G.R. No. L-2266. April 17, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR BAYTAN, DEFEDANTSA AND APPELLANTS.
MORAN, C.J.:
of Albay finding Salvador Baytan and Jesus Baytan guilty of the felony
of robbery with homicide (Art. 294, Rev. Penal Code), and
sentencing each, of them to suffer the penalty of “cadena perpetua,” to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Yee Bon in the sum. of P2,000
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.
It appears that sometime in the afternoon of June 23, 1947, Jesus Baytan entered the store of the spouses Yee Bon alias
Aleng, and Cirila Masareta, in barrio Agna, municipality of Legaspi,
province of Albay, and bought forty oentavos wrth of “biscocho”
(cookies). Cirila, who was alone in the store because her husband was
away at Legaspi, noticed that Jesus Baytan kept his head lowered as if
trying to conceal his identity. Nevertheless, she was able to see his
face when he paid for his purchase.
Later in the afternoon of that same day, at about 6:30, Yee Bon,
who had already arrived from Legaspi, and Cirila heard the voice of a
man calling from outside saying that he wanted to buy cigarettes. As
soon as Tee Bon opened a window of tile store, two men immediately
entered and one of them grabbed the flashlight which Yee Bon was
holding. Cirila, who was on the second floor of the house, called down
to ask what was going on. At this moment, she saw Salvador Baytan who
had gone up the stairs and who, with a revolver in hand, threatened
her into silence and demanded money. Telling Salvador that they had
very little money, she took out a vanity case with two fifty-peso bills
inside, which Salvador immediately grabbed from her. After opening a
trunk beside the bed and ransacking its contents, Salvador went down to
turn over the money to his companion, Jesus Baytan, who stayed with Yee
Bon in the shop. Suddenly, a voice from outside called out that the
lights be put out. Salvador immediately turned off the lights, one up
in the bedroom and another in the store. Cirila then heard a shot
followed by weak groans from her husband. Taking a flashlight, she went
down and saw the prostrate body of her husband. As she turned on the
lights, Salvador Baytan rushed in again, took the flashlight which she
held and left once more. Finding her husband dead, Cirila looked to
find out if the robbers had stolen anything from him. She found gone
from his pocket the sum of P380 which he brought back from his shopping
trip to Legaspi and which both of them had counted shortly before the
robbers arrived. Cirila then reported the robbery to the barrio
lieutenant who in turn gave his report to the Chief of Police of
Legaspi on the following morning.
The case for the prosecution has been established principally by
tlie testimony of Cirila Masareta, widow of Yee Bon, which has been
corroborated by the testimonies of Ananias Lorilla (a nephew of
Cirila), Simeon Abino (a resident of Tagpon, legaspi), Mer. Vargas
(Chief of Police of Legaspi), and Antolin Lotivio (medical interne at
the Provincial Hospital of Albay).
Cirila Masareta testified on the entire incident of the robbery as
narrated above. Ananias Lorilla testified that on the evening of June
23, 1947, as he was tying his horse by his house which is near the
store of Yee Bon, he heard the voice of Cirila saying: “Forgive us
because we have no more money than this”; that as he ran towards the
store, he heard a shot and saw two men hurrying away; that focusing his
flashlight on them, he saw Salvador Baytan with Jesus Baytan following
behind; and that Salvador shouted at him to “Go Back.” Simeon Abiño
testified that at about eight o’ clock in the evening of June 23, 1947,
as he sat by his house in Tagpon, whlch is about a kilometer away from
Agna, while waiting for some people to come for prayers, three men came
near his house; that one of them came to him and asked for the way to
the seashore; that he saw the face of this Wan (whom he later
identified as Salvador Baytan) by the light that came from the house;
that when he called for a light in order to see who were the companions
of Salvador, the three of them immediately left. Mer. Vargas, the Chief
of Police of Legaspi, testified that he conducted the investigation of
the robbery; that in the course of said investigation, on the basis
of the description given to him by Cirila Masareta, he arrested five suspects and presented them to Cirila for identification; that Cirila
told him. that they were not the ones who committed the robbery; that
afterwards he arrested Salvador and Jesus Baytan and when he presented
them to Cirila, she immediately identified them as the robbers; and
that appellants said nothing when Cirila pointed to them as the guilty
persons. Antolin Lotivio who signed the autopsy report and death
certificate of Yee Bon, testified that the deceased died of severe
hemorrhage caused by a gunshot wound.
