The trial court forthwith rendered a partial decision convicting the nineteen accused, who pleaded guilty, of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder, qualified by treachery and premeditation (alleged in the information) and with the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism which was not offset by their plea of guilty In addition, recidivism, which was alleged in the information, was appreciated against Abella, Anover, Cidro, Dionisio, Enrigan, Galanto, Gavilaguin, Fernandez, Lorana, Maldecir, Opsiar, Rolando Pangilinan, Quijano, Ricafort, Taboy, Villaflor and Villegas.
Reiteration. which was also alleged in the information, was appreciated against Abella, Gavilaguin, Maldecir, Villaflor, Villarama and Dionisio.
Eighteen accused who pleaded guilty were sentenced to death. Rebutaso the nineteenth accused who also pleaded guilty, was sentenced to cadena perpetua (should be reclusion perpetual. All of them were ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen victims (Decision of March 5, 1966, p. 238, Expediente of Criminal Case No. 9405).
Those who were convicted were sent to the national penitentiary. The eighteen accused (including Ignacio) who pleaded not guilty were tried. Upon motion of the fiscal, on the ground of lack of evidence, the trial court dismissed the case as to Perfecto Bilbar (page 299, Expediente).
After trial, the lower court in its decision of September 14, 1969 convicted twelve of the said eighteen defendants, namely, (1) Apolonias, (2) Astrologia, (3) Barbajo, (4) Cabcaban, (5) Carballo, (6) Cuizon, (7) Duran, (8) Francisco, (9) Ignacio, (10) Pangilinan, (11) Provido, Jr. and (12) Tagana, of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation and quasi-recidivism (treachery was not mentioned).
The trial court sentenced to death each of the said twelve accused (in addition to the eighteen "close-confined" prisoners who pleaded guilty and were already sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision) and ordered them to pay solidarily an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs of each of the fourteen victims, namely, Abique, Bulatao, Camo, Castillo, Castro, Cayetano, Fuentes, Magpantay, Pacon, Padilla, Palino, Refugia, Sanchez and San Miguel. The twelve defendants were further ordered to pay solidarily an indemnity of three thousand pesos to each of the frustrated murder victims, Numeriano Reynon, Juan del Rosario and Bartolome de Guzman.
For lack of evidence, a verdict of acquittal was rendered for six accused, namely, Apolinario, Bilbar, Gaylan, Gelle, Lagarto and Sardenia (Decision of September 14, 1969, page 400, Expediente).
So, thirty of the thirty-seven accused were sentenced to death. The case of Rebutaso who was sentenced to cadena perpetua and who did not appeal, is not under review.
The death sentence imposed upon Astrologia is likewise not under review because it was not promulgated. After the trial, he was returned to the national penitentiary for security reasons. On October 10, 1969 he was erroneously paroled because the Board of Pardons and Parole was not informed that he was sentenced to death in the Davao court's decision of September 14, 1969 (Pages 413-4 of Expediente and pages 1, I -D 2 and 159, Rollo).
After the rendition of that decision or during the pendency of this case, death ended the agonies of ten of the twenty- nine accused who were sentenced to death. The ten dead defendants were Anover Cidro, Cuizon, Galanto, Maldecir Opsiar, Roberto Pangilinan, Rolando Pangilinan, Ricafort and Villaflor (Pages 98, 125, 171, 176, 181, 212, 336-B, 662, 717 and 750, Volumes I and II of the Rollo).
The death penalty imposed on the remaining nineteen accused named in the title of this case (Including Abella, Apolonias and Villegas who escaped from confinement, page 158, Rollo), is the one under automatic review "as law and justice shall dictate".
Review of death sentence on those who pleaded guilty. It may be recapitulated that of the nineteen accused in the death row, ten, namely (1) Abella, an escapee, (2) Dionisio, (3) Enrigan (4) Gavilaguin. (5) Hernandez, (6) Loraña (7) Quijano, (8) Taboy, (9) Villarama (he allegedly killed on February 12, 1976 a fellow prisoner in the national penitentiary, page 712, Volume II of Rollo), and (10) Villegas, an escapee, pleaded guilty upon arraignment and in open court ratified their extrajudicial confessions which were sworn to before the municipal judge. They were sentenced to death in the trial court's 1966 partial decision.
Nine of the ten were among the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in the three small cells who invaded the big cell. The tenth Dionisio, was confined in the big cell.
