G.R. Nos. 100391-92. September 26, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO TIMPLE, BERNARDO GUDOY Y SUMALBAG, ALFREDO UBIANO Y PAYON, RUDY MAIQUEZ Y MANGLANLAN, RANDO EDUARDO SAGUN Y GRANDE, RO…
FELICIANO, J.:
Mariano Timple appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 32 of Guimba, Nueva Ecija which found him and Bernardo Gudoy,
Randy Eduardo Sagun and Rudy Maiquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
crimes of robbery with multiple homicide.
In Criminal Case No. 505-G, accused Mariano Timple, Bernardo S.
Gudoy, Alfredo P. Ubiano, Rudy M. Maiquez, Randy Eduardo G. Sagun, Rogelio
Aguyaoy, Cipriano Padua, Danilo Lapitan, and Rodolfo Padua were charged with
robbery with multiple homicide in an information which read as follows:
“That on the night of February 8, 1989, in Culong,
Municipality of Guimba, Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all armed with
long assorted firearms/Armalite Rifles M16 and M14, Carbines, M2 and Cal. 30,
and .22 cal rifle and bladed weapons, conspiring, confederating together, and
helping one another and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, and with
intent of gain by means of superior force and violence upon the persons of
ERNESTO SEMACIO and ZENAIDA SEMACIO and the members of their family in their
dwelling house and after hog-tying their said victims with the use of electric
wires, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and
carry away personal belongings, jewelries and appliances, such as one portable
Sanyo 12” black and white TV, car stereo, other assorted items and cash,
all in the aggregate amount of more than FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) to the
damage and prejudice of ZENAIDA SEMACIO and her children in the same amount;
that by reason or on occasion of said robbery and for the purpose of enabling
them (accused) to take, steal and carry away the said personal
belongings/personal properties in pursuance of their conspiracy, and for the
purpose of insuring the success of their criminal act or to suppress evidence thereof,
the accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, stab, and shoot
ERNESTO SEMACIO, LORETO RAMOS, VIRGILIO
FLORA, and ANGELO BESAMES, thereby inflicting on all of them fatal stab
and gunshot wounds, which caused their instantaneous death, likewise, by reason
or on occasion of the robbery, accused Mariano Timple and Alfredo Ubiano took
turns in having sexual intercourse of Mrs. ZENAIDA SEMACIO by means of force and
intimidation against her will.
That due to the robbery and death of ERNESTO SEMACIO, his heirs
sustained actual, moral, and consequential damages in the total sum of
P100,000.00, for the rape of ZENAIDA SEMACIO she herself sustained actual,
moral, and consequential damages in the sum of P50,000.00 and for the death of
LORETO RAMOS, VIRGILIO FLORA, and ANGELO BASAMES, their respective heirs
sustained actual, moral, and consequential damages in the sum of P80,000.00
each victim.”[1]
In Criminal Case No. 506-G, the same accused were also charged
with another robbery with multiple homicide committed on the same night and in
the same municipality:
“That on the night of February 8, 1989, in Culong,
Municipality of Guimba, Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all armed with
long assorted firearms/Armalite Rifles M16 and M14, Carbines, M2 and Cal. 30,
and .22 cal. rifle and bladed weapons, conspiring, confederating together, and
helping one another and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, and with
intent of gain by means of superior force and violence upon the spouses ALBERTO
PANIO and ADORACION PANIO and members of their household, and upon spouses
DIOSDADO SAMOY and ELVIRA SAMOY, in their dwelling house and after hogtying all
of their said victims, with electric wires, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal and carry away personal
belongings/personal properties, jewelries, cash, and home appliances such as
one Sony radio cassette recorder, and other assorted items/properties,
including one Squibman .22 cal. rifle with serial no. 38352, in the total
amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) more or less, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of Alberto Panio and Adoracion Panio in the sum of
P15,000 and Elvira Samoy in the sum of P5,000.00; that by reason or on occasion
of said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them (accused) to take, steal
and carry away the said personal belongings/personal properties in pursuance of
their conspiracy, and for the purpose of insuring the success of their criminal
act or to suppress evidence thereof, the accused, conspiring, confederating,
and helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously attack, assault, stab, and shoot ALBERTO PANIO, ADORACION PANIO,
ELVIN PANIO, DIOSDADO SAMOY, ARNEL SEMACIO, ERNESTO PANIO, MIGUEL BADUA, and
EDUARDO PANTALEON, thereby inflicting on all of them fatal stab and gunshot
wounds, which caused their instantaneous death, likewise, by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, accused Mariano Timple had carnal intercourse of Mrs.