Appellants’ defense is an alibi. According to their own
testimonies in Court, both of them are “pickpockets” by [profession;
that a few days before the 23d of June, 1947, they went to Tabaco for
the petit carnival and the town fiesta on the 24th; that on the 23rd,
at about 5:30 in the afternoon, Salvador was told by a certain Maximino
Austero, a guard at the provincial jail, to fetch a tennis racket which
was in the tennis court. Salvador, in turn, told his brother Jesus to
fetch it. After strolling about, the brothers went to a restaurant
where they ate some rice and ‘pancit’, at about 6 p. m. After eating,
Salvador left his brother at a street corner and went to the bazaar
store of one Nino Dhanaram. where he bought a watch for P25 and which
he paid for out of the money which he had stolen shortly before in the
amount of P337. After buying the watch, he met his brother Jesus and
both went strolling around until Salvador noticed that his watch had
stopped. So he returned to the store of Nino Dhanaram and the latter
accompanied him to the watch repair shop of one Sergio Bongalon where
the left the watch. Salvador then met Jesus again and after walking
about, they left Tabaco for Maliliput, arriving there at about 8 p. m.
They went to the house of a certain Lorenzo Boneo where they stayed for
the night.
In support of their statements, appellants presented three
witnesses. Salvador Nasi testified that he was a waiter at the
Panciterla Antigua in Tabaco; that in the evening of June 23, 1947, at
about 6 o’clock, Salvador Baytan, an old friend, and Jesus Baytan (whom
he identified later in open court) entered the restaurant and ate
“pancit” and rice; and that after eating, which was at about 6 o’clock,
they left. Nino Dhanaram, owner of a bazaar in Tabaco, testified that
Salvador Baytan went to his store between 7 and 8 o’clock of the
evening of June 23, 1947, and bought a watch valued at P25; that
shortly after leaving the store, Salvador came back complaining that
the watch had stopped; that he accompanied Salvador to a watch repairer
who had his shop about three doors away and that the watch was repaired
and given to Salvador. Sergio Bongalon, owner of a watch repair shop in
Tabaco, testified that between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening of June
23, 1947, Nino Dhanaram, accompanied by a person whom he later
identified as Salvador Baytan, entered his shop and left a watch for
repair and that said watch was taken by Salvador on the following
morning.
As rebuttal witness, the prosecution presented Benigno Bonafe,
Provincial Jailer of Legaspi, who testified that Maximino Austero, a
guard at the provincial jail, whom the defense claimed was at Tabaco in
the afternoon of June 23, 1947, and had ordered Salvador Baytan to
fetch his tennis racquet, could not have been at such a place because
Bonafe saw him in Legaspi on that same afternoon and that he did not
give Austero any permission to leave Legaspi.
After a careful review of the evidence, this Court finds no reason
for disturbing the findings of the trial court. The testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution are clear and convincing and no
malevolent or doubtful motives have been imputed to them. The attitude
of Cirila Masareta in the identification of the robbers is noteworthy.
When the first five suspects were presented to her, she immediately
dismissed them as the wrong persons. But when appellants were brought
before her, she at once identified them as the malefactors.
On the other hand, the evidence for the defense appears weak and
vague. Much of it depends upon the word of appellants who admitted in
open court that they are thieves by profession. Corroboration of this
defense, particularly on the essential element of time, is made to rest
on the testimony of three witnesses who testified broadly and vaguely
on precisely this important point. Moreover, even conceding that the
testimonies of these three defense witnesses are truthful,
nevertheless, the gaps of time allowed by their statements would have
permitted appellants to go to Agna and commit the felony of which
they stand convicted. The distance between Tabaco and Agna, as admitted
in court, is about 35 kilometers which can easily be covered by
automobile in about forty minutes. And appellants admitted that they
did use a car on the night of the 23rd of June, 1947, when they left
Tabaco to go to Maliliput. The defense of alibi has not been adequately established.
For all the foregoing, this Court finds appellants guilty of the
crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code, with no modifying circumstances, and hereby affirms the judgment
of the trial court with the modification recommended by the
Solicitor-General that the indemnity be raised from P2,000 to P6,000
and that the designation of the principal penalty imposed be changed
from cadena perpetua to reclusion perpetua.
It is so ordered.
Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.