G.R. No. L-32518. November 07, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PROTACIO MAAGAD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of
the 15th Judicial District, finding the accused Protacio Maagad guilty of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide, as defined
and penalized under Article 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code and
sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH; to pay the heirs of Francisco Sing the amount of
P12,000.00; to pay jointly and severally with his co-accused Pablito Denurog
the amounts of P260.00 to Tita Sing, P35.00 to Tan Pao Sing, P140.00 to Nelfa
Sing, and P140.00 to Dionisia Sing; and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
It is not disputed that at about 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon of
February 19, 1969, while Dionisia Sing and her husband, Francisco Sing, were in
the ground floor of their house located at Barrio Lurogan, Valencia, Bukidnon,
four (4) men armed with firearms came towards them shouting: “Civilians do not come near because we
are PC Rangers, we are after the Chinese only.”[1]
When they were sufficiently near, one of the armed men, the fat one, ordered
them: “Do not move as we are PC
Rangers,” while his companions went up to the house of Francisco Sing,
firing shots into the air as they went.
The fat man then grabbed Francisco Sing by his undershirt, “on the
neckside” and brought him a few meters away from his house towards the
nearby bodega owned by one Vicente Lim. The man holding Francisco Sing
demanded: “Where is your
money?” and Francisco Sing replied:
“I have no money.” When Francisco Sing answered that he had no
money, he was slapped and kicked on the back and then shot.[2] Upon seeing her husband shot, Dionisia Sing
ran upstairs. There she
encountered one of the armed men who kicked her at the back and ordered her to lie flat face towards the floor. Her trunk was ransacked and her clothes were
scattered on the floor. Her money
amounting to P60.00 and her wrist watch valued at P30.00 were taken by
them. While she was lying on the floor, she heard the men demanding
money from Tita Sing and Tan Pao Sing in the other room.[3]
Tita Sing, the sister of Francisco Sing, who was cooking supper
at the kitchen when the armed men arrived, went upstairs, upon hearing a shot,
thinking that the children of Dionisia Sing were playing with a toy gun. Upon reaching the second floor, she was met
by an armed man who ordered her to lie flat, face
downward. She obeyed him because the
armed man kicked her on the back. She
was then brought to a bedroom where she and her mother, Tan Pao Sing, were
divested of their money, necklaces, earrings and watch, at gun point. After an hour, the arms of Tita Sing and her
mother were tied behind their backs and they were brought downstairs. Later, Tita Sing was brought by the armed men
to the house of Adolfo Pechora, about 30 meters away. The four armed men then went upstairs leaving
Tita Sing in the yard. She managed to
untie herself and flee to a nearby creek, where she hid until the robbers left. When she returned to their house at about 8:00 o’clock p.m. she saw her brother,
Francisco Sing, already dead and her other brothers and sisters crying.[4]
Later, policemen from Valencia,
Bukidnon, arrived at Barrio Lurogan to investigate the crime.[5]
On February 21, 1969,
Dionisia Sing was brought by PC soldiers to Don Carlos, Bukidnon to look for
the malefactors. Not finding them there,
they proceeded to Masimag, Bukidnon
arriving thereat at noontime. There she
saw one of the robbers and pointed him out to the PC saying: “That’s the man who killed my
husband. I cannot be mistaken.” So,
the PC arrested him. The man was Protacio
Maagad.[6]
As a result, a criminal complaint for Robbery in Band with Homicide was filed
against Protacio Maagad and three John Does.[7]
On April 23, 1969, one Pablito Denurog, an escaped convict,[8]
who had been apprehended in Cotabato City in connection with the hold-up of a
cinema owner in that city, executed a sworn statement, wherein he admitted the
robbery and killing of a Chinaman in Lurogan, Valencia, Bukidnon on February
19, 1969. He named his companions as one
“Boy” whose surname he did not know; “Andres”, whose
surname he also did not know; Emeliano Peryante; Ceferino Gamba alias
“Cefring Waray” who did not go with them to the house of the
Chinaman, but who hid at the back of the house on the sloping portion of the
lot because he did not want to be seen, being well known to the people living
at Lurogan; and “Natong Tejada” of Binggo and Bangka Mayor, Poblacion,
Valencia, Bukidnon, who drove the jeep they used in going to Barrio
Lurogan. The criminal complaint was
consequently amended, naming the John Does.[9] On May 8, 1969, however, Natong Tejada was excluded from the
complaint,[10]
upon motion of the Chief of
Police of Valencia, Bukidnon, there being no sufficient evidence to warrant his
prosecution.[11]
The complaint was so amended.[12]
Thereafter an information was filed against Protacio
Maagad, Pablito Denurog, and Ceferino Gamba charging them with the crime of
Robbery in Band with Homicide committed as follows:
“That on or about the 19th day of February 1969, in the
afternoon, at barrio Lurogan, municipality of Valencia, province of Bukidnon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused together with others who are still at large, armed with
assorted weapons, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with intent to rob and with violence against and
intimidation of person, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally,
at gun point ordered the occupants of the house of Francisco Sing to lay flat
on the floor and take, steal and carry away the following:
