[ G.R. No. L-37425. July 25, 1981 ] 193 Phil. 229; 79 OG 3789 (June, 1983)
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-37425. July 25, 1981 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LITO REVOTOC Y BELARMINO, SATURNINO DIAZ Y RESQUED AND FREDDIE DE VERA Y SEBEASTIAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
MANDATORY REVIEW of the death sentence imposed by the Manila Circuit Criminal Court upon the accused Lito Revotoc y Belarmino, Saturnino Diaz y Resqued, and Freddie de Vera y Sebastian.
The record discloses that one Go Pun is the owner and manager of a restaurant located at 935 Tetuan Street, Binondo, Manila, where his elder brother Go Hio, his cook Aw Kim Soon, and their helper, herein accused Lito Revotoc, sleep. On February 13, 1973 at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning, Go Pun went to the restaurant and attended to the day’s business. At about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the accused Lito Revotoc asked permission from him allegedly to go home to Pangasinan, which was granted. Go Pun left the cafeteria at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening after counting the day’s cash receipts, amounting to P300.00, which he put in a box inside an aparador, together with a Rado watch valued at P200.00. The next day, he went back to the cafeteria at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning, as was his wont. The restaurant was still closed. So he knocked at the door several times. But nobody opened the door. A police sergeant, who had just arrived at the restaurant, then told a boy to climb a window and enter the establishment. The boy did so and discovered the dead bodies of Go Hio and Aw Kim Soon. The boy was then, told to open the door. Then, Go Pun and the police sergeant went inside. On the mezzanine floor, they saw Go Hio and Aw Kim Soon lying side by side, both dead. The victims were clad in pajamas and their faces were bloody. There were also wounds on their hands.[1] Blood and bits of glass were on the floor. The drawer where Go Pun kept his money had been forced open and the money and the watch were no longer there. In like manner, the closet had also been forced open. Two (2) cartons of cigarettes, valued at P40.00 were no longer in a shelf where he last saw it. Some candies valued at P6.00 were also missing.[2]
Initial police investigations revealed that the accused Lito Revotoc and a companion were seen knocking at the kitchen door of the restaurant at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of February 13, 1973. Accordingly, a search for Lito Revotoc and his companion was conducted. It was learned that Lito Revotoc was with a certain “Tisoy”. “Tisoy” was picked up and he informed the police investigators that Revotoc was often times with one “Ninoy”, whose real name was Saturnino Diaz. Upon investigation, Saturnino Diaz admitted that he was with Revotoc and Freddie de Vera on the night of the robbery, that he stood guard outside the door while Revotoc and Freddie entered the store.[3] When asked about his share in the robbery, he told the arresting officer that he hid part of the loot in his room. They brought Saturnino Diaz to his home at Baltazar St., Tondo, Manila, and Diaz got the money, which had been placed inside a stocking, from under the altar. The money amounted to P68.20.[4] They also recovered the “Rado’’ wrist watch (Exh. “G”) which Go Pun identified as his.[5] Thereafter, Saturnino Diaz executed a sworn statement admitting his participation in the robbery. (Exh. “J”.) Police investigators also picked up Freddie de Vera who, upon questioning, admitted that he was with Revotoc and Diaz.[6] He, likewise, executed an extra-judicial confession admitting his participation therein.[7] Meanwhile, a team of police investigators was sent to Mangaldan, Pangasinan, to arrest Lito Revotoc. They were accompanied by one Loida, a townmate and co-employee of Lito Revotoc. They brought Revotoc to Manila and when informed that de Vera and Diaz had already been apprehended, Revotoc admitted that he took part in the killing of the Chinaman.[8] He also executed an extra-judicial confession.[9]
Accordingly, Lito Revotoc, Saturnino Diaz and Freddie de Vera were charged with the crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide, committed as follows:
“That on or about February 13, 1973, at nighttime, purposely sought to better accomplish their criminal designs, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent of gain and by means of intimidation and violation against persons, to wit: by then and there entering a restaurant located at 935 Tetuan, Sta. Cruz, this City, which is at the same time being used as a dwelling place of Aw Kim Soon and Go Hio, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following:
Cash money in coins and one-peso bills amounting to P300.00;
Two cartons of king size Philip Morris cigarettes valued at P40.00;
Candies amounting to P6.00; and
One Rado calendar men’s wrist watch, nickle plate, with bracelet to match, valued at P200.00,
all valued at P546.00, belonging to Go Pun, against the latter’s will, to the damage and prejudice of said Go Pun in the aforesaid sum of P546.00, Philippine currency; that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling the said accused to take, steal and carry away the aforesaid cash money and articles and in pursuance of their conspiracy, the said accused, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their number and superior strength, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously treacherously attacked, assaulted and used personal violence upon Aw Kim Soon and Go Hio by then and there hitting said Aw Kim Soon several times on the neck and on the head with a piece of wood and hitting said Go Hio several times on the head with a lead pipe and an empty soft drinks bottle, thereby inflicting upon the said Aw Kim Soon and Go Hio mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of their death soon thereafter.
