People v. Damaso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 21, 1959, at nighttime, in Victoria, Tarlac, several accused, armed with firearms and a scythe, conspired to commit robbery. They forcibly entered the house of Donata Rebolledo, taking valuables and cash. On the occasion of the robbery, they abducted Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado, daughters of Donata, and brought them to a secluded sugarcane field. There, they allegedly stabbed and cut the victims' necks with a sharp instrument, resulting in their instantaneous deaths. The Information charged the accused with "robbery with double homicide." In a separate case, Lorenzo Alviar was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Tarlac found all the accused guilty of robbery with double homicide and sentenced Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio, Lorenzo Alviar, and Bonifacio Espejo to death. Estanislao Gregorio died during the trial. Lorenzo Alviar was also sentenced to three years imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm. The Petition: The accused-appellants challenged their conviction, arguing that robbery was not proven, that the homicide was not committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery, and that the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place were not present. Lorenzo Alviar also questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court in the illegal possession case and the sufficiency of the evidence against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was robbery with double homicide. Whether the homicide was committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Whether the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place were present. Whether the extrajudicial confessions were sufficient to sustain conviction despite repudiation. Whether the defense of alibi was credible. Whether conspiracy was established. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the illegal possession of firearm case. Whether the evidence for illegal possession of firearm was sufficient.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court in both cases. The accused were found guilty of robbery with double homicide and illegal possession of firearm. The penalty of death imposed on Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio, Lorenzo Alviar, and Bonifacio Espejo was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime committed was robbery with double homicide: The Court held that robbery was evident from the testimony of Donata Rebolledo regarding the items taken from her "aparador" and the admission of the appellants in their separate statements that they took P15 from the house. The Court emphasized that the taking of personal property by force, intimidation, or violence, regardless of the specific location from which it was taken within the house, constitutes robbery. On the issue of whether the homicide was committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery: The Court found no merit in the argument that a pre-existing motive for vengeance on the part of Gregorio negated the element of robbery. Even if such a motive existed, it did not exclude the intent to rob. The Court cited US v. Vilorente and Bislig to support the principle that a tempered desire to avenge grievances does not prevent punishment for the complex crime of robbery with homicide, as long as the intent to commit robbery preceded the taking of human life. On the issue of aggravating circumstances: The Court affirmed the presence of the aggravating circumstance of "armed band" as more than three armed malefactors acted together, citing evidence that Damaso was armed. Treachery was found to be present because the victims were killed while their arms were tied behind their backs and held by other accused, depriving them of any opportunity to defend themselves or escape. The circumstance of "uninhabited place" was upheld, as the sugarcane field offered no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive help, and the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the location. On the sufficiency of extrajudicial confessions and repudiation: The Court found the extrajudicial confessions to be sufficient for conviction. It noted that the confessions were sworn to before a municipal judge who testified to their voluntary execution after explaining the contents to the appellants. The Court found the appellants' failure to manifest any maltreatment before the judge and the lack of credible proof of alleged duress to be significant. The reenactment of the crime, which substantially conformed to the details in the confessions and was conducted spontaneously and without coercion, further corroborated the confessions. The Court stated that repudiation of confessions must be taken with caution, as guilty persons often do so to escape liability. On the defense of alibi: The Court found no justifiable reason to discard the trial court's findings on the defense of alibi. It reiterated that alibi is an issue of fact hinging on credibility, and the trial judge's assessment of witnesses' credibility should be respected unless patently inconsistent with the evidence. The Court noted that alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification by prosecution witnesses. On the establishment of conspiracy: The Court found ample justification for the trial court's inference of conspiracy based on the simultaneous and cooperative acts of the accused. The Court explained that conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the conspirators, and it is not necessary for each conspirator to participate in every act. The concerted actions of the accused in planning, proceeding to the victims' house, executing the robbery, abducting the victims, and killing them in the sugarcane field demonstrated a concert of acts aimed at a common design. On the jurisdiction over the illegal possession of firearm case: The Court dismissed the argument that the Justice of the Peace Court acquired exclusive jurisdiction. It clarified that if the Justice of the Peace Court acquired jurisdiction only for preliminary investigation and not for trial on the merits, it does not necessarily acquire exclusive jurisdiction to try the case. On the sufficiency of evidence for illegal possession of firearm: The Court found the evidence sufficient, including a receipt (Exhibit "B") which, whether considered a receipt or a confession, carried weight. The testimony of Sgt. Melencio Fiesta, who stated that Alviar verbally confessed and that he explained the receipt's contents before Alviar affixed his thumbmark, was also considered. Furthermore, Exhibit "C," a sworn confession by Alviar admitting possession of the firearm, was presented and its voluntariness was not disproved.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is committed when, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, a homicide occurs. The presence of aggravating circumstances such as armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place, when proven, warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty. Extrajudicial confessions, even if repudiated, are admissible and sufficient for conviction if corroborated by other evidence and if their voluntariness is established.