ARTICLE 17 - PRINCIPALS someone she did not name: "He does not appear because I will kill
him." ("No aparece porque le voy amatar.") The truck then continued on
G.R. No. L-24491 September 30, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUFINO GENSOLA, FIDELINA TAN and FELICISIMO
TAN, defendants-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor
General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Pedro A. Ramirez for
plaintiff-appellee.
Dominador Garin for defendant-appellant Rufino Gensola.
Juan C. Orendain for other defendants-appellants.
CAPISTRANO, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding
the defendants. Rufino Gensola, Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan, guilty
as principals of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them
to reclusion perpetuaand ordering said defendants to pay in solidum the
sum of P6,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Miguel
Gayanilo.
Rufino Gensola was the driver, while Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan
were the conductors, of a passenger truck, Gelveson No. 17 (belonging
to Jose Tan, father of Fidelina and Felicisimo) with station at Guimbal,
Iloilo. They suspected Miguel Gayanilo of having punctured the tires of
the truck while it was parked in front of his carinderia on Gerona St.,
Guimbal, on November 18, 1958. In the afternoon of the following day,
November 19, on the return trip of the truck, then driven by a temporary
driver, Restituto Gersaneva, from Iloilo City, Enrique Gelario and
Enrique Gela were among the passengers of the truck. Before the truck
entered the poblacion of Guimbal, it parked on Gonzales St. to
discharge a passenger and his baggage. Enrique Gelario and Enrique
Gela overheard Fidelina Tan mutter to herself, obviously referring to
its way and parked in front of Teodora Gellicanao's carinderia on
Gerona St. in the poblacion. All the passengers got off the truck.
Enrique Gelario and Enrique Gela crossed the street towards the
carinderia of Pedro Genciana to await another passenger truck for their
respective barrios. The Gelveson No. 17 then left in the direction of the
nearby carinderia of Violeta Garin, returned a short time later, and
parked in front of the bodega of its owner, Jose Tan. The time was about
6:30 p.m. Miguel Gayanilo was crossing the street from the public
market in the direction of his carinderia with Rufino Gensola, holding in
his right hand a stone as big as a man's fist, following closely behind. At
this time, Felicisimo and Fidelina Tan were standing in the middle of the
street. After Miguel Gayanilo had crossed the middle of the street near
the two, Fidelina Tan shouted, "Rufino, strike him." Upon hearing the
shout Miguel looked back and Rufino suddenly struck him on the left
face with the stone. Felicisimo then struck Miguel with a piece of iron
on the back of the head causing serious wounds and fracture of the
skull. Not content with the two blows already given, Fidelina struck
Miguel with another piece of iron on the left forehead causing serious
wounds and fracture of the skull. Miguel fell to the ground near the
canal along the side of the street. Rufino Gensola immediately left for
his house situated on Gonzales St. Felicisimo and Fidelina observed the
prostrate body for a few seconds until Fidelina muttered: "He is already
dead." ("Ya esta muerto.") The two then left the scene of the crime.
The autopsy report shows that Miguel Gayanilo suffered lacerated
wounds on the left face, serious wounds and fracture of the skull on the
back of the head, and serious wounds and fracture of the skull on the left
forehead. Death was caused by traumatic shock.
The death of Miguel Gayanilo caused by traumatic shock which resulted
from the strong blows inflicting trauma on the back of the head and on
the left forehead, was admitted particularly by the accused Rufino
Gensola who assumed sole responsibility for the same.1awphîl.nèt
The lower court found the three defendants guilty as principals of the
crime of murder and rendered judgment as follows:
Por tanto, el Juzgado declara a los acusados Rufino Gensola, Fidelina
Tan y Felicisimo Tan culpables, fuera de toda duda racional, del delito
de asesinato tal como se alega en la querella y, no habiendo
circunstancias que pueden modificar su responsibilidad criminal,
condena a cada uno de los tres a sufrir la pena de reclusion perpetua, a
indemnizar, mancomunada y solidariamente, a los herederos de Miguel
Gayanilo en la suma de P6,000.00 sin sufrir prision subsidiaria
correspondiente, en caso de insolvencia, dada la naturaleza de la pena
principal, a las accesorias de la ley y a pagar ademas, cada uno una
tercera (1/3) parte de las costas del juicio.
Defendants appealed.
Appellants contend that Rufino Gensola alone inflicted with stone
blows the serious wounds and fractures of the skull which caused the
death of Miguel Gayanilo, but that he did so in legitimate defense of
Fidelina Tan and of himself. The contention is unmeritorious in view of
the following considerations: (1) The testimony of Rufino Gensola and
Fidelina Tan that Miguel Gayanilo, then drunk, angrily demanded to
know from Fidelina why she suspected him of having punctured the
tires of the truck and was about to strike Fidelina with a stone, and that
in legitimate defense of Fidelina and of himself Rufino picked up two
stones, struck Miguel on the left face with one stone and threw the other
stone at him when he started to run away, hitting him on the back of the
head and causing him to fall and strike his forehead against a pile of
stones, is belied by, first, the serious wound's and fractures of the skull
on the back of the head and on the left forehead of the victim, which
could have been caused only by strong blows with pieces of iron;
and, second, by the testimony of Dr. Juan Encanto who performed the
autopsy, that he did not see any pile of stones near the dead body of
Miguel Gayanilo when he arrived at the place in response to a call. (2)
The admission of Rufino Gensola that he alone was responsible for the
serious wounds and fractures of the skull inflicted upon Miguel
Gayanilo in legitimate defense of Fidelina Tan and of himself, has no
probative value because it constitutes, in the face of contrary credible
evidence for the prosecution, an assumption by Rufino Gensola of the
criminal liability of Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan. The penal law
does not allow anyone to assume the criminal liability of another.
Appellants contend that the testimonies of the principal prosecution
witnesses, Enrique Gelario and Enrique Gela, are unworthy of credence
because of contradictions and uncertainties, showing that they were not
present and did not witness the commission of the crime. The contention
is untenable for the following reasons. (1) The contradictions pointed
out involve only the relative locations of the three carinderias near the
scene of the crime, not the acts of commission of the three defendants at
a distance of about seven meters from where the two state witnesses
were then standing. (2) The uncertainties pointed out refer to the
description of the pieces of iron used by Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina
Tan, that is, as to the size, length and other details. Considering that the
place was not well-lighted and that there was little time to observe,
accurate description of the weapons used could not be expected three
years later when the witnesses testified. (3) The contention that Enrique
Gelario and Enrique Gela testified against Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina
Tan out of spite because the latter had refused to transport the former to
their respective barrios, is not well-taken. It is not natural for a person to
testify under oath against his neighbor on a matter of life and death just
because of a trifling incident causing slight inconvenience. (4) We find
the testimonies of the four defense witnesses, Fidelina Tan, Felicisimo
Tan, Elias Gensola and Salvador Gayatao, that Enrique Gelario and
Enrique Gela were not present at the scene of the crime because they
had already left Gerona St. walking to another street to await
transportation to their respective barrios, unworthy of credence.
Let us now consider the criminal liability of the three appellants. The
lower court found them guilty as principals of the crime of murder on
the assumption that there was conspiracy among them. We do not agree,
for the following reasons: (1) Fidelina Tan's intention revealed by the
words she muttered to herself, "He does not appear because I will kill
him," was not shared by Felicisimo Tan, who kept silent. Silence is not a
circumstance indicating participation in the same criminal design. With
respect to Rufino Gensola, he was not even in the truck at the time. (2)
When Miguel Gayanilo was crossing Gerona St., it was only Rufino
Gensola who followed closely behind. Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan
were in the middle of the street. The words shouted by Fidelina Tan,
"Rufino strike him," were meant as a command and did not show
previous concert of criminal design. (3) The blows given with pieces of
iron on the back of the head and on the left forehead by Felicisimo and
Fidelina after Rufino had struck with a piece of stone the left face of
Miguel, do not in and by themselves show previous concert of criminal
design. Particularly when it is considered that Rufino immediately left
thereafter while Felicisimo and Fidelina remained for a few seconds
observing the prostrate body of Miguel until Fidelina muttered, "He is
already dead."
In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the three appellants is
individual, that is, each appellant is liable only for his own act.
Appellant Rufino Gensola is liable only for the lacerated wounds
inflicted by him on the left face of Miguel Gayanilo. Such lacerated
wounds caused disfigurement ("deformity") of the face within the
meaning of Article 263 (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishable
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period in relation
to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The offense having been committed
with treachery, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period.
Is appellant Fidelina Tan also liable for the offense considering that she
gave the command "Rufino, strike him"? The second class of principals,
according to Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, comprises "those
who directly force or induce others to commit it (the act)." Those who
directly induce others to commit the act are called "principals by
inducement" or "principals by induction," from the Spanish "autores por
induccion." The word "inducement" comprises, in the opinion of Viada
and the Supreme Court of Spain, reward, promise of reward, command,
and pacto. With respect to command, it must be the moving cause of the
offense. In the case at bar, the command shouted by Fidelina, "Rufino,
strike not," was not the moving cause of the act of Rufino Gensola. The
evidence shows that Rufino would have committed the act of his own
volition even without said words of command.
Are the appellants Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan both liable for the
death of Miguel Gayanilo? Our opinion is in the affirmative. The trauma
inflicted by Felicisimo and the trauma inflicted by Fidelina, combined,
produced death due to traumatic shock. When Fidelina struck with a
piece of iron the left forehead of Miguel, he was not yet dead. It was
only after the trauma inflicted by Fidelina that the dying Miguel fell to
the ground and died seconds later. This is clear from the evidence that
after Miguel had fallen to the ground Felicisimo and Fidelina observed
his prostrate body for a few seconds until Fidelina muttered, "He is
already dead."
