PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DALMACIO MAALIHAN Y CANTOS, ALFREDO PIANO Y PILAPIL AND ALFREDO SABAYBAY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is a mandatory review of the decision in three separate cases
jointly tried by the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur,
sentencing Dalmacio Maalihan y Cantos, Alfredo Piano y Pilapil and
Alfredo Sabaybay to three (3) death penalties each for the murder of
Luis Arejola (Criminal Case No. 6320), Roman Mora (Criminal Case No.
6425), and Narciso Buendia (Criminal Case No. 6426).

Another accused, Rufino Marasigan, died during the trial and, on motion
of the prosecution, the charges against him were dismissed.^[1] Alfredo Maalihan who was at large, was not included in the informations.

The following are the facts disclosed by the records.

At about 6:30 in the morning of September 25, 1958, Luis Arejola went to
Bo. Cadian, Pili, Camarines Sur, to personally supervise the harvesting
of his land, the ownership of which was being disputed by the Pili
Agricultural School and one Maximo Palma. Because of the rumor that the
tenants therein, Alfredo Sabaybay, the Longas and the Marasigans, would
not deliver his share as owner, Arejola thought it wise to personally
supervise the harvesting of said land to enable him to get his share in
the produce.

On his way to Cadian, Arejola passed by the house of one Roman Mora in
Carunuyan, San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur, to ask the latter to accompany
him to the said land.

In the afternoon of the same day, the lifeless bodies of Luis Arejola,
Roman Mora and a certain Narciso Buendia were found in sitio Caboclodan,
San Jose, Pili, all victims of multiple gunshot wounds. The autopsy
performed by Dr. Theo J. Santy, Municipal Health Officer of Pili, showed
that the victims died of acute internal hemorrhage, secondary to
multiple gunshot wounds.^[2]

Investigation of the shooting incident was immediately undertaken by
elements of the Philippine Constabulary. Valeriano Longa, reportedly
the last person contacted by Arejola, was questioned. Longa pointed to
Victorio Canabe as the person who could furnish information as to the
identity of the male­factors. Canabe was investigated and in a sworn
statement^[3] given by him
during the investigation, he stated that four (4) days before the
incident under inquiry, or in the afternoon of September 21, 1958, he
and Alfredo Sabaybay met in Naga City and in that meeting the latter
informed him that in a few days three men would be coming to his
(Canabe’s) house, as they in fact came to his house in the morning of
September 25. They asked him to notify Alfredo Sabaybay of their
arrival, which he did. Upon returning to his house, Canabe prepared
lunch for the three men in accordance with the ins­tructions given by
Sabaybay. After lunch, when the three men took off their shirts, he saw
that each had a gun tucked in his waist. After the arrival of Sabaybay
that afternoon, the latter and the three men left the house.

At the trial, Canabe identified Dalmacio Maalihan and Alfredo Piano as
two of the three men who went to his house on September 25.

The PC officers also investigated Alfredo Sabaybay. He gave a sworn statement,^[4]
admitting his meeting with the three men in Canabe’s house. He
further stated that from Canabe’s resi­dence he and the three men
proceeded to the vicinity of the house of Valeriano Longa, where they
saw Luis Arejola. Sabaybay identified Luis Arejola to his three
companions by pointing to him, in accordance with the instructions given
to him by Rufino Marasi­gan when they met in Naga City on September 21.
In that meeting, Marasigan informed Sabaybay of the plan to kill
Arejola.

With the description of the killers given by Canabe and Sabaybay, the PC
officers arrested Dalmacio Maalihan. In the ensuing investigation
Maalihan executed an affidavit,^[5]
acknowledging his parti­cipation in the killings and naming Alberto
Maalihan and Alfredo Piano as his companions. Alfredo Piano was
likewise apprehended and following said arrest, he too gave a sworn
statement.^[6]

It appears from their affidavits that after Sabaybay had pointed out
Luis Arejola to them, they, Dalmacio Maalihan, Alfredo Maalihan and
Alfredo Piano trailed Arejola, Mora and Buendia up to sitio Caboclodan.
When Arejola looked back, they simul­taneously fired at the victims
until they ran out of ammunition. This portion of their extrajudicial
confessions was later enacted at the place of the crime by Dalmacio
Maalihan and Alfredo Piano under the direction of Maalihan himself.

