August 1978 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > August 1978 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-30281 August 2, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO O. GARILLO:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-30281. August 2, 1978.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, v. CELESTINO GARILLO Y ORJEL alias CELING (deceased) and FEDERICO FERNANDEZ Y ARELLANO Alias Putol, Accused.
T. R. Dominguez for Appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for Appellee.
SYNOPSIS
Appellant and his co-accused were charged with and convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide. The trial court’s conviction of appellant as co-principal was premised on the alleged admission of his co-accused that appellant was aware of the plan to commit the robbery as in fact he acted as a look-out or guard. On automatic review, appellant claims that he was not a party to the plan to commit the robbery since he was merely told of the plan and that he never agreed to participate in the commission thereof as shown by his leaving the place when the conspirators started to break the factory’s wall preparatory to their entering the premises and that if he ever had made a pretense, in the beginning, of joining the conspirators as a look-out or guard outside, it was because of his fear of displeasing the mastermind who was a member of the notorious OXO gang.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the evidence proves conspiracy and that accused-appellant not only knew of the plan to rob the victim but also participated in its commission by previous and simultaneous acts which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent. In view however, of the absence of any attending circumstance the penalty for robbery with homicide in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua, was imposed.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the evidence proves conspiracy and that accused-appellant not only knew of the plan to rob the victim but also participated in its commission by previous and simultaneous acts which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent. In view however, of the absence of any attending circumstance the penalty for robbery with homicide in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua, was imposed.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; ACCUSED; GUILT; FLIGHT, EVIDENCE THEREOF. — The disclaimer of participation in the conspiracy and desistance in the commission thereof is negated by the statement of the accused that he fled to the province where he stayed in a house together with some of the conspirators. "The wicked flee when no one is chasing them, but the godly are bold as lions."cralaw virtua1aw library
2. ID.; CONSPIRACY; LIABILITY OF CONSPIRATORS. — Where the accused not only knew of the plan to rob the victim but also participated in its commission by previous or simultaneous acts (by acting as a look-out or guard outside) which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent, said accused is equally guilty of the crime committed.
3. ID.; PRINCIPALS; LIABILITY. — When homicide takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof that they have tried to prevent the killing. Thus although the accused-appellant may not have foreseen the killing of the victim and did not take part in its execution, he is, nevertheless, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide absent any showing that he ever attempted to prevent the homicide.
4. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; NOT CONSIDERED IN ROBBERY. — Evident premeditation, however, if not considered as an aggravating circumstances in crimes of robbery because the same is inherent in the crime, especially where it is committed by various persons since there must be an agreement and the plotters have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out the crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN CONSIDERED IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. — In the crime of robbery with homicide, there should be evident premeditation to kill, besides stealing, in order that it can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, where it has not been proven that the accused, before committing the crime, planned and decided, not only to steal, but also to kill the victim, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
6. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; WHEN ABSENT. — Abuse of superior strength cannot also be appreciated in the absence of proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors and the victim and that the assailants took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.
7. ID.; ID.; TREACHERY; WHEN ABSENT. — Treachery is absent where the attack was made upon the impulse of the moment, as a consequence of the unexpected turn of events.
8. ID.; ID.; NOCTURNITY; WHEN PRESENT BUT OFFSET BY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Nocturnity is present where the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness of the night in committing the crime. However, this aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance that appellant suffers some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings, to wit: appellant’s right hand is missing as a consequence of an accident.
9. ID.; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; PENALTY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCE. — In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance the penalty to be imposed for the crime of robbery with homicide shall be in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.
2. ID.; CONSPIRACY; LIABILITY OF CONSPIRATORS. — Where the accused not only knew of the plan to rob the victim but also participated in its commission by previous or simultaneous acts (by acting as a look-out or guard outside) which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent, said accused is equally guilty of the crime committed.
3. ID.; PRINCIPALS; LIABILITY. — When homicide takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof that they have tried to prevent the killing. Thus although the accused-appellant may not have foreseen the killing of the victim and did not take part in its execution, he is, nevertheless, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide absent any showing that he ever attempted to prevent the homicide.
4. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; NOT CONSIDERED IN ROBBERY. — Evident premeditation, however, if not considered as an aggravating circumstances in crimes of robbery because the same is inherent in the crime, especially where it is committed by various persons since there must be an agreement and the plotters have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out the crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN CONSIDERED IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. — In the crime of robbery with homicide, there should be evident premeditation to kill, besides stealing, in order that it can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, where it has not been proven that the accused, before committing the crime, planned and decided, not only to steal, but also to kill the victim, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
6. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; WHEN ABSENT. — Abuse of superior strength cannot also be appreciated in the absence of proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors and the victim and that the assailants took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.
7. ID.; ID.; TREACHERY; WHEN ABSENT. — Treachery is absent where the attack was made upon the impulse of the moment, as a consequence of the unexpected turn of events.
8. ID.; ID.; NOCTURNITY; WHEN PRESENT BUT OFFSET BY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Nocturnity is present where the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness of the night in committing the crime. However, this aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance that appellant suffers some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings, to wit: appellant’s right hand is missing as a consequence of an accident.
9. ID.; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; PENALTY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCE. — In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance the penalty to be imposed for the crime of robbery with homicide shall be in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Automatic review of the decision rendered by the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal in Case No. CCC-VII-55 (P.C. 8153), finding the accused Celestino Garillo y Orjel alias Celing and Federico Fernandez y Arellano alias Putol guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of Death, to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the amount of P12,000.00, jointly and severally; and to pay the costs. Celestino Garillo y Orjel alias Celing died in the National Penitentiary at Muntinglupa, Rizal on August 16, 1970 and his appeal was dismissed by the Court December 9, 1970. 1
It is of record that Lim Tao Sing was the owner and operator of the Excel Ice Drop Factory located at No. 2504 Taft Avenue, Pasay City. His uncle, Lim Ping Suy, assisted him in the management of said factory. The factory was housed in a two-storey building, the upper floor of which was used by Lim Tao Sing as his sleeping quarters. The ground floor contained the factory equipment and the sleeping quarters of some of the factory workers. Lim Ping Suy resided elsewhere and went to the factory only in the daytime.
In the early evening of October 31, 1968, Lim Tao Sing and Lim Ping Suy counted their money, amounting to P3,200.00 which had been set aside for the operating expenses of the factory, such as wages, house rentals, and light and water bills. They also examined the jewelry, consisting of a necklace, a bracelet, a gold ring, a diamond ring, and other kinds of rings, all valued at P1,800.00, which Lim Ping Suy bought for his nephew and which the latter had intended to send as gifts to his children in China. Afterwards, they put the money and jewelry inside a trunk which Lim Tao Sing kept in his bedroom. Lim Ping Suy then left for home.
In the evening of November 1, 1968, All Saints’ Day, Henry Barillo and Alejandro Buco alias Tangkad, workers in the factory, slept, as usual, on the ground floor of the factory. The room was well lighted with flourescent lamps because the generator of the factory operated for twenty four hours. At about 11:00 o’clock that night, Henry Barillo woke up because he felt that he was being tied up. True enough, Henry Barillo saw his own co-workers at the plant, Tangkad, tying him up, while another person was pointing a gun at him (Barillo). Barillo also saw three more persons, two of whom were armed with knives, emerging from a hole which the culprits made on the plywood wall and then enter the factory. Barillo was ordered to lie face downwards but he saw three men, including Tangkad, go upstairs to the room occupied by Lim Tao Sing. A little later, he heard a shot, followed by the moans of Lim Tao Sing. Soon thereafter, he saw the men coming downstairs. They left the place in a hurry, an of them running.
