THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. YAKAN LABAK, YAKAN ABDULA, YAKAN AMANG, YAKAN BUSLOT AND YAKAN IMAM MAALIM, DEFENDANT…

In the Court of First Instance of Basilan City, Yakans Labak, Abdula, Amang,
Abdul, Buslot and Iman Maalim were charged with the murder of Jose Atilano.
After trial, the court acquitted Abdul for insufficiency of evidence, but
convicted the other five accused of the charge, considered against them the
aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place and by a band, but offset by the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and sentenced each of them to
life imprisonment, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in
the sum of P3,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the proportionate costs.

The facts, as established by the prosecution, are: At 6:10 a.m., November 18,
1953, the single engine plane of the American Rubber Company, with Severo
Viloria as pilot and Jose Atilano, general manager of the company, as lone
passenger, took off from Zamboanga City Airfield and landed thirty minutes later
at Buli-Buli Airstrip, Basilan City. Soon thereafter, a company jeep, driven by
Estanislao Falcasantos, with Manuel San Luis and Jose Fermin, Jr. as passengers,
arrived to pick up Atilano and Viloria. Atilano sat in front beside the driver.
At the back, from left to right, were San Luis, Fermin and Viloria. As the jeep
was going up an incline, on the way to the company logging camp, the passengers
thereof saw, standing at the right side of the road, a man pointing his gun at
the jeep. Atilano excitedly called his companion’s attention to the armed man.
The road being upgrade, the jeep was running very slowly. As the armed man
approached the jeep, the passengers on the back seat jumped out. Hardly had they
leaped out, when they heard the sound of firing and Atilano’s cry of pain.
Viloria scampered to a nearby coconut tree, but when he saw other natives coming
towards him, he ran farther and hid among thick bushes.

Fermin, who was about 8 meters from the jeep when the armed man fired,
recognized the latter as one whom he used to see loitering in the premises of
the company garage and sawmill. Fermin hid for some time among the bushes on the
left side of the road, and then headed for the company camp. After reporting the
ambuscade to the company superintendent, Damaso Furagay, Fermin, together with
nurse Custodio Mariano, and some security guards, went back to the place of the
incident. They found Falcasantos trying to aid Atilano. Mariano administered
first aid, but Atilano expired 15 minutes later. Fermin found missing Atilano’s
wrist watch and^ the package of medicine worth P47.80, which Atilano brought
with him from Zamboanga City. Viloria and Fermin flew to Zamboanga City and
reported the incident to the authorities. .

The autopsy, performed by Dr. Esperidion Alvarez of Zamboanga General
Hospital, revealed that the victim suffered:

“1. Shotgun wound; penetrating right anterior lumbar area, perforating small
intestines, multiple; stomach, lesser curvature; liver; right and left
ventricle; with one exist (bullet) at left epigastrium.

2. Wound incised (five inches long by 1 1/2 inches deep) posterior axillary
line, level of the 7th rib, right; arm upper, outer aspect (3 inches long 1 inch
deep).

3. Abrasions, infrapatellar, bilateral; ankle, anterior aspect, right.

4. Foreign bodies (bullet pellets) subcutaneous, chest left, costal arch
left.

5. Hemorrhage, severe, mediastinal and abdominal cavities.” (Exhibit
L)

The investigation conducted by Philippine Constabulary Lt. Alfredo Caoili
revealed that from the time appellant Labak had been refused employment by the
American Rubber Company, he had been hanging suspiciously around the company
camp. When questioned by Lt. Caoili, Labak admitted that he took part in the
ambush. He revealed that his companions were Buslot, Abdula and Amang. The last
two were duly apprehended but Buslot could not be found. After Labak repeated
his admission in their presence, Abdula confessed he was the triggerman, and
Amang affirmed their complicity. Labak also disclosed to Lt. Caoili that it was
Buslot who persuaded him to join the murderous band by offering him a share in
the P200.00 reward which Iman Maalim was going to give Buslot for Atilano’s
murder.

