PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO PAMINTUAN, EDGAR PABALAN Y BENAMIRA, MARIO BRIONES Y GUINTO, FRANCISCO VILLANUEVA Y SEVILLA, SAMMY ORGA, EDU SENUBIO, AL…

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 42, San Fernando, Pampanga, in Criminal Case No. 5300, entitled
“The People of the Philippines v. Romeo Pamintuan, et al.,” finding
accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of “Robbery
with Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries.”

The information filed against the accused in Criminal Case No.
5300 reads:

“That on or about the 30th day of May, 1989 inside the
Pampanga Provincial Jail at Provincial Capitol, municipality of San Fernando,
province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused who are cellmates at Cell No. 6, with
evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strength, and with
intent to escape from their detention cell, by conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, with intent of gain, and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon Conrado Basa,
Emilardo Valencia and Arnel Aldana who are all Provincial Jail Guards and while
engaged in the performance and discharge of their official duties as such, by
beating and striking them repeatedly with pieces of wood (bamboo stick) on the
different parts of their bodies, thereby inflicting upon Conrado Basa and
Emilardo Valencia serious and fatal injuries which cause their death thereafter,
and serious physical injuries upon Arnel Aldana, and on the same occasion
thereof and thereafter, did then and there take, steal and carry away with them
the following properties, to wit:

1.  One (1) shotgun 12 gauge – SN957475 – P8,500.00

2.  One (1) shotgun 12 gauge – SN974412 – 8,500.00

3.  One (1) shotgun 12 gauge – SN974105 – 8,500.00

4.  One (1) Ruby cal. 22 – SN613085 – 5,200.00

5.  One (1) Ruby cal. 22 – SN637171 – 5,200.00

6.  One (1) Ruby cal. 22 (highstd) SN1166602 – 5,200.00

belonging to the armory of the Provincial
Jail valued at FORTY ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P41,100.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the
total amount of P41,100.00 Philippine
Currency.

All contrary to law.” (Rollo, pp. 17-18)

Only accused Romeo Pamintuan, Edgar Pabalan, Mario Briones, Vivencio Feliciano, Ronnie
Pilapil and Gerardo Javier were rearrested and arraigned. Antonio Lopiga was dropped from the
information after he was killed by police authorities in an encounter. Alberto Parungao, who is serving sentence in
the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa, could not be brought to Pampanga for
arraignment inasmuch as the clearance from the Supreme Court had not been
secured. The other accused remained at
large. The accused, who were arraigned,
pleaded not guilty to the charge and entered trial.

After the prosecution had rested its case, the defense opted not
to present any evidence.

The findings of facts of the trial court were summarized in the
brief of the Solicitor General as follows:

“At 7:00 o’clock in the evening of May 29, 1989, Mario Quito,
a detention prisoner in Cell No. 2 at
the Provincial Jail of San Fernando, Pampanga, was asked by cellmate Jun Solis
if he wanted to escape, to which he answered “Bahala na.” Very early the
following morning, at 2:00 a.m. of May 30, 1989, Mario Quito saw a prisoner,
Ramon Sevilla, open the door of their cell with a key, and then tell him that
Cell No. 6 was already open. Upon a
signal from appellant Pamintuan, who was a trustee staying outside the cell,
prisoners from Cell Nos. 2 and 6 went
out. Pamintuan then opened the control
gate, and he, together with co-appellants Pilapil and Pabalan, Edu Senubio,
Dino Sta. Ana and Solis, went to the gate. (tsn, July 30, 1990, pp. 18-20)

At that time, jailguards Arnel Aldana and Conrado Basa were at the
third gate and first gate, respectively, while their companion Emilardo
Valencia was at the jailyard. Another
guard, Fernando Pacheco, was three meters away from Valencia. All of them were sleeping (tsn, July 31,
1990, pp. 17-28; August 9, 1990, pp. 33-34) when Aldana’s arm was suddenly held
by Pamintuan who got the gate key from him, as Pilapil sat on his belly and
unsuccessfully tried to stab him. At
the same time, Aldana heard the shouts of Conrado Basa. Aldana was also being beaten on his arm and
head with bamboo sticks, which resulted in his losing consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness and making sure
that his attackers were gone, he
ran to the Philippine Constabulary (PC) compound to report the jailbreak
(Ibid., pp. 18-24).