ELVIRA SAMOY by means of force and intimidation against her will.[2]
The accused pleaded not guilty in both cases.
Because the two (2) cases were related, a joint trial was ordered
by the trial court.[3]
After trial, the court rendered judgment finding appellant Timple along with
three (3) other accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2) crimes of
robbery with multiple homicide and rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the above findings based on the
evidence adduced, this Court finds the accused Mariano timple, Bernardo Gudoy,
Randy Eduardo Sagun, and Rudy Maiquez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt on both
Criminal Cases 505-G and 506-G for having committed the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and Rape as defined and penalized in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code. There being no
mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstances of Treachery
which absorbs the other aggravating circumstances of use of superior strength
and nighttime and rapes which are to be treated likewise as aggravating
circumstance in these cases, the same accused MARIANO TIMPLE, BERNARDO GUDOY,
RANDY EDUARDO SAGUN, and RUDY MAIQUEZ are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua on each case; to
jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the twelve (12) murder victims the
sum of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) per victim; to pay the value of the
unrecovered stolen properties; and to pay the costs of the suit, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Accused CIPRIANO PADUA, RODOLFO PADUA, ROGELIO AGUYAOY, DANILO
LAPITAN, for lack of sufficient evidence to establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, are found not guilty and are therefore, acquitted. Their immediate release from custody is
hereby ordered unless they are to be detained in connection with other cause
that will warrant their further detention.
In the meantime, the proceedings against accused EDGARDO ALCANTARA
[are] hereby ordered held in abeyance pending his apprehension. Let, therefore, an alias warrant of arrest
be issued against the same accused. Let
the whole records of this case be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for
the automatic review of the cases.
SO ORDERED.”[4]
The factual findings of the trial court may be outlined as
follows.[5]
At around 7 o’clock in the evening of 8 February 1989, Zenaida
Semacio was at their house at Barangay Culong, Guimba, Nueva Ecija with her
children Arnel, Arnold, Edgar, Erwin, and Ernaida. Ernesto Semacio, her husband, who had gone to the poblacion
together with Angelo Besames, Loreto Ramos and Robert Flora, was not in the
house at that time.
Armed persons who identified themselves as soldiers went to their
house. They immediately ordered the
children to lie face down on the ground. Zenaida, who was then in the kitchen, came out of the house to meet
them, but she was likewise ordered to do the same by Mariano Timple and Rudy
Maiquez.
The children were taken outside and hogtied with electric
wire. The group then asked them for
guns and for the money and jewelry of their mother. Arnel Semacio told them that they had no guns; at this statement,
one of the men hit him with a rifle butt. Some of the men then began to ransack the house.
Meanwhile, Mariano Timple brought Zenaida to the kitchen, ordered her to lie down on
top of the dining table, and there raped her. Following the lead of Timple, Maiquez pulled Zenaida towards the comfort
room, ordered her to remove her pants, and sexually abused her in a standing
position while brandishing a gun at her. After Rudy Maiquez, Alfredo Ubiano tried to take his turn with
Zenaida. He took her near the pumping
well and started touching her breasts through the neckline of her blouse. He brought her inside the house, tied her
hands and feet on a bamboo bench, and continued to molest her sexually. Ubiano, however, did not have sexual intercourse
with her. After Ubiano went away,
accused Sagun mischievously inserted his finger into her vagina and then rubbed
that finger on her nose.
Ernesto Semacio, apparently unaware of what was taking place in
his house, arrived home in his jeep together with Loreto Ramos, Virgilio Flora,
and Angelo Besames. When he got down
from his jeep, he was surprised by Timple and company. Ernesto asked them what they wanted from him;
in response, he was struck with rifle butts. The armed men took Ernesto and his three (3) companions away from the
house and shot them to death.
