Anda di halaman 1dari 29

ARTICLE 17 - PRINCIPALS someone she did not name: "He does not appear because I will kill

him." ("No aparece porque le voy amatar.") The truck then continued on
G.R. No. L-24491 September 30, 1969 its way and parked in front of Teodora Gellicanao's carinderia on
Gerona St. in the poblacion. All the passengers got off the truck.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Enrique Gelario and Enrique Gela crossed the street towards the
vs. carinderia of Pedro Genciana to await another passenger truck for their
RUFINO GENSOLA, FIDELINA TAN and FELICISIMO respective barrios. The Gelveson No. 17 then left in the direction of the
TAN, defendants-appellants. nearby carinderia of Violeta Garin, returned a short time later, and
parked in front of the bodega of its owner, Jose Tan. The time was about
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor 6:30 p.m. Miguel Gayanilo was crossing the street from the public
General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Pedro A. Ramirez for market in the direction of his carinderia with Rufino Gensola, holding in
plaintiff-appellee. his right hand a stone as big as a man's fist, following closely behind. At
Dominador Garin for defendant-appellant Rufino Gensola. this time, Felicisimo and Fidelina Tan were standing in the middle of the
Juan C. Orendain for other defendants-appellants. street. After Miguel Gayanilo had crossed the middle of the street near
the two, Fidelina Tan shouted, "Rufino, strike him." Upon hearing the
shout Miguel looked back and Rufino suddenly struck him on the left
face with the stone. Felicisimo then struck Miguel with a piece of iron
CAPISTRANO, J.: on the back of the head causing serious wounds and fracture of the
skull. Not content with the two blows already given, Fidelina struck
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding Miguel with another piece of iron on the left forehead causing serious
the defendants. Rufino Gensola, Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan, guilty wounds and fracture of the skull. Miguel fell to the ground near the
as principals of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them canal along the side of the street. Rufino Gensola immediately left for
to reclusion perpetuaand ordering said defendants to pay in solidum the his house situated on Gonzales St. Felicisimo and Fidelina observed the
sum of P6,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Miguel prostrate body for a few seconds until Fidelina muttered: "He is already
Gayanilo. dead." ("Ya esta muerto.") The two then left the scene of the crime.

Rufino Gensola was the driver, while Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan The autopsy report shows that Miguel Gayanilo suffered lacerated
were the conductors, of a passenger truck, Gelveson No. 17 (belonging wounds on the left face, serious wounds and fracture of the skull on the
to Jose Tan, father of Fidelina and Felicisimo) with station at Guimbal, back of the head, and serious wounds and fracture of the skull on the left
Iloilo. They suspected Miguel Gayanilo of having punctured the tires of forehead. Death was caused by traumatic shock.
the truck while it was parked in front of his carinderia on Gerona St.,
Guimbal, on November 18, 1958. In the afternoon of the following day, The death of Miguel Gayanilo caused by traumatic shock which resulted
November 19, on the return trip of the truck, then driven by a temporary from the strong blows inflicting trauma on the back of the head and on
driver, Restituto Gersaneva, from Iloilo City, Enrique Gelario and the left forehead, was admitted particularly by the accused Rufino
Enrique Gela were among the passengers of the truck. Before the truck Gensola who assumed sole responsibility for the same.1awphîl.nèt
entered the poblacion of Guimbal, it parked on Gonzales St. to
discharge a passenger and his baggage. Enrique Gelario and Enrique The lower court found the three defendants guilty as principals of the
Gela overheard Fidelina Tan mutter to herself, obviously referring to crime of murder and rendered judgment as follows:
Por tanto, el Juzgado declara a los acusados Rufino Gensola, Fidelina Appellants contend that the testimonies of the principal prosecution
Tan y Felicisimo Tan culpables, fuera de toda duda racional, del delito witnesses, Enrique Gelario and Enrique Gela, are unworthy of credence
de asesinato tal como se alega en la querella y, no habiendo because of contradictions and uncertainties, showing that they were not
circunstancias que pueden modificar su responsibilidad criminal, present and did not witness the commission of the crime. The contention
condena a cada uno de los tres a sufrir la pena de reclusion perpetua, a is untenable for the following reasons. (1) The contradictions pointed
indemnizar, mancomunada y solidariamente, a los herederos de Miguel out involve only the relative locations of the three carinderias near the
Gayanilo en la suma de P6,000.00 sin sufrir prision subsidiaria scene of the crime, not the acts of commission of the three defendants at
correspondiente, en caso de insolvencia, dada la naturaleza de la pena a distance of about seven meters from where the two state witnesses
principal, a las accesorias de la ley y a pagar ademas, cada uno una were then standing. (2) The uncertainties pointed out refer to the
tercera (1/3) parte de las costas del juicio. description of the pieces of iron used by Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina
Tan, that is, as to the size, length and other details. Considering that the
Defendants appealed. place was not well-lighted and that there was little time to observe,
accurate description of the weapons used could not be expected three
Appellants contend that Rufino Gensola alone inflicted with stone years later when the witnesses testified. (3) The contention that Enrique
blows the serious wounds and fractures of the skull which caused the Gelario and Enrique Gela testified against Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina
death of Miguel Gayanilo, but that he did so in legitimate defense of Tan out of spite because the latter had refused to transport the former to
Fidelina Tan and of himself. The contention is unmeritorious in view of their respective barrios, is not well-taken. It is not natural for a person to
the following considerations: (1) The testimony of Rufino Gensola and testify under oath against his neighbor on a matter of life and death just
Fidelina Tan that Miguel Gayanilo, then drunk, angrily demanded to because of a trifling incident causing slight inconvenience. (4) We find
know from Fidelina why she suspected him of having punctured the the testimonies of the four defense witnesses, Fidelina Tan, Felicisimo
tires of the truck and was about to strike Fidelina with a stone, and that Tan, Elias Gensola and Salvador Gayatao, that Enrique Gelario and
in legitimate defense of Fidelina and of himself Rufino picked up two Enrique Gela were not present at the scene of the crime because they
stones, struck Miguel on the left face with one stone and threw the other had already left Gerona St. walking to another street to await
stone at him when he started to run away, hitting him on the back of the transportation to their respective barrios, unworthy of credence.
head and causing him to fall and strike his forehead against a pile of
stones, is belied by, first, the serious wound's and fractures of the skull Let us now consider the criminal liability of the three appellants. The
on the back of the head and on the left forehead of the victim, which lower court found them guilty as principals of the crime of murder on
could have been caused only by strong blows with pieces of iron; the assumption that there was conspiracy among them. We do not agree,
and, second, by the testimony of Dr. Juan Encanto who performed the for the following reasons: (1) Fidelina Tan's intention revealed by the
autopsy, that he did not see any pile of stones near the dead body of words she muttered to herself, "He does not appear because I will kill
Miguel Gayanilo when he arrived at the place in response to a call. (2) him," was not shared by Felicisimo Tan, who kept silent. Silence is not a
The admission of Rufino Gensola that he alone was responsible for the circumstance indicating participation in the same criminal design. With
serious wounds and fractures of the skull inflicted upon Miguel respect to Rufino Gensola, he was not even in the truck at the time. (2)
Gayanilo in legitimate defense of Fidelina Tan and of himself, has no When Miguel Gayanilo was crossing Gerona St., it was only Rufino
probative value because it constitutes, in the face of contrary credible Gensola who followed closely behind. Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan
evidence for the prosecution, an assumption by Rufino Gensola of the were in the middle of the street. The words shouted by Fidelina Tan,
criminal liability of Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan. The penal law "Rufino strike him," were meant as a command and did not show
does not allow anyone to assume the criminal liability of another. previous concert of criminal design. (3) The blows given with pieces of
iron on the back of the head and on the left forehead by Felicisimo and only after the trauma inflicted by Fidelina that the dying Miguel fell to
Fidelina after Rufino had struck with a piece of stone the left face of the ground and died seconds later. This is clear from the evidence that
Miguel, do not in and by themselves show previous concert of criminal after Miguel had fallen to the ground Felicisimo and Fidelina observed
design. Particularly when it is considered that Rufino immediately left his prostrate body for a few seconds until Fidelina muttered, "He is
thereafter while Felicisimo and Fidelina remained for a few seconds already dead."
observing the prostrate body of Miguel until Fidelina muttered, "He is
already dead." Assuming that the trauma inflicted by Felicisimo was by itself sufficient
to produce death due to traumatic shock, should Fidelina be also held
In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the three appellants is liable considering that death could have resulted anyway from the act of
individual, that is, each appellant is liable only for his own act. Felicisimo and that a person cannot be killed twice? The obvious answer
is that although a dead person cannot be killed again, a dying person can
Appellant Rufino Gensola is liable only for the lacerated wounds still be killed. Miguel was not dead but dying when Fidelina struck his
inflicted by him on the left face of Miguel Gayanilo. Such lacerated left forehead with a piece of iron. Hence, the trauma inflicted by her
wounds caused disfigurement ("deformity") of the face within the hastened the death of Miguel from traumatic shock made doubly severe.
meaning of Article 263 (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishable She must, therefore, be also held criminally liable for the death of the
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period in relation victim.
to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The offense having been committed
with treachery, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Was the killing murder? Our opinion is in the affirmative because it was
attended with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. There
Is appellant Fidelina Tan also liable for the offense considering that she was alevosia because after Rufino suddenly struck Miguel Gayanilo
gave the command "Rufino, strike him"? The second class of principals, with a stone, Miguel, defenseless, was struck by Felicisimo Tan with a
according to Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, comprises "those piece of iron on the back of the head and by Fidelina Tan with a piece of
who directly force or induce others to commit it (the act)." Those who iron on the left forehead.
directly induce others to commit the act are called "principals by
inducement" or "principals by induction," from the Spanish "autores por PREMISES CONSIDERED, that part of the appealed judgment
induccion." The word "inducement" comprises, in the opinion of Viada sentencing each of the appellants Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan
and the Supreme Court of Spain, reward, promise of reward, command, to reclusion perpetua is affirmed. Said appellants are also ordered to
and pacto. With respect to command, it must be the moving cause of the pay in solidum the sum of P12,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the
offense. In the case at bar, the command shouted by Fidelina, "Rufino, deceased, Miguel Gayanilo. That part of the judgment against appellant
strike not," was not the moving cause of the act of Rufino Gensola. The Rufino Gensola is modified by sentencing said appellant to an
evidence shows that Rufino would have committed the act of his own indeterminate penalty of from 3 months of arresto mayor as minimum
volition even without said words of command. to 3 years of prision correccional as maximum.

