Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This is an appeal from the decision* of the Regional Trial On 12 July 1988, after hearing the evidence of the
Court, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Branch 27, dated 12 July prosecution and the defense, the trial court rendered its
1988, rendered in Criminal Case No. 1326, finding the decision finding, as already adverted to, the two (2)
accused Diosdado Avila and Agapito Agrabio, herein accused, Diosdado Avila and Agapito Agrabio, guilty of
appellants, guilty of the crime of murder, but acquitting the crime charged (murder) and sentencing them to life
accused Aurelio Silvoza. However, after the trial court imprisonment, while the third accused, Aurelio Silvoza,
had forwarded to this Court the records of the case, by was absolved from any criminal liability. The dispositive
reason of the appeal interposed by the appellants, said portion of the decision reads:
court, on 1 August 1988, amended its decision of 12 July
1988 and submitted to this Court said amended decision "WHEREFORE, finding accused Diosdado
which found accused Avila and Agrabio guilty of Avila and Agapito Agrabio guilty beyond
rebellion, not murder. The People interposed objection to reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
the rendition of the amended decision at a time when the as principals, the court sentences both of
trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case. them to life imprisonment, to be served by
them at the National Penitentiary,
The records show that on 23 October 1985, the victim Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, with costs
Gregorio P. Murillo, then governor of the province of againt them.
Surigao del Sur, was shot dead allegedly by Diosdado They are hereby ordered to pay the heirs of
Avila, Agapito Agrabio and Aurelio Silvoza. An the late Governor Gregorio P. Murillo the
information for murder was filed against the sum of P6,000.00 for the marble tomb of
above-named accused, which reads as follows: the deceased; P10,000.00 for the expenses
in the solution of this crime; P30,000.00 for
"That on or about 5:30 o'clock in the life indemnity; P50,000.00 for actual
morning on October 23, 1985 at the damages; P25,000.00 for moral damages
National Highway, municipality of Tandag, and P10,000.00 for exemplary damages,
province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines and without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable insolvency.
Court, the above-named accused, Accused Aurelio Silvoza is hereby absolved
Diosdado Avila, Agapito Agrabio and from any criminal liability."
Aurelio Silvoza, conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping one another, without Accused Avila and Agapito timely filed their appeal from
provocation, with treachery, evident said decision. On 3 August 1988, the trial court
premeditation and with deliberate intent to forwarded (posted) to this Court the records of the case
kill, armed with an unlicensed .45 Caliber including its decision of 12 July 1988 which were
Pistol and with the use thereof, did, then received by the Supreme Court on 26 August 1988.
and there, willfully, unlawfully and However, the records also show that the trial court
feloneously shoot Governor Gregorio P. issued another decision which is dated 1 August 1988
Murillo, Provincial Governor of Surigao del but forwarded (posted) to the Supreme Court on 15
Sur, thereby hitting and inflicting upon the August 1988 and received by the Supreme Court on 15
latter a gunshot wound on his head, x x x. September 1988. Its second decision amended its earlier
x x x x x decision of 12 July 1988, ruling this time that Avila and
x x x x Agrabio are guilty of rebellion, not murder. The
which wound or injuries caused the dispositive portion of the amended decision reads:
instantaneous death of Governor Gregorio
P. Murillo, x x x."[1] "WHEREFORE, finding the accused
Diosdado Avila and Agapito Agrabio guilty
Upon arraignment, the three (3) accused pleaded not beyond reasonable doubt of rebellion, the
guilty to the crime charged. The only issue which the trial court sentences them to suffer the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its medium period Avila shot Governor Murillo at the head,
and a fine of not to exceed P20,000.00 or using a .45 caliber pistol, resulting to the
an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and Governor's death. His only companion then
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and an was appellant Agrabio. Aurelio Silvoza (the
additional imprisonment in case of other co-accused) was not present at the
insolvency to be served by them in the time the crime was committed as he was
National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro at the hinterland resting because he was
Manila. then sick.[7] After the shooting, the two
xxx x x x appellants - Avila and Agrabio ran away. On
Accused Aurelio Silvoza is hereby absolved 17 February 1987 Agrabio was
from any criminal liability."[4] apprehended whereas Avila and Silvoza
were captured on 18 February 1987 by the
It will be observed that the "amended decision", although members of the Philippine Constabulary.
dated 1 August 1988, was promulgated only after the
appellants had timely appealed from the earlier decision During the trial of the case, it was the contention of the
of 12 July 1988 and after the trial court had forwarded to defense that appellants committed rebellion, not murder,
the Supreme Court the records of the case. the shooting and killing of the late Governor Murillo
being a means to or in furtherance of rebellion or in
Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that a pursuance of the objectives of the rebels.[8]
"judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the
accused, be modified or set aside by the court rendering However, notwithstanding the aforesaid claim of the
it before the judgment has become final or appeal has defense, the trial court in its decision, dated 12 July
been perfected". It is thus clear that at the time the trial 1988, found appellants Avila and Agrabio guilty of the
court rendered the "amended decision", said court had crime of murder (accused Silvoza was acquitted). It
already lost its jurisdiction over the case, the appeal ruled that the crime committed could not be rebellion
having been earlier perfected. Hence, the "amended because there was no evidence presented showing that
decision" has no legal force and effect. at the time Governor Murillo was fatally shot, an uprising
or rebellion was on-going, where the rebels and the
There is no question then that it is the decision of 12 armed forces of the government were actually fighting or
July 1988 convicting the appellants of the crime of locked in combat.
murder and sentencing them to the penalty of life
imprisonment, which is the subject of the present review. But the evidence show that appellants Avila and Agrabio
were on a mission to kill and, in fact, they killed Governor
The main if not the sole question in the appeal at bar is Murillo on that fateful day of 23 October 1985. The
whether the trial court correctly convicted appellants of evidence also disclose that at the time they killed the
the crime of murder. Governor, they were members of the liquidating squad of
the New People's Army (NPA), and that they killed the
Upon careful consideration of the facts and Governor upon the orders of their senior officer in the
circumstances surrounding the case, as well as the NPA, one Commander Celo. According to them, they
evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, were ordered to "liquidate" the Governor because of the
the Court, in the exercise of its power to review, revise, latter's "corruption" in not giving on time the salaries of
reverse, modify or affirm[5] the appealed decision dated the employees in the provincial government, and that,
12 July 1988, holds that appellants Avila and Agrabio are instead, he gave the salaries first to the military whom
guilty of the crime of rebellion, not murder. Hence, we he maintained as his personal bodyguards.
find merit in their appeal.
The killing of Governor Murillo by the appellants Avila
The undisputed facts[6] of the case show that: (alias Commander Efren); and Agrabio (alias
Commander Raymund) who were at the time admittedly
At about 5:30 in the morning of 23 October
and undisputably members of the liquidating squad of
1985 along the national highway of
the NPA,[9] upon the orders of NPA Commander Celo,
Tandag, Surigao del Sur, while the victim
appears therefore to be politically motivated and tainted.
was inside his car seated beside the driver,
Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellants
whereas Mrs. Murillo (wife of the
committed the crime of simple rebellion, not murder,
Governor) was seated behind, appellant
punishable under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised
Penal Code ("RPC" for brevity) consistent with the ruling 135, the evidence having shown that they belonged to
in People vs. Manglallan,[10]
which held that: the liquidating squad of the NPA, tasked to operate in
Tandag, and that they killed the victim, Governor Murillo,
"The appellant admits that he was a in compliance with the orders of their senior officer, one
member of the NPA then operating in the Commander Celo of the NPA.
Cagayan Area with Ka Daniel as their
leader. He asserts that the NPA is the However, as far as the penalty imposed is concerned, it
military arm of the Communist Party of the would seem immaterial whether the offender falls under
Philippines. There is no question likewise the first or second group, for under Article 135, RPC as
that the killing of Apolonio Ragual by the amended by P.D. 1834, a uniform penalty of reclusion
appellant and his companions who were perpetua to death is imposed for the "first group" or
also members of the NPA upon the orders "second group" of rebellion.
of Ka Daniel was politically motivated.
They suspected Ragual as an informer of But we take note that pending the present appeal, R.A.
the PC. In fact, after he was killed, they left 6968 was enacted and is now in full force, which
a letter and a drawing on the body of provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
Ragual as a warning to others not to follow offenders belonging to the "first group", and reclusion
his example. x x x The Court, therefore, temporal only for those falling under the "second group"
sustains the contention of the appellant of rebellion.
that the crime he committed is not murder
but the crime of rebellion punishable under Pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code[14] penal
Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal laws are given retroactive effect insofar as they are
Code." favorable to the offender. Considering that a retroactive
effect of RA 6968 to the present appeal would be more
As regards the crime of rebellion and the penalty favorable to the appellants as said Act imposes a
imposable therefor, Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised penalty of reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua as
Penal Code have been amended several times by a in P.D. 1834, for offenders belonging to the "second
number of presidential decrees and Executive Order No. group" of rebels, the Court shall therefore impose the
187[11] and Republic Act No. 6968.[12] penalty provided for in Article 135 of the RPC, as
amended by RA 6968, which is reclusion temporal. There
At the time the crime was committed in the case at bar being neither an aggravating nor mitigating
(i.e., 23 October 1985), the presidential decree in force circumstance attending the commission of the offense,
and effect was P.D. 1834 which amended Article 135 of the proper penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
the RPC, by imposing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to period, applying rule no. 1 set forth in Article 64 of the
death for those found guilty of rebellion. Felonies being RPC.[15] The range of the penalty of reclusion temporal in
generally punishable under the laws in force at the time its medium period is from fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
of their commission,[13] the imposable penalty, therefore, months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four
in the present case is that provided by P.D. 1834. Said (4) months.[16]
Article 135, as amended by P.D. 1834, refers to two (2)
groups of persons who may commit rebellion -- the first As to the award of damages adjudged by the trial court,
group (referred to in paragraph one of Article 135) are this Court grants to the heirs of the late Governor an
those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion, or indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, but the other
who, while holding any public office or employment, take items for damages granted in the appealed decision are
part therein, engaging in war against the forces of the set aside for they are not proper in rebellion cases.
government, destroying property or committing serious
violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds Finally, the Court notes with deep concern the trial
from the lawful purpose for which they have been judge's attempt to amend his earlier decision of 12 July
appropriated; the second group (referred to in paragraph 1988, after the lapse of 20 days (the amended decision
two thereof) are those who merely participate in or being dated 1 August 1988), totally disregarding the
execute the commands of others in a rebellion. basic doctrine that courts lose jurisdiction over cases
after an appeal shall have been perfected therein. This
In the instant appeal, while we find the appellants guilty doctrine is too elementary as to have been ignored by
of rebellion, we also find that their case falls under the the trial judge. Whatever may be the reasons behind the
"second group" referred to in paragraph two (2) of Article intriguing change in the respondent judge in rendering
his amended decision, the Court strictly admonishes him As a result of the killing, the office of the provincial
to be more cautious, circumspect and yet decisive in the prosecutor of Albay, on November 6, 1992 filed an
exercise of his judicial functions. Information charging accused-appellant Elias Lovedioro
y Castro of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Revised Penal Code. The Information reads:
Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Branch 27 dated 12
July 1988 rendered in Criminal Case No. 1326 is hereby That on or about the 27th day of July, 1992, at more or
MODIFIED, by convicting the accused-appellants, less 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Burgos Street,
Diosdado Avila and Agapito Agrabio of the crime of Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines,
rebellion punishable under Article 135, paragraph no. 2 and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act above-named accused, together with Gilberto Longasa,
No. 6968, (and not murder), and hereby sentencing them who is already charged in Crim. Case No. 5931 before
to suffer imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) RTC, Branch I, and three (3) others whose true identities
months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four are at present unknown and remain at large, conniving,
(4) months of reclusion temporal, and to indemnify, conspiring, confederating and helping one another for a
solidarily, the heirs of the deceased former Governor common purpose, armed with firearms, with intent to kill
Gregorio P. Murillo in the amount of P50,000.00. and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire and
SO ORDERED. shoot one SPO3 JESUS LUCILO, a member of the Daraga
Police Station, inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot
wounds causing his death, to the damage and prejudice
People v. Asuncion, 208 SCRA 231 (1992)
of his legal heirs.