Meanwhile, Arnold Semacio succeeded in freeing himself by untying
the wire around his hands and feet. He
stood up and untied his brothers Edgar and Erwin. He noticed his brother Arnel signalling them to go ahead and run
away. They did run away, together with
Zenaida and Ernaida Semacio and reached the neighboring barangay. The next morning, the dead bodies of Ernesto
Semacio, Angelo Besames, Loreto Ramos, and Roberto Flora, were found scattered
around the premises of the Semacio house. Assorted personal belongings, clothes, cash, jewelry, and appliances
such as a TV set and a car stereo had been taken and were missing from the
household of the Semacios.
After the slaughter in the premises of the Semacios, between 8
and 9 o’clock in the same evening of 8 February 1989, the group of Timple
proceeded to the household of Elvira Samoy where they once more introduced
themselves as military men. They called
for the father of Elvira who was then
living in a house adjacent to hers, only four (4) meters away. Her father met the armed men. They asked him how many male persons were
living therein and in the house of Elvira, and he informed them that there were
only four (4) males in his house and only one, his son-in-law, in Elvira’s
house. The armed men ordered the males
out of the two (2) houses and told them that they were only pursuing and
searching for a man who had gone in the direction of their place. Elvira tried to follow the others, but she
was prevented by Eduardo Sagun and an unidentified man. The two (2) then asked her to go upstairs.
She went upstairs as ordered and the two (2) followed her. After asking for firearms and not getting
any, the two (2) men began to ransack the house. They took the bag of her husband and stuffed it with men’s
clothing taken from the family aparador. Jewelry and a wallet were likewise taken. The following items were taken from the
household of Elvira Samoy:
(estimated value)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While Sagun and his companion were ransacking the house, Timple
and Gudoy went inside and ordered Elvira downstairs. Pointing their firearms at her, Timple and Gudoy ordered Elvira
to undress and to lie down on the bamboo sofa, and the two (2) took turns in
raping her. While she was being
sexually violated by Gudoy, she heard her mother from the other house pleading
for mercy. This was followed by a
gunshot and a shout from her younger brother uttering the word “Inang“.
After ravishing Elvira Samoy, Gudoy went out of the house. Not long after that, Elvira heard several
shots followed by the sound of scampering feet at the back of their house. A man whom Elvira Samoy identified as
Alfredo Ubiano went back and stared at her, but left without assaulting
her. She went to the house of her parents
and there found her mother and several other persons shot to death.
Only Mariano Timple filed a notice of appeal.[7] In
his appeal brief, Timple claimed that the following errors were committed by
the trial court:
I
The trial court erred in not finding that the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the accused-appellant Mariano
Timple as allegedly one of the perpetrators of the crimes charged in the
informations.
II
The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant Mariano
Timple of the crimes charged in the informations.
After a careful examination of the records, we find that the
guilt of the accused-appellant Mariano Timple had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The identification of Mariano Timple as one of the marauders is
beyond cavil. Zenaida Semacio testified
that when she went out of her house to check out the group of men ordering her
children to lie on the ground, she immediately recognized Mariano Timple and
Romeo Maiquez, as the two (2) were only one (1) meter away from a kerosene lamp.[8]
Furthermore, the image of Timple became etched in her memory, perhaps
indelibly, when he ordered her to remove her pants, lie on the table, and to
guide his penis into her vagina. This
is an occurrence so traumatic and humiliating that it is not surprising its
most minute details should remain embedded in the memory of Zenaida.
Arnold Semacio was likewise able to recognize Timple. After Arnold and his brothers were ordered
to lie face down on the ground, Arnold was able to raise his head at the
instant when one of the armed men bent down to tie his shoelace. At that moment, the face of the man was only
half a meter away from the lamp on a table, and that man himself was only
around two (2) meters away from Arnold. Arnold recognized him as appellant Mariano Timple.[9]
Elvira Samoy also testified that she saw Timple with the group of
armed men in her house on 8 February 1989. She recognized Timple as the man who ordered her downstairs while some
members of the group were ransacking the house. More tellingly, she remembered him as one of those who had sexually
abused her on that night. Because of
the unspeakable coercion and indignity he had subjected her to, Elvira Samoy
would certainly remember Timple.