Meanwhile, Pacheco woke up when both his hands were being tied by
accused Miranda, Senubio, Orga, Pabalan, and Lopiga. He was about to be beaten by bamboo sticks when appellant
Briones, who was armed with a
knife, said, “We agreed not to harm him.” Pacheco was then warned by
Briones not to move so that no harm could befall him. Miranda, Pabalan, Lopiga and Orga handed a bamboo stick to
Pamintuan, who, in turn, went to the sleeping Valencia and hit him hard on the
head as the others followed suit. Valencia managed to rise but staggered towards the comfort room. Briones later brought Pacheco to the kitchen
and placed him under the concrete stove, and told him, “Sir, whatever
happens, don’t leave this place.” Briones left shortly afterwards (tsn,
August 9, 1990, pp. 34-39).

Approximately thirty five minutes later, Pacheco came out of his
hiding place and heard people shouting for him to come out. Since the rope used on his hands were loose,
he was able to untie himself. Before
the arrival of the PC soldiers, he heard Valencia moaning inside the toilet,
and when he verified it, Valencia was already dead. He also saw Basa lifeless under the stairs leading to the second
floor of the jail (Ibid., pp. 39-40). Upon reaching the jailyard, his eyes were met again with bloodstained
pieces of lumber, a shotgun and knives, as well as spoons with their handles
sharpened (Ibid., p. 46)

Aldana was treated at the Jose
B. Lingad Memorial Hospital (tsn, July 31, 1990, p. 24), while the
bodies of Basa and Valencia were autopsied on the same day by Dr. Eracleo
Gaddi, Municipal Health Officer of San Fernando, Pampanga.

Later, an investigation by the Integrated National Police (INP) of
San Fernando, Pampanga showed that six (6) firearms worth P41,100.00 were
missing from the prison armory and that a total of sixteen (16) prisoners had
escaped from their cells. Nonetheless,
appellants Pamintuan, Pilapil and Briones were not able to get out of the prison
compound, and were apprehended by responding PC soldiers earlier called by Aldana. (Appellants’ Brief, pp. 5-9; Rollo, pp. 86-90)

The decretal portion of the decision of the trial court reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Vivencio Feliciano and
Gerardo Javier not guilty for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. However, the
accused Romeo Pamintuan y Bautista, Edgar Pabalan y Benamira, Ronnie Pilapil y
Esaya and Mario Briones y Guinto, having been proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution, are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay solidarily the following:

1. The heirs of the late
Emilardo Valencia the total sum of P180,000.00, broken down as follows:
P50,000.00 for the death of Emilardo Valencia, P10,000.00 for funeral/burial
expenses; P100,000.00 for loss of earning capacity; P20,000.00 as moral
damages;

2. The heirs of the late
Conrado Basa the total sum of P182,000.00 broken down as follows: P50,000.00
for the death of Conrado Basa; P12,000.00 for funeral/burial expenses;
P100,000.00 for loss of earning capacity; P20,000.00 as moral damages;

3. Arnel Aldana the amount of P800.00;

4. Provincial Jail of San Fernando,
Pampanga the amount of P41,100.00.

x x x

IT
IS SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, pp. 27-28)

In this appeal, appellants claim that the prosecution failed to
establish their participation in the robbery of the armory and in the
maltreatment of Conrado Basa, Emilardo Valencia and Arnel Aldana. They pass the blame to the accused who are
still at large. (Appellant’s Brief, p.
8; Rollo, p. 49)

The participation of each of the appellants in the commission of
the offense charged against them has been established by the evidence.

