People v. Mapalao
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 20, 1987, Adolfo Quiambao, his driver Felizardo Galvez, and other passengers were traveling in a Ford Fiera from Mankayan to Abatan, Benguet, and then back to Baguio. Among the passengers were Omar Mapalao, Rex Magumnang, Aliman Bara-akal, Anwar Hadji Edris, and others. At Km. 24, Caliking, Atok, Benguet, the vehicle stopped for passengers to urinate. Omar Mapalao pointed a gun at Adolfo Quiambao and announced a holdup. Other Muslims guarded the passengers with knives. The passengers were divested of cash and valuables totaling P57,700.00. Rex Magumnang attempted to drive the vehicle towards a precipice, but Felizardo Galvez struggled for control. Magumnang then stabbed Galvez, who fell into a ravine. The passengers panicked and jumped out of the vehicle. Aliman Bara-akal boarded a passing vegetable truck and was later apprehended with P4,015.00. Omar Mapalao, Rex Magumnang, and Gumanak Ompa fled to the mountains. Felizardo Galvez died the following morning from his stab wounds. Procedural History: An amended information was filed charging Omar Mapalao, Rex Magumnang, Aliman Bara-akal, Gumanak Ompa, and Anwar Hadji Edris with Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532. Aliman Bara-akal died during trial, and the case against him was dismissed. Rex Magumnang escaped from detention during the trial and the proceedings continued in absentia. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City convicted Omar Mapalao, Gumanak Ompa, and Rex Magumnang of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. They were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Felizardo Galvez and the other victims. Omar Mapalao and Rex Magumnang appealed the decision. The Petition: The defendants-appellants, Omar Mapalao and Rex Magumnang, appealed their conviction, alleging errors in the trial court's failure to consider exculpatory facts, failure to apply the presumption of innocence, and error in finding them guilty as principals.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal of Rex Magumnang, who escaped from detention during trial and remained at large, should be dismissed. Whether Omar Mapalao actively participated in the commission of the crime of highway robbery with homicide. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court in toto. The appeal of Rex Magumnang was dismissed for having escaped from confinement and remaining at large, thereby waiving his right to appeal. The conviction of Omar Mapalao was also affirmed. The Court held that the evidence clearly showed his participation in the holdup and the subsequent killing of the driver. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, with joint and several indemnification to the heirs of the deceased and the other victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of Rex Magumnang's appeal: The Court held that an accused who escapes from prison or confinement during the pendency of an appeal loses their standing in court and waives any right to seek relief. Under Section 8, Rule 122 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court may dismiss an appeal if the appellant escapes. Magumnang's escape from detention during trial and his continued absence meant he waived his right to appeal. The trial in absentia was validly conducted, and the promulgation of judgment against him was proper. The Court clarified that an escapee who remains at large cannot seek relief from the Court unless they voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction or are arrested. On the participation of Omar Mapalao: The Court found no merit in Omar Mapalao's appeal. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly established his participation in the crime. He was positively identified by eyewitnesses Adolfo Quiambao, Jimmy Jetwani, and Simeon Calama, who were with him in the vehicle the entire day. Quiambao testified that Mapalao pointed a gun and announced the holdup. Jetwani corroborated this, stating Mapalao ordered them at gunpoint to give their money. Calama identified Mapalao by voice and by seeing the gun. The Court noted that despite the darkness, there was light inside the vehicle, and the witnesses saw his face and the weapon. His escape to the mountains with his co-accused was considered evidence of his guilt. On the conviction beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution had proven the guilt of Omar Mapalao beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness testimonies were consistent and credible, establishing Mapalao's direct participation in the commission of the crime. The act of pointing a gun and announcing the holdup, coupled with the subsequent robbery and the senseless killing of the driver, demonstrated his culpability. The Court reiterated that robbery attended by homicide is a heinous offense, and the circumstances did not justify the killing, as the victims were unarmed and surrendered their valuables. The Court expressed its belief that the appellants deserved the death penalty but was constrained by the Constitution to impose reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
An accused who escapes from confinement during trial and remains at large waives their right to appeal, and the Court may proceed with the trial in absentia and promulgate judgment. The escape of an accused is evidence of guilt.