In his appeal, Mariano Timple did not directly question the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses identifying him as one of the
participants in the terrible slaughter of twelve (12) persons on the night of 8
February 1989. Instead, he argued
mainly that the police line-up conducted on 10 February 1989 when he was first
identified was fraudulent. He presented
his own version of what happened at the police line-up, contending that in the
initial line-up, Arnold Semacio, Zenaida Semacio and Elvira Samoy entered the
room in the police station where he and four (4) of his relatives were waiting
at the time. For thirty to thirty-five
minutes, the three (3) were unable to identify him. This inability prompted Capt. de los Santos to order Timple to
put on and later take off a bonnet and then coached the witnesses to point to
him. Only then were the witnesses able
to pinpoint him. Timple testified in
the following manner:
“ATTY. WYCOCO:
Q. While you were standing and the five of your companions fronting four to
five meters, tell the court if anyone of your companions was ever pinpointed to
as ordered by Capt. delos Santos?
MARIANO TIMPLE:
A. For a period of about thirty to
thirty-five minutes that we were there, not one of them was able to pinpoint
me.
Q. After
thirty five minutes had lapsed and not one of your companions was pinpointed,
what happened next?
A. Captain delos Santos went out and when he returned, he let me wear a
bonnet and I saw him whispering something to the complainant – ‘Ituro mo na.’ It was only a
whisper and it was not in a loud voice.
Q. After
you have heard the whisper of Captain delos Santos saying in the vernacular ‘ituro mo na,’ what did Captain
delos Santos do if any?
A. Captain delos Santos removed the bonnet from me and thereafter the
complainant pointed at me and said, ‘yan
na nga ho.'”[10] (Emphases supplied)
The story presented by the appellant seeks to contradict the
version of the prosecution, which insisted that the police line-up conducted on
10 February 1989 was free from any irregularity and had been preceded by a
thorough investigation. The evidence of
the prosecution on the important matter of identification of appellant Timple
is summarized in the following paragraphs.
On 9 February 1989, on the morning after the commission of the
crimes, Sgt. Bergado of the Philippine Constabulary (“PC”) went to
talk with the surviving victims. Zenaida Semacio told him that she would recognize their assailants if
she saw them again. She also described
their physical appearances. Samoy
echoed the same sentiments. That
afternoon, the investigators focused on a particular suspect.
On that same day, Sgt. Bergado went back to see the victims and
showed them a photograph of their suspect. Elvira Samoy nodded her head upon looking at the photograph, but did not
categorically state that the person was one of their assailants, as only the
side view of the person was shown in the photograph. She had a “strong
feeling,” though, she said, that the person in the photograph was one of
them.[11]
Zenaida Semacio was more certain, and she immediately declared
that the person in the photo was one of the armed men who had gone to their
house on the night of the massacre.[12] The
man in the photograph was appellant Timple.
On 10 February 1989, Zenaida Semacio, Elvira Samoy, and Arnold
Semacio were invited to the headquarters of the 128th PC Company in Guimba,
Nueva Ecija. They were asked to peep
through a small opening in a window and see if they could recognize the men in
the room. Zenaida and Arnold Semacio pointed
to Mariano Timple in that room as one of their assailants. Elvira Samoy too recognized Timple, and
without any hesitation, immediately pointed him out to Capt. de los Santos.
Zenaida Semacio described the police line-up in her testimony in
court:
“FISCAL LACUROM:
Q. Why
did you go to the PC Headquarters?
ZENAIDA SEMACIO:
A. They told us to identify the
persons apprehended by them at the PC Headquarters.
Q. Who
called for you?
A. Certain
Soriano with his companions.
x x x x
x x x
x x
Q. Arriving
thereat, what transpired?
A. They
told us to peep at the slit of the window of the camp of the 126th Company to
identify those persons apprehended by them.
Q. And
after peeping through the slit of the window, what did you say if any?
A. I
told them I can only identify one of those persons inside.
Q. How many persons were there inside the
room at that time?
A. Five,
sir.
Q. To
whom did you say that you identified one of those persons?
A. I
told the matter to Captain de los Santos and Lt. Soriano.
Q. Who
did you say as the one whom you identified?
(Witness went
down to the witness stand and tapped the shoulder of Mariano Timple.)
Q. Who
is this Mariano Timple in relation to that incident on the night of February 8,
198?
A. He
was one of those who raped me.”[13]
(Underscoring supplied)
Elvira Samoy also described the police line-up conducted on 10
February 1989 as follows:
“COURT:
Q. What happened thereat
when you arrived at the 126th PC Headquarters that morning of February 10,
1989?