By means of Abdula’s confession, the PC soldiers recovered the fatal paltik
shotgun from Abdul, one of the accused who had been acquitted. Two barongs
(Exhibits S and S-1) used in the ambush were likewise taken from Amang and
Abdul. Labak, Abdula, Amang and Abdul were taken to the PC headquarters,
Zamboanga City, where Lt. Caoili, assisted by Lt. Marohombsar, and an
interpreter, Muelles, took down their extra judicial confessions (Exhibits O, P.
Q and R, respectively), which were subsequently subscribed and sworn to before
Judge Doroteo de Guzman of the Basilan Municipal Court.

Subsequently arrested, Iman Maalim was brought to City Fiscal Geronimo de la
Pena of Basilan City, who took down his sworn statement (Exhibit V) with the
help of Dulin Payao, official stenographer and interpreter.

Appellants argue that the prosecution failed to clearly prove their motive
for the murder. Claim is made that if Iman Maalim really bore any grudge, it
should have been directed at Damaso Puragay, the. man allegedly responsible for
his lay-off. In his sworn statement, Iman Maalim divulged that two Moros,
Sandung and Musta-man, promised to give him P300.00 if he would kill Atil-ano
but he refused; that by means of threats, Sandung and Mustaman persuaded him to
propose the murder to the other appellants; and that Labak, Abdula, Amang and
Buslot agreed to kill Atilano for P200.00. The balance of P100.00 was supposed
to have been Maalim’s reward, and formed his main reason for plotting the
victim’s death. In addition, there was his fear that if he refused he would be
killed by Sandung and Mustaman. Whatever grudge he bore against the company, as
represented by its manager, the victim, was but an additional motive for his
undertaking the crime. The other appellants were also impelled by motives of
gain in joining the plot.

Appellants characterize as unusual the fact that Lt. Caoili did not first
investigate the eyewitnesses but instead asked one of the company employees,
Hadji Taupan, Jr., if there were any employees who had been recently dismissed.
Caoili’s mode of investigation was nowhere out of the ordinary. When Fermin
reported the killing to the authorities he revealed that he recognized one of
the natives who took part in the ambuscade. All those in the ambushed jeep were
company officials on their way to the company camp. There was therefore ground
for Lt. Caoili’s suspicion that any of the assailants may have been a
disgruntled former employee of the company. And his investigation along this
line was fruitful. He learned that sometime before the incident, Labak, whose
application for employment had been refused, often lurked suspiciously around
the company camp. When investigated, Labak confessed and named his
co-conspirators. Abdula and Amang also admitted their complicity, as did Imam
Maalim.

Argument is put forth that the extra judicial confessions of Labak, Abdula,
Amang and Imam Maalim are inadmissible in evidence having allegedly been
obtained through force and intimidation. During the trial, Labak, Abdula, Amang
and the acquitted Abdul testified that during the investigation on the night of
November 18, 1953, the PC soldiers, in their efforts to make appellants confess,
boxed and hit them with rifle butts in the presence of Lt. Caoili; that the next
morning, While aboard a boat to Zamboanga City, the PC men and some civilians
tortured them by submerging their heads in the sea for long periods of time;
that at the PC headquarters, Zamboanga City, they’were abused before they were
placed in cells; and that the morning thereafter they were again investigated
and maltreated, after which the PC soldiers placed their thumbs on documents the
contents of which they did not know.

Several reasons persuade us to reject appellants’ claim of maltreatment. Not
one of them presented a medical certificate evidencing treatment for the
injuries supposed to have been inflicted by the PC men. We do not believe
Labak’s allegation that the small scars on his left ear and left leg were
vestiges of such injuries. Had appellants received as brutal a maltreatment as
that claimed, such manhandling certainly would have left traces much bigger and
more pronounced than Labak’s tiny sears. Furthermore, the other appellants do
not have the slightest indication of abuse on their bodies. If as appellant
Amang claims, the PC men hammered nails into his knees and legs, then there
should have been marks of the injuries. But there was none.

It is unbelievable, that as alleged by Abdula and Amang, they were first
maltreated before they were questioned. Far credible would it have been had they
stated that they were first questioned and then maltreated upon their refusal to
own the killing. There appearing no motive for Lt. Caoili and the PC soldiers to
abuse appellants, the presumption is that they performed their duties regularly
and lawfully in the investigation of this case.