1. Cash money in the amount of P60.00 from Mrs. Dionisia Sing.
2. Cash money in the amount of P200.00 from Miss Tita Sing and Mrs.
Tan Pao Vda. de Sing.
3. Cash money in the
amount of P300.00 from Eduardo Sing including one wrist watch, one ring and two
chinese Gold Necklace worth P500.00 more or less.
to their damage
and prejudice in the aggregate amount of P1,060.00, value of the cash and
jewelry stolen.
That by reason on the occasion of the robbery, accused Protacio
Maagad with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally fire and shoot Francisco Sing, resulting in the death of the latter.
The crime was committed with the use of a motor vehicle and at the
dwelling of the offended party.”
When arraigned, the accused Protacio Maagad and Ceferino Gamba
pleaded not guilty to the charge.[13]
The accused Pablito Denurog, upon the other hand, pleaded guilty. The sentence, however, was reserved until
after the trial of the case. A counsel de
oficio was appointed for
him and he was ordered to appear at the trial.[14]
After the prosecution had rested its case, the accused Ceferino
Gamba filed a demurrer to the evidence on the ground that there was no
sufficient evidence presented to prove his participation in the crime
committed,[15]
and on April 24, 1970, the
trial court dismissed the case against him, with prejudice.[16]
The accused Protacio Maagad thereafter presented evidence in his
defense. He denied having committed the
crime for which he is charged. According
to him, he was in the rice mill of Pedro Loyloy, at Calubihon, Don Carlos,
Bukidnon, at about 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon of February 19, 1969,
to have his palay milled. He went home
after his palay was milled arriving thereat at about 5:00 o’clock p.m.
When he arrived at his house, he saw Jose Cantillo waiting for him
because the latter wanted to buy his pigs.
They were not able to consummate the sale because he wanted to consult
his wife first. He advised Jose Cantillo
to come back the next day. Jose Cantillo
did return the next day and did buy his two pigs.
On February 21, 1969,
he was in the market place of Masimag (now called Barrio New Nonongan) selling
some commodities. At noontime of the
same day, while he was in the store waiting for transportation in order to go
home, two PC jeeps arrived. PC Sgt. Tihon
approached him and told him that the PC captain was calling for him (accused). So, he went to the PC captain, who ordered
him to raise his hands, and poked a pistol at him. Then he was handcuffed. Capt. Reyes did not allow him to talk as he
(Capt. Reyes) wanted to ask him something.
He asked Capt. Reyes why he was arrested and the latter drew out his
dagger and slapped his shoulder with it.
The accused thought that Capt. Reyes would stab him. He was then brought to Lurogan,
Valencia, Bukidnon where
he was ordered to identify the dead Chinaman.