After trial, the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty
People v. Lovedioro. 250 SCRA 389 (1995)
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The
dispositive portion of said decision, dated September 24,
KAPUNAN, J.,
1993 states:
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations,
along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public
this Court finds the accused ELIAS LOVEDIORO guilty
Market when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled
beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting in
a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the
conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large, of
policeman's right ear and fired. The man who shot
the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article
Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of
248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences
whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on
him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all
the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his
the accessories provided by law; to pay the heirs of the
companions boarded a tricycle and fled.[1]
deceased SPO3 Jesus Lucilo through the widow, Mrs.
Remeline Lucilo, the amount of Fifty Thousand
The incident was witnessed from a distance of about
(P50,000.00) Pesos representing the civil indemnity for
nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder
death; to pay the said widow the sum of Thirty Thousand
from Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed that he knew both the
(P30,000.00) Pesos representing reasonable moral
victim and the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta
damages; and to pay the said widow the sum of
identified the man who fired at the deceased as Elias
Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Eight
Lovedioro y Castro, his nephew (appellant's father was
(P18,588.00) Pesos, representing actual damages,
his first cousin) and alleged that he knew the victim from
without subsidiary imprisonment however, in case of
the fact that the latter was a resident of Bagumbayan.
insolvency on the part of the said accused.
Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from
With costs against the accused.
multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and
other parts of the body.[2] On autopsy, the municipal
SO ORDERED.
health officer established the cause of death as
hypovolemic shock.[3]
Hence, the instant appeal, in which the sole issue
interposed is that portion of trial court decision finding The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed
him guilty of the crime of murder and not rebellion. public uprising against the government.[7] By its very
nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of masses or
Appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution's multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be
principal witness, Nestor Armenta, as supporting his confined a priori within predetermined bounds.[8] One
claim that he should have been charged with the crime aspect noteworthy in the commission of rebellion is that
of rebellion, not murder. In his Brief, he asseverates that other acts committed in its pursuance are, by law,
Armenta, a police informer, identified him as a member absorbed in the crime itself because they acquire a
of the New People's Army. Additionally, he contends political character. This peculiarity was underscored in
that because the killing of Lucilo was "a means to or in the case of People v. Hernandez,[9] thus:
furtherance of subversive ends,"[4] (said killing) should
have been deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against
under Arts. 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. the political order, as well as such common crimes as
Finally, claiming that he did not fire the fatal shot but may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The
merely acted as a look-out in the liquidation of Lucilo, he decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually
avers that he should have been charged merely as a regarded as common, like homicide, is perpetrated for
participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion the purpose of removing from the allegiance 'to the
under paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or any
Code and should therefore have been meted only the part thereof,' then it becomes stripped of its "common"
penalty of prision mayor by the lower court. complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the
crime of rebellion, the former acquires the political
Asserting that the trial court correctly convicted character of the latter.
appellant of the crime of murder, the Solicitor General
avers that the crime committed by appellant may be Divested of its common complexion therefore, any
considered as rebellion only if the defense itself had ordinary act, however grave, assumes a different color
conclusively proven that the motive or intent for the by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion, which carries
killing of the policeman was for "political and subversive a lighter penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if
ends."[5] Moreover, the Solicitor General contends that the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes
even if appellant were to be convicted of rebellion, and imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the
even if the trial court had found appellant guilty merely act was done in furtherance of a political end. The
of being a participant in a rebellion, the proper imposable political motive of the act should be conclusively
penalty is not prision mayor as appellant contends, but demonstrated.
reclusion temporal, because Executive Order No. 187 as
amended by Republic Act No. 6968, the Coup D 'etat In such cases, the burden of demonstrating political
Law, prescribes reclusion temporal as the penalty motive falls on the defense, motive, being a state of
imposable for individuals found guilty as participants in mind which the accused, better than any individual,
a rebellion. knows. Thus, in People v. Gempes,[10] this court stressed
that:
We agree with the Solicitor General that the crime
committed was murder and not rebellion. Since this is a matter that lies peculiarly with (the
accused's) knowledge and since moreover this is an
Under Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended affirmative defense, the burden is on them to prove, or at
by Republic Act No. 6968, rebellion is committed in the least to state, which they could easily do personally or
following manner: through witnesses, that they killed the deceased in
furtherance of the resistance movement.
[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the
Government for the purpose of removing from the From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven.
the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any Both purpose and overt acts are essential components
body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving of the crime. With either of these elements wanting, the
the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, crime of rebellion legally does not exist. In fact, even in
of any of their powers or prerogatives.[6] cases where the act complained of were committed
simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion, if convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. In
the killing, robbing, or etc., were accomplished for private cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere
purposes or profit, without any political motivation, it has membership in an organization dedicated to the
been held that the crime would be separately punishable furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself,
as a common crime and would not be absorbed by the suffice.
crime rebellion.[11]
The similarity of some of the factual circumstances of
Clearly, political motive should be established before a People v. Ompad, Jr.,[16] to the instant case is striking.
person charged with a common crime — alleging Two witnesses, both former NPA recruits identified the
rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable accused Ompad, alias "Commander Brando," a known
penalty — could benefit from the law's relatively benign hitman of the NPA, as having led three other members of
attitude towards political crimes. Instructive in this the NPA in the liquidation of Dionilo Barlaan, a military
regard is the case of Enrile v. Amin,[12] where the informer, also in a rebel infested area. In spite of his
prosecution sought to charge Senator Juan Ponce Enrile notoriety as an NPA hitman, Ompad was merely charged
with violation of P.D. No. 1829,[13] for allegedly harboring with and convicted of murder, not rebellion because
or concealing in his home Col. Gregorio Honasan in spite political motive was neither alleged nor proved.
of the senator's knowledge that Honasan might have
committed a crime. This Court held, against the As stated hereinabove, the burden of proof that the act
prosecution's contention, that rebellion and violation of committed was impelled by a political motive lies on the
P.D 1829 could be tried separately[14] (on the principle accused. Political motive must be alleged in the
that rebellion is based on the Revised Penal Code while information.[17] It must be established by clear and
P.D. 1829 is a special law), that the act for which the satisfactory evidence. In People v. Paz and Tica we held:
senator was being charged, though punishable under a
special law, was absorbed in the crime of rebellion being That the killing was in pursuance of the Huk rebellion is
motivated by, and related to the acts for which he was a matter of mitigation or defense that the accused has
charged in Enrile vs. Salazar (G.R. Nos. 92163 and the burden of proving clearly and satisfactorily. The lone
92164) a case decided on June 5, 1990. Ruling in favor uncorroborated assertion of appellant that his superiors
of Senator Enrile and holding that the prosecution for told him of Dayrit being an informer, and his suspicion
violation of P.D. No. 1829 cannot prosper because a that he was one such, is neither sufficient or adequate to
separate prosecution for rebellion had already been filed establish that the motivation for the killing was political,
and in fact decided, the Court said: considering appellant's obvious interest in testifying to
that effect.[18]
The attendant circumstances in the instant case,
however constrain us to rule that the theory of Similarly, in People v. Buco.[19] the Court stressed that
absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself to accused in that case failed to establish that the reason
common crimes but also to offenses under special laws for the killing of their victim was to further or carry out
which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political rebellion. The evidence adduced by the defense therein
offense.[15] simply showed that appellant Francisco Buco was
ordered by Tomas Calma, alias "Commander Sol" to kill
Noting the importance of purpose in cases of rebellion municipal mayor Conrado G. Dizon. However, the
the court in Enrile vs Amin further underscored that: evidence likewise showed that Calma was induced by an
acquaintance, a civilian, to order the killing on account of
[I]ntent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce private differences over a ninety (90) hectare piece of
Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or land. The court attributed no political motive for the
concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is killing, though committed by known members of the
a friend and former associate, the motive for the act is Hukbalahap movement.[20]
completely different. But if the act is committed with
political or social motives, that is in furtherance of People v. Dasig[21] has a factual milieu almost similar to
rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the the instant case. There, the Court held that "the act of
crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately. killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim is
a person in authority is a mere component or ingredient
It follows, therefore, that if no political motive is of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of a rebellion."
established and proved, the accused should be In Dasig the Court however noted that the accused, who
was charged with murder, not only admitted his
Q: Please continue.
membership with the NPA but also executed an
extrajudicial confession to the effect that he was a
member of an NPA "sparrow unit," a fact to which even
the Solicitor General, in his brief therein was in A: Upon reaching Daraga, Albay fronting Petron
agreement. The Solicitor General's brief in Dasig which Gasoline Station, we alighted on said jeep, so
we walk towards Daraga Bakery we stopped
this Court favorably quoted, noted that:
walking due to it is raining, when the rain
stopped we continue walking by using the road
[T]he sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New near the bakery. (sic)
People's Army with the objective of overthrowing the
duly constituted government. It is therefore not hard to
comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was
Q: When you reached Daraga bakery, as you have
committed as a means top or in furtherance of the
said in Q. 7 you used the road near the bakery
subversive ends of the NPA.[22]
where did you proceed?
By contrast, the Solicitor General vigorously argues for a
different result in the case at bench. He states that
accused-appellant's belated claims to membership in A: I am not familiar with that place, but I and my
the NPA were not only insubstantial but also self companion continue walking, at more less 4:30
serving,[23] an averment to which, given a thorough review P.M. July 27, 1992 one of my companion told
of the circumstances of the case, we fully agree. He us as to quote in Bicol dialect, to wit: 'AMO NA
states: YADI AN TINAMPO PALUWAS' (This is the
place towards the poblacion), so, I placed
myself just ahead of a small store, my three (3)
[In the case cited] the appellants, admittedly members of
companions continue walking towards
the NPA, clearly overcame the burden of proving motive poblacion, later on a policeman sporting white
or intent. It was shown that the political motivation for T-shirt and a khaki pant was walking towards
the killing of the victim was the fact that Ragaul was me, while the said policeman is nearly
suspected as an informer for the PC. The perpetrators approaching me, ALWIN shot the said
even left a letter card, a drawing on the body of Ragaul policeman infront of the small store, when the
as a warning to others not to follow his example. It is said policeman fell on the asphalted road,
ALWIN took the service firearm of the said
entirely different in the case at bar where the evidence
policeman, then we ran towards the
for the appellant merely contains self-serving assertions
subdivision, then my two (2) companions
and denials not substantial enough as an indicia of commanded a tricycle then we fled until we
political motivation in the killing of victim SPO3 Jesus reached a hill wherein there is a small bridge,
Lucilo.[24] thereafter Ka Samuel took the handgun that
was handed to me by them at Pilar, Sorsogon.
In the case at bench, the appellant, assisted by counsel, (sic)
admitted in his extrajudicial confession to having
participated in the killing of Lucilo as follows:
Q: Do you know the policeman that was killed by
Q: What was that incident if any, please narrate? your companion?
