THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEODORO VILLAMOR, ROMULO POLEÑO AND ROMEO CAGARA, ACCUSED WHOSE DEATH SENTENCES ARE UNDER REVIEW.

This is a murder case.  At
about five o’clock in the afternoon of March 22, 1973 Teodoro
Villamor, Felipe Tarpin, Romeo Cagara,
Romulo Poleño, Dionisio Argales and Rogelio Genita had a conference at the volleyball court of Barrio Rizal, La Paz, Leyte.  They agreed to get hold of the firearm of Lolito Bernal,
a resident of Barrio Calab­nian, La Paz, and to kill
him if he refused to surrender it.

To implement that agreement, the conspirators, all armed,
proceeded to Bernal’s house which was about half a kilometer away.  On the way, they met Eutropio
Argales and convinced him to join them.  They reached Lolito’s
house at about seven o’clock in the evening.

In accordance with the plan, Villamor, Tarpin and Poleño pushed the door
and barged inside the house.  Cagara stationed him­self in the balcony.  Genita and the Argales cousins posted themselves as lookouts in the yard.

Angeles Bernal, 29, testified that her husband Lolito, 29, was slicing meat in the kitchen when the three
intruders suddenly entered the house
and proceeded directly to the kitchen. 
She had known Villamor, Poleño
and Cagara for a long time.  She was in the sala
when the male­factors came in.

Villamor ordered Lolito
to put down his bolo and surrender his  firearm.  Lolito said that he
had no firearm.  Enraged
by that answer, Villamor, Tarpin
and Poleño took turns in hacking Lolito
with their bolos.  Cagara came in and with his bolo also assaulted Lolito.  He fell on
the floor.

Angeles shouted for help. 
To muffle her outcry, Poleño pressed her head
against the floor and fired at her two times with his revolver.  She was not
hit.  The bullets hit the nylon sack
dividing the sala. 
Be­lieving that Lolito was already dead, the
four assailants left the house and fled to the mountain of Hinonocan.

Lolito Bernal sustained an incised
wound in the neck, two inches wide and six inches deep, which reached the
cervical bone and cut the big blood vessels in the neck.  It was a fatal wound.  Also fatal was an incised wound in the chest
which lacerated the liver.  Bernal was
also wounded on the face, shoulders, vertebral column and hands (Exh. A). 
He died in his house as a result of those wounds.

Tarpin was killed in an encounter with
the Constabulary soldiers on March 30, 1973. 
The next day Villamor, Poleño
and Cagara were captured
by a posse of Constabulary soldiers and policemen who-raided their mountain
hideout in Barrio Julita.  Seized from them were homemade .38 caliber
pistols, a .22 caliber pistol, a rifle, four shotguns and assorted rounds of
ammunition.

Villamor, Cagara,
Poleño Eutropio Argales, Dionisio Argales, and Genita were charged
with murder.  Genita
was not arrested.  The Argales cousins were discharged and became State witnesses.  After trial, the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Tacloban City Branch IV,
Convicted Villamor, Poleño
and Cagara of murder, sentenced each of them to death
and ordered them to pay solidarily to Bernal’s heirs
an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal Case No. 1168, Decision of
August 13 as amended on August 18, 1975).

The case is now before this Court for mandatory review of the
death sentence.  That case was tried
jointly with Criminal Case No. 1167 wherein the lower court in a
separate decision convicted Villamor and Cagara of murder, sentenced each
of them to reclusion perpetua and
ordered them to pay solidarily the heirs of Jesus
Canales an indemnity of twelve
thousand pesos.  The trial court found
that Villamor and Cagara
killed Canales on March 19, 1973 or three days before they killed Bernal.

Because Villamor and Cagara did not appeal from the decision in Criminal
Case No. 1167, now L-41493, we cannot review the sentence of reclusion perpetua in that case which became final and executory after fifteen days from the promulgation of the
decision on August 11, 1975.

In Criminal Case No. 1168, now L-41494, Villamor, Poleño and Cagara interposed an alibi. 
They claimed that from March 15 to 30, 1973, they were in the abaca farm
of Tarpin in the mountain of Hinonocan.  The trial court correctly disbelieved that
alibi.  It was a fabricated defense.

The three accused executed extrajudicial confessions wherein they
admitted that they killed Bernal (Exhs. D, E, Q or 6 and R or 3). 
At the trial, they repudiated their confessions and declared that they
were maltreated by the Constabulary soldiers. 
Villamor stated in his confession that Bernal
was killed because he was Tarpin’s enemy (Exh. R or 3).

They contend that their confessions are not admissible under
section 20, Article IV of the Constitution because they were not informed of
their rights to remain silent and to have counsel.  That is the only issue raised in this review
of their death sentences.

The Constabulary investigator and the fiscal before whom the
confessions were sworn testified that the confessions were voluntary.  The
investigator denied that there was any maltreatment.  The fiscal said that he read the confessions
to the accused and required them to sign the confessions again in his presence.

It is stated in the confessions that the confessants were apprised of their constitutional rights.  The investigator testified that he advised
the three accused of their rights to remain silent and to be assisted by
counsel.  He allegedly informed them that
any statement made by them would be used against them in court (40 tsn April 29, 1975;
269-270 tsn May
27, 1975).

He testified that he conducted the interrogation in the Waray-Waray dialect, which is known to the
accused, and translated into English the questions and the answers thereto and
that after the investigation and before they signed their confessions, he read
the contents thereof to them in the dialect (42- 46 tsn
April 29, 1975).  The trial court
admitted the confessions over the objection of defense counsel.

The case of Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2nd 694
(“an earthquake in the world of law enforcement”) lays down the
follow­ing procedural safeguards contemplated in section 20 of our Bill of
Rights:

“He (the accused) must be warned prior to any questioning
that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used
against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an
attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so
desires.

“Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to
him throughout the interrogation.

“After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity
afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights
and agree to answer questions or make a statement.

“But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demons­trated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence
obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.” (p. 726.
See People vs. Duero, G. R. No. 52016, May 13, 1981).

We hold that even if the extrajudicial confessions, which were
taken during custodial interrogation when the accused were not assisted by counsel, are inadmissible, the trial court
did not err in convicting them of murder.

Their culpability was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
testimonies of the eyewitness, Angeles Bernal, and the two accused who became
State witnesses.

The murder was qualified by abuse of superiority (absorbing band)
and aggravated by evident premeditation and dwelling.  No miti­gating circumstances can be
appreciated in favor of the accused.

Conspiracy was proven by means of the testimonies of the two
State witnesses.  The herein three
accused have been shown to be lawless malefactors who had no compunction in
killing a man just to satisfy the vindictive whim of Tarpin
and in order to divest him of his firearm. 
For such a senseless assassination committed by useless and dangerous
members of society, the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s amended decision is
affirmed.  Costs de
oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Makasiar,
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Ericta, Plana, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., and Teehankee, J., no part.