Thereafter, three separate informations for murder were filed against
Dalmacio Maalihan, Alfredo Piano, Rufino Marasigan and Alfredo Sabaybay.
As heretofore stated, Rufino Marasigan died during the trial.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“THEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 6320, the court finds the three
accused, Dalmacio Maalihan y Cantos, Alfredo Piano y Pilapil and Alfredo
Sabaybay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, for the
brutal killing of the late Luis Arejola, with the attendance of five
aggravating circumstances, namely: Premeditation, Treachery, committed
in an uninhabited place or by a band whenever such circumstance may
facilitate the commission of the crime, committed by persons to insure
or afford impunity, and the crime was committed in consideration of a
prize, reward or promise, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer
the maximum penalty of DEATH and to indemnify, jointly and severally,
the heirs of the deceased LUIS AREJOLA in the sum of P15,000.00
Philippine Currency and to pay the cost, proportionately.

In Criminal Case No. 6425, the court finds the three accused,
Dalmacio Maalihan y Cantos, Alfredo Piano y Pilapil and Alfredo
Sabaybay, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, for the
senseless and remorseless killing of ROMAN MORA, with the attendance of
four aggravating circumstances, namely: Treachery, committed in an
uninhabited place or by a band whenever such circumstance may facilitate
the commission of the crime, committed by persons to insure or afford
impunity, and the crime was committed in obvious consideration of a
prize, reward or promise, and hereby sentences them, each to suffer the
maximum penalty of DEATH and to indemnify, jointly and severally the
heirs of the deceased Roman Mora in the sum of P12,000.00 Philippine
Currency and to pay the cost, proportionately.

In Criminal Case No. 6426, the court finds the three accused,
Dalmacio Maalihan y Cantos, Alfredo Piano y Pilapil and Alfredo
Sabaybay, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, for the
senseless and remorseless killing of NARCISO BUENDIA, with the
attendance of four aggravating circumstances, namely: Treachery,
committed in an uninhabited place or by a band whenever such
circumstance may facilitate the commission of the crime, committed by
persons to insure or afford impunity, and the crime was committed in
obvious consideration of a prize, reward or promise, and hereby
sentences them, each to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH and to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the late Narciso Buendia
in the sum of P12,000.00 and to pay the cost, proportionately.”

Appellants now seek to set aside the judgment on the ground that their
confessions had been obtained through promise of immunity, apart from
the use of force, threat and intimidation. They further impute error on
the lower court for having peremptorily brushed aside their defense of
alibi.

We find no reasonable ground to disturb the judgment of conviction. In
impugning their extrajudicial confessions, Sabaybay, Maalihan and Piano
testified to alleged third degree treatment from the P.C. investigators.
Sabaybay declared that in the early morning of October 5, 1958,
elements of the Philippine Constabulary, namely: Mota, Saldo, Turiano
and Mayores came to his house and told him that the Captain wanted to
question him on some matters. He was led to a PC jeep, and blindfolded.
Then they brought him to a house near the river. He said that
although blindfolded, he could recognize the house where he was brought
by leaning on the wall and tapping the same. In that house he was
stripped naked. Then PC Cpl. Saldo stabbed him with the edge of his
hand on the side of the neck and on the lower nape near the mandible.
He was repeatedly boxed on different parts of the body until he lost
consciousness. After he was revived by the water poured on him, he was
maltreated anew. He finally signed the statement, Exhibit H, because he
could no longer put up with the torture.

To corroborate the alibi, his wife Isabelita Buendia testified that she
brought Alfredo to a “parahilot” for treatment of his dislocated ribs.

Upon the other hand, Dalmacio Maalihan declared that he was taken by PC
officers to a river where he was undressed; that he was made to lie down
and water was poured inside his nostrils, causing him to urinate; and
that he was submerged in the water until he lost consciousness. He too
signed the statement, Exhibit K, to avoid further maltreatment.

