EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-975. Febrero 27, 1950.]
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, contra MACARIO MACAYA Y OTRO, acusados. GREGORIO GAGAWARAN, apelante.
D. Ambrosio Padilla en representacion del apelante.
El Procurador General Auxiliar Sr. Guillermo E. Torres y el Procurador Sr. Manuel Tomacruz en representacion del Gobierno.
SYLLABUS
1. DERECHO PENAL; ROBO CON VIOLACION; PRUEBAS; LA IDENTIDAD DEL ACUSADO POR LA DECLARACION DE LA MISMA OFENDIDA. — La declaracion de la misma ofendida C es sufficiente, pues tuvo bastante opurtunidad de reconocerle, porque durante la busqueda de los efectos de valor en el aparador y durante las tres violaciones, uno de los acusados enfocaba de vez en cuando un flaslight. Ademas, por sus voces les podia conocer a las satiros proque eran vecinos del barrio y les conocia desde la niñez.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO ES NECESARIA CORROBIRACION. — La de claracion de la ofendia quye no inspira la menor duda en cuanto a la identidad del acusado, es suficiente prueba en que basar una condena. No es necesaria corroboracion.
D E C I S I O N
PABLO, M p:
En la noche del 5 de noviembre de 1945, el acusado y cuatro compañeros, despues de fracasar en sus esfuerzos por abrir la puerta principal de la casa de Victor Dalawantan en el barrio Coliat de la Ciudad de Quezon, dispararon al aire varios tiros y, destrozando la puerta trasera, entraron ordenando que todos se pusieran boca abajo. Los asaltantes estaban todos armados, unos con revolver y otros con fusil. Victor Dalawantan, Teodora Diaz y sus hijas Catalina y Milagrosa, aterrorizados, cumplieron la orden. Como a la intimacion de ellos Teodora Diaz contestara que no tenia dinero, uno le dio un puntapie. Apagada la lampara de petroleo, destrozaron el aparador y desparramaron al suelo su contenido, usando de cuando en cuando un flashlight en la busqueda de lo que querian sacar. Macario Macaya, Benigno Rodriguez y Gregorio Gagawaran trataron de separar a Milagrosa que habia abrazado a su madre, y como no consiguieran, uno le dio un puntapie. Acto seguido cogieron a Catalina llevandosela a la cocina en donde con mecate amarraron su cuello y pie derecho y, echada al suelo, uno despues de otro yacio con ella mientras uno la sujetaba las manos, y otro el pie izquierdo. Mientras uno violaba a la victima, soltera de 21 años de edad, uno de los satiros tal vez para gozar en la afrenta ajena o movido por sentimiento morboso, enfocaba de vez en cuando su flashlight a ella y a sus compañeros. Despues de la salida de los asaltantes, los dueños de la casa descubrieron que los acusados se habian apoderado de su ahorro de P150; un reloj para hombre avaluado en P25 de la propiedad del marido; dos gargantillas, en P20; y dos pares de aretes, en P10, de las dos hermanas; en total valen P205.
Al siguiente dia, Victor Dalawantan dio cuenta del suceso a la policia de San Juan y el policia Ruben S. del Rosario gestiono que la Dra. Leticia J. Salas de la oficina del examinador medico del departamento de policia de Manila bajo la direccion del Dr. Leonard W. Jarcho, capitan de la comandancia militar (MC), reconociera a Catalina Dalawantan. La Dra. Salas encontro en el cuerpo de Catalina:
"Physical examination —
Abrasion and hematoma, forehead, left;
Contusion with hematoma, infra-orbital region, right;
Linear contusion with abrasion, neck, left side;Contusion with abrasion, elbow, left;
Multiple contusions, right arm, dorsum of right wrist, left arm and forearm, right hypochondrium, left upper quadrant of buttocks, inner surface of right leg and right thigh at its middle third, medial and lateral surface of the left knee and lateral surface of left thigh.
"Vaginal examination —
Hymen present in its virginal state but lacerated at 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock. The lacerations are fresh and still bleed on manipulation.