About an hour later, Barillo saw, through the hole in the wall, one Norberto, an ice drop vendor, whom Barillo requested to call for the police. Two policemen arrived and Barillo was untied. Then Barillo and a policeman went upstairs. They found the room of Lim ransacked and Lim Tao Sing dead and covered with a mosquito net soaked with his own blood. They saw the box, which had contained the money and jewelry, destroyed and emptied of its contents.
The body of the deceased Lim Tao Sing was brought to the NBI morgue for autopsy and the medical examiner reported that Lim Tao Sing died of multiple stab wounds in the body. 2
Three persons, Celestino Garillo y Orjel alias Celing, Alejandro Buco y Valdez alias Tangkad, and Federico Fernandez alias Putol, were arrested and charged with the commission of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Three other suspects remained at large. Garillo and Fernandez pleaded not guilty while Alejandro Buco y Valdez alias Tangkad entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced by the court to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 3 Garillo and Fernandez were subsequently found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Garillo died in prison and his appeal was subsequently dismissed by this Court. Hence, We are concerned only with the case of Fernandez.
No doubt, there was a conspiracy to rob the Excel Ice Drop Factory. Alejandro Buco y Baldez alias Tangkad admitted that the plan to rob the Chinaman who owns and operates the Excel Ice Drop Factory was hatched up and proposed to him by Gaudencio Garillo alias Gauding, Celestino Garillo alias Celing, Roberto Quinto alias Berto, and Guillermo alias Emot in the morning of November 1, 1968. 4 The deceased Celestino Garillo y Orjel alias Celing likewise admitted that the plan to rob the said Chinaman was proposed to him by Gauden, Berto and Emot. 5 The accused Federico Fernandez y Arellano alias Putol was also aware of the said plan. He denies, however, that he was a co-conspirator, claiming that he was merely told of the plan to rob the ice drop factory; that he was further told by them that if he did not want to go with them in robbing the Chinaman, he should merely keep quiet and they will give him something, to which he answered that it was up to them that he was asked to accompany them in order to act as look-out or guard outside (bantay sa labas) to which he added because he was afraid of Alejandro Buco y Valdez alias Tangkad who has a tatoo "Simaron-Oxo" in his hands, but that he left the place when the conspirators started to destroy a portion of the wall of the ice drop factory. 6
Counsel de oficio contends that it is obvious from the evidence that the accused Fernandez was not a party to the plan to commit the robbery since he was merely told of the plan and that he never agreed to participate in the commission thereof as shown by his leaving the place when the conspirators started to break the factory s wall preparatory to their entering the premises; and that if Fernandez had made a pretense, in the beginning, of joining the conspirators as a look-out or guard outside, it was because of his fear of displeasing the mastermind, Alejandro Buco alias Tangkad, who was a member of the notorious OXO gang and had a tattoo mark Simaron-Oxo in his hands.
The disclaimer of participation in the conspiracy and desistance in the commission thereof is, however, negated by the statement of Fernandez that he fled to Barrio Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal very early in the morning of the next day and thence to Angeles, Pampanga where he stayed in a house together with some of the conspirators. His statement reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"t — Iyo bang nalaman kung ano ang nangyari sa binalak o pinagusapan ninyong holdap sa intsik sa loob ng pabrikang ice drop?
"s — Ang nalaman ko po ay pinatay nila ang intsik, dahil sa huli si Celing (Celestino Garillo) na tumakbo at sinabi sa akin na huag akong maingay at napatay namin ang intsik.
"t — Ng malaman mo ang nangyari, ano ang iyong ginawa?
"s — Kinabukasan ng umagang-umaga nagpunta ako kay Dado (Diosdado Paraiso y Flores, 26, m, lab., add — Bo. Bicutan, Tagig, Rizal), sa kanila sa Bicutan Tagig, Rizal at akin ipinagtapat ang nangyari. Ang ginawa niya ay isinama ako sa Angeles, Pampanga at iniwanan ako ruon para don na ako magtabas ng tubo, dahil panahon ngayon ng tabasan ng tubo.
"t — Magkano ang naparte mo sa holdap na isinagawa ninyo?
"s — Wala po, dahil ng magkita-kita kami in Berto at Goding sa Angeles, Pampanga at akin tinanong kung ano na ang nangyari ang sabi po nila sa akin ay walang nakuha dahil pumutok ang baril at napatay ang intsik dahil sa lumaban.
"t — Sino naman ang nagsama kay Goding at Berto sa Angeles, Pampanga?
"s — Si Berto po ang nagsama kay Goding, dahil bayaw ni Dado (Diosdado Paraiso) at meon o kapatid ni Berto ang amin tinutuluyan." (See Exh. M, pp. 78, 79, Orig. Record).
If Fernandez were innocent as he claimed to be, there is no reason for him to run away and hide together with some of the conspirators. "The wicked flee when no one is chasing them. But the godly are bold as lions." 7
The evidence thus presented proves conspiracy and that the accused Federico Fernandez not only knew of the plan to rob Lim Tao Sing, but also participated in its commission by previous and simultaneous acts (by acting as look-out or guard outside) which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent. Although the said accused may not have foreseen the killing of the victim and did not take part in its execution, he is, nevertheless, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. The rule is that when homicide takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof that they have tried to prevent the killing. 8 Here, there is nothing in the record which would show that the accused Fernandez ever attempted to prevent the homicide.
The said accused is, therefore, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide, covered by Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code. The trial Court found that the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior strength, evident premeditation, and treachery.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Evident premeditation, however, if not considered as an aggravating circumstances in crimes of robbery because the same is inherent in the crime, especially where it is committed by various persons since there must be an agreement and the plotters have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out the crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed. In the crime of robbery with homicide, there should be evident premeditation to kill, besides stealing, in order that it can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 9 In the instant case, it has not been proven that the accused, before committing the crime, planned and decided, not only to steal, but also to kill Lim Tao Sing. Hence, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
Abuse of superior strength cannot also be appreciated in the instant case in the absence of proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors and the victim and that the assailants took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. 10
Treachery is likewise absent in this case since the attack was made upon the impulse of the moment, as a sequence of the unexpected turn of events. 11 It appears that while Tangkad, Celing, Gauden, and Berto were in the second floor, used by Lim Tao Sing as his sleeping quarters, the gun held by Gauden hit a table and misfired. As a result, Lim Tao Sing rose from his bed holding a bolo. So, some of the accused stabbed him. 12
But, nocturnity is present since the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness of the night in committing the crime. However, this aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance that appellant suffers some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings, to wit: appellant’s right hand is missing as a consequence of an accident involving "kuwitis" which occurred on New Year’s eve of 1966. 13
Premises considered, the judgment imposed upon the accused Fernandez should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, modified as thus indicated the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., concurs in the result.
Teehankee and Antonio, JJ., took no part.