A: July 27, 1992 at more or less 12:00 noon. I am A: I just came to know his name when I reached
at home, three male person a certain alias home and heard it radio, that he is JESUS
ALWIN, ALIAS SAMUEL and the other one LUCILO. (sic)
unknown to me, fetched me and told me to go
with them, so I asked them where, Alwin
handed me a hand gun and same he Q: What is your participation in the group?
stopped/call a passenger jeepney and told me
board on said jeepney. (sic)
that he had been a member of the NPA for five months
A: Look-out sir.
before the shooting incident.[33]
As correctly observed by the Solicitor General,
Q: I have nothing more to asked you what else, if appellant's contentions are couched in terms so general
there is any? (sic) and non-specific[34] that they offer no explanation as to
what contribution the killing would have made towards
the achievement of the NPA's subversive aims. SPO3
A: No more sir.[25] Jesus Lucilo, a mere policeman, was never alleged to be
an informer. No acts of his were specifically shown to
have offended the NPA. Against appellant's attempts to
It bears emphasis that nowhere in his entire extrajudicial shade his participation in the killing with a political color,
confession did appellant ever mention that he was a the evidence on record leaves the impression that
member of the New People's Army. A thorough reading appellant's bare allegations of membership in the NPA
of the same reveals nothing which would suggest that was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty
the killing in which he was a participant was motivated imposable upon him. It is of judicial notice that in many
by a political purpose. Moreover, the information filed NPA infested areas, crimes have been all-too-quickly
against appellant, based on sworn statements, did not attributed to the furtherance of an ideology or under the
contain any mention or allusion as to the involvement of cloak of political color for the purpose of mitigating the
the NPA in the death of SPO3 Lucilo.[26] Even prosecution imposable penalty when in fact they are no more than
eyewitness Nestor Armenta did not mention the NPA in ordinary crimes perpetrated by common criminals. In
his sworn statement of October 19, 1992.[27] Baylosis v. Chavez, Jr., Chief Justice Narvasa aptly
observed:
As the record would show, allegations relating to
appellant's membership in the NPA surfaced almost The existence of rebellious groups in our society today,
merely as an afterthought, something which the defense and of numerous bandits, or irresponsible or deranged
merely picked up and followed through upon prosecution individuals, is a reality that cannot be ignored or belittled.
eyewitness Armenta's testimony on cross-examination Their activities, the killings and acts of destruction and
that he knew appellant to be a member of the NPA. terrorism that they perpetrate, unfortunately continue
Interestingly, however, in the same testimony, Armenta unabated despite the best efforts that the Government
admitted that he was "forced" to pinpoint appellant as an authorities are exerting, although it may be true that the
NPA member.[28] The logical result, of course, was that insurrectionist groups of the right or the left no longer
the trial court did not give any weight and credence to pose a genuine threat to the security of the state. The
said testimony. The trial court, after all, had the need for more stringent laws and more rigorous
prerogative of rejecting only a part of a witness' law-enforcement, cannot be gainsaid.[35]
testimony while upholding the rest of it.[29] While
disbelieving the portion of Armenta's testimony on In the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence
appellant's alleged membership in the NPA, the trial pointing to a political motive for the killing of SPO3
court correctly gave credence to his unflawed narration Jesus Lucilo, we are satisfied that the trial court
about how the crime was committed.[30] Such narration correctly convicted appellant of the crime of murder.[36] It
is even corroborated in its pertinent portions, except as is of no moment that a single eyewitness, Nestor
to the identity of the gunwielder, by the testimony of the Armenta, sealed his fate, for it is settled that the
appellant himself. testimony of one witness, if credible and positive, is
sufficient to convict.[37] Against appellant's claims that
In any case, appellant's claim regarding the political he acted merely as a look-out, the testimony of one
color attending the commission of the crime being a witness, his blood relative, free from any signs of
matter of defense, its viability depends on his sole and impropriety or falsehood, was sufficient to convict the
unsupported testimony. He testified that, upon the accused.[38] Moreover, neither may lack of motive be
prodding of alias Alwin and alias Samuel, he joined the availing to exculpate the appellant. Lack or absence of
NPA because of the organization's goals.[31] He claimed motive for committing a crime does not preclude
that his two companions shot Lucilo because he "had conviction, there being a reliable eyewitness who fully
offended our organization,"[32] without, however, and satisfactorily identified appellant as the perpetrator
specifying what the "offense" was. Appellant claimed of the felony.[39] In the case at bench, the strength of the
prosecution's case was furthermore bolstered by Pangasinan. Also on board was Romulo Digap, the
accused-appellant's admission in open court that he and regular conductor of the bus, as well as some
the eyewitness, his own uncle, bore no grudges against passengers. At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers
each other.[40]
boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan
Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants,
Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court rubber shoes, hats and jackets.[2] Juan seated himself
below. The attack delivered by appellant was sudden, on the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of the
and without warning of any kind.[41] The killing having passengers’ seats, while Victor stood by the door in the
been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Another
murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of
absence of any mitigating and aggravating Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus
circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist
the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with all the was his service gun bearing Serial Number 769806.
accessories provided by law. Every now and then, Rodolfo looked at the side view
mirror as well as the rear view and center mirrors
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's installed atop the driver’s seat to monitor any incoming
decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the and overtaking vehicles and to observe the passengers
accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto. of the bus.
SO ORDERED. The lights of the bus were on even as some of the
passengers slept. When the bus was travelling along the
People v. Escote, Jr., 400 SCRA 603 (2003) highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly
stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a
CALLEJO, J., holdup. Petrified, Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror
towards the passengers’ seat and saw Juan and Victor
Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against armed with handguns. Juan fired his gun upward to
property. Nevertheless, treachery is a generic awaken and scare off the passengers. Victor followed
aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of suit and fired his gun upward. Juan and Victor then
homicide is killed treacherously. The Supreme Court of accosted the passengers and divested them of their
Spain so ruled. So does the Court rule in this case, as it money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares
had done for decades. he had collected from the passengers. The felons then
went to the place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision[1] that he show them his identification card and wallet.
of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Manio, Jr. brought out his identification card bearing No.
Criminal Case No. 443-M-97 convicting 00898.[3] Juan and Victor took the identification card of
accused-appellants Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor the police officer as well as his service gun and told him:
Acuyan of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, “Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin
meting on each of them the supreme penalty of death, and papatay sa iyo.” The police officer pleaded for
and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim, SPO1 mercy: “Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako.”
Jose C. Manio, Jr., the total amount of P300,000.00 by However, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the police
way of actual and moral damages and to pay to Five Star officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and
Bus, Inc., the amount of P6,000.00 by way of actual right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance
damages. wounds. He fell to the floor of the bus. Victor and Juan
then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated
The Facts themselves beside him and ordered the latter to
maintain the speed of the bus. Rodolfo heard one of the
The antecedent facts as established by the prosecution felons saying: “Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang
are as follows: pumapatay ng manok.” The other said: “Ayos na naman
tayo pare. Malaki-laki ito.” Victor and Juan further told
On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, Rodolfo Rodolfo that after they (Victor and Juan) shall have
Cacatian, the regular driver of Five Star Passenger Bus alighted from the bus, he (Rodolfo) should continue
bearing Plate No. ABS-793, drove the bus from its driving the bus and not report the incident along the way.
terminal at Pasay City to its destination in Bolinao, The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will follow
their instructions, he will not be harmed. Victor and Juan Florante S. Ferrer were at the police checkpoint along
ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in the national highway in Tarlac, Tarlac. At the time, the
Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the bus. Bambang-Concepcion bridge was closed to traffic and
The robbery was over in 25 minutes. the police officers were tasked to divert traffic to the Sta.
Rosa road. Momentarily, a white colored taxi cab without
When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, any plate number on its front fender came to view.
Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to Meneses stopped the cab and asked the driver, who
the police authorities. The cadaver of SPO1 Manio, Jr. turned out to be the accused Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr.,
was brought to the funeral parlor where Dr. Alejandro D. for his identification card. Juan told Meneses that he
Tolentino, the Municipal Health Officer of Mabalacat, was a policeman and handed over to Meneses the
Pampanga, performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the identification card of SPO1 Manio, Jr. and the money
police officer. The doctor prepared and signed an which Juan and Victor took from Manio, Jr. during the
autopsy report detailing the wounds sustained by the heist on September 28, 1996.[8] Meneses became
police officer and the cause of his death: suspicious when he noted that the identification card
“Body still flaccid (not in rigor mortis) bathed with his had already expired on March 16, 1995. He asked Juan if
own blood. There were 6 entrance wounds and 6 exit the latter had a new pay slip. Juan could not produce
wounds. All the entrance were located on his right side. any. He finally confessed to Meneses that he was not a
An entrance (0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.) located infront of the policeman. Meneses brought Juan to the police station.
right ear exited at the left side just below the ear lobe. When police officers frisked Juan for any deadly
Another entrance through the mouth exited at the back weapon, they found five live bullets of a 9 millimeter
of the head fracturing the occiput with an opening of (1.5 firearm in his pocket. The police officers confiscated the
cm x 2 cm). Blood CSF and brain tissues came out. ammunition. In the course of the investigation, Juan
Another fatal bullet entered at the upper right cornea of admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor,
the sternum, entered the chest cavity pierced the heart alias Victor Arroyo, staged the robbery on board Five
and left lung and exited at the left axillary line. Severe Star Bus and are responsible for the death of SPO1
hemorrhage in the chest cavity came from the heart and Manio, Jr. in Plaridel, Bulacan. Meneses and Ferrer
left lung. The other 3 bullets entered the right side and executed their joint affiavit of arrest of Juan.[9] Juan
exited on the same side. One entrance at the top of the was subsequently turned over to the Plaridel Police
right shoulder exited at the medial side of the right arm. Station where Romulo identified him through the latter’s
The other entered above the right breast and exited at picture as one of those who robbed the passengers of
the right lateral abdominal wall travelling below muscles the Five Star Bus with Plate No. ABS-793 and killed SPO1
and subcutaneous tissues without entering the cavities. Manio, Jr. on September 28, 1996. In the course of their
Lastly another bullet entered above the right iliac crest investigation, the Plaridel Police Station Investigators
travelled superficially and exited above the right inguinal learned that Victor was a native of Laoang, Northern
line. Samar.[10] On April 4, 1997, an Information charging
Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan with
Cause of Death: robbery with homicide was filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan. The Information reads:
Shock, massive internal and external hemorrhage, That on or about the 28th day of September 1996, in the
complete brain destruction and injury to the heart and municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan, Philippines,
left lung caused by multiple gunshot wounds.”[4] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Rodolfo and Romulo proceeded to the police station of above-named accused, conspiring, confederating
Plaridel, Bulacan where they reported the robbery and together and mutually helping each other, armed with
gave their respective sworn statements.[5] SPO1 Manio, firearms, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
Jr. was survived by his wife Rosario Manio and their four feloniously, with intent of (sic) gain and by means of
young children. Rosario spent P20,000.00 for the coffin force, violence and intimidation, take, rob and carry away
and P10,000.00 for the burial lot of the slain police with one (1) necklace and cash in [the] undetermine[d]
officer.[6] Manio, Jr. was 38 years old when he died and amount of one SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., to the damage
had a gross salary of P8,085.00 a month.[7] and prejudice of the said owner in the said
undetermine[d] amount; that simultaneously or on the
Barely a month thereafter, or on October 25, 1996, at occassion (sic) of said robbery, said accused by means
about midnight, SPO3 Romeo Meneses, the team leader of violence and intimidation and in furtherance of their
of Alert Team No. 1 of Tarlac Police Station, and PO3 conspiracy attack, assault and shoot with the service
firearm of the said SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., thereby of the victim and to pay the Five Star Bus Company the
inflicting serious physical injuries which resulted (sic) amount of P6,000.00 as actual damages. The decretal
the death of the said SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds both accused, Juan
Contrary to law.[11] Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY beyond
On the strength of a warrant of arrest, the police officers reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as
arrested Victor in Laoang, Northern Samar and had him penalized under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as
incarcerated in the Bulacan Provincial Jail. Assisted by amended and hereby sentences both to suffer the
Atty. Ramiro Osorio, their counsel de parte, Juan and supreme penalty of Death and to indemnify the heirs of
Victor were duly arraigned and entered their plea of not the late SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., the amount of
guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued. After the P300,000.00 as actual and moral damages and to pay
prosecution had rested its case on August 26, 1998, the Five Star Bus P6,000.00 as actual damage.
Juan escaped from the provincial jail.[12] The trial court
issued a bench warrant on September 22, 1998 for the SO ORDERED.[15]
arrest of said accused-appellant.[13] In the meantime, Assignment of Errors
Victor adduced his evidence.
Juan and Victor assail the Decision of the trial court and
Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of contend that:
alibi. He testified that in 1996, he worked as a tire man in I
the vulcanizing shop located in Banga I, Plaridel, Bulacan
owned by Tony Boy Negro. On one occasion, Ilarde THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RODOLFO
Victorino, a customer of Tony Boy Negro, ordered Victor CACATIAN AND ROMULO DIGAP, DRIVER AND
to sell a tire. Victor sold the tire but did not turn over the CONDUCTOR OF THE FIVE STAR BUS, RESPECTIVELY,
proceeds of the sale to Ilarde. The latter hated Victor for WERE ABLE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE TWO (2)
his misdeed. The shop was later demolished and after MEN WHO HELD-UP THEIR BUS AND KILLED ONE
two months of employment, Victor returned to Barangay PASSENGER THEREOF AT AROUND 3:00 O’CLOCK IN
Muwal-Buwal, Laoang, Northern Samar. On September THE EARLY MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1996.
