan. Five (5) persons came. They asked for the house of Florentino Guerra. Gavina Burgos Guerra replied that she was in the house they
were looking for. The five introduced
themselves as Philippine Constabulary soldiers on a mission to inspect firearms
as it was nearing the election period. Gavina Burgos Guerra invited them in. While the five were in conversation with Florentino Guerra, Gavina served
them coffee. It was in the course of
that conversation that the five informed Florentino
Guerra that they would want to see the barrio captain the followÂing morning,
and that because they were very tired, they would rest in the house for the
night.
About 7:00 o’clock in
the evening, Gavina Burgos Guerra served a chicken
and rice dinner for the five who sat with FlorenÂtino
Guerra. After dinner, one of the five
asked Florentino Guerra if they could see the
latter’s shotgun. Florentino
obliged, showed it to them. It was Macario Corpuz who remarked that
they would examine the number of the gun the following morning alleging diffiÂculty
because the serial number was in very small figures. They also inquired if anybody around also had
firearms. Florentino
Guerra told them that a former Huk by the name of Victorio Ramos had a carbine. Told that the five would like somebody to
accompany them to the house of Victorio Ramos, Florentino Guerra sent his nephew, Lazaro
Leones, to fetch Inocencio Balanay whose home was about five meters away. Upon the arrival of Lazaro
Leones and Inocencio Balanay, the two accompanied Macario
Corpuz and Crisostomo Saquing to the house of Victorio
Ramos less than a kilometer away.
Accused Edmundo Macarubbo,
Melecio Battung and Antonio
Saquing were left behind in the Guerra house. Sensing nothing wrong, Florentino
Guerra allowed Crisostomo Saquing
and Macario Corpuz to take
along with them the shotgun to arrest VicÂtorio
Ramos.
In a field about 50 to 60 meters from the house of Victorio Ramos, Inocencio Balanay and Lazaro Leones were left and told to wait. Defendants Macario Corpuz and Crisostomo Saquing proceeded to the Ramos’ home. After sometime, Corpuz
and Saquing, with Victorio
Ramos whose hands were tied at his back, returned to the place where Balanay and Lazaro Leones were left. Corpuz and Saquing, accompanied
by Leones,
proceeded to other houses. The first two
left instructions to Balanay to keep watch on Victorio Ramos and warned them, Balanay
and Ramos, not to talk to each other. Corpuz and Saquing and Lazaro Leones came back after
sometime. They were accomÂpanied by
Santos Umicay and Jacinto Cayaban,
each of the last two having his hands tied at the back. Thereafter, Corpuz
and Saquing tied the hands of Balanay
and Leones
also at the back. Corpuz
and Saquing hastened to explain to Balanay and Leones that they had
to do so in order that Victorio Ramos would not
complain that he was the only one tied up and to allay the fear that their
companions might entertain that they had maltreated Victorio
Ramos. Then, Macario
Corpuz, with the shotgun of Florentino
Guerra, and Crisostomo Saquing,
led Inocencio Balanay, Lazaro Leones, Santos Umicay, Jacinto Cayaban and Victorio Ramos back to the house of Florentino
Guerra.
Upon reaching the yard of the Guerra home, one from the house
noticed their presence. Defendants Edmundo Macarubbo, Melecio Battung and Antonio Saquing went down.
Antonio Saquing took the gun from Macario Corpuz, stood guard over the persons brought to the yard and
warned the latter against attempt to escape.
Four of the defendants, Edmundo Macarubbo, Melecio Battung, Crisostomo Saquing and Macario Corpuz, returned to the house of Florentino
Guerra. Antonio Saquing
remained on the ground to keep watch over the persons brought there. The four woke up the people inside the
kitchen. These were Emiliano
Leones, Felipe Guerra and Antonio Cacayan. They also woke up the four women in the
house.
It was then that Macario Corpuz, Crisostomo Saquing, Edmundo Macarubbo and Melecio Battung (who is at large)
revealed their true color, that is, that they were not Philippine Constabulary
soldiers but tulisan, meaning bandits. They tied up Florentino
Guerra, Emiliano Leones,
Felipe Guerra and Antonio Cacayan. They demanded money from Florentino
Guerra and Gavina Burgos Guerra. They brought to the yard Emiliano
Leones, Florentino Guerra,
Antonio Cacayan and Felipe Guerra. This time, they told Florentino
Guerra and the others to give up their money.
The latter answered that they had none.
Whereupon, Macario Corpuz and Crisostomo Saquing started maltreating them. After which, Florentino
Guerra was brought back into the house by Macario Corpuz, Crisostomo Saquing, Edmundo Macarubbo and Melecio Battung. These four
once again asked for the money. Florentino Guerra told his wife to give money. The latter, however, reminded her husband
that he himself had money in his pocket.