Assuming that the trauma inflicted by Felicisimo was by itself sufficient
to produce death due to traumatic shock, should Fidelina be also held
liable considering that death could have resulted anyway from the act of
Felicisimo and that a person cannot be killed twice? The obvious answer
is that although a dead person cannot be killed again, a dying person can
still be killed. Miguel was not dead but dying when Fidelina struck his
left forehead with a piece of iron. Hence, the trauma inflicted by her
hastened the death of Miguel from traumatic shock made doubly severe.
She must, therefore, be also held criminally liable for the death of the
victim.
Was the killing murder? Our opinion is in the affirmative because it was
attended with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. There
was alevosia because after Rufino suddenly struck Miguel Gayanilo
with a stone, Miguel, defenseless, was struck by Felicisimo Tan with a
piece of iron on the back of the head and by Fidelina Tan with a piece of
iron on the left forehead.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, that part of the appealed judgment
sentencing each of the appellants Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan
to reclusion perpetua is affirmed. Said appellants are also ordered to
pay in solidum the sum of P12,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the
deceased, Miguel Gayanilo. That part of the judgment against appellant
Rufino Gensola is modified by sentencing said appellant to an
indeterminate penalty of from 3 months of arresto mayor as minimum
to 3 years of prision correccional as maximum.
Costs against the appellants.
 LXXXI 1 finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of killing father
and son Cipriano and Felix Gasang, and seriously wounding Agustin
Reloj and Cipriano's daughter, Merlinda. The dispositive portion of the
decision states:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the guilt of accused Ricarte

Madali and Annie Mortel Madali beyond reasonable doubt of the
following offenses and sentences each of them as follows:

(1) For the frustrated murder of Agustin Reloj, each accused is meted an
indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional, as
minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. (E)ach of them is also sentenced to suffer all the
accessory penalties provided for by law, and each is ordered to pay in
solidum the offended party, Agustin Reloj, the sum of P200.00 as
reimbursement of medical and hospitalization expenses.

(2) For the murder of Felix Gasang, each accused is sentenced the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and each of them is likewise sentenced to
ARTICLE 18 suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law, and each is also
ordered to pay in solidum to the heirs of Felix Gasang, the sum of
G.R. Nos. L-67803-04 July 30, 1990 P12,000, as death indemnity.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
Pat. RICARTE MADALI and ANNIE MORTEL
MADALI, defendants-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Juan B. Soliven for defendants-appellants.
(3) For the murder of Cipriano Gasang and the mortal (sic) wounding of
Merlinda Gasang (which has been converted into a complex crime of
murder with frustrated murder) each accused is sentenced to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties provided for
by law and to indemnify in solidum the heirs of Cipriano Gasang the
sum of P12,000.00 and each is also ordered to pay in solidum, Merlinda
Gasang the sum of P6,000 for reimbursement of medical and
hospitalization expenses.

Each of the accused is likewise ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of

FERNAN, C.J.:
Husband and wife Patrolman Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali
appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch
deceased, Cipriano Gasang and Felix Gasang, the sum of P50,000.00,
which amount represents the value of the loss (sic) earning capacity of
deceased Cipriano and Felix, both surnamed Gasang, and the sum of
P30,000.00 as moral damages, and the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
The sentences of reclusion perpetua and the indeterminate
penalty imposed upon each accused should be served successively, with
proportionate costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
According to the prosecution, said crimes stemmed from an altercation
between the son of the Madali spouses, Ramon, and the group of Felix
Gasang, who was twenty years old when he was killed. 3 It appears that
on October 26, 1979, Felix figured in a fist-fight with someone who was
a friend of Ramon. The latter interceded and mauled Felix with a
"chako" 4 One of Felix's companions then was Agustin Reloj. 5
The following day, the police summoned Felix to the municipal
building. Felix's mother, Desamparada Gasang, went with him. 6 At the
police station, Ricarte Madali, a police officer, angrily scolded Felix and
his cousin, Arnaldo Fadriquilan, and told them that because they were
"very brave", he would put them in jail for twelve hours. Madali added
after asking about Felix's age that he would "sow bullets" in the body of
Felix. 7 According to witness policeman Aristeo Fetalino, Madali also
uttered, "Kailangan sa imo lubongan bala" which means, what you
need is a bullet embedded in you. 8 Madali's father-in-law, Agustin
Mortel, who arrived at the police station, agreed with Madali that Felix
and his group must be "sown with bullets" to eradicate them. 9 Another
group mate of Felix was detained at the municipal jail but Felix was
sent home with his mother. 10
At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, Felix and his
cousin, Agustin Reloj, went home together from the town plaza. Their
houses were located near each other in sitio Marawi, barangay Cagbo-
aya, San Agustin, Romblon.
Felix and Agustin parted ways at the Marawi bridge. Felix dropped by
the store of Coroy Mangao to buy cigarettes while Agustin proceeded
home. Around fifteen meters from the house of Ricarte Madali, the
latter accosted, him, held him by his arm and said, "So you are here, you
devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been
watching for you for three nights already. 11 Then Madali dragged
Agustin towards the gate of his (Madali's) house. When Agustin asked
Madali why he was dragging him, Madali said that the reason was
because Agustin helped in fighting his son.
As one of Agustin's feet stepped over the knee-high fence at the gate of
the Madali residence, he was clubbed by Annie Madali with a piece of
wood. Annie struck him first on the left shoulder and would have given
him another blow had not Agustin freed himself from Madali's hold.
Annie landed that blow on Madali instead. 12
Agustin was looking back as he ran away when Madali shot him. He
was hit below his right hip. He fell to the ground and did not get up
fearing that Madali might shoot him again. Agustin was still lying down
on the ground with his eyes focused on Madali when Felix Gasang
arrived. He saw Annie beamed her flashlight at Felix and she said,
"Here comes another." 13
Agustin saw Felix raising his hands as Annie focused her flashlight on
Felix. Felix told Madali that he would not fight with him but then
Madali shot Felix twice. Felix fell to the ground. Madali was still near
the gate of his house when Cipriano Gasang arrived. Annie beamed her
flashlight at Cipriano and she said, "Here comes, here comes another,
fire upon him. 14 Madali shot Cipriano who fell to the ground. Merlinda
Gasang, who was with her father Cipriano, clung to the fence nearby
and shouted that she was also hit. Then Desamparada Gasang arrived
and shouted for help. One Romeo Manes came and carried away
Merlinda. Agustin slowly stood up and as he walked towards his house,
he saw Roman Galicia (Galicha) and the Madali spouses who were then
entering their gate. 15
Merlinda Gasang * was at home when she heard an explosion. Her
father, Cipriano, was also at home then but after the second shot, he
went out of the house towards the direction of the source of the gunfire.
There was a minute interval between the first and the second shots but
only a second elapsed between the second and the third shots. The
fourth shot came about two minutes later. 16
Cipriano was "beyond the gate" of the Madali residence when he was
shot by Madali. Merlinda was around three meters from her father.17 She
saw Annie focused her flashlight at Cipriano and she heard Annie say,
"Yara pa, yara, pa, barila" meaning "Here comes another one, here
comes another one, shoot." 18 That was when the fourth explosion
occurred and Merlinda heard her father exclaim that he was hit.
Merlinda felt that she was also hit. 19 She did not fall to the ground
because she was able to take hold of the wooden fence. 20 She saw both
her brother Felix and Agustin lying flat on the ground with the latter's
head turned to one side. 21
Merlinda shouted for help. Romeo Manes came and brought her to the
Tablas Island Emergency Hospital. 22 She did not notice anymore where
Ricarte Madali was at that time because she was looking towards the
direction of their house. She saw her mother running to her. 23
Desamparada Gasang was washing the dishes after supper when she
heard the first shot. After the fourth shot, she became apprehensive
because a policeman was mad at her family. 24 She proceeded to where
she heard the gunbursts and she met her daughter Merlinda who
informed her that she was shot by Madali and that she saw Annie
focused a flashlight on her. Then Desamparada saw her husband
crawling on the ground. She asked him to stand up but he could not do
so. Cipriano told her, "Ging iwagan ako ni Annie Madali cag ging baril
ako ni Ricarte Madali" (Annie focused a light on me and Ricarte Madali
shot me.) She then went back to her daughter and shouted for help.
The bodies of Cipriano and Felix Gasang were not removed from the
road until around midnight. They were brought to the Gasang residence
for autopsy. 25 The rural health physician who conducted the
postmortem examinations on both Cipriano and Felix found that
Cipriano sustained a gunshot wound at the right lower quadrant of the
abdomen along the mammary line. From that point of entry, the bullet
followed an obliquely downward course penetrating the small and large
intestines and the urinary bladder, and exited at the middle of the left
buttock. Cipriano's death was caused by hemorrhage due to the gunshot
wound.26
Felix also died of hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound at the
right second intercostal space within the mid-clavicular line of the chest.