Are the appellants Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan both liable for the Costs against the appellants.
death of Miguel Gayanilo? Our opinion is in the affirmative. The trauma
inflicted by Felicisimo and the trauma inflicted by Fidelina, combined,
produced death due to traumatic shock. When Fidelina struck with a
piece of iron the left forehead of Miguel, he was not yet dead. It was
LXXXI 1 finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of killing father
and son Cipriano and Felix Gasang, and seriously wounding Agustin
Reloj and Cipriano's daughter, Merlinda. The dispositive portion of the
decision states:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the guilt of accused Ricarte


Madali and Annie Mortel Madali beyond reasonable doubt of the
following offenses and sentences each of them as follows:

(1) For the frustrated murder of Agustin Reloj, each accused is meted an
indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional, as
minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. (E)ach of them is also sentenced to suffer all the
accessory penalties provided for by law, and each is ordered to pay in
solidum the offended party, Agustin Reloj, the sum of P200.00 as
reimbursement of medical and hospitalization expenses.

(2) For the murder of Felix Gasang, each accused is sentenced the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and each of them is likewise sentenced to
ARTICLE 18 suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law, and each is also
ordered to pay in solidum to the heirs of Felix Gasang, the sum of
G.R. Nos. L-67803-04 July 30, 1990 P12,000, as death indemnity.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, (3) For the murder of Cipriano Gasang and the mortal (sic) wounding of
vs. Merlinda Gasang (which has been converted into a complex crime of
Pat. RICARTE MADALI and ANNIE MORTEL murder with frustrated murder) each accused is sentenced to the penalty
MADALI, defendants-appellants. of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties provided for
by law and to indemnify in solidum the heirs of Cipriano Gasang the
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. sum of P12,000.00 and each is also ordered to pay in solidum, Merlinda
Gasang the sum of P6,000 for reimbursement of medical and
Juan B. Soliven for defendants-appellants. hospitalization expenses.

Each of the accused is likewise ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of


deceased, Cipriano Gasang and Felix Gasang, the sum of P50,000.00,
FERNAN, C.J.: which amount represents the value of the loss (sic) earning capacity of
deceased Cipriano and Felix, both surnamed Gasang, and the sum of
Husband and wife Patrolman Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali P30,000.00 as moral damages, and the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary
appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch damages.
The sentences of reclusion perpetua and the indeterminate Agustin towards the gate of his (Madali's) house. When Agustin asked
penalty imposed upon each accused should be served successively, with Madali why he was dragging him, Madali said that the reason was
proportionate costs. because Agustin helped in fighting his son.

IT IS SO ORDERED.2 As one of Agustin's feet stepped over the knee-high fence at the gate of
the Madali residence, he was clubbed by Annie Madali with a piece of
According to the prosecution, said crimes stemmed from an altercation wood. Annie struck him first on the left shoulder and would have given
between the son of the Madali spouses, Ramon, and the group of Felix him another blow had not Agustin freed himself from Madali's hold.
Gasang, who was twenty years old when he was killed. 3 It appears that Annie landed that blow on Madali instead. 12
on October 26, 1979, Felix figured in a fist-fight with someone who was
a friend of Ramon. The latter interceded and mauled Felix with a Agustin was looking back as he ran away when Madali shot him. He
"chako" 4 One of Felix's companions then was Agustin Reloj. 5 was hit below his right hip. He fell to the ground and did not get up
fearing that Madali might shoot him again. Agustin was still lying down
The following day, the police summoned Felix to the municipal on the ground with his eyes focused on Madali when Felix Gasang
building. Felix's mother, Desamparada Gasang, went with him. 6 At the arrived. He saw Annie beamed her flashlight at Felix and she said,
police station, Ricarte Madali, a police officer, angrily scolded Felix and "Here comes another." 13
his cousin, Arnaldo Fadriquilan, and told them that because they were
"very brave", he would put them in jail for twelve hours. Madali added Agustin saw Felix raising his hands as Annie focused her flashlight on
after asking about Felix's age that he would "sow bullets" in the body of Felix. Felix told Madali that he would not fight with him but then
Felix. 7 According to witness policeman Aristeo Fetalino, Madali also Madali shot Felix twice. Felix fell to the ground. Madali was still near
uttered, "Kailangan sa imo lubongan bala" which means, what you the gate of his house when Cipriano Gasang arrived. Annie beamed her
need is a bullet embedded in you. 8 Madali's father-in-law, Agustin flashlight at Cipriano and she said, "Here comes, here comes another,
Mortel, who arrived at the police station, agreed with Madali that Felix fire upon him. 14 Madali shot Cipriano who fell to the ground. Merlinda
and his group must be "sown with bullets" to eradicate them. 9 Another Gasang, who was with her father Cipriano, clung to the fence nearby
group mate of Felix was detained at the municipal jail but Felix was and shouted that she was also hit. Then Desamparada Gasang arrived
sent home with his mother. 10 and shouted for help. One Romeo Manes came and carried away
Merlinda. Agustin slowly stood up and as he walked towards his house,
At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, Felix and his he saw Roman Galicia (Galicha) and the Madali spouses who were then
cousin, Agustin Reloj, went home together from the town plaza. Their entering their gate. 15
houses were located near each other in sitio Marawi, barangay Cagbo-
aya, San Agustin, Romblon. Merlinda Gasang * was at home when she heard an explosion. Her
father, Cipriano, was also at home then but after the second shot, he
Felix and Agustin parted ways at the Marawi bridge. Felix dropped by went out of the house towards the direction of the source of the gunfire.
the store of Coroy Mangao to buy cigarettes while Agustin proceeded There was a minute interval between the first and the second shots but
home. Around fifteen meters from the house of Ricarte Madali, the only a second elapsed between the second and the third shots. The
latter accosted, him, held him by his arm and said, "So you are here, you fourth shot came about two minutes later. 16
devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been
watching for you for three nights already. 11 Then Madali dragged
Cipriano was "beyond the gate" of the Madali residence when he was Felix also died of hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound at the
shot by Madali. Merlinda was around three meters from her father.17 She right second intercostal space within the mid-clavicular line of the chest.
saw Annie focused her flashlight at Cipriano and she heard Annie say, The bullet veered backwards towards the left hitting the right lung, its
"Yara pa, yara, pa, barila" meaning "Here comes another one, here blood vessels and the fourth cervical vertebra. The second gunshot
comes another one, shoot." 18 That was when the fourth explosion wound was at the right side of the abdomen at about the level of the
occurred and Merlinda heard her father exclaim that he was hit. navel and within the right anterior axillary line. The bullet hit the
Merlinda felt that she was also hit. 19 She did not fall to the ground subcutaneous tissues and exited at the posterior axillary line. 27
because she was able to take hold of the wooden fence. 20 She saw both
her brother Felix and Agustin lying flat on the ground with the latter's Merlyn (Merlinda) Gasang sustained a gunshot wound at the anterior
head turned to one side. 21 upper third portion of her right leg with no exit wound and which would
incapacitate her for ten to fifteen days 28 However, she stayed for
Merlinda shouted for help. Romeo Manes came and brought her to the treatment at the emergency hospital in San Agustin for 39 days. Later,
Tablas Island Emergency Hospital. 22 She did not notice anymore where she was brought to the hospital in Romblon for extraction of the slug
Ricarte Madali was at that time because she was looking towards the lodged in her leg. For the treatment of her wound, Merlinda spent
direction of their house. She saw her mother running to her. 23 P6,200.00. She could not go to school for three months. 29