MUÑOZ PALMA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
The evidence of the prosecution to which Judge Onofre A. Villaluz of the Criminal Circuit Court of Rizal referred for his findings that Federico Fernandez was a co-principal in the commission of the robbery and killing of the chinaman Lim Tao Sing, consist solely of the oral testimony of the alleged lone eyewitness Henry Barillo, the extrajudicial statement of one of the accused Celestino Garillo marked as Exhibit "D" and that of appellant herein Federico Fernandez marked as Exhibit "M." 1 Thus, the trial judge stated inter alia in his decision that: (a) "after tying Henry Barillo, the accused Celestino Garillo, armed with a balisong, Federico Fernandez and Roberto Guinto, both were armed, entered the said factory" (p. 11 of decision); (b) "the three accused in this case were positively identified by the witness Henry Barillo" (p. 23, ibid.); and (c) "based on the statements of the two accused, marked as Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘M’, the said accused, Celestino Garillo and Federico Fernandez acknowledged having committed the crime when all of them were armed with deadly weapons and firearms." (ibid.) (Emphasis supplied)
The above findings insofar as Federico Fernandez is concerned are not borne out by evidence alluded to by His Honor.
The testimony of the prosecution witness Barillo given during the direct as well as the cross examination shows that this witness positively identified only two of the accused in the case, namely, Alejandro Buco alias "Tangkad", who pleaded guilty and Celestino Garillo alias "Celing" now deceased. 2 While it is true that Barillo declared that aside from the accused Alejandro Buco alias "Tangkad" who tied him with a rope and accused Celestino Garillo who pointed a gun at him, three other persons entered the factory through an opening made on the plywood wall, he never mentioned the name of appellant Federico Fernandez alias "Putol" as one of the three other persons who entered the factory nor did he point at and identify Fernandez in open court as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.
Let us now examine and analyze the documentary evidence Exhibits "D" and "M", Exhibit "D" is the extrajudicial statement of the accused now deceased Garillo. The pertinent portions of the statement are quoted hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"T: Kung gayon isalaysay mo sa iyong sariling pananalita kung papaano naganap ang sinasabi mong pagkaka-hold-up at pagkakapatay sa intsik.
S: Ang natatandaan ko, nuong pista ng patay, mga alas 9:00 ng gabi, pumunta sina Gaudin, ang pangalan na tunay niya, Gaudencio Garillo, Berto, tunay na pangalan, Roberto Quinto, saka si Emot, pangalan, Guillermo, hindi ko alam ang apilyido niya, sa kinaroruonan ko sa may tambakan sa likuran ng terminal ng LTB sa Pasay; Inaya nila ako na pumunta kami sa fabrika ng Ice Drop sa Taft Ave. Pasay; Sumama naman ako sa kanila; Nagdaan muna kami sa bahay nila Putol (Federico Fernandez) diyan sa malapit sa Zamora St., dito rin sa Pasay; Inabutan namin siya duon;
T: Bago ka sumama sa tatlong kataong sinasabi mo, sina Berto, Gauden at Emot, ano naman ang sabi nila sa iyo na inyong pupuntahan nuon?
S: Mayroon daw intsik na hohold-apin namin.
T: Sa kabila ng pagkaka-alam mo na gayon nga ang inyong gagawin, sumama ka pa rin sa kanila, ganoon ba?
S: Sumama na rin ako sa kanila.
T: Bago kayo nakarating sa inyong pinuntahan na fabrika ng ice drop sa Taft Ave., ano naman ang inyong pinag-usapan sa daan?
S: Basta sumama raw ako, mayroon hohold-apin, sila ang bahala.
T: Ng kayo’y dumating sa bahay nitong si Putol na sinasabi mo, ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari.
S: Napag-usapan namin duon kung ano ang gagawin ng bawat isa sa amin na pang-hohold-up; Napag-usapan namin duon, si Tangkad ang nakaka-alam lahat ng gagawin; Pinuntahan na namin iyong fabrika ng ice drop; Si Tangkad nuon, nasa loob na ng ice drop factory; Itong si Gauden, pumasok sa butas duon sa may likod ng bahay; Tapos, sumunod na ako sa kaniya: Nandoon na kami sa loob ng fabrika; Inabutan na namin si Tangkad sa loob; Ng nandoon na kami nina Gauden, Tangkad, sumunod itong si Berto sa loob; Ngayon, apat na kami sa loob; Naiwanan si Emot saka si Putol sa labas ng fabrika; Nakita namin sa ibaba ang isang tao, nakagapos na iyon;
T: Nalalaman mo ba naman kung sino ang may gawa nito?
S: Nalaman ko na lang ng nasa loob na kami na si Tangkad ang naggapos niyon."cralaw virtua1aw library
"T: Bago kayo magtungo sa pinang-hold-apan ninyo na ayon sa iyo, sino-sino naman ang nalalaman mong may dala ng mga patalim nuon?
S: Si Gauden, may dalawang dala, isang balisong, isang paltik, kasi isang putok lang ang baril eh; Si Tangkad, balisong din ang hawak, nakita ko iyon sa loob eh; Si Berto may dala rin, balisong din iyon; Ako, ay dala rin, balisong, bente nueve; Si Emot, hindi ko alam kung may dala; Si Putol, wala, basta duon lang siya sa labas;"
(pp. 65-67, original record)
The foregoing demonstrates that (1) Fernandez did not enter the ice drop factory but remained outside during the robbery, and (2) Fernandez was not at all armed on that occasion.
Exhibit "M" is the extrajudicial statement of appellant Fernandez wherein the latter narrated about the plan to rob the chinaman in the ice drop factory and named the five persons hatching the plan; that he was asked to go with the group to stand guard outside the factory; that they all went to the ice drop factory as planned and he stood outside as instructed; that while his companions were breaking down the wall he left the place and went home, and some time later he heard a shot.
Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of Exhibit "M"
"T: Ano ang kaugnayan at nalalaman mo tungkol sa sinasabi mong hold-up sa intsik?
S: Ganito po iyan. Ako po ay pinuntahan nila sa bahay, dahil sa alam nila na palagi akong istambay sa ice drapan, malapit po ang bahay ko sa ice drapan. Sinabi nila sa akin na huhold-apin ang intsik na katiwala sa pabrika ng ice drop. Halagang limang libo (P5,000,00) raw po ang makukuha. Ang sabi nila kung ayaw ko man sumama ay basta huag na lang akong maingay at sila ang bahala. Bibigyan na lang nila ako. Ang sagot ko po sa kanila ay kayo ang bahala. Umalis na sila. Pagkagabihan bumalik po sila sa akin sa bahay, mga pagitan nga po ng alas 11 at 12 ng gabi, Nobiembre 1, 1968. Papasukin at huhold-apin na nga po ang intsik sa loob ng pabrika. Isinama po ako para bantay sa labas at sila ang papasok.
T: Bago ka magpatuloy sa iyong salaysay, sinu-sinong sila ang nais mong tukuyin na siyang nagdaan sa iyo sa bahay at pinag-usapan ang hold-up sa intsik sa loob ng pabrika ng ice drop?
S: Si Gaudencio, si Berto, ito po si Celing (Celestino Garillo y Orgel, 18, s, porter sa Divisoria Market, add - 551 E. De los Santos Ave., PC), si Imot at saka si Tangkad, (declarant pointing to Alejandro Buco y Valdez, @ "CIMARON", 32, m, lab., address, Bakawan St., Pasong Tamo, Makati Rizal). Lima (5) po silang lahat at bilang pang anim (6) ako.