After a perusal of their confessions, we find that their admission of guilt therein is corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti or the fact that the massacre described therein actually took place,
The requirements of section 20, Article IV of the Constitution with respect to extrajudicial confessions are not applicable to the confessions herein because they were taken before the effectivity of the Constitution or before January 17, 1973, Magtoto vs. Manguera, L- 37201-02, Simeon vs. Villaluz, L-37424 and People vs. Isnani, L-38929, all decided on March 3, 1975, 63 SCRA 4).
Counsel de oficio contends that the accused made an improvident plea of guilty because the lower court did not apprise them of the meaning and consequences of their plea. Reliance is placed on the dictum that in capital cases "it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant" (U.S. vs. Talbanos, 6 Phil. 541, 543).
Also cited is the admonition that "judges are duty-bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction" (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., 19491, August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798, 817).
And the long settled rule is that in case a plea of guilty is made in capital cases "the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information, including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated, rot only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, fun significance and consequences of his plea" (People vs. Bulalake, 106 Phil. 767, 770. See People vs. Baluyot, L-32752-3, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 148).
As already indicated in our recital of the proceedings below, the trial court, in order to comply with the procedure in capital cases when a plea of guilty is entered, required the fiscal to present evidence. The latter presented the confessions of those who pleaded guilty.
It is true that the trial judge did not adhere to the ritualistic formula of explaining to the accused the meaning and consequences of their plea of guilty and the nature of the aggravating circumstances.
Presumably, the trial court did not do so, not only because the judicial confessions of the accused (pleas of guilty) were reinforced by their extrajudicial confessions, but also because it was cognizant of the fact that all the accused were quasi-recidivists who had already acquired experience in criminal proceedings and had, therefore, some comprehension of what a plea of guilty signifies.
We hold that in this case the accused did not make an improvident plea of guilty. As held in U.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil. 305, 318, it lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge whether he is satisfied that a plea of guilty has been entered by the accused with fun knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof.
People vs. Yamson and Romero, 109 Phil. 793, is a case similar to the instant case. In the Yamson case two prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison killed their fellow convict. At their arraignment for murder, they pleaded guilty with the assistance of a counsel de oficio. They were forthwith convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death, being quasi-recidivists
The accused appealed. This Court, in resolving the contention of the counsel de oficio that the accused had made an improvident plea, held that the trial judge must have been fully satisfied that the accused entered the plea of guilty with fun knowledge of the meaning and consequences thereof. That observation may be applied to the instant case. (Same holding in People vs. Perete, 111, Phil. 943 and People vs. Yamson, 111 Phil. 406.)
Review of the death sentence on those who pleaded not guilty. As to the other nine accused, who pleaded not guilty and were tried and sentenced to death, namely, Apolonias, Barbajo, Cabcaban, Carballo, Duran, Francisco, Ignacio, Provide. Jr. and Tagana, it is necessary to make a painstaking examination of the evidence in order to ascertain whether their guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Those nine accused were in the big cell (bartolina). The prosecution's theory is that they conspired with the sixteen raiders from the three small cells to kill the fourteen victims and inflict injuries on the three other victims.
1. Maximo Apolonias alias Max. He was born in Barrio Anas, Dimasalang, Masbate. He finished grade four. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Masbate and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correctional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. He was imprisoned in the national penitentiary on December 26, 1964. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8, 1965. He was twenty-four years old when he testified on March 13, 1968.
He testified that when the massacre occurred he climbed the wall of steel-matting. He allegedly did not know what transpired when the sixteen "close-confined" raiders entered the big cell. In his statement of August 9, 1965, he denied having joined the sixteen raiders. lie repeatedly declared that he could not have been involved in the massacre because he was a new arrival in the penal colony. The massacre took place fifty days after Ms arrival.
Witness Guevarra said that he did not see Apolonias assaulting the victims (109 tsn November 16, 1966). Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo implicated Apolonias but did not state definitely the acts perpetrated by the latter during the assault.
We find that the prosecution's evidence does net establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Apolonias. As to him, it is not sufficient to justify the judgment of conviction.
2. Jose Barbajo alias Joe. He is a native of Mabolo, Cebu City. He finished grade three. He was eighteen years old when he was convicted of robbery. The Court of First Instance of Cebu imposed upon him a penalty of six years and eight months of prision mayor (as a habitual delinquent he was not entitled to an indeterminate sentence) plus three years, six months and twenty-one days for habitual delinquency. He was received in the national penitentiary on July 9, 1964. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 13, 1964.