Desamparada Gasang was washing the dishes after supper when she Agustin Reloj suffered a gunshot wound at the glutael region of the
heard the first shot. After the fourth shot, she became apprehensive right thigh. The bullet entered the lateral aspect of the upper third of the
because a policeman was mad at her family. 24 She proceeded to where right thigh and exited at the posterior aspect of the gluteus maximus
she heard the gunbursts and she met her daughter Merlinda who muscle. The attending physician certified that Agustin's injury would
informed her that she was shot by Madali and that she saw Annie incapacitate him for seven to nine days, 30 Agustin, who was then a
focused a flashlight on her. Then Desamparada saw her husband laborer, stayed one week at the hospital and spent P200 for the treatment
crawling on the ground. She asked him to stand up but he could not do of his wound. For his pain and anxiety he stated, that he should be
so. Cipriano told her, "Ging iwagan ako ni Annie Madali cag ging baril compensated in the amount of P500.00. 31
ako ni Ricarte Madali" (Annie focused a light on me and Ricarte Madali
shot me.) She then went back to her daughter and shouted for help. Madali voluntarily surrendered to the San Agustin police. 32 He handed
his .38 caliber service revolver to the policemen who arrived at the
The bodies of Cipriano and Felix Gasang were not removed from the scene of the crime and they noted that there were only two remaining
road until around midnight. They were brought to the Gasang residence bullets in the revolver. 33 He was placed under technical arrest by the
for autopsy. 25 The rural health physician who conducted the provincial commander of the Philippine Constabulary. 34
postmortem examinations on both Cipriano and Felix found that
Cipriano sustained a gunshot wound at the right lower quadrant of the After the investigation, on February 1, 1980, two informations were
abdomen along the mammary line. From that point of entry, the bullet filed against Patrolman Madali and his wife, Annie Mortel Madali. In
followed an obliquely downward course penetrating the small and large Criminal Case No. 981, said spouses were charged with multiple murder
intestines and the urinary bladder, and exited at the middle of the left for the killing of Felix and Cipriano Gasang. The information alleged
buttock. Cipriano's death was caused by hemorrhage due to the gunshot that they conspired, confederated and mutually helped each other in
wound.26 killing Felix and Cipriano treacherously, with evident premeditation and
with the use of a .38 caliber revolver. 35
In the separate information for multiple frustrated murder in Criminal Madali in turn dealt him with a blow by swinging back his left forearm.
Case No. 982, conspiracy, treachery and evident premeditation were The man with a club fell down.
also alleged as having attended the felonious assault with the use of a .
38 caliber revolver on Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj which could When the man with the knife was about to stab him, Madali fired his
have resulted in the crime of murder had not timely and able medical gun at him. As that man was still closing in on him, Madali shot him
assistance intervened. 36 again. The man with the knife retreated to the gate and fell just outside
of it.
At the trial, both Madali and his wife, who had pleaded not guilty to the
crimes charged, testified in their own defense. According to Madali, at After firing two shots, Madali turned sideward and saw the man with
around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, he and his the club about to strike him. So, Madali shot him. The man walked
family were about to sleep when a stone was hurled at their house. His away. Madali later identified the man crouching amidst their gabi plants
wife said that it could have been a stray stone. But then, three other as Agustin Reloj. 37
stones landed on the GI sidings, and the lawanit and bamboo walls of
their house. Madali went to their porch where he noticed a person Annie Mortel Madali corroborated her husband's testimony from the
crouching near their gabi plants. He could not identify the person stoning of their house until he dressed up, got his gun and nightstick,
because of the fog so he went inside their room and dressed up in his and went out of the house. When she heard Madali opening the door to
fatigue trousers and jacket. He went down the house and noticed that the stairs, Annie got up and went to their balcony to peep. She saw her
there was no one in the gabi plants anymore. husband going around their house in a clockwise direction. When he
was near their kitchen, Annie saw him grappling with someone over the
Madali was behind their kitchen and about to go back to his house when possession of a club. Her husband and his protagonist fell into a canal,
someone hit his left shoulder. The person struck him again but he was trampling the gabi plants. She heard the man say, "Hay, naga tanga pa
able to catch the club aimed at him and strike the person with his kamo dira!" meaning "What are you still waiting for!"
nightstick. Madali was about to give him another blow with his
nightstick but the person caught it. They tried to get each other's club. Annie then saw two persons rushing inside their premises. One person
was holding a club while the other one had something which he
They were in that position when Madali's foot stepped into a low canal, appeared to thrust forward. Losing her composure, Annie warned her
causing him to fall down flat on his back. The intruder fell with him and husband by calling out his name, "Carte, Carte!" Then she heard a
landed on Madali's stomach. The person shouted at someone in the gunshot and the person holding a club who grappled with her husband
vicinity what the latter was tarrying about. As Madali tried to get up, he ran out of the premises.
heard his wife call, "Carte, Carte." Just then he kicked the intruder on
the stomach and the latter fell to the ground. Annie heard her husband say, "Pulis ini, ayaw maglapit" meaning "This
is a policeman do not come near." After that, she heard three more
Madali hurriedly stood up, pulled his gun and fired at the intruder. He gunshots. The two who came rushing inside their premises scampered
noticed two other persons approaching him. One person had a club and away and out of their fence. She could not recognize the three intruders.
the other had what looked like a knife. He warned them, "This is a Madali then walked towards her and asked her to call the police. Annie
policeman. Do not come near." One of the persons proceeded to strike went inside their sala and told her daughter Agnes to summon the
him and Madali was hit on his forehead by the man with the club. police. 38
Policeman Numeriano Galang who heard the gun reports, met Agnes on the lower court concluded that the Madali spouses should have been
his way to sitio Marawi. When he arrived at the Madali residence, he charged with the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder.
found Madali with his face and jacket smeared with mud and with a Accordingly, it imposed the penalties set out above for the crimes of
swollen forehead. 39Galang asked Madali what happened but he did not frustrated murder, murder and the complex crime of murder and
put his investigation in writing. 40 At the yard, he found stones, two frustrated murder.
slippers and a nightstick. 41 He did not find bloodstains in the yard
because it was drizzling. 42 Neither did he find bloodstains outside the In this appeal, the Madali spouses pray for their acquittal arguing that
yard because he inspected only the areas surrounding the Madali the lower court erred in: [a] finding Annie Mortel Madali guilty as
house. 43 principal by direct participation; [b] not finding that the Gasangs and
their kins were motivated by revenge; [c] not finding that Ricarte
Policeman Antonio Morales arrived at the scene of the crime with two Madali acted in self-defense; and [d] in giving credence and/or adopting
other policemen. He found Felix Gasang lying flat on his belly about the theory of the prosecution instead of that of the defense.
one foot from the gate. 44 To identify him, they turned Felix's body face
up and found that his right hand was holding a knife. 45 Later, that knife The prosecution of these cases was highlighted by notable
was turned over to police investigator Pfc. Ernesto Solano. 46 The other developments. Firstly, before the defense could present its evidence, on
victim (Cipriano) was found about five to six meters from the body of September 6, 1980, the capitol building of Romblon was razed to the
Felix. 47 Like Galang, Morales saw pieces of stones which were ground. All court records were lost. The records of Criminal Cases Nos.
different from the stones found in Madali's yard which were mere corals 981 and 982 were, however, reconstituted and the accused arraigned
or "boga," two pairs of slippers and the gabi plants which appeared to anew. 50 Secondly, prosecution eyewitness, Roman Galicia recanted his
have been trampled upon. 48 testimony and appeared for the defense claiming that he did not see the
gunwielder. 51 He alleged that he testified for the prosecution for fear
To prove aggression on the part of his victims, Madali presented a that the special prosecutor would revive the rape case against
medical certificate stating that on November 1, 1979, he was examined him. 52 The lower court thereafter disregarded his entire testimony
at the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital for a vertical contusion inasmuch as only the transcript of his cross-examination as prosecution
(hematoma) on his left forehead and another contusion on the left witness could be reproduced. 53 Thirdly, only the testimony of Ricarte
deltoid region. 49 Madali was heard by the ponente below as the previous presiding judge
was transferred to another sala. 54
The lower court gave full faith and credit to the evidence of the
prosecution, especially the testimonies of eyewitnesses-victims Agustin In view of the disqualification of Roman Galicia as a witness, the issue
Reloj and Merlinda Gasang. It found that the concerted acts of Madali of the credibility of the eyewitnesses has gained importance in this case.
and his wife while committing the crimes proved conspiracy between Significantly, it is the word of the accused Madali spouses as against
them thereby making their criminal responsibility collective. While that of the surviving victims, Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang. Both
finding that the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation, the prosecution and defense failed to present corroborative witnesses to
lower court positively appreciated treachery to qualify as murder the buttress their testimonies.
killing of both Cipriano and Felix Gasang. It noted, however, that the
prosecution erred in charging as the separate crimes of murder and Matters of credibility are ordinarily addressed to the discretion and