T: Dito sa lima (5) na nagpunta sa iyo sa bahay at nagsabi sa iyo na huhold-apin ang intsik sa loob ng pabrika ng ice drop at ikaw ay pinagsasama pa para bantay, ilan ang iyong talagang kilala?
S: Sila pong lahat ay kilala ko, dahil sa madalas ho silang magpunta sa pabrika hanggang sa kami po ay magkakilakilala.
T: Ito ba rin lima (5) na iyong binanggit sa una ang siyang sinasabi mong bumalik sa iyo sa bahay ng gabi rin ng Nobiembre 1, 1968, pistang mga patay para isagawa ang hold-up na binalak o pinag-usapan ng tanghali ng araw ng pista ng patay Nobiembre 1, 1968?
S: Sila rin pong lahat.
T: Ipagpatuloy mo ang iyong salaysay, tumigil ka sa ikaw ay isinama para bantay sa labas at sila ang papasok.
S: Opo. Ng sinisira po nila ang dingding ng pabrika ng ice drop, ang ginawa ko po umuwi ako sa bahay namin. Hindi nagtagal nadinig ko pumutok. Ngayon pagkaraan po ng putok na iyon ay nakita kong nagtakbuhan sila. Sa tabi po ng bahay sila nagdaan. Umakyat sila sa pader dahil sarado na po ang pinto papuntang Zamora. Hindi ko na po nalaman kung saan sila mga nagpunta.
T: Iyo bang nalaman kung ano ang nangyari sa binalak o pinagusapan ninyong holdup sa intsik sa loob ng pabrikang ice drop?
S: Ang nalalaman ko po ay pinatay nila ang intsik dahil sa huli si Celing (Celestino Garillo) na tumakbo at sinabi sa akin na huag akong maingay at napatay namin ang intsik."cralaw virtua1aw library
(pp. 77-78, original record)
Nowhere in the foregoing narration of Federico Fernandez did he ever admit that he was armed on that occasion, or that he entered the factory with the group, as stated in the trial court’s decision.
On what then can the conviction of appellant Fernandez stand? There is proof of the corpus delicti, that is, the robbing and killing of the chinaman — yes, that is true; but what evidence links Fernandez to the crime committed? I agree with appellant’s de oficio counsel, Atty. Teodoro R. Dominguez, that there is none under the law.
As there is nothing in the testimony given in court by the witness Henry Barillo which directly or indirectly connects Federico Fernandez to the robbery and killing of the ice drop factory owner, all that We have are the extrajudicial statements Exhibits "D" and "M", and We may even include Exhibit "L" which is the statement of the other accused Alejandro Buco.
Defense counsel correctly argues in his brief that Exhibits "D" and "L" are "incompetent and inadmissible evidence against his client, Federico Fernandez" (p. 17 of brief) invoking the maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet embodied in section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
"The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, and proceedings against one cannot affect another, except as hereinafter provided."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is a settled rule that an extrajudicial confession made by a defendant is admissible against him but not against his co-defendant as to whom said confession is hearsay evidence for he had no opportunity to examine the former. 3
And on the premise that appellant Fernandez is alleged to be a co-conspirator, We have the rule that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy or its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. 4
In order that Exhibits "D" and "L" may be admitted as evidence against appellant Fernandez as a co-conspirator it is necessary that there be proof of the conspiracy independent of said extrajudicial statements; here there is no such independent proof and in its absence, no conviction can stand simply on the basis of said statements. 5
Another point not to be overlooked is that the accused Garillo while testifying in court in his defense denied that he implicated Federico Fernandez in his statement, Exhibit "D." 6
Verily, it is well to repeat here what the Court pronounced in People v. Custodio that "considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of its presence, that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself." 7
Finally, there is the supposed "confession", Exhibit "M" wherein according to the trial Judge, the appellant Fernandez "acknowledged having committed the crime."cralaw virtua1aw library
In my view Exhibit "M" is not to be given the weight and evidentiary value of an extrajudicial confession of guilt. As already indicated earlier, Fernandez narrated in Exhibit "M" the plan of five persons to rob the owner of the ice drop factory and that he was asked to accompany those persons and to act as guard outside the factory and on the particular evening they all went to the place. But that was all insofar as he was concerned, for according to appellant while he was standing outside the factory and the five persons were breaking open the wall he left the place and went home. This is an act of voluntary desistance.
"The distinctive feature of a confession is that it must be an acknowledgment of guilt without any exculpating statements or explanation. However, if the prosecution undertakes to prove statements of the accused as his confession, any exculpating statements which he made at the time are admissible in his favor." (Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 42 L.ed. 568 16 S. Ct. 183, cited in Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. 5, 1974 Ed., p. 251)
"There is in every design or plan to commit a crime a place of repentance or locus penitentiae whereby the one planning to commit it may abandon the idea and thus avoid criminal liability. This is true where one of the persons who has entered into a conspiracy, necessarily involving an overt act, abandons the plan before the act is done." (15 Am Jur � 333, p. 22, citing U.S. v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 27 L.ed. 698, 2 S. Ct. 531; State v. Webb, 216 Mo 378, 115 S. W. 998, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1142, 129 Am. St. Rep. 518, 16 Ann. Cas 518)
Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from liability those who spontaneously desist from the commission of a felony.
The voluntary desistance of appellant herein from the criminal act of assisting his co-accused before the crime was committed warrants his acquittal.
One last point. The main Opinion of the Court heavily relies on the statement of appellant Fernandez in Exhibit "M" that he went to Barrio Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal very early in the morning of the next day and thereafter to Angeles, Pampanga where he stayed in a house together with the other accused, Berto and Gauden, as indicative of his guilt.
It is the better rule however that evidence of flight is not substantive evidence of guilt; 8 that it is merely a circumstance tending to establish guilt, not in itself conclusive, nor can it create a legal presumption of guilt. 9
In the absence of separate admissible evidence tending to establish the guilt of appellant Federico Fernandez, his departure for Angeles, Pampanga is at the most a circumstantial evidence but insufficient in itself to warrant his conviction.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote for the acquittal of Federico Fernandez.
It is of record that Lim Tao Sing was the owner and operator of the Excel Ice Drop Factory located at No. 2504 Taft Avenue, Pasay City. His uncle, Lim Ping Suy, assisted him in the management of said factory. The factory was housed in a two-storey building, the upper floor of which was used by Lim Tao Sing as his sleeping quarters. The ground floor contained the factory equipment and the sleeping quarters of some of the factory workers. Lim Ping Suy resided elsewhere and went to the factory only in the daytime.
In the early evening of October 31, 1968, Lim Tao Sing and Lim Ping Suy counted their money, amounting to P3,200.00 which had been set aside for the operating expenses of the factory, such as wages, house rentals, and light and water bills. They also examined the jewelry, consisting of a necklace, a bracelet, a gold ring, a diamond ring, and other kinds of rings, all valued at P1,800.00, which Lim Ping Suy bought for his nephew and which the latter had intended to send as gifts to his children in China. Afterwards, they put the money and jewelry inside a trunk which Lim Tao Sing kept in his bedroom. Lim Ping Suy then left for home.