Superficial laceration at the fourchette.Minute abrasions, perianal region.
"Laboratory examinations —
Vaginal smear positive for mature spermatozoa;Urethral smear is negative.
"Conclusion:
Laceration by force of a virginal hymen."
Presentada la querella el 23 de noviembre, se expidio el mandamiento de arresto correspondiente contra los cinco acusados y solo fue arrestado Gregorio Gagawaran en 12 de diciembre. Despues de la vista correspondiente, el acusado fue condenado a la pena indeterminada de 14 años y 8 meses a 20 años de reclusion temporal, indemnizacion en la cantidad de P205 con las accesorias, y el pago de una quinta parte de las costas. Contra esta sentencia el acusado apelo.
La misma defensa admite que se cometio el delito de robo con violacion; pero contiende que la identidad del acusado-apelante no ha sido debidamente establecida. La declaracion de la misma ofendida Catalina es suficiente, pues tuvo bastante oportunidad de reconocerle, porque durante la busqueda de los efectos de valor en el aparador y durante las tres violaciones, uno de los acusados enfocaba de vez en cuando un flashlight. Ademas, por sus voces les podia conocer a los satiros porque eran vecinos del barrio y les conocia desde la niñez.
La no presentacion inmediata de la querella puede dar lugar a la sospecha de que Catalina no sabia quienes eran los autores del crimen. Aparecen en autos, sin embargo, pruebas de que el padre de la ofendida dio cuenta del suceso a la policia municipal de San Juan dando los nombres de los dos acusados que el reconocio; el policia Ruben S. del Rosario procuro al siguiente dia obtener de la doctora el certificado medico sobre el estado de Catalina; y el policia Cipriano R. Jose ya se entero de los nombres de los tres que violaron a ella cuando al siguiente dia se constituyo en la misma casa; pero si ninguno de los dos policias dio cuenta inmediatamente a la fiscalia del suceso, no era culpa de la parte ofendida. Si despues de obtenido el certificado medico y despues de enterarse los policias de los nombres de los cinco acusados, se hubiera endosado el asunto a la fiscalia, esta hubiera presentado la querella y el juzgado hubiera expedido el mandamiento de arresto correspondiente. La injustificada tardanza de la presentacion de la querella dio lugar a que los acusados, excepto el apelante, se burlaran del mandamiento de arresto.
La declaracion de la ofendida que no inspira la menor duda en cuanto a la identidad del acusado, es suficiente prueba en que basar una condena. No es necesaria corroboracion. (E.U. contra Dacotan, 1 Jur. Fil., 697; E.U. contra Mondejar, 19 Jur. Fil., 169; E.U. contra Olais, 36 Jur. Fil, 882.)
Cuanto a la defensa de coartada. El Dr. Luis B. Sulit declaro que visito al acusado en noviembre 3 y 5; que en noviembre 5, tenia 41 grados de fiebre y en 5 de diciembre en estado comatoso, y, por lo tanto, no estaba en condiciones de violar. Este mismo doctor declaro que ya no le vio porque cuando habia de tratarle el dia 8 del mismo mes, ya estaba arrestado. El expediente, sin embargo, demuestra que dicho acusado solamente fue arrestado el 12 de diciembre.
Leon Makinkin declaro que habia estado en la casa del acusado el dia 5 de noviembre y le encontro enfermo con fiebre. Pero Leon, segun el mismo, se presento como testigo sin haber sido citado, ni que haya sido hablado por el acusado; que el acudio a la vista por su propia cuenta y por compasion al acusado.