For his part, Alfredo Piano alleged that he was made to sit on a chair
at the PC headquarters and forced to stare at a big electric light bulb;
that he was kicked on the stomach, until he lost consciousness; that
upon regaining consciousness, his head was pushed inside a toilet bowl
filled with human excreta; and that his testicles were repeatedly
pounded. Thus, he signed the statement, Exhibit L.

Gruesome and condemnable indeed are the details narrated by the
appellants of the alleged torture they had undergone. Considered alone,
they evince an appearance of truth and sincerity, but taken vis-a-vis
with the other circumstances revealed by the records, We find them
totally bereft of the faith and credence that the accused earnestly seek
to elicit from Us.

1. We have carefully scrutinized the appellants’ confessions and
the diverse details contained therein could have been known only by the
very persons who had taken part in the execution of the acts in
question. Thus, the meeting held on September 21, 1958 before the
Peñafrancia Fiesta, the persons then present, the matters taken up
therein, including the plan to kill Luis Arejola, as well as the routes
taken by Sabaybay when he guided the three killers to the victim, are
details which could not have been concocted by the PC investigators.

2. The recitals in said extrajudicial statements are in many
respects confirmatory and corroborative of each other. In his
affidavit, Sabaybay not only related his meeting with the three men in
the house of Canabe on September 25, 1958, he also admitted that, upon
being assured by them that they had been sent by Marasigan, he guided
them to the place where Luis Arejola was at that time, for
identification of the latter. He also named Piano and Maalihan as two
of the three gun wielders whom he accompanied to the field.

The foregoing statements interlock with the admissions of accused
Maalihan and Piano in their respective affidavits, Exhibits K and L, to
the effect that it was Alfredo Sabaybay who acted as their guide and
pointed out to them the intended victim, Luis Arejola. Likewise, in
said confessions appear the statements of Maalihan and Piano that the
shooting commenced simultaneously at the precise moment Luis Arejola
looked back, and that it ended only when they ran out of ammunition.

3. Not one of the appellants had himself examined medically.
Neither had they requested for such medical examination. As aptly
observed by the Solicitor General –

“Appellants failed to show any injury indicative of the
maltreatment allegedly suffered by them. If, as appellant Alfredo
Sabaybay claimed that he was struck, boxed at the stomach at the left
mandible, and his mouth bled rendering him unconscious, it is strange –
and he himself admits this – that after he was discharged from the
custody, he did not submit himself to any doctor for examination or
treatment. (pp. 138, tsn, April 3, 1963) This fact belies such claim of
maltreatment. While appellant claimed having gone instead to an
“herbolario” who gave him a general body massage (p. 86, tsn., October
30, 1962) the latter was not produced to corroborate such assertion.

“Appellant Alfredo Piano likewise admitted that he did not
submit to any doctor for physical examination (p. 85, tsn., February 8,
1967). Nor does the evidence for appellant Dalmacio Maalihan show that
he ever sought medication by reason of his having been manhandled.”

4. Each of the affiants in his extrajudicial confession tried to
minimize his own participation in the offense by throwing the blame upon
his co-accused.

Thus, the declaration of Alfredo Sabaybay in Exhibit “I” that he
tried to dissuade the three men from executing the plan to kill Arejola,
but that they did not mind him, coupled with this exculpatory statement
in Exhibit “H” that he went home after he had pointed out Arejola to
them and was, therefore, not present during the actual shooting,
strongly indi­cate that he executed his extrajudicial confession of his
own free accord. The same inference applies to the futile attempt of
appellants Maalihan and Piano to throw the responsibility to a certain
Jose Umali whom they attempted to picture as the mastermind. As this
Court said in People v. Mejares,^[7]
“those parts of the confession which would avoid or lessen the
declarant’s criminal liability could have come only from the mouth of
one who stood to benefit from the qualifications or avoidance of the
admission.”