26, 1996, at 9:30 p.m., Victor was at the town fiesta in
Laoang. Victor and his friends, Joseph Iringco and II
Rickey Lorcio were having a drinking spree in the house
of Barangay Captain Ike Baluya. At 11:30 p.m., the three THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE TWO (2)
left the house of the barangay captain and attended the ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
public dance at the town auditorium. Victor and his THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.[16]
friends left the auditorium at 5:30 a.m. of September 27,
1996. Victor likewise testified that he never met Juan The Court’s Verdict
until his arrest and detention at the Bulacan Provincial
Jail. One of the inmates in said provincial jail was Ilarde Anent the first assignment of error, Juan and Victor
Victorino. Victor learned that Ilarde implicated him for contend that the trial court committed a reversible error
the robbery of the Five Star Bus and the killing of SPO1 in relying on the testimony of Rodolfo, the bus
Manio, Jr. to hit back at him for his failure to turn over to conductor, for convicting them of the crime charged.
Ilarde the proceeds of the sale of the latter’s tire. They aver that although their counsel was able to initially
cross-examine Rodolfo, the former failed to continue
On January 14, 1999, Juan was rearrested in Daet, with and terminate his cross-examination of the said
Camarines Norte.[14] However, he no longer adduced witness through no fault of his as the witness failed to
any evidence in his behalf. appear in subsequent proceedings. They assert that
even if the testimonies of Rodolfo and Romulo were to
The Verdict of the Trial Court be considered, the two witnesses were so petrified
during the robbery that they were not able to look at the
On March 11, 1999, the trial court rendered its Decision felons and hence could not positively identify
judgment finding Juan and Victor guilty beyond accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, meted on each They argue that the police investigators never conducted
of them the penalty of death and ordered them to pay a police line-up for the identification of the authors of the
P300,000.00 as actual and moral damages to the heirs crime.
for a reconsideration of the court’s order dated January
The contentions of Juan and Victor are not meritorious. 20, 1998 and for the recall of Rodolfo Cacatian for
There is no factual and legal basis for their claim that further cross-examination. It behooved counsel for Juan
they were illegally deprived of their constitutional and and Victor to file said motion and pray that the trial court
statutory right to fully cross-examine Rodolfo. The Court order the recall of Rodolfo on the witness stand. Juan
agrees that the right to cross-examine is a constitutional and Victor cannot just fold their arms and supinely wait
right anchored on due process.[17] It is a statutory right for the prosecution or for the trial court to initiate the
found in Section 1(f), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of recall of said witness. Indeed, the Court held in Fulgado
Criminal Procedure which provides that the accused has vs. Court of Appeals, et al:
the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him at the trial. However, the right has always xxx
been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual
cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise The task of recalling a witness for cross examination is,
the right to cross-examine if desired.[18] What is in law, imposed on the party who wishes to exercise said
proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept right. This is so because the right, being personal and
is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine.[19] waivable, the intention to utilize it must be expressed.
The right is a personal one and may be waived expressly Silence or failure to assert it on time amounts to a
or impliedly. There is an implied waiver when the party renunciation thereof. Thus, it should be the counsel for
was given the opportunity to confront and the opposing party who should move to cross-examine
cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take plaintiff’s witnesses. It is absurd for the plaintiff himself
advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself to ask the court to schedule the cross-examination of his
alone.[20] If by his actuations, the accused lost his own witnesses because it is not his obligation to ensure
opportunity to cross-examine wholly or in part the that his deponents are cross-examined. Having
witnesses against him, his right to cross-examine is presented his witnesses, the burden shifts to his
impliedly waived.[21] The testimony given on direct opponent who must now make the appropriate move.
examination of the witness will be received or allowed to Indeed, the rule of placing the burden of the case on
remain in the record.[22] plaintiff’s shoulders can be construed to extremes as
what happened in the instant proceedings. [27]
In this case, the original records show that after several The trial was reset to March 31, April 17 and 24, 1998, all
resettings, the initial trial for the presentation by the at 8:30 a.m. because of the non-availability of the other
prosecution of its evidence-in-chief was set on witnesses of the prosecution.[28] On March 31, 1998,
November 18, 1997 and December 5, 1997, both at 9:00 the prosecution presented Dr. Alejandro Tolentino, PO2
a.m.[23] Rodolfo testified on direct examination on Rene de la Cruz and Romulo Digap. During the trial on
November 18, 1997. The counsel of Juan and Victor April 17, 1998, the counsel of Juan and Victor failed to
forthwith commenced his cross-examination of the appear. The trial was reset to June 3, 19 and 26,
witness but because of the manifestation of said 1998.[29] The trial scheduled on June 3, 1998 was
counsel that he cannot finish his cross-examination, the cancelled due to the absence of the counsel of Juan and
court ordered the continuation thereof to December 5, Victor. The court issued an order appointing Atty.
1997.[24] On December 5, 1997, Rodolfo did not appear Roberto Ramirez as counsel for accused-appellants.[30]
before the court for the continuation of his
cross-examination but Rosemarie Manio, the widow of During the trial on August 26, 1998, Atty. Ramirez
the victim did. The prosecution presented her as appeared in behalf of Juan and Victor. The prosecution
witness. Her testimony was terminated. The court rested its case after the presentation of SPO2 Romeo
ordered the continuation of the trial for the Meneses and formally offered its documentary evidence.
cross-examination of Rodolfo on January 20, 1998 at The next trial was set on September 23, 1998 at 8:30
8:30 a.m.[25] During the trial on January 20, 1998, a.m.[31] On November 11, 1998, Juan and Victor
Rodolfo was present but accused-appellants’ counsel commenced the presentation of their evidence with the
was absent. The court issued an order declaring that for testimony of Victor.[32] They rested their case on
failure of said counsel to appear before the court for his January 27, 1999 without any evidence adduced by
cross-examination of Rodolfo, Victor and Juan waived Juan.
their right to continue with the cross-examination of said
witness.[26] During the trial set for February 3, 1998, the Juan and Victor did not even file any motion to reopen
counsel of Juan and Victor appeared but did not move the case before the trial court rendered its decision to
allow them to cross-examine Rodolfo. They remained The above version came from Rodolfo Cacatian and
mute after judgment was rendered against them by the Romulo Digap, bus driver and conductor, respectively, of
trial court. Neither did they file any petition for certiorari the ill-fated Five Star Bus.[34]
with the Court of Appeals for the nullification of the The Court agrees with the trial court. It may be true that
Order of the trial court dated January 20, 1998 declaring Romulo was frightened when Juan and Victor suddenly
that they had waived their right to cross-examine announced a holdup and fired their guns upward, but it
Rodolfo. It was only on appeal to this Court that Juan does not follow that he and Rodolfo failed to have a
and Victor averred for the first time that they were good look at Juan and Victor during the entire time the
deprived of their right to cross-examine Rodolfo. It is robbery was taking place. The Court has held in a catena
now too late in the day for Juan and Victor to do so. The of cases that it is the most natural reaction of victims of
doctrine of estoppel states that if one maintains silence violence to strive to see the appearance of the
when in conscience he ought to speak, equity will debar perpetrators of the crime and to observe the manner in
him from speaking when in conscience he ought to which the crime was committed.[35] Rodolfo and
remain silent. He who remains silent when he ought to Romulo had a good look at both Juan and Victor before,
speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be during and after they staged the robbery and before they
silent.[33] alighted from the bus. The evidence on record shows
that when Juan and Victor boarded the bus and while the
The contention of accused-appellants Juan and Victor said vehicle was on its way to its destination, Romulo
that Rodolfo and Romulo failed to identify them as the stationed himself by the door of the bus located in the
perpetrators of the crime charged is disbelieved by the mid-section of the vehicle. The lights inside the bus were
trial court, thus: on. Juan seated himself in the middle row of the
As can be gathered from the testimonies of the passengers’ seat near the center aisle while Victor stood
witnesses for the prosecution, on September 28, 1996, near the door of the bus about a meter or so from
the accused boarded at around 3:00 a.m. a Five Star Bus Romulo.[36] Romulo, Juan and Victor were near each
driven by Rodolfo Cacatian, bound to Pangasinan, in other. Moreover, Juan divested Romulo of his collection
Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon City. Twenty (20) of the fares from the passengers.[37] Romulo thus had a
minutes or so later, when the bus reached the vicinity of face-to-face encounter with Juan. After shooting SPO1
Nabuag, Plaridel, Bulacan, along the North Espressway, Manio, Jr. at the rear portion of the bus, Juan and Victor
the accused with guns in hand suddenly stood up and passed by where Romulo was standing and gave their
announced a hold-up. Simultaneously with the instructions to him. Considering all the facts and
announcement of a hold-up, Escote fired his gun circumstances, there is no iota of doubt that Romulo
upwards. Acuyan, meanwhile, took the gun of a man saw and recognized Juan and Victor before, during and
seated at the back. Both then went on to take the money after the heist.[38] Rodolfo looked many times on the
and valuables of the passengers, including the bus rear, side and center view mirrors to observe the center
conductor’s collections in the amount of P6,000.00. and rear portions of the bus before and during the
Thereafter, the duo approached the man at the back robbery. Rodolfo thus saw Juan and Victor stage the
telling him in the vernacular “Pasensiya ka na pare, robbery and kill SPO1 Manio, Jr. with impunity:
papatayin ka namin. Baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo.”
They pointed their guns at him and fired several shots xxx
oblivious of the plea for mercy of their victim. After the
shooting, the latter collapsed on the floor. The two (2)
then went back at the front portion of the bus behind the Q
driver’s seat and were overheard by the bus driver, So, the announcement of hold-up was ahead of the firing
Cacatian, talking how easy it was to kill a man. The of the gun?
A
robbery and the killing were over in 25 minutes. Upon
Yes, sir.
reaching the Mexico overpass of the Expressway in
Pampanga, the two (2) got off the bus. The driver drove Q
the bus to the Mabalacat Police Station and reported the And before the actual firing of the gun it was even still
incident. During the investigation conducted by the said bad words before saying the hold-up?
police, it was found out that the slain passenger was a A
policeman, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. of the Caloocan City After they fired the gun they uttered bad words, sir.
Police Department.
Q
Mr. Witness before the announcement of the hold-up you I cannot tell how often but I used to look at the mirror
do not have any idea that you will encounter that nature once in a while, sir.
which took place, is that correct?
A Q
None, sir. How many mirror do you have, Mr. witness?
A
Four (4), sir.
Q
Within the two (2) year[s] period that you are plying the Q
route of Manila to Bolinao that was your first experience Where are these located?
of hold-up? A
A Two (2) on the side mirror, center mirror and rear view
Yes, sir. mirror, sir.
Q
The two side mirror protruding outside the bus?
Q A
And the speed of above 70 kilometers per hour your total Yes, sir, they are in the side of the bus, sir.
attention is focus in front of the road, correct, Mr.
witness? Q
A One of them is located on the left and the other on the
Once in a while the driver look at the side mirror and the right, correct?
rear view mirror, sir. A
Yes, sir.
Q
Before the announcement there was no reason for you Q
to look at any at the rear mirror, correct, Mr. witness? You only look at the side mirror when you are going to
over take, Mr. witness?
A
Court: No, sir.
Every now and then they usually look at the side mirror Q
and on the rear, that was his statement. Where is this center mirror located, Mr. witness?
A
Atty. Osorio: In the center, sir.
(to the witness)
Q Q
I am asking him if there was no reason for him.... What is the purpose of that?
A
Fiscal: So that I can see the passengers if they are already
settled so that I can start the engine, sir.
Before the announcement of hold-up, there was no
mention. Q
What about the remaining mirror?
Court: A
Rear view mirror, sir.
Every now and then.
Q
Atty. Osorio: What is the purpose and where is it located?
(to the witness) A
The rear view is located just above my head just to
Q check the passengers, sir.
When you said every now and then, how often is it, Mr.
witness?
A Q
So that the center mirror and the rear view mirror has the But you will agree Mr. witness that when you said every
same purpose? now and then you are using your mirror? It is only a
A glance, correct?
They are different, sir. A
Yes, sir.
Q
How do you differentiate of (sic) one from the other? Q
A And by mere glancing, Mr. witness you were not able to
The center mirror is used to check the center aisle while identify any person on the basis of any of your mirror,
the rear mirror is for the whole view of the passengers, correct?
sir. A
If only a glance but when I look at him I can recognize
him, sir.