Dionisia Callera dijo que vio al acusado el 5 de noviembre en su casa, muy enfermo; que fue a pagar su deuda; pero es extraño que hiciera tal pago en tal dia si, segun ella misma, era su costumbre pagar sus deudas al acusado en el primero y 16 de cada mes. Tambien declaro que ella estuvo ordenando la caraballa en lugar del acusado que estaba enfermo, declaracion que desmintio el acusado. La testigo dijo adema que el acusado fue arrestado el 12 de noviembre y desde entonces ya no le vio. Esta declaracion tampoco es verdad porque el acusado fue arrestado solamente el 12 de diciembre. El Juez a quo que tuvo oportunidad de ver a todos los testigos no dio credito al testimonio de los de la defensa. No hemos encontrado razon alguna para alterar sus conclusiones.
Dos circunstancias agravantes, por lo menos, concurrieron en la comision del delito: nocturnidad y abuso de superioridad. No esta de acuerdo con la ley la pena dada al acusado, pues la que debe imponerse, segun el articulo 294, parrafo segundo en relacion con el articulo 64 del Codigo Penal Revisado, es la maxima o reclusion perpetua. Debe indemnizarse ademas a Catalina en la cantidad de P1,000 por la violacion. (Art. 345, Codigo Penal Revisado.)
Dictese sentencia imponiendo las penas indicadas y se confirma la sentencia en todo lo demas con costas.
Moran, Pres., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, y Reyes, MM., estan conformes.
Separate Opinions
TORRES, J., concurring:
I concur. I strongly believe that this court is more than justified in increasing the penalty imposed by the lower court upon appellant to that of reclusion perpetua. The evidence shows that the complex crime of robbery with rape under consideration was committed by appellant and his co-accused in the dwelling of the offended party, and Catalina Dalawantan was raped by each of the three accused in the presence of the other two. (Rev. Penal Code, art. 14, pars. 3 and 17; U.S. vs. Iglesia, 21 Phil., 55.)
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. IRINEO BONDOC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-2278. February 27, 1950.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRINEO BONDOC (alias DICK TRACY), defendant-appellant.
Luis J. Gonzaga for appellant.
Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; ALIBI AS A DEFENSE. — The court has ruled time and again that a defense of alibi, which the accused tried to establish must be looked upon with suspicion. It is obvious that it cannot prevail against the explicit and positive identification made of I. B. by mayor T of Capas and policeman L. B. who, without hesitation, while on the witness stand, testified that they saw him with group of ambush-caders firing his carbine at the party of the mayor and his policemen.
2. AMNESTY; PROCLAMATION No. 76; ITS PURPOSE AND OBJECT. — Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, intended for crimes committed after the liberation by members of the hukbalahap and PKM, who were no longer engaged in the resistance against the Japanese forces, but against the constituted government of the Republic of the Philippines, was issued by the President to bring about "the return of these dissident and recalcitrant element of our population to their homes and the resumption by them of their lawful pursuits or occupations as loyal and law-abiding citizens will accelerate the rehabilitation of this war-devastated country, restore peace and order , and secure the welfare and happiness of their communities."
3. ID.; ID.; CONDITIONS "SINE QUANON" TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY PERSONS INVOKING ITS BENEFITS. — Circular No. 27 issued by the Secretary of Justice for the enforcement of Proclamation No. 76. Paragraph 1 thereof requires that it is necessary that members of the Hukbalahap and PKM organizations should present themselves, with all their arms and ammunition to the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, within twenty days from June 25, 1948, when the said proclamation was concurred in by the Congress. Paragraph 2 requires that a person claiming the benefit of the amnesty, must, on or before July 15, 1948 present himself together with all his arms and ammunition to an officer of the law who shall issue to him a certificate in the form prescribed therein, and since the accused failed to comply with such requirements, the benefits of said amnesty cannot be extended in his favor.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J p:
Irineo Bondoc and about eleven others had conspired and resolved to kill Mayor Victor Tizon of Capas, Tarlac and his escort of policemen, while the former was conducting community assemblies in different places in his municipality in the early part of 1946.