ELVIRA SAMOY:
A. We were brought at the
back of the town and according to them they have with them some male persons
and they will be shown to us if we can recognize them.
FISCAL LACUROM:
Q. Where were these five
persons at that time?
A. In a room at the back
of the camp.
Q. Did you do anything?
A. We were told to peep and to identify them.
Q. Where did you peep?
A. In the window.
Q. How wide was the
opening of the window?
A. It is only a small
opening enough to peep through.
x x x x
x x x
x x
Q. After
peeping into that room, what did you say, if any?
A. I
pointed one.
Q. To
whom did you make this revelation or disclosure?
A. To
Lt. Soriano and Captain Santos.
x x x x
x x x
x x
Q. Who
was that person whom you identified in that room as one of those who robbed you?
A. Mariano
Timple.”[14]
(Underscoring supplied)
Furthermore, there is absolutely no showing that the witnesses
connived falsely to denounce a person known to them to be in fact
innocent. Elvira Samoy who had been
uncertain regarding the person depicted in the photograph shown to her, took
one look at the suspect and immediately identified him (Mariano Timple) during
the line-up as one of the armed marauders to Capt. de los Santos. She did not even hear what the Semacios told
Capt. de los Santos after they had taken a peep at the persons in the line-up.[15]
In the light of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and
herein appellant, the well-settled rule is that the findings of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses are to be accorded great weight and are not to
be disturbed, unless the judge had clearly overlooked facts of substance and
value which, if taken into account, would affect the result of the case.[16]
This Court is unable to find any compelling reason to depart from this rule and
to disturb the conclusion of the trial court that the prosecution witnesses
were more credible in their testimonies regarding the conduct of the line-up on
10 February 1989 than appellant Timple who offered only his bare allegations in
a story which, at all events, was merely inconclusive and speculative.
We note that the story of Timple about the line-up is also
contrived and implausible. It is not in
accord with ordinary human experience for a person to spend thirty minutes in a
task the impossibility of which should have become apparent after a few
seconds. Indeed, it is difficult to
believe that the three (3) witnesses (Elvira, Zenaida and Arnold) simply stood
there in the same room looking at the five (5) suspects for thirty minutes
notwithstanding their inability to identify Timple from among the latter. The observation of the Solicitor General is
also in point:
“If any prior prompting was done, the identity of the culprit
could have been described to the complainants in a less obvious or suspicious
manner than what was allegedly done. Hence, there is no credibility to the claim that a bonnet was used to
provide a cue to the complainants that appellant was the culprit.”[17]
Appellant Timple argues that the PC authorities had already
harbored the notion that he was the mastermind of the Culong massacre even
before he was actually arrested. In
effect, appellant is arguing that there was no probable cause for his arrest,
and that the fraud which allegedly attended the line-up was consistent with his
contention that the PC orchestrated his false arrest and his subsequent
identification by the victims.
We are unable to subscribe to this argument. When Timple was asked to go to the PC
Headquarters on 10 February 1989, his invitation was not the product of mere
caprice on the part of the PC authorities. The previous day, on 9 February 1989, the victims had described to the
PC investigators at least some of their assailants. In the light of these descriptions, the PC investigators came to
suspect the involvement of Mariano Timple. This suspicion was not without basis. As Captain Undan himself stated, Timple was implicated in a prior murder
case in Naglabrahan. Moreover, Timple
had been spotted in a fatigue uniform near the scene of the crime on the
afternoon of 8 February 1989, or a few hours before the robberies and killings
and rape.[18]
It was only natural for the investigators, then, to consider Mariano Timple as
a suspect, considering that his body appearance fitted one of the descriptions
of the assailants given by the victims.[19] Eventually,
the suspicion of the investigators would be confirmed when the victims picked
out Timple from the line-up conducted on 10 February 1989.
Appellant argues further that the police line-up conducted on 10
February 1989 was null and his identification therefrom was inadmissible
because he had not been assisted by counsel. He contends that the line-up was an important part of the custodial
investigation.[20]
It has been held, however, that a police line-up is not part of the
custodial investigation, where, as here, the suspects had not yet been held
then to answer for the criminal offense with which they were later charged and
convicted.[21]
The Court has held that there is no real need to afford a potential suspect the
services of counsel at the police line-up, for the customary practice is that
it is the witness who is investigated or interrogated in the course of the
line-up. It is the witness who gives a
statement to the police, rather than the accused who is not questioned at all
at that stage.[22]
In the present case, it does not appear that the appellant was ever questioned
in the course of the line-up; to the contrary, it even appears that the line-up
was conducted outside the room where the appellant and four (4) others
were. Accordingly, the absence of
Timple’s counsel during the line-up did not affect the validity of the
line-up.