frustrated murder the killing of Cipriano and the wounding of Merlinda. discernment of the trial court which is presumed to have observed the
Observing that only one bullet hit Cipriano and his daughter, Merlinda, demeanor of the witnesses at the stand. While the ponente of the
decision below was able to hear only the testimony of accused Ricarte found blood stains in the middle of the street indicating that a blood-
Madali, the Court sees no reason for not giving sufficient weight to his drenched body had been dragged across the
factual findings considering that he took pains in thoroughly studying street. 60
the case even to the extent of conducting an ocular inspection of the
scene of the crimes and hearing part of the cross-examination of Madali If it were really true that both Agustin and Cipriano were armed with
thereat. 55 clubs, at least Cipriano's club would have been found as he died on the
spot. The nightstick found by the police could not have been the one
The defense is anchored on the justifying circumstance of self-defense. used by any of the victims. According to defense witness policeman
In order that such plea can prosper, it must be positively shown that Galang, the nightstick was similar to that of a policeman. 61 Hence, it
there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the could have been the same nightstick which Madali admittedly used in
defendant's life in danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe striking one of the intruders. 62
wounds upon his assailant, employing therefor reasonablemeans to
resist the said attack. 56 Granting that Agustin Reloj and Felix and Cipriano Gasang were armed
with clubs and a knife, Madali's means of resisting them was
The defense miserably failed to pass said test. Its allegation that the unreasonable under the circumstance. Having known that an interloper
Madali residence was hurled with stones before Madali confronted the was inside his yard, Madali, being a policeman, should have first fired a
Gasang group, was not credibly established. No one was able to warning shot to deter said intruder from executing whatever vicious
positively identify the stone-throwers. Not even Madali and his wife, plans he had. As it were, he fired directly at his victims and all four
Annie. There is no proof that the stones found in the Madali yard were shots hit their targets.
indeed the stones thrown at their house. It is interesting to note that even
defense witness Antonio Morales, a fellow policeman of Madali, Moreover, if Agustin, Felix and Cipriano were the intruders, then they
testified that he did not have personal knowledge on where the stones should be credited for their extraordinary bravery in entering the Madali
were discovered because he was only informed by Galang (another yard. They were neighbors and they must have known that as a
policeman) "who in turn was only told by Ricarte that the latter was policeman, Madali possessed a service revolver. The lower court, which
stoned. 57 saw for itself the Madali yard considered it "rather inconceivable" for
people like the victims to ever dare go inside the premises armed only
Indeed, the defense story is riddled with contradictions and loopholes with a knife and clubs. 63
which the appellants failed to rectify. At the trial, Agustin Reloj
sketched a map of the neighborhood and placed Felix Gasang's body on The lower court is correct in characterizing the felonious assault on
a spot across the road from the Madali gate. 58 The defense tried to Agustin Reloj as frustrated murder. While Agustin Reloj was hit only
discredit Reloj's sketch and his testimony thereon by presenting below his right hip, Madali's act of shooting was plainly attended by an
policemen Morales and Galang who testified that Felix's body was intent to kill. This is evidenced by the revealing statements of Madali
found close to the gate of the Madali residence. However, the while accosting Agustin Reloj some fifteen (15) meters from Madali's
testimonies of said policemen clashed with each other. Morales testified house, thus: "So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have
that both the two dead bodies were found close to the gate while Galang been waiting for you. I have been waiting for you for three nights
swore that while one body was near the gate, the other body was five already. 64 The statements "now you are finished" and "I have been
meters away from the Madali fence. 59 It should be noted that ten days waiting for you for three nights already" sufficiently show that Madali
after the alleged commission of the crime, police investigator Fetalino not only intended to do away with Agustin Reloj but also that the crime
had been premeditated. They satisfactorily prove that Madali had "to stay away, meditate and to shout and warn her husband of the
formed a determination to commit the crime prior to the moment of its intruders rushing towards him. 71 She bewails the fact that the
execution; that he had clung to his determination and that there was prosecution has pictured her as "a brave, pugnacious and aggressive
sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution wife like the heroine of the pre-war movie "Annie of the
of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 65 Indies". 72 Indeed, Annie's role in the commission of the crimes may
appear to be straight out of an action picture were it not for the fact that
Moreover, after uttering those damaging statements, Madali dragged her denials and uncorroborated alibi cannot stand against the categorical
Reloj towards his gate. Annie then clubbed Reloj who, however, declarations of prosecution eyewitnesses Agustin Reloj and Merlinda
succeeded in freeing himself from Madali's hold. Reloj was running Gasang on her participation therein. 73 She should have presented
away when Madali shot him, hitting him below the right hip. 66 witnesses to support her story. As she herself admitted, she and her
husband were not alone in their house when they were allegedly stoned.
Indeed, firing at his fleeing victim and subsequently shooting to death Six of their children were home then. 74 Some of them must have been
two (2) other persons on the same occasion, to our mind, evince quite within the age of discernment inasmuch as their eldest child was 21
clearly the intent to kill being then entertained by Madali. years old and therefore, any one of them could have corroborated her
story.
There is likewise no doubt that Madali committed murder when he shot
Felix Gasang twice in the body. Treachery qualified the killing to Nevertheless, the Court finds that proof beyond reasonable doubt has
murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There not been established as to the existence of conspiracy between the
was treachery because of the suddenness of the attack. Felix was raising Madali spouses. While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy
his hands, 67 and saying that he would not fight back when Madali as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically
feloniously fired at him twice. Annie Madali's uttering "Here comes be inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to
another" before Madali shot Felix may not be considered sufficient commit the offense(s) charged, the evidence to prove the same must be
warning so as to rule out suddenness of the attack. 68 However, no positive and convincing considering that conspiracy is a facile devise by
generic aggravating circumstance has been sufficiency proven. which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal
fold. 75 With this and the principle that in criminal prosecution, doubts
We agree with the trial court that with respect to the killing of Cipriano must be resolved in favor of the accused, as guides, the Court rules that
Gasang and the wounding of Merlinda Gasang, the crime committed the liability of Annie Mortel Madali with respect to the crimes
was the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder inasmuch as a committed herein, is only that of an accomplice.i•t•c-aüsl
single shot hit them both. 69 It is immaterial that Merlinda Gasang was
wounded on the leg and not on a vital part of her body. What is of Annie's participation in the shooting of the victims consisted of beaming
primordial consideration is the fact that the criminal act which killed her flashlight at them and warning her husband of the presence of other
Cipriano also caused Merlinda's injury. 70 As in the kiling of Felix, persons in the vicinity. By beaming her flashlight at a victim, Annie
treachery qualified the killing of Cipriano to murder because of the assisted her husband in taking a good aim. However, such assistance
suddenness of the attack. merely facilitated the commission of the felonious acts of shooting.
Considering that, according to both of the Madali spouses, "it was not so
Annie Mortel Madali's defense strategy is to deny participation in the dark nor too bright 76 that night or that "brightness and darkness were
commission of the crimes and to interpose an alibi. She insists that like equally of the same intensity. 77 Ricarte Madali could have nevertheless
any other wife, her natural reaction to situations which involve risk is
accomplished his criminal acts without Annie's cooperation and III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution does not change the period of
assistance. the penalty for murder except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition
of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. Hence, the
Neither may Annie's shouts of "here comes, here comes another, shoot" lower court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on
be considered as having incited Ricarte to fire at the victims to make Ricarte Madali for said complex crime.
Annie a principal by inducement. There is no proof that those inciting
words had great dominance and influence over Madali as to become The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which was proven
the determining cause of the crimes. 78 The rapidity with which Madali but not appreciated in favor of Ricarte Madali by the trial court, should
admittedly fired the shots 79 eliminated the necessity of encouraging be considered in imposing on him the penalty for the murder of Felix
words such as those uttered by Annie. Gasang. The presence of this mitigating circumstance without any
aggravating circumstance to offset the same justified the imposition of
The fact that Annie dealt a blow on Agustin while he was being dragged the minimum period of the penalty for murder pursuant to Article 64(2)
by Madali to their yard does not make her a principal by direct of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the proper penalty should be
participation. Annie's act, being previous to Madali's act of shooting the indeterminate sentence of not less than ten (10) years and one (1)
Agustin, was actually not indispensable to the crime committed against day of prision mayor as minimum and not more than twenty (20) years
Agustin. 80 of reclusion temporal as maximum. 82