In the evening of November 1, 1968, All Saints’ Day, Henry Barillo and Alejandro Buco alias Tangkad, workers in the factory, slept, as usual, on the ground floor of the factory. The room was well lighted with flourescent lamps because the generator of the factory operated for twenty four hours. At about 11:00 o’clock that night, Henry Barillo woke up because he felt that he was being tied up. True enough, Henry Barillo saw his own co-workers at the plant, Tangkad, tying him up, while another person was pointing a gun at him (Barillo). Barillo also saw three more persons, two of whom were armed with knives, emerging from a hole which the culprits made on the plywood wall and then enter the factory. Barillo was ordered to lie face downwards but he saw three men, including Tangkad, go upstairs to the room occupied by Lim Tao Sing. A little later, he heard a shot, followed by the moans of Lim Tao Sing. Soon thereafter, he saw the men coming downstairs. They left the place in a hurry, an of them running.
About an hour later, Barillo saw, through the hole in the wall, one Norberto, an ice drop vendor, whom Barillo requested to call for the police. Two policemen arrived and Barillo was untied. Then Barillo and a policeman went upstairs. They found the room of Lim ransacked and Lim Tao Sing dead and covered with a mosquito net soaked with his own blood. They saw the box, which had contained the money and jewelry, destroyed and emptied of its contents.
The body of the deceased Lim Tao Sing was brought to the NBI morgue for autopsy and the medical examiner reported that Lim Tao Sing died of multiple stab wounds in the body. 2
Three persons, Celestino Garillo y Orjel alias Celing, Alejandro Buco y Valdez alias Tangkad, and Federico Fernandez alias Putol, were arrested and charged with the commission of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Three other suspects remained at large. Garillo and Fernandez pleaded not guilty while Alejandro Buco y Valdez alias Tangkad entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced by the court to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 3 Garillo and Fernandez were subsequently found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Garillo died in prison and his appeal was subsequently dismissed by this Court. Hence, We are concerned only with the case of Fernandez.
No doubt, there was a conspiracy to rob the Excel Ice Drop Factory. Alejandro Buco y Baldez alias Tangkad admitted that the plan to rob the Chinaman who owns and operates the Excel Ice Drop Factory was hatched up and proposed to him by Gaudencio Garillo alias Gauding, Celestino Garillo alias Celing, Roberto Quinto alias Berto, and Guillermo alias Emot in the morning of November 1, 1968. 4 The deceased Celestino Garillo y Orjel alias Celing likewise admitted that the plan to rob the said Chinaman was proposed to him by Gauden, Berto and Emot. 5 The accused Federico Fernandez y Arellano alias Putol was also aware of the said plan. He denies, however, that he was a co-conspirator, claiming that he was merely told of the plan to rob the ice drop factory; that he was further told by them that if he did not want to go with them in robbing the Chinaman, he should merely keep quiet and they will give him something, to which he answered that it was up to them that he was asked to accompany them in order to act as look-out or guard outside (bantay sa labas) to which he added because he was afraid of Alejandro Buco y Valdez alias Tangkad who has a tatoo "Simaron-Oxo" in his hands, but that he left the place when the conspirators started to destroy a portion of the wall of the ice drop factory. 6
Counsel de oficio contends that it is obvious from the evidence that the accused Fernandez was not a party to the plan to commit the robbery since he was merely told of the plan and that he never agreed to participate in the commission thereof as shown by his leaving the place when the conspirators started to break the factory s wall preparatory to their entering the premises; and that if Fernandez had made a pretense, in the beginning, of joining the conspirators as a look-out or guard outside, it was because of his fear of displeasing the mastermind, Alejandro Buco alias Tangkad, who was a member of the notorious OXO gang and had a tattoo mark Simaron-Oxo in his hands.
The disclaimer of participation in the conspiracy and desistance in the commission thereof is, however, negated by the statement of Fernandez that he fled to Barrio Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal very early in the morning of the next day and thence to Angeles, Pampanga where he stayed in a house together with some of the conspirators. His statement reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"t — Iyo bang nalaman kung ano ang nangyari sa binalak o pinagusapan ninyong holdap sa intsik sa loob ng pabrikang ice drop?
"s — Ang nalaman ko po ay pinatay nila ang intsik, dahil sa huli si Celing (Celestino Garillo) na tumakbo at sinabi sa akin na huag akong maingay at napatay namin ang intsik.
"t — Ng malaman mo ang nangyari, ano ang iyong ginawa?
"s — Kinabukasan ng umagang-umaga nagpunta ako kay Dado (Diosdado Paraiso y Flores, 26, m, lab., add — Bo. Bicutan, Tagig, Rizal), sa kanila sa Bicutan Tagig, Rizal at akin ipinagtapat ang nangyari. Ang ginawa niya ay isinama ako sa Angeles, Pampanga at iniwanan ako ruon para don na ako magtabas ng tubo, dahil panahon ngayon ng tabasan ng tubo.
"t — Magkano ang naparte mo sa holdap na isinagawa ninyo?
"s — Wala po, dahil ng magkita-kita kami in Berto at Goding sa Angeles, Pampanga at akin tinanong kung ano na ang nangyari ang sabi po nila sa akin ay walang nakuha dahil pumutok ang baril at napatay ang intsik dahil sa lumaban.
x x x
"t — Sino naman ang nagsama kay Goding at Berto sa Angeles, Pampanga?
"s — Si Berto po ang nagsama kay Goding, dahil bayaw ni Dado (Diosdado Paraiso) at meon o kapatid ni Berto ang amin tinutuluyan." (See Exh. M, pp. 78, 79, Orig. Record).
If Fernandez were innocent as he claimed to be, there is no reason for him to run away and hide together with some of the conspirators. "The wicked flee when no one is chasing them. But the godly are bold as lions." 7
The evidence thus presented proves conspiracy and that the accused Federico Fernandez not only knew of the plan to rob Lim Tao Sing, but also participated in its commission by previous and simultaneous acts (by acting as look-out or guard outside) which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent. Although the said accused may not have foreseen the killing of the victim and did not take part in its execution, he is, nevertheless, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. The rule is that when homicide takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof that they have tried to prevent the killing. 8 Here, there is nothing in the record which would show that the accused Fernandez ever attempted to prevent the homicide.
The said accused is, therefore, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide, covered by Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code. The trial Court found that the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior strength, evident premeditation, and treachery.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Evident premeditation, however, if not considered as an aggravating circumstances in crimes of robbery because the same is inherent in the crime, especially where it is committed by various persons since there must be an agreement and the plotters have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out the crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed. In the crime of robbery with homicide, there should be evident premeditation to kill, besides stealing, in order that it can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 9 In the instant case, it has not been proven that the accused, before committing the crime, planned and decided, not only to steal, but also to kill Lim Tao Sing. Hence, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
Abuse of superior strength cannot also be appreciated in the instant case in the absence of proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors and the victim and that the assailants took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. 10
Treachery is likewise absent in this case since the attack was made upon the impulse of the moment, as a sequence of the unexpected turn of events. 11 It appears that while Tangkad, Celing, Gauden, and Berto were in the second floor, used by Lim Tao Sing as his sleeping quarters, the gun held by Gauden hit a table and misfired. As a result, Lim Tao Sing rose from his bed holding a bolo. So, some of the accused stabbed him. 12
But, nocturnity is present since the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness of the night in committing the crime. However, this aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance that appellant suffers some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings, to wit: appellant’s right hand is missing as a consequence of an accident involving "kuwitis" which occurred on New Year’s eve of 1966. 13
Premises considered, the judgment imposed upon the accused Fernandez should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, modified as thus indicated the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., concurs in the result.