He was twenty-five years old when he testified on March 12, 1968. He declared that he was sick when the massacre occurred. He climbed the wall of steel-matting. He said that he was not a member of any prison gang.
Witness Guevarra identified Barbajo as a member of the Oxo gang and as having beaten with a piece of wood one "Bandes" (108, 115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18, 1966). Witness Del Rosario implicated Barbajo and witness Rodrigo definitely testified that Barbajo supplied to his companions the pieces of wood which they used in beating the victims (10 tsn July 25, 1967).
3. Catalino Cabcaban alias Inday. He was born in Barrio Asagna, Tanjay, Negros Oriental. He finished the fourth grade. He was convicted of theft and evasion of service of sentence. He was confined in the national penitentiary starting August 29, 1962. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15, 1964. He was twenty-six years old on October 20, 1967 when he testified.
In his statement (Exh. DD), he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang but he denied that he helped the sixteen raiders in assaulting the victims. He testified that at the time the massacre was being perpetrated he was clinging to the wall made of steel-matting. His body was examined while he was on the witness stand. It was tattooed but not with the letters "OXO".
Witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario, the companions of Cabcaban in the big cell, testified that Cabcaban was a member of the Oxo gang and that he helped Abella's group in attacking the members of the Sigue- Sigue gang in the big cell. Witness Rodrigo, a prisoner acting as a special policeman, pointed to Cabcaban as the person who beat Cabile with a piece of wood (4 tsn July 25, 1967). There is no victim surnamed Cabile, as reported in the transcript, but Rodrigo was probably referring to the victim named Salvador Abique who was also Identified by a witness as Tabique. The name "Cabile" might be an error in transcription.
4. Rodolfo Carballo alias Ruding Pakpak. He was born in Villadolid, Negros Occidental. He resided at 958 Antipolo Street, Tondo, Manila. He finished grade six. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.
He was brought to the New Bilibid Prison on December 8, 1962. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on June 20, 1964. He escaped from the penal colony on August 12, 1964 and was recaptured on March 15, 1965. He was twenty-seven years old when he testified on January 8, 1968.
He admitted in his statement to the investigator that he was a member of the Oxo gang and had the Oxo tattoo mark. He testified that during the massacre he climbed the wag of steel-matting but someone pulled his feet and he fell down on the floor.
Witness Guevarra testified that Gavilaguin, a closely-confined prisoner, wanted to sell his pillow to Carballo (who is Identified in the confessions as Ruding Pakpak), a prisoner in the big cell. It was that ruse which started the commotion (9598 tsn November 16. 1966). Guevarra Identified Carballo as one of those who helped the sixteen raiders (107 tsn November 17, 1966). That testimony was corroborated by witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo.
5. Elino Duran. He was born in Catbalogan, Samar. He finished grade five. He was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Samar and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal. He was brought to the national penitentiary on December 18, 1962. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on March 5, 1963. He was twenty-nine years old when he testified on March 12, 1968.
In his statement and testimony, he denied any participation in the massacre. He said that during the riot he climbed the wall of steel-matting. He said that he was not a member of the Oxo gang but he believed that he was counted as an Oxo sympathizer because he is a Visayan.
He admitted that he executed a statement and that the contents thereof were true (Exh. EE). On the witness stand, he pointed to Ignacio alias Pilay, Tagana, Astrologia, Cabcaban and Carballo alias Rudy as among those who took part in the massacre.
In his statement, he Identified Cuizon, Roberto Pangilinan, Rolando Pangilinan, Cabcaban, Lagarto, Apolonias, Astrologia, Ricafort, Carballo, Ignacio, Tagana and Dionisio as having taken part in the killings (See No. 12, Exh. EE ).
Prosecution eyewitnesses Guevarra, Del, Rosario and Rodrigo Identified Duran as having ellaborated with the sixteen raiders in perpetrating the massacre.
6. Jose Francisco alias Karate. He was born in Pila, Laguna and resided at San Andres Extension, Manila. He finished the first year of high school. He used to be a judo instructor. In 1964, he was convicted of robbery by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months of prision correctional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum (Exh. J-5). He was confined in the national penitentiary on February 15, 1964. He was received in the Davao Penal Colony on May 15, 1964 and confined in the big cell on June 25, 1965, or two days before the riot, because he was suspected of having smuggled deadly weapons into the prison compound (pp. 93 or 115, Record). He was twenty- five years old when he testified on January 8, 1968.
