Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > June 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-55029 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO GAMET, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-55029. June 29, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONCIO GAMET and BIBIANO AGULAY, Accused appellants.

SYNOPSIS


In the evening of July 18, 1965, Gregorio Masian was felled by two gunshots as a result of which he died. Thereafter, five armed men entered his house, ransacked the place, and took cash and personal properties. At the investigation, his widow executed a statement declaring that Leoncio Gamet was one of those involved in the incident. Two months later, Alfredo Salmatan confessed participation in the crime and revealed his companions. Bibiano Agulay, who was named as one of them, subsequently executed an extrajudicial confession corroborating said revelations. A complaint for robbery in band with homicide was filed against the malefactors. At the trial, Accused Gamet denied any involvement in the crime. Agulay proffered the defense of alibi and repudiated his confession which was allegedly obtained by force. Fourteen years after the incident, the case was decided and accused Gamet and Agulay were convicted at charged and sentenced to death. The other co-accused were acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. Alfredo Salmatan had died in 1970 while the rest of the co-accused were never arrested to stand trial.

On automatic review, the Supreme Court ruled that there it no moral certainty as to the guilt of Gamet, hence, he is entitled to an acquittal. As to Agulay, it sustained the trial court’s decision rejecting his alibi; finding his confession voluntarily executed; holding that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt; and sentencing him to death in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling and band without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same.

Considering however the trial court’s acquittal of two of the accused who, according to the confessions obtained, were the ones who inflicted the fatal gunshot wounds; the recommendation for executive clemency; and the fact that the case has long been pending, the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty on Agulay was not obtained, hence, the commutation thereof to reclusion perpetua.

Judgment modified.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY IN BAND WITH HOMICIDE; ACCUSED ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL WHERE HIS GUILT IS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. — There is no moral certainty as to the guilt of Gamet because (1) he was not mentioned in the confessions of Agulay and Salmazan as having participated in the robbery with homicide and (2) Romula Baysac, the sole prosecution eyewitness, who said that Gamet was her husband’s nephew, did not identify him promptly as one of the intruders who burglarized her house. Salmazan said that Gamet was not with the group. Romula identified accused Gamet as a co-principal in the robbery with homicide fifty-four days after its commission. Her alleged fear of reprisal was not a sufficient excuse for the delay. The defense proved that during the investigation she told the police and the barrio authorities that she did not recognize any of the malefactors. Consequently, Gamet has to be acquitted.

2. EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION; CLAIM THAT THE SAME WAS EXTRACTED THROUGH FORCE UNFOUNDED; ACCUSED’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE CRIME PROVEN. — The trial court did not err in finding that the confession of Agulay was voluntarily executed and that his claim of maltreatment was unfounded. He did not complain to the municipal judge, who administered the oath to him, that he was forced to sign his confession. That document dovetails in several details with Salmazan’s confession and destroys his alibi. The fact that the crosscut saw, which according to his confession was his share of the loot, was recovered from his house confirms the veracity of his confession and proves conclusively his involvement in the robbery with homicide.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTY; IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY PROPER IN CASE AT BAR. — The trial court did not err in imposing the death penalty on Agulay in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery (which absorbs nocturnity), dwelling and band. No mitigating circumstance can be appreciated.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; COMMUTATION OF DEATH PENALTY TO RECLUSION PERPETUA. — Because the ones who inflicted the fatal gunshot wounds were acquitted and the trial court’s recommendation of executive clemency and the fact that the case has been pending since 1965, the votes of ten Justices for the imposition of the death penalty could not be had. The trial court’s judgment is thus modified and the death penalty imposed on Agulay is commuted to reclusion perpetua.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is a case of robbery with homicide. There is no dispute as to the corpus delicti. At about seven-thirty in the evening of Sunday, July 18, 1965, while the spouses Gregorio Masian and Romula Baysac with their three sons were resting in the kitchen of their house located at Sitio Camcamiring, Barrio No. 21, Quiom, Batac, Ilocos Norte, listening to a radio program, "Harana Ti Ilocandia", someone from the outside called "Apo" and inquired if "Manong" was there.

In response to that call, Gregorio, 44, with a lighted kerosene lamp, went to the landing of the stairs (sagpaton), followed by his wife and sons. As soon as Gregorio reached the landing, he was felled by two gunshots. He was mortally wounded in the mouth and in the back. He died instantly (Exh. H-1).

Then, five armed persons entered the house, ransacked the trunks and cabinets and took cash amounting to P100 and personal properties with a total value of P572.50.

The policemen, who investigated the incident, were not able to identify the malefactors. It was only fifty-four days later, or on September 10, when Romula Baysac executed a statement wherein she declared that Leoncio Gamet, her husband’s nephew and a resident of Sitio Nanggaoedan, Barrio Quiom, was one of those involved in the incident (Exh. B-4). Gamet’s mother was Gregorio’s second cousin. The chief of police filed in the municipal court against Gamet and some John Does a complaint for robbery with homicide. Gamet was arrested.