“Contrary to law.”
After trial, judgment was rendered, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, all of the accused are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide and there being proved the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, dwelling and the additional aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud with respect to Revotoc without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the Court sentences each one of them to DEATH; to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Go Hio, the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the latter, the sum of P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; the heirs of the deceased Aw Kim Soon the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the latter, the sum of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages and the sum of P10,000.00 for exemplary damages.
“All accused are further ordered to jointly and severally indemnify victim Go Pun the sum of P231.80 representing the unrecovered amount and articles robbed from him and to proportionately pay the costs.
“Atty. Leonardo Kalinawan is hereby awarded an attorney’s fee of P500.00 as counsel de oficio of accused Revotoc and de Vera.
“The coins recovered (Exhibits “H-1” to “H-15”) and the watch (Exhibit “G”) are hereby ordered returned to victim Go Pun.
“SO ORDERED.”
By virtue of the death penalty imposed, the case is before this Court for mandatory review.
The prosecution presented in evidence the confessions of the accused wherein they admitted their culpability.
The defense on the other hand repudiated the extra-judicial confessions of the accused claiming that said confessions were extracted against their will. Accused Saturnino “Ninoy” Diaz said that he was boxed on his chest and back. And a gun was poked at him.[10] Accused Lito Revotoc testified that bread was placed inside his mouth; his face was covered with a towel and then water was poured on his face.[11] Accused Freddie de Vera told the court that while his feet and hands were tied, he was brought under a faucet, his face was covered with sack and thereafter, water was poured on him.[12] They also testified that they were not informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel. In addition, they interposed the defense of alibi. Accused Revotoc claimed that at 4:00 p.m. of February 13, 1973 he left Go’s store, his place of work, to go home to Mangaldan, Pangasinan. He took a “Pantranco” bus and he reached Mangaldan a few minutes before 11:00 p.m.[13] Accused de Vera said that from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. of February 13, 1973 he worked as a rig driver. And from 9:00 p.m. up to 7:00 a.m. of the following day, February 14, 1973, he slept in his house located at 2728 Liko St., Tondo, Manila.[14] Accused Saturnino Diaz testified that he also worked as a rig driver from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. of February 13, 1973 and after working he stayed in his house located at 536 Baltazar St., Tondo, Manila.[15] This statement was corroborated by his wife.[16]
The main issue to be resolved is whether the extrajudicial confessions of the accused are voluntary and if, together with the other evidence, they constitute sufficient grounds for their conviction.
The trial court has correctly observed that the extrajudicial statements of the accused are replete with details which the accused alone could have possibly known and could hardly have been supplied by the disinterested police officers. This circumstance shows voluntariness. It is stated in their affidavits that they met in the evening of February 13, 1973 at the corner of Espeleta and Alonzo streets as previously agreed upon; that they used the rig of de Vera in inspecting the store to see if it was already closed; that Revotoc and de Vera were the ones who knocked at the door; that while Revotoc and de Vera entered the store, Diaz stood guard at the door; that upon having entered the store, Revotoc went to the lavatory, and washed his face while de Vera went to the comfort room; that after de Vera came out of the comfort room he picked up a family size empty bottle of a soft drink and struck Ape (Go Hio) on the head; that the bottle was broken; that Ape, after being hit, leaned on the door and shouted for help; that while Ape was shouting for help Revotoc went upstairs and he saw Ang (Aw Kim Soon) awakened by the loud shout of Ape; that Ang immediately and hurriedly ran downstairs and fell down; Revotoc at that moment tried to look for something to beat their victims while de Vera went to Diaz who was standing on guard outside the store, and asked him for the lead pipe which Diaz used in fixing the wheel of his rig; that Revotoc found a piece of wood two inches wide, two inches thick and two feet long; that having provided themselves with weapons, Revotoc and de Vera attacked their victims; that Revotoc brutally struck Ang on the neck causing the latter to fall and Revotoc pitilessly hit him two times more at the neck and head; and that de Vera ruthlessly beat Ape with a lead pipe many times until the latter died. Ang also died from his injuries.
The trial court has aptly noticed that the affidavits contain answers more than what is called for by the questions asked. Again, this circumstance bespeaks of voluntariness.[17]
Anent the allegation of the accused that they were not informed of their constitutional rights:
a) the affidavit of accused Revotoc reveals the following:
“T - Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na sa ilalim ng ating bagong Saligang Batas ay karapatan mong huag magsalita, naiintindihan mo ba ako?
S - Opo.