He declared that when the raiders entered the big cell he :stepped aside, climbed the wall of steel-matting and prayed. however, witness Guevarra Identified Francisco as a member of the Oxo gang who helped the raiders and who, armed with a wooden club, beat the victim, Gualberto Fuentes, who died (108, 114-115 and 127 tsn November 17 and 18, 1966). Witness Del Rosario included Francisco in his wholesale Identification of twelve assailants who helped the raiders from the small cells.
Counsel de oficio, who filed a brief for Francisco only, contended that the trial court erred in holding that Francisco was a co-conspirator. Said counsel alleged that Francisco was convicted of robbery (snatching) because he was framed up by a certain Patrolman Liwanag of the Manila police. According to counsel, Francisco and one Roberto Gonzales (an actor) had charged Liwanag with extorting money from the Karate Club, of which Francisco was a member, and, in revenge, Liwanag fabricated a complaint for robbery against Francisco who was convicted and sent to the Davao Penal Colony. No evidence was presented in the lower court by Francisco to prove that he was convicted on a trumped-up charge of robbery.
7. Guillermo Ignacio alias Pilay. He was born in La Carlota, Negros Occidental. He finished grade five. He was convicted of murder, frustrated murder, arson and evasion of service of sentence. He was received in the national penitentiary on July 27, 1953. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on September 22, 1961. He escaped three times from prison (Exh. J-12). He was thirty-eight years old when he testified on March 12,1968.
He declared that when the massacre began, he stood beside the steel-matting. He saw his fellow prisoner, Arsenio Guevarra (the prosecution witness), carrying a pillow. After the riot, he was investigated. He said that he did not read his statement but he was just made to sign it and he signed it so that he would not be maltreated. In his statement, he admitted he was a member of the Oxo gang.
Guevarra said that he did not see Ignacio helping the group (108 tsn November 17, 1966).
Witness Rodrigo, a prisoner acting as a special policeman, identified Ignacio as a member of the Oxo gang and as the prisoner who, during the riot, covered the door of the big cell with a blanket and pieces of wood and who, armed with a wooden club, took part in beating the victims (15-16 tsn July 25,1967).
Witness Del Rosario, in his wholesale Identification of the twelve prisoners who took part in the assault, included Ignacio (222 tsn February 10, 1967).
8. Eugenie Provido, Jr. He was born in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo. He finished the sixth grade. He was convicted of theft and violations of articles 157 and 178 of the Review Penal Code. He was received in the national penitentiary on December 3, 1959. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on February 29, 1964 (Exh. J-17). He was twenty-six years old when he testified on July 10, 1968.
He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell he was driven to a comer and was shielded by the other prisoners and in that situation he heard the shouts of the rioters. He said that he did not know what actually happened because he was solicitous about his own personal safety. He did not climb the steel- matting. He said that during the investigation of the case, he was told that he would be utilized as a State witness. He denied that he was a member of the Oxo gang.
Witness Guevarra testified that he did not know Provido (90 tsn November 16, 1966). However, when he was asked to point to his (Guevarra's) companions in the big cell who helped Abella's group, Guevarra fingered Provido and Identified him as a member of the Oxo gang and as having beaten the victims with a piece of wood (Ibid, 108 and 11 5; 127 tsn Nov. 18, 1966).
Witness Rodrigo Identified Provido as having beaten the deceased Jose Magpantay with a piece of wood (10-11 tsn July 25, 1967). Witness Del Rosario included Provido as among those who participated in the assault (222 tsn February 10, 1967).
9. Angel Tagana.He was born in Dulag, Leyte. He finished grade two. He resided in Pandacan, Manila. He had six convictions for robbery with physical injuries, malicious mischief and slander by deed and violations of city ordinances. He was received in the national penitentiary on June 15, 1963. He arrived in the Davao Penal Colony on May 8,1965 (Exh. J-9). He was twenty-six years old when he testified on January 9, 1968.
He declared that when the sixteen raiders entered the big cell and started stabbing his companions he ran to the side of the cell. He was not assaulted by anyone.
In his statement, he admitted that he was a member of the Oxo gang (p. 119 or 143, Record). Witness Guevarra Identified him as a member of that group and as having used a piece of wood in beating one victim (115 and 127 tsn November 17, 1966). Witnesses Del Rosario and Rodrigo also pointed to Tagana as one of those who helped Abella's group (222 tsn February 10, 1967 and 14-15 tsn July 25, 1967).