Teehankee and Antonio, JJ., took no part.
Separate Opinions
MUÑOZ PALMA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
The evidence of the prosecution to which Judge Onofre A. Villaluz of the Criminal Circuit Court of Rizal referred for his findings that Federico Fernandez was a co-principal in the commission of the robbery and killing of the chinaman Lim Tao Sing, consist solely of the oral testimony of the alleged lone eyewitness Henry Barillo, the extrajudicial statement of one of the accused Celestino Garillo marked as Exhibit "D" and that of appellant herein Federico Fernandez marked as Exhibit "M." 1 Thus, the trial judge stated inter alia in his decision that: (a) "after tying Henry Barillo, the accused Celestino Garillo, armed with a balisong, Federico Fernandez and Roberto Guinto, both were armed, entered the said factory" (p. 11 of decision); (b) "the three accused in this case were positively identified by the witness Henry Barillo" (p. 23, ibid.); and (c) "based on the statements of the two accused, marked as Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘M’, the said accused, Celestino Garillo and Federico Fernandez acknowledged having committed the crime when all of them were armed with deadly weapons and firearms." (ibid.) (Emphasis supplied)
The above findings insofar as Federico Fernandez is concerned are not borne out by evidence alluded to by His Honor.
The testimony of the prosecution witness Barillo given during the direct as well as the cross examination shows that this witness positively identified only two of the accused in the case, namely, Alejandro Buco alias "Tangkad", who pleaded guilty and Celestino Garillo alias "Celing" now deceased. 2 While it is true that Barillo declared that aside from the accused Alejandro Buco alias "Tangkad" who tied him with a rope and accused Celestino Garillo who pointed a gun at him, three other persons entered the factory through an opening made on the plywood wall, he never mentioned the name of appellant Federico Fernandez alias "Putol" as one of the three other persons who entered the factory nor did he point at and identify Fernandez in open court as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.
Let us now examine and analyze the documentary evidence Exhibits "D" and "M", Exhibit "D" is the extrajudicial statement of the accused now deceased Garillo. The pertinent portions of the statement are quoted hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
"T: Kung gayon isalaysay mo sa iyong sariling pananalita kung papaano naganap ang sinasabi mong pagkaka-hold-up at pagkakapatay sa intsik.
S: Ang natatandaan ko, nuong pista ng patay, mga alas 9:00 ng gabi, pumunta sina Gaudin, ang pangalan na tunay niya, Gaudencio Garillo, Berto, tunay na pangalan, Roberto Quinto, saka si Emot, pangalan, Guillermo, hindi ko alam ang apilyido niya, sa kinaroruonan ko sa may tambakan sa likuran ng terminal ng LTB sa Pasay; Inaya nila ako na pumunta kami sa fabrika ng Ice Drop sa Taft Ave. Pasay; Sumama naman ako sa kanila; Nagdaan muna kami sa bahay nila Putol (Federico Fernandez) diyan sa malapit sa Zamora St., dito rin sa Pasay; Inabutan namin siya duon;
T: Bago ka sumama sa tatlong kataong sinasabi mo, sina Berto, Gauden at Emot, ano naman ang sabi nila sa iyo na inyong pupuntahan nuon?
S: Mayroon daw intsik na hohold-apin namin.
T: Sa kabila ng pagkaka-alam mo na gayon nga ang inyong gagawin, sumama ka pa rin sa kanila, ganoon ba?
S: Sumama na rin ako sa kanila.
T: Bago kayo nakarating sa inyong pinuntahan na fabrika ng ice drop sa Taft Ave., ano naman ang inyong pinag-usapan sa daan?
S: Basta sumama raw ako, mayroon hohold-apin, sila ang bahala.
T: Ng kayo’y dumating sa bahay nitong si Putol na sinasabi mo, ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari.
S: Napag-usapan namin duon kung ano ang gagawin ng bawat isa sa amin na pang-hohold-up; Napag-usapan namin duon, si Tangkad ang nakaka-alam lahat ng gagawin; Pinuntahan na namin iyong fabrika ng ice drop; Si Tangkad nuon, nasa loob na ng ice drop factory; Itong si Gauden, pumasok sa butas duon sa may likod ng bahay; Tapos, sumunod na ako sa kaniya: Nandoon na kami sa loob ng fabrika; Inabutan na namin si Tangkad sa loob; Ng nandoon na kami nina Gauden, Tangkad, sumunod itong si Berto sa loob; Ngayon, apat na kami sa loob; Naiwanan si Emot saka si Putol sa labas ng fabrika; Nakita namin sa ibaba ang isang tao, nakagapos na iyon;
T: Nalalaman mo ba naman kung sino ang may gawa nito?
S: Nalaman ko na lang ng nasa loob na kami na si Tangkad ang naggapos niyon."cralaw virtua1aw library
x x x
"T: Bago kayo magtungo sa pinang-hold-apan ninyo na ayon sa iyo, sino-sino naman ang nalalaman mong may dala ng mga patalim nuon?
S: Si Gauden, may dalawang dala, isang balisong, isang paltik, kasi isang putok lang ang baril eh; Si Tangkad, balisong din ang hawak, nakita ko iyon sa loob eh; Si Berto may dala rin, balisong din iyon; Ako, ay dala rin, balisong, bente nueve; Si Emot, hindi ko alam kung may dala; Si Putol, wala, basta duon lang siya sa labas;"
x x x
(pp. 65-67, original record)
The foregoing demonstrates that (1) Fernandez did not enter the ice drop factory but remained outside during the robbery, and (2) Fernandez was not at all armed on that occasion.
Exhibit "M" is the extrajudicial statement of appellant Fernandez wherein the latter narrated about the plan to rob the chinaman in the ice drop factory and named the five persons hatching the plan; that he was asked to go with the group to stand guard outside the factory; that they all went to the ice drop factory as planned and he stood outside as instructed; that while his companions were breaking down the wall he left the place and went home, and some time later he heard a shot.
Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of Exhibit "M"
x x x
"T: Ano ang kaugnayan at nalalaman mo tungkol sa sinasabi mong hold-up sa intsik?
S: Ganito po iyan. Ako po ay pinuntahan nila sa bahay, dahil sa alam nila na palagi akong istambay sa ice drapan, malapit po ang bahay ko sa ice drapan. Sinabi nila sa akin na huhold-apin ang intsik na katiwala sa pabrika ng ice drop. Halagang limang libo (P5,000,00) raw po ang makukuha. Ang sabi nila kung ayaw ko man sumama ay basta huag na lang akong maingay at sila ang bahala. Bibigyan na lang nila ako. Ang sagot ko po sa kanila ay kayo ang bahala. Umalis na sila. Pagkagabihan bumalik po sila sa akin sa bahay, mga pagitan nga po ng alas 11 at 12 ng gabi, Nobiembre 1, 1968. Papasukin at huhold-apin na nga po ang intsik sa loob ng pabrika. Isinama po ako para bantay sa labas at sila ang papasok.
T: Bago ka magpatuloy sa iyong salaysay, sinu-sinong sila ang nais mong tukuyin na siyang nagdaan sa iyo sa bahay at pinag-usapan ang hold-up sa intsik sa loob ng pabrika ng ice drop?