Labak, Amang and Abdula never revealed the alleged maltreatment to Doroteo de
Guzman, before whom they subscribed and swore to their confessions. They had all
the chance to do so since Judge De Guzman ordered all the PC men to leave his
chamber before Dulin Payap, official interpreter in the fiscal’s office, read
and translated to Labak, Abdula and Amang the contents of their affidavits. At
the trial, Amang and Abdula vehemently claimed that in spite of the PC threat of
further maltreatment, they never confessed to anybody that they asserted that
all-three voluntarily subscribed to their affidavits.

The acquitted Abdul also told of maltreatment similar to that supposedly
received by Labak, Amang and Abdula. It, is noteworthy, however, that in his
very short statement, Abdul merely stated that he handed the paltik shotgun to
the PC men. This is persuasive proof that appellants’ tale of maltreatment and
torture was pure concoction, otherwise Abdul’s torturers would have seen to it
that he also made a highly incriminating statement like that made by
appellants.

We find incredible Imam Maalim’s testimony that he confessed because he was
maltreated by the PC men; and that he signed his confession because Fiscal De la
Pena told him that if he refused the PC soldiers would kill him. Maalim could
not have been maltreated by the PC soldiers for they did not investigate him. He
was brought directly to Fiscal De la Pena who, on rebuttal, denied that he
threatened Maalim.

From the extrajudicial confessions of Labak, Abdula, Amang and Imam Maalim,
it appears clearly that the four of them, together with Buslot, had plotted to
kill Atilano and that Labak, Abdula, Amang and Buslot carried out the criminal
plan into execution, with Abdula as the one who fired the fatal shot.

Aside from the confessions, three eyewitnesses, Jose Fermin, jr., Manuel San
Luis and Estanislao Falcasantos, saw Abdula shoot Atilano with the
paltik shotgun. Contrary to appellants’ claim, the fact that Fermin is
a brother-in-law of the victim did not detract from his credibility, inasmuch as
he was corroborated by San Luis and casantos, eyewitness whose bias was not
shown. These three persons unerringly picked out the triggerman, Abdula, from a
group of persons in the courtroom. San Luis stayed in the jeep long enough and
took particular pains to remember Abdula’s face as the latter approached the
jeep. Abdula was barely three meters away when San Luis jumped from the jeep.
Aside from Abdula, Falcasantos also recognized his three companions. Buslot and
Amang, armed with barongs, were with Abdula as the latter stood at the
right side of the road. Abdula approached the jeep and then fired at the victim.
Falcasantos jumped from the jeep in order to escape. He redoubled his speed when
Labak chased him with a barong.

The presence at the ambush and the participation of Labak, Abdula, Amang and
Buslot have been established. Only Labak attempted to prove that he was at home
sleeping at the time of the commission of the crime, but his alibi was not
convincing. The three others did not even try to disprove their presence at the
scene of the crime.

Besides, the murder weapon, the paltik shotgun, and the two barongs were
recovered from Abdul, brother-in-law of Abdula, Amang and Buslot. Through the
confession of Abdula, these weapons were traced to Abdul who had hidden them. If
appellants were only tortured and forced to make their confessions, then it is
inconceivable how they could have been in possession of these weapons.

Although Buslot never made an extrajudicial confession, his guilt has
likewise been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was positively identified by
Falcasantos as one of the armed men with Abdula. Both Amang and Labak, in their
confessions, declared that Buslot hacked Atilano after Abdula shot him. This
finds support in the incised wound suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Abdula
and Imam Maalim named Buslot as one of the conspirators.

Conspiracy having been clearly established, the act of one is attributable to
all (People vs. Romualdez, 57 Phil., 148). The lower court acted
correctly in considering as only one aggravating circumstance the fact that the
crime was committed in an uninhabited place and by a band (People vs.
Santos, et al., 91 Phil., 320). However, the indemnity to the heirs should be,
and is hereby raised to P6,000.00.

Thus modified, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against
appellants.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.