Counsels de oficio contend that the trial court erred in holding that there was a conspiracy among the accused. That contention has no basis in the evidence. The record supports the trial court's finding that "conspiracy can logically be inferred from the simultaneous and concerted acts of (the) sixteen raiders who, after putting down the guard and entering the big cell, joined and combined forces with their friends and associates-inmates of the big cell who were waiting for the go signal to commence the attack in pursuance of their criminal objective".
The trial court added that the acts and conduct of the accused from the start of their aggression until the riot was suppressed were characterized "by a swift, united and concerted movement that could easily indicate a community of purpose, closeness of association and concurrence of will", as shown particularly by the order of the two "close-confined" prisoners, Abella and Villaflor, that the Visayans in the big cell should stay on one side so that it could be ascertained that they were the allies of the sixteen raiders.
The conspiracy among the accused was manifest and indubitable. The massacre had been planned by the sixteen "close-confined" prisoners in collaboration with the other members of the Oxo gang in the big cell.
Counsel de oficio assails the credibility of witnesses Guevarra and Del Rosario. These two witnesses were prisoners in the big cell. They had sufficient opportunity to observe what took place during the hour-long riot. Del Rosario was himself a victim.
Counsel de oficio contends that reiteration is not aggravating because there is no evidence that the said accused had been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. On the contrary, according to counsel, the said accused were still serving sentence for their prior convictions.
Counsel's contention is correct as to Abella. Dionisio, Gavilaguin, Maldecir, Villaflor and Villarama to whom reiteration was considered aggravating. They were still serving sentence for their previous crimes at the time the riot occurred. In order that the aggravating circumstance of reiteration may be taken into account, it should be shown that the offender against whom it is appreciated had already served out his sentences for the prior offenses (People vs. Layson, 1-25177, October 31, 1969. 30 SCRA 92, 97).
But since the accused are quasi-recidivists the fact that reiteration cannot be appreciated against them and that their Plea Of guilty is mitigating will not affect the imposition of the death penalty for the murders and frustrated murders which they had committed.
The other contention of counsel de oficio that all the accused should be given the benefit of the extenuating circumstance of voluntary Surrender to the authorities is not correct. The accused did not surrender voluntarily and unconditionally. They rejected the initial requests for their surrender. They surrendered after Prison officials armed with guns demanded their surrender. They chose the person to whom they would surrender, namely, Jorge, the overseer.
Defense counsel's contention that treachery and evident premeditation are not aggravating in this case is untenable. The accused, who were all armed, unexpectedly attacked the unarmed and defenseless Sigue-Sigue inmates in the big cell who had no means of escaping from that cell and who could not avoid their assaults. The victims did not offer any resistance.
The accused had deliberately planned the attack as shown by the manner in which they executed the massacre. They provided themselves with improvised weapons. No one among the accused sustained any injuries or was exposed to any risk arising from any defense that the victims might have made. The victims were not able to make any retaliation. Moreover, there was abuse of superiority which absorbed cuadrilla
In People vs. Layson, L-25177, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 92, the four accused, also inmates of the Davao Penal Colony, who were armed with bladed weapons, entered on January 17, 1964 the cell of their fellow prisoners, locked the door thereof and stabbed him to death. It was held that the crime was murder aggravated by treachery, evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism.
The Layson case is similar to the instant case. The difference between the two cases is that in the instant case, more prisoners were involved and there were seventeen victims.
Motion for new trial. On October 30, 1973 or after the Solicitor General had filed his brief, twenty of the thirty accused, who were sentenced to death, filed, personally or without the assistance of counsel, a motion for new trial. Those twenty movants are Anover alias Abarca (who died on June 18, 1976), Barbajo, Cabcaban, Carballo, Cuizon (who died on November 6, 1977), Dionisio, Duran, Enrigan Francisco, Gavilaguin, Hernandez, Ignacio, Lorana, Opsiar, (who died on April 2, 1974), Provide, Quijano, Tagana, Taboy, Villarama and Villegas.
Of those twenty, ten accused, namely, Dionisio, Enrigan, Gavilaguin, Hernandez, Lorana, Opsiar, Quijano, Taboy, Villarama and Villegas had pleaded guilty, Nine of the ten were "close-confined" prisoners in the three cells. The tenth, Dionisio, was in the big cell. The other ten of the twenty accused were from the big cell. They pleaded not guilty and they were tried.
