THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE SALIG, RAMON MACARI SALIG, GREGORIO BATALAN AND ROMEO BENLOT, ACCUSED. JOSE SALIG AND RAMON MACARI SALIG, DEFENDANTS-…

People versus Salig

The Case

This is People versus Salig, an automatic review of a conviction for robbery with homicide rendered by the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, sitting at Dipolog City. The People prosecuted Jose Salig, Ramon Macari Salig, Gregorio Batalan, and Romeo Benlot for the nighttime killing of Manuel Oliveros in his own home and for the taking of money from that home. The case matters to a reviewee for two enduring lessons: the strictness of the rule that robbery with homicide requires the robbery itself to be proved as conclusively as any other element, and the effect of the death of an accused pending appeal on his criminal and civil liability.

Procedural History

The trial court found Ramon Macari Salig, Jose Salig, and Romeo Benlot guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. It sentenced Ramon Macari Salig and Jose Salig to death. As to Romeo Benlot, it appreciated the mitigating circumstance of minority and imposed an indeterminate prison term ranging from seventeen years, four months and one day as minimum to twenty years as maximum. All three were ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim, to suffer the accessory penalties, and to pay the costs.

Because the penalty of death was imposed, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review. During the pendency of the appeal, Jose Salig died at the New Bilibid Prisons Hospital. The review therefore proceeded only as to Ramon Macari Salig, who had been sentenced to the extreme penalty.

Facts

In the evening of December 15, 1971, Paula Oliveros was nursing her sick child and her husband Manuel Oliveros was asleep beside her in a bedroom of their house in barrio Erasan, municipality of Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte. Ramon Macari Salig suddenly entered and struck Manuel on the head with a pistol. He then held Manuel by the chin and dragged him to the sala. Terencia, the seventeen-year-old daughter of Manuel and Paula, was awakened by the commotion and tried to stop Ramon from dragging her father, but he pushed her away.

In the sala, Romeo Benlot, Gregorio Batalan, and Jose Salig ganged up on Manuel, who was lying on the floor. Ramon then fired three shots at Manuel, hitting him once on the chest, after which the group left hurriedly. The wallet of Manuel containing two thousand pesos and the one thousand five hundred pesos placed inside a suitcase on top of the aparador were found missing. Manuel was brought to the hospital, but on the way to the North General Hospital at Dipolog City he died of internal hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds.

Ramon Macari Salig is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He and his wife had lived with the Oliveros family until one week before the incident, when Manuel dispossessed Ramon of the riceland he was tilling because he failed to attend to it regularly owing to his drinking habit. Before the trial court promulgated its decision, Ramon applied for amnesty under Presidential Decree Number 206, but the application was disapproved by the President. In his defense, Ramon claimed that he was in his own house, about two hundred meters away, that night and did not leave until his arrest the following morning. He assigned as errors the finding of guilt and the admission of his extrajudicial confession.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of Ramon Macari Salig is admissible against him.
• Whether or not the death of Jose Salig pending appeal extinguishes his civil liability, and whether his estate may be held liable for indemnity.

Applicable Provisions

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the separate opinion, provides:

That criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalty; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

This provision governs the effect of Jose Salig's death during the pendency of the appeal on his criminal and civil liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the robbery was not established beyond reasonable doubt. There was no eyewitness to the robbery; the only proof was the testimony of Paula Oliveros that her husband's wallet and the money in the suitcase were missing. The Court adopted the rule that in order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing is classified either as simple homicide or murder, depending on the presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not as the complex offense of robbery with homicide. In contrast to the paucity of proof on the robbery was the clear and positive identification of Ramon Macari Salig as the one who struck the victim on the head with a pistol, slapped and dragged him to the sala, and there fired at him on the chest. The killing was therefore murder, qualified by treachery, which was alleged in the information.

On the second issue, the Court found the confession admissible. The presumption favors the spontaneity and voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession where there is no evidence of compulsion, duress, or violence; where the accused failed to complain to the municipal judge who read the statement to him and administered the oath; where he instituted no criminal or administrative action against his alleged intimidators; where there were no marks of violence on his body; and where he did not have himself examined by a physician. The Court further held that although he may not have been informed of his right to silence and to counsel, his confession was admissible because it was obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution. His application for amnesty was itself an admission of guilt, being in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance.

On the third issue, the Court noted that Jose Salig died after judgment was rendered by the trial court. The case against him was dismissed insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, but his civil liability, consisting of indemnity to the heirs, was not extinguished. The Court accordingly held his estate and Ramon Macari Salig jointly and severally liable for the indemnity adjudged by the lower court, except the payment of three thousand five hundred pesos allegedly taken from the victim, and increased the indemnity for death from twelve thousand pesos to thirty thousand pesos.

Doctrine

First, in robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other essential element. Absent conclusive proof of the robbery, the killing is either homicide or murder, depending on the qualifying circumstances. Second, an extrajudicial confession is presumed spontaneous and voluntary absent evidence of compulsion, and a confession obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution is not inadmissible for want of the warning on the right to silence and to counsel. Third, an application for amnesty is a plea of confession and avoidance, an admission of guilt. Fourth, under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the death of the convict extinguishes the personal penalty, and extinguishes pecuniary penalties only when death occurs before final judgment; where death occurs after judgment by the trial court, the civil liability for indemnity survives against his estate.

Disposition

Ramon Macari Salig was declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua; the case against Jose Salig was dismissed on account of his death, but his estate and Ramon Macari Salig were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Manuel Oliveros, with the death indemnity increased to thirty thousand pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that without conclusive proof of the robbery, there is no robbery with homicide, only homicide or murder. Examiners use this case to test the elements of robbery with homicide and the survival of civil liability against the estate of an accused who dies after the trial court's judgment.