THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, BALBAL SIGAYAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Balbal
Sigayan was accused in the Court of First Instance of Lanao, together
with Datu Ibra Tamano of the crime of robbery with homicide (in Grim.
Case No. 1690) for the taking away on January 8, 1955 of cash and
properties belonging to the spouses Aaacleto and Laureana Madrina, in
the total amount of P3,050.00, on the occasion of which robbery
Anacleto Madrina, Juana Madrina de Paculba and Elena Madrina were shot
and killed; with Demasen-dil Timba, alias Dimasimpon, and Desoma Timba
alias Disomangcop, of the crime of robbery with homicide (Crim. Case
No. 1797) for the same act against the aforesaid persons; with
Demasendil Timba alias Dimasimpon and Desoma Timba alias Disomangcop,
for the crime of murder for the death of Leodegario Mendez, on the same
date and occasion (Crim. Case No. 1841); and with Demasendil Timba,
alias Dimasimpon, and Desoma Timba, alias Disomangcop, for the death of
Laureano Alongay (Crim. Case No. 1843). Upon motion of the City
Attorney of Iligan, which was approved by the court, the complaint
against Datu Ibra Taraano in Criminal Case No. 1690 was dismissed.
Demasendel Timba was released from the informations in Criminal Cases
Nos. 1797, 1841 and 1843, also upon motions of the City Attorney, and
he was utilized as State witness, while the cases against Desoma Timba
were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

After due trial, the court rendered a single decision in the
aforementioned four cases, finding Balbal Sigayan who remained as the
sole accused therein, guilty of robbery with homicide in Criminal Cases
Nos. 1690 and 1797, aggravated by the circumstances of dwelling, band,
evident premeditation, and treachery, and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of death and indemnify the heirs of each of the victims
Anacleto, Juana and Elena Madrina in the sum of P6,000.00. In Criminal
Case No. 1841, the accused was convicted of murder, with the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling, band and evident premeditation,
without any mitigating circumstance, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the hetrs of Leodegario Mendez in the sum of
P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
proportionate cost. In Criminal Case No. 1843, the accused was also
found guilty of murder with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling,
band, and evident premeditation and without any mitigating
circumstance, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and to
indemnify the heirs of Laureano Alongay in the sum of P6,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. The accused did not interpose any
appeal from this decision. However, as the supreme penalty of death has
been imposed (in Crim. Cases 1690 and 1797), the decision is now under
automatic review of this Court with respect to said cases, pursuant to
Section 9 of Rule 118 of the old Rules of Court (Sec. 9 of Rule 122, of
the new.)

The facts of these cases, as established by the prosecution and found by the trial court, briefly stated, are as follows:

At about 8 o’clock in the evening of January 8, 1955, a band of armed
men led by Makasiro Tamiara and among whom were Balbal Sigayan,
Demasindel Timba and Desoma Timba (the last two having been forced to
accompany the group), came to the two neighboring houses of Anacleto
Madrina and Leodegario Mendez, at sitio Kalubihon, Dalipuga, Iligan
City, fired shots and riddled them with bullets from different
directions through the floors and surrounding walls, as a result of
which shooting Anacleto Madrina and his 2 daughters Juana and Elena,
were hit and died, while Julian Paculba, Juana’s husband, and their 2
young children were wounded. The house was thereafter robbed and looted
with P2,500.00 in cash and a pistol and shotgun worth P550.00 or a
total of P3,050.00 belonging to the family. As a consequence of the
shooting of the other house, Leodegario Mendez was hit and died inside
said house, while about 20 paces therefrom, Laureano Alongay fell dead
also with gunshot wounds.

It appears that prior to this
incident, Demasindel Timba, having received information that his father
was sick, left with his cousin Desoma Timba, for Kabasaran. On the way,
they passed the house of one Amai Lalong at Misumbar, Baloi, where they
met the group headed by Makasiro Tamiara. With this group was Balbal
Sigayan, a first cousin of Demasindel1s mother. Coerced at gunpoint by
Makasiro, the cousins Timba were taken along to carry, at the start,
pot and rice, and later the lobt of the group. Before reaching
Kalubihon, the group stopped at two stores one owned by a Chinese and
the other by a Filipino from which they forcibly took textiles and
other goods.^[1] In Kalubihon,
Makasiro ordered the 2 Timba cousins, carriers of the “loot”, to stay
on a mound or hillock among banana plants, guarded by one of the gang,
while the rest, with Makasiro and Balbal Sigayan, proceeded to the 2
houses of Anacleto Madrina and Leodegario Mendez, riddled the same with
bullets, which resulted in the death of Anacleto, Juana and Elena
Madrina, and Leodegario Mendez and Laureano Alongay in the other house,
and then robbed the house of Madrina of cash and firearms.

After this robbery and killings, the band left and proceeded to Kiasar
where the two Timba cousins-carriers were relieved of their load.
Makasiro and company left them and went their way. Said group was
finally ambushed by the City Police Force of Dansalan under Capt. Tulfo
in which encounter eleven of them were killed including Makasiro
Tamiara. Balbal Sigayan was captured still carrying with him a bundle
which cantained part of the goods and textiles taken from their
pillagings in Lugait, Dalipuga, and Kalubihon.