More than two months later, or on November 23, 1965, a Constabulary investigator obtained the confession of Alfredo Salmazan, 23. He revealed that he and Bibiano Agulay, Mariano Tablatin, Artemio Mata, Pablo Rubio, Juan Morales, Amor Yala and Francisco Yala robbed and killed Gregorio Masian because he was a witch (mangkokolam), that Tablatin (Salmazan’s brother-in-law) was the one who shot Masian in the head while Mata shot him in the back and that Salmazan was given ten pesos as his share of the loot (Exh. E-2)

Two days later, Bibiano Agulay executed an extrajudicial confession wherein he corroborated the revelations in Salmazan’s statement. Agulay said that, as his share of the loot, he was given ten pesos and a crosscut saw (Exh. D-2). The investigator retrieved the saw from the house of Agulay (Exh. A). The rifle used by Mata in shooting Masian was recovered from his house (Exh. G).

The Constabulary investigator filed in the municipal court a complaint for robbery in band with homicide against Agulay, Salmazan, Rubio, Tablatin, Mata, Morales, Amor Yala and Francisco Yala. In the office of the chief of police, Romula Baysac identified Agulay and Tablatin as two of the malefactors who robbed and killed her husband. After the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance, Fiscal Lucas D. Carpio filed against the said persons an information for robbery in band with homicide dated August 25, 1966. Gamet was included in the information.

At the trial, Gamet denied any involvement in the robbery with homicide. He declared that in the morning of July 19, 1965, when he learned that Masian was killed, he went to Masian’s house and helped in the preparation of the bamboo coffin. His residence in Sitio Nanggaoedan is about two kilometers away from Sitio Camcamiring where the incident occurred. He was in his house when the robbery with homicide was committed.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Agulay’s defense was an alibi. He testified that from July 17 to 20, 1965 he was in the house of his sister, Inocencia, located in Barrio Buanga, Pinili, Ilocos Norte. He took care of the animals of his brother-in-law, who was sick. In the evening of July 18, 1965, when the incident occurred, he boiled water in the house of his sister who was in the throes of childbirth. She delivered her baby in the morning of July 20, 1965.

Agulay denied that the crosscut saw was taken from the house of Masian. He said that he inherited it from his father. He repudiated his confession which he said was allegedly not read to him by the police and by the municipal judge. He claimed that he was maltreated and forced to sign his confession (Exh. D). He admitted that Barrio Buanga is adjacent to Barrio Quiom where Masian was robbed and killed.

It was only on May 7, 1980 or more than fourteen years after the incident that the case was decided. The trial court convicted Gamet and Agulay of robbery in band with homicide, sentenced them to death and ordered them to pay an indemnity of P12,672 to the heirs of Gregorio Masian but at the same time it recommended executive clemency because the two accused were "rustics." It acquitted Morales, Tablatin and Mata on the ground of reasonable doubt. Salmazan died in 1970. Rubio, Amor Yala and Francisco Yala were not arrested.

Case of Gamet. — Gamet contends that the trial court erred in holding that he was positively identified by Romula Baysac and in giving credence to her testimony and in not holding that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We find that there is no moral certainty as to the guilt of Gamet because (1) he was not mentioned in the confessions of Agulay and Salmazan (Exh. D and E) as having participated in the robbery with homicide and (2) Romula Baysac, the sole prosecution eyewitness, who said that Gamet was her husband’s nephew, did not identify him promptly as one of the intruders who burglarized her house. Salmazan said that Gamet was not with the group (No. 15, Exh. E-3).

Romula identified accused Gamet as a co-principal in the robbery with homicide fifty-four days after its commission. Her alleged fear of reprisal was not a sufficient excuse for the delay. The defense proved that during the investigation Romula Baysac told the police and the barrio authorities that she did not recognize any of the malefactors. Consequently, Gamet has to be acquitted.

Case of Agulay. — He contends that the trial court erred in rejecting his alibi, in admitting his extrajudicial confession, in finding that the crosscut saw was stolen from Masian’s house and was not inherited by Agulay from his father and in holding that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Agulay’s case is different from Gamet’s case. Agulay executed an extrajudicial confession. The trial court did not err in finding that the confession was voluntarily executed and that Agulay’s claim of maltreatment was unfounded. He did not complain to the municipal judge, who administered the oath to him, that he was forced to sign his confession. That document dovetails in several details with Salmazan’s confession. It destroys Agulay’s alibi.

And the fact that the crosscut saw, which according to his confession was his share of the loot, was recovered from his house confirms the veracity of his confession and proves conclusively his involvement in the robbery with homicide.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Romula Baysac testified that the crosscut saw was owned by her husband for five years. Agulay and his witness said that the crosscut saw which he inherited from his father had three missing teeth and one missing screw. But the trial judge noted that the saw in question has five missing teeth and two missing screws. (tsn. Jan. 24, 1977; 3-4 tsn June 13, 1978).