The bullet veered backwards towards the left hitting the right lung, its
blood vessels and the fourth cervical vertebra. The second gunshot
wound was at the right side of the abdomen at about the level of the
navel and within the right anterior axillary line. The bullet hit the
subcutaneous tissues and exited at the posterior axillary line. 27
Merlyn (Merlinda) Gasang sustained a gunshot wound at the anterior
upper third portion of her right leg with no exit wound and which would
incapacitate her for ten to fifteen days 28 However, she stayed for
treatment at the emergency hospital in San Agustin for 39 days. Later,
she was brought to the hospital in Romblon for extraction of the slug
lodged in her leg. For the treatment of her wound, Merlinda spent
P6,200.00. She could not go to school for three months. 29
Agustin Reloj suffered a gunshot wound at the glutael region of the
right thigh. The bullet entered the lateral aspect of the upper third of the
right thigh and exited at the posterior aspect of the gluteus maximus
muscle. The attending physician certified that Agustin's injury would
incapacitate him for seven to nine days, 30 Agustin, who was then a
laborer, stayed one week at the hospital and spent P200 for the treatment
of his wound. For his pain and anxiety he stated, that he should be
compensated in the amount of P500.00. 31
Madali voluntarily surrendered to the San Agustin police. 32 He handed
his .38 caliber service revolver to the policemen who arrived at the
scene of the crime and they noted that there were only two remaining
bullets in the revolver. 33 He was placed under technical arrest by the
provincial commander of the Philippine Constabulary. 34
After the investigation, on February 1, 1980, two informations were
filed against Patrolman Madali and his wife, Annie Mortel Madali. In
Criminal Case No. 981, said spouses were charged with multiple murder
for the killing of Felix and Cipriano Gasang. The information alleged
that they conspired, confederated and mutually helped each other in
killing Felix and Cipriano treacherously, with evident premeditation and
with the use of a .38 caliber revolver. 35
In the separate information for multiple frustrated murder in Criminal
Case No. 982, conspiracy, treachery and evident premeditation were
also alleged as having attended the felonious assault with the use of a .
38 caliber revolver on Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj which could
have resulted in the crime of murder had not timely and able medical
assistance intervened. 36
At the trial, both Madali and his wife, who had pleaded not guilty to the
crimes charged, testified in their own defense. According to Madali, at
around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, he and his
family were about to sleep when a stone was hurled at their house. His
wife said that it could have been a stray stone. But then, three other
stones landed on the GI sidings, and the lawanit and bamboo walls of
their house. Madali went to their porch where he noticed a person
crouching near their gabi plants. He could not identify the person
because of the fog so he went inside their room and dressed up in his
fatigue trousers and jacket. He went down the house and noticed that
there was no one in the gabi plants anymore.
Madali was behind their kitchen and about to go back to his house when
someone hit his left shoulder. The person struck him again but he was
able to catch the club aimed at him and strike the person with his
nightstick. Madali was about to give him another blow with his
nightstick but the person caught it. They tried to get each other's club.
They were in that position when Madali's foot stepped into a low canal,
causing him to fall down flat on his back. The intruder fell with him and
landed on Madali's stomach. The person shouted at someone in the
vicinity what the latter was tarrying about. As Madali tried to get up, he
heard his wife call, "Carte, Carte." Just then he kicked the intruder on
the stomach and the latter fell to the ground.
Madali hurriedly stood up, pulled his gun and fired at the intruder. He
noticed two other persons approaching him. One person had a club and
the other had what looked like a knife. He warned them, "This is a
policeman. Do not come near." One of the persons proceeded to strike
him and Madali was hit on his forehead by the man with the club.
Madali in turn dealt him with a blow by swinging back his left forearm.
The man with a club fell down.
When the man with the knife was about to stab him, Madali fired his
gun at him. As that man was still closing in on him, Madali shot him
again. The man with the knife retreated to the gate and fell just outside
of it.
After firing two shots, Madali turned sideward and saw the man with
the club about to strike him. So, Madali shot him. The man walked
away. Madali later identified the man crouching amidst their gabi plants
as Agustin Reloj. 37
Annie Mortel Madali corroborated her husband's testimony from the
stoning of their house until he dressed up, got his gun and nightstick,
and went out of the house. When she heard Madali opening the door to
the stairs, Annie got up and went to their balcony to peep. She saw her
husband going around their house in a clockwise direction. When he
was near their kitchen, Annie saw him grappling with someone over the
possession of a club. Her husband and his protagonist fell into a canal,
trampling the gabi plants. She heard the man say, "Hay, naga tanga pa
kamo dira!" meaning "What are you still waiting for!"
Annie then saw two persons rushing inside their premises. One person
was holding a club while the other one had something which he
appeared to thrust forward. Losing her composure, Annie warned her
husband by calling out his name, "Carte, Carte!" Then she heard a
gunshot and the person holding a club who grappled with her husband
ran out of the premises.
Annie heard her husband say, "Pulis ini, ayaw maglapit" meaning "This
is a policeman do not come near." After that, she heard three more
gunshots. The two who came rushing inside their premises scampered
away and out of their fence. She could not recognize the three intruders.
Madali then walked towards her and asked her to call the police. Annie
went inside their sala and told her daughter Agnes to summon the
police. 38
Policeman Numeriano Galang who heard the gun reports, met Agnes on
his way to sitio Marawi. When he arrived at the Madali residence, he
found Madali with his face and jacket smeared with mud and with a
swollen forehead. 39Galang asked Madali what happened but he did not
put his investigation in writing. 40 At the yard, he found stones, two
slippers and a nightstick. 41 He did not find bloodstains in the yard
because it was drizzling. 42 Neither did he find bloodstains outside the
yard because he inspected only the areas surrounding the Madali
house. 43
Policeman Antonio Morales arrived at the scene of the crime with two
other policemen. He found Felix Gasang lying flat on his belly about
one foot from the gate. 44 To identify him, they turned Felix's body face
up and found that his right hand was holding a knife. 45 Later, that knife
was turned over to police investigator Pfc. Ernesto Solano. 46 The other
victim (Cipriano) was found about five to six meters from the body of
Felix. 47 Like Galang, Morales saw pieces of stones which were
different from the stones found in Madali's yard which were mere corals
or "boga," two pairs of slippers and the gabi plants which appeared to
have been trampled upon. 48
To prove aggression on the part of his victims, Madali presented a
medical certificate stating that on November 1, 1979, he was examined
at the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital for a vertical contusion
(hematoma) on his left forehead and another contusion on the left
deltoid region. 49
The lower court gave full faith and credit to the evidence of the
prosecution, especially the testimonies of eyewitnesses-victims Agustin
Reloj and Merlinda Gasang. It found that the concerted acts of Madali
and his wife while committing the crimes proved conspiracy between
them thereby making their criminal responsibility collective. While
finding that the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation, the
lower court positively appreciated treachery to qualify as murder the
killing of both Cipriano and Felix Gasang. It noted, however, that the
prosecution erred in charging as the separate crimes of murder and
frustrated murder the killing of Cipriano and the wounding of Merlinda.
Observing that only one bullet hit Cipriano and his daughter, Merlinda,
the lower court concluded that the Madali spouses should have been
charged with the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder.
Accordingly, it imposed the penalties set out above for the crimes of
frustrated murder, murder and the complex crime of murder and
frustrated murder.
In this appeal, the Madali spouses pray for their acquittal arguing that
the lower court erred in: [a] finding Annie Mortel Madali guilty as
principal by direct participation; [b] not finding that the Gasangs and
their kins were motivated by revenge; [c] not finding that Ricarte
Madali acted in self-defense; and [d] in giving credence and/or adopting
the theory of the prosecution instead of that of the defense.
The prosecution of these cases was highlighted by notable
developments. Firstly, before the defense could present its evidence, on
September 6, 1980, the capitol building of Romblon was razed to the
ground. All court records were lost. The records of Criminal Cases Nos.
981 and 982 were, however, reconstituted and the accused arraigned
anew. 50 Secondly, prosecution eyewitness, Roman Galicia recanted his
testimony and appeared for the defense claiming that he did not see the
gunwielder. 51 He alleged that he testified for the prosecution for fear
that the special prosecutor would revive the rape case against
him. 52 The lower court thereafter disregarded his entire testimony
inasmuch as only the transcript of his cross-examination as prosecution
witness could be reproduced. 53 Thirdly, only the testimony of Ricarte
Madali was heard by the ponente below as the previous presiding judge
was transferred to another sala. 54
In view of the disqualification of Roman Galicia as a witness, the issue
of the credibility of the eyewitnesses has gained importance in this case.
Significantly, it is the word of the accused Madali spouses as against
that of the surviving victims, Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang. Both
prosecution and defense failed to present corroborative witnesses to
buttress their testimonies.
Matters of credibility are ordinarily addressed to the discretion and
discernment of the trial court which is presumed to have observed the
demeanor of the witnesses at the stand. While the ponente of the
decision below was able to hear only the testimony of accused Ricarte
Madali, the Court sees no reason for not giving sufficient weight to his
factual findings considering that he took pains in thoroughly studying
the case even to the extent of conducting an ocular inspection of the
scene of the crimes and hearing part of the cross-examination of Madali
thereat. 55
The defense is anchored on the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
In order that such plea can prosper, it must be positively shown that
there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the
defendant's life in danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe
wounds upon his assailant, employing therefor reasonablemeans to
resist the said attack. 56
The defense miserably failed to pass said test. Its allegation that the
Madali residence was hurled with stones before Madali confronted the
Gasang group, was not credibly established. No one was able to
positively identify the stone-throwers. Not even Madali and his wife,
Annie. There is no proof that the stones found in the Madali yard were
indeed the stones thrown at their house. It is interesting to note that even
defense witness Antonio Morales, a fellow policeman of Madali,
testified that he did not have personal knowledge on where the stones
were discovered because he was only informed by Galang (another
policeman) "who in turn was only told by Ricarte that the latter was
stoned. 57
Indeed, the defense story is riddled with contradictions and loopholes
which the appellants failed to rectify. At the trial, Agustin Reloj
sketched a map of the neighborhood and placed Felix Gasang's body on
a spot across the road from the Madali gate. 58 The defense tried to
discredit Reloj's sketch and his testimony thereon by presenting
policemen Morales and Galang who testified that Felix's body was
found close to the gate of the Madali residence. However, the
testimonies of said policemen clashed with each other. Morales testified
that both the two dead bodies were found close to the gate while Galang
swore that while one body was near the gate, the other body was five
meters away from the Madali fence. 59 It should be noted that ten days
after the alleged commission of the crime, police investigator Fetalino
found blood stains in the middle of the street indicating that a blood-
drenched body had been dragged across the
street. 60
If it were really true that both Agustin and Cipriano were armed with
clubs, at least Cipriano's club would have been found as he died on the
spot. The nightstick found by the police could not have been the one
used by any of the victims. According to defense witness policeman
Galang, the nightstick was similar to that of a policeman. 61 Hence, it
could have been the same nightstick which Madali admittedly used in
striking one of the intruders. 62
Granting that Agustin Reloj and Felix and Cipriano Gasang were armed
with clubs and a knife, Madali's means of resisting them was
unreasonable under the circumstance. Having known that an interloper
was inside his yard, Madali, being a policeman, should have first fired a
warning shot to deter said intruder from executing whatever vicious
plans he had. As it were, he fired directly at his victims and all four
shots hit their targets.
