[ G.R. No. L-31180-81. October 30, 1974 ] 158 Phil. 551
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-31180-81. October 30, 1974 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ARSENIO BALUARTE AND DEMOCRITO LABARIA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
ANTONIO, J.:
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch V) in Criminal Cases Nos. V10220 and V-10245, dated June 20, 1967, finding appellants Arsenio Baluarte and Democrito Labaria guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Clara Navales in the amount of P6,000.00, to pay Eleuteria Patalinghug the amount of P130.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay 1/3 of the costs. Three of the five accused, namely, Francisco Enad, Zosimo Canoy and Ricardo Sato, Jr., were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Eleuteria Patalinghug, a spinster, lived with a house helper, Clara Navales, at Barrio Basak in a mountainous sector of San Fernando, Cebu. On August 8, 1964, she left for Barrio Luknay of the same municipality to gather her own produce and to plow the field. Clara Navales was left behind in the house together with Rosita Alfeche, a neighbor whom the former requested to keep her company. Before retiring on the night of August 12, 1964, the two women closed all the windows and doors of the house, using a long piece of wood to bar the main door, and afterwards they slept together on a mat on the floor of the sala. At about 2:00 o’clock in the early morning of the next day, Rosita Alfeche was suddenly awakened by a man who was in the act of choking her. As the man pushed her head against a pillow, she struggled. At that juncture she realized that both of her hands were tied behind her back. By the dim light of a kerosene lamp she noticed another man sitting on top of the sewing machine about 1-1/2 meters away, wearing a straw hat locally known as “ticog,” with the brim pulled down his eyes. According to her, the man resembled appellant Democrito Labaria. At an adjoining room, another man holding a flashlight was ransacking the trunks. The men left the house after taking whatever valuables they wanted. After the departure of the malefactors, Rosita Alfeche discovered that her companion, Clara Navales, was already dead, and her body was covered with blood. She immediately shouted for help, and one Soledad Alfeche came to her aid, untied her hands and accompanied her to the house of one Honorato Saramosing. The latter, in turn, accompanied them to the barrio captain to report the incident. As it was still dark, they spent the hours until daybreak in the house of Saramosing before proceeding to the poblacion of San Fernando to report the matter to the authorities. Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events, Eleuteria Patalinghug returned to Barrio Basak and discovered that her trunk had been pried open, and some of its contents were scattered on the floor. The contents of her wooden piggy bank (Exh. “B”) consisting of P60.00 in coins, a kitchen knife, a chisel and a coconut meat extractor, were missing. On that same morning of August 13, 1964, a team of investigators from the 53rd PC Company of Cebu composed of Lt. Filart, Sgt. Armando Alfoja and some other constabulary soldiers and policemen of San Fernando, arrived at Barrio Basak. They saw the lifeless body of Clara Navales lying on her back on a mat spread on the floor (Exh. “J”). The face of the victim was turned to the left, and her skirt was raised up to the waist, exposing her panty. Her clothing, the pillows and blankets were all soaked with blood. The sewing machine was only about one foot from the feet of the victim. In the adjoining room, clothes were strewn on the floor; a kitchen knife covered with blood was found on top of the clothes. The post-mortem examination performed by Dr. Corazon Bautista, Municipal Health Officer of San Fernando, revealed that the victim sustained 19 stab wounds (Exh. “E”). The cause of death was suffocation and hemorrhage due to injuries to the vital organs such as the heart and the lungs. Rosita Alfeche sustained only minor injuries and conjunctival bruises in both eyes. Four days later, on the early morning of August 17, 1964, Ignacio Alsa, Barrio Captain of Basak, found a “ticog” hat (Exh. “K”) hidden underneath some thick bushes and stones in a ridge called Paling-paling, which was on the path leading from Barrio Balud to Barrio Basak about a kilometer away from the house of the victim. After the hat had been turned over to Sgt. Alfoja, the latter proceeded to the place where the same was found and conducted a further search. As a result of his search he found another “ticog” hat (Exh. “L”) and a piece of wood (Exh. “D-1”), which turned out to be a part of the broken wooden piggy bank reported previously as missing by Patalinghug. The other portions of the piggy bank were subsequently found in the same site. In his determination to ascertain the identity of the owners of the hats, Sgt. Alfoja