Florentino Guerra then stated that he could
not get the money in his pocket because his hands were tied at his back. The four then helped each other in extracting
the money from the pocket of FlorenÂtino Guerra.
Only able to get P48 from Florentino
Guerra’s pocket, the bandits were far from satisfied. They maltreated Gavina
Burgos Guerra in an effort to extract more.
She was hit on the head by Macario Corpuz who told her that he “allegedly heard from
other persons” that the spouses, Florentino
Guerra and Gavina Burgos Guerra, had “ten
thousand pesos”.[1]
So she opened her wardrobe and was forced to reveal the hiding place of their
cash. The four, Crisostomo
Saquing, Macario Corpuz, Edmundo Macarubbo and Melecio Battung started ransacking.
Their efforts netted them money in cash, including the P48 taken from
the pocket of Florentino Guerra, amounting to P248,
the shotgun, 25 rounds of ammunition, and assorted articles, all in all totalling P862.50.
The four women in the house, namely, Gavina
Burgos Guerra, her sister-in-law Maria Guerra, and two other women guests, were
all gagged up and tied together to a wall near the balcony. They were warned not to cry out or leave on
pain of being killed.
Then Florentino Guerra was brought down
again to the yard. Macario
Corpuz and Crisostomo Saquing took a carabao rope made
of vine and tied all the nine persons herded in the yard (Antonio Cacayan, Florentino Guerra, Emiliano Leones, Santos Umicay, lnocencio Balanay, Lazaro Leones, Jacinto Cayaban, Felipe
Guerra and Victorio Ramos), the right arm of one tied
to the right arm of another. All the
while, Antonio Saquing was guarding their prisoners
with the gun on the ready. The five
brought the nine persons, hands tied at the back and one tied to the other, to
the foot of a hill. Antonio Saquing was at the back of the nine men keeping eye on
them. That place at the foot of a hill
was about a kilometer away from the house of Florentino
Guerra, forested and uninhabited being about 200 meters from the nearest house.
There, the five ordered their victims to lie down face
downward. It was in this condition that
Antonio Cacayan, Florentino
Guerra, Santos Umicay and Emiliano
Leones, in that order, were hacked with a
sharp-bladed weapon. Then the five
accused, with their booty, left the nine still lying on the ground. The five gave a parting warning that they
(the nine persons) should stay there until they rot. The victims were able to untie
themselves. They ran in different
directions into the forest. However,
Antonio Cacayan was left; he died on the spot. Florentino Guerra
sat under a bamboo grove and was left there.
The following morning Inocencio Balanay reported to Gavina Burgos
Guerra that her husband was at the foot of a hill, wounded. At the behest of Gavina
Burgos Guerra, Inocencio Balanay
and Lazaro Leones brought Florentino Guerra to their house. From there, he was placed in a motorboat and
brought to the centro of Baggao. As Florentino
Guerra was being removed from the truck in front of the municipal building, he
died.
The post-mortem findings of Dr. Florentino
L. Caculitan, Municipal Health Officer of Baggao, Cagayan, show that FlorenÂtino Guerra received the following wounds: Bolo wound, horizontal in position at the
occipital region about 5 1/2 inches long and peneÂtrating through the whole
thickness of the skull; bolo wounds, four in number of almost the same sizes, lying
somewhat parallel to each other, directed anteroposteriorly
at the occipito-bregmatic region, about 5 inches
long, each cutting through the outer table of the skull. The cause of death: hemorrhage, severe, and shock due to brain
injury, secondary to bolo wounds at the head.
Dr. Caculitan’s findings in his autopsy report
on the person of Antonio Cacayan are: bolo wound, horizontal in position, just
below the occipital region about 6 inches long and 2 inches deep; rope marks at
both wrists indicative of hands being tied together. The cause of death of Antonio Cacayan, as in the case of Florentino
Guerra, was hemorrhage, severe, secondary to bolo wound below the occiput.
Dr. Ramelo C. Ramirez of the Cagayan Provincial
Hospital treated the wounds of Santos
Umicay and Emiliano Leones which were also located at the back of their
heads. They were not serious. The two of them were hospitalized from
October 24 to October 31, 1961.
1. The defense of Antonio Saquing is
alibi. He claimed that he did not leave
his house in Barrio Cattaran, Municipality
of Solana, Province
of Cagayan,
on October 23, 1961, the
day of the crime. He declared that he
had a pimple on the right side of his abdomen.
This pimple, as described by Antonio Saquing,
was as big as the closed fist of the trial judge or about four inches in
diameter. He averred that he contracted
fever because of his pimple; that he was unconÂscious during all the time that
he had his pimple; that he could not even open his eyes nor talk; that when he
was brought to the hosÂpital by Sgt. Mallillin, he
was unconscious and did not know he was brought to the hospital; that he did
not know that he left the hospital because he was in delirium. This defense suffers from infirmities.
