THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MIGUEL CAMPOMANIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PELICOLO TULBA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal, by defendant Pelicolo
Tulba, from a decision of the Court of First Instance
of Negros Oriental, in Criminal Cases Nos.
S-159 and S-159-A thereof, finding him and his co-defendants, Silverio Lumaghan and Bernardo Magaso – who have not appealed -guilty as principals of two
(2) crimes of robbery with homicide – committed together with Miguel Campomanis, who has not been apprehended, as yet – and
sentencing Tulba, Lumaghan
and Magaso, in each one of said cases, to life
imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Dionisio
Tracarol and Maxima Baroro
in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in the event of
insolvency, and to pay the proportionate part of the costs.  Owing to the penalties thus meted out, said
cases were certified to Us by the Court of Appeals, to
which Tulba had interposed his appeal.

In the morning of December
11, 1963, the dead bodies of Dionisio Tracarol and his wife Maxima Baroro
were found, the latter in their house, and the former in the yard thereof, at
Barrio Capalasanan, Municipality
of Lazi, Province of Negros Oriental.  A hunting knife with its scabbard (Exhibits A
and A-1), another scabbard (Exhibit B), a dagger and its scabbard (Exhibits E
and E-1) and two (2) stems of coconut palms (Exhibits F and F-1) were found
near Dionisio’s body. 
Various documents, several pieces of cloth­ing and other personal
effects (Exhibits H-1 to H-24, I and I-1 to 1-23), were scattered around.  About 100 meters away was a trunk (Exhibit H)
that had been pried open.  Dionisio Tracarol had the
following injuries:

“(1)  Head – contusion, of scalp, frontal region,
with hematoma. 
No evidence of skull fracture.

“(2)  Chest – wound, stab, 7 in number, with sharp
ends, varying in sizes – 1 1/2 inches, 2 1/2 inches, 3 inches, 2 1/4 inches, 1
3/4 inches, 1 1/2 inches, and 1 1/2 inches.

“(3)  Wound, stab, axillary
region, left, mea­suring 1 1/2 inches long.

“(4)  Wound incised, dome, liver, measuring 3 inches
long, 1 1/2 inches deep.

“(5)  Wound, incised, 1 inch long x 1 inch deep,
located in middle lobe, left lung.

“(6)  Blood, pleural cavity, left, and abdominal
cavity, amounting to 500 cc.

“(7)  Wound,
chopping, 2 inches long, left wrist.”

His death had been caused by “(h)emorrhage, external and internal due to multiple
wounds of the chest, involving liver and middle lobe of left lung.” Maxima
Baroro had, in turn, sustained “(1) Wound, stab,
3 inches long, left, base of neck” and “(2) Wound, incised, 3/4
inches long, left common carotid artery” and the cause of her death was
“(h)emorrhage, external, due to stab wound,
neck, base, left, involving common carotid artery, left.”

On December 14, 1963,
appellant Tulba and his co-defendants, Lumaghan and Magaso, were
arrested at the wharf of Lazi, as they were about to
board a boat for Mindanao.  Upon investigation, Lumag­han
and Magaso confessed that they had – together with
Miguel Cam­pomanis, and accompanied by Tulba, who refused to make any state­ment – killed the
aforementioned couple, incidentally to their (defend­ants’) design to steal
from them (Mr. & Mrs. Tracarol).  These con­fessions were taken down by the
local chief of police, Lorenzo Baroro, and then
subscribed and sworn to before the municipal mayor of Lazi,
Domingo Arcamo. 
Meanwhile, two (2) criminal complaints had been filed with the municipal
court of Lazi, first for robbery with double murder
and later for robbery in band with double murder.  After the corresponding preliminary
investigation, the two (2) cases were forwarded to the Court of First Instance
of Negros Oriental, where the provincial fiscal filed
two (2) separate informations for robbery with
homicide, one involving the killing of Dionisio Tracarol and another, that of his wife, Maxima Baroro.  After a
joint trial, under a plea of not guilty, said court of first instance rendered its afore­said decision, from which defendant Pelicolo Tulba appealed to the
Court of Appeals, which, in turn, certified both cases to Us, in view of the
penalties meted out.

