THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL MENDOZA, FELIPE SUIZO, AMBROSIO GARCIA, ANDRES DE MESA, JOSE DIMAANO, AND EUSEBIO HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANTS, FELIPE…

In the night of July 13, 1946, an armed band raided the house
of Jose Evangelista and his wife, Epifania Cordero, in barrio Del Remedio, or
Wawa, of the City of San Pablo, Laguna, robbing them of P20, and shooting both
of them to death.

Following an investigation by the city police, six persons were
accused of robbery with double homicide for alleged participation in the above
raid. Those accused were Rafael Mendoza, Felipe Suizo, Andres de Mesa, and three
others who, at the time of the trial, had not yet been apprehended. Andres de
Mesa turned state witness and was excluded from the information. Rafael Mendoza
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Declining to make the
same plea, Felipe Suizo went to trial which resulted in his conviction, and the
case is now before us on his appeal.

The record shows that appellant’s participation in the crime
charged is established not only by the testimony of one of his companions in the
raid (the accused Andres de Mesa, who turned state witness), but also by that of
18-year old Remedios Cordero, who being one of the inmates of the house raided,
was able to recognize appellant as one of the raiders. It would appear from the
combined testimony of these two witnesses that on the night in question the six
defendants had set out to rob, the defendant Mendoza being armed with a
.45-caliber pistol and four of the other defendants with a carbine each. As they
came near Jose Evangelista’s house, Mendoza asked appellant, who lived in those
parts, if they could get anything from there (“makakatipak ba tayo dian?”), and
assured that they could, the group went to the said house and tried to gain
entrance by calling the owner and asking for some oil or an electric light bulb.
As they were told that they could have neither of these, they asked that the
door be opened, saying that they wanted to speak to the owner. Once the door was
opened, Mendoza went up with three of his codefendants, leaving the other two
downstairs as guards. On the balcony they were met by the spouses Jose
Evangelista and Epifania Cordero, whom they asked for money. Going into his
room, Evangelista soon came back and handed P20 to Mendoza, saying that it was
all the money he had. But Mendoza did not believe him and pressed him to give
more. Evangelista replied that they could search the house and was welcome to
any amount they could find. One of the defendants then searched the bedroom,
another posted himself at the door of the balcony, while appellant followed
Remedios Cordero into the dining room and, carbine in hand, told her not to move
or something would happen to her Mendoza, on his part, with his hand on his
pistol went with the couple to their room and closed the door behind him.
Shortly thereafter, there was a commotion in that room followed by a shot, then
by the screams of Epifania Cordero and by four other shots. On hearing the
shots, the companions of Mendoza fled.

After the robbers had left, the dead bodies of Jose Evangelista
and Epifania Cordero, one on top of the other and drenched in blood, were found
in their room. Expert examination showed that the couple died from gun-shot
wounds. Wear their bodies were found five empty cartridges, caliber .45, which
according to a ballistic expert were fired from the pistol identified in
evidence as formerly belonging to defendant Mendoza but sold by him to one Juan
Pandiclan after the robbery. Andres de Mesa also testified that when he was
already downstairs he saw Mendoza jump out of the window, pistol in hand, and
that, once they were together, Mendoza told him he had killed the couple.

That same night Remedios Cordero told the chief of police, that
she was able to recognize appellant Felipe Suizo (whom she then called Iping
Bachoy) as one of the robbers, and on a latter date she was also able to
identify, from a group of twenty persons that were lined up before her, both
appellant and the defendant Mendoza as two of those who had taken part in the
robbery.

Appellant declared that at the time of the robbery he was
sleeping in his house and that he was awakened by his wife when the latter heard
the shots. This declaration, though corroborated by his wife, is not entitled to
much weight in view of appellant’s positive identification by the witness
Remedios Cordero as the one who watched her in the dining room while his
companions were searching the house for money, to say nothing of the testimony
of Andres de Mesa, naming him as one of his companions in the raid.

The defense calls attention to the fact that appellant was a
person well known to the deceased spouses so that he would not have dared commit
the robbery without his face being covered, since there was light in the house.
But the circumstance that he was well known to the deceased couple may have been
one of the reasons that prompted him to silence them forever by putting them to
death. And if he did not dispense the same treatment to Remedios Cordero, it may
well be because he was not aware that he was well known to the latter, it not
appearing that he had struck an acquaintance with her, while, on the other hand,
the evidence shows that she was new in those parts as she hailed from Nueva
Ecija, having come to live in the house of the deceased spouses not long before
the robbery.

The explanation for the delay in the arrest of the appellant
despite the fact that his participation in the robbery was already known to the
police on the night of the crime is to be found in the following testimony of
the chief of police:

“Q. Can you tell the Court any particular reason why in spite
of the fact that Remedios Cordero identified Felipe Suizo as one of the four
perpetrators of the crime you did not arrest him until July 29?—A. In the first
place, I did not know who is Iping Bachoy, and it took me time to know who he
is. At the time I learned who he is, I did not effect the arrest right away
knowing from Amy Cordero that he was not the one who killed the couple, so I
decided not to effect the arrest right away, because if we did, it may cause the
other to be in hiding. So, what I did was to arrest first the other because I
knew it was easy to arrest Iping Bachoy.” (Pages 55-56, t. s. n.
Rañeses.)

Not much importance can be attached to the testimony of Rafael
Mendoza denying appellant’s parfcicipation in the crime. The said testimony was
given after Mendoza had already pleaded guilty, well knowing that any attempt on
his part to free appellant from criminal liability would not in any way redound
to his own prejudice.

There can be no doubt as to appellant’s participation as
principal in the commission of the robbery in question, it appearing from the
evidence that he was the one who led the gang to the house of the deceased
spouses, was the one who informed them that they could get something from there,
and was also the one who asked the inmates of the house to open the door. In
addition, he was the one who watched Remedios Cordero in the dining room while
his companions were ransacking the house. And being a participant in the
robbery, he can not escape liability for the killing of the spouses just because
he did not actually take part in the killing, there being no proof that he had
made any endeavor to prevent it. (Par. 2, Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code; People vs.
Morados, 40 Off. Gaz. [9th Sup.], No. 13, p. 75; U. S. vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil.,
1; U. S. vs. Tiongco, 37 Phil, 951; People vs. Salumddin, 52 Phil. 670.)

The crime committed by appellant is that of robbery with
homicide and falls under the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code, punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. The crime having been
committed with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, band, and dwelling,
not offset by any mitigating circumstance, the said penalty should be imposed in
its maximum degree. But, there being no sufficient votes for the imposition of
the death penalty, tha sentence of life imprisonment meted out by the court
below will have to stand together with the accessory penalties, indemnity and
restitution imposed in the decision appealed from.

In so far as the judgment below conforms to this decision, the
same is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason, and
Montemayor, JJ., concur.

REYES, J.:

I hereby certify that Mr. Justice Pablo and Mr. Justice
Perfecto voted in favor of this decision.