The identity of Antonio Saquing was
fully established by the testimony of Inocencio Balanay, Emiliano Leones and Gavina Burgos
Guerra. There could not have been any
mistaking as to his identity. For one important reason.
He was under close observation by Gavina
Burgos Guerra since 3:00 o’clock in
the afternoon until late in the evening.
The same is true with Emiliano Leones who was sent for to go on an errand for the five men
and who came and stayed in the house of Florentino
Guerra from 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. until he was tied up and brought down
late in the evening. Furthermore, Emiliano Leones, one of those who
received bolo wounds but survived, positively told the court, in the words of
the trial judge, “that he really saw this Antonio Saquing
who was the very person holding the shotgun of his uncle, Florentino
Guerra, and who pointed said gun at them, guarding them, so that not one of
them should escape from their clutches.”[2] Inocencio Balanay corroborated Emiliano Leones. It will be recalled that it was Inocencio Balanay (with Lazaro Leones) who accompanied
defendants Macario Corpuz
and Crisostomo Saquing to
the house of Victorio Ramos and back, and was one of
those later on brought to the foot of the hill where the killing took
place. Certainly, he had more than ample
opportunity to identify the accused Antonio Saquing. In reference to the alleged fact that Antonio
Saquing could not have left his house on October 23, 1961 because he had a
pimple on the right side of his abdomen, the trial judge’s finding is this:
“The Court observed that the scar indicated by the accused
Antonio Saquing is not a scar of a pimple that
burst. The Court saw without any mistake
that the scar consisted of zigzagging scars which zigzagging the Court observed
must have been caused by the suturing of the wound. The scar is not circular, but elongated about
several inches long, showing still the traces of the suturÂing. According to Sgt. Mallillin
himself, the wound was caused by a shotgun in Iguig. This statement of Sgt. Mallillin
is nearer the truth. Even the record of
the Cagayan Provincial Hospital which was brought in
by another witness called by the defense, Lourdes Villanueva who testified,
showed that Antonio Saquing was treated in the
hospital for wounds on the hypochendriac and that
without the knowledge of any person in the hospital this Antonio Saquing left and, thereÂfore, was considered
discharged.”[3]
In fact, counsel de oficio
before this Court discarded the theory of alibi and considered as substantially
correct the findings of the trial judge.
2. The thesis for Antonio Saquing is
that he should be held guilty only of robbery.
The reason given is that there was no explicit evidence that he hacked
and killed Florentino Guerra and Antonio Cacayan; that the plan was only to rob, not to kill; that
the killing took place after the complete perpetration of the robbery; that he
(Antonio Saquing) was not the leader of the gang as
he only stood guard and watched the herded men.
But clear in the record is the fact that Antonio Saquing, father of Crisostomo Saquing who had pleaded guilty, was with the group from the
start. He acted in concert with his
cohorts. He played an important
role. He was one of those who lured the
Guerra couple into the belief that the five of them were Constabulary soldiers
on a legitimate mission. He got hold of
the gun, stood guard over the herded men, warned them, and with gun in hand
made certain that the latter could not escape.
Not only that. The robbery in
house having already been committed, he still went with the other four
co-accused and the victims from that house to a distant, secluded and forested
place at the foot of a hill, all the while holding the fireÂarm with which to
foil escape of the victims. He performed
his part to the end. Nothing in the
record suggests that he prevented the killing of the two victims and the
wounding of the other two. There was a
community of purpose amongst all of the five.[4]
3. Counsel de oficio draws
our attention to the fact that there is no crime of robbery with double homicide. Counsel is correct. The term “homicide” in paragraph 1
of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is to be understood in a generic
sense. It includes murder.[5]
Indeed, the juridical concept of robbery with homicide does not limit the
taking of human life to one single victim.
If more than one were killed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery, this circumstance does not authorize punishment for sepaÂrate
independent offense or offenses.
“All the homicides or murders are merged in the composite, integrated
whole that is robbery with homicide so long as all the killings were
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.”[6]
In the same way that if two persons perished on the occasion of a
robbery such circumstance would not bring about the crime of robbery with
double homicide, much less should we consider slight physical injuries
committed against Santos Umicay and Emiliano Leones as authorizing
classification of the crime as “robbery with double homicide and physical
injuries” as decÂlared by the lower court.
This crime of slight physical injuries, which is of very much less
importance than homicide and appearÂing in the same Title Eight, “Crimes Against Persons” in the Revised Penal Code, is merged
in the crime of robbery with homicide. So that the crime remains to be robbery with homiÂcide defined in
paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
4. Having reached the conclusion that Antonio Saquing
is a principal in the crime of robbery with homicide, we now direct attention
to the circumstances bearing on the penalty imposable.
