G.R. No. L-26491. May 20, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PASTOR TAPAC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PASTOR TAPAC, GLICERIO CABIGAYAN, ANTONIO TAPAC, RAMON CABIGAYAN, RODRIGO TAPAC AND JUAN…
DIZON, J.:
Pastor, Antonio and Rodrigo Tapac, Glicerio and Ramon Cabigayan, Juanito Abegonia and Jesus Abadiac were charged with robbery with homicide in the
Court of First Instance of Samar. As Jesus Abadiac
was never arrested, the trial below proceeded only as against the other six
defendants all of whom had pleaded not guilty.
After such trial the court rendered judgment as follows:
“There is no sufficient evidence to prove that the several
defendants conspired to commit the crime; although it is evident that they
helped each other in committing the same.
As there is no way to prove which wounds were
caused by each one of them; so they all shall be held equally liable for the
result of their illegal act, for the death of the deceased, for homicide.
“All of them were armed; and since they were seven, the
circumstance that advantage was taken of superior strength shall be considered
to aggravate the penalty against all of them (par. 15, Id.).
“The cutting of the ear, of the jaw and of
the tongue as well as the removal of both eyes were unnecessary in the
commission. They were other wrongs
deliberately caused to augment the wrong already done; acts which characterized
vindictiveness; acts which were absolutely not necessary for the execution of
their purpose to kill the victim. They
were acts of rashness and cruelty indicative of complete disregard of the
physical pains of another. This is
another aggravating circumstance (par. 21, Id.).
“We have it therefore clear and beyond reasonable doubt that
the six accused on trial have committed the crime of homicide as defined in
Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code and therein penalized by reclusion
temporal.
“With respect to the crime of robbery, we hold that only
Pastor Tapac should be made responsible for the
same: for he alone committed the robbery
after the victim was wounded and fallen and was rendered helpless, and might be
dying if not yet then dead. He took the
money, a personal property of the deceased, with intent to gain, after
committing violence upon the person of his victim (Art. 293, Revised
Penal Code).
“We have no evidence to prove that the other accused
participated in that robbery. There was
no conspiracy, it could be that none of them stopped Pastor Tapac
from committing the robbery; but such would not be a just conclusion that they
participated in its commission. The
robbery therefore should be attributed only to him (Pastor Tapac).
“As the robbery was committed in connection with the homicide,
the crime should fall under Art. 294 (Supra) which provides
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
“Therefore the crime committed by Pastor Tapac
is homicide complexed with robbery; and the penalty
to be imposed shall be for the most serious crime (Art. 46,
supra).
“There is no evidence to show that the drunkenness of the
accused was either habitual or intentional.
Such shall be considered to mitigate the penalty for all the accused
(Art. 15, Supra).
“In view of the above, the Court finds and declares Pastor Tapac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide complexed with robbery, and his five
co-accused guilty of homicide, in the commission of which one mitigating and
three aggravating circumstances were present; and,
“Therefore, convicts each one of them to suffer as
follows: Pastor Tapac,
to reclusion perpetua; Antonio Tapac,
to an indeterminate penalty from TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision
mayor to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal; and Glicerio
Cabigayan, Ramon Cabigayan,
Rodrigo Tapac, and Juanito Pbegonia, each, also to an indeterminate penalty from TEN
(10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor to
SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal;
all with the accessory penalties, and all of them to indemnify, jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased P6,000.00 plus P800.00, and pay the corresponding
costs.” (pp. 61-63 rec.).
The six defendants appealed and submitted a brief, through their
counsel de oficio, with the following assignment of
errors:
“I
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED IN THE
AMOUNT OF P800.00 WHEN, IN ITS DECISION, ONLY DEFENDANT PASTOR TAPAC WAS FOUND
GUILTY OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANTS RAMON CABIGAYAN AND
RODRIGO TAPAC OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE INSTEAD OF THE OFFENSE PENALIZED UNDER
ARTICLES 4 (2) AND 59 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
III
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF CRUELTY AGAINST APPELANTS
GLICERIO CABIGAYAN, ANTONIO TAPAC, AND JUANITO ABEGONIA.
IV
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO INDETERMINATE PENALTIES AS FOLLOWS:
ANTONIO
TAPAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWELVE
(12) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR TO TWENTY (20) YEARS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
GLICERIO
CABIGAYAN . . . . . . . TEN (10) YEARS
AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS AND
ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
RAMON
CABIGAYAN . . . . . . . . . TEN (10) YEARS
AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS AND
ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
RODRIGO
TAPAC. . . . . . . . . . TEN (10) YEARS
AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS AND
ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
JUANITO
ABEGONIA . . . . . . . . . TEN (10)
YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL.”
On March 17, 1967,
Pastor Tapac filed a motion for the withdrawal of his
appeal. We granted the same in our
resolution of April 5 of the same year (record pp. 32-33).
Appellants’ brief states the facts as follows:
“Felipe Mabutas (deceased) and his
wife, Lolita, were residents of the Barrio proper of Parasanon,
Municipality of Pinabacdao, Samar. The Barrio has a Sitio,
Magdawat, about 8 kilometers from the Barrio proper.