Moreover, if Agustin, Felix and Cipriano were the intruders, then they
should be credited for their extraordinary bravery in entering the Madali
yard. They were neighbors and they must have known that as a
policeman, Madali possessed a service revolver. The lower court, which
saw for itself the Madali yard considered it "rather inconceivable" for
people like the victims to ever dare go inside the premises armed only
with a knife and clubs. 63
The lower court is correct in characterizing the felonious assault on
Agustin Reloj as frustrated murder. While Agustin Reloj was hit only
below his right hip, Madali's act of shooting was plainly attended by an
intent to kill. This is evidenced by the revealing statements of Madali
while accosting Agustin Reloj some fifteen (15) meters from Madali's
house, thus: "So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have
been waiting for you. I have been waiting for you for three nights
already. 64 The statements "now you are finished" and "I have been
waiting for you for three nights already" sufficiently show that Madali
not only intended to do away with Agustin Reloj but also that the crime
had been premeditated. They satisfactorily prove that Madali had
formed a determination to commit the crime prior to the moment of its
execution; that he had clung to his determination and that there was
sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution
of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 65
Moreover, after uttering those damaging statements, Madali dragged
Reloj towards his gate. Annie then clubbed Reloj who, however,
succeeded in freeing himself from Madali's hold. Reloj was running
away when Madali shot him, hitting him below the right hip. 66
Indeed, firing at his fleeing victim and subsequently shooting to death
two (2) other persons on the same occasion, to our mind, evince quite
clearly the intent to kill being then entertained by Madali.
There is likewise no doubt that Madali committed murder when he shot
Felix Gasang twice in the body. Treachery qualified the killing to
murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There
was treachery because of the suddenness of the attack. Felix was raising
his hands, 67 and saying that he would not fight back when Madali
feloniously fired at him twice. Annie Madali's uttering "Here comes
another" before Madali shot Felix may not be considered sufficient
warning so as to rule out suddenness of the attack. 68 However, no
generic aggravating circumstance has been sufficiency proven.
We agree with the trial court that with respect to the killing of Cipriano
Gasang and the wounding of Merlinda Gasang, the crime committed
was the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder inasmuch as a
single shot hit them both. 69 It is immaterial that Merlinda Gasang was
wounded on the leg and not on a vital part of her body. What is of
primordial consideration is the fact that the criminal act which killed
Cipriano also caused Merlinda's injury. 70 As in the kiling of Felix,
treachery qualified the killing of Cipriano to murder because of the
suddenness of the attack.
Annie Mortel Madali's defense strategy is to deny participation in the
commission of the crimes and to interpose an alibi. She insists that like
any other wife, her natural reaction to situations which involve risk is
"to stay away, meditate and to shout and warn her husband of the
intruders rushing towards him. 71 She bewails the fact that the
prosecution has pictured her as "a brave, pugnacious and aggressive
wife like the heroine of the pre-war movie "Annie of the
Indies". 72 Indeed, Annie's role in the commission of the crimes may
appear to be straight out of an action picture were it not for the fact that
her denials and uncorroborated alibi cannot stand against the categorical
declarations of prosecution eyewitnesses Agustin Reloj and Merlinda
Gasang on her participation therein. 73 She should have presented
witnesses to support her story. As she herself admitted, she and her
husband were not alone in their house when they were allegedly stoned.
Six of their children were home then. 74 Some of them must have been
within the age of discernment inasmuch as their eldest child was 21
years old and therefore, any one of them could have corroborated her
story.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that proof beyond reasonable doubt has
not been established as to the existence of conspiracy between the
Madali spouses. While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy
as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically
be inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to
commit the offense(s) charged, the evidence to prove the same must be
positive and convincing considering that conspiracy is a facile devise by
which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal
fold. 75 With this and the principle that in criminal prosecution, doubts
must be resolved in favor of the accused, as guides, the Court rules that
the liability of Annie Mortel Madali with respect to the crimes
committed herein, is only that of an accomplice.i•t•c-aüsl
Annie's participation in the shooting of the victims consisted of beaming
her flashlight at them and warning her husband of the presence of other
persons in the vicinity. By beaming her flashlight at a victim, Annie
assisted her husband in taking a good aim. However, such assistance
merely facilitated the commission of the felonious acts of shooting.
Considering that, according to both of the Madali spouses, "it was not so
dark nor too bright 76 that night or that "brightness and darkness were
equally of the same intensity. 77 Ricarte Madali could have nevertheless
accomplished his criminal acts without Annie's cooperation and
assistance.
Neither may Annie's shouts of "here comes, here comes another, shoot"
be considered as having incited Ricarte to fire at the victims to make
Annie a principal by inducement. There is no proof that those inciting
words had great dominance and influence over Madali as to become
the determining cause of the crimes. 78 The rapidity with which Madali
admittedly fired the shots 79 eliminated the necessity of encouraging
words such as those uttered by Annie.
The fact that Annie dealt a blow on Agustin while he was being dragged
by Madali to their yard does not make her a principal by direct
participation. Annie's act, being previous to Madali's act of shooting
Agustin, was actually not indispensable to the crime committed against
Agustin. 80
Proof of motive is unnecessary where there is a clear identification of
the accused. 81 More so in this case where the principal accused does not
deny having fired the fatal shots. But the Madali spouses must have
harbored a deep resentment against the Gasang family to put into action
Madali's threat of "sowing bullets" on them. What makes Madali's
crimes even more reprehensible is the fact that he claims to have
committed them in the pursuit of his task as a peace officer. He even
went to the extent of wearing his fatigue jacket and trousers to create a
facade of performance of an official function. Sadly, he misused his
authority and his wife, harboring an improper sense of connubial
cooperation, did not even try to dissuade him.
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex
crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious
crime. The death penalty being the maximum period of the penalty for
murder of reclusion temporal maximum to death under Article 248 of
the same Code, the death penalty should be imposed for the complex
crime of murder with frustrated murder considering that under Article
63, an indivisible penalty cannot be affected by the presence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance. It should be noted that under
the ruling in People v. Muñoz, L-38968-70, February 9, 1989, Article
III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution does not change the period of
the penalty for murder except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition
of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. Hence, the
lower court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on
Ricarte Madali for said complex crime.
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which was proven
but not appreciated in favor of Ricarte Madali by the trial court, should
be considered in imposing on him the penalty for the murder of Felix
Gasang. The presence of this mitigating circumstance without any
aggravating circumstance to offset the same justified the imposition of
the minimum period of the penalty for murder pursuant to Article 64(2)
of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the proper penalty should be
the indeterminate sentence of not less than ten (10) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor as minimum and not more than twenty (20) years
of reclusion temporal as maximum. 82
The same mitigating circumstance should be considered in the
imposition of the penalty on Ricarte Madali for the crime of frustrated
murder committed against Agustin Reloj. The penalty for frustrated
murder in accordance with Article 50 in relation to Article 248
is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
medium period. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the penalty imposed on Ricarte Madali is four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day of prisioncorreccional as minimum to 12 years
of prision mayor as maximum.
As an accomplice, Annie Mortel Madali should be imposed the penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated
felonies. 83 For the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder, like
her husband, she shall be imposed the penalty
84
of reclusion perpetua, considering that the penalty prescribed by law
for Ricarte Madali is the death penalty. For the murder of Felix Gasang,
the penalty imposable on her is prision mayormaximum to reclusion
temporal medium, 85 and there being no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, the penalty should be reclusion
temporal minimum. 86 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Annie
Mortel Madali should therefore be meted the penalty of six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years and
eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. For the crime of
frustrated murder committed against Agustin Reloj, Annie Mortel
Madali shall be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six (6)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali shall also be liable to the heirs
of Cipriano and Felix Gasang for indemnity in the total amount of sixty
thousand pesos (P60,000) in the proportion of 2:1 (2 shares for Ricarte
Madali as principal and 1 share for Annie Mortel Madali as
accomplice), with each accused-appellant being subsidiarily liable for
the other in case of insolvency. The Court sees no reason to disturb the
lower court's findings on the reimbursement of hospitalization and
medical expenses in favor of Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj as
well as the award of damages, except to clarify that payment thereof
shall likewise be in the proportion of 2:1 as above stated and with each
accused being subsidiarily liable for the other in case of insolvency.
WHEREFORE, except as hereinabove modified, the decision of the
lower court is hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
ARTICLE 18
G.R. No. 34386 February 7, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LUDOVICO C. DOCTOLERO alias "ECOY," CONRADO C.
DOCTOLERO alias "CONDRING," and VIRGILIO C.
DOCTOLERO alias "VERGEL," accused-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Hermogenes S. Decano for accused-appellants.
