THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SILVERIO DAOS, DOMINADOR SABLADA AND GERARDO BACABIZAS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

After carefully reviewing the case and the evidence of record,
this court is convinced that the true facts, according to said evidence
are, briefly, as follows:

At about 4 o’clock in the afternoon of June 7, 1933, the dead body
of a chauffeur of very poor physical constitution, for it hardly
weighed 94 pounds and 8 ounces, was found inside car No. 771 of the
Malate Taxi Cab Co., in an isolated place within the municipality of
San Juan del Monte, Rizal. The said body turned out to be that of
Felino Dumalo, who, not long ago, had been employed as chauffeur in the
garage of said entity, Malate Taxi Cab Co. From the autopsy performed
the following day by Dr. Pablo Anzures of the Medico-Legal Department
of the University of the Philippines, the body of said deceased showed
the following marks of violence:

1. Horizontal cord or ligature marks on the neck, immediately below the thyroid cartilage, with ecchymoses.
2. Irregular depressions on the nape.
3. Multiple ecchymoses not only on the mandible, behind the right ear, but
   also on that ear, on the forehead, on the cheeks and on the nose.

4. Abrasions on the right lateral eyelid of the right eye.
5. 5. Hemorrhage in the cornea or white of the right eye.
6. Lacerated wound on the interior surface of the left side of the upper lip.
7. Abrasions on the left elbow.
8. Abrasions on the left knee.
9. Hemorrhage in the muscles of the neck.
10. Fracture of the hyoid cartilage.
11. Distention, congestion and emphysema or swelling of the lungs.
12. Petechial hemorrhages in the heart, which was dilated, and
13. Congestion of all internal organs.

From said signs, the said doctor, whose experience was admitted and
acknowledged at the trial by the defense, inferred and expressed the
opinion, which was not questioned in the least by the defense, that the
death of said Felino Dumalo was due to asphyxia through strangulation
or compression of the neck. This undoubtedly was the cause of the death
of said deceased, not only because it has been so stated by said
doctor, but because it was so admitted by the appellants themselves,
first, before the agents of authority who had arrested and investigated
them, and, later, to the very authorities before whom they were
brought, no other than Lieutenant-Colonel Juan C. Quimbo of the
Intelligence Division of the Constabulary and the justice of the peace
of the municipality of San Juan del Monte, Rizal, who should have
conducted the preliminary investigation but did not have need to do so,
for the reason that said appellants expressly waived such proceeding.

The first to reveal how Felino Dumalo’s death occurred was
Dominador Sablada, and he did it on the same afternoon of his arrest
which took place at about 6 o’clock on June 23, 1933, first, to
Constabulary agents SyQuia, Noriega and Java, and, later, at about 7
o’clock the same evening of June 23, 1933, to Captain Jose P. Guido,
Assistant Superintendent of the Intelligence Division of the
Constabulary, and on the following day to Colonel Quimbo, and, lastly,
to the justice of the peace of said municipality of San Juan del Monte,
Rizal. On said occasions, Sablada stated that he and his co-appellants
Silverio Daos and Gerardo Bacarizas, after having planned among
themselves to take a taxicab by pretending to be bona fide
passengers, kill the chauffeur thereof and later take away his money,
as they were all in need of money, having been jobless since they
declared a strike on May 25, 1933, in fact took the first taxicab that
passed by the place where they had stationed themselves in order to
execute their plan, the taxicab of said deceased having been the first
to appear at about 12 o’clock at noon of said day. They took it to Taft
Avenue, Manila, near the General Hospital, and thence went to Santa
Mesa, San Juan del Monte, and Mariquina, returning afterwards to San
Juan del Monte, sometimes stopping here and there under the pretext of
looking for somebody, in order not to arouse the suspicion of their
predestined victim, Felino Dumalo. He also stated that it was his
co-appellants Silverio Daos and Gerardo Bacarizas who first struck said
deceased from the back seat of the taxicab where they were seated,
striking him with their fists on the nape or on the back of the head
and later dragging him to their seat, and, to that end, one of them
placed his arm in the fashion of a hook around the victim’s neck, while
he (Sablada) took the wheel, and that they did so upon arriving at a
certain sparsely inhabited place within said municipality of San Juan
del Monte, Rizal. When said appellant Dominador Sablada made the above
statements to Captain Guido, to whose house he was taken immediately
after his arrest, he did so in the presence of the family of said
officer. Furthermore, he offered to accompany the agents, who might be
designated, to the place where they could arrest his co-appellant
Silverio Daos, who, according to him, was then in the municipality of
Pozorrubio, of the Province of Pangasinan.