The testimonial evidence of the eye-witnesses presented by the
prosecution belies the claim of appellants. The evidence on record shows that:

(1)   Appellant
Pabalan was among the inmates who waited for the signal from appellant
Pamintuan to break out of jail. He was
one of those who beat to death Guard Conrado Basa. He forcibly opened the armory and took several firearms and he
assisted in tieing up Guard Fernando
Pacheco;

(2)  
Appellant Pamintuan gave the signal for the prisoners to leave
their cells. He was the one who opened
the control gate and he tried to stab Guard Arnel Aldana. He also hit Guard Emilardo Valencia on the
head with a piece of wood and he tried to get the keys of the jail gate from
Aldana.

(3)   Appellant
Pilapil was with the group that left their cells and passed through the control
gate when appellant Pamintuan gave the signal to escape. He tried to stab Arnel Aldana.

(4)   Appellant
Briones was with the accused at the time of the jail break. He was armed with a knife. He was
the one who told his co-accused not to harm Guard Pacheco, reminding them:
“We agreed not to harm him.” (Decision, pp. 3-8; Rollo, pp. 19-24)

The trial court was convinced that there existed a conspiracy
among the accused, including appellants, not only to bolt jail but to harm the
guards. The accused asked the other
detained prisoners, if they wanted to join
in the escape. The accused acted
in coordination, from the unlocking of the different cell-doors to the beating
with bamboo poles of the guards. Noteworthy was the statement of appellant Briones that the conspirators
had agreed not to harm Guard Pacheco. This statement of appellant Briones shows that the accused included in
their planning the use of violence on the guards, except Pacheco.

When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Each conspirator is responsible for all the
acts of the others done in the furtherance of the conspiracy (People v.
Maranion, 199 SCRA 421 [1991]).

Appellants, as socii of the conspiracy, cannot be relieved from
their collective responsibility for the deaths of Conrado Basa and Emilardo
Valencia and the injuries inflicted on Arnel Aldana, as well as the forcible
taking of the firearms from the armory.

Appellants Pamintuan and
Pilapil claim, that being trustees who had freedom to move about in the
provincial jail and even to sleep outside the prison cells, it was unlikely for
them to initiate or participate in
the jailbreak. Furthermore, they claim
that their staying inside the provincial jail instead of escaping like
the other accused, was proof of their innocence. (Appellants’ Brief, pp. 9-10; Rollo, 50-51) The motive or lack of
motive of the accused may be of great weight in the evaluation of their guilt
or innocence, if there was no positive evidence of their direct participation
in the commission of the offense. Once
the direct participation of appellants was established, the conclusion becomes
inevitable that they contributed to the criminal enterprise their intimate
knowledge of the security set-up of the prison which they acquired as trustees.

Whatever reason appellants Pamintuan and Pilapil may have in not
joining the other escapees becomes irrelevant when we consider that the crimes
had been accomplished by the time the opportunity to escape presented itself to
them.

The trial court found appellants guilty of the offense charged in
the information, that “of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Serious
Physical Injuries.” (Information, p. 1; Rollo, p. 7) This is an
error. In Robbery with Homicide as
defined and penalized by Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the physical
injuries committed during or on the occasion of the crime, are absorbed therein
(People v. Mendoza, 96 SCRA 601 [1980]) and the offense is designated as such
regardless of the number of homicides and physical injuries committed (People v.
Penillosa, 205 SCRA 546 [1992]).

The trial court also erred in
imposing the penalty of “life imprisonment,” instead of reclusion
perpetua. The two penalties are
not synonymous. Life imprisonment is
imposed for offenses penalized by special laws, like P.D. No. 1866. It does not carry with it any accessory
penalty and does not have any definite duration (People v. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION of the penalty to reclusion
perpetua and the designation of the offense to Robbery with Homicide.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Griño-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.