REGALADO, J.:
Accused-appellants Ludovico Doctolero and his brothers, Conrado and
Virgilio Doctolero, charged with and convicted in the then Court of First
Instance, Branch II, Pangasinan, of the crime of multiple murder and
unspecified physical injuries, appealed from the decision of the court a
quo the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the accused
Ludovico Doctolero guilty as principal, and his co-accused Conrado
Doctolero and Virgilio Doctolero guilty as accomplices, in committing
the crime of Murder, which caused the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita
de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and in inflicting physical
injury on the minor child, Jonathan Oviedo. Accordingly, in the absence
of other circumstances to mitigate the penalty, the accused Ludovico
Doctolero is sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) LIFE
IMPRISONMENTS (CADENA PERPETUA) for the deaths of Epifania
Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and the
additional penalty of 4 Months and 1 Day to 6 Months ofarresto mayor,
for inflicting slight physical injury to (sic) the minor child, Jonathan
Oviedo. The accused Conrado Doctolero and Virgilio Doctolero, as
accomplices, are sentenced to suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 Day
of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, for
the death of Epifania Escosio; the penalty of 10 Years and 1 Day
of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 Months of reclusion temporal, for
the death of Lolita de Guzman Oviedo: the penalty of 10 Years and 1
Day of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 Months of reclusion temporal,
for the death of Marcelo Doctolero; and the additional penalty of 2
Months and 1 Day to 4 Months of arresto mayor for the slight physical
injury suffered by the minor child, Jonathan Oviedo. All accused
Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio all surnamed Doctolero, are ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Epifania Escosio, in the sum of
P12,000.00; the heirs of the deceased Lolita de Guzman Oviedo, in the
sum of P12,000.00; and the heirs of the deceased Marcelo Doctolero, in
the sum of P12,000.00; and to pay three-fourths (3/4) of the costs. The
accused Antonio Doctolero is acquitted, with one-fourth (1/4) cost de
oficio.1
The information filed against appellants alleges that the crime was
committed as follows:
That on or about the 8th day of November, 1970, in barrio Binday,
municipality of San Fabian, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed
accused, armed with bolos, went up the house of Marcial Sagun and
once thereat, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, with
intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, with abuse
of superior strength and with extreme cruelty, did, then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab and strike
Lolita de Guzman Oviedo, Epifania Escosio and Jonathan Oviedo and
immediately thereafter, the same accused while already on the road,
conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, with intent to kill
and with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault, hack and
stab Marcelo Doctolero, thereby inflicting upon him multiple mortal
wounds which caused his death.2
Upon arraignment, all the appellants pleaded not guilty to the crimes
charged. In its decision, the trial court made the following findings and
a summary of the evidence for the prosecution thus:
It is undisputed that on the evening of November 8, 1970, Epifania
Escosio and Lolita de Guzman were killed in the house of Marcial
Sagun in Sitio Binday, municipality of San Fabian, province of
Pangasinan, where they were living. Jonathan Oviedo, 1 1/2 year old
child of Lolita de Guzman, was on the same occasion, slightly injured
while being fed on the breast of his mother. On the road, a few meters
from the house of Marcial Sagun, Marcelo Doctolero, 81 years old, was
fatally injured. He was taken to the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital but
he died on the way. . . .
The evidence for the prosecution tend to show that the three (3) accused,
Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, all surnamed Doctolero, were
responsible for the death(s) of Epifania Escosio and Lolita de Guzman,
and in inflicting physical injuries to (sic) Jonathan Oviedo. And
immediately thereafter, with their father and co-accused, Antonio
Doctolero, they hacked Marcelo Doctolero, with their bolos which
caused the death of the latter.
The principal witnesses for the prosecution are: Marcial Sagun, his wife
Maria Sagun, and Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy. According to Marcial
Sagun, at about 6:30 in the evening on November 8, 1970, he and his
wife, Maria Oviedo-Sagun and Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo (sister-in-law
of Maria Oviedo-Sagun) were on their way home to Barrio Binday.
They came from the field where they bundled their harvests. Upon
reaching a crossing of the road in Bo. Binday they met the accused
Ludovico Doctolero who, without warning and without cause or reason,
held the left shoulder of Marcial Sagun with his left hand and struck
Marcial Sagun with a bolo. The latter evaded that blow and wrestled
with Ludovico Doctolero for possession of the bolo of the latter. Lolita
de Guzman-Oviedo became frightened when Ludovico Doctolero and
Marcial Sagun were wrestling for the possession of the bolo of the
former, so she ran away in the direction of the house in Sitio Binday.
Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy (sister of Marcial Sagun) testified that while
she was cleaning palay in the yard of her uncle, the deceased Marcelo
Doctolero, she saw the accused, Ludovico. Conrado and Virgilio (all
surnamed Doctolero) throw stones at the house of Marcial Sagun. While
throwing stones, Ludovico allegedly shouted for the man in the house to
come out. Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy went towards the house of Marcial
Sagun and saw the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio,
coming down from the house going towards her. She told them: "Why
can't you be patient and forget?" But she was asked not to interfere. At
about that time, Marcelo Doctolero, half-brother of Antonio Doctolero,
and uncle of the three accused was going towards the house of Marcial
Sagun, when he met the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio.
Marcelo Doctolero told them why they can't be patient and forget, but
the three accused replied "Vulva of your mother, we will also kill you."
Then they struck Marcelo Doctolero several times with their bolos. And
when their father Antonio Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo
Doctolero with a bolo on the head. Marcelo Doctolero fell and then all
the accused ran away.
The testimony of Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy is sought to be corroborated
by the testimony of Maria Oviedo-Sagun (wife of Marcial Sagun) who
declared that while she was in the house of Marcelo Doctolero, to whom
she reported the incident between Ludovico Doctolero and Marcial
Sagun, she saw the three accused Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio
throwing stones at their house and called to all the men in the house to
come out. She was about to go to their house to get her children but she
saw the three accused Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio going up. So she
hid behind the palm tree, a few meters away from their house. While
there, she heard Epifania Escosio (her adopted mother) shouting at her,
saying "Enieng, your children." Then she saw the three accused coming
down from the house, going towards the road where they met Marcelo
Doctolero whom they also boloed several times until he fell. When
Antonio Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo Doctolero with a
bolo. Then they all left.3
On the other hand, appellants present the following version:
On November 8, 1970, at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, Ludovico
Doctolero met at the crossing of Bo. Banana and Binday road, San
Fabian, Pangasinan. Marcial Sagun, who was with his wife, Maria
Oviedo, Antonio Oviedo and the latter's wife, Lolita de Guzman.
Antonio Oviedo is the brother-in-law of Marcial Sagun, he being the
brother of Maria Oviedo. (tsn, p. 7 hearing, February 17, 1971-Somera).
Marcial Sagun and company were on their way home. (p. 8, Ibid).
Ludovico greeted Marcial Sagun: "Where have you been cousin." (p.
8, ibid) He noticed, however, Antonio Oviedo holding his bolo on his
waist. So, he asked his cousin Marcial Sagun why Antonio Oviedo was
like that. The latter unsheathed his bolo and boloed Ludovico with a
downward swing. He parried the bolo with his left hand (p. 9, ibid), but
he was hurt in the process (p. 10, ibid).
At that juncture, Marcial Sagun unsheathed his bolo and Ludovico
Doctolero also unsheathed his bolo. They watched each other's step (p.
10, ibid) with the two women, Lolita de Guzman and Maria Oviedo,
hitting the back of Ludovico with a wood (sic). The latter ignored them,
as his eyes were towards Marcial Sagun and his brother-in-law, Antonio
Oviedo (p. 11, ibid).
Realizing that he could not afford to fight both Marcial Sagun and
Antonio Oviedo, Ludovico tried to escape by boloing Maria Oviedo,
whom he hit at the back. He retreated and then run (sic) away, with
Marcial Sagun and Antonio Oviedo throwing stones at him. (p.
12, ibid).
Ludovico went to the house of his father, Antonio Doctolero. The latter
was eating his meal, together with his small children upstairs, while
accused-appellant, Conrado Doctolero was in the kitchen downstairs
also eating his meal, when Ludovico arrived (p. 13, ibid; p. 4, hearing
June 8, 1971-Salazar).
He told his father that he was wounded and asked him to look after his
children as he might meet something bad that night. He did not enter the
house anymore: he was only until the door. Then he ran away. His father
asked him what happened, but he did not answer anymore. (p. 14, ibid,
p. 4, Salazar).
He ran towards his house, taking a short cut by passing through the
house of his cousins, Juanito and Cresencia Doctolero. As he came near
his house, he saw the house of Marcial Sagun, who was also his
immediate neighbor. His blood boiled. He went to Marcial's house
calling him to get down. When Marcial did not get down, he peeped and
noticed that Marcial Sagun was not there. So he went upstairs to ask
Epifania Escosio, who told him that Marcial Sagun went towards the
South. He was about to leave when the old woman hit him at the back of
his neck, causing him to see darkness and (he) boloed her several times
(p. 13-19, tsn, hearing, February 17, 1971).
Ludovico went downstairs to look for Marcial Sagun. He stayed a while
at the trunk of the buri tree, thinking that he might be ambushed. Here,
he did not notice anyone coming from the south or the east. So he tried
to move, but as he did so, he noticed someone approaching him coming
from the yard of Marcelo Doctolero. As it was dark he did not recognize
the man and thinking that it was Marcial Sagun, he met him. It turned
out however, that the man was Marcelo Doctolero. So he returned the
bolo he was holding in its scabbard. He asked Marcelo Doctolero where
Marcial Sagun was, but Marcelo Doctolero answered him, "because of
your foolishness" and hit him on the shoulder, but in the process of
evading the blow, Ludovico Doctolero was hit at the back. As Marcelo
Doctolero tried to hit him for a second time he took a side step and took
hold of the stick and pulled it away, causing Marcelo Doctolero to fall
on his knees. He was able to get the club, but Marcelo Doctolero
unsheathed Ms bolo. When the latter insisted on unsheathing his bolo,
Ludovico Doctolero boloed him many times. (pp. 19-26, ibid).4
The police were then informed of the brutal murders as well as the
injury caused to the child. A doctor and a photographer went to the
scene of the crime and pictures were then taken.5
Quoting from the findings of the Rural Health Officer of San Fabian, the
court below established that ––
. . . nine (9) wounds were inflicted on the body of Marcelo Doctolero,
namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(1) Incised wound, 5 inches from the upper border of the left ear to the
side of the forehead. There is fracture of the underlying skull.