The twenty movants alleged in their motion for new trial that those who pleaded guilty did so due to "the coercion, harassment and intimidation applied by the prison authorities" or due to "third degree" and other brutalities. They further alleged that one of the "fabricated (prosecution) witnesses" was Guillermo Ignacio who made a retraction and that another witness, Elino Duran, was forced to sign his affidavit.
The Solicitor General commented that the grounds relied upon by the movants are not the grounds for a new trial under sections 2 and 3, Rule 121 and section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. He correctly observed that Ignacio and Duran were not utilized as prosecution witnesses.
Action on the motion for new trial was deferred until the case is decided on the merits. After an evaluation of the said motion, we find that it is devoid of merit and is not in order.
The record does not show that Ignacio retracted his statement. Duran never claimed that he was intimidated into making his statement. Those movants who pleaded guilty were convicted on the basis of their confessions which they ratified during the trial. On the other hand, those who pleaded not guilty were given a fair trial. They testified and they had the opportunity to prove their innocence. Their testimonies (except Apolonias' testimony) did not generate any reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
Propriety of the imposition of the death penalty on the eighteen accused As to the fourteen deceased victims, the crime is murder qualified by treachery which absorbs abuse of superiority and cuadrilla As to those who pleaded guilty, that mitigating circumstance is offset by evident premeditation. Recidivism is aggravating as to some accused As to all the eighteen accused, quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which justifies the imposition of the penalty for murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death) in its maximum period or death.
The fiscal and the trial court treated the fourteen killings and the injuries inflicted on the three victims as a complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. The trial court imposed a single death penalty.
However, the Solicitor General submits that the accused should be convicted of fourteen separate murders and three separate frustrated murders and punished, respectively, by fourteen death penalties and three penalties for the frustrated murders because the killings and injuries were effected by distinct acts.
It is argued that article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to this case. Cited in support of that stand is the ruling in U.S. vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56 that "where the defendant has fired two shots, killing one party and wounding another, the acts constitute two distinct crimes, each of which must be tried separately".
We hold that the Solicitor General's submission is not well taken. In the De los Santos case, supra, which involved two riots on two successive days in the national penitentiary wherein nine prisoners were killed (five on the first day and four on the second day), the fourteen members of the Sigue-Sigue gang who took part in the killing were convicted of multiple murder (a complex crime) and not of nine separate murders. Only one death penalty was imposed. It was commuted to reclusion perpetua for lack of necessary votes.
There is no compelling reason for not deciding this case in the same way as the De los Santos case. The two cases are very similar.
The ruling in the De los Santos case is predicated on the theory that "when, for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense, various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as one offense", a complex one (People vs. Penas, 66 Phil. 682, 687. See People vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 236, 302 and 906, where the falsification of one hundred twenty-eight warehouse receipts during the period from November 1930 to July 6, 1931, which enabled the accused to swindle the bank in the sum of one million four hundred thousand pesos was treated as only one complex crime of estafa through multiple falsification of mercantile documents and only one penalty was imposed).
That holding in the De los Santos case is buttressed by some precedents. Thus, in People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64 and 82, 102- 103, where seventy-seven Constabularymen murdered six policemen (including the assistant chief of police) and two private citizens and gravely wounded three civilians, they were convicted of multiple murder with grave injuries, a complex crime. The eleven sergeants and corporals were Sentenced to death while the sixty-six privates were sentenced to reclusion perpetua (See People vs. Umali, 96 Phil. 185, re sedition and multiple murder.)
In People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil. 27, nineteen Moros, forming part of a band of one hundred, massacred fourteen Constabularymen. They were charged and convicted of multiple murder, a complex crime. Their ring leader was sentenced to death. The other eighteen accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
In People vs. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975, where on a single occasion around fifty Maranaos were killed by a group of home guards (formerly Constabulary soldiers), the killing was held to be only one complex offense of multiple homicide because it 4 resulted from a single criminal impulse" and it was not possible to determine how many victims were killed by each of the accused. (See U.S. vs. Fresnido, 4 Phil. 522 where the killing of three Constabulary soldiers on a single occasion was punished as a single homicide.)
In People vs. Manantan, 94 Phil. 831, around eighty persons stationed on both sides of the highway in Sitio Salabusab, Bongabong, Nueva Ecija, fired at the group of Aurora Vda. de Quezon riding in five cars which were proceeding to Baler, Quezon Province. The group was going to attend the inauguration of a monument in honor of President Manuel L. Quezon.