On the same night of June 23, 198& shortly after Dominador
Sablada’s arrest, the other appellant Gerardo Bacarizas was also
arrested in the Radio Theater, where the former had gone with agent
SyQuia and his companions in order to point out said Bacarizas to them,
telling them that they would, in all probability, find him there. After
the appellant Gerardo Bacarizas had been arrested and when he was
already at the Intelligence Division of the Constabulary, he made the
same revelations and admissions as his co-appellant Dominador Sablada,
but his confession as well as that of the latter With regard to his
revelations, was not taken in writing until the following day, June 24,
1933. The confessions of said two appellants are those now contained in
Exhibit J, the translation of which is Exhibit J-l, and in Exhibit I,
the translation of which is Exhibit 1-1. The Intelligence Division of
the Constabulary accepted Dominador Sablada’s offer to accompany the
designated agents in order to arrest and bring the appellant Silverio
Daos to Manila.

They all started from said city on the night of June 23, 1933, and
from Pozorrubio, they in fact brought said defendant-appellant Silverio
Daos to the Intelligence Division of the Constabulary, all of them
having returned from said place at about 10.30 o’clock in the morning
of the next day. As soon as Silverio Daos was informed on the way from
Pozorrubio to Manila that Sablada and Bacarizas had confessed their
crime, he, in turn, had to admit his participation in the commission
thereof, although he tried to make himself innocent of said crime,
alleging to have done only that which, under threats of death,
according to him, he had been compelled to do by his co-appellant
Bacarizas. As soon as they had arrived in Manila and Daos had been
brought to the Intelligence Division of the Constabulary, the latter
repeated to Captain Jose P. Guido the same facts which, according to
the agents he had related to them during the trip, and his confession,
like those of his co-appellants, was taken on the afternoon of that
day, said confession being that which now appears in Exhibit H, the
translation of which is Exhibit H-l.

The three confessions Exhibits J, I and H of said three appellants
were ratified by them at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of June
24,1933, before Lieutenant-Colonel Quimbo, Chief of the Intelligence
Division of the Constabulary, and, on the next day, before the justice
of the peace of the municipality of San Juan del Monte within the
jurisdiction of which the crime under consideration had been committed.
When the three defendants appeared before said justice of the peace,
and after the latter had informed them of their rights and the
consequences of their admission of the criminal act with which they
were charged, again reading to them their confessions Exhibits J, I and
H, Sablada and Bacarizas told him that they ratified everything that
appeared in their respective confessions; and when said official asked
if they needed or desired to have the services of an attorney to defend
them, they answered that there was no need of such formality because,
at all events, they were pleading guilty. However, they withdrew their
plea of guilty upon making a formal waiver of their right to a
preliminary investigation.

Silverio Daos did not plead guilty but admitted the truth of all
the facts appearing in his confession Exhibit H, the translation of
which, as aforesaid, is Exhibit H-l.

It is very obvious from said confessions (Exhibits H, J and I)
that, although the appellants admit having been together on the
afternoon of the crime and having, also together, used taxi No. 771 of
the Malate Taxi Cab Co., where the crime was committed, they mutually
charge one another with the worst part of said act, which is, that of
having strangled Felino Dumalo to death with a handkerchief and having
taken away from him the sum of P12 which he then carried, since it is
but natural for anybody under the same circumstances, after becoming
aware of the gravity of his offense, a thing which almost always takes
place when it is already too late, to try to make excuses or at least
minimize his own liability in the eyes of the others.

