Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

The People of the Philippines vs .

Pancho Pelagio y Alfonso, et al.,

Pancho Pelagio y Alfonso, Oscar Caymo y Reyes and Jose Guico y Paras
G.R. No. 16177 May 24, 1967

An ex-convict Jose Guico, together with his common-law partner, Evelyn Villanueva resided at No. 289-
A. Leveriza St., Pasay City from January to March of 1955. At around 1500 hours, while Armando
Manalang, a friend of the spouses, was at the home of Guico and Villanueva when their other friend
Pancho Pelagio arrived to see the spouses and to borrow money as his wife had just delivered a child.
It was undetermined if his request for a loan was accommodated.

At that time, Manalang seeing Pelagio’s visit, informed him of the planned robbery with friends which
was later were revealed by Manalang to be Jose Guico, Oscar Caymo and Arcadio Balmeo. The
planned robbery was discussed by Pelagio and Manalang in the presence of Guico and Villanueva,
which was later joined by Caymo and Balmeo.

On March 24, 1955, Evelyn Villanueva, Pancho Pelagio, Armando Manalang, Oscar Caymo and Arcado
Balmeo met again at Guico’s residence and finalized their plan to rob the home of the Aling Nena,the
former landlady of Guico, at No. 327 G. Villanueva St., Pasay City. Guico was not able to attend the
discussion as per claim as he was in the bathroom, taking his shower. Nonetheless, it was established
that Guico explained the location and the points thereof through which entrance and exit should be
effected. They ended their meeting at around 1800 on that evening of March 24, 1955, and set out the
execution of their plan. Sans Evelyn Villanueva, went to Aling Nena’s residence. Before reaching the
place, Manalang hailed a taxi as per the instruction of Caymo. Only Balmeo and Caymo were the only
ones who entered the house, as Pelagio served as a lookout from the gate.

Caymo and Balmeo gained access thru the kitchen door that was found to be open, and saw Mrs.
Severina de Gloria, whom he pointed the gun and threatened her in providing all the money and jewelry.
Caymo then ordered Mrs. de Gloria to lie face downward, covered her with a blanket and cautioned her
against moving. Caymo and Balmeo immediately ran into the street, with Pancho Pelagio nowhere to
be seen.

They immediately went to the corner of F. Fernando street where Manalang was waiting for them in a
taxi, in which they immediately rode. However, when they were about to leave, a jeep from the opposite
direction blocked them, a man alighted from the keep and started to walk towards the taxi. Identifying
that it was a police officer, Manalang instructed Caymo to shoot at the man. The man, identified as
Patrolman Francisco Trinidad of the Pasay Police Department fell dead.

From the scene of the shooting, the three went direct to a house in Buendia street owned by Manalang’s
sister where they change their clothes, hid the death weapon the money and jewelry they had robbed.
Afterwards, Caymo and Balmeo met Pancho Pelagio at a house in Blumentritt, where Pelagio explained
that he had to scamper as he noticed someone slipped out of the house apparently to summon the

No records has disclosed how they were apprehended, however that on March 25, 1955, Oscar
Caymo was taken to the National Bureau of Investigation and was found positive for nitrate
burns in both hands. He then executed this extrajudicial confession on his participation on the
crime, and implicating Pancho Pelagio, Armando Manalang and Arcadio Balmeo. Jose Guico
also owned his participation in the formation of the conspiracy, and named co-conspirators
Pancho Pelagio, and Armando Manalang.

An appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pasay City condemning the appellants,
Pancho Pelagio, Oscar Caymo and Jose Guico, to death for the crime of robbery with homicide as
defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issue :
Whether or not Pancho Pelagio, Oscar Caymo and Jose Guico are guilty of the crime of robbery with
Held :
The Court believes that the decision appealed from should be modified to the end that Oscar Caymo's
conviction should stand, as he was positively identified by Mrs. Severina de Gloria as one of those who
broke into her house; as well as the one that shot Pat. Trinidad, as identified by Francisco Juni the
driver of the get-away taxi. State witnesses, Evelyn Villanueva and Arcado Balmeo testified that Caymo
was among the one who originated on the robbery at the house of Jose Guico. He was also found
positive for nitrate burns in both his hands the following day after the incident. This is despite of his
claims of being in his home when the incident happened. Wherein, such statements are treated alibi
that did not meet the standard, as he failed to demonstrate that it was impossible for him to be at the
scene during the crime.

The Court also

The Court finds Oscar Caymo guilty of the crime of robbery with the homicide attended by the
aggravating circumstances including him being positively identified by Mrs. Severina de Gloria and
statement from Francisco Juni whom he identified Caymo as the one who shot Pat. Trinidad, all
recited in the information and proven at the trial, of nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle without
the compensating mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, appellant Pancho Pelagio is
determined to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple robbery under Article 294, paragraph
5 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and
recidivism, having been at the time of the trial, as recited in the information and proven at the trial,
previously convicted for robbery. There is no mitigating circumstance appreciable in his favor. For
both appellants, therefore, the penalties prescribed by law should be imposed in their maximum
period, although appellant Pancho Pelagio is still qualified to avail of the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the reasons given above, appellant Jose Guico is hereby