Bondoc and his co-accused learned that in the morning of January 19, 1946, Mayor Tizon and his policemen were going to the sitio of Talimundoc, Capas. At about 9 a. m., the mayor, the chief of police, one police sergeant and five policemen, all armed and in uniform, were walking on the road to Talimundoc, and when they reached a place covered on the left with thick cogon grass, about one kilometer from Talimundoc, there was suddenly a volley of shots fired from that place. The mayor and his party returned the fire, but in the exchange of shots which lasted from ten to fifteen minutes, policeman Ricardo Quizon and Candido Dayrit were killed, the first instantaneously, and the latter, before reaching the municipal building.
Mayor Tizon, looking towards the place of the ambuscade, fired his revolver and saw Irineo Bondoc, without hat and wearing a short- sleeved khaki shirt and short khaki pants, with the group of ambuscaders firing at him. The mayor, upon coming face to face with appellant, noticed that the latter lay down and, with his carbine, fired several shots at him. Then, when the group of appellant dispersed, the mayor saw Irineo Bondoc again as he was crossing a concrete bridge over an irrigation canal. During the exchange of shots between the two groups, the two policemen who were killed were standing almost behind the mayor.
It appears that policeman Ricardo Quizon met instantaneous death, because a bullet perforated the frontal bone and destroyed and smashed the brain substance; while policeman Candido Dayrit died of profuse hemorrhage caused by two bullet wounds penetrating the upper part of his right knee.
This case, No. 363 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, is before us by an appeal entered by Irineo Bondoc from the judgment rendered by the lower court, which found him guilty of two murders and sentenced him in each case to reclusion perpetua, the total of which shall not, however, exceed forty years in accordance with article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.
The facts stated at the beginning of this decision and which led to the filing of the information for double murder against this appellant were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, not only through the testimony of Mayor Tizon and Doctor Sikat, but also by that given by two other witnesses. Francisco Sanchez testified that he was the justice of the peace of Capas, Tarlac who conducted the preliminary investigation in this case. He identified Exhibit A as the same statement given before him by Irineo E. Bondoc on November 29, 1947. Bondoc made a statement in the Pampango dialect which was translated by the justice of the peace into the English language. The answers of the accused were, according to the witness, given spontaneously and voluntarily without any promise of reward or immunity, without any intimidation or force having been used, in the presence of many witnesses. In said Exhibit A (page 1) Bondoc admitted that he was "one of those who were criminally responsible for the murder," that he did it "in compliance with an order from the director Mr. Ruben Velasco of Squadron 50 of the Hukbalahap."
Another witness, Lamberto Baun, municipal policeman of Capas, testified that he was one of the members of the party of Mayor Tizon on the morning of January 19, 1946, escorting said official who was going to Talimundoc to hold a community assembly. Before the ambuscade, Irineo Bondoc was already known to the witness who also was acquainted with other members of the attacking group, such as Federico Aquino and Atanasio Dayrit. Lamberto Baun described the attack; he said that the two policemen who were killed in the encounter, Ricardo Quizon and Candido Dayrit and another one were close behind Mayor Tizon when they were shot.
The defense, by means of two witnesses, tried to establish an alibi for the accused. Eustaquio Lunga took the stand for that purpose, but upon cross-questioning by the prosecution he admitted his inability to reckon dates. He could not give the date of the town fiesta of his hometown during the year immediately preceding the date of the trial, which made his testimony on the alleged presence of the appellant in his house in Tarlac, the capital of the province, on a much earlier date, January 19, 1946, most unreliable and unconvincing.
Another witness, Modesto Bondoc, gave testimony on his accidental meeting with the wife of appellant, in the house of his parents in Tarlac on the eve of the trial without knowing that he was going to testify, which clearly stamps his testimony as an eleventh hour fabrication.
Considering that this Court has ruled time and again that a defense of alibi which the accused tried to establish by such means must be looked upon with suspicion, it is obvious that it cannot prevail over the explicit and positive identification made of Irineo Bondoc by Mayor Tizon of Capas and policeman Lamberto Baun who, without hesitation, while on the witness stand, testified that they saw him with the group of ambuscaders firing his carbine at the party of the mayor and his policemen. (U. S. vs. Olais, 36 Phil., 828.).