Appellant also objects that the prosecution had failed to adduce
convincing evidence of his alleged conspiracy with accused Sagun, Gudoy, Maiquez
and Ubiano.
An examination of the records clearly show that this argument too
is bereft of merit. Conspiracy, like
any ingredient of an offense, must be established not by mere conjecture but by
evidence which satisfies the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. To establish conspiracy, two or more persons
must be shown to have come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony. It is not, of course, indispensable
that direct proof be adduced to establish the agreement to commit the felony;
the availability of such direct proof of the agreement to commit the felony is,
in the nature of things, clearly the exception rather than the rule. Conspiracy must commonly be inferred from
acts of the accused which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common
intent or design to commit a crime. In
the great majority of cases, conspiracy is established by proof of acts done in
concert, that is to say, acts which yield the reasonable inference that the
doers thereof were acting with common intent or design.[23]
The acts of Timple and the other members of his band established
by the prosecution clearly yield this inference. From the evidence on record, it is clear that an armed group
attacked two (2) households successively in Culong, Guimba, Nueva Ecija on the
night of 8 February 1989. In both
instances, the group robbed, killed, and raped. Timple was present when the group committed these acts. His presence, however, was not coincidental
nor innocent. The record permits no
doubt that Timple acted in concert with the armed group in the commission of
the two offenses.
In the two (2) households, he was armed with a rifle like the
other members of the band. In the house
of Zenaida, it was he who ordered that the children be hogtied. While the house was being ransacked, it was
he who ordered Zenaida to come dawn. His order was not meant to spare her from the distress of seeing her
worldly goods taken away; he was also bent on taking something from her: her personal honor and human dignity in a few minutes of carnal
pleasure.
In the house of Elvira too, he was present while the house was
being stripped of various goods. As in
the house of the Semacios, he did nothing to stop the commission of the robbery
or the killings. While the men were taking
away what they could carry from the house of the Samoys, Timple was raping
Elvira Samoy. Sagun who was identified
by Zenaida as the man who had ordered her to produce their gun and other
valuables, followed the example of Timple and sexually abused Elvira.
The conspiracy having been shown, each of the conspirators is
liable for all the acts of the others. There is thus no need for the prosecution to establish who
shot any one or more of the twelve (12) victims of the band.
The trial court correctly designated the crime as robbery with
homicide, with rape being considered as an aggravating circumstance.
In the two (2) instances when the assailants struck, their
overriding intention was to commit robbery. After the children had been hogtied in the
Semacios premises, one of the armed men demanded money and jewelry.[24]
Thereafter, they started to ransack the house. When the husband of Zenaida arrived, the robbers went out and promptly
killed him and his luckless companions.
In the house of the Samoys, all the male occupants were asked to
come out first. Only then did the men
begin to ransack the place. After
ransacking the house, the male occupants were shot to death.
In both instances, the intent to gain was present and had been
realized. Furthermore, the killing of
four (4) persons in the Semacio household and eight (8) in the Samoy’s was
committed on the occasion of, or
by reason of, the robbery. The killings
were done to facilitate the escape of the assailants, or to eliminate
opposition to their criminal objective. With the sole exception of the mother of Elvira, all the dead were males
and presumably capable of giving a fight. The course of action chosen by the accused appears to reflect a strategy
of moving in only after “softening” or eliminating the defenses of
the target. In the house of the
Semacios, the children were hogtied first; in the Samoys, the males were herded
out before the malefactors actually commenced to ransack the house.
