People v. Amajul
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the evening of January 31, 1956, several individuals met to plan an ambush on the payroll jeep of Western Mindanao Lumber Company. A second meeting was held to finalize the plot. On February 15, 1956, Moro Asakil, a company laborer, sought leave citing sickness but was denied. Later that day, the company jeep carrying payroll money, driven by Pedro Morados, with Gerundio Achas as security guard and Francisco Jamero as accountant, along with four other passengers, was ambushed at Kilometer 12 of the Isabela-Kapatagan road. The ambush resulted in the death of Gerundio Achas and injuries to Pedro Morados. The jeep was fired upon by Dialalang, who was armed with a Garand rifle, and others armed with 'barongs'. The passengers fled. Subsequently, a passenger jeep, plate No. 2416, owned by Mrs. Dolores Alano Laconico and driven by Alejandro Omoso, encountered the scene. Despite attempts to stop it, the jeep proceeded and was fired upon by Dialalang and Musa, causing it to turn turtle and resulting in the death of Alejandro Omoso. The robbers made away with P10,400.00 in payroll money, firearms valued at P700.00, wrist watches of Achas and Omoso valued at P50.00 each, foodstuffs worth P20.00, and other cash amounting to P90.00, totaling P11,290.00. The robbers escaped through the forest and divided the loot. Procedural History: Initially charged in the Municipal Court of Basilan City with robbery in band with murder and frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 1279) and robbery in band with murder (Criminal Case No. 1280), the cases were elevated to the Court of First Instance of Basilan City as Criminal Cases Nos. 317 and 318. Some accused remained at large, and one escaped from jail. Moros Djalim and Hamiddin pleaded guilty. The trial court, after joint trial, found Wadja Madjid, Asakil, Albani, Lahud, Amajul, and Amdad guilty as principals of the offenses charged, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua for each offense, considering the aggravating circumstance of having committed the offenses in band, and offsetting it with their lack of instruction. The court also ordered indemnification for the heirs of the deceased and restoration of stolen property. All convicted accused appealed. Wadja Madjid later withdrew his appeal. The Petition: The remaining appellants, Asakil, Amdad, Amajul, Albani, and Lahud, appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the extra-judicial confessions of co-accused, not presented as witnesses, are admissible against the appellants. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Whether appellant Lahud is guilty as a principal. Whether appellant Amdad is guilty as a principal or as an accessory after the fact. Whether appellants Asakil, Albani, and Amajul are guilty as principals.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is modified. Appellants Asakil, Albani, and Amajul are acquitted of the crimes charged and absolved from civil indemnity. Appellant Lahud is sentenced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) in each of the two cases. Appellant Amdad is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of not less than 5 years and 1 month of prision correccional, as minimum, to not more than 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum, in each of the two cases. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions: The Court held that extra-judicial confessions made by a defendant are admissible only against him but not against his co-defendants. This is because such confessions constitute hearsay evidence as to the co-defendants, who had no opportunity to cross-examine the confessant. The Court emphasized that neither Dialalang nor Sauril was called to the witness stand, and Wadja Madjid denied implicating his co-accused. Without direct testimonial evidence to corroborate these confessions, they do not warrant consideration for convicting the appellants. The Court cited Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court regarding the admissibility of confessions. On the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: The Court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to warrant the conviction of any of the appellants, except for Lahud and Amdad. For Asakil, the evidence of his attempt to flee and the small amounts of money found on him were deemed insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's attempt to use his request for leave and subsequent refusal of a ride as circumstantial evidence was not properly elicited from witnesses. For Albani and Amajul, the circumstances of their arrest, the new attire of Albani, and the money found in his shoes, along with Amajul's statement about seeing other accused with firearms, were also considered insufficient to establish their participation in the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. On appellant Lahud's guilt as a principal: The Court found sufficient evidence to convict appellant Lahud as a principal. This was based on information elicited from Wadja Madjid, leading to Lahud's arrest. When confronted by Yakan Dialalang, Dialalang readily identified Lahud as one of those who took direct part in the ambushes. Dialalang's sworn statement, taken in Lahud's presence, identifying him as a co-perpetrator, was admitted as evidence against Lahud because he did not remonstrate or protest against the implication. The Court considered mistake in identification remote due to Lahud's physical infirmity and limp. On appellant Amdad's guilt: The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Amdad's participation as a principal but sufficient to convict him as an accessory after the fact. Amdad's sworn statement admitted knowledge of the ambuscades and acceptance of P100.00 of the looted money, which he claimed was forced upon him. The recovery of P72.00 from his yard and the presence of the Garand rifle and .45 caliber pistol in his house were considered. The Court found it unbelievable that robbers would compel someone to accept loot, and Amdad's failure to report the matter to the police led to his conviction as an "encubridor" under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. This article punishes those who, with knowledge of the crime, and without participating as principal or accomplice, conceal the effects or instruments of the crime. On appellants Asakil, Albani, and Amajul's guilt as principals: The Court acquitted Asakil, Albani, and Amajul. The evidence against Asakil, consisting of his attempt to flee and the money found on him, was deemed insufficient. For Albani and Amajul, their arrest, Albani's new attire, the money found in his shoes, and Amajul's statement about seeing other accused with firearms were not enough to prove their participation as principals beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that mere suspicion or circumstances that do not directly link them to the commission of the crimes are not sufficient for conviction.
Main Doctrine
Extra-judicial confessions are admissible only against the confessant and not against co-defendants, as the latter have no opportunity to cross-examine the confessant. Circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion or flight is insufficient for conviction.