Killed as a result of the ambuscade were eleven persons, namely, Mrs. Quezon, Baby Quezon Felipe Buencamino III, Mayor Ponciano Bernardo of Quezon City, Primitive San Agustin, Antonio San Agustin, Pedro Payumo, two Constabulary lieutenants, one corporal and a soldier.
Five persons were charged with multiple murder, a complex crime, for complicity in the ambuscade. The trial court sentenced them to death. They appealed. The case as to three of the accused was dismissed on the ground that their confessions were taken after they had been tortured.
Two other accused, Pedro Manantan and Raymundo Viray, executed extrajudicial confessions. At the trial, they relied on alibis, which were not given credence.
This Court imposed upon Manantan and Viray only one death penalty for the multiple murder but for lack of necessary votes, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
As persuasive authority, it may be noted that the Court of Appeals rendered the same ruling when it held that where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose "their individual acts in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act the act of execution giving rise to a complex offense. The felonious agreement produces a sole and solidary liability: each confederate forms but a part of a single being" (People vs. Leano, 1 ACR 447, 461 per Albert, J., with Justices Pedro Concepcion, Moran, Sison and Paras concurring).
In the Leaño case, a group of twenty-five persons armed with bolos, knives, sticks and other weapons, after shouting to one another "Remember the agreement! Don't be afraid!", attacked a group of excursionists coming from the Vintar Dam in Ilocos Norte, who were riding in a Ford coupe and omnibus.
As a result of the attack, one excursionist was killed, three suffered lesiones menos graves and four suffered light injuries. The trial court convicted the assailants of homicide only. The Solicitor General recommended that they be convicted of lesiones menos graves and lesiones leves in addition to homicide. The Court of Appeals held that the appellants were guilty of the complex crime of homicide with lesiones menos graves.
The holding that there is a complex crime in cases like the instant case is similar to the rule in robbery with homicide, a special complex crime, where the number of persons killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery does not change the nature of the crime.
We have already stated that the conviction for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder, as a complex crime, qualified by treachery (absorbing abuse of superiority and cuadrilla and aggravated by quasi-recidivism and evident premeditation (offset by plea of guilty) and recidivism, as to some accused, as shown in the record, should be affirmed.
The death penalty was properly imposed in conformity with articles 48, 160 and 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The indemnity of six thousand pesos should be increased to twelve thousand pesos for each set of heirs of the fourteen victims.
However, justice should be tempered with mercy. Considering the circumstances which drove the accused to massacre their fellow prisoners, they deserve clemency. The death penalty should be commuted to reclusion perpetua. The following observations of this Court in the De los Santos case have some relevancy to this case:
But the members of the Court cannot in conscience concur in the death penalty imposed, because they find it impossible to ignore the contributory role played by the inhuman conditions then reigning in the penitentiary, vividly described by the trial judge in his decision.
It is evident that the incredible overcrowding of the prison cells, that taxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance of ten centavos per meal for each prisoner, must have rubbed raw the nerves and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates, and predisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize from their owners the meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their miserable existence.
All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed like wolf packs on the weak, and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry for the control of the prisoners, abetted by the inability of the outnumbered guards to enforce discipline, and which culminated in violent riots. The government cannot evade responsibility for keeping prisoners under such sub-human and Dentesque conditions.
Society must not close its eyes to the fact that if it has the right to exclude from its midst those who attack it, it has no right at all to confine them under circumstances that strangle all sense of decency, reduce convicts to the level of animals, and convert a prison term into prolonged torture and slow death. (See People vs. Dahil, L-30271, June 15, 1979.)
Justice Barredo believes that in a case like the instant case, where, since the commission of the multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder in 1965 or more than fourteen years ago, the accused have been in confinement and in fact they have been in confinement for other offenses even prior to 1965, the death penalty should be commuted to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, following the precedent established in the aforecited De los Santos case, the death penalty imposed by the lower court is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity of six thousand pesos is increased to twelve thousand pesos. The indemnities for the frustrated murders are affirmed. Defendant Maximo Apolonias is acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Antonio, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio Herrera, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., concurs. Please see my concurring opinion in People vs. Borja, et al., G.R. No. L-22948.
Makasiar, J., concurs in the result.
Santos, J., is on leave.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