(2) Incised wound 6 inches in length 1 1/2 inches above the 1st wound
with fracture of the underlying skull.
(3) Incised wound 4 inches in length 1/2 inch above the 2nd wound with
fracture of the underlying skull.
(4) Incised wound 6 inches in length from the upper border of the left
eyebrow to the right eyebrow. There is also fracture of the underlying
skull.
(5) Incised wound –– 3 1/2 inches in length 1 1/2 from the angle of the
month towards the lower border of the right ear. The lower lobe of the
ear is detached.
(6) The lower third of the left small finger is almost cut off.
(7) Incised wound at the median portion of the left hand. There is a
severance from the level of the middle finger.
(8) Incised wound –– 1 1/2 inches long at the median portion and distal
3rd of the forearm, left.
(9) Incised wound 1 1/2 inches long above the 8th wound.
xxx xxx xxx
One wound was inflicted on the body of Lolita de Guzman, namely,
"stab wound around 3 cms. long and 4 inches in depth at the 2nd
intercostal space just at the left border of the sternal bone." (Exh. C).
And nine (9) wounds were inflicted on the body of Epifania, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(1) Stab wound around 4 cms. in length and around 5 inches deep
penetrating the sternal bone at the level of the 2nd intercostal space.
(2) Incised wound 3 inches in length just skin deep at the level of the
right clavicular region.
(3) Incised wound 2 inches in length also skin deep one inch below the
second wound.
(4) Chopping wound 3 inches in circumference with fracture of the
underlying skull at the right frontal portion of the head.
(5) Incised wound around one inch length at the left frontal portion of
the head.
(6) Incised wound 3 inches long just at the level of the shoulder joint,
exposing the bony portion, left.
(7) Incised wound one inch long 1/2 inch below the sixth wound.
(8) Incised wound one inch long 4 inches below the seventh wound.
(9) Incised wound around 3 inches in length at the base and lateral
portion of the hand right. There was fracture of some of the underlying
bones.6
Regarding the wounds inflicted upon Jonathan Oviedo, the resident
physician at the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, Dr. Rodolfo Ramirez,
explained the same as follows: "Stab wound, thru and thru, about 1 1/2
inches on the lateral aspect of the dischartered forearm, right. Then,
there was another about 1 inch of the middle aspect of the right forearm.
There was also an incised wound, about 1/2 inch, temporal right." He
further testified that the child was admitted to the hospital on November
8, 1970 and was discharged completely healed fifteen (15) days later.7
During the pendency of the present petition and on motion of appellant
Ludovico Doctolero, on May 17, 1976 the Court resolved to grant the
withdrawal of his appeal8
and entry of judgment with regard to said accused was made on the
same day.9
In a resolution dated June 28, 1988, the Court noted the manifestation of
counsel for accused-appellants, dated May 9, 1988, stating that Virgilio
Doctolero died on October 22, 1983 as per death certificate attached
thereto as Annex "A".10 Hence, this review is only with respect to the
liability of appellant Conrado Doctolero.
The trial court correctly found that appellant Conrado Doctolero
participated as an accomplice in the commission of the crimes charged.
In his defense, appellant denies having participated in the commission
thereof and raises the effete defense of alibi, contending that he was not
at the place where the crimes were committed. Appellant's pretension,
however, was not corroborated by any evidence other than the testimony
of the other erstwhile appellants. While the testimony of a co-
conspirator or an accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from
a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as it is
subject to travel suspicion.11
This uncorroborated denial of his participation cannot overthrow the
positive and categorical testimony of the principal witnesses of the
prosecution, and between the positive declarations of the prosecution
Witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves
more credence.12
There is no showing that the witnesses had any motive to testify falsely
against appellants. The only imputed grudge that Paciencia Sagun-
Diamoy may have had against appellants occurred years ago and she
was, at the time she testified, on good terms with appellants as shown by
the following testimony of Ludovico Doctolero himself:
Q And even before Paciencia Sagun Diamoy testified as one of the
prosecution witness (sic) your relationship with her was harmonious and
rather very closed (sic) being your cousin?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, whenever she goes to San Fabian to visit her
relatives she did not fail to see you in your house?
A Yes, sir sometimes she slept in my house.13
As to Maria Sagun, we agree with the court a quo when it held that
"Maria Sagun (wife of Marcial Sagun) pointed to the three accused.
Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, all surnamed Doctolero, as the persons
who went up her house that night of November 8, 1970. While Maria
Sagun may have a grudge against the accused Ludovico Doctolero by
reason of that previous incident at the crossing yet, no reason or motive
is shown why Maria Sagun should also implicate Conrado and Virgilio
Doctolero in the commission of the crime."14
When there is nothing in the records which would show a motive or
reason on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused,
identification should be given full credit.15
And when there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal
witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motives, the
presumption is that he was not so moved, and his testimony is entitled to
full faith and credit.16
In an attempt to disprove the findings of the trial court, appellant points
to certain inconsistencies that allegedly render the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses incredible. These inconsistencies, however, are
not so substantial as to destroy their credibility. As correctly explained
by the People, the seeming contradictions and minor inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the prosecution witness pointed out by the appellants
in their brief are mere inconsequential variations on the part of each
observer in relating his own observation of the same incident.
Contradictions and inconsistencies of witnesses in regard to the details
of an incident far from demonstrating falsehood constitute evidence of
good faith. Not all persons who witness an incident are impressed by it
in the same manner and it is but natural that said eyewitnesses should
disagree on minor details.17
In fact, inconsistences and contradictions in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses which refer to minor details cannot destroy the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses.18 And where the prosecution
witnesses were able to positively identify the appellants as the authors
of the crime and the testimonies were, on the whole, consistent oil
material points, the contradictions become insignificant.19
Nor can appellant successfully assail the testimony of Sgt. Delfin
Ronquillo who conducted the investigation himself and personally
examined the scenes of the multiple killings. Credence is accorded to
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers for it is
presumed that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence
of convincing proof to the contrary. Appellants have not shown that this
prosecution witness was motivated by an improper motive other than
that of accomplishing his mission.20
Sgt. Ronquillo established that the reports which were received at the
police department of San Fabian, Pangasinan shortly after the crimes
were committed were to the effect that the Doctoleros were involved.
He further testified that when he immediately proceeded to the scene of
the crime and investigated Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy she told him that
the accused Doctoleros came with bolos from the house of Marcial
Sagun.21
In fine, Sgt. Ronquillo merely testified objectively on the results of his
investigation and the weight to be accorded to his findings was properly
addressed to the trial court.
The lower court held that Conrado Doctolero and his brother, Virgilio,
participated as accomplices in the slaying of the women and the
infliction of injuries on the child. We agree with its findings and the
ratiocination of the Solicitor General with its evidentiary substantiation:
Now, there is no question that while the three appellants were still
stoning and hurling challenges at the house of Marcial Sagun, they must
have already heard the two women thereat protesting what they were
doing and shouting back at them (pp. 39-41, 97, 119, tsn. Jan. 13, 1971:
pp. 144-146, tsn., Jan. 14, 1971), after which all the three appellants
went up the house. Under these facts, it is impossible that both
appellants Virgilio Doctolero and Conrado Doctolero did not know or
were not aware when their brother Ludovico was brutally killing the two
women Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo and Epifania Escosio and wounding
the child Jonathan Oviedo inside the room of said house. Furthermore,
from the nature, number, and locations of the many wounds sustained
by the two women and child (Exhs. A, C, D, and D-1), it could not have
been possible for Ludovico's two brothers Virgilio and Conrado
(assuming that they did not go inside the house) not to hear either the
screams of pain of their brother's victims or the contact between the
blade of his bolo and their bodies when their brother Ludovico was
ruthlessly hacking them several times. . . . Under these circumstances, it
is obvious that appellants Conrado Doctolero and Virgilio themselves
knew what was going on inside the room of the house at the time, but
they just stood by and did nothing to stop their brother Ludovico
Doctolero from brutally hacking his women victims to death. It is,
therefore, reasonable to believe that the two appellants, Conrado and
Virgilio, merely stood by as their brother Ludovico Doctolero was
murdering the two deceased women, ready to lend assistance. Indeed,
there is no question that the presence of these two appellants upstairs in
the house of Marcial Sagun gave their brother Ludovico Doctolero the
encouragement and reliance to proceed as he did proceed, in committing
the heinous crimes against two defenseless women and a child.22
We have held that where one goes with the principals, and in staying
outside of the house while the others went inside to rob and kill the
victim, the former effectively supplied the criminals with material and
moral aid, making him guilty as an accomplice.23
Appellants contend that the murders occurred as a consequence of a
sudden thought or impulse, thus negating a common criminal design in
their minds. This pretension must be rejected since one can be an
accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime intended by the
principal provided he was aware that it was an illicit act.24
This is a doctrine that dates back to the ruling in U.S. vs. De Jesus25 that
where the accomplices therein consented to help in the commission of
forcible abduction, they were responsible for the resulting homicide
even if the purpose of the principal to commit homicide was unknown
to the accomplices.
Whatever doubt the court a quo entertained on the criminal
responsibility of appellants Conrado and Virgilio Doctolero did not refer
to whether or not they were liable but only with regard to the extent of
their participation. There being ample evidence of their criminal
participation, but a doubt exists on the nature of their liability, the courts
should favor the milder form of liability or responsibility which is that
of being mere accomplices,26
no evidence of conspiracy among the appellants having been shown.
The court below, however, erred in the penalty imposed for the physical
injuries inflicted on Jonathan Oviedo. The child required medical
attention for fifteen (15) days, hence the liability of appellants therefor
is for less serious physical injuries punished with arresto mayor under
Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no modifying
circumstances, a penalty of twenty (20) days of arresto menor should be
imposed for said offense on appellant Conrado Doctolero as an
accomplice.