The trial court did not err in imposing the death penalty on Agulay in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery (which absorbs nocturnity), dwelling and band. No mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in his favor.

However, it should be borne, in mind that the trial court acquitted Tablatin and Mata, who according to the confessions of Agulay and Salmazan, were the ones who inflicted the fatal gunshot wounds. Because of that circumstance and the trial court’s recommendation of executive clemency and the fact that the case has been pending since 1965, the votes of ten Justices for the imposition of the death penalty could not be had.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is modified. Leoncio Gamet is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The death penalty imposed by the trial court on Agulay is commuted to reclusion perpetua. The civil liability fixed by the trial court is affirmed as to Agulay. Cost de oficio.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, Concepcion Jr., and Guerrero, JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions


ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur and in addition I recommend that he be given a conditional pardon.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. P-2357 June 19, 1982 - ROSALINDA D. MORALES v. RENATO LOTUACO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 576

  • G.R. Nos. 38515-16 June 19, 1982 - VICENTE G. ACABAN v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 586

  • G.R. No. L-40163 June 19, 1982 - LEVITON INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-45215 June 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 599

  • G.R. No. 51047 June 19, 1982 - JOVITA GO, ET AL. v. CARIDAD A. TROCINO and COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-53971 June 19, 1982 - MARINA G. VERGARA, ET AL. v. LAUREANO OCUMEN, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. L-55513 June 19, 1982 - VIRGILIO SANCHEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    199 Phil. 617

  • G.R. No. L-57032 June 19, 1982 - CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982 - RAFAEL E. MANINANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-51257 June 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO E. NISMAL

    199 Phil. 649

  • Adm. Case No. 1104 June 29, 1982 - DOMINGA PABILIN v. DOMINGO C. LAGULA

  • Adm. Case No. 1660 June 29, 1982 - TEOFISTA G. FLORES VDA. DE CHENG v. BENJAMIN O. CARLOS

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 1381, 1633, 1645 & 2042 June 29, 1982 - JESUS BANAWA v. GREGORIO B. DE JESUS

  • Adm. Matter No. 1513-MJ June 29, 1982 - BRAULIO VILLASIS v. PRISCO PABATAO

  • Adm. Matter No. 1539-MJ June 29, 1982 - MAURECIA OPUS v. VICENTE BORNIA

  • Adm. Matter No. 1665-MJ June 19, 1982 - WILMOR HADAP, ET AL. v. ABELARDO LEE

  • Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ June 29, 1982 - ESTANISLAO LAPENA, JR. v. MARTONINO MARCOS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-1974 June 29, 1982 - PABLO L. BAROLA v. VICTORIANO L. ABOGATAL

  • Adm. Matter No. P-2328 June 29, 1982 - ERNESTO P. VALENCIA v. SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. 2358-MJ June 29, 1982 - SALUD CLEMENTE-DE GUZMAN v. TIRSO REYES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 2729-CFI June 29, 1982 - GREGORIA LAGARET, ET AL. v. TAGO M. BANTUAS

  • Adm. Matter No. 2758-P June 29, 1982 - SOL M. SIPIN v. GLORIA GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-26537 June 29, 1982 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. HERMINIO A. ASTORGA

  • G.R. No. L-28323 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO APAT

  • G.R. No. L-28636 June 29, 1982 - LEO Y. MABUHAY v. JESUS V. SERIÑA

  • G.R. No. L-28717 June 29, 1982 - ESCOLASTICO DE GUZMAN v. NUMERIANO CUEVAS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-29077 June 29, 1982 - LOURDES MARCELO v. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31675 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33157 June 29, 1982 - BENITO H. LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33411 June 29, 1982 - NORTHERN LINES, INC. v. BENJAMIN SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35390 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. L-36925 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: JOSE ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38318 June 29, 1982 - AURORA RAYMUNDO v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39051 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-39387 June 29, 1982 - PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40183 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO L. FRANCO

  • G.R. No. L-40726 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO MACATANGAY

  • G.R. No. L-41080 June 29, 1982 - JOSE ESTANISLAO v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO, STA. ANA & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42630 June 29, 1982 - JESUS SIERBO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42646 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO "BOY" PALAPAL

  • G.R. No. L-43888 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO MANLABAO

  • G.R. No. L-46199 June 29, 1982 - DOMINGO O. BAUTISTA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51641 June 29, 1982 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51767 June 29, 1982 - LETICIA CO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-53721 June 29, 1982 - PAN-PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55029 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO GAMET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55289 June 29, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-55418-19 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL M. MAMOGAY

  • G.R. Nos. L-55485-86 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO BITUIN

  • G.R. No. L-57102 June 29, 1982 - HILARIO GAMIAO, ET AL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR E. ESPAÑOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58319 June 29, 1982 - PATRICIA PACIENTE v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58341 June 29, 1982 - PEPSI-COLA LABOR UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60326 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: RAMON A. BERNAL v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60685 June 29, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO MINA, ET AL.