Proof of motive is unnecessary where there is a clear identification of The same mitigating circumstance should be considered in the
the accused. 81 More so in this case where the principal accused does not imposition of the penalty on Ricarte Madali for the crime of frustrated
deny having fired the fatal shots. But the Madali spouses must have murder committed against Agustin Reloj. The penalty for frustrated
harbored a deep resentment against the Gasang family to put into action murder in accordance with Article 50 in relation to Article 248
Madali's threat of "sowing bullets" on them. What makes Madali's is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
crimes even more reprehensible is the fact that he claims to have medium period. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance
committed them in the pursuit of his task as a peace officer. He even of voluntary surrender and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
went to the extent of wearing his fatigue jacket and trousers to create a the penalty imposed on Ricarte Madali is four (4) years, two (2) months
facade of performance of an official function. Sadly, he misused his and one (1) day of prisioncorreccional as minimum to 12 years
authority and his wife, harboring an improper sense of connubial of prision mayor as maximum.
cooperation, did not even try to dissuade him.
As an accomplice, Annie Mortel Madali should be imposed the penalty
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated
crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious felonies. 83 For the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder, like
crime. The death penalty being the maximum period of the penalty for her husband, she shall be imposed the penalty
84
murder of reclusion temporal maximum to death under Article 248 of of reclusion perpetua, considering that the penalty prescribed by law
the same Code, the death penalty should be imposed for the complex for Ricarte Madali is the death penalty. For the murder of Felix Gasang,
crime of murder with frustrated murder considering that under Article the penalty imposable on her is prision mayormaximum to reclusion
63, an indivisible penalty cannot be affected by the presence of any temporal medium, 85 and there being no aggravating nor mitigating
mitigating or aggravating circumstance. It should be noted that under circumstances, the penalty should be reclusion
the ruling in People v. Muñoz, L-38968-70, February 9, 1989, Article temporal minimum. 86 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Annie
Mortel Madali should therefore be meted the penalty of six (6) years PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years and vs.
eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. For the crime of LUDOVICO C. DOCTOLERO alias "ECOY," CONRADO C.
frustrated murder committed against Agustin Reloj, Annie Mortel DOCTOLERO alias "CONDRING," and VIRGILIO C.
Madali shall be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six (6) DOCTOLERO alias "VERGEL," accused-appellants.
months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Hermogenes S. Decano for accused-appellants.
Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali shall also be liable to the heirs
of Cipriano and Felix Gasang for indemnity in the total amount of sixty
thousand pesos (P60,000) in the proportion of 2:1 (2 shares for Ricarte
Madali as principal and 1 share for Annie Mortel Madali as REGALADO, J.:
accomplice), with each accused-appellant being subsidiarily liable for
the other in case of insolvency. The Court sees no reason to disturb the Accused-appellants Ludovico Doctolero and his brothers, Conrado and
lower court's findings on the reimbursement of hospitalization and Virgilio Doctolero, charged with and convicted in the then Court of First
medical expenses in favor of Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj as Instance, Branch II, Pangasinan, of the crime of multiple murder and
well as the award of damages, except to clarify that payment thereof unspecified physical injuries, appealed from the decision of the court a
shall likewise be in the proportion of 2:1 as above stated and with each quo the decretal portion of which reads:
accused being subsidiarily liable for the other in case of insolvency.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the accused
WHEREFORE, except as hereinabove modified, the decision of the Ludovico Doctolero guilty as principal, and his co-accused Conrado
lower court is hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellants. Doctolero and Virgilio Doctolero guilty as accomplices, in committing
the crime of Murder, which caused the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita
SO ORDERED. de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and in inflicting physical
injury on the minor child, Jonathan Oviedo. Accordingly, in the absence
of other circumstances to mitigate the penalty, the accused Ludovico
Doctolero is sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) LIFE
IMPRISONMENTS (CADENA PERPETUA) for the deaths of Epifania
Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and the
additional penalty of 4 Months and 1 Day to 6 Months ofarresto mayor,
for inflicting slight physical injury to (sic) the minor child, Jonathan
Oviedo. The accused Conrado Doctolero and Virgilio Doctolero, as
accomplices, are sentenced to suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 Day
of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, for
ARTICLE 18 the death of Epifania Escosio; the penalty of 10 Years and 1 Day
of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 Months of reclusion temporal, for
G.R. No. 34386 February 7, 1991 the death of Lolita de Guzman Oviedo: the penalty of 10 Years and 1
Day of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 Months of reclusion temporal,
for the death of Marcelo Doctolero; and the additional penalty of 2 while being fed on the breast of his mother. On the road, a few meters
Months and 1 Day to 4 Months of arresto mayor for the slight physical from the house of Marcial Sagun, Marcelo Doctolero, 81 years old, was
injury suffered by the minor child, Jonathan Oviedo. All accused fatally injured. He was taken to the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital but
Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio all surnamed Doctolero, are ordered to he died on the way. . . .
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Epifania Escosio, in the sum of
P12,000.00; the heirs of the deceased Lolita de Guzman Oviedo, in the The evidence for the prosecution tend to show that the three (3) accused,
sum of P12,000.00; and the heirs of the deceased Marcelo Doctolero, in Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, all surnamed Doctolero, were
the sum of P12,000.00; and to pay three-fourths (3/4) of the costs. The responsible for the death(s) of Epifania Escosio and Lolita de Guzman,
accused Antonio Doctolero is acquitted, with one-fourth (1/4) cost de and in inflicting physical injuries to (sic) Jonathan Oviedo. And
oficio.1 immediately thereafter, with their father and co-accused, Antonio
Doctolero, they hacked Marcelo Doctolero, with their bolos which
The information filed against appellants alleges that the crime was caused the death of the latter.
committed as follows:
The principal witnesses for the prosecution are: Marcial Sagun, his wife
That on or about the 8th day of November, 1970, in barrio Binday, Maria Sagun, and Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy. According to Marcial
municipality of San Fabian, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and Sagun, at about 6:30 in the evening on November 8, 1970, he and his
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed wife, Maria Oviedo-Sagun and Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo (sister-in-law
accused, armed with bolos, went up the house of Marcial Sagun and of Maria Oviedo-Sagun) were on their way home to Barrio Binday.
once thereat, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, with They came from the field where they bundled their harvests. Upon
intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, with abuse reaching a crossing of the road in Bo. Binday they met the accused
of superior strength and with extreme cruelty, did, then and there, Ludovico Doctolero who, without warning and without cause or reason,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab and strike held the left shoulder of Marcial Sagun with his left hand and struck
Lolita de Guzman Oviedo, Epifania Escosio and Jonathan Oviedo and Marcial Sagun with a bolo. The latter evaded that blow and wrestled
immediately thereafter, the same accused while already on the road, with Ludovico Doctolero for possession of the bolo of the latter. Lolita
conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, with intent to kill de Guzman-Oviedo became frightened when Ludovico Doctolero and
and with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault, hack and Marcial Sagun were wrestling for the possession of the bolo of the
stab Marcelo Doctolero, thereby inflicting upon him multiple mortal former, so she ran away in the direction of the house in Sitio Binday.
wounds which caused his death.2
Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy (sister of Marcial Sagun) testified that while
Upon arraignment, all the appellants pleaded not guilty to the crimes she was cleaning palay in the yard of her uncle, the deceased Marcelo
charged. In its decision, the trial court made the following findings and Doctolero, she saw the accused, Ludovico. Conrado and Virgilio (all
a summary of the evidence for the prosecution thus: surnamed Doctolero) throw stones at the house of Marcial Sagun. While
throwing stones, Ludovico allegedly shouted for the man in the house to
It is undisputed that on the evening of November 8, 1970, Epifania come out. Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy went towards the house of Marcial
Escosio and Lolita de Guzman were killed in the house of Marcial Sagun and saw the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio,
Sagun in Sitio Binday, municipality of San Fabian, province of coming down from the house going towards her. She told them: "Why
Pangasinan, where they were living. Jonathan Oviedo, 1 1/2 year old can't you be patient and forget?" But she was asked not to interfere. At
child of Lolita de Guzman, was on the same occasion, slightly injured about that time, Marcelo Doctolero, half-brother of Antonio Doctolero,
and uncle of the three accused was going towards the house of Marcial like that. The latter unsheathed his bolo and boloed Ludovico with a
Sagun, when he met the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio. downward swing. He parried the bolo with his left hand (p. 9, ibid), but
Marcelo Doctolero told them why they can't be patient and forget, but he was hurt in the process (p. 10, ibid).
the three accused replied "Vulva of your mother, we will also kill you."
Then they struck Marcelo Doctolero several times with their bolos. And At that juncture, Marcial Sagun unsheathed his bolo and Ludovico
when their father Antonio Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo Doctolero also unsheathed his bolo. They watched each other's step (p.
Doctolero with a bolo on the head. Marcelo Doctolero fell and then all 10, ibid) with the two women, Lolita de Guzman and Maria Oviedo,
the accused ran away. hitting the back of Ludovico with a wood (sic). The latter ignored them,
as his eyes were towards Marcial Sagun and his brother-in-law, Antonio
The testimony of Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy is sought to be corroborated Oviedo (p. 11, ibid).
by the testimony of Maria Oviedo-Sagun (wife of Marcial Sagun) who
declared that while she was in the house of Marcelo Doctolero, to whom Realizing that he could not afford to fight both Marcial Sagun and
she reported the incident between Ludovico Doctolero and Marcial Antonio Oviedo, Ludovico tried to escape by boloing Maria Oviedo,
Sagun, she saw the three accused Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio whom he hit at the back. He retreated and then run (sic) away, with
throwing stones at their house and called to all the men in the house to Marcial Sagun and Antonio Oviedo throwing stones at him. (p.
come out. She was about to go to their house to get her children but she 12, ibid).
saw the three accused Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio going up. So she
hid behind the palm tree, a few meters away from their house. While Ludovico went to the house of his father, Antonio Doctolero. The latter
there, she heard Epifania Escosio (her adopted mother) shouting at her, was eating his meal, together with his small children upstairs, while
saying "Enieng, your children." Then she saw the three accused coming accused-appellant, Conrado Doctolero was in the kitchen downstairs
down from the house, going towards the road where they met Marcelo also eating his meal, when Ludovico arrived (p. 13, ibid; p. 4, hearing
Doctolero whom they also boloed several times until he fell. When June 8, 1971-Salazar).
Antonio Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo Doctolero with a
bolo. Then they all left.3 He told his father that he was wounded and asked him to look after his
children as he might meet something bad that night. He did not enter the
On the other hand, appellants present the following version: house anymore: he was only until the door. Then he ran away. His father
asked him what happened, but he did not answer anymore. (p. 14, ibid,
On November 8, 1970, at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, Ludovico p. 4, Salazar).
Doctolero met at the crossing of Bo. Banana and Binday road, San
Fabian, Pangasinan. Marcial Sagun, who was with his wife, Maria He ran towards his house, taking a short cut by passing through the
Oviedo, Antonio Oviedo and the latter's wife, Lolita de Guzman. house of his cousins, Juanito and Cresencia Doctolero. As he came near
Antonio Oviedo is the brother-in-law of Marcial Sagun, he being the his house, he saw the house of Marcial Sagun, who was also his
brother of Maria Oviedo. (tsn, p. 7 hearing, February 17, 1971-Somera). immediate neighbor. His blood boiled. He went to Marcial's house
Marcial Sagun and company were on their way home. (p. 8, Ibid). calling him to get down. When Marcial did not get down, he peeped and
noticed that Marcial Sagun was not there. So he went upstairs to ask
Ludovico greeted Marcial Sagun: "Where have you been cousin." (p. Epifania Escosio, who told him that Marcial Sagun went towards the
8, ibid) He noticed, however, Antonio Oviedo holding his bolo on his South. He was about to leave when the old woman hit him at the back of
waist. So, he asked his cousin Marcial Sagun why Antonio Oviedo was
his neck, causing him to see darkness and (he) boloed her several times (3) Incised wound 4 inches in length 1/2 inch above the 2nd wound with
(p. 13-19, tsn, hearing, February 17, 1971). fracture of the underlying skull.