According to the accused, “When we were inside the house, I told
everybody that I did not know or recognize the dead Chinese and I even told the
dead man that if you have a soul you must let your relatives know if I am the
one who killed you. Then, the relatives
of the dead man placed the dead person before me and since there is nothing
they could do, the persons outside shouted:
Whom shall we help those from here or those not from here.” Then the PC brought him
to Malaybalay.[17]
Pedro Loyloy was presented to
corroborate the testimony of the accused that he was in the rice mill
having his rice milled at 4:30 o’clock
to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 19, 1969.[18] The booklet of duplicate receipts[19] was introduced to support his
testimony. Jose Cantillo was also
presented to lend credence to the testimony of the accused.[20] Mayor Teodulo Palma of Don Carlos, Bukidnon, Carlito de Asis, barrio captain of Masimag, Don Carlos, Bukidnon and Matias
Mahinay, barrio councilman of the same barrio and Crispin Dalaquit, barrio
captain of Calubihon, Don Carlos, Bukidnon, all attested to the good moral
character and conduct of the accused Protacio Maagad.[21] Pat. Felix Asingan and
Pat. Olezario Paredes, both policemen of Valencia, Bukidnon, disputed
the testimony of Conrado Magad, stating that they saw the latter at the police
check point near the public market of Valencia, Bukidnon, waiting for
transportation between 5:30 o’clock to 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
February 19, 1969.[22] Pat. Paredes further testified that he
investigated the robbery that same evening in Lurogan and asked Dionisia Sing
and Tita Sing if they recognized the persons who robbed them and they replied
that they could not recognize the robbers.
Pat. Felipe Munalem of Valencia, Bukidnon also testified that he
investigated the robbery and asked the
people at Lurogan if they had
witnessed its commission and they answered that they could not recognize any of
the robbers.[23] He also stated that he investigated Dionisia
Sing who told him that she could not see the robbers who killed her husband
because she was made to lie flat on the floor upstairs face downwards, in the
sala.[24] He further stated that he investigated
Pablito Denurog at Cotabato City and the latter absolved Protacio Maagad from
the commission of the crime, stating: “x x x That man that was arrested by
Captain Reyes PC whom they arrested at Masinag, Don Carlos, Bukidnon, while I
was still at Don Carlos, Bukidnon, has no participation whatsoever regarding
the incident about the robbery of the chinese at Lurogan, Valencia, Bukidnon,
because those names I had mentioned above, were my only companions during that
time.”[25]
Upon the circumstances, the trial court found the accused Pablito
Denurog guilty of the crime of simple robbery by a band under Article 294, par.
5, of the Revised Penal Code, since he was not physically present at the
killing as to prevent its commission and sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months of prision correctional, as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay one-half of the costs. He was further ordered to pay, jointly and
severally, with Protacio Maagad, the amounts of P260.00 to Tita Sing; P235.00
to Tan Pao Sing; P140.00 to Nelfa Sing and P140.00 to Dionisia Sing. He did not appeal from the decision so that
the judgment is final and executory as to him.[26]
The accused, Protacio Maagad, upon the other hand, was found
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Protacio Maagad
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and
there being present the aggravating circumstances of by a band and dwelling without any mitigating circumstance
to offset them, hereby sentences said accused Protacio Maagad under Article
294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, to the supreme penalty of death
and to pay 1/2 of the costs, and pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in
the case of People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, October 11, 1968, this Court further
sentences Protacio Maagad to pay the heirs of his victim Francisco Sing in the
amount of P12,000.00. He is further
sentenced jointly and severally together with Pablito Denurog to pay the amount
of P260.00 to Tita Sing, P235.00 to Tan Pao Sing, mother of Tita Sing, P140.00
to Nelfa Sing, sister of Tita Sing and P140.00 to Dioniosia Sing in payment of
the cash and valuables which Pablito Denurog and Protacio Maagad and their two
companions had taken from the above occupants of the house and dwelling of
Francisco Sing.
SO ORDERED.”
Counsel for the accused disputes the findings of the trial court,
alleging that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the identity
of Protacio Maagad as one of the
robbers and the one who shot the victim, Francisco
Sing, is not fully positive and conclusive as held by the trial court.
We have examined the
records of the case with minute care and find no reason or motive to set aside
the findings of the trial court.
Protacio Maagad was positively identified by Dionisia Sing. She declared, as follows:
“Q
After your husband answered he has no
money, what happened next?
A The one holding my husband slapped
and kicked him on the back.
Q What else did he do to your husband?
A And he shot my husband.
COURT:
Q You mean to say that your husband was shot
in your presence?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. AZURA:
Q After your husband was shot, what did you
do?
A I ran away.
Q
Where did you run?
A
Upstairs.
Q What happened while you were upstairs?
