THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEXANDER TILOS, JOSE DE LA TORRE ALIAS BLACKIE, ALIAS JOSE DIAZ, SALING MAGBANUA, PAN­TALEON ARES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JO…

Automatic review of a death sentence passed by the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga del Sur
(Pagadian) in its Criminal Case No. 1618.

The record before us is to the effect that Alexander Tilos, Sosing Gallego
@ Ruam Fuentes, Jose De la Torre
@ Blackie, @ Jose Diaz, Saling Magbanua,
3 John Does and Pantaleon Ares were charged with the
crime of double murder, committed in the manner described as follows in the
Amended Information (Record, page 31)

“That on 29 March 1960, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening,
in Manlabay, Municipality of Dumingag,
Province of Zamboanga del Sur,
Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named principal accused, armed with .45 caliber Pistol and .30
caliber Carbine Rifles, with intent to kill, treachery and evident pre­meditation;
conspiring and confederating one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and felonious­ly attack and shoot with said firearms Francisco Calidquid and Felicidad Gomela, husband and wife respectively in their house,
thereby in­flicting upon them mortal gunshot wounds on their bodies which
caused their instantaneous deaths.  The
accused Pantaleon Ares is charged as an accomplice,
his ‘criminal participation is being deduced from contemporaneous acts evi­dencing
actual participation in the criminal design’.

“CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances of (1)
having committed the crime in the dwelling of the deceased; (2) that the crime
was committed at night time to better accomplish their purpose; (3) that there
was superior arms and strength and (4) that accused Jose de la Torre is a recidivist having been convicted for Homicide by
the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.”

When the case was set for arraignment, the prosecuting attorney
moved for the discharge of accused Alexander Tilos
for lack of evidence, and the
motion was granted.  Jose de la Torre and Pantaleon Ares,
assisted by counsel de oficio (the
others being still at large), appeared and the following developments took place,according to the decision itself:

           “. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Court apprised said
accused of the consequences of their plea, the seriousness of the charge and
the heavy penalty that may be imposed therefor.  The said accused declared in open court that
they understood the full import of their plea and are ready and willing to
plead guilty to the charge.  Thereupon
the Court ordered said accused to be arraigned.

“Upon being arraigned, the accused Jose de la Torre and Pantaleon Ares,
assisted by their counsel de oficio,
each freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty as principal and accomplice
respectively.” (Record, page 39)

Upon their plea and the circumstances disclosed by the sworn state­ments made by the accused
in their confessions to the authorities, and which were attached to the initial
complaint of the Chief of Police
(Record, pages 3 and 9),as well as the autopsy reports (Record, pages 15
& 16) that Felicidad Gumila
Calidquid died of severe-hemorrhage secondary to a
gunshot wound entering her right cheek, near the mouth, and proceeding downward, without exit of
the projectile, and that Francisco Calidquid in turn
died from cerebral hemorrhage caused by a gunshot wound in the right temple near the right eyebrow, the court
below found the accused de la Torre guilty as
charged, with the four aggravating circumstances averred in the complaint and
the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty, and sentenced him to
death for the complex crime of double murder. 
Pantaleon Ares was found likewise guilty of
double murder with the three aggravating circumstances, but, with the
mitigation due to voluntary sur­render and plea of guilty, was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua which said Ares did not appeal.

Both accused were further sentenced to pay jointly and severally
P6,000.00 to the heirs of each of the deceased. 
Pursuant to law, the case of
accused de la Torre was brought to this Supreme Court
on automatic review.

After scrutinizing the record, counsel de oficio
for accused de la Torre finds the decision of the
court below correct and in conformity with law. 
Our own study coincides with that appreciation, specially since it is a
well – established rule that a plea of guilty imports an admission of the
presence of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.^[1]
There being four aggravating circumstances and the lone mitigating one of plea
of guilty, the death penalty becomes mandatory.

It does appear, however,
that the trial court erred in considering the killing of the spouses Calidquid as one complex crime.  There is no showing that both were
slaughtered by a single discharge of firearms. 
The husband being shot in the temple and the wife in the jaw, and the
finding of the corpses in different rooms of the house, clearly establish that
they were the victims of separate dis­charges, and that the accused committed
two separate and distinct murders, for which he should be separately penalized.^[2]

WHEREFORE, the decision under review must be, and
hereby is, modified in that the accused is sentenced to death for each murder
committed.  Accused Jose de la Torre is further ordered to pay a civil indemnity of
P12,000.00 ^[3] (instead of P6,000.00, as adjudged below) to
the heirs of each of the victims, in addition to one-half of the costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1]
People vs. Egido, 90 Phil. 763; People vs.
Llagas, L-5015, 31 May 1957; People vs. Floresca,
L-8614, 31 May 1956.

^[2]
People vs. Layos, 60 Phil. 224; People vs.
Alisub, 69 Phil. 362; People vs. Buyco, 80 Phil. 58; People vs. Macaso,
86 Phil. 272; People vs. Mortero, L-10948, 20
May 1960.

^[3]
People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, 11 Oct. 1968; People vs.
Gutierrez, L-25372, 29 Nov. 1968;
People vs. Buenbrazo, L-27852, 29 Nov. 1968; People vs. Lumantas, L-28355. 17
July 1969.