The evidence for the prosecution – consisting of the confessions,
Exhibits C, C-1 to C-5, D and D-1, the aforementioned physical evidence
(Exhibits H, H-1 to H-24, I and I-1 to I-23) and the testimony of Lorenzo Baroro, Domingo Arcamo, Leonarda Sangquenza, Cesar Sangquenza, Sergio Paghasian, Honorato Juma­lon, Adriano Bonocan and Inocentes Omandam – tended to establish the following:  In a party at Buloran,
Zamboanga del Sur, on Novem­ber
27, 1963, Bernardo Magaso, Silverio
Lumaghan and Miguel Cam­pomanis
agreed to sail for Negros Oriental, on December 3,
1963.  Said defendants, together with
appellant Tulba, then boarded a vessel at Lampanid, Municipality
of Ramon Magsaysay,
Zamboanga del Sur.  The next day,
they arrived at Plaridel, Misamis
Occidental.  Thence, they proceeded, the following day, to Larena,
Negros Oriental, which they reached on December
6.  After taking some drinks at its
market­place, they resumed their journey and arrived at the Barrio of Capa­lasanan, Municipality
of Lazi, Negros Oriental, at about 9:00
p.m.  They took their dinner
and spent the night in the house of Sergio Pag­hasian.  Early the next morning, they went to Calunasan, Municipality
of Maria, Negros
Oriental, and slept in the house of the spouses Cesar and Leonarda
Sangquenza. 
The day following, they merely relaxed, doing nothing of particular
relevance to the cases at bar.  The next
morning, they went to a house in the poblacion, in
connection with the town fiesta. 
Thereafter, that evening, they tried to go elsewhere, but, were unable
to do so, having arrived late for the bus that would have taken them to their
destination.  They, accordingly, returned
to the house of the Sangquenzas.  The following evening, Magaso,
Campomanis and Tulba slept
in the house of one by the name of Pecoy.

Although Lumaghan remained in that of
the Sangquenzas, the next day, at about 6:00 p.m., the four (4) of them got together
and headed for the Barrio of Capalasanan, Lazi, which they reached at about 10:00 p.m.  They
went directly to the place where Dionisio Tracarol and his wife Maxima Baroro
lived.  Upon reaching their yard, Magaso took Dionisio’s cow from
where it was and tethered it to a corner under his house.  Soon thereafter, Dionisio
came down with a lighted torch, seemingly to ascertain what was going on.  When Dionisio
passed near a coconut tree, behind which Magaso had
taken cover, the latter hit him on the back of the neck with the stem of a coconut palm.  As Dionisio
screamed, saying that he was being killed, Magaso
covered his (Dionisio’s) mouth with the palm of his (Magaso’s) hand, whereas Lumaghan
hit Dionisio with another stem of coconut palm.  Attracted by Dionisio’s
scream, his wife, Maxima Baroro, had, meanwhile, gone
to the window of their house and seen that he was being beaten up, whereupon
she, likewise, began to scream.  This
induced Campomanis to go up the house and stab her
twice.  Then, Campomanis
came down and, similarly, stabbed Dionisio, who was
still shouting.  After thus silencing
him, Campomanis went back to the house, together with
Lumaghan, and then brought down a trunk, which Magaso helped them bring some distance away, and then pry
it open with a hunting knife, to find – after throwing out its contents,
consisting of documents, pieces of clothing and other personal effects – that
there was no money inside.  While these
events were transpiring, appellant Tulba watched or
stood guard on the yard, holding a stone.

Each one of the defendants, however, set up his own alibi.  Tulba said that he
was, at the time of the occurrence, in the barrio of Candaping.  Magaso would have Us believe that he had never been at the scene of the crime
and that, since his arrival from Zamboanga, he had
been in the town of Larena,
where his grandparents were.  Upon the
other hand, Lumaghan limited himself to denying his
guilt, stating that his extra-judicial confession had been obtained thru
duress, and that his sole purpose in coming from Zamboanga
del Sur was to harvest coconuts from the plantation
of his uncle, Honorato Jumalon,
in the barrio of Candanay, Siquijor,
in order to raise funds, with the pro­ceeds of the sale of said coconuts, to
pay for the hospitalization of a sick brother.

At the outset, We are satisfied that – contrary to the testimony
of Lumaghan and Magaso –
the extra-judicial confessions, Exhibits C, C-1 to C-5, and D to D-1, had been
freely and voluntarily made by them. 
Indeed, this fact was established by the testimony of police chief Lorenzo Baroro, who took
said confessions, and that of Muni­cipal Mayor Arcamo,
before whom said confessions were subscribed and sworn to.  Moreover, the testimony of Magaso to the effect that he had informed his godfather, Inocentes Omandam, of the duress
under which his confession had allegedly been obtained, was refuted by the
latter.  Again, the confessions
corroborated each other, and the contents thereof were, in turn, corroborated
by the testimonies of Cesar Sangquenza, his wife Leonarda Sangquenza, and Sergio Paghasian, in whose houses said defendants and their
co-accused, including appellant Tulba, had stayed for
some time between Decem­ber 6 and 10, 1963, and by the presence, at the scene
of the occur­rence, of Lumaghan’s hunting knife and
its scabbard, Exhibits A and A-1, the scabbard Exhibit B of Campomanis,
Magaso’s dagger and its scabbard, Exhibits E and E-1,
the stems of coconut palms, Exhibits F and F-1, the trunk, Exhibit H, and the
documents, gar­ments and other personal effects, Exhibits H-1 to H-24, I and
I-1 to I-23.  Indeed, Sergio Paghasian identified the hunting knife, Exhibit A and its
scabbard, Exhibit A-1, the first having been used by Lumaghan
when he slaughtered a dog and skinned
the same, while he and his co-defendants were in the house of said witness, on
December 7.  Paghasian,
likewise, identified the scabbard, Exhibit B, as that of the hunting knife used
by defendant Campomanis, when he assisted Lumaghan in the task aforementioned.  Similarly, the fact that both Lumaghan and Magaso have not
appealed from the decision of the trial court, convicting them as charged,
implies an acknowledgment of their guilt and belies their plea of innocence, as
well as their respective alibis.  In
fact, apart from the Sangquenzas and Pag­hasian, Adriano Bonocan
asserted positively that he had seen Tulba, together
with Magaso, Lumaghan and a
fourth person – not in the courtroom during the trial – in Capalasanan,
on December 7, 1963.