The defense’ version of the incident, testified to by Balbal Sigayan, is as follows:

On the night of January 8, 1955, he was awakened by knocks at the door
of his house at Guimba, and when he opened the door, a neighbor,
Magumpia, invited him to go to the schoolhouse. He went with Magumpia
and there, he saw ten armed people who forced him, under threat of
death, to go with them to hunt deer. He was aade to carry eight gantas
of rice. The members of the group were Magumpia, Tubal, Macmac, Mariga,
Bausi, Mama, another Mama, Bagul, Makasiro, Desoma Timba and Demasindel
Timba. The latter two allegedly guided them through the forest. After
several days of walking, they came to a road where they stopped and
boarded a jeep going to Lugait. On the way, they stopped at a Chinese
store which they looted. Makasiro, Demasindel, and Desoma even beat the
Chinese storeowner. Then, they proceeded to Iligan City, and on their
way, the band looted three other stores. When they reached Kalubihon,
they went to a place where the houses of Anacleto Madrina and
Leodegario Mendez were located. Sigayan who was left on the road under
guard, thereafter heard successive shots and the gang returned and told
him to hurry up to leave the place because all the occupants of the
houses might have been killed. They travelled again through the forest
and came out at Kiasar, where Demasindel Timba told the group that he
would procure some food. In his absence, a series of shots came from
constabulary soldiers, and everybody ran his way. In the course of the
pursuit, Sigayan gave up the loot he was carrying and went home to
Guimba where he surrendered to Dansalan Mayor Gosain Klaga, to whom he
revealed that he was forced by the band of robbers to go with them.

On the basis of the evidence thus presented, the lower court rendered
judgment on November 12, I960, finding Balbal Sigayan guilty as charged
in all the four cases and sentenced him (in Crim. Cases Nos. 1690 and
1797) to the supreme penalty of death as stated at the beginning of
this opinion.

Reviewing the foregoing decision of the lower
court, with respect to the aforementioned cases, we find that the
determinative factor herein is the credibility of witnesses, the
prosecution having tried to prove that it was the accused Balbal
Sigayan who was armed and took active participation in the commission
of the offenses charged, while the defense tried to establish that it
was the accused who was forced, to accompany the band and Demasindel
Timba and Desoma Timba were the ones who conspired and aided the
robbers in the accomplishment of the said acts. We find, however, the
testimony of state witness Demasindel Timba, substantiating the
prosecution’s theory, to be entitled to belief, not only because it
appears to be clear, convincing, straightforward, and free from
inconsistencies, but also because it is corroborated in material points
by the other witnesses, including the then Acting P.C. Provincial
Commander, Major Songcoya, who investigated Balbal Sigayan when the
latter was captured, and the Municipal Judge before whom the written
declaration of Sigayan was attested to. On the other hand, Balbal
Sigayan’s sole testimony in court was not supported by any other
evidence. This is in addition to the fact that the trial judge, who had
heard the witnesses declare in court and seen their demeanor while so
testifying, gave more credence to the testimony of Demasindel Timba as
an eye-witness to the robbery with homicide and murders in Kalubihon,
establishing Sigayan’s participation therein.

In this instance, the counsel de oficio
for Sigayan alleges that the shots fired by the band were directed at
and intended for the house of Anacleto Madrina, although the same
bullets passing through or missing the said house must have hit the
house of Leodegario Mendez. It is then argued that since the house of
Mendez was not the intended target of the shots, the deaths of the two
occupants thereof (Leodegario Mendez and Laureano Alongay) were
accidental, and the trial court, therefore, erred in declaring Sigayan
guilty of four separate and independent offenses (two of robbery and
homicide, and two murders). It may here be stated that the accused did
not appeal from the decision with respect to Criminal Cases Nos. 1841
and 1843. The same, consequently, has already become final as to said
cases and the same are not included in this automatic review.

Counsel also tried to capitalize on the non-presentation of Desoma
Timba as a prosecution witness, claiming that had he been produced, his
testimony would have been favorable to Sigayan and adverse to the
prosecution. Let it be noted that Desoma Timba was not discharged to be
a state witness. Hence the prosecution was under no obligation to call
him to the witness stand. Furthermore, the State’s case was
sufficiently established by the testimonies of Demasindel Timba^[2]
and the other witnesses. The written declaration of Sigayan himself
coincided on material points with such testimony of Demasindel. Under
the circumstances, Desoma1s testimony would be merely corroborative,
and therefore his non-presentation as a witness does not mean
suppression of testimony that is adverse to the prosecution.

The trial court is also assailed for its alleged failure to consider in
Sigayan’s favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. It
was found established, however, that Sigayan gave up after he was
surrounded by the constabulary and police forces, when he had no
alternative except to surrender. This surrender cannot be considered
voluntary. It is true that he testified that after being pursued by the
police authorities, he went to Guimba and surrendered before Mayor
Cosain Naga. This official was not, however, presented to support his
allegation and contradict the testimony of the P.C. provincial
commander that he was captured by the constabulary and police team. The
lower court, therefore, committed no error in disregarding this claim
of voluntary surrender.

The aggravating circumstance of
nighttime urged by the State, may not be considered against herein
accused, because said circumstance is already absorbed by and inherent
in treachery. Even so, the presence of the additional aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, band and evident premeditation, without any
mitigating circumstance justifies the imposition of the extreme penalty
provided by law.

Wherefore, finding the trial court’s decision to be in accordance with the
evidence and the law on the matter, the same should be and is hereby
affirmed in toto. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] This robbery is not included in these cases.

^[2] This is the accused who was discharged to be a state witness.