Q
If you are going to look at any of your side mirrors, you
will never see any passengers, correct, Mr. witness? Q
A You agree a while ago by every now and then it is by
None, sir. glancing, as a driver, Mr. witness by your side mirror?
A
Not all glancing, there are times when you want to
Q recognize a person you look at him intently, sir.
If you will look at your center mirror you will only see the
aisle and you will never see any portion of the body of
your passengers? Q
A The purposes of your mirror inside your Bus is mainly of
Yes, sir. the safety of your passengers on board, Mr. witness?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
Seated passengers?
A Q
It is only focus (sic) on the middle aisle sir. And as a driver, Mr. witness, you do not used (sic) your
Q mirror to identify the person particularly when you are
If you look at your rear mirror, you will only see the top crossing (sic) at a speed of 70 kilometers per hour?
portion of the head of your passengers, correct? A
A I do that, sir.
Only the portion of their head because they have
different hight (sic), sir.
Q
How long Mr. witness can you focus your eyes on any of
Q these mirror before getting back your eyes into the main
You will never see any head of your passengers if they road?
were seated from the rear mirror portion, correct, Mr. A
witness? Seconds only, sir.
A
Yes, sir.
Q
When you said seconds, for how long the most Mr.
Q witness that you can do to fix your eyes on any of your
Before the announcement of hold-up, all of your mirrors and the return back of (sic) your eyes into the
passengers were actually sleeping? main road?
A A
Some of my passengers were sleeping, some were not, Two seconds, sir.
sir.
Q
Q At that time Mr. witness, that you were travelling at
about 70 kilometers you were glancing every now and
then on any of your mirrors at about two seconds, not looking to anybody except focus yours eyes in front
correct? of the road?
A
Yes, sir. Fiscal:
Q May I request the vernacular. Nakikiramdam ako.
And when you heard the announcement of hold-up your
natural reaction is to look either at the center mirror or Atty. Osorio:
rear mirror for two seconds, correct? (to the witness)
A
Yes, sir. Q
That’s what you are doing?
A
Q During the time they were gathering the money from my
And you were instructed Mr. witness to even accelerate passengers, that is the time when I look at them, sir.
your speed upon the announcement of hold-up?
A
No sir, they just told me to continue my driving, sir. Q
For two seconds, correct?
Fiscal: A
Yes, sir.
Q
May I request the vernacular “alalay ka lang, steady ka Which of the four (4) mirrors that you are looking at
lang. within two seconds, Mr. witness you said you are
nakikiramdam?
Atty. Osorio: A
(to the witness) The rear view mirror, sir.
Q
Steady at what speed? Q
A The Bus that you were driving is not an air con bus?
70 to 80, sir. A
Ordinary bus, sir.
Q
What is the minimum speed, Mr. witness for Buses along Q
North Expressway? And at what time your passengers, most of your
A passengers were already sleep (sic), Mr. witness?
60 kilometers, sir. A
Most of my passengers, sir. Some of my passengers
were still sleep (sic), sir.
Q
Are you sure of that 60 kilometers, minimum? Are you
sure of that? Q
A And the lights inside the Bus are off, correct Mr.
Yes, sir. witness?
A
The lights were on, sir.
Q
That is what you know within the two (2) years that you
are driving? Along the North Expressway? Q
A While the passengers were sleep (sic) the light was still
Yes, sir. on, Mr. witness, at the time of the trip.?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
And while you were at the precise moment, Mr. witness,
you were being instructed to continue driving, you were Q
Now, Mr. witness when the hold-up was announced and T:
then when you look for two seconds in the rear mirror Kung sakali bang makikita mo pa ang mga ito ay
you were not able to see any one, you were only sensing makikilala mo pa sila?
what is happening inside your bus? S:
A Makikilala ko po sila.[40]
I saw something, sir.
When asked to identify the robbers during the trial,
Rodolfo spontaneously pointed to and identified Juan
Q and Victor:
You saw something in front of your Bus? You can only
see inside when you are going to look at the mirror? QFiscal:
A (to the witness)
Yes, sir.
xxx
Q Q
That is the only thing that you see every now and then, Those two man (sic) who stated that it was a hold-up
you said you were looking at the mirror? inside the bus and who fired the gun are they inside the
A Court room (sic) today?
Yes, sir. A
Yes, ma’am.
Q
How many times, Mr. witness did you look Mr. witness at Q
the rear mirror during the entire occurance (sic) of the Point to us?
alleged hold-up?
A Interpreter:
There were many times, sir.
Witness pointing to a man wearing red T-shirt and when
Q asked his name answered Victor Acuyan and the man
The most that you can remember, please inform the wearing green T-shirt and when asked his name
Honorable Court? During the occurance (sic) of the answered Juan Gonzales.[41]
alleged hold-up, Mr. witness?
A For his part, Romulo likewise spontaneously pointed to
I cannot estimate, sir. and identified Juan and Victor as the culprits when
asked by the prosecutor to identify the robbers from
among those in the courtroom:
Q
How long did the alleged hold-up took place? xxx
A
More or less 25 minutes, sir.[39]
Q
When Rodolfo gave his sworn statement to the police You said that you were robbed inside the bus, how does
investigators in Plaridel, Bulacan after the robbery, he (sic) the robbing took place?
described the felons. When asked by the police A
investigators if he could identify the robbers if he see They announced a hold up ma’am, afterwards, they
them again, Rodolfo declared that he would be able to confiscated the money of the passengers including my
identify them: collections.
8.
T: Q
Natatandaan mo ba kung ano ang itsura ng dalawang You said “they” who announced the hold up, whose (sic)
lalaki na nanghold-up sa minamaneho mong bus? these “they” you are referring to?
S: A
Halos magkasing taas, 5’4” o 5’5” katam-taman ang Those two (2), ma’am.
pangangatawan, parehong nakapantalon ng maong
naka-suot ng jacket na maong, parehong naka rubber Interpreter:
shoes at pareho ring naka sumbrero.
9.
Witness pointing to the two accused. suggested to Rodolfo and Romulo the identities of Juan
and Victor as the perpetrators of the robbery and the
Public Pros.: killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr.
The Felony Committed by Juan and Victor
May we request that the accused be identified, Your
Honor.
Court: The Court finds that the trial court committed no error in
(to both accused) convicting Juan and Victor of robbery with homicide.
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act 7659, reads:
Art. 294. - Robbery with violence against or intimidation
What are your names? of persons. - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery
with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
A person shall suffer:
Juan Escote, Your Honor. Victor Acuyan, Your Honor.
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by
Public Pros.: reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed, or when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or
May we know from the accused if his name is Juan intentional mutilation or arson.
Escote Gonzales because he just said Juan Escote. In To warrant the conviction of Juan and Victor for the said
the Information, it is one Juan Gonzales, Jr., so, we can charge, the prosecution was burdened to prove the
change, Your Honor.[42] confluence of the following essential elements:
xxx (a) the taking of personal property with the use of
Moreover, when he was accosted by SPO3 Romeo violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the
Meneses on October 25, 1997 in Tarlac, Tarlac, Juan property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is
was in possession of the identification card[43] of the characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and
slain police officer. Juan failed to explain to the trial (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof,
court how and under what circumstances he came into the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic
possession of said identification card. Juan must sense, was committed. xxx[46]
necessarily be considered the author of the robbery and The intent to rob must precede the taking of human
the killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr. In People v. Mantung,[44] life.[47] In robbery with homicide, so long as the
we held: intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur
xxx [T]he recovery of part of the loot from Mantung or before, during or after the robbery. In People v. Barut,[48]
the time of his arrest gave rise to a legal presumption of the Court held that:
his guilt. As this Court has held, ‘[I]n the absence of an In the controlling Spanish version of article 294, it is
explanation of how one has come into possession of provided that there is robbery with homicide “cuando
stolen effects belonging to a person wounded and con motivo o con ocasión del robo resultare homicidio”.
treacherously killed, he must necessarily be considered “Basta que entre aquel este exista una relación
the author of the aggression and death of the said meramente ocasional. No se requiere que el homicidio
person and of the robbery committed on him.’ se cometa como medio de ejecución del robo, ni que el
While police investigators did not place Juan and Victor culpable tenga intención de matar, el delito existe según
in a police line-up for proper identification by Rodolfo constanta jurisprudencia, aun cuando no concurra
and Romulo, it cannot thereby be concluded that absent animo homicida. Incluso si la muerte sobreviniere por
such line-up, their identification by Romulo and Rodolfo mero accidente, siempre que el homicidio se produzca
as the authors of the robbery with homicide was con motivo con ocasión del robo, siendo indiferente que
unreliable. There is no law or police regulation requiring la muerte sea anterior, coetánea o posterior a éste” (2
a police line-up for proper identification in every case. Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 1975 14th Ed. P. 872).
Even if there was no police line-up, there could still be Even if the victim of robbery is other than the victim of
proper and reliable identification as long as such the homicide committed on the occasion of or by reason
identification was not suggested or instigated to the of the robbery, nevertheless, there is only one single and
witness by the police.[45] In this case, there is no indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. All the
evidence that the police officers had supplied or even crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged and integrated into a single and mitigating circumstance. The trial court did not specify
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. This was the in the decretal portion of its decision the aggravating
ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain on September 9, circumstances attendant in the commission of the crime
1886, et sequitur cited by this Court in People v. mandating the imposition of the death penalty. However,
Mangulabnan, et al.[49] it is evident from the findings of facts contained in the
We see, therefore, that in order to determine the body of the decision of the trial court that it imposed the
existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is death penalty on Juan and Victor on its finding that they
enough that a homicide would result by reason or on the shot SPO1 Manio, Jr. treacherously on the occasion of
occasion of the robbery (Decision of the Supreme Court or by reason of the robbery:
of Spain of November 26, 1892, and January 7, 1878,
quoted in 2 Hidalgo’s Penal Code, p. 267 and 259-260, xxx
respectively). This High Tribunal speaking of the
accessory character of the circumstances leading to the The two (2) accused are incomparable in their
homicide, has also held that it is immaterial that the ruthlessness and base regard for human life. After
death would supervene by mere accident (Decision of stripping the passengers of their money and valuables,
September 9, 1886; October 22, 1907; April 30, 1910 and including the firearm of the victim, they came to decide
July 14, 1917), provided that the homicide be produced to execute the latter seemingly because he was a police
by reason or on occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it officer. They lost no time pouncing him at the rear
is only the result obtained, without reference or section of the bus, aimed their firearms at him and, in a
distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or derisive and humiliating tone, told him, before pulling the
persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that trigger, that they were rather sorry but they are going to
has to be taken into consideration (Decision of January kill him with his own gun; and thereafter, they
12, 1889 – see Cuello Calon’s Codigo Penal, p. 501-502). simultaneously fired point blank at the hapless
Case law has it that whenever homicide has been policeman who was practically on his knees begging for
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the his life. Afterwhich, they calmly positioned themselves at
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the the front boasting for all to hear, that killing a man is like
robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery killing a chicken (“Parang pumapatay ng manok”).
with homicide although they did not take part in the Escote, in particular, is a class by himself in callousness.
homicide, unless it appears that they endeavored to xxx.[51]
prevent the homicide.[50] The Court agrees with the trial court that treachery was
attendant in the commission of the crime. There is
In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable treachery when the following essential elements are
doubt that Juan and Victor conspired and confabulated present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was
together in robbing the passengers of the Five Star Bus not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
of their money and valuables and Romulo of his consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
collections of the fares of the passengers and in killing means, methods or forms of attack employed by
SPO1 Manio, Jr. with impunity on the occasion of the him.[52] The essence of treachery is the sudden and
robbery. Hence, both Juan and Victor are guilty as unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting
principals by direct participation of the felony of robbery victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend
with homicide under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the himself and thereby ensuring its commission without
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, risk of himself. Treachery may also be appreciated even
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where
he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the
The Proper Penalty infliction of the coup de grace.[53] In the case at bar, the
victim suffered six wounds, one on the mouth, another
The trial court imposed the supreme penalty of death on on the right ear, one on the shoulder, another on the right
Juan and Victor for robbery with homicide, defined in breast, one on the upper right cornea of the sternum and
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, one above the right iliac crest. Juan and Victor were
punishable with reclusion perpetua. Under Article 63, armed with handguns. They first disarmed SPO1 Manio,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the felons Jr. and then shot him even as he pleaded for dear life.
should be meted the supreme penalty of death when the When the victim was shot, he was defenseless. He was
crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance shot at close range, thus insuring his death. The victim
attendant in the commission of the crime absent any was on his way to rejoin his family after a hard day’s
work. Instead, he was mercilessly shot to death, leaving decisions of this Court in People vs. Balagtas[64] for the
his family in grief for his untimely demise. The killing is a purpose of determining the penalty to be meted on the
grim example of the utter inhumanity of man to his felon when the victim of homicide is killed with
fellowmen. treachery.