However, the truth is that, considering the three confessions
Exhibits H, J and I jointly, without putting aside the other evidence
which corroborates them and which will be referred to later, they show
that the liability of each of the appellants is also the liability of
all of them together, on the ground that Felino Dumalo’s death and the
robbery committed against him were the result of a conspiracy and a
previously prepared and conceived plan which was later carefully
carried out by them, each of them having contributed with separate acts
which, although less effective, were indispensable to the attainment of
the same end.

After Felino Dumalo had died and before the three separated, they
divided among themselves at the very scene of the crime the little
money which they had found in the possession of their victim. Sablada
and Daos, testifying on this point, stated that Bacarizas had given to
each of them the sum of 50 centavos and that the latter, or Daos, also
kept the pocket book of the deceased which contained his cedula and
driver’s license.

It is true that, while the three defendants were tried in the lower
court, they retracted, categorically denying having made the
confessions appearing in the documents above stated, and testified that
if they did so—not being able, as in fact they were not able, to deny
their signatures on said documents—it was due to the maltreatment to
which they had been subjected, alleging that they had been struck with
the fist and slapped on the soft parts of the body, like the stomach
and the cheeks, in order to avoid leaving marks that might show such
acts, all for the purpose of causing them to make said confessions.
This allegation was undoubtedry made to refute somehow the testimony of
iaeotenant-Colonel Quimbo of the Constabulary to the effect that when
they appeared before him in order to ratify their respective
confessions, their acts—according to the proof—in the presence of one
another, in that of Captain Jose P. Guido of the same organization, and
of other employees, their looks,, their conduct and their behaviour on
that occasion, were absolutely normal, neither showing nor disclosing
anything that might indicate that they had been subjected to violence
or maltreatment. On the other hand, Colonel Quimbo and Captain Guido,
who were present when the appellants’ confessions were taken, Colonel
Quimbo occasionally and for more or less definite lengths of time,
because when the necessities of the service requited his presence in
the adjoining room where he had his office, he used to leave but would
return shortly, thus momentarily stopping to witness said act, and
Captain Guido, all the time, except when the confession of Bacarizas
was taken because, inasmuch as he had already been informed of the
nature of the latter’s revelations, he deemed it convenient to intrust
said task to agent Nepomuceno, affirmed that each and every one of said
appellants made his confession freely, voluntarily, without any
pressure, and with full knowledge of the purpose for which it was taken.

Furthermore, every detail of said confessions of the appellants was
corroborated by competent and impartial witnesses, like Jose Ma.
Barredo, Vicente Call, Pio Borja, Godofreda Carro, Aguedo Martinez,
Donato Galicia, Santos Pableo and Petronilo Peregiino.

Jose Ma. Barredo, assistant-manager of the Malate Taxi Cab Co,,
testified that the three appellants were among the chauffeurs of the
garage of his company who, led by Petronilo Peregrino,’ declared a
strike in order to espouse the cause of the chauffeurs who, on May 25,
1933, also did the same in the Try Tran, National and Makabayan
transportation companies which were also engaged in the same taxi
business; that the appellant Silverio Daos was among those who
frequently stationed themselves in the vicinity of the garage of the
Malate Taxi Cab Co. in order to prevent other chauffeurs from filling
the vacancies left by him and his companions; that on one occasion he
saw said appellant stop one of his cars and threaten the strike breaker
who was at the wheel; and that the deceased Felino Dumalo was among the
various. chauffeurs whom the strikers considered as strike breakers.

