RODOLFO BAUTISTA Y VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari taken by Rodolfo Bautista from the decision
of the Court of Appeals in G. R. No. L-00380-R affirming in toto
the one rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila finding him guilty as
accomplice of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment of from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, to indemnify the owner of the jeepney
mentioned in the decision, jointly and severally with the persons charged with
robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 47434 of the same court, in the sum
of P3,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of in­solvency.

It is not disputed that sometime in the morning of December 16,
1957 Alfredo Salazar, driving a jeepney Ford Glory
A.C.-4598 belonging to Perfecto Santos, took to the road looking for passengers
but failed to return to his base at the usual time –
eight o’clock in the evening.  Two days
later his cadaver was found at North Bay Blvd., Malabon,
Rizal, the cause of his death being, according to the
NBI Medico Legal autopsy findings, “intracranial hemor­rhage, acute,
severe, secondary to external violence”.  The medical examiner further found that the
wounds on the head and face inflicted upon the deceased were fatal and that at
least two kinds of blunt instruments were used to cause them.  Moreover, the jeepney
driven by him valued at P3,000.00 was never recovered.

The crime remained unsolved for some time, until sus­picions fell
upon appellant Rodolfo Bautista and one Apoli­nario Maloles who were accordingly placed under arrest on
November 27 of the following year.  In
the course of the ensuing investigation, appellant executed the sworn state­ment,
now in the record as Exhibit 5, in which he admitted:  that on the day in question he rode in the
jeep driven by Alfredo Salazar together with Apolinario
Maloles and Edgar Abella,
the latter having sat beside the driver, while he and Maloles
occupied the rear seat; that after going to several places Abella
made the driver stop, claiming that he was to satisfy a minor necessity, but
instead of doing so, he hit Salazar with a bottle several times, as a result of
which Salazar died; that thereafter Abella took the
wheel and drove the jeepney away, with the dead body
of Salazar which they later dumped along the road side; that thereafter, he, Maloles and Abella proceeded to
their home town – Tanauan, Batangas
– where he alighted and separated from his two com­panions; that later on Maloles informed him that the jeep had been sold and
offered him the sum of P15.00 which he re­fused to accept, asking instead for a
bottle of beer and a pack of cigarettes; that he promised Maloles
not to tell anyone about the commission of the crime; that the following day he
was charged in court (Criminal Case No. 46544).

A charge for the same offense was filed on February 17, 1959
against Apolinario Maloles
in the same Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 47434).  Subsequently, the two cases were tried
jointly.

Upon the above facts the Court of Appeals found appellant
Bautista guilty as accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery with
homicide, making in this con­nection the following considerations:

“x x x     x x x     x x x Considering the antecedents –
from the time the trio agreed to come to Manila to have a good time and what
had been done by them, it would be futile to consider appellant’s presence,
acts and attitude a mere passive presence’. 
Surely, if he were not in cohort and without the least intention to
cooperate with such dastardly acts on the part of his companions at the time,
the most natural thing for him to do was to have notified, if not denounced to,
the authorities what had taken place which resulted in the loss of a life.  It may be that appellant was under an impossi­bility
in preventing his companions from continuously attacking the driver, still, if
he did not intend to cooperate, he should not have helped dispose of a dead
victim, leaving him alone in a highway and later keeping mum about it.  Evidently, that was no behavior of an
innocent person.  Even if appel­lant had
not at the beginning thought of, much less intended, to join in the commission
of the acts of attacking and killing someone, the moment one of his companions
had committed such a heinous act, it was incumbent upon him (appellant) to have
done something, at least, to extend help to prevent the death of the victim by
notifying the corresponding authorities at the first opportunity.”

Having appealed in due time from the above decision, appellant
submits the following as the reasons why the same should be reversed:

“I     – THAT THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE DECI­SION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.

“II    – THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
DECIDED TO FIND PETITIONER GUILTY AS ACCOM­PLICE IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.

“III   – THAT THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO AN ERROR OF
LAW IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.

“IV  – THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS MADE A
WRONG CONCLUSION OF GUILT.”

It is appellant’s contention that the evidence of record points to
no more than his mere presence in the scene of the crime and does not show at
all any degree of cooper­ation, whether moral or material, on his part to help
accom­plish the crime.

This contention is without merit. 
The evidence suf­ficiently proves that he and the two other persons
named here­tofore had a previous agreement to come to Manila to have a good
time.  They stuck to each other’s company
from the time they boarded their victim’s vehicle until they returned to their
home town after dumping their victim’s dead body along the road side.  True, there is no positive showing that appel­lant
actually laid hands upon the deceased Salazar, but if he was not in conspiracy
with his companions, why did Maloles have to tell him
that the stolen jeep had been sold and then offered him a part of the loot?;
why did he ask for and accept – instead of the P15.00 offered by Maloles, a bottle of beer and cigarettes?; why did he keep
quiet for so long a time, instead of revealing to the authorities the
commission of the crime?

At any rate, the question posed by appellant is one of fact
already resolved by the trial court and the Court of Appeals against him.  The record does not disclose any factor
justifying a reversal of their finding.

Appellant’s next contention is that it was error on the part of
the Court of Appeals to consider against him the testimony of Apolinario Maloles when,
according to law, that testimony given after the conspiracy had ceased to exist
should have been considered only against Maloles
himself.  It is enough to say in this
connection that the trial court as well as the Court of Appeals considered Maloles‘ testimony only as corroborative evidence in
relation to the evidence presented against appellant himself.  Even without such corroborative evidence, the
latter would seem to be sufficient to sustain the findings of both courts.

The third and fourth questions raised by appellant require no
special or particular consideration, the same being mere corollaries of the
first two.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from being in accordance
with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.

Concepcion C.J., and Castro, J., are
on official leave.