“The spouses own a store in Parasanon
managed by the wife, and an abaca plantation in Magdawat. Within the year prior to June 1, 1963, they established a stripping machine
in the latter place, and they engaged in the abaca business under the
management of the deceased. He was to
buy both raw abaca for stripping, and also dried abaca, from other planters. To haul the purchases, they had to have a carabao (T.S.N. pp. 6-8, Sept. 8, 1965).
“On May 27, 1963,
the deceased left his home in Parasanon to go to Magdawat. His wife
handed P800.00 to him with which to buy abaca and a carabao
(T.S.N., p. 6, Sept. 8, 1965).
“On June 1, 1963,
an upland ricefield in Sitio
lnalaran (Enalaran), Parasanon, belonging to Antonio and Dolores Ocenar, was being planted (T.S.N., p. 5, Sept. 23,
1965). On hand in the morning of that
day to help them were more than 50 neighbors, among whom were Benedicto Cabaljao, a nephew of
the deceased, and the seven defendants herein.
Of the latter, Antonio Tapac is the father of
Pastor Tapac and Rodrigo Tapac,
and the father-in-law of Glicerio Cabigayan. Ramon Cabigayan is
the brother of Glicerio Cabigayan,
the brother-in-law of Juanito Abegonia,
and the cousin-in-law of Jesus Abadiac (T.S.N., p. 4,
Sept. 23, 1965).
“At noon time, the
planters repaired to the nearby house of Trinidad Ocenar
for their lunch. Just before the meal
was about to be served, the deceased arrived at the house of Trinidad for the
purpose of buying the latter ‘s carabao (T.S.N., p.
20, Sept. 23, 1965). He had a radio
receiving set with him which, presumably, he allowed Juan Labutin,
Trinidad’s son, to handle (T.S.N., p. 8, Sept. 23,
1965). Trinidad’s
asking price for the carabao was P250.00, which she
later on reduced to P230.00. The
deceased was willing, to pay only P200.00 and, in an effort to psychologize Trinidad, he drew that
sum from his wallet and offered it to her, stating that the amount should be sufficient
considering that the carabao was still young
(‘small’). Thus, the people around came
to know that the deceased was carrying money with him (T.S.N., p. 21, Sept. 23,
1965). Trinidad
remained adamant, and the negotiation terminated in the understanding that the
deceased could take up the matter with her son, Juan Labutin. If the son agreed, the carabao
would be sold at the price offered by the deceased (T.S.N., p. 25, Sept. 24,
1965).
“The deceased stayed for lunch at Trinidad’s
house. After eating, he went down from
the house and sat on a rung of the stairs.
Here, he was joined by appellant Antonio Tapac. The latter asked the deceased for a monetary
loan which was refused, the deceased stating that he needed his cash for his
purchases of abaca. The refusal was
resented by Antonio’s son, Pastor Tapac, to the
extent that, when the deceased rose to leave and had asked Juan Labutin for his radio, Pastor struck him with a bolo from
behind. That act of Pastor precipitated
a general attack on the deceased.
Antonio also boloed him, followed by Glicerio and Juanito (T.S.N., pp.
7-10, Sept. 23, 1965). After he was already dead, Ramon
Cabigayan, Jesus Abadiac
and Rodrigo Tapac also boloed
him (Exh. ‘1-b’, p. 54, of
record). His tongue and right ear
were cut, his lower jaw smashed, and his two eyes were gouged (Exh. ‘A’, p. 52 of the record). Then, Pastor grabbed the wallet of the
deceased which was in his pocket, tearing the pocket in the process (T.S.N.,
pp. 9-10, Sept. 23, 1965).”
Comparing the above statement of facts, with the findings of fact
made by the trial court and the counter statement of facts made in the brief
filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, one will find no substantial
discrepancy except as to this: that
while according to the trial court and the Office of the Solicitor General
Ramon Cabigayan, Jesus Abadiac
and Rodrigo Tapac boloed
the deceased Felipe Mabutas while he was still alive,
appellants contend that the three did so after Mabutas
was already dead. In fact, in their
brief (second assignment of error) it is claimed that the lower court erred in
convicting Ramon Cabigayan and Rodrigo Tapac of the crime of homicide instead of finding them
guilty of an impossible crime, defined and penalized under Articles 4(2) and 59
of the Revised Penal Code. In support of
this view they rely exclusively upon a portion of the affidavit of prosecution
witness Benedicto Cabaljao,
which reads as follows:
“When Felipe bade farewell, he asked his radio from Juan Labotin. I saw
Pastor Tapak stab Felipe Mabutas,
hitting him in the left neck, then Antonio Tapak
stabbed Felipe on his head, Felipe fell and rolled, then Glicerio
Abiguña stabbed Felipe, Ramon Cabigayan stabbed while Felipe was
already dead and they kept on stabbing
when Jesus Abadiak arrived
at the cadaver let us stab him
so that he cannot go home to his
store, Rodrigo Tapak arrived
and stabbed Felipe Mabutas……”
In the light of the evidence of record, We
are of the opinion that the sworn statement relied upon is not sufficient to
show that the trial court erred.
