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

People versus Maalihan

The Case

This is a mandatory review of a conviction for three killings, brought by the People of the Philippines against Dalmacio Maalihan, Alfredo Piano and Alfredo Sabaybay. The trial court sentenced each of them to three death penalties for the murders of Luis Arejola, Roman Mora and Narciso Buendia. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on extrajudicial confessions, alibi, the aggravating circumstances of prize or reward, uninhabited place and band, and the fine line between principal and accomplice.

Procedural History

Three separate informations for murder were filed against the accused and jointly tried by the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. One accused, Rufino Marasigan, died during the trial and the charges against him were dismissed on motion of the prosecution. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision convicting all three accused of murder in each of the three cases and imposing the death penalty in each. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on mandatory review.

Facts

At about six thirty in the morning of September 25, 1958, Luis Arejola went to the barrio of Cadian, Pili, Camarines Sur, to personally supervise the harvesting of his land, whose ownership was being disputed. On the way he passed by the house of Roman Mora to ask him to come along. In the afternoon of the same day, the lifeless bodies of Arejola, Mora and Narciso Buendia were found in sitio Caboclodan, all victims of multiple gunshot wounds.

Investigation by the Philippine Constabulary led to Victorio Canabe, who stated that four days before the incident he and Alfredo Sabaybay met in Naga City, and that Sabaybay told him three men would come to his house. The three men came on the morning of September 25, and Canabe prepared their lunch as instructed. After lunch, when the men took off their shirts, he saw that each had a gun tucked in his waist. Sabaybay arrived that afternoon and left with the three men. At the trial, Canabe identified Dalmacio Maalihan and Alfredo Piano as two of the three men.

Sabaybay gave a sworn statement admitting the meeting and stating that he guided the three men and pointed out Luis Arejola to them, in accordance with instructions from Rufino Marasigan. Maalihan and Piano were arrested and each executed an affidavit acknowledging participation and naming their companions. According to the affidavits, after Sabaybay pointed out Arejola, the gunmen trailed the three victims and fired simultaneously when Arejola looked back, until they ran out of ammunition. Maalihan and Piano later reenacted the crime at the scene under Maalihan's direction.

Issues

• Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions of the accused were obtained through force, threat, intimidation or promise of immunity, and are therefore inadmissible.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused and their extrajudicial confessions.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of prize or reward, uninhabited place, and band were properly appreciated.
• Whether or not Alfredo Sabaybay is liable as a principal or merely as an accomplice.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, on the aggravating circumstance of band, provides:

That the act be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

The Court reads this provision as requiring at least four armed malefactors before the circumstance of band may be appreciated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the confessions. The details they contained, such as the meeting before the Peñafrancia Fiesta and the routes taken by Sabaybay, could have been known only by the participants. The statements corroborated one another, and each affiant tried to minimize his own participation, a sign of voluntariness. None of the appellants submitted to medical examination or asked for one, and the regularity of the proceedings was attested to by the fiscal, the deputy clerk of court and the judge before whom the affidavits were sworn. On the claim of promised immunity, the Court held that a promise made by one who is not a prosecuting officer and therefore not in a position to comply with it cannot be interposed as an objection to the admissibility of the confession.

On the second issue, the Court held that alibi is easy to concoct and cannot prevail over positive identification. Canabe pointed to Maalihan and Piano as among the three men who came to his house, and Sabaybay identified them as two of the gunmen.

On the third issue, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish prize, reward or promise. It also held that the trial court erred in appreciating uninhabited place, because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused intentionally sought the solitude of the place to better attain their purpose. Neither was there a band, for the execution of the crime by three armed malefactors does not constitute a band.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Sabaybay's participation was limited to identifying Luis Arejola to the triggermen, which was not indispensable to the consummation of the murder. He was therefore liable only as an accomplice.

Doctrine

First, a confession is presumed voluntary, and the burden is on the accused to prove that it was obtained by force, threat or intimidation; the absence of any medical examination or request for one, and the affiant's attempt to minimize his own role, support voluntariness. Second, a promise of immunity made by one who is not a prosecuting officer cannot be invoked to exclude a confession. Third, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Fourth, the aggravating circumstance of band requires at least four armed malefactors. Fifth, one whose participation was not indispensable to the consummation of the murder is liable only as an accomplice.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment: Maalihan and Piano were sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each of the three crimes and to indemnify the heirs of the three victims in the sum of 30,000 pesos each, while Sabaybay was convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years as minimum to seventeen years as maximum, with solidary liability for an indemnity of 15,000 pesos to the heirs of each victim.

Remember This

Remember that three armed malefactors do not make a band, and that a guide who merely points out the victim is an accomplice, not a principal. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of band and the distinction between principal and accomplice.