“T - Nais mo ba ng isang abogado bago ka magbigay ng salaysay na ito?
S - Hindi na po, sasabihin ko na po ang lahat. (Exhibit “I”.)
b) the sworn statement of accused Diaz tells the following:
“T - Ipinaalam ko sa iyo na sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas may karapatan kang huwag magsalita kung hindi mo gusto at karapatan mo ring magkaroon ng manananggol bago ka sumagot sa mga itatanong ko sa ito. Naiintindihan mo ba ang mga sinasabi sa iyong mga karapatan?
S - Opo. Hindi ko na po kailangan ang manananggol. (Exhibit ‘J’).”
c) the sworn statement of accused de Vera contains the following:
“T - Nais mo bang magbigay ng isang malaya at kusang loob na salaysay at sagutin ng boong katotohanan ang lahat ng aking itatanong sa iyo, na di ka namin pinipilit, tinatakot, sinaktan, o pinangakuan ng ano mang bagay na iyong ikabubuti, at dapat mong malaman na ang salaysay mong ito ay maaring gamitin laban sa iyo sa alin mang hukuman dito sa Pilipinas?
S - Opo.
“T - Nais mo ba ang tulong ng isang abogado bago ka magbigay ng salaysay na ito?
S - Hindi na po kailangan. Sasabihin naman sa iyo ang totoo. (Exhibit ‘K’).”
The testimonies of the accused that violence was inflicted upon them in the process of obtaining their confessions are uncorroborated. Their testimonies, standing alone, cannot withstand the unyielding strength of the settled rule that an extra-judicial confession is presumed to have been willingly and freely given until the contrary is clearly and fully shown. And the record is bereft of any evidence to rebut this presumption. Hence, the extra-judicial statements must be conclusively held to be voluntary.
The alibi put up by the accused deserve scant consideration. Aside from the fact that alibi is one of the weakest of defenses and can easily be concocted, the evidence against the accused is so clear and strong that it cannot be overcome by mere alibi.
We have ruled in People vs. Reyes, et al.[18] that a confession extra-judicially given is sufficient ground for conviction of the crimes charged if corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The evidence of record proves satisfactorily the fact of loss sustained and the fact of death. The fact of loss was testified to by Go Pun. He said that the drawer where he kept his wrist watch worth P200.00 and cash in the amount of P300.00 was forced open. Said belongings together with two cartons of cigarettes valued at P40.00 and candies valued at P6.00 were all missing.[19] This testimony of Go Pun is corroborated by the investigating policeman Patrolman Cenon Onggoco who saw the drawers on the ground floor of the store.[20] One of the drawers found on the floor was where the wrist watch and cash were kept. And Cpl. Aurelio A. Mercader who searched the house of accused Diaz mentioned, on the witness stand, that the alleged lost watch was found in the possession of Diaz who admitted having stolen it. The watch was properly identified by Go Pun to be his.[21] The fact of death is demonstrated by the certificates of death marked as Exhibits “B” and “E” and by the Postmortem Findings of the Medico-Legal Officer of the Manila Metropolitan Police marked as Exhibits “C” and “F”.
The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The term “homicide” in paragraph one thereof should be understood in its generic sense[22] and covers the two killings. No doubt, the killing of the two Chinese was perpetrated by reason of the robbery. And no matter how We view the case in the most favorable light, the death penalty can not be avoided. Against the three accused, We hereby appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superior strength and craft.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is also appreciated against the accused Saturnino Diaz and Freddie de Vera, but not against the accused Lito Revotoc inasmuch as he also lived in the same dwelling as the victims. The offenders executed the felony at 10:00 p.m. to make sure that there would be no people in the premises who may witness their act and that the store would already be closed. So nighttime was purposely sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the offense. The defenseless and unarmed victims who had just awakened from their sleep were attacked by their killers, armed with a lead pipe, a bottle and a piece of wood. So there was abuse of superior strength. Accused Revotoc asked permission from his employer allegedly to go home to Pangasinan at 4:00 p.m. on the day the offense was committed. He even borrowed P50.00 from his employer. He brought with him his clothes placed in a travelling bag. At 10:00 p.m. of the same day, he went back to the store with his co-accused. He knocked at the door and when asked who he was he mentioned his name. To place the victims off-guard and to gain entrance at that unholy hour, he pretended that he was going back to the store because he failed to take a ride to Pangasinan. By reason of his pretention, the unsuspecting Chinese opened the door to welcome him. Thereafter, Revotoc and de Vera entered the place, and with Diaz standing as guard, they perpetrated the crime. The aggravating circumstance of craft is therefore present.
ACCORDINGLY, modified as thus indicated, the judgment is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED. Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., concur in the opinion of J. Teehankee. Teehankee, J. see separate concurring opinion. Fernando, C.J., took no part.