Thus, the following facts appear to have been duly established,
namely:  Campomanis,
Lumaghan and Magaso, had,
on November 27, agreed to and did sail from Ramon Magsaysay,
Zamboanga del Sur, on
December 3, as well as proceed to the Municipality of Lazi,
for the purpose of robbing.  In that
trip, they were accompanied by ap­pellant Tulba, who
was together with them continuously, not only from December 3 to 10, when the
crime charged was committed, but, even, subsequently thereto, or up to December
14, when Tulba, Lumaghan
and Magaso were apprehended at the wharf of Lazi, as they were about to board a vessel, to sail
away.  Tulba
was not merely present when the crime was committed.  He stood guard, armed with a piece of stone,
which he held with one hand.  He did or
said nothing to indicate his disapproval of the acts of vandalism committed by his companions upon a
defenseless old couple.  Worse still, he
remained in the company of Lumaghan and Magaso, until the three (3) of them were arrested on
December 14.  These facts suffice to
establish conspiracy between Tulba and his
co-defendants to commit the crimes adverted to above, and to hold him responsi­ble
as a co-principal in the commission thereof.

It should be noted, also, that here we have two (2) cases and two
(2) convictions for robbery with homicide. 
Considering, however, that there had been, in fact, no more than one (1)
robbery, which was the main purpose of the offenders; it follows that they have
committed only one crime of robbery with homicide^[1]
– that of Dionisio Tracarol
– apart from that of homicide of Mrs. Traca­rol.  The penalty for the first is life
imprisonment to death, which should be imposed in its maximum period, or death,
the offense having been committed in the dwelling of the offended parties, as
well as at nighttime and with the aid of armed men.  For lack of the number of votes necessary for
the imposition of the extreme penalty, that next lower in degree, or life
imprisonment, meted out by the lower
court in L-27999 is imposable therein to appellant Pelicolo
Tulba.

As regards L-28000, the crime committed is homicide, and, in view
of the circumstances already adverted to, the penalty of reclusion temporal,
prescribed by law therefor, should be meted out in
its maximum period.

Insofar as Pelicolo Tulba
is concerned, the decision appealed from should, accordingly, be modified in
the sense:  (1) that only one robbery
with homicide has been committed, aside from another crime of homicide; (2)
that appellant should be sentenced, for the robbery with homicide, to life
imprisonment with the correspond­ing accessory penalties and, for the crime of
homicide, to an indeterminate penalty ranging 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,
likewise, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law therefor;
and (3) that his civil liability, jointly and severally with Lumaghan and Magaso, should be
increased from P6,000 to P12,000 in each case, or P24,000 altogether,
considering that two (2) persons had been killed,2 although,
not having appealed from the decision of the trial court, the civil
responsibility of Lumaghan and Magaso
can not exceed the sum therein fixed.

Thus modified, as to the characterization of one of the crimes
committed and the criminal and civil liabilities therefor
of appel­lant Pelicolo Tulba,
the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, in all other respects, with the costs
of this instance against said ap­pellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., no part.

^[1]
U. S. v.
Ibañez, 19 Phil 463: People v. Manuel, 44
Phil. 333; People v.
Hernandez, 46 48, 49; People v. Uday, 85 Phil.
498, 503; People v. Dakilan L-27851, Oct. 28, 1969.

2 People v. Pantoja, L-18793, Oct. 11, 1968; People v. Sangaran, L-21757, Nov. 26, 1968; People v.
Gutierrez, L-25372, Nov. 29, 1968; People v. Buenbrazo,
L-27852, Nov. 29, 1968; People v. Bakang,
L-20908, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Labutin,
L-23513, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Acabado,
L-26104, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Vacal, L-20913,
Feb. 27, 1969; People v. Gon­zales, L-23303-04, May 20, 1969; People v.
Tapac, L-26491, May 20, 1969; People v. Dakilan, L-27851, Oct. 28, 1969.