During the pendency of this appeal, counsel for appellant moved for the dismissal of this case on the ground that Irineo Bondoc being a Hukbalahap, and having committed the crimes charged against him in furtherance of the aims of such dissident organization, is entitled to the benefits of Presidential Proclamation No. 76 issued by the President of the Philippines on the 21st of June 1948, which granted amnesty to the leaders and members of the Hukbalahap and the PKM, "who have committed the crimes of rebellion, sedition, illegal association, assault upon, resistance, and disobedience to persons in authority, and/or illegal possession of firearms; Provided, however, That this amnesty shall apply to those who shall have presented themselves with all their firearms and ammunition to the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines within twenty days from the date this proclamation is concurred in by the Congress."
Counsel urges that Irineo Bondoc had made an application for registration under said Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, which is certified to by the provincial warden of Tarlac. But such motion for dismissal is opposed by the Solicitor General on the ground that the petitioner did not comply (a) with the provision of Circular No. 27 (a) of the Secretary of Justice, dated July 21, 1948, outlining the procedure to be followed by applicants for amnesty who are presently in jail, either as detention or convicted prisoners; and (b) with the provisions of Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 requiring the surrender of firearms and ammunition.
Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, intended for crimes committed after the liberation by members of the Hukbalahap and PKM who were no longer engaged in the resistance against the Japanese forces, but against the constituted government of the Republic of the Philippines, was issued by the President to bring about "the return of these dissident and recalcitrant elements of our population to their homes and the resumption by them of their lawful pursuits or occupations as loyal and law-abiding citizens will accelerate the rehabilitation of this war-devastated country, restore peace and order, and secure the welfare and happiness of their communities."
For the enforcement of the provisions of said Proclamation No. 76, Circular No. 27 was issued by the Secretary of Justice prescribing the conditions under which persons applying for the benefits of such proclamation could have the benefits thereof extended to them. According to paragraph 1 of said circular, it is necessary that members of the Hukbalahap and PKM organizations should present themselves, with all their arms and ammunition to the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, within twenty days from June 25, 1948, when the said proclamation was concurred in by the Congress. Paragraph 2 requires that a person claiming the benefit of the amnesty, must, on or before July 15, 1948 present himself together with all his arms and ammunition to an officer of the law who shall issue to him a certificate in the form prescribed therein.
The record fails to show that this appellant has complied with such requirement as to entitle him to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, particularly the fundamental requisite mentioned in said circular re the surrender of firearms and ammunition. Considering that the rebellious attitude of those dissident organizations, the Hukbalahap and PKM and their members, is predicated on the fact that they have in their possession firearms so that without them they cannot maintain their defiant attitude against the government, we believe that this appellant has failed to comply with such requirement and therefore his motion to dismiss lacks merit (People vs. Santos, L-1820 and 1821, 46 Off. Gaz., 6085; Vol. 15, No. 1, Lawyers' Journal, page 21).
It is quite evident that appellant, who confessed his active participation in the ambuscade by firing several shots at the mayor and his escort of policemen, did not take the stand, and simply relied on his two above mentioned witnesses in an unsuccessful attempt to establish an alibi, is guilty of the two murders charged in the information. And although in our opinion, in the light of the facts clearly disclosed by the evidence, this appellant and his confederates have also committed the crimes of (a) assault upon a person in authority — the mayor of Capas who was then engaged in the performance of his duties — and (b) assault upon agents of an authority — the municipal policemen who were also engaged in the performance of their duties — yet such omission or oversight by the prosecution will not bar us from finding, as we do hereby find, Irineo Bondoc alias Dick Tracy guilty of the murder of each of the two policemen who lost their lives in that ambuscade.
In view of all the foregoing, and finding no error committed by the judge a quo in the instant case, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla., Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Tuason, J., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
MORAN, C.J.:
Mr. Justice Paras voted for the affirmance of the judgment appealed from, but, on account of his being on leave at the time of the promulgation of this opinion his signature does not appear herein.