The issues that now come to fore are (1) whether or not It must be recalled that by Royal Order of December 17,
treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in 1886 the 1850 Penal Code in force in Spain, as amended
robbery with homicide; and if in the affirmative, (b) by the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 was applied in
whether treachery may be appreciated against Juan and the Philippines. The Penal Code of 1887 in the
Victor. On the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. This Philippines was amended by Act 3815, now known as
Court has ruled over the years[54] that treachery is a the Revised Penal Code, which was enacted and
generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of published in Spanish. In construing the Old Penal Code
robbery with homicide, a special complex crime (un and the Revised Penal Code, this Court had accorded
delito especial complejo) and at the same time a single respect and persuasive, if not conclusive effect to the
and indivisible offense (uno solo indivisible).[55] decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and
However, this Court in two cases has held that robbery construing the 1850 Penal Code of Spain, as amended
with homicide is a crime against property and hence by Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870.[65]
treachery which is appreciated only to crimes against
persons should not be appreciated as a generic Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code
aggravating circumstance.[56] It held in another case reads:
that treachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape ART. 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The following
precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against are aggravating circumstances:
property.[57] These rulings of the Court find support in
case law that in robbery with homicide or robbery with xxx
rape, homicide or rape are merely incidents of the
robbery, with robbery being the main purpose and object 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
of the criminal.[58] Indeed, in People vs. Cando,[59] two There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
distinguished members of this Court advocated a review crimes against the person, employing means, methods,
of the doctrine that treachery is a generic aggravating or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
circumstance in robbery with homicide. They opined that specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. arising from the defense which the offended party might
After all, in People vs. Bariquit,[60] this Court in a per make.
curiam decision promulgated in year 2000 declared that The law was taken from Chapter IV, Article 10, paragraph
treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. 2 of the 1860 Penal Code and the Codigo Penal
However, this Court held in People vs. Cando that Reformado de 1870 of Spain which reads:
treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in Art. 10 ...2. Ejecutar el hecho con alevosia. Hay alevosia
robbery with homicide, citing its prior rulings that in cuando el culpable comete cualquiera de los delitos
robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic contra las personas empleando medios, modos o for
aggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide mas en la ejecucion que tiendan directa y especialmente
is killed with treachery. This Court opted not to apply its a asegurarla sin riesgo para su persona, que proceda de
ruling earlier that year in People vs. Bariquit. la defensa que pudiera hacer el ofendido. xxx
Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code is a
Legal Luminaries in criminal law and eminent reproduction of the 1850 Penal Code of Spain and the
commentators of the Revised Penal Code are not in full Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 with a slight
accord either. Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino (Retired) difference. In the latter law, the words “las personas”
says that treachery is appreciated only in crimes against (the persons) are used, whereas in Article 14, paragraph
persons as defined in Title 10, Book Two of the 6, of the Revised Penal Code, the words “the person” are
Code.[61] Chief Justice Luis B. Reyes (Retired) also is of used.
the opinion that treachery is applicable only to crimes
against persons.[62] However, Justice Florenz D. Going by the letter of the law, treachery is applicable only
Regalado (Retired) is of a different view.[63] He says that to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title Eight,
treachery cannot be considered in robbery but can be Chapters One and Two, Book II of the Revised Penal
appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned, citing the Code. However, the Supreme Court of Spain has
consistently applied treachery to robbery with homicide,
classified as a crime against property. Citing decisions xxx
of the Supreme Court of Spain, Cuello Calon, a noted
commentator of the Spanish Penal Code says that 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
despite the strict and express reference of the penal aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such
code to treachery being applicable to persons, treachery a degree that it must be of necessity accompany the
also applies to other crimes such as robbery with commission thereof.
homicide:[66] Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide.
Aun cuando el Codigo solo se refiere a los delitos contra Neither does it constitute a crime specially punishable
las personas, cabe estimarla en los que no by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime
perteneciendo a este titulo se determinan por muerte o of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty
lesiones, como, en el robo con homicidio, y en el therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime
homicidio del Jefe del Estado que es un delito contra la of robbery with homicide. Hence, treachery should be
seguridad interior del Estado, y no obstante la referencia considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in
estricta del texto legal a los delitos contra las personas robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper
no es la alevosia aplicable a la mayoria de ellos, no lo es penalty for the crime.
en el homicidio, pues como su concurrencia lo cualifica
lo transforma en delito distinto, en asesinato, ni en el In its Sentencia dated March 14, 1877, the Supreme
homicidio consentido (art. 409), ni en la riña tumultuaria Court of Spain declared that treachery is a generic
(art. 408) ni en el infanticidio (art. 410). xxx. [67] aggravating circumstance not only in crimes against
Viada also says that treachery is appreciated in crimes persons but also in robbery with homicide. The high
against persons (delitos contra personas) and also in court of Spain applied Article 79 of the Spanish Penal
robbery with homicide (robo con homicidio).[68] Code (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code) and ruled
“Contra las personas. - Luego la circunstancia de that since treachery is not a constitutive element of the
alevosia solo puede apreciarse en los delitos provistos crime of robbery with homicide nor is it inherent in said
desde el art. 417 al 447, y en algun otro, como el de robo crime, without which it cannot be committed, treachery
con homicidio, atentario, a la vez que contra la is an aggravating circumstance to said crime. The high
propriedad, contra la persona.” court of Spain was not impervious of the fact that
Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against
robbery with homicide although said crime is classified property. Indeed, it specifically declared that the
as a crime against property and a single and indivisible classification of robbery with homicide as a crime
crime. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance against property is irrelevant and inconsequential in the
because as ruled by the Supreme Court of Spain in its application of treachery. It further declared that it would
decision dated September 11, 1878, the word “homicide” be futile to argue that in crimes against property such as
is used in its broadest and most generic sense.[69] robbery with homicide, treachery would have no
application. This is so, the high tribunal ruled, because
Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code when robbery is coupled with crimes committed against
provides that in diminishing or increasing the penalty for persons, the crime is not only an assault (ataca) on the
a crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken into property of the victims but also of the victims
account. However, aggravating circumstances which in themselves (ofende):
themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by xxx que la circunstancia agravante de alevosia ni es
law or which are included by the law in defining a crime constitutiva del delito complejo de robo y homicidio, ni
and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into de tal modo inherente que sin ella no pueda cometerse,
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.[70] sin que quepa arguir que en los delitos contra la
Under paragraph 2 of the law, the same rule shall apply propiedad no debe aquella tener aplicacion, porque
with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent cuando estos son complejos de los que se cometen
in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity contra las personas, no solo se ataca a la propiedad,
accompany the commission thereof. sino que se ofende a estas. xxx[71]
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, the
are included by the law in defining a crime and law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into crime against persons and not at the constituent crime
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery
is applied to the constituent crime of “homicide” and not Supreme Court held in its Sentencia dated December 17,
to the constituent crime of “robbery” of the special 1875 that where two or more persons perpetrate the
complex crime of robbery with homicide. crime of robbery with homicide, the generic aggravating
circumstance of treachery shall be appreciated against
The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its all of the felons who had knowledge of the manner of
classification as a crime against property or as a special the killing of victims of homicide, with the ratiocination
complex and single and indivisible crime simply because that:
treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating xxx si por la Ley basta haberse ejecutado un homicidio
circumstance. Treachery merely increases the penalty simple con motivo ú ocasión del robo para la imposicion
for the crime conformably with Article 63 of the Revised de la pena del art. 516, num. I, no puede sere ni aun
Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance. discutible que, concurriendo la agravante de alevosia, se
aumente la criminalidad de los delincuentes; siendo
In its Sentencia, dated July 9, 1877, the high tribunal of aplicable a todos los autores del hecho indivisible,
Spain also ruled that when the victim of robbery is killed porque no es circunstancia que afecte a la personalidad
with treachery, the said circumstance should be del delincuente, de las que habla el art. 80 del Codigo
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance in penal en su primera parte, sino que consiste en la
robbery with homicide: ejecusion material del hecho y en los medios empleados
xxx que si aparece probado que el procesado y su co-reo para llevarle a cabo, cuando de ellos tuvieron
convinieron en matar a un conocido suyo, compañero de conocimiento todos los participantes en el mismo por el
viaje, para lo cual desviaron cautelosamente los carros concierto previo y con las condiciones establecidad en
que guiaban, en uno de los cuales iba el interfecto, la segunda parte del citado articulo.[75]
dirigiendolos por otro camino que conducia a un aljibon, Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated
y al llegar a este, valiendose de engaño para hacer bajar against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the
a dicho interfecto, se lanzaron de improviso sobre el, same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by
tirandolo en tierra, robandole el dinero, la manta y los Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
talegos que llevaba, y atandole al pie una piedra de Procedures which reads:
mucho peso, le arrojaron con ella a dicho aljibon, dados Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or
estos hechos, no cabe duda que constituyen el delito information shall state the designation of the offense
complejo del art. 516, num. I, con la circunstancia given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
agravante de alevosia, puesto que los medios, forma y constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and
modos empleados en la ejecucion del crimen tendieron aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of
directa y especialmente a asegurarla sin riesgo para sus the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
autores, procedente de la defensa del ofendido.[72] subsection of the statute punishing it.
In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating Although at the time the crime was committed, generic
circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the
of homicide is killed by treachery. Information, however, the general rule had been applied
retroactively because if it is more favorable to the
On the second issue, we also rule in the affirmative. accused.[76] Even if treachery is proven but it is not
Article 62, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code which alleged in the information, treachery cannot aggravate
was taken from Article 80 of the Codigo Penal the penalty for the crime.
Reformado de 1870,[73] provides that circumstances
which consist in the material execution of the act, or in There being no modifying circumstances in the
the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to commission of the felony of robbery with homicide, Juan
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only and Victor should each be meted the penalty of reclusion
who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised
of the act or their cooperation therein. The Penal Code.
circumstances attending the commission of a crime
either relate to the persons participating in the crime or Civil Liability of Juan and Victor
into its manner of execution or to the means employed.
The latter has a direct bearing upon the criminal liability The trial court awarded the total amount of P300,000.00
of all the accused who have knowledge thereof at the to the heirs of SPO1 Manio, Jr. The court did not specify
time of the commission of the crime or of their whether the said amounts included civil indemnity for
cooperation thereon.[74] Accordingly, the Spanish the death of the victim, moral damages and the lost
earnings of the victim as a police officer of the PNP. The
Court shall thus modify the awards granted by the trial = 28 years
court.