proceeded to the town of San Fernando, passing through Barrio Balud, and upon reaching the national road to Balud, he inquired from the stores there whether the “ticog” hats which he found were the same as those sold there. He found out, however, that none of the stores had that kind of hat. Pursuing his investigation, Sgt. Alfoja then proceeded to the town proper of San Fernando. Upon being informed that there were some laborers from Barrio Basak, San Fernando, working in the wharf in Cebu City, Sgt. Alfoja proceeded to Cebu City with Pat. Roman. At. Pier 1 of the city, Sgt. Alfoja noticed one of the workers of M/S Florentina wearing a “ticog” hat (Exh. “F”) which had the same brand or make as the two hats found at Paling-paling ridge. When questioned about his hat, the man, who turned out to be appellant Democrito Labaria, appeared quite nervous and informed the investigator that he bought it that morning in Barrio Balud, San Fernando, from one Baro. Suspicious about the hat, Sgt. Alfoja further questioned him on the matter, and it was then that said appellant stated that he merely borrowed the hat from one “Baro.” Alfoja requested Labaria to lend him the hat so he could show it to Baro. He then proceeded to Barrio Balud to question Baro. Upon being shown the hat (Exh. “F”), Baro who turned out to be an uncle of appellant Labaria, denied ownership of the hat. Owing to the conflicting statements of Baro and Labaria, the PC investigator brought the two face to face, and in that confrontation Labaria revealed that the true owner of the hat was not Baro but his other uncle by the name of Arsenio Baluarte, who was living in Barrio Pardo of Cebu City. Bringing with them appellant Labaria, the PC investigators and Pat. Libor of the San Fernando police force proceeded to the house of appellant Arsenio Baluarte, arriving there at 7:00 o’clock in the evening, but they did not find him there. The mother of appellant Arsenio Baluarte directed the investigators to proceed to the public market of Pardo, but when they did not find the said appellant there, she took them to the house of appellant’s common-law wife. When they still could not find said appellant, the group decided to return to the market. While they were going down the stairs of the house, they saw appellant Baluarte approaching the house. The latter, upon seeing Pat. Libor, immediately ran away. The investigators, after pursuing him some distance, gave up, the chase. The constabulary investigators thereafter left the area, but at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of that date, Sgt. Alfoja and two companions returned to the house of the common-law wife of appellant Baluarte to conduct a surveillance of the premises. It was while they were hiding inside the house that appellant Arsenio Baluarte arrived at about 10:00 o’clock that night. He was immediately arrested and brought to the PC headquarters for investigation. In that investigation, appellant Arsenio Baluarte admitted in his extra-judicial statement made in the native Cebuano dialect (Exh. “M”), his participation in the commission of the crime aforementioned and disclosed that the names of his companions were Moises Enad (also known as Francisco Enad), Simo Canoy, Junior Sato and Democrito Labaria. The following day (August 19, 1964), he was brought to the office of Municipal Judge Sarmiento of San Fernando. Judge Sarmiento read aloud in the dialect the contents of the statement (Exh. “M”), and afterwards inquired from Baluarte whether the declarations therein were true. Appellant Baluarte replied that all his answers therein were true and correct, after which he was made by the municipal judge to sign the statement and to swear to the veracity of its contents. After taking the statement of Arsenio Baluarte, Capt. Villarin decided that they should proceed to effect the arrest of the other three suspects, namely, Zosimo Canoy, Junior Sato and Moises Enad. Democrito Labaria subsequently executed an extra judicial confession in the local dialect. (Exh. “T”),[1] admitting participation in the commission of the crime. When Junior Sato and Zosimo Canoy were brought to the house of Eleuteria Patalinghug where the crime was committed, the constabulary investigators inquired from appellants Arsenio Baluarte and Democrito Labaria whether the persons mentioned by them in their extra-judicial declarations were the same as the Zosimo Canoy and Junior Sato who were arrested, and they told the investigators that they were the same persons. After informing the other investigators that they could not apprehend Enad as he could not be found in his house or in another place in the barrio, the investigators decided to have the crime reenacted by Arsenio Baluarte and Democrito Labaria. According to Sgt. Alfoja, during the re-enactment at the house of Eleuteria Patalinghug, appellant Democrito Labaria demonstrated how he and his companions were able to enter the house by climbing through the window of