It may be observed that the trial court erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of treachery. While the records clearly show that the accused had killed the victims,
they do not show the precise manner in which this was done. The witnesses did not actually see the
accused fire their guns at the victims. Absent such kind of proof, we cannot presume that the victims had been
killed treacherously. Furthermore, this
aggravating circumstance is appreciated only in crimes against persons,[25]
and is not to be applied in robbery with homicide which is classified as a
crime against property.[26] In
some cases, however, the Court has held that treachery may be appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, but not as a
qualifying circumstance.[27]
While the number of persons killed does not alter the
characterization of the offense as robbery with homicide, the multiplicity of
the victims slain should have been appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. This would preclude an
anomalous situation where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with
multiple killings would be.[28]
The trial court, however, was correct in treating the raping of
Elvira Samoy and Zenaida Semacio as an aggravating circumstance.[29]
Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with
homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. In view, however, of the first paragraph of
Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that:
“Sec. 19. (1)
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua” (Underscoring supplied)
only the penalty of reclusion perpetua
could be imposed by the trial court. Hence, the attendant aggravating circumstances in this case had no
impact upon the determination of the proper penalty by the trial court.[30]
By Republic Act No. 7659 (effective 31 December 1993),[31]
Congress re-imposed the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, including
robbery with homicide and robbery with rape. By the same statute, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code was amended
to read as follows:
“Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against
or intimidation on any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime
of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall
have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
x x x x
x x x
x x”[32]
(Underscoring supplied)
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
7659, however, cannot be applied retroactively in this case. To do so would be to subject the appellant
to the death penalty which could not have been constitutionally imposed by the
court a quo under the law in effect at the time of the commission of the
offenses.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, finding herein appellant Mariano Timple guilty of two (2) crimes of
robbery with homicide, is AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant Timple.
SO ORDERED.
Romero, Melo, and Vitug,
JJ., concur.
Bidin, J., on leave.
[1]
Record of Exhibits, Crim. Case No. 505-G, p. 25.
[2]
Record of Exhibits, Crim. Case No.
506-G, p. 13.
[3]
Trial Court Decision, p. 2; Rollo,
p. 55.
[4]
Id. pp. 23-24; Rollo, pp. 76-77.
[5]
Trial Court Decision, pp. 5-10; Rollo,
pp. 58-63.
[6]
Trial Court Decision, p. 9; Rollo,
p. 62.
[7]
Records, p. 270.
[8]
TSN, 17 June 1989, pp. 27-28.
[9]
TSN, 6 June 1989, p. 12.
[10]
TSN, 14 November 1989, pp. 4-5.
[11]
TSN, 31 May 1989, p. 29.
[12]
TSN, 14 June 1989, p. 4.
[13]
TSN, 14 June 1989, pp. 6-7.
[14]
TSN, 13 May 1989, pp. 30-32.
[15]
TSN, 31 May 1989, pp. 33-34.
[16]
People vs. Oracay, 224 SCRA 759
(1993).
[17]
Appellee’s Brief, p. 27; Rollo,
p. 199.
[18]
TSN, 29 June 1989, p. 80.
[19]
TSN, 16 August 1989, pp. 2-3.
[20]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 22; Rollo, p. 121.
[21]
People vs. Dimaano, 209 SCRA 819 (1992).
[22]
People vs. Santos, 221 SCRA 715
(1993); People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 (1990) and Gamboa vs.
Cruz, 162 SCRA 643 (1988).
[23]
People vs. Orehuela, G.R. Nos. 108780-81, 29 April 1994; People vs.
Valeriano, 226 SCRA 694 (1993).
[24]
TSN, 21 July 1989, p. 75.
[25]
Article 14 (16), Revised Penal Code,
provides that “there is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.”
(Underscoring supplied)
[26]
See People vs. Eroles, 226 SCRA 554 (1993), where the Court held that
robbery with homicide is a crime against property.
[27]
People vs. Repato, 91 SCRA 488
(1979) People vs. Mabilangan, 111 SCRA 398 (1982).
[28]
People vs. Mabilangan, 111 SCRA 398 (1982); People vs. Pedroso,
115 SCRA 389 (1982).
[29]
People v. Lascuna, 225 SCRA 386
(1993); People v. Plaga, 202 SCRA 53 (1991); People vs. Tapales,
93 SCRA 134 (1979).
[30]
See People vs. Yabut, 226
SCRA 556 (1993).
[31]
People v. Martin Simon, G.R. No.
93028, 29 July 1994.
[32]
Before the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659, Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code read:
“Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons–Penalties. — Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of
any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death when, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime
of homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the robbery
shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason
or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that
when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death.
x x x x
x x x x
x”