S: Si Gaudencio, si Berto, ito po si Celing (Celestino Garillo y Orgel, 18, s, porter sa Divisoria Market, add - 551 E. De los Santos Ave., PC), si Imot at saka si Tangkad, (declarant pointing to Alejandro Buco y Valdez, @ "CIMARON", 32, m, lab., address, Bakawan St., Pasong Tamo, Makati Rizal). Lima (5) po silang lahat at bilang pang anim (6) ako.
T: Dito sa lima (5) na nagpunta sa iyo sa bahay at nagsabi sa iyo na huhold-apin ang intsik sa loob ng pabrika ng ice drop at ikaw ay pinagsasama pa para bantay, ilan ang iyong talagang kilala?
S: Sila pong lahat ay kilala ko, dahil sa madalas ho silang magpunta sa pabrika hanggang sa kami po ay magkakilakilala.
T: Ito ba rin lima (5) na iyong binanggit sa una ang siyang sinasabi mong bumalik sa iyo sa bahay ng gabi rin ng Nobiembre 1, 1968, pistang mga patay para isagawa ang hold-up na binalak o pinag-usapan ng tanghali ng araw ng pista ng patay Nobiembre 1, 1968?
S: Sila rin pong lahat.
T: Ipagpatuloy mo ang iyong salaysay, tumigil ka sa ikaw ay isinama para bantay sa labas at sila ang papasok.
S: Opo. Ng sinisira po nila ang dingding ng pabrika ng ice drop, ang ginawa ko po umuwi ako sa bahay namin. Hindi nagtagal nadinig ko pumutok. Ngayon pagkaraan po ng putok na iyon ay nakita kong nagtakbuhan sila. Sa tabi po ng bahay sila nagdaan. Umakyat sila sa pader dahil sarado na po ang pinto papuntang Zamora. Hindi ko na po nalaman kung saan sila mga nagpunta.
T: Iyo bang nalaman kung ano ang nangyari sa binalak o pinagusapan ninyong holdup sa intsik sa loob ng pabrikang ice drop?
S: Ang nalalaman ko po ay pinatay nila ang intsik dahil sa huli si Celing (Celestino Garillo) na tumakbo at sinabi sa akin na huag akong maingay at napatay namin ang intsik."cralaw virtua1aw library
x x x
(pp. 77-78, original record)
Nowhere in the foregoing narration of Federico Fernandez did he ever admit that he was armed on that occasion, or that he entered the factory with the group, as stated in the trial court’s decision.
On what then can the conviction of appellant Fernandez stand? There is proof of the corpus delicti, that is, the robbing and killing of the chinaman — yes, that is true; but what evidence links Fernandez to the crime committed? I agree with appellant’s de oficio counsel, Atty. Teodoro R. Dominguez, that there is none under the law.
As there is nothing in the testimony given in court by the witness Henry Barillo which directly or indirectly connects Federico Fernandez to the robbery and killing of the ice drop factory owner, all that We have are the extrajudicial statements Exhibits "D" and "M", and We may even include Exhibit "L" which is the statement of the other accused Alejandro Buco.
Defense counsel correctly argues in his brief that Exhibits "D" and "L" are "incompetent and inadmissible evidence against his client, Federico Fernandez" (p. 17 of brief) invoking the maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet embodied in section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
"The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, and proceedings against one cannot affect another, except as hereinafter provided."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is a settled rule that an extrajudicial confession made by a defendant is admissible against him but not against his co-defendant as to whom said confession is hearsay evidence for he had no opportunity to examine the former. 3
And on the premise that appellant Fernandez is alleged to be a co-conspirator, We have the rule that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy or its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. 4
In order that Exhibits "D" and "L" may be admitted as evidence against appellant Fernandez as a co-conspirator it is necessary that there be proof of the conspiracy independent of said extrajudicial statements; here there is no such independent proof and in its absence, no conviction can stand simply on the basis of said statements. 5
Another point not to be overlooked is that the accused Garillo while testifying in court in his defense denied that he implicated Federico Fernandez in his statement, Exhibit "D." 6
Verily, it is well to repeat here what the Court pronounced in People v. Custodio that "considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of its presence, that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself." 7
Finally, there is the supposed "confession", Exhibit "M" wherein according to the trial Judge, the appellant Fernandez "acknowledged having committed the crime."cralaw virtua1aw library
In my view Exhibit "M" is not to be given the weight and evidentiary value of an extrajudicial confession of guilt. As already indicated earlier, Fernandez narrated in Exhibit "M" the plan of five persons to rob the owner of the ice drop factory and that he was asked to accompany those persons and to act as guard outside the factory and on the particular evening they all went to the place. But that was all insofar as he was concerned, for according to appellant while he was standing outside the factory and the five persons were breaking open the wall he left the place and went home. This is an act of voluntary desistance.
"The distinctive feature of a confession is that it must be an acknowledgment of guilt without any exculpating statements or explanation. However, if the prosecution undertakes to prove statements of the accused as his confession, any exculpating statements which he made at the time are admissible in his favor." (Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 42 L.ed. 568 16 S. Ct. 183, cited in Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. 5, 1974 Ed., p. 251)
"There is in every design or plan to commit a crime a place of repentance or locus penitentiae whereby the one planning to commit it may abandon the idea and thus avoid criminal liability. This is true where one of the persons who has entered into a conspiracy, necessarily involving an overt act, abandons the plan before the act is done." (15 Am Jur � 333, p. 22, citing U.S. v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 27 L.ed. 698, 2 S. Ct. 531; State v. Webb, 216 Mo 378, 115 S. W. 998, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1142, 129 Am. St. Rep. 518, 16 Ann. Cas 518)
Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from liability those who spontaneously desist from the commission of a felony.
The voluntary desistance of appellant herein from the criminal act of assisting his co-accused before the crime was committed warrants his acquittal.
One last point. The main Opinion of the Court heavily relies on the statement of appellant Fernandez in Exhibit "M" that he went to Barrio Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal very early in the morning of the next day and thereafter to Angeles, Pampanga where he stayed in a house together with the other accused, Berto and Gauden, as indicative of his guilt.
It is the better rule however that evidence of flight is not substantive evidence of guilt; 8 that it is merely a circumstance tending to establish guilt, not in itself conclusive, nor can it create a legal presumption of guilt. 9
In the absence of separate admissible evidence tending to establish the guilt of appellant Federico Fernandez, his departure for Angeles, Pampanga is at the most a circumstantial evidence but insufficient in itself to warrant his conviction.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote for the acquittal of Federico Fernandez.
Endnotes:
1. pp. 64, 66-70, rollo.
2. Exh. A, p. 53, Original Record.
3. p. 153, rollo.
4. Exh. D, p. 65, Original Record.
5. Exh. L, p. 74, Original Record.
6. Exh. M, p. 77, Orig. Rec., which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"s — Ganito po iyan. Ako po ay pinuntahan nila sa bahay, dahil sa alam nila na palagi akong istambay sa ice drapan, malapit po ang bahay ko sa ice drapan. Sinabi nila sa akin na huholdapin ang intsik na katiwala sa pabrika ng ice drop. Halagang limang libo (P5,000.00) raw po ang makukuha. Ang sabi niya kung ayaw ko man sumama ay basta huag na lang akong maingay at sila ang bahala. Bibigyan na lang nila ako. Ang sagot ko po sa kanila ay kayo ang bahala. Umalis na sila. Pagkagabihan bumalik po sila sa akin sa bahay mga pagitan nga po ng alas 11 at 12 ng gabi, Nobiembre 1, 1968. Papasukin at huholdapin nga po ang intsik sa loob ng pabrika. Isinama po ako para bantay sa labas at sila ang papasok.x x x
"t — Ipagpatuloy mo ang iyong salaysay, tumigil ka sa ikaw ay isinama para bantay sa labas at sila ang papasok.