Ludovico went downstairs to look for Marcial Sagun. He stayed a while (4) Incised wound 6 inches in length from the upper border of the left
at the trunk of the buri tree, thinking that he might be ambushed. Here, eyebrow to the right eyebrow. There is also fracture of the underlying
he did not notice anyone coming from the south or the east. So he tried skull.
to move, but as he did so, he noticed someone approaching him coming
from the yard of Marcelo Doctolero. As it was dark he did not recognize (5) Incised wound –– 3 1/2 inches in length 1 1/2 from the angle of the
the man and thinking that it was Marcial Sagun, he met him. It turned month towards the lower border of the right ear. The lower lobe of the
out however, that the man was Marcelo Doctolero. So he returned the ear is detached.
bolo he was holding in its scabbard. He asked Marcelo Doctolero where
Marcial Sagun was, but Marcelo Doctolero answered him, "because of (6) The lower third of the left small finger is almost cut off.
your foolishness" and hit him on the shoulder, but in the process of
evading the blow, Ludovico Doctolero was hit at the back. As Marcelo (7) Incised wound at the median portion of the left hand. There is a
Doctolero tried to hit him for a second time he took a side step and took severance from the level of the middle finger.
hold of the stick and pulled it away, causing Marcelo Doctolero to fall
on his knees. He was able to get the club, but Marcelo Doctolero (8) Incised wound –– 1 1/2 inches long at the median portion and distal
unsheathed Ms bolo. When the latter insisted on unsheathing his bolo, 3rd of the forearm, left.
Ludovico Doctolero boloed him many times. (pp. 19-26, ibid).4
(9) Incised wound 1 1/2 inches long above the 8th wound.
The police were then informed of the brutal murders as well as the
injury caused to the child. A doctor and a photographer went to the xxx xxx xxx
scene of the crime and pictures were then taken.5
One wound was inflicted on the body of Lolita de Guzman, namely,
Quoting from the findings of the Rural Health Officer of San Fabian, the "stab wound around 3 cms. long and 4 inches in depth at the 2nd
court below established that –– intercostal space just at the left border of the sternal bone." (Exh. C).
And nine (9) wounds were inflicted on the body of Epifania, namely:
. . . nine (9) wounds were inflicted on the body of Marcelo Doctolero,
namely: xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx (1) Stab wound around 4 cms. in length and around 5 inches deep
penetrating the sternal bone at the level of the 2nd intercostal space.
(1) Incised wound, 5 inches from the upper border of the left ear to the
side of the forehead. There is fracture of the underlying skull. (2) Incised wound 3 inches in length just skin deep at the level of the
right clavicular region.
(2) Incised wound 6 inches in length 1 1/2 inches above the 1st wound
with fracture of the underlying skull. (3) Incised wound 2 inches in length also skin deep one inch below the
second wound.
(4) Chopping wound 3 inches in circumference with fracture of the The trial court correctly found that appellant Conrado Doctolero
underlying skull at the right frontal portion of the head. participated as an accomplice in the commission of the crimes charged.
In his defense, appellant denies having participated in the commission
(5) Incised wound around one inch length at the left frontal portion of thereof and raises the effete defense of alibi, contending that he was not
the head. at the place where the crimes were committed. Appellant's pretension,
however, was not corroborated by any evidence other than the testimony
(6) Incised wound 3 inches long just at the level of the shoulder joint, of the other erstwhile appellants. While the testimony of a co-
exposing the bony portion, left. conspirator or an accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from
a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as it is
(7) Incised wound one inch long 1/2 inch below the sixth wound. subject to travel suspicion.11