A I was followed by another person and I was
kicked.
Q Where were you hit?
A At my back.
Q You said you saw the four person
approached you and your husband, if you could see them again, could you
identify those four persons?
A I could recognize them, if I could see them.
Q That one who held the undershirt of your
husband, could you identify him?
A Yes I could recognize him.
Q If he
is present in Court now, could you point to him? (Witness was requested to go down the witness
stand by the Honorable Judge to point to the person who kicked and shot her
husband.)
A He is here (witness pointing to the accused
Protacio Maagad in Court).
COURT: (to the accused)
Q What is your name?
A Protacio Maagad.”[27]
The circumstances by which she pointed
the accused Protacio Maagad to the PC investigators is also worthy of
note. Her testimony reads, as follows:
“Q While you were in Masimag, what happened?
A I saw the robber.
Q What was he doing?
A Standing at the store.
COURT:
Q Somebody pointed him to you?
A No, sir.
Q That he is the robber?
A No, only myself.
Q While you were travelling with the vehicle
of the PC?
A We already stopped.
Q Who told the driver of the vehicle to stop?
A We had our dinner in Masimag.
ATTY. AZURA:
Q When you noticed according to you one of the
robbers, what did you do?
A I
pointed him to the PC.
COURT:
Q What words did you use in pointing that
person?
A
I said: That’s the man who killed my husband, I
cannot be mistaken.’
Q What
else?
A I said I saw it
already.'”[28]
Tita Sing also identified Protacio Maagad as one of the
culprits. Her testimony reads, as
follows:
“Q What happened
downstairs?
A I saw Protacio Maagad guarding.
Q What was he guarding?
A Guarding the door of the house.
Q Was he inside or outside of the house?
A He was inside the door.
ATTY. AZURA:
Q If Protacio Maagad whom you mentioned is in
the Court you point to him if he is present in Court?
A (Witness
pointing to the person who is fat one of the accused.)”[29]
Protacio Maagad was very close to Tita
Sing as to preclude a mistake in identifying him. She declared, as follows:
“Q How far were you
from Maagad?
A Very near.
Q How far?
A One (1) armslength, from Maagad.
Q Were you able to see the face of Maagad?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was the face of Maagad covered?
A No, sir.
Q Did you talk to Maagad downstairs?
A None.
Q Look at Protacio Maagad again, is he the
same Maagad that you saw him in February
19, 1969?
A He
is the one.”[30]
The place was well lighted and Tita Sing
saw the features of Maagad very clearly.
She said:
“Q
When you were brought down, was there a
light?
A There was a petromax lamp.
Q
Where was it placed?
A Near the door where Maagad was
standing.”[31]
Considering that the prosecution witnesses have no possible motive
to make a false imputation against the accused herein, there is no reason why
Protacio Maagad’s denial that he was not the culprit should prevail over the
positive identification made by them.
The claim that revenge motivated the witnesses Dionisia Sing and Tita
Sing to testify falsely against the accused is without merit. The records do not show that these witnesses
had vengeance in their hearts. If they
had, they would have also pointed to Natong Tejada and Ceferino Gamba as the
culprits in the commission of the felony.
All they had to do was to confirm the statement of Pablito Denurog since
these persons have already been mentioned by Denurog. The fact that they did not, so much so that
these persons were acquitted of the crime charged, only shows the veracity of
the testimony of these witnesses.
Counsel for the accused makes capital of the testimony of Pat. Felipe Munalem that when he investigated these witnesses
immediately after the robbery, he was told by them that they could not
recognize the robbers so that he did not file any criminal case. This contention, however, is without
merit. While Dionisia Sing may have told
Pat. Munalem that she did not know the robbers, she added that she could recognize their faces if she ever saw them
again. And she did, when she
spontaneously pointed to Maagad upon seeing him at Barrio Masimag. In her sworn statement given to the PC
investigators on February 21, 1969, Dionisia Sing stated:
“7. Q Can
you recognized one of the four persons who robbed you and killed your husband
on the 19th of February, 1969
at about 5:30 o’clock in the
afternoon?
A I do not know the name, but I can recognized the face in case I can see him.
8 Q I
am showing to you a person now, what can you say about him?
