November 1940 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > November 1940 Decisions >
G.R. No. 46973 November 19, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIO MORADOS, ET AL.
070 Phil 558:
070 Phil 558:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 46973. November 19, 1940.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SILVERIO MORADOS ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
F.C. Espiritu for Appellants.
Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Barcelona for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; "ALIBI." — The respective defenses interposed by the accused converge into one of alibi, but "oral evidence of alibi is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence." (People v. Badilla, 48 Phil., 718.)
2. ID.; ID.; LIABILITY OF PRINCIPALS. — It is argued that B.M. did not enter the hut and did not take part in the assault, and he should only have been found guilty of attempted theft of large cattle. This contention is without merit. In United States v. Landasan (35 Phil., 359, 369), we observed that "neither the divisibility of this crime (robbery with homicide) into two crimes, nor the divisibility of the liability of the criminals who took part is allowable." And in United States v. Macalalad (9 Phil., 1) and People v. Bautista (49 Phil., 389, 396), we held that "whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
2. ID.; ID.; LIABILITY OF PRINCIPALS. — It is argued that B.M. did not enter the hut and did not take part in the assault, and he should only have been found guilty of attempted theft of large cattle. This contention is without merit. In United States v. Landasan (35 Phil., 359, 369), we observed that "neither the divisibility of this crime (robbery with homicide) into two crimes, nor the divisibility of the liability of the criminals who took part is allowable." And in United States v. Macalalad (9 Phil., 1) and People v. Bautista (49 Phil., 389, 396), we held that "whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, sentencing the defendants-appellants, Silverio Morados, Felipe Moral, and Benjamin Mendoza, to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Lucio Enriquez in the sum of P2,000 and P100 each to Rufino Aro and Ceferino Ricasata, as indemnity for the time in which the latter two were not able to engage in their customary work, and to pay three-fourths of the costs.
On the night of March 15, 1939, while Ceferino Ricasata, Rufino Aro and Lucio Enriquez were sleeping in the latter’s hut in the sitio of Pasong Tabla, barrio of Bagbag, municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, a place where they had been treshing palay, several malefactors suddenly assaulted them. Ricasata who was awakened by the blows being inflicted upon his companions, tried to flee from the hut, but his dash for salvage was frustrated when hardly had he gone out the hut one of the ruffians shot him hitting him in the right thigh as a result of which he fell at a certain distance from the hut. His companions were beaten to unconsciousness.
The following is a reproduction of the medico-legal report regarding the injuries sustained by the victims:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Lucio Enriquez suffered the multiple injuries stated in the medico-legal necropsy report, Exhibit A, and died the following day of ’meningeal hemorrhage secondary to fracture of the skull as a result of external violence’ (see Exhibit E, p. 67, rec.) . Said injuries were caused by a solid blunt instrument, according to the opinion of Dr. Rosalino Reyes, who performed the autopsy (p. 3, t.s.n., first set)."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Ceferino Ricasata sustained the following: ’wound, gunshot, multiple, thigh, right and glands penis; foreign body, lead shot, thigh and penis, secondary’ (see Exhibit F, p. 68 rec.) . He stayed for about one month in the hospital (p. 13, t.s.n. second set.)
"Likewise Rufino Aro suffered multiple injuries, to wit: ’wound, lacerated, eyebrow, left, lips, upper and lower; fracture, multiple, jaw, lower; contusion, severe with hematoma, molar, left; X-ray-fractures lower jaw (see Exhibit G, p. 69, rec.) . He stayed in the hospital for about one month (p. 6, t.s.n., second set)."cralaw virtua1aw library
The evidence shows that through an agreement made between them, Felipe Moral who had a paltik a (homemade gun) and a flashlight, together with Silverio Morados, were to go to the hut to watch the inmates, while Benjamin Mendoza — who had also a paltik — and Florentino de los Reyes were to taken away the carabaos (pp. 2-8, 12, 22-24, t.s.n., first set). They all did their part of this agreement: Morados and Moral effected their entrance into the hut, inflicting injuries upon Aro and killing Enriquez. While De los Reyes and Mendoza were untying the carabaos, the former heard the scream: "Naku agawin and buhay ko!" (Oh! save my life!), which was interrupted by a pistol shot. Fearing that the shot might summon held, the malefactors escape without taking the carabaos, although one of them had already been untied. The motive for the killing was robbery of the four carabaos which were tied near the hut, three of which belonged to the deceased (Lucio Enriquez), and the fourth, to one Turi. Because the principal witness for the prosecution, Florentino de los Reyes, was one of the authors of the daring assault, we have not neglected to scrutinize his testimony. We find his version, however, corroborated by Catalino Arnis who was the driver of the carretela hired by the herein accused that brought them to the barrio of Zambal (Noveleta, Cavite) where they alighted and proceeded to the place of the occurrence. It also appears that the herein appellants confessed their participation in the commission of the offense to Major Gaspar Baylon, provincial commander of Cavite, and Lieutenant Alcantara. Furthermore, Mendoza took Moral’s flashlight, Exhibit C, from his (Mendoza’s) house and stated that it was the one used in the commission of the crime (35, t.s.n., first set). Counsel for the defense challenges the version given by De los Reyes, but we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in giving due weight to his testimony
The respective defense interposed by the accused converge into one of alibi, but "oral evidence of alibi is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence." (People v. Badilla Et. Al., 48 Phil., 718).
Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is argued that Benjamin Mendoza did not enter the hut and did not take part in the assault, and he should only have been found guilty of attempted theft of large cattle. This contention is without merit. In U.S. v. Landasan Et. Al. (35 Phil., 359, 369), we observed that "neither the divisibility of this crime (robbery with homicide) into two crimes, nor the divisibility of the liability of the criminals who took part is allowable." And in U.S. v. Macalalad, 9 Phil., 1, and People v. Bautista, 49 Phil., 389, 369, we held that "whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." It has not been shown that Mendoza endeavored to prevent the homicide.
The Solicitor-General recommends the imposition of death penalty in view of the fact that the killing of Lucio Enriquez was qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling. For lack of unanimity, however, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects, with costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
On the night of March 15, 1939, while Ceferino Ricasata, Rufino Aro and Lucio Enriquez were sleeping in the latter’s hut in the sitio of Pasong Tabla, barrio of Bagbag, municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, a place where they had been treshing palay, several malefactors suddenly assaulted them. Ricasata who was awakened by the blows being inflicted upon his companions, tried to flee from the hut, but his dash for salvage was frustrated when hardly had he gone out the hut one of the ruffians shot him hitting him in the right thigh as a result of which he fell at a certain distance from the hut. His companions were beaten to unconsciousness.
The following is a reproduction of the medico-legal report regarding the injuries sustained by the victims:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Lucio Enriquez suffered the multiple injuries stated in the medico-legal necropsy report, Exhibit A, and died the following day of ’meningeal hemorrhage secondary to fracture of the skull as a result of external violence’ (see Exhibit E, p. 67, rec.) . Said injuries were caused by a solid blunt instrument, according to the opinion of Dr. Rosalino Reyes, who performed the autopsy (p. 3, t.s.n., first set)."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Ceferino Ricasata sustained the following: ’wound, gunshot, multiple, thigh, right and glands penis; foreign body, lead shot, thigh and penis, secondary’ (see Exhibit F, p. 68 rec.) . He stayed for about one month in the hospital (p. 13, t.s.n. second set.)
"Likewise Rufino Aro suffered multiple injuries, to wit: ’wound, lacerated, eyebrow, left, lips, upper and lower; fracture, multiple, jaw, lower; contusion, severe with hematoma, molar, left; X-ray-fractures lower jaw (see Exhibit G, p. 69, rec.) . He stayed in the hospital for about one month (p. 6, t.s.n., second set)."cralaw virtua1aw library
The evidence shows that through an agreement made between them, Felipe Moral who had a paltik a (homemade gun) and a flashlight, together with Silverio Morados, were to go to the hut to watch the inmates, while Benjamin Mendoza — who had also a paltik — and Florentino de los Reyes were to taken away the carabaos (pp. 2-8, 12, 22-24, t.s.n., first set). They all did their part of this agreement: Morados and Moral effected their entrance into the hut, inflicting injuries upon Aro and killing Enriquez. While De los Reyes and Mendoza were untying the carabaos, the former heard the scream: "Naku agawin and buhay ko!" (Oh! save my life!), which was interrupted by a pistol shot. Fearing that the shot might summon held, the malefactors escape without taking the carabaos, although one of them had already been untied. The motive for the killing was robbery of the four carabaos which were tied near the hut, three of which belonged to the deceased (Lucio Enriquez), and the fourth, to one Turi. Because the principal witness for the prosecution, Florentino de los Reyes, was one of the authors of the daring assault, we have not neglected to scrutinize his testimony. We find his version, however, corroborated by Catalino Arnis who was the driver of the carretela hired by the herein accused that brought them to the barrio of Zambal (Noveleta, Cavite) where they alighted and proceeded to the place of the occurrence. It also appears that the herein appellants confessed their participation in the commission of the offense to Major Gaspar Baylon, provincial commander of Cavite, and Lieutenant Alcantara. Furthermore, Mendoza took Moral’s flashlight, Exhibit C, from his (Mendoza’s) house and stated that it was the one used in the commission of the crime (35, t.s.n., first set). Counsel for the defense challenges the version given by De los Reyes, but we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in giving due weight to his testimony
The respective defense interposed by the accused converge into one of alibi, but "oral evidence of alibi is so easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence." (People v. Badilla Et. Al., 48 Phil., 718).
Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is argued that Benjamin Mendoza did not enter the hut and did not take part in the assault, and he should only have been found guilty of attempted theft of large cattle. This contention is without merit. In U.S. v. Landasan Et. Al. (35 Phil., 359, 369), we observed that "neither the divisibility of this crime (robbery with homicide) into two crimes, nor the divisibility of the liability of the criminals who took part is allowable." And in U.S. v. Macalalad, 9 Phil., 1, and People v. Bautista, 49 Phil., 389, 369, we held that "whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." It has not been shown that Mendoza endeavored to prevent the homicide.
The Solicitor-General recommends the imposition of death penalty in view of the fact that the killing of Lucio Enriquez was qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling. For lack of unanimity, however, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects, with costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