Gross Annual Income = gross monthly income x 12
Since the penalty imposed on Juan and Victor is months
reclusion perpetua, the heirs of the victim are entitled to
civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. The heirs = P8,065.00 x 12
are also entitled to moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00, Rosemarie Manio having testified on the = P96,780.00
factual basis thereof.[77] Considering that treachery
aggravated the crime, the heirs are also entitled to Living Expenses= 50% of Gross Annual Income
exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This
Court held in People vs. Catubig[78] that the retroactive = P96,780.00 x 0.5
application of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure should not impair the right of the = P48,390.00
heirs to exemplary damages which had already accrued
when the crime was committed prior to the effectivity of Lost Earning Capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross
the said rule. Juan and Victor are also jointly and Annual Income-
severally liable to the said heirs in the total amount of Living expenses]
P30,000.00 as actual damages, the prosecution having
adduced evidence receipts for said amounts. The heirs = 28 x [P96,780.00 – P48,390.00]
are not entitled to expenses allegedly incurred by them
during the wake as such expenses are not supported by = 28 x P48,390.00
receipts.[79] However, in lieu thereof, the heirs are
entitled to temperate damages in the amount of = P1,354,920.00
P20,000.00.[80] The service firearm of the victim was
turned over to the Evidence Custodian of the Caloocan IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the
City Police Station per order of the trial court on October Regional Trial Court of Bulacan is hereby AFFIRMED with
22, 1997.[81] The prosecution failed to adduce MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants Juan Gonzales
documentary evidence to prove the claim of Five Star Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan are hereby found guilty
Bus, Inc. in the amount of P6,000.00. Hence, the award beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of robbery with
should be deleted. However, in lieu of actual damages, homicide defined in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the
the bus company is entitled to temperate damages in Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying
the amount of P3,000.00.[82] circumstances in the commission of the felony, hereby
metes on each of them the penalty of RECLUSION
The heirs are likewise entitled to damages for the lost PERPETUA. Said accused-appellants are hereby ordered
earnings of the victim. The evidence on record shows to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim SPO1
that SPO1 Manio, Jr. was born on August 25, 1958. He Jose C. Manio, Jr. the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil
was killed on September 28, 1996 at the age of 38. He indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P1,349,920.00
had a gross monthly salary as a member of the for lost earnings, P30,000.00 as actual damages and
Philippine National Police of P8,065.00 or a gross annual P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of
salary of P96,780.00. Hence, the heirs are entitled to the P6,000.00 to the Five Star Bus, Inc. is deleted. However,
amount of P1,354,920.00 by way of lost earnings of the the said corporation is awarded the amount of P3,000.00
victim computed, thus: as temperate damages.
Age of the victim = 38 years old Costs de oficio.
Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 – age of the victim at the SO ORDERED.
time of death)
= 2/3 x (80-38)
= 2/3 x 42
second inquest, with 1st Lt. Lawrence San Juan (San
Juan), this time for Rebellion. A panel of State
prosecutors[6] from the DOJ conducted this second
Ladlad v. Velasco, 523 SCRA 318 (2007) inquest. The inquest was based on two letters, both
dated 27 February 2006, of Yolanda Tanigue (Tanigue)
CARPIO, J., and of Rodolfo Mendoza (Mendoza). Tanigue is the
Acting Executive Officer of the Criminal Investigation
The Case and Detection Group (CIDG), Philippine National Police
These are consolidated petitions for the writs of (PNP), while Mendoza is the Acting Deputy Director of
prohibition and certiorari to enjoin petitioners' the CIDG. The letters referred to the DOJ for appropriate
prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulings of action the results of the CIDG's investigation implicating
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Regional Trial Beltran, the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172074-76, San Juan,
Court of Makati City (RTC Makati) on the investigation and several others as "leaders and promoters" of an
and prosecution of petitioners' cases. alleged foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government.
The plot was supposed to be carried out jointly by
The Facts members of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) and the Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP),
Petitioner in G.R. No. 175013, Crispin B. Beltran (Beltran), which have formed a "tactical alliance."
and petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172074-76, Liza L. Maza
(Maza), Joel G. Virador (Virador), Saturnino C. Ocampo On 27 February 2006, the DOJ panel of prosecutors
(Ocampo), Teodoro A. Casiño (Casiño), and Rafael V. issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict
Mariano (Mariano),[1] are members of the House of Beltran and San Juan as "leaders/promoters" of
Representatives representing various party-list groups.[2] Rebellion. The panel then filed an Information with the
Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172070-72 are private RTC Makati. The Information alleged that Beltran, San
individuals. Petitioners all face charges for Rebellion Juan, and other individuals "conspiring and
under Article 134 in relation to Article 135 of the Revised confederating with each other, x x x, did then and there
Penal Code in two criminal cases pending with the RTC willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously form a tactical
Makati. alliance between the CPP/NPA, renamed as Partidong
Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and its armed regular
G.R. No. 175013 (The Beltran Petition) members as Katipunan ng Anak ng Bayan (KAB) with the
Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP) and thereby rise
Following the issuance by President Gloria publicly and take up arms against the duly constituted
Macapagal-Arroyo of Presidential Proclamation No. government, x x x."[7] The Information, docketed as
1017 on 24 February 2006 declaring a "State of National Criminal Case No. 06-452, was raffled to Branch 137
Emergency," police officers[3] arrested Beltran on 25 under Presiding Judge Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino
February 2006, while he was en route to Marilao, (Judge Delorino).
Bulacan, and detained him in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
Beltran was arrested without a warrant and the arresting Beltran moved that Branch 137 make a judicial
officers did not inform Beltran of the crime for which he determination of probable cause against him.[8] Before
was arrested. On that evening, Beltran was subjected to the motion could be resolved, Judge Delorino recused
an inquest at the Quezon City Hall of Justice for Inciting herself from the case which was re-raffled to Branch 146
to Sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code under Judge Encarnacion Jaja-Moya (Judge Moya).
based on a speech Beltran allegedly gave during a rally
in Quezon City on 24 February 2006, on the occasion of In its Order dated 31 May 2006, Branch 146 sustained
the 20th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution. The inquest the finding of probable cause against Beltran.[9] Beltran
was based on the joint affidavit of Beltran's arresting sought reconsideration but Judge Moya also inhibited
officers who claimed to have been present at the rally. herself from the case without resolving Beltran's motion.
The inquest prosecutor[4] indicted Beltran and filed the Judge Elmo M. Alameda of Branch 150, to whom the
corresponding Information with the Metropolitan Trial case was re-raffled, issued an Order on 29 August 2006
Court of Quezon City (MeTC).[5] denying Beltran's motion.
The authorities brought back Beltran to Camp Crame
where, on 27 February 2006, he was subjected to a
Hence, the petition in G.R. No. 175013 to set aside the others with Rebellion. The prosecutors filed the
Orders dated 31 May 2006 and 29 August 2006 and to corresponding Information with Branch 57 of the RTC
enjoin Beltran's prosecution. Makati, docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 (later
consolidated with Criminal Case No. 06-452 in Branch
In his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General 146), charging petitioners and their co-accused as
claims that Beltran's inquest for Rebellion was valid and "principals, masterminds, [or] heads" of a Rebellion.[12]
that the RTC Makati correctly found probable cause to Consequently, the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172070-72
try Beltran for such felony. filed a supplemental petition to enjoin the prosecution of
Criminal Case No. 06-944.
G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76 (The Maza and
Ladlad Petitions) In his separate Comment to the Maza petition, the
Solicitor General submits that the preliminary
Based on Tanigue and Mendoza's letters, the DOJ sent investigation of petitioners was not tainted with
subpoenas to petitioners on 6 March 2006 requiring irregularities. The Solicitor General also claims that the
them to appear at the DOJ Office on 13 March 2006 "to filing of Criminal Case No. 06-944 has mooted the Maza
get copies of the complaint and its attachment." Prior to petition.
their receipt of the subpoenas, petitioners had quartered
themselves inside the House of Representatives building The Issues
for fear of being subjected to warrantless arrest.
The petitions raise the following issues:
During the preliminary investigation on 13 March 2006,
the counsel for the CIDG presented a masked man, later 1. In G.R. No. 175013, (a) whether the inquest
identified as Jaime Fuentes (Fuentes), who claimed to proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion was valid and
be an eyewitness against petitioners. Fuentes (b) whether there is probable cause to indict Beltran for
subscribed to his affidavit before respondent prosecutor Rebellion; and
Emmanuel Velasco who then gave copies of the affidavit
to media members present during the proceedings. The 2. In G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76, whether
panel of prosecutors[10] gave petitioners 10 days within respondent prosecutors should be enjoined from
which to file their counter-affidavits. Petitioners were continuing with the prosecution of Criminal Case No.
furnished the complete copies of documents supporting 06-944.[13]
the CIDG's letters only on 17 March 2006.
The Ruling of the Court
Petitioners moved for the inhibition of the members of
the prosecution panel for lack of impartiality and We find the petitions meritorious.
independence, considering the political milieu under
which petitioners were investigated, the statements that On the Beltran Petition
the President and the Secretary of Justice made to the
media regarding petitioners' case,[11] and the manner in The Inquest Proceeding against
which the prosecution panel conducted the preliminary Beltran for Rebellion is Void.
investigation. The DOJ panel of prosecutors denied
petitioners' motion on 22 March 2006. Petitioners Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused
sought reconsideration and additionally prayed for the has been lawfully arrested without warrant.[14] Section 5,
dismissal of the cases. However, the panel of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
prosecutors denied petitioners' motions on 4 April 2006. provides the instances when such warrantless arrest
may be effected, thus:
Petitioners now seek the nullification of the DOJ Orders Arrest without warrant; when lawful.– A
of 22 March 2006 and 4 April 2006. peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
Acting on petitioners' prayer for the issuance of an
injunctive writ, the Court issued a status quo order on 5 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
June 2006. Prior to this, however, the panel of arrested has committed, is actually
prosecutors, on 21 April 2006, issued a Resolution committing, or is attempting to commit an
finding probable cause to charge petitioners and 46 offense;
d) forward the same, together with the
(b) When an offense has just been record of the case, to the City or Provincial
committed and he has probable cause to Prosecutor for appropriate action.
believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to Where the recommendation for the release
be arrested has committed it; and of the detained person is approved by the
City or Provincial Prosecutor but the
x x x x evidence on hand warrant the conduct of a
regular preliminary investigation, the order
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and of release shall be served on the officer
(b) above, the person arrested without a having custody of said detainee and shall
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the direct the said officer to serve upon the
nearest police station or jail and shall be detainee the subpoena or notice of
proceeded against in accordance with preliminary investigation, together with the
section 7 of Rule 112. copies of the charge sheet or complaint,
The joint affidavit of Beltran's arresting officers[15] states affidavit or sworn statements of the
that the officers arrested Beltran, without a warrant,[16] complainant and his witnesses and other
for Inciting to Sedition, and not for Rebellion. Thus, the supporting evidence. (Emphasis supplied)
inquest prosecutor could only have conducted – as he For the failure of Beltran's panel of inquest prosecutors
did conduct – an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no to comply with Section 7, Rule 112 in relation to Section
other. Consequently, when another group of prosecutors 5, Rule 113 and DOJ Circular No. 61, we declare Beltran's
subjected Beltran to a second inquest proceeding for inquest void.[19] Beltran would have been entitled to a
Rebellion, they overstepped their authority rendering the preliminary investigation had he not asked the trial court
second inquest void. None of Beltran's arresting officers to make a judicial determination of probable cause,
saw Beltran commit, in their presence, the crime of which effectively took the place of such proceeding.
Rebellion. Nor did they have personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that Beltran had just committed There is No Probable Cause to Indict
Rebellion, sufficient to form probable cause to believe Beltran for Rebellion.
that he had committed Rebellion. What these arresting
officers alleged in their affidavit is that they saw and Probable cause is the "existence of such facts and
heard Beltran make an allegedly seditious speech on 24 circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable
February 2006.[17] mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
Indeed, under DOJ Circular No. 61, dated 21 September crime for which he was prosecuted."[20] To accord
1993, the initial duty of the inquest officer is to respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and
determine if the arrest of the detained person was made for reasons of practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not
"in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable
(b) of Section 5, Rule 113."[18] If the arrest was not cause for otherwise, courts would be swamped with
properly effected, the inquest officer should proceed petitions to review the prosecutor's findings in such
under Section 9 of Circular No. 61 which provides: investigations.[21] However, in the few exceptional cases
Where Arrest Not Properly Effected.– where the prosecutor abused his discretion by ignoring a
Should the Inquest Officer find that the clear insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of
arrest was not made in accordance with probable cause, thus denying the accused his right to
the Rules, he shall: substantive and procedural due process, we have not
hesitated to intervene and exercise our review power
a) recommend the release of the person under Rule 65 to overturn the prosecutor's findings.[22]
arrested or detained; This exception holds true here.
b) note down the disposition on the referral
document; Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is
c) prepare a brief memorandum indicating committed –
the reasons for the action taken; and [B]y rising publicly and taking arms against
the Government for the purpose of
removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Cachuela stated that he was a former member of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part CPP and that (1) he attended the CPP's "10th Plenum" in
thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other 1992 where he saw Beltran; (2) he took part in criminal
armed forces or depriving the Chief activities; and (3) the arms he and the other CPP
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or members used were purchased partly from contributions
partially, of any of their powers or by Congressional members, like Beltran, who represent
prerogatives. party-list groups affiliated with the CPP.