Pio Borja testified that Dominador Sablada and Silverio Daos were
two of the three persons who, on the afternoon in question had alighted
from taxicab No. 771 at his land in Mariquina, in order to ask him
about a certain person who was indebted to them in the sum of P17.
Vicente Call, in turn, stated having on that occasion seen the same
vehicle pass twice near his place, first with four passengers including
the driver and the second time, which was a few minutes later, with
only three passengers; that the three passengers maltreated the
chauffeur striking him on the back of the head with their fists; that
when the chauffeur already appeared dizzy, those in the back seat
dragged him to the back seat while the third took the wheel and acted
as driver; and that when he saw said car for the second time, those in
the back seat were inclining forward as if they were trying to cover or
conceal something in front of them. Donato Galicia testified that
taxicab No. 771 which, on the afternoon in question, had four
passengers including the driver, nearly collided with the truck he was
then driving; that the passenger who sat beside the chauffeur and who
became angry because of the incident was no other than the appellant
Silverio Daos; and that when he saw the same car a few minutes
afterwards, there were then only three persons inside, the appellant
Sablada being at the wheel. Godofreda Cairo, in turn, testified that on
the afternoon of June 7, 1933, while she was in front of the stairs of
her house in San Juan del Monte, she saw the appellant Silverio Daos
coming from taxicab No. 771, which was parked not far from her lot, and
running towards the main road in order to take, as in fact he took, a carretela,
he at that time wearing an indigo-colored coat (black according to
other witnesses) and white pants, without a hat. As for Aguedo
Martinez, he testified that on the afternoon in question, at about 4
o’clock, the appellant Silverio Daos used his carretela; that
when he reached the same, he was panting and visibly worried; that he
was wearing white pants and black coat, without a hat; that when he was
already in the carretela, he remarked that the horse would
not run, for which reason he alighted therefrom and took another
vehicle after paying him ten centavos.

Santos Pableo, cook of the Manila Heights Hospital belonging to Dr.
Afable and situated in San Juan del Monte testified that the appellant
Dominador Sablada, for several years before a chauffeur in the service
of said doctor, went to the hospital at about 4.30 o’clock in the
afternoon of June 7, 1933; that when Sablada came, he was perspiring
and very pale; that he told Pableo and his companions about the
chauffeurs’ strike without stating whether or not he was one of the
strikers; that they fed him because he said he had not yet eaten; that
he left his coat hanging on a nail in the cook’s room, saying that he
would return for it the following day, but that he never did so, and,
for that reason, it remained in the same place where it was hung until
a member of the secret service went to take it and for a long time that
was the only occasion when said appellant was seen at said hospital. It
will be noted that in Exhibit J, Dominador Sablada stated having taken
the road to the Manila Heights Hospital as soon as he had separated
from Bacarizas, after the latter had given him fifty centavos.

Petronilo Peregrino, president of the striking chauffeurs of the
Malate Taxi Cab Co., who led them in the strike and espoused their
cause during the whole period of the strike, declared that at about 9
o’clock in the evening of June 7, 1933, the appellants Bacarizas and
Sablada went to see Him in his house in order to ask for his help and
to request him to accompany them to the house of Hugo Retaga, president
of the National Labor League, because they had, with the aid of
Silverio Daos, killed a strike breaker; that the two told him that
Bacarizas was the first to strike their victim; that they strangled him
with a handkerchief; that Silverio Daos took away his money; that they
afterwards divided the money among themselves; and that, when the three
separated, Sablada went to the Manila Heights Hospital where he left
his coat.

If all these corroborations are still insufficient to give the lie
to the appellants and to destroy their defense of alibi, there are
other evidence and details showing how unfounded is their claim that
the acts attributed to them in their confessions Exhibits H, I and J
are not true.

In the first place, it should be noted that Silverio Daos,
according to Exhibit H, admitted that in order to get rid of the
pocketbook, cedula and license of the deceased Felino Dumalo, he burned
them in his house in the very presence of his wife. He did not deny
this fact although he would have been able to do so by merely calling
his wife to testify in the case. In the second place, when the
appellants went to point to the agents of the law the place where they
had committed the crime, they did so in broad daylight and in the
presence of many people, among whom were agents of the law, private
individuals and newspapermen, and each of said appellants placed
himself voluntarily and without any pressure on the spot where,
according to them, the crime had been consummated. (Exhibits D-l, D-2,
D-3 and D-4.) In the third place, when they were asked to make a
graphic demonstration of the manner in which they had consummated the
crime, they did so, not privately, but also in the presence of many
people among whom were various representatives of the Manila press.
Lastly, it is absurd to think that the Constabulary agents have been
able not only to coordinate, but even to contrive, the facts narrated
in the appellants’ confessions Exhibits H, I and J, and it is no less
absurd to believe that through mere guesswork said agents succeeded in
discovering the whereabouts of Silverio Daos in order to be able to
arrest him.