the kitchen as shown in the picture Exh. “N”, appellant Democrito Labaria also stated during that occasion that occasion that after he, Francisco Enad, Zosimo Canoy and Ricardo Sato, Jr., entered the house, they went to the sleeping quarters of the victim; that Zosimo Canoy and Ricardo Sato, Jr. held Clara Navales, who was then sleeping, with Sato holding Clara’s left hand, while Canoy held the face of the victim on the manner shown in the picture Exhibit “O”, Labaria posing as the man (Exhibit “O-1”) holding the head of the victim (Exhibit “O-2”). Appellant Democrito Labaria also pointed to the place where he stayed during the occurrence, by sitting on top of the sewing machine (Exhibit “G”) in the manner depicted by the picture Exhibit “G”. In that investigation Alfoja also testified that appellant Arsenio Baluarte revealed that at the time the crime was committed he was sitting on the stairs of the house in the manner shown in the picture Exhibit “Q”. Democrito Labaria informed the investigators that when he went down the stairs he tapped Arsenio Baluarte on the shoulder as shown in the picture Exhibit “Q-2”. On their return to the town, upon reaching the Paling-paling ridge, the investigators asked appellants Arsenio Baluarte and Democrito Labaria to indicate the spot where they allegedly divided the money that they stole from the premises. The two appellants pointed to the place in the Paling-paling ridge inside the cogon grasses, behind some piles of rocks, where they divided the loot, as shown in the picture marked Exhibit “R”. In the aforesaid picture, Democrito Labaria is marked as Exhibit “R-1”, while Arsenio Baluarte is marked as Exhibit “R-2”. The spot allegedly indicated by them is the same place where the wooden piggy bank was found earlier by the investigators hidden inside the cogon grasses about two meters away from the place where they found the “ticog” hats. According to Sgt. Alfoja, the written statement of appellant Democrito Labaria was taken in the presence of appellant Arsenio Baluarte, accused Ricardo Sato, Jr., Zosimo Canoy, Francisco Enad and other people. Appellant Baluarte testified both at the preliminary investigation before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Cebu, and at the investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal, substantially reiterating what he declared in Exhibit “M”. At the trial, however, on March 10, 1965, appellant Arsenio Baluarte repudiated his extra-judicial declaration (Exhibit “M”), claiming that he signed the statement because he was threatened and maltreated. He asserted that Sgt. Willy Ebas kicked him and struck his ears with his two palms; while Capt. Villarin pointed his pistol at him, telling him to admit his participation in the crime and testify as state witness against Canoy, Enad and Sato; that he participated in the re-enactment because he was threatened by Capt. Villarin with further maltreatment if he refused; that he, Labaria and Sato merely followed what Sgt. Alfoja was instructing them to do; and that Exhibit “M” was read to him, and he signed the same without complaining to Judge Sarmiento, because he was afraid of Capt. Villarin and Sgt. Alfoja. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he affirmed the contents of Exhibit “M” during the preliminary investigation subsequently conducted by Provincial Fiscal Ferandos, and, later, by Asst. Provincial Fiscal Maribao; but he claims that he did so for he was afraid of Capt. Villarin because he looked at him “with sharp eyes”. He also admitted that at first he was willing to plead guilty because the prosecution promised to make him a state witness, but later he changed his mind. Appellant Democrito likewise repudiated on the witness stand the extra-judicial declaration (Exhibit “T”) executed by him on August 19, 1964 before Judge Sarmiento. According to him, he was threatened by PC Captain Cesar Villarin, who told him that if he would not sign the affidavit, he would be mauled; and that Francisco Enad, Zosimo Canoy, Arsenio Baluarte and Ricardo Sato, Jr. are mentioned in the affidavit as his companions in the commission of the crime although he did not participate therein and in fact he did not even know Enad, because the affidavit had already been-prepared in advance; that at the PC stockate he was mauled several times, not only by Capt. Villarin but also by Willy ‘Ebas and ‘another PC soldier, who all boxed him on hisbreast and thighs and stepped on his body, and when he was down, they kicked him; and that he did not show his injuries to Judge Sarmiento because he was told by Capt. Villarin that if he were asked if he had been threatened or harmed, he must answer in the negative. In connection with the re-enactment of the crime, appellant Labaria declared that he sat on the sewing machine, Exhibit “G-2”, because Capt. Villarin told him that he had nothing to do-with the commission of the crime, and that he should just sit there so that a picture could be taken