"s — Opo. Ng sinisira po nila ang dingding ng pabrika ng ice drop, ang ginawa ko po umuwi ako sa bahay namin. Hindi po nagtagal nadinig ko pumutok. Ngayon pagkaraan po ng putok na iyon ay nakita kong nagtakbuhan sila. Sa tabi po ng bahay sila nagdaan. Umakyat sila sa pader dahil sarado na po ang pinto papuntang Zamora. Hindi ko na po nalaman kung saan sila mga nag punta."cralaw virtua1aw library
7. The Living Bible, p. 733, Proverbs 28:1.
8. People v. Carunungan, 109 Phil. 534.
9. People v. Valeriano, 90 Phil. 15.
10. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 ed., p. 350, 354.
11. Id., p. 372, citing People v. Vente, L-8344, Feb. 28, 1957, 100 Phil. 1099.
12. See Exhibit D.
13. See Exhibit M, p. 3.
MUÑOZ PALMA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. page 23, CFI decision, p. 174, original record.
2. See pp. 4-10, 18-28, TSN of February 14, 1969.
3. People v. Amajul, Et Al., per Reyes, J.B.L, J. 1 SCRA 682, February 28, 1961, citing Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 Ed. Vol. III, p. 109. See also U.S. v. Castillo, Et Al., 2 Phil. 17; U.S. v. Paete, Et Al., 6 Phil. 105; People v. Tabuche, Et Al., 46 Phil. 28; People v. Durante, Et Al., 47 Phil. 654; People v. Orenciada and Cenita, 47 Phil. 970; and People v. Bande, Et Al., 50 Phil. 37; Moran, 1970 Ed. Vol. 5, p. 276.
4. Section 27, Rule 130 Rules of Court.
5. People v. Capadocia, Et Al., per Makalintal, J., August 29, 1966, 17 SCRA 981; Moran, supra, p. 254; Martin, Rules of Court, 1974 Ed., Vol. 5, p. 237.
6. TSN. February 17, 1969, p. 22.
7. Per Antonio, J., October 30, 1972, 47 SCRA 289, 302, reiterated in People v. Madera, Et Al., May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 349 and People v. Tumalip, Et Al., October 28, 1974, 60 SCRA 303.
8. 22-A J.S. sec. 625, p. 460.
9. Ibid., citing Ga. — Seay v. State, 11 S.E. 2d 54, 56, 63 Ga. App. 286.
August-1978 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. P-1158 August 1, 1978 - ALEJANDRO C. ABEJARON v. JOSE V. PANES
G.R. No. L-20476 August 1, 1978 - IN RE: CORNELIA L. CO v. MARGARITA TERESITA BALMACEDA
A.M. No. L-34089 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs GAUDENCIO CANDADO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-39303-05 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. GALAPIA
G.R. No. L-30281 August 2, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO O. GARILLO
A.C. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 - IN RE: ATTY. MARCIAL A. EDILLON
G.R. No. L-32128 August 3, 1978 - SOCORRO M. ORLINO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
G.R. No. L-47629 August 3, 1978 - MANUEL L. GARCIA v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47770 August 10, 1978 - DIOSDADO "JOHNNY" LEWIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.C. No. 1233 August 14, 1978 - JOSE BATOY v. VICENTE M. BLANCO
G.R. No. L-48176 August 14, 1978 - AMADO E. DE VERA v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, ET AL.
A.C. No. 728 August 16, 1978 - ARMANDO A. ALA v. JUAN G. ATENCIA
G.R. No. L-40392 August 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO ALEGRIA
A.C. No. 1825 August 22, 1978 - ROMULO SANTOS v. ALBERTO M. DICHOSO
G.R. No. L-38315 August 22, 1978 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. DOMINGO MANIEGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-40884 August 22, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO DE LEON, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-42471 August 22, 1978 - FRANCO C. ESPIRITU v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-42738 August 22, 1978 - MARIANO A. LIMOS v. FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47044 August 22, 1978 - LUZVIMINDA Z. JAMER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
A.M. No. 1587-CTJ August 23, 1978 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. SILVINO LU. BARRO
G.R. No. L-23493 August 23, 1978 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVENCIO A. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-36937 August 23, 1978 - BENEDICTO S. PRUDON, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-38046-47 August 23, 1978 - ADRIANO AFRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-38197 August 23, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-41742 August 23, 1978 - MERCEDES OLLERO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-42433 August 23, 1978 - FELISA PARIAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-43224 August 23, 1978 - ALFREDO SORIANO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS
G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978 - TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-34390 August 25, 1978 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FIRESTONE-NATU, ET AL. v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-43249 August 25, 1978 - ABUNDIO ALBURAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-44063 August 25, 1978 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-46290 August 25, 1978 - LOIDA SEPULVEDA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-46697 August 25, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO CUETO
A.M. No. 244-MJ August 31, 1978 - HILARION MANGARON v. JUAN L. BAGANO
A.M. No. 884-CFI August 31, 1978 - BAYANI VASQUEZ v. SEVERO MALVAR
A.M. No. 1228-MJ August 31, 1978 - ROSALINDA INDANGAN v. DOMINADOR TUMULAK
A.M. No. 2128-JC August 31, 1978 - IN RE : REQUEST OF CONSTANTE PIMENTEL
G.R. No. L-30072 August 31, 1978 - ALATCO TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. JOSE NAYVE
G.R. No. L-31963 August 31, 1978 - ANGEL CUNANAN v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR
G.R. No. L-33725 August 31, 1978 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
G.R. No. L-35213 August 31, 1978 - BALDOMERA GARCIA v. SERAFIN OROZCO
G.R. No. L-39575 August 31, 1978 - GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM SUPERVISOR’S UNION
G.R. No. L-40175 August 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-42340 August 31, 1978 - VICTORIA O. NATIVIDAD v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-42776 August 31, 1978 - MACAPASIR ALONTO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-42794 August 31, 1978 - NENITA ALMAIZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43030 August 31, 1978 - ZACARIAS PONCE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43044 August 31, 1978 - MARIA C. OLINO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43096 August 31, 1978 - JOSE Y. LIM v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43536 August 31, 1978 - SOLEDAD R. RUIVIVAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-43539 August 31, 1978 - ODON CRUZ CUETO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-44221 August 31, 1978 - FEDERICO SEVILLA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-45109 August 31, 1978 - ST. MICHAEL SECURITY SERVICE v. AMADO G. INCIONG
G.R. No. L-45494 August 31, 1978 - BENITO BOLISAY v. LEONARDO S. ALCID
G.R. No. L-46504 August 31, 1978 - TALENTO GRAGASIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-47772 August 31, 1978 - INOCENCIO TUGADE v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-48168 August 31, 1978 - RODULFO N. PELAEZ v. LUIS B. REYES