In addition to all the foregoing, the finding in Silverio Daos’
house of the coat Exhibit E, which belongs to him, and which was the
one he wore on the afternoon in question, the color of which may be
considered indigo as well as Black, and the finding of the coat Exhibit
G, which belongs to Dominador Sablada, in the room of the cook of the
Manila. Heights Hospital, necessarily serve to strengthen the other
proof and details already adverted to, which overcome the appellants’
change of front and destroy their evidence of alibi, which they have,
after all, failed to prove satisfactorily.

From all the foregoing, it is obvious that the appellants committed
the crime of robbery with homicide with which they were charged. The
elements of both crimes, robbery and homicide, were clearly and
conclusively proven by the prosecution. The appellants’ act was the
result of the plan which the three had previously conceived in order to
absolutely insure its execution without risk to any of them. In the
commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstances of craft and
treachery should be taken into consideration, on the ground that the
act of said appellants in pretending to be bona fide
passengers in the car of the deceased, when they were not so in fact,
in order not to arouse his suspicion, constitutes craft; and the fact
that in assaulting him they did so from behind, catching him completely
unawares, he believing, as in fact he believed, that he had in his car,
not bad men who were plotting against his life, but bona fide
passengers, certainly constitutes treachery. No mitigating
circumstance, which may compensate said two aggravating circumstances
of craft and treachery, can be estimated, for the reason that none has
been proven, and evident premeditation, which has been proven at the
trial, can neither be considered as an aggravating circumstance, on the
ground that it is necessarily inherent in the crime of robbery. (U. S. vs. Blanco, 10 Phil., 298; U. S. vs. Hermosilla, 31 Phil., 405.)

Appellants’ counsel, undoubtedly convinced of the futility of the
defense made by them in the trial court, contends in this instance that
the crime committed by them is not robbery with homicide but simply
that of murder, and that even so, the mitigating circumstance of having
acted upon impulses so powerful as to have produced in them passion and
obfuscation should be estimated in their favor. This is an error, on
the ground that, for the reasons stated, the treacherous death of
Felino Dumalo took place on the occasion of a robbery, which, before
its execution, had been planned and calmly meditated by the appellants,
the small amount of money, which they succeeded in taking from him
after depriving him of his life, being of no moment, and because the
cause of the alleged passion or obfuscation is not lawful, as it is not
lawful and it cannot be lawful, to resort to violence in order to
maintain a strike and in that way compel those affected by the
strikers’ demands to accede to the same. (U. S. vs. Hicks, 14 Phil, 217; People vs.
Hernandez, 43 Phil., 104.) The appellants’ purpose in committing the
crime was not only to give a warning to the strike breakers but to
satisfy their need for money, since it was already several days that
they were without employment or money. However, even considering, as a
mere hypothesis, that the crime committed by the appellants is murder,
which cannot be the case for the reasons already stated, the change
would serve them no purpose, inasmuch as the same fate would await them
in view of the circumstances under which they had committed it, to wit:
with evident premeditation and with craft and treachery. However, the
truth, which we here reiterate, is that the crime really committed by
the appellants is not murder, but robbery with homicide defined and
punished in article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.

Wherefore, finding that the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law, the same is hereby affirmed in toto;
and it is ordered that, in the execution of the death penalty imposed
upon the said appellants in the judgment in question, the provisions of
articles 81, 82 and 84 of the Revised Penal Code be strictly complied
with, the date of said execution to be previously fixed by the trial
court, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Imperial, Butte, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ.

I certify that this case was heard and determined by the court
sitting in bane, and that all the Judges present in the Philippine
Islands, not disqualified or physically incapacitated, concurred in the
judgment.—MALCOLM
, Justice Presiding.