in order to satisfy the owner of the house. With respect to the picture Exhibit “H”, where he appears to be holding-the body of a person lying down (Exhibit “H-2”, he explained that he was made to demonstrate that because he was-threatened by Capt. Villarinthat if he would not obey, he would be mauled again. When they took the picture Exhibit “N-1” wherein appellant Labaria appears to be in the act of committing a crime, he said that he was told by Capt. Villarin and Sgt. Alfoja to act in that manner while the pciture was being taken. As regards-Exhibits “P” and “P-1”, where appellant appears to be holding a piece of bamboo, he said he was instructed by Capt. Villarin to hit Willy Ebas (representing the victim) with it on the breast; and as to Exhibits “Q”, “Q-1” and “Q-2”, where appellant Labaria appears to be standing in the house, he said he assumed that position upon instructions of Capt. Villarin. In Exhibit “R” appellant Labaria appears to be pointing to a certain place (Exhibit “R-1”); according to him, he was told by Sgt. Alfoja that that was the place where the money was recovered, and he should therefore point to it. Appellant Labaria declared that before the so-called re-enactment of the crime, he had never been to any of the places pointed to by him. This appellant further declared that during the day of August 12, 1964, he was plowing the field, and in the evening of said day he was at home in Barrio Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu, which is some six kilometers away from the scene of the crime in Barrio Basak. His father Bernabe Labaria attempted to corroborate him in his regard. It is, however, admitted that appellant Democrito Labaria is the nephew of his co-appellant Arsenio Baluarte. The two PC officers most closely connected with the investigation of the case took the witness stand to refute appellants’ claim of maltreatment, intimidation and coercion on the part of the constabulary. Capt. Cesar Villarin, Commanding Officer of the 53rd PC Company, denied as untrue the claim of appellants that they were threatened and maltreated by the PC soldiers when they were being investigated by them, or that appellant Baluarte signed his confession because he was promised to be utilized as a state witness. He declared that the two appellants – first, Labaria, then Baluarte – readily confessed to the commission of the crime when they were brought in separately to the headquarters. He stated that he personally investigated Arsenio Baluarte, while Tech. Sgt. Armando Alfoja questioned Labaria, and noted that each appellant during the investigation implicated the other. They also explained that the scar on the neck shown by Labaria was an old scar, which was already existing at the time appellant was arrested. Sgt. Alfoja also denied appellants’ claim that they were maltreated, threatened or coerced, and said that the confessions were voluntarily executed and appellants freely participated in the re-enactment. He pointed to Exhibit “Y” (a letter dated September 18, 1964 signed by Arsenio Baluarte) to show that Baluarte even requested for his confinement in the PC stockade instead of in the provincial jail, for he was afraid of the retaliation by his co-accused, who were then in the provincial jail as a consequence of his extra-judicial declaration. After a careful examination and evaluation of the evidence of record, We are convinced that appellants Baluarte and Labaria voluntarily executed their statements Exhibits “M” and “T’. It must be noted that both appellants (Baluarte and Labaria) affirmed under oath before the Municipal Judge of San Fernando, Cebu, on August 19, 1964, the veracity of the contents of their extra-judicial confessions. At the second stage of the preliminary investigation of the accused before Municipal Judge Sarmiento on August 28, 1964, appellant Baluarte again narrated under oath, their participation in the robbery, affirming substantially the contents of Exhibit “M”. A subsequent preliminary investigation was conducted by the fiscal’s office – before Provincial Fiscal Ferandos, and, later, before Asst. Fiscal Maribao – and each time, appellant Baluarte affirmed the truth of his sworn statement. In all of these occasions said appellant never complained to the aforesaid officers about the alleged maltreatment or duress. On the part of appellant Labaria, he could easily have complained to Judge Sarmiento about the execution of Exhibit “T”, for, according to him he knew this Judge even before he executed his statement before her. And yet on August 19, he never complained to the Municipal Judge that Exhibit “T” was executed under duress. It is true that he impugned the voluntariness of his statement on August 28, 1964 during the second stage of the preliminary investigation, but it was for a different reason. During that hearing, he testified under oath that he signed the extra-judicial confession because his uncle Arsenio Baluarte threatened him with bodily harm if he did not admit his complicity. This was completely different from his claim at the trial that he signed the statement because he was threatned by Capt. Villarin that if he did not sign, he would be mauled. 