5. Piano and Maalihan willingly submitted to a reenactment of the
crime. Sgt. Porfirio Turiano testified that it was done under the
direction of the appellants Maalihan himself. In addition, the
execution of such reenactment dovetailed with the description given
thereof by said appellants in their respective confessions.

6. As to the claim of Sabaybay that his extra­judicial statement
was obtained through promise of immunity, the record is bereft of any
showing that the PC investigators, ever promised immunity to him. And
even assuming that the investigators did make such proposal, the promise
of immunity by one who is not a prosecuting officer and therefore not
in a position to comply with such promise, cannot be interposed as an
objection to the admissibility of the confession.

7. The testimonies of several prosecution witnesses strongly belie
the claim of force and intimidation. The regularity of the proceedings
leading to the execution and verification of the affidavits in question
was attested to by Provincial Fiscal Alfredo Reyes, Deputy Clerk of
Court Justiniano Ezequiel and Judge Nicolas Papica, all of whom declared
that the appellants fully understood the contents of their respective
statements, at the time they swore to the truth thereof.^[8]

In fine, We view appellants’ claim of torture and duress too dubious to
merit credence. Thus, the alibi of appellants cannot but be a mere
afterthought foisted to avoid the damaging effects of their
extrajudicial confessions. Easy to concoct, their alibi cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by witnesses. In the
case at bar, Dalmacio Maalihan and Alfredo Piano were pointed to by
Victorio Canabe as among the three men who came to his house on
September 25, 1958. Their co-accused Alfredo Sabaybay likewise
identified them as two of the hit men who, after he had indicated to
them the victim, tracked down their prey.^[9]

From the evidence on record, We are satisfied that appellants Maalihan
and Piano are guilty of the crime of triple murder, qualified by
treachery. They gunned down Luis Arejola, Roman Mora and Narciso
Buendia in a sudden volley of gunfire trained at their back, making it
impossible for the victims to defend themselves from the aggression.

However, We find the evidence too inadequate to establish that the crime
was committed in consideration of prize, reward or promise. The trial
court likewise erred in taking into account the aggravating circumstance
of “uninhabited place.” The prosecution failed to prove that the
accused intentionally sought the solitude of the place where the crime
was committed in order to better attain their purpose.^[10]
Neither can it be said that the crime was committed by a band. For
the circumstance of band to be present, there must be at least four
armed malefactors.^[11] The execution of the crime by three armed malefactors does not constitute a band.^[12]

With respect to Alfredo Sabaybay, We do not find sufficient evidence to
saddle him with the criminal responsibility of a co-principal. His
participation in the crime being limited merely to identifying Luis
Arejola to the triggermen, We hold him liable as an accomplice,
conformably to the settled rule that those whose participation in the
killing was not indispensable to the consummation of the murder are
liable as accomplices.^[13]

WHEREFORE, all circumstances considered, the decisions appealed from are
modified in the sense that appellants Dalmacio Maalihan y Cantos and
Alfredo Piano y Pilapil are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
in each of the three crimes committed and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Luis Arejola, Roman Mora and Narciso Buendia in the sum of
P30,000.00 each.

Alfredo Sabaybay is hereby convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to
an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years, as minimum, to seventeen
(17) years, as maximum, and to pay solidarily with the above-named
principals an indemnity of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) to the
heirs of Luis Arejola, Roman Mora and Narciso Buendia.

Costs against appellants, proportionately.
SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., in the result.

Teehankee, J., no part.

---

^[1] p. 475, Original Record

^[2] Exhibits A, B and C

^[3] Exhibit G

^[4] Exhibit H

^[5] Exhibit K

^[6] Exhibit L

^[7] 90 Phil. 102, 105

^[8] tsn, pp. 1-2, June 27, 1961; pp. 17-20, May 9, 1961; pp. 27-28, May 9, 1961

^[9] tsn, p. 17, June 20, 1960

^[10] People v. Aguinaldo, 55 Phil. 610

^[11] par. 3, Article 14, Revised Penal Code

^[12] People v. Pelagio, 20 SCRA 153

^[13] People v. Lacson, 1 SCRA 415; People v. Villegas, 2 SCRA 587.