The death of appellant Virgilio Doctolero during the pendency of this
appeal terminated only his criminal liability but not his civil liability.27
Also, while the death indemnity has been increased to P50,000.00 under
current case law, the same should not apply to Ludovico Doctolero, he
having heretofore withdrawn his appeal and the judgment rendered by
the trial court having long since become final and executory with
respect to him.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is MODIFIED and
judgment is hereby rendered IMPOSING on appellant Conrado
Doctolero three (3) indeterminate sentences of ten (10) years of prision
mayor to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal each for the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman
Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and a penalty of twenty (20) days
of arresto menor for the less serious physical injuries inflicted on
Jonathan Oviedo. Appellant Conrado Doctolero and the estate of
Virgilio Doctolero are ORDERED to indemnify, in the sum of
P50,000.00 for each set or group of heirs, the respective heirs of
Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero,
and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
SO ORDERED.

ARTICLE 19 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
MALACAÑANG
Manila
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate despite the
sustained vigorous efforts of the government to effectively contain
them;
WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the
apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to
penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate
the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS, President of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law do hereby
decree and order the following:
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period,
or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following
acts:
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or
from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any
offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats;
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,
document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he
knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed
any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a
crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or
concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service
of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's
offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object
with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or
outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in
consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any
wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to
prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the
law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to
the court.
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a
higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.
Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official
or employee, he shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder,
suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January, in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-one.
ARTICLE 19
MALACAÑANG
Manila
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is
rampant robbery and thievery of government and private properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the
part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers,
commonly known as fence, of stolen properties;lawphil.net
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an
accessory after the fact and punished lightly;
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who
profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do
hereby order and decree as part of the law of the land the following:
Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as
follows:
(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner
deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or
should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.
Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as
hereunder indicated:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is
more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of
such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall
be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining
thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000
pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but
not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property involved
is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is
over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value
does not exceed 5 pesos.
Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a
partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the
manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the
commission of the offense shall be liable.
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good,
article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For
purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
buy and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before
offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance
or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police
in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located.
The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police
shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions
of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit
required by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be
punished as a fence. lawphi1.net
Section 7. Repealing Clause. All laws or parts thereof, which are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.
1612, KNOWN AS THE ANTI-FENCING LAW.
Pursuant to Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the
Anti-Fencing Law, the following rules and regulations are hereby
promulgated to govern the issuance of clearances/permits to sell used
secondhand articles obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier
thereof:
I. Definition of Terms
1. "Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods, article, item,
object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been
used.
2. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons, partnership,
firm, corporation, association or any other entity or establishment not
licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or of
supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph.
3. "Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed to include any
individual dealing in the buying and selling used secondhand articles, as
defined in paragraph hereof.
4. "Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used
secondhand articles for the purpose of resale to third persons.
5. "Station Commander" shall refer to the Station Commander of the
Integrated National Police within the territorial limits of the town or city
district where the store, establishment or entity dealing in the buying
and selling of used secondhand articles is located.
II. Duty to Procure Clearance or Permit
1. No person shall sell or offer to sell to the public any used secondhand
article as defined herein without first securing a clearance or permit for
the purpose from the proper Station Commander of the Integrated
National Police.
2. If the person seeking the clearance or permit is a partnership, firm,
corporation, or association or group of individuals, the clearance or
permit shall be obtained by or in the name of the president, manager or
other responsible officer-in-charge thereof.
3. If a store, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other
establishment or entity has a branch or subsidiary and the used
secondhand article is acquired by such branch or subsidiary for sale to
the public, the said branch or subsidiary shall secure the required
clearance or permit.
4. Any goods, article, item, or object or anything of value acquired from
any source for which no receipt or equivalent document evidencing the
legality of its acquisition could be presented by the present possessor or
holder thereof, or the covering receipt, or equivalent document, of
which is fake, falsified or irregularly obtained, shall be presumed as
having been acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier and the
possessor or holder thereof must secure the required clearance or permit
before the same can be sold or offered for sale to the public.
III. Procedure for Procurement of Clearances or Permits
1. The Station Commanders concerned shall require the owner of a store
or the president, manager or responsible officer-in-charge of a firm,
establishment or other entity located within their respective jurisdictions
and in possession of or having in stock used secondhand articles as
defined herein, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from
receipt of notice for the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once
every fifteen (15) days within five (5) days after the period covered,
which shall contain:
(a) A complete inventory of such articles acquired daily from whatever
source and the names and addresses of the persons from whom such
articles were acquired.
(b) A full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale as well as the place
where the date when the sale or offer for sale shall commence.
(c) The place where the articles are presently deposited or kept in stock.
The Station Commander may, at his discretion when the circumstances
of each case warrant, require that the affidavit submitted be
accompanied by other documents showing proof of legitimacy of the
acquisition of the articles.
2. A party required to secure a clearance or permit under these rules and
regulations shall file an application therefor with the Station
Commander concerned. The application shall state:
(a) The name, address and other pertinent circumstances of the persons,
in case of an individual or, in the case of a firm, corporation,
association, partnership or other entity, the name, address and other
pertinent circumstances of the president, manager or officer-in-charge.
(b) The article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name
and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article
was acquired.
In support of the application, there shall be attached to it the
corresponding receipt or other equivalent document to show proof of the
legitimacy of acquisition of the article.
3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the
application and may require the presentation of other additional
documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of
acquisition of the article, subject to the following conditions:
(a) If the legitimacy of acquisition of any article from an unlicensed
source cannot be satisfactorily established by the documents presented,
the Station Commander shall, upon approval of the INP Superintendent
in the district and at the expense of the party seeking the
clearance/permit, cause the publication of a notice in a newspaper of
general circulation for two (2) successive days enumerating therein the
articles acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, the names and
addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and shall state
that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the
address of the store, establishment or other entity seeking the
clearance/permit. In places where no newspapers are in general
circulation, the party seeking the clearance or permit shall, instead, post
a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal
building of the town where the store, firm, establishment or entity
concerned is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles
in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale.
(b) If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of
the notice referred to in the preceding paragraph, no claim is made with
respect to any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the Station
Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought.
(c) If, before expiration of the same period for publication of the notice
or its posting, it shall appear that any of the articles in question is stolen
property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as
evidence in any appropriate case to be filed. Articles held in restraint
shall be kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit,
taking into account all considerations of right and justice in the case. In
any case where any article is held in restraint, it shall be the duty of the
Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the Commission on
Audit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper
under applicable existing laws, rules and regulations.
4. The Station Commander concerned shall, within seventy-two (72)
hours from receipt of the application, act thereon by either issuing the
clearance/permit requested or denying the same. Denial of an
application shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s
therefor.
5. The application, clearance/permit or the denial thereof, including
such other documents as may be pertinent in the implementation of
Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 shall be in the forms prescribed in Annexes
"A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" hereof, which are made integral parts of
these rules and regulations.
6. For the issuance of clearances/permit required under Section 6 of P.D.
No. 1612, no fee shall be charged.
IV. Appeals
Any party aggrieved by the action taken by the Station Commander may
elevate the decision taken in the case to the proper INP District
Superintendent and, if he is still dissatisfied therewith may take the
same on appeal to the INP Director. The decision of the INP Director
may also be appealed to the INP Director-General whose decision may
likewise be appealed to the Minister of National Defense. The decision
of the Minister of National Defense on the case shall be final. The
appeal against the decision taken by a Commander lower than the INP
Director-General should be filed to the next higher Commander within
ten (10) days from receipt of notice of the decision. The decision of the
INP Director-General should be appealed within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of notice of the decision.
V. Penalties
1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by
Section 6 of P.D. 1612 or who violates any of the provisions of these
rules and regulations shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
2. The INP Director-General shall recommend to the proper authority
the cancellation of the business license of the erring individual, store,
establishment or the entity concerned.
3. Articles obtained from unlicensed sources for sale or offered for sale
without prior compliance with the provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No.
1612 and with these rules and regulations shall be held in restraint until
satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has been established.
4. Articles for which no satisfactory evidence of legitimacy of
acquisition is established and which are found to be stolen property
shall likewise be held under restraint and shall, furthermore, be subject
to confiscation as evidence in the appropriate case to be filed. If, upon
termination of the case, the same is not claimed by their legitimate
owners, the article/s shall be forfeited in favor of the government and
made subject to disposition as the circumstances warrant in accordance
with applicable existing laws, rules and regulations. The Commission on
Audit shall, in all cases, be notified.
5. Any personnel of the Integrated National Police found violating the
provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 or any of its implementing
rules and regulations or who, in any manner whatsoever, connives with
or through his negligence or inaction makes possible the commission of
such violations by any party required to comply with the law and its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be prosecuted criminally
without prejudice to the imposition of administrative penalties.
VI. Visitorial Power
It shall be the duty of the owner of the store or of the president, manager
or responsible officer-in-charge of any firm, establishment or other
entity or of an individual having in his premises articles to be sold or
offered for sale to the public to allow the Station Commander or his
authorized representative to exercise visitorial powers. For this purpose,
however, the power to conduct visitations shall be exercise only during
office or business hours and upon authority in writing from and by the
INP Superintendent in the district and for the sole purpose of
determining whether articles are kept in possession or stock contrary to
the intents of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and of these rules and
regulations.
VII. Other Duties Imposed Upon Station Commanders and INP District
Superintendent and Directors Following Action on Applications for
Clearances or Permits
1. At the end of each month, it shall be the duty of the Station
Commander concerned to:
(a) Make and maintain a file in his office of all clearances/permit issued
by him.