A That one Sir, is
one of the robbers that robbed us and shot my husband. (Witness pointing to Mr. Protacio Maagad)
9 Q
Why are you sure that he is one of the robbers
and shot your husband?
A Because I saw him.”[32]
Tita Sing explained her initial reluctance to name the robbers to
Pat. Munalem saying that she was afraid that the robbers
might come back to their house and retaliate. Her testimony reads, as follows:
“Q
Patrolman Felipe Munalem of Valencia
testified here that when you were asked whether you recognized the person who
tied you and brought you out of your house you answered that you could not
recognize them because you were looking down and that the robbers were mad when
you looked at them, is this true or not?
A Yes, I told Munalem as I was afraid to
tell.
COURT:
Q To tell what?
A That I saw them.
ATTY. AZURA:
Q Why were you afraid?
A As the robbers might come back to our
house.
Q But actually, could you tell the Court if
you have seen the faces of those robbers who tied your hands and brought you
down outside your house?
A Yes, I saw.
COURT:
Q What you stated in Court is the truth?
A Yes, sir.”[33]
The defense was correctly rejected by the
trial court because even conceding that the testimonies of the defense witnesses
are truthful, nevertheless, in point of time, it could have been possible for
the accused to go to Lurogan and to commit the felony of which he stands
convicted. Pedro Loyloy testified that
the accused was in his rice mill at 4:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of February 19, 1969
and left after half an hour. On the
other hand, Crispin Dalaguit testified that he saw the accused pass by his
house going towards Loyloy’s rice mill at about 4:00
o’clock, but did not see him come back. For his part, Jose Cantillo declared that he
waited until 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon for the accused. The
robbery-killing took place at about 5:30 o’clock and the distance between
Lurogan and Calubihon is only 43 kilometers which could have been negotiated by a motor vehicle in less than an
hour. And the confessed robber, Pablito
Denurog, stated that they used the jeep of Natong Tejada in going to
Lurogan.[34] Considering that this Court has ruled time
and again that a defense of alibi must be looked upon with suspicion, it is
obvious that it cannot prevail over the explicit and positive identification
made by Dionisia Sing and Tita Sing who, without hesitation, pointed to him as
one of the robbers. The trial court,
therefore, correctly found the accused guilty of the felony of which he stands
convicted.
The killing of Francisco
Sing was done by reason of and on the occasion of a robbery perpetrated by four
armed men in the house of Francisco Sing. There is, therefore, present the aggravating
circumstances of by a band and dwelling.
Hence, the penalty imposed is correct.
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby affirmed in
toto.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., no part.
[1]
t.s.n., p. 12.
[2]
“Donato Abejuela, The Provincial Sanitary Inspector stationed at Valencia,
Bukidnon, stated that Francisco Sing sustained the following lesion: “Gunshot wound at the back, left side, entrance
1/2 inch. wide without an exit.”
[3]
t.s.n., pp. 112-116.
[4]
t.s.n., pp. 69-81.
[5]
t.s.n., p. 122.
[6]
t.s.n., pp. 123-128.
[7]
Original Record, p. 3.
[8]
t.s.n., p. 3.
[9]
Original Record, p. 46.
[10]
Id., p. 54.
[11]
Id., p. 53.
[12]
Id., p. 55.
[13]
Id., p. 73.
[14]
t.s.n., pp. 2-4; See also Original Record, p. 120.
[15]
Original Record, p. 151.
[16]
Id., p. 153.
[17]
t.s.n., pp. 335-342.
[18]
t.s.n., pp. 285-288.
[19]
Exhibit 7.
[20]
t.s.n., pp. 305-322.
[21]
t.s.n., pp. 322-333.
[22]
t.s.n., pp. 197-198; 257-261.
[23]
Id., p. 218.
[24]
Id., p. 222.
[25]
Id., pp. 226-229.
[26]
Decision, p. 46.
[27]
t.s.n., pp. 113-114.
[28]
Id., pp. 126-127.
[29]
Id., p. 77.
[30]
Id. pp. 99-100.
[31]
Id., p. 102.
[32]
See Exhibit “1-A”, Original Record, p. 176.
[33]
t.s.n., pp. 366-367.
[34]
See Exhibit “4-A”.