It is extremely doubtful that Cabaljao
could have known positively that Felipe Mabutas was
already dead when Ramon Cabigayan and Rodrigo Tapac also struck him, because Cabaljao
was upstairs near the window of the house of Trinidad Ocenar
where the crime was committed, from which vantage point he was looking down and
saw the incident. The most that one may
perhaps accept in this connection is that from the place where he was, it seemed
to him that the victim was already dead.
Material in this connection is the evidence to the effect that Jesus Abadiac – the accused who did not stand trial because he
was never arrested – told his companions to continue stabbing their victim so
that the latter could no longer go home.
This clearly justifies the inference that when Abadiac
made such statement, their victim was still alive.
We therefore, find the second assignment of error to be without
merit.
In support of the first assignment of error, appellants argue
that as the trial court held that it was only Pastor Tapac
who committed the robbery – although it likewise held all the appellants to be
equally guilty of homicide – he alone should have been sentenced to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P800.00 – the amount of which he robbed
their victim.
It is to be observed that the information charges all the
appellants with having conspired, confederated and helped one another in killing
Felipe Mabutas in order to rob him of his money. The evidence in this connection fully
justifies the conclusion that upon seeing the money in cash which Felipe Mabutas carried, the cupidity of appellants Antonio and
Pastor Tapac – father and son – in whose presence Mabutas counted the P200.00 which he showed to Trinidad Ocenar to induce her to sell her carabao
seized and overwhelmed them. When inspite of the fact that the transaction had failed, Mabutas refused to give the loan sought by Antonio Tapac, the latter and his children and other relatives
present suddenly attacked him in the cruel manner heretofore described – going
to the extent of cutting his ear, tongue and jaw, gouging his eyes – in other
words mutilating him unnecessarily.
Thereafter they left together, but not until after Pastor Tapac had robbed their victim of his money. All these leave us no other alternative but
to conclude that there was conspiracy amongst them (People vs. Castro et al.,
G. R. No. L-17465, August 31, 1964;
People vs. Luna et al., G. R. No. L-15480, January 28, 1961).
For conspiracy to exist, no previous agreement to commit the
offense is necessary. Conspiracy is
deemed to have been established if the evidence shows that the defendants had
the same purpose and joined together in its execution (People vs. Cadag, et al., G. R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961).
In this case such evidence exists.
Conspiracy having thus been established, the act or acts of any one
conspirator is or are the acts of all of them, and each conspirator is
responsible for the unlawful act or acts of his co-conspirator (People vs. Cadag, supra; People vs. Monadi
et al, G. R. No. L-3370-71, September 27, 1965; People vs. Reyes et al., 46 O. G. 3780).
In connection with the third and last assignment of error, all
that We now need to say is the following:
The acts of cruelty unnecessarily perpetrated against the
deceased Felipe Mabutas are beyond question. His assailants – notwithstanding the fact
that because of the unexpectedness of the assault he could not have offered any
resistance – inflicted upon him the following physical injuries:
“Three (3) fatal wounds (all penetrating) on the left breast;
“Three (3) fatal wounds (all penetrating) on the left portion
of the abdomen;
“One stabbed wound just below the neck (front section) wound
on the right arm (palm about to be separated);
“Two (2) fatal wounds (both penetrating) on the left and right
portion of the back;
“One stabbed wound on the left shoulder with fractured bones;
“One stabbed wound on the right ribs (penetrating);
“One fatal wound on the forehead;
“One fatal wound on the right section of the head; and
“One fatal wound on the right leg.
“The following parts were no longer found on the cadaver:
‘1. The
tongue
‘2. The
lower jaw
‘3. The
two (2) eyes
‘4. The
right ear’ (Exh. ‘A’, p. 52,
rec.)”
As in this case conspiracy is clearly deducible from the
concerted action taken by all the appellants, it is not necessary to show
which of the above physical injuries was inflicted by this or that particular
appellant. Each one of them is
responsible for the act or acts of the others.
The foregoing shows conclusively that all the appellants are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide punishable
with Reclusion Perpetua to Death under the provision
of Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the commission thereof having been
attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and cruelty (Article 14,
paragraph 21, Revised Penal Code).
There is, however, some evidence tending to show that appellants
were under the influence of liquor when they committed the crime. This can not
be entirely disregarded considering that on June 1, 1963 they worked on the land
of Antonio and Dolores Ocenar to help them for free in its cultivation and lunch
was served them at the usual time of the day.
As customary in similar occasions, some intoxicating beverages may have
been served before and after the meal.
We are, therefore, inclined to appreciate in favor of appellants the
mitigating circumstance of intoxication, not habitual or intentional, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 15, Revised Penal Code. This mitigating circumstance, however, would
suffice only to offset one of the aggravating circumstances mentioned heretofore,
this justifying the imposition of the heavier penalty of Death. However, for lack of the required number of
votes, the same can not be imposed.
Consequently, all the five appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer
Reclusion Perpetua.
The indemnity of P6,000.00 is also raised to
P12,000.00.
THUS MODIFIED, the appealed decision is affirmed in all
other respects.
Reyes, J.B.L. (Acting C.J.), Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Ruiz Castro, J., on official leave.