(b) Submit a full report to the INP District Superintendent on the
number of applications for clearances or permits processed by his office,
indicating therein the number of clearances/permits issued and the
number of applications denied. The report shall state the reasons for
denial of an application and the corresponding follow-up actions taken
and shall be accompanied by an inventory of the articles to be sold or
offered for sale in his jurisdiction.
2. The INP District Superintendent shall, on the basis of the reports
submitted by the Station Commander, in turn submit quarterly reports to
the appropriate INP Director containing a consolidation of the
information stated in the reports of Station Commanders in his
jurisdiction.
3. Reports from INP District Superintendent shall serve as basis for a
consolidated report to be submitted semi-annually by INP Directors to
the Director-General, Integrated National Police.
4. In all cases, reports emanating from the different levels of the
Integrated National Police shall be accompanied with full and accurate
inventories of the articles acquired from unlicensed dealers or suppliers
and proposed to be sold or offered for sale in the jurisdictions covered
by the report.
These implementing rules and regulations, having been published in a
newspaper of national circulation, shall take effect on June 15, 1979.
FOR THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
INP:
ARTICLE 19
G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990
JORGE TAER, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Lord M. Marapao for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
SARMIENTO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision rendered by
the Court of Appeals in "People v. Jorge Taer," CA-G.R. CR No.
01213, 1 dated May 26, 1988, which affirmed in toto the conviction
of Jorge Taer for the crime of cattle rustling by the Regional Trial
Court of Bohol in Criminal Case No. 3104, 2 and the resolution of
the same court denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
After the required preliminary investigation in the 11th Municipal
Circuit Court at Valencia-Dimiao, in the province of Bohol, the
following information was filed in the then Court of First Instance
of Bohol, 14th Judicial District, Branch IV, at Tagbilaran City:
The undersigned, Third Assistant Provincial Fiscal, hereby accuses
Emilio Namocatcat alias Milio, Mario Cago, Jorge Taer and Cerilo
Saludes for the crime of Theft of Large Cattle, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 5th day of December, 1981, in barangay
Lantang, municipality of Valencia, province of Bohol, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
helping with each other, with the intent of gain and without the
consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and lead away two (2) male
carabaos with the total value of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS
(P4,000.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to and owned by Tirso
Dalde and Eladio Palaca; to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended parties in the aforestated amount.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Articles 308, 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime being purposely sought for or taken advantage by the
accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.
City of Tagbilaran, June 1, 1982. 3
After proper proceedings and trial, Saludes and Cago were acquitted but
Taer and Namocatcat were convicted. The dispositive portion of the
decision of the trial court, dated July 6, 1984, reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge
Taer GUILTY beyond doubt of the theft of large cattle and appreciating
against them the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 533 each is hereby sentenced to undergo the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and
TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS, together with the accessory penalties, and
to pay the costs; they are entitled to credit for their preventive
imprisonment. Accused Mario Cago and Cirilo Saludes are
ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. 4
Only Jorge Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals, finding the evidence of the prosecution that conspiracy indeed
existed between Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer, affirmed in toto the
decision appealed from. But the affirmance did not affect Emilio
Namocatcat because, as adverted to earlier, he did not appeal his
conviction by the Regional Trial Court.
Hence, this petition for review was filed by Taer alone.
In sum, Taer interposed these twin arguments:
1. That the extent of his participation did not go beyond the participation
of the original defendants Cirilo Saludes and Mario Cago. Therefore, he
submits that the acquittal of these two by the trial court should also lead
to his acquittal; 5
2. That the only evidence proving the alleged conspiracy between him
and Emilio Namocatcat was the confession of his co-accused Emilio
Namocatcat. However this should not be considered as admissible
because the same is hearsay under the rule of res inter alios
acta. 6
The undisputed facts as found by the trial court show that:
In the evening of December 5, 1981, accused Cirilo Saludes slept in the
house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez,
Bohol, whereat he was benighted. At about 2:00 o'clock dawn,
December 6, 1981, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived
at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by and which
Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend. The said carabaos were left at Taer's
place.
Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca of Lantang, Valencia Bohol discovered in
the morning of December 6, 1981 that their respective male carabaos, 3
to 4 years old, were missing at the different grazing grounds whereat
they tied the same the afternoon preceding.
After searching in vain for the carabaos at the vicinity, Dalde and Palaca
reported the matter to the police. On December 15, 1981, one Felipe
Reyes of Hinopolan, Valencia, Bohol, informed Dalde that he saw the
latter's lost carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and
Palaca went on that day to Datag and there they found their missing
carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near the house accused Taer who was
then not in the house as he was in Napo, Garcia-Hernandez, attending
the fiesta where he cooked for the accused Saludes. Upon query by
Dalde and Palaca why their carabaos were found at his place, accused
Taer, according to Dalde and Palaca replied that the carabaos reached
his place tied together without any person in company. According to
accused Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the carabaos were
brought to his place by the accused Namocatcat who asked him to tell
anybody looking for them that they just strayed thereat.
The 2 carabaos were taken by Dalde and Palaca from accused Taer's
possession on that day, December 15. 7
xxx xxx xxx
The Court of Appeals would consider these as proof of the existence of
conspiracy:
Altho (sic) accused Taer admitted that before December 6, 1981, he had
not met accused Namocatcat since 1975 and had not previously tended
any carabao belonging to Namocatcat, it is unbelievable that Taer was
not suspicious of the origin of the 2 male carabaos which to say the least
were delivered to him to be tended under strange circumstances, to wit,
at the unholy hour of 2:00 o'clock dawn after a travel of 14 kilometers'
in the dead of the night. He unreservedly accepted the charge of tending
them with the agreement as to the sharing of the produce out of said
carabaos (sic) use. If, as he asserted, Namocatcat left the carabaos with
him with the word that if anybody would look for them he was to tell
that the carabaos just strayed into his other carabaos (sic), the more Taer
ought to be more suspicious as to the origin of said carabaos, yet, since
that dawn delivery on December 6, 1981, until they were retrieved from
his possession, he never apprised the barangay captain, living just 2
kilometers away from his house, about the matter. He continued to hold
on to the stolen carabaos until they were recovered 10 days later.
Ordinarily, one would not hold on to a thing he suspects to be stolen to
obviate any criminal responsibility or implication. But accused Taer did
the opposite-a clear indication that he and accused Namocatcat did have
some kind of an unlawful agreement regarding the stolen carabaos. He
did not even reveal immediately to the authorities that the carabaos
delivered to him by Namocatcat were stolen and he tried his best to
keep under cover Namocatcat's Identity.
The Court, therefore, finds that conspiracy between accused Namocatcat
and Taer in the theft of the carabaos has been established beyond
doubt. 8
xxx xxx xxx
We disagree with the findings of the respondent court; they are mere
suspicions and speculations. The circumstances adverted to above do
not establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
regarding the commission of an offense and decide to commit it.
Although the facts may show a unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective, essential however is an agreement
to commit the crime and a decision to commit it. 9
Only recently we emphasized the rule that:
Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence. The same degree of proof necessary to establish
the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of criminal
conspiracy, which is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. 10
Thus mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a
party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose.
At most the facts establish Taer's knowledge of the crime. And yet
without having participated either as principal or as an accomplice, for
he did not participate in the taking of the carabaos, he took part
subsequent to the commission of the act of taking by profiting himself
by its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact.
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code states:
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime; 11
xxx xxx xxx
person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing
that the same property had been stolen is guilty as an accessory because
he is profiting by the effects of the crime." By employing the two
carabaos in his farm, Taer was profiting by the objects of the theft. 12
On the conspiracy charge, the most cogent proof that the prosecution
could ever raise was the implication made by the accused Namocatcat
(he did not appeal his conviction to the Court of Appeals) in his affidavit
of confession. 13
However, the settled rule is that the rights of a party can not be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. 14
The testimony, being res inter alios acta, can not affect another except
as provided in the Rules of Court. This rule on res inter alios
acta specifically applies when the evidence consists of an admission in
an extrajudicial confession or declaration of another because the
defendant has no opportunity to cross-examine the co-conspirator
testifying against him. 15
Since this is the only evidence of the prosecution to prove the
conspiracy with Namocatcat, this uncorroborated testimony can not be
sufficient to convict Taer.
The offense for which Taer is accused is covered by Articles 308, 309,
and 310, as amended by "Me Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. 1116
The penalty imposed on the principal for the crime of cattle rustling is:
Sec. 8. Penal provisions. — Any person convicted of cattle rustling as
herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle
involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed
without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a person is
seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the
commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
shall be imposed. 17
xxx xxx xxx
Inasmuch as Taer's culpability is only that of an accessory after the fact,
under Art. 53 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed.
The penalty two degrees lower than that imposed under the first
sentence of Section 8 of PD No. 533 is arresto mayor maximum or 4
months and one day to 6 months to prision correccional medium or 2
years 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. In addition, the
Revised Penal Code provides that when the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of three different penalties, the courts shag observe the rule
that when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances,
they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium
period. 18 Hence the imposable penalty would be prision
correccional minimum or 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
imprisonment.
Since the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds one year, we apply
the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 19
This law provides that the maximum term of imprisonment shall be that
which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said code which is prision
correccional minimum or 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months.
And the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The penalty next lower
would be in the range of destierro maximum or 4 years 2 months and 1
day to 6 years to arresto mayor medium or 2 months and 1 day to 4
months.
WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Tagbilaran and affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby
MODIFIED in that the herein JORGE TAER is convicted as an
accessory of the crime of cattle-rustling as defined and penalized by PD
No. 533 amending Arts. 308, 309, and 310 of the Revised Penal Code
and he will serve the minimum penalty within the range of arresto
mayor medium, which we shall fix at 4 months imprisonment and the
maximum penalty of prision correccional minimum which we shall fix
at 2 years.

With costs.

SO ORDERED.