The elements of the offense are:
The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof
1. That there be a (a) public uprising needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an armed
and (b) taking arms against the public uprising against the government. What these
Government; and documents prove, at best, is that Beltran was in Bucal,
Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February 2006 and that 14
2. That the purpose of the uprising or years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP
movement is either – Plenum. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran
committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or
(a) to remove from the allegiance heading a rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27
to said Government or its laws: February 2006. None of the affidavits alleged that
Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltran's alleged
(1) the territory of the Philippines presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not
or any part thereof; or automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.
(2) any body of land, naval, or other
armed forces; or In fact, Cachuela's affidavit stated that Beltran attended
the 1992 CPP Plenum as "Chairman, Kilusang Mayo Uno
(KMU)." Assuming that Beltran is a member of the CPP,
(b) to deprive the Chief Executive which Beltran does not acknowledge, mere membership
or Congress, wholly or partially, of in the CPP does not constitute rebellion.[29] As for the
any of their powers and alleged funding of the CPP's military equipment from
prerogatives.[23] Beltran's congressional funds, Cachuela's affidavit
merely contained a general conclusion without any
Thus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or specific act showing such funding. Cachuela merely
multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of alleged that "ang mga ibang mga pondo namin ay galing
a political end.[24] sa mga party list na naihalal sa Kongreso tulad ng BAYAN
MUNA – pimumunuan nila SATUR OCAMPO at CRISPIN
The evidence before the panel of prosecutors who BELTRAN, x x x."[30] Such a general conclusion does not
conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion consisted establish probable cause.
of the affidavits and other documents[25] attached to the
CIDG letters. We have gone over these documents and In his Comment to Beltran's petition, the Solicitor
find merit in Beltran's contention that the same are General points to Fuentes' affidavit, dated 25 February
insufficient to show probable cause to indict him for 2006,[31] as basis for the finding of probable cause
Rebellion. The bulk of the documents consists of against Beltran as Fuentes provided details in his
affidavits, some of which were sworn before a notary statement regarding meetings Beltran and the other
public, executed by members of the military and some petitioners attended in 2005 and 2006 in which plans to
civilians. Except for two affidavits, executed by a certain overthrow violently the Arroyo government were
Ruel Escala (Escala), dated 20 Febuary 2006,[26] and Raul allegedly discussed, among others.
Cachuela (Cachuela), dated 23 February 2006,[27] none of
the affidavits mentions Beltran.[28] In his affidavit, Escala The claim is untenable. Fuentes' affidavit was not part of
recounted that in the afternoon of 20 February 2006, he the attachments the CIDG referred to the DOJ on 27
saw Beltran, Ocampo, Casiño, Maza, Mariano, Virador, February 2006. Thus, the panel of inquest prosecutors
and other individuals on board a vehicle which entered a did not have Fuentes' affidavit in their possession when
chicken farm in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas and that they conducted the Rebellion inquest against Beltran on
after the passengers alighted, they were met by another that day. Indeed, although this affidavit is dated 25
individual who looked like San Juan. For his part, February 2006, the CIDG first presented it only during the
preliminary investigation of the other petitioners on 13 On the Ladlad and Maza Petitions
March 2006 during which Fuentes subscribed to his
statement before respondent prosecutor Velasco. The Preliminary Investigation was Tainted
With Irregularities.
Respondent prosecutors later tried to remedy this fatal
defect by motu proprio submitting to Branch 137 of the As in the determination of probable cause, this Court is
RTC Makati Fuentes' affidavit as part of their Comment similarly loath to enjoin the prosecution of offenses, a
to Beltran's motion for judicial determination of probable practice rooted on public interest as the speedy closure
cause. Such belated submission, a tacit admission of of criminal investigations fosters public safety.[35]
the dearth of evidence against Beltran during the However, such relief in equity may be granted if, among
inquest, does not improve the prosecution's case. others, the same is necessary (a) to prevent the use of
Assuming them to be true, what the allegations in the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive
Fuentes' affidavit make out is a case for Conspiracy to manner[36] or (b) to afford adequate protection to
Commit Rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of the constitutional rights.[37] The case of the petitioners in
Revised Penal Code, not Rebellion under Article 134. G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76 falls under these
Attendance in meetings to discuss, among others, plans exceptions.
to bring down a government is a mere preparatory step
to commit the acts constituting Rebellion under Article The procedure for preliminary investigation of offenses
134. Even the prosecution acknowledged this, since the punishable by at least four years, two months and one
felony charged in the Information against Beltran and day is outlined in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised
San Juan in Criminal Case No. 06-452 is Conspiracy to Rules of Criminal Procedure, thus:
Commit Rebellion and not Rebellion. The Information Procedure.–The preliminary investigation
merely alleged that Beltran, San Juan, and others shall be conducted in the following
conspired to form a "tactical alliance" to commit manner:
Rebellion. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it
nevertheless found probable cause to try Beltran for (a) The complaint shall state the address
Rebellion based on the evidence before it. of the respondent and shall be
accompanied by the affidavits of the
The minutes[32] of the 20 February 2006 alleged meeting complainant and his witnesses, as well as
in Batangas between members of MKP and CPP, other supporting documents to establish
including Beltran, also do not detract from our finding. probable cause. They shall be in such
Nowhere in the minutes was Beltran implicated. While number of copies as there are
the minutes state that a certain "Cris" attended the respondents, plus two (2) copies for the
alleged meeting, there is no other evidence on record official file. The affidavits shall be
indicating that "Cris" is Beltran. San Juan, from whom subscribed and sworn to before any
the "flash drive" containing the so-called minutes was prosecutor or government official
allegedly taken, denies knowing Beltran. authorized to administer oath, or, in their
absence or unavailability, before a notary
To repeat, none of the affidavits alleges that Beltran is public, each of whom must certify that he
promoting, maintaining, or heading a Rebellion. The personally examined the affiants and that
Information in Criminal Case No. 06-452 itself does not he is satisfied that they voluntarily
make such allegation. Thus, even assuming that the executed and understood their affidavits.
Information validly charges Beltran for taking part in a
Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right since (b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of
there is no allegation in the Information that he is a the complaint, the investigating officer
leader or promoter of the Rebellion.[33] However, the shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground
Information in fact merely charges Beltran for to continue with the investigation, or issue
"conspiring and confederating" with others in forming a a subpoena to the respondent attaching to
"tactical alliance" to commit rebellion. As worded, the it a copy of the complaint and its
Information does not charge Beltran with Rebellion but supporting affidavits and documents.
with Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion, a bailable
offense.[34] The respondent shall have the right to
examine the evidence submitted by the
complainant which he may not have been (f) Within ten (10) days after the
furnished and to copy them at his expense. investigation, the investigating officer shall
If the evidence is voluminous, the determine whether or not there is sufficient
complainant may be required to specify ground to hold the respondent for trial.
those which he intends to present against (Emphasis supplied)
the respondent, and these shall be made Instead of following this procedure scrupulously, as
available for examination or copying by the what this Court had mandated in an earlier ruling, "so
respondent at his expense. that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential
accused can be protected from any material damage,"[38]
Objects as evidence need not be furnished respondent prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it.
a party but shall be made available for Respondent prosecutors failed to comply with Section
examination, copying, or photographing at 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides that the complaint
the expense of the requesting party. (which, with its attachment, must be of such number as
there are respondents) be accompanied by the affidavits
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the of the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and
subpoena with the complaint and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official
supporting affidavits and documents, the authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or
respondent shall submit his unavailability, before a notary public. Respondent
counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue
and other supporting documents relied and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as complaints[39] and
upon for his defense. The accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even
counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and though some of them were notarized by a notary public
sworn to and certified as provided in without any showing that a prosecutor or qualified
paragraph (a) of this section, with copies government official was unavailable as required by
thereof furnished by him to the Section 3(a) of Rule 112.
complainant. The respondent shall not be
allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu Further, Section 3(b) of Rule 112 mandates that the
of a counter-affidavit. prosecutor, after receiving the complaint, must
determine if there are grounds to continue with the
(d) If the respondent cannot be investigation. If there is none, he shall dismiss the case,
subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not otherwise he shall "issue a subpoena to the
submit counter-affidavits within the ten respondents." Here, after receiving the CIDG letters,
(10) day period, the investigating officer respondent prosecutors peremptorily issued subpoenas
shall resolve the complaint based on the to petitioners requiring them to appear at the DOJ office
evidence presented by the complainant. on 13 March 2006 "to secure copies of the complaints
and its attachments." During the investigation,
(e) The investigating officer may set a respondent prosecutors allowed the CIDG to present a
hearing if there are facts and issues to be masked Fuentes who subscribed to an affidavit before
clarified from a party or a witness. The respondent prosecutor Velasco. Velasco proceeded to
parties can be present at the hearing but distribute copies of Fuentes' affidavit not to petitioners
without the right to examine or or their counsels but to members of the media who
cross-examine. They may, however, submit covered the proceedings. Respondent prosecutors then
to the investigating officer questions which required petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits in
may be asked to the party or witness 10 days. It was only four days later, on 17 March 2006,
concerned. that petitioners received the complete copy of the
attachments to the CIDG letters.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10)
days from submission of the These uncontroverted facts belie respondent
counter-affidavits and other documents or prosecutors' statement in the Order of 22 March 2006
from the expiration of the period for their that the preliminary investigation "was done in
submission. It shall be terminated within accordance with the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal
five (5) days. Procedure."[40] Indeed, by peremptorily issuing the
subpoenas to petitioners, tolerating the complainant's
antics during the investigation, and distributing copies of avoid, giving the impression that their
a witness' affidavit to members of the media knowing noble office is being used or prostituted,
that petitioners have not had the opportunity to examine wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or
the charges against them, respondent prosecutors not other purposes alien to, or subversive of,
only trivialized the investigation but also lent credence to the basic and fundamental objective of
petitioners' claim that the entire proceeding was a sham. observing the interest of justice
evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any
A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor,
criminal justice system which spells for an individual the weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only
difference between months if not years of agonizing trial by strict adherence to the established
and possibly jail term, on the one hand, and peace of procedure may be public's perception of
mind and liberty, on the other hand. Thus, we have the impartiality of the prosecutor be
characterized the right to a preliminary investigation as enhanced.[44]
not "a mere formal or technical right" but a "substantive" WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitions. In G.R . No.
one, forming part of due process in criminal justice.[41] 175013, we SET ASIDE the Order dated 31 May 2006 of
This especially holds true here where the offense the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 146 and the
charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and may be Order dated 29 August 2006 of the Regional Trial Court,
non-bailable for those accused as principals. Makati City, Branch 150. In G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and
172074-76, we SET ASIDE the Orders dated 22 March
Contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General, 2006 and 4 April 2006 issued by respondent
respondent prosecutors' filing of the Information against prosecutors. We ORDER the Regional Trial Court, Makati
petitioners on 21 April 2006 with Branch 57 of the RTC City, Branch 150 to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 06-452
Makati does not moot the petitions in G.R. Nos. and 06-944.
172070-72 and 172074-76. Our power to enjoin
prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the simple filing of SO ORDERED.
the Information with the trial court.
On Respondent Prosecutors' Lack of Impartiality
We find merit in petitioners' doubt on respondent
prosecutors' impartiality. Respondent Secretary of
Justice, who exercises supervision and control over the
panel of prosecutors, stated in an interview on 13 March
2006, the day of the preliminary investigation, that, "We
[the DOJ] will just declare probable cause, then it's up to
the [C]ourt to decide x x x."[42] Petitioners raised this
issue in their petition,[43] but respondents never disputed
the veracity of this statement. This clearly shows
pre-judgment, a determination to file the Information
even in the absence of probable cause.
A Final Word
The obvious involvement of political considerations in
the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice and
respondent prosecutors brings to mind an observation
we made in another equally politically charged case. We
reiterate what we stated then, if only to emphasize the
importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal
prosecutions in general and preliminary investigations in
particular, thus:
[W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that
prosecutors should not allow, and should