Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16304 November 30, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL., defendants,
EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS, AURELIO DE LOS SANTOS, PEDRO DE LOS SANTOS and ENRIQUE NATIVIDAD, defendants-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Ciriaco Lopez, Jr. for defendants-appellants.
LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, Honorable Roberto Zurbano, presiding, finding the defendants-appellants guilty of robbery in band with homicide and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Uy King alias Kinga in the sum of P6,000 and Estefania Pagtama in the sum of P1,500, and each to pay one-fifth of the costs.
On or before the 13th of April of 1956, Uy King and his common-law wife Estefania Pagtama were living in the barrio of Nagbannagan, Lasam, Cagayan, where they operated a sari-sari store and a ricemill. At about four o'clock in the afternoon of said April 13, 1956, three men went inside the store ordering "Super Bock" and "Cruz de Oro". Two of them sat down in front of the tables inside, where the drinks were placed. The third one went in and out of the store.
At about six o'clock in the afternoon Estefania told them to leave the store as she was closing because it was already growing dark. She further asked them if they wanted to buy something else. Just then the person who went in and out of the store and three others entered the store and immediately pointed their guns at her. Three of them began ransacking the store, asking Estefania where her money was, but she answered that they had none. Upon hearing this one of the men gave her a blow in the breast and later on thrust the point of his revolver at her. The one who did this was Pedro Santos. In utter fear Estefania handed him P700.
But the robbers were not satisfied and as Estefania did not give them more, they tried to open the drawer and once of the table in the store but could not, so what the was to fire shots at the lock of the drawer and once the lock was destroyed, they opened it and took away its contents amounting to P800.
That same afternoon Estefania's common-law husband Uy King was engaged in work in the ricemill behind the store. As it was becoming dark Uy King lighted three Coleman lamps that they had and placed one in the store and another in the ricemill. After lighting the lamps Uy King went to the kitchen along the passage between the store and the ricemill to wash his hands. It was then that one of the robbers entered the passage way leading to the kitchen. On the way he saw Alexander Bulan, a nineteen-year old boy who was employed by the spouses to help run the ricemill. As Bulan was on the way of the robbers one of them pulled him and ordered him to lie down and thereupon fired two shot at Uy King The latter immediately fell down as the two shots hit him at the thorax. The shots were heard by Estefania as the robbers in the store were about to take the other P8,00 from the drawer of the table in the store.
The above story was given by Estefania and by Bulan. A third witness to the incident is Agustin Fajardo a neighbor of the store, who in the afternoon in question brought two sacks of palay for milling at the ricemill. Fajardo first carried one sack to the mill, passing through the store. As he passed thru the store he saw two persons outside the store drinking wine. After a while he went back to his house to get a second sack of palay, which he again carried on his back by way of the store to the ricemill. He was a witness to the incident of the shooting which occurred in the passage way from the store to the kitchen.
Estefania, wife of Uy King, who kept the store and also the immediate victim of the robbery, identified the two who drank wine in the store as the accused-appellants Pedro de los Santos and Enrique Natividad. It was Pedro de los Santos who gave her a blow on the breast, grabbed the P700 from her and fired his gun at the keyhole in the drawer from which another P800 was taken. The third who also entered the store and had gone in and out thereof was the appellant Eusebio Clemente. According to her also the two persons guarding the store were Aurelio de los Santos and Emilio de los Santos.
On the other hand Agustin Fajardo, the neighbor who brought palay to the mill of the deceased for milling, declared that he knows all the accused-appellants because they are farmers in the barrio of Nagbannagan. The first time that he entered the store the persons he saw outside were Emilio de los Santos and Eyong de los Santos. Testifying on the killing of Uy King he declared that it was Eusebio Clemente who fired the shots. (Eusebio Clemente was not one of the accused as he had not yet been apprehended at the time of the trial.)
For his part the house boy, Alexander Bulan, corroborated the said two witnesses and identified the accused appellants Pedro de los Santos and Enrique Natividad and another not then present in court, as those he saw inside the store in the afternoon of April 13. According to this same witness the two of the accused who were at the door of the store while the robbery was being perpetrated were Aurelio de los Santos and Emilio de los Santos, both of whom were carrying bolos.
With the identification of all the five accused-appellants by the three witnesses of the prosecution, as above described, we find that their identity was established beyond doubt, in spite of the defense of alibi set up by each and every one of them. Accused-appellant Enrique Natividad declared that he was in Patio, Lasam, in the afternoon of that day watching the threshing of the palay of Juan Bitamog from three o'clock in the after sunset; Aurelio de los Santos went to the house Agcaoili to play mahjong in the afternoon of April 13 and stayed there playing mahjong till the next morning; Pedro de los Santos went to a dance in the afternoon of April 13 early to arrange the chairs in the ballroom and stayed there till late at night; that at midnight asked to go home and saw the son of Eusebio Clemente (Guillermo Clemente) with seven others; that at that time Ben Clemente was holding a gun, a .45 caliber one, another was holding a longer gun, and still another holding a big straw bag; that they asked him to buy some cigarettes giving him ten pesos for the purpose and did so; that upon returning he offered them back the change, but they declined to receive it, warning him not otherwise they will kill him; and that thereof group proceeded to Cabayabasan. Emilio de los Santos also testified that he was in the house of Agustin Agcaoili playing mahjong in the afternoon of April his brother Eyong de los Santos was also there witnessing the game.
The place where the crime took place in the afternoon of April 13 is very near (one kilometer) the places where accused-appellants claimed to have been playing mahjong, witnessing the threshing of palay, or attending a dance. Their presence in these place withstanding, we believe that the testimony of the witnesses who saw them in the store of Uy King and identified each and everyone of them is sufficient to satisfy us beyond doubt that they were in fact the ones who perpetrated the crime.
The trial court found that there was no very clear and sufficient proof that there were more than three malefactors who participated in the robbery who carried arms. The assistant solicitor general disagrees with this finding and claims that the evidence clearly shows that four of them carried arms. We find this contention of the assistant solicitor general to be correct, four arms were clearly shown to have been carried by the malefactors. One, a long firearm, was used by the aggressor in killing Uy King, another a revolver, was used by Pedro de los Santos in intimidating Estefania and in breaking open the lock of the table where the P800 was concealed, while the appellants Emilio de los Santos and Aurelio de los Santos who stayed at the door of the store at the time the robbery was perpetrated, each had a drawn bolo.
The recommendation of the assistant solicitor general is that the penalty to be imposed is the maximum provided for in the law (Art. 294, par. 1). However, there is no sufficient number of Justices approving the imposition of the death penalty so the penalty that should be meted to each and every one of the accused-appellants should be that of reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, as thus modified, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