Counsel de oficio does
not suggest the existence of any circumstance in mitigation. Really, there is none. But aggravating circumstances there are.
First is craft. Antonio
Saquing and his co-accused posed as Philippine
Constabulary soldiers. Not that they
should not be believed. Macarubbo was in fatigue uniform with a West
Point khaki cap on. Three
of them, Antonio Saquing, Macario
Corpuz and EdÂmundo Macarubbo, had each a side arm known as paltik. It is because of such false representation
that they gained the confidence of the people in the home of the spouses Florentino Guerra and Gavina
Burgos Guerra. In People vs.
Saulog, 74 Phil. 526, 539, this Court ruled that
craft is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide where the accused
pretended that they were Pampangos who had lost their
way, asked the victim to be shown the way, the victim inviting them to come up
his house, after which they robbed and killed him. So is craft aggravating in robÂbery where
defendant illegally wore a constabulary uniform.[7]
In a 1965 decision, we held in a murder case that craft is aggravating where
the accused pretended to be rancheros to gain entry into the place of
the victim.[8]
Second. Dwelling is
properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.[9]
Third. Treachery is likewise an attendant
circumstance. The victims were made to
lie face down. The hands of each of them
were tied at the back. They were
helpless. The crime was committed in the
dead of the night. Clearly, there was
treachery. In People vs. Madrid,
supra, p. 15, a robbery with homicide case, we held treachery to be
aggravating where the two victims “were killed while bound in such a way
as to be deprived of opportunity to repel the attack or escape with any
possibility of success.”[10]
Fourth. The killing on the occasion of the robbery
was committed in an uninhabited place.
From where the robbery took place, the victims were taken to the foot of
a hill about a kilometer therefrom, an area which was
secluded, the nearest house being about 200 meters away, and which was forested
and uninhabited.[11]
It thus results that in the commission of the crime of robÂbery
with homicide, there were four aggravating circumstances with none in
offset. Mandatory it is for this Court
to impose the supreme penalty of death.
Omitted in the decision below is the indemnity for the things the
subject of the robbery in the total value of P862.50.
WHEREFORE, we find defendant Antonio Saquing
alias Tonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of robbery with homicide, and sentence him to death, to indemnify the
widow and heirs of Florentino Guerra in the sum of
P862.50, and likewise to indemnify the heirs of Florentino
Guerra in the sum of P12,000 and the heirs of Antonio Cacayan in another sum of P12,000.[12]
It is hereby understood that, to the extent of P6,000 of the P12,000 indemnity
payable to the heirs of each of the deceased Florentino
Guerra and Antonio Cacayan, the liability of Antonio Saquing alias Tonio is joint and
several with his co-defendants Edmundo MacaÂrubbo, Macario Corpuz and Crisostomo Saquing.[13]
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
[1]
Tr., November 16, 1966,
Julia Dichoso, p. 15.
[2] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[3] Rollo, p. 24.
[4] People vs. Pujinio (1969), 27 SCRA
1185, 1189, citing People vs. Morados,
70 Phil. 558, and People vs. Carunungan, G.R.
No. L-13283, September 30, 1960. See also: People vs. Defensor,
86 Phil. 591, 595; People vs. Metran, 89 Phil.
543, 546; People vs. Estrada (1968), 22 SCRA 111, 126; People vs.
Capito (1968), 22 SCRA 1130, 1150; People vs. Condemena, infra; People vs. Peralta (1968),
25 SCRA 759, 777.
[5]
Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 1965 ed., p. 517, citing
People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333.
[6]
People vs. Madrid (1951),
88 Phil. 1, 14-15.
[7] I
Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1961 ed., p. 341, citing
People vs. Gonzales (unreported), 56 Phil. 842.
[8] People vs. Mendoza (1965), 13 SCRA 11, 19.
[9]
People vs. Pinca (1962), 4 SCRA 574, 580;
People vs. Mongado (1969), 28 SCRA 642, 652, citing
People vs. Apduhan (1968), 24 SCRA 798, 815, in
turn citing U.S. vs. Leyba, 8
Phil. 671, People vs. Sebastian, 85 Phil. 602, and People vs. Napili, 85 Phil. 521.
[10] See
also: People vs. Condemena (1968), 23 SCRA 910, 919; People vs. Mongado, supra, at pp. 650-651; People vs. Manila,
G.R. No. L-21688, November 28, 1969.
[11] U.S. vs.
Estabillo, 11 Phil. 150, 152; People vs. Curiano (1963), 9 SCRA 323, 347; People vs. Arpa (1969), 27 SCRA 1037, 1044.
[12] People vs. Pantoja (1968), 25 SCRA
468, 473.
[13] Each
of the last three was sentenced below to pay indemnity of only P6,000 for the death of each of the two victims.