2. Appellant Baluarte claims to have suffered maltreatment in the hands of the PC soldiers, yet he requested for his detention in the PC stockade instead of in the provincial jail. Appellant Labaria tried to make much of what he claims to be a scar on his neck evidencing injury inflicted upon him by the PC soldiers; but when he was asked in court by his counsel to remove his shirt, no scar could be found on appellant’s neck. Both appellants did not submit to any doctor for the examination and treatment of their alleged injuries, although they could have easily done so, considering that during that time they were already conferring with their lawyers. 3. The claim of the appellants is further made improbable by the fact that each of the affiants in extra-judicial confession tried to minimize his own participation in the crime and tried to throw the whole blame upon the others, a thing which would not have been permitted if the confession had been put in their mouths by the investigating officer. Thus, Baluarte in his extra-judicial confession (Exhibits “M” and “M-1”) stated that all that he did when they went to the house of the victim was to wait on top of the stairs while his companions entered the house and committed the robbery in question, and that the persons who killed Clara Navales were Simo (Zosimo Canoy) and Francisco Enad; while appellant Labaria claimed that while his companions committed the robbery, all that he did was to sit on the sewing machine. Certainly, if the claim of appellants that they were coerced into executing the aforesaid extra-judicial confessions has any grain of truth in it, no cogent reason has been given why their co-accused – Zosimo Canoy, Francisco Enad and Ricardo Sato, Jr. – were able to deny before the investigators any complicity in the commission of the aforementioned offense and to refuse any participation in the reenactment of the crime without suffering any maltreatment or harassment in the hands of the (constabulary investigators as a consequence thereof. 4. The confessions contained details which could hardly have been concocted by the investigators, such as the conference held on the afternoon of August 11, 1964 for the purpose of planning the robbery, the preparations which they made, the routes taken by the different participants in entering the house, the identities of the persons who .had tied the maid, and those who held the head and arms of the deceased Clara Navales, the place where they distributed the loot among themselves, and where they hid the broken piggy bank. Those are matters which only the declarants themselves could have known. As a matter of fact, parts of the broken piggy bank were found at the place indicated by the appellants during the investigation. Appellants finally contend that conspiracy among them has not been proven, as the extra-judicial declaration of one appellant cannot be admissible against the other, to prove conspiracy. While it is true that an extra-judicial declaration of .a co-conspirator could not be given in evidence against his co-accused unless the conspiracy be proven first, there is no question that the extra-judicial declaration of the declarant is nevertheless admissible as evidence of the declarants own, guilt.[2] In the caseat bar, appellants Baluarte and Labaria admitted in their separate extrajudicial declarations that the two of them, together with their companions, had plotted to rob the house of Eleuteria Patalinghug, and that they had, in fact, carried out their criminal plan into execution. Effects of the crime, such as the piggy bank (Exhibit “D”) together with its lid (Exhibit “D-1”) were recovered at the site indicated by appellants, and they positively admitted in their statements having received their share of the money contained in said piggy bank. Moreover, the testimony of Rosita Alfeche in describing the movements of the men that entered the house of Patalinghug in the early morning hours of August 13, 1964, indicated that there was among them unity of purpose and of action ‘indicating a common criminal design. There was, therefore, sufficient evidence to show the existence of a conspiracy. The crime committed is robbery with homicide punishable by reclusion perpetua in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, which is the case here. The penalty imposed upon appellants by the court below is, therefore, correct. However, the civil indemnity must be increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00, and the costs that should be taxed against each of them is 1/2 instead of 1/3 against both of them. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with, the modification indicated above. Barredo, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur. Fernando, J., in the result.