(8) Incised wound one inch long 4 inches below the seventh wound. This uncorroborated denial of his participation cannot overthrow the
positive and categorical testimony of the principal witnesses of the
(9) Incised wound around 3 inches in length at the base and lateral prosecution, and between the positive declarations of the prosecution
portion of the hand right. There was fracture of some of the underlying Witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves
bones.6 more credence.12

Regarding the wounds inflicted upon Jonathan Oviedo, the resident There is no showing that the witnesses had any motive to testify falsely
physician at the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, Dr. Rodolfo Ramirez, against appellants. The only imputed grudge that Paciencia Sagun-
explained the same as follows: "Stab wound, thru and thru, about 1 1/2 Diamoy may have had against appellants occurred years ago and she
inches on the lateral aspect of the dischartered forearm, right. Then, was, at the time she testified, on good terms with appellants as shown by
there was another about 1 inch of the middle aspect of the right forearm. the following testimony of Ludovico Doctolero himself:
There was also an incised wound, about 1/2 inch, temporal right." He
further testified that the child was admitted to the hospital on November Q And even before Paciencia Sagun Diamoy testified as one of the
8, 1970 and was discharged completely healed fifteen (15) days later.7 prosecution witness (sic) your relationship with her was harmonious and
rather very closed (sic) being your cousin?
During the pendency of the present petition and on motion of appellant
Ludovico Doctolero, on May 17, 1976 the Court resolved to grant the A Yes, sir.
withdrawal of his appeal8
Q As a matter of fact, whenever she goes to San Fabian to visit her
and entry of judgment with regard to said accused was made on the relatives she did not fail to see you in your house?
same day.9
A Yes, sir sometimes she slept in my house.13
In a resolution dated June 28, 1988, the Court noted the manifestation of
counsel for accused-appellants, dated May 9, 1988, stating that Virgilio As to Maria Sagun, we agree with the court a quo when it held that
Doctolero died on October 22, 1983 as per death certificate attached "Maria Sagun (wife of Marcial Sagun) pointed to the three accused.
thereto as Annex "A".10 Hence, this review is only with respect to the Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, all surnamed Doctolero, as the persons
liability of appellant Conrado Doctolero. who went up her house that night of November 8, 1970. While Maria
Sagun may have a grudge against the accused Ludovico Doctolero by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers for it is
reason of that previous incident at the crossing yet, no reason or motive presumed that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence
is shown why Maria Sagun should also implicate Conrado and Virgilio of convincing proof to the contrary. Appellants have not shown that this
Doctolero in the commission of the crime."14 prosecution witness was motivated by an improper motive other than
that of accomplishing his mission.20
When there is nothing in the records which would show a motive or
reason on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused, Sgt. Ronquillo established that the reports which were received at the
identification should be given full credit.15 police department of San Fabian, Pangasinan shortly after the crimes
were committed were to the effect that the Doctoleros were involved.
And when there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal He further testified that when he immediately proceeded to the scene of
witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motives, the the crime and investigated Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy she told him that
presumption is that he was not so moved, and his testimony is entitled to the accused Doctoleros came with bolos from the house of Marcial
full faith and credit.16 Sagun.21

In an attempt to disprove the findings of the trial court, appellant points In fine, Sgt. Ronquillo merely testified objectively on the results of his
to certain inconsistencies that allegedly render the testimonies of the investigation and the weight to be accorded to his findings was properly
prosecution witnesses incredible. These inconsistencies, however, are addressed to the trial court.
not so substantial as to destroy their credibility. As correctly explained
by the People, the seeming contradictions and minor inconsistencies in The lower court held that Conrado Doctolero and his brother, Virgilio,
the testimonies of the prosecution witness pointed out by the appellants participated as accomplices in the slaying of the women and the
in their brief are mere inconsequential variations on the part of each infliction of injuries on the child. We agree with its findings and the
observer in relating his own observation of the same incident. ratiocination of the Solicitor General with its evidentiary substantiation:
Contradictions and inconsistencies of witnesses in regard to the details
of an incident far from demonstrating falsehood constitute evidence of Now, there is no question that while the three appellants were still
good faith. Not all persons who witness an incident are impressed by it stoning and hurling challenges at the house of Marcial Sagun, they must
in the same manner and it is but natural that said eyewitnesses should have already heard the two women thereat protesting what they were
disagree on minor details.17 doing and shouting back at them (pp. 39-41, 97, 119, tsn. Jan. 13, 1971:
pp. 144-146, tsn., Jan. 14, 1971), after which all the three appellants
In fact, inconsistences and contradictions in the testimony of the went up the house. Under these facts, it is impossible that both
prosecution witnesses which refer to minor details cannot destroy the appellants Virgilio Doctolero and Conrado Doctolero did not know or
credibility of the prosecution witnesses.18 And where the prosecution were not aware when their brother Ludovico was brutally killing the two
witnesses were able to positively identify the appellants as the authors women Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo and Epifania Escosio and wounding
of the crime and the testimonies were, on the whole, consistent oil the child Jonathan Oviedo inside the room of said house. Furthermore,
material points, the contradictions become insignificant.19 from the nature, number, and locations of the many wounds sustained
by the two women and child (Exhs. A, C, D, and D-1), it could not have
Nor can appellant successfully assail the testimony of Sgt. Delfin been possible for Ludovico's two brothers Virgilio and Conrado
Ronquillo who conducted the investigation himself and personally (assuming that they did not go inside the house) not to hear either the
examined the scenes of the multiple killings. Credence is accorded to screams of pain of their brother's victims or the contact between the
blade of his bolo and their bodies when their brother Ludovico was no evidence of conspiracy among the appellants having been shown.
ruthlessly hacking them several times. . . . Under these circumstances, it
is obvious that appellants Conrado Doctolero and Virgilio themselves The court below, however, erred in the penalty imposed for the physical
knew what was going on inside the room of the house at the time, but injuries inflicted on Jonathan Oviedo. The child required medical
they just stood by and did nothing to stop their brother Ludovico attention for fifteen (15) days, hence the liability of appellants therefor
Doctolero from brutally hacking his women victims to death. It is, is for less serious physical injuries punished with arresto mayor under
therefore, reasonable to believe that the two appellants, Conrado and Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no modifying
Virgilio, merely stood by as their brother Ludovico Doctolero was circumstances, a penalty of twenty (20) days of arresto menor should be
murdering the two deceased women, ready to lend assistance. Indeed, imposed for said offense on appellant Conrado Doctolero as an
there is no question that the presence of these two appellants upstairs in accomplice.
the house of Marcial Sagun gave their brother Ludovico Doctolero the
encouragement and reliance to proceed as he did proceed, in committing The death of appellant Virgilio Doctolero during the pendency of this
the heinous crimes against two defenseless women and a child.22 appeal terminated only his criminal liability but not his civil liability.27

We have held that where one goes with the principals, and in staying Also, while the death indemnity has been increased to P50,000.00 under
outside of the house while the others went inside to rob and kill the current case law, the same should not apply to Ludovico Doctolero, he
victim, the former effectively supplied the criminals with material and having heretofore withdrawn his appeal and the judgment rendered by
moral aid, making him guilty as an accomplice.23 the trial court having long since become final and executory with
respect to him.
Appellants contend that the murders occurred as a consequence of a
sudden thought or impulse, thus negating a common criminal design in WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is MODIFIED and
their minds. This pretension must be rejected since one can be an judgment is hereby rendered IMPOSING on appellant Conrado
accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime intended by the Doctolero three (3) indeterminate sentences of ten (10) years of prision
principal provided he was aware that it was an illicit act.24 mayor to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal each for the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman
This is a doctrine that dates back to the ruling in U.S. vs. De Jesus25 that Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and a penalty of twenty (20) days
where the accomplices therein consented to help in the commission of of arresto menor for the less serious physical injuries inflicted on
forcible abduction, they were responsible for the resulting homicide Jonathan Oviedo. Appellant Conrado Doctolero and the estate of
even if the purpose of the principal to commit homicide was unknown Virgilio Doctolero are ORDERED to indemnify, in the sum of
to the accomplices. P50,000.00 for each set or group of heirs, the respective heirs of
Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero,
Whatever doubt the court a quo entertained on the criminal and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
responsibility of appellants Conrado and Virgilio Doctolero did not refer
to whether or not they were liable but only with regard to the extent of SO ORDERED.
their participation. There being ample evidence of their criminal
participation, but a doubt exists on the nature of their liability, the courts
should favor the milder form of liability or responsibility which is that
of being mere accomplices,26
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period,
or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following
acts:

(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or


from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any
offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats;

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,


document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
ARTICLE 19 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the
MALACAÑANG investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
Manila
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829 knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed
any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND prosecution and conviction;
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a
WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate despite the crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or
sustained vigorous efforts of the government to effectively contain concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same
them; purpose or purposes;

WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the (e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service
apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's
penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders;
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS, President of the with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law do hereby outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
decree and order the following: cases;
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender; ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is
wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate rampant robbery and thievery of government and private properties;
member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the
cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers,
prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official commonly known as fence, of stolen properties;lawphil.net
proceedings in, criminal cases;
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the accessory after the fact and punished lightly;
law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who
from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.
purposes of background information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
the court. Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do
hereby order and decree as part of the law of the land the following:
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a
higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed. Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.

Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as
or employee, he shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder, follows:
suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately. himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner
Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January, in the year of Our deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or
Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-one. should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.

(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or


ARTICLE 19 partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.

MALACAÑANG Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as


Manila hereunder indicated:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is buy and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value
more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before
such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police
each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located.
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police
be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions
thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit
required by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be
periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 punished as a fence. lawphi1.net
pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
Section 7. Repealing Clause. All laws or parts thereof, which are
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or
periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but modified accordingly.
not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
Section 8. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property involved Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our
is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos. Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.

(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE
over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.
1612, KNOWN AS THE ANTI-FENCING LAW.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value
does not exceed 5 pesos. Pursuant to Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the
Anti-Fencing Law, the following rules and regulations are hereby
Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a promulgated to govern the issuance of clearances/permits to sell used
partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the secondhand articles obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier
manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the thereof:
commission of the offense shall be liable.
I. Definition of Terms
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good,
article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of 1. "Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods, article, item,
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been
Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For used.
purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
2. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons, partnership, holder thereof, or the covering receipt, or equivalent document, of
firm, corporation, association or any other entity or establishment not which is fake, falsified or irregularly obtained, shall be presumed as
licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or of having been acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier and the
supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph. possessor or holder thereof must secure the required clearance or permit
before the same can be sold or offered for sale to the public.
3. "Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed to include any
individual dealing in the buying and selling used secondhand articles, as III. Procedure for Procurement of Clearances or Permits
defined in paragraph hereof.
1. The Station Commanders concerned shall require the owner of a store
4. "Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used or the president, manager or responsible officer-in-charge of a firm,
secondhand articles for the purpose of resale to third persons. establishment or other entity located within their respective jurisdictions
and in possession of or having in stock used secondhand articles as
5. "Station Commander" shall refer to the Station Commander of the defined herein, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from
Integrated National Police within the territorial limits of the town or city receipt of notice for the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once
district where the store, establishment or entity dealing in the buying every fifteen (15) days within five (5) days after the period covered,
and selling of used secondhand articles is located. which shall contain:

II. Duty to Procure Clearance or Permit (a) A complete inventory of such articles acquired daily from whatever
source and the names and addresses of the persons from whom such
1. No person shall sell or offer to sell to the public any used secondhand articles were acquired.
article as defined herein without first securing a clearance or permit for
the purpose from the proper Station Commander of the Integrated (b) A full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale as well as the place
National Police. where the date when the sale or offer for sale shall commence.

2. If the person seeking the clearance or permit is a partnership, firm, (c) The place where the articles are presently deposited or kept in stock.
corporation, or association or group of individuals, the clearance or
permit shall be obtained by or in the name of the president, manager or The Station Commander may, at his discretion when the circumstances
other responsible officer-in-charge thereof. of each case warrant, require that the affidavit submitted be
accompanied by other documents showing proof of legitimacy of the
3. If a store, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other acquisition of the articles.
establishment or entity has a branch or subsidiary and the used
secondhand article is acquired by such branch or subsidiary for sale to 2. A party required to secure a clearance or permit under these rules and
the public, the said branch or subsidiary shall secure the required regulations shall file an application therefor with the Station
clearance or permit. Commander concerned. The application shall state:

4. Any goods, article, item, or object or anything of value acquired from (a) The name, address and other pertinent circumstances of the persons,
any source for which no receipt or equivalent document evidencing the in case of an individual or, in the case of a firm, corporation,
legality of its acquisition could be presented by the present possessor or
association, partnership or other entity, the name, address and other (c) If, before expiration of the same period for publication of the notice
pertinent circumstances of the president, manager or officer-in-charge. or its posting, it shall appear that any of the articles in question is stolen
property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as
(b) The article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name evidence in any appropriate case to be filed. Articles held in restraint
and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article shall be kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit,
was acquired. taking into account all considerations of right and justice in the case. In
any case where any article is held in restraint, it shall be the duty of the
In support of the application, there shall be attached to it the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the Commission on
corresponding receipt or other equivalent document to show proof of the Audit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper
legitimacy of acquisition of the article. under applicable existing laws, rules and regulations.

3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the 4. The Station Commander concerned shall, within seventy-two (72)
application and may require the presentation of other additional hours from receipt of the application, act thereon by either issuing the
documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of clearance/permit requested or denying the same. Denial of an
acquisition of the article, subject to the following conditions: application shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s
therefor.
(a) If the legitimacy of acquisition of any article from an unlicensed
source cannot be satisfactorily established by the documents presented, 5. The application, clearance/permit or the denial thereof, including
the Station Commander shall, upon approval of the INP Superintendent such other documents as may be pertinent in the implementation of
in the district and at the expense of the party seeking the Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 shall be in the forms prescribed in Annexes
clearance/permit, cause the publication of a notice in a newspaper of "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" hereof, which are made integral parts of
general circulation for two (2) successive days enumerating therein the these rules and regulations.
articles acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, the names and
addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and shall state 6. For the issuance of clearances/permit required under Section 6 of P.D.
that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the No. 1612, no fee shall be charged.
address of the store, establishment or other entity seeking the
clearance/permit. In places where no newspapers are in general IV. Appeals
circulation, the party seeking the clearance or permit shall, instead, post
a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal Any party aggrieved by the action taken by the Station Commander may
building of the town where the store, firm, establishment or entity elevate the decision taken in the case to the proper INP District
concerned is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles Superintendent and, if he is still dissatisfied therewith may take the
in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale. same on appeal to the INP Director. The decision of the INP Director
may also be appealed to the INP Director-General whose decision may
(b) If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of likewise be appealed to the Minister of National Defense. The decision
the notice referred to in the preceding paragraph, no claim is made with of the Minister of National Defense on the case shall be final. The
respect to any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the Station appeal against the decision taken by a Commander lower than the INP
Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought. Director-General should be filed to the next higher Commander within
ten (10) days from receipt of notice of the decision. The decision of the
INP Director-General should be appealed within fifteen (15) days from It shall be the duty of the owner of the store or of the president, manager
receipt of notice of the decision. or responsible officer-in-charge of any firm, establishment or other
entity or of an individual having in his premises articles to be sold or
V. Penalties offered for sale to the public to allow the Station Commander or his
authorized representative to exercise visitorial powers. For this purpose,
1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by however, the power to conduct visitations shall be exercise only during
Section 6 of P.D. 1612 or who violates any of the provisions of these office or business hours and upon authority in writing from and by the
rules and regulations shall upon conviction be punished as a fence. INP Superintendent in the district and for the sole purpose of
determining whether articles are kept in possession or stock contrary to
2. The INP Director-General shall recommend to the proper authority the intents of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and of these rules and
the cancellation of the business license of the erring individual, store, regulations.
establishment or the entity concerned.
VII. Other Duties Imposed Upon Station Commanders and INP District
3. Articles obtained from unlicensed sources for sale or offered for sale Superintendent and Directors Following Action on Applications for
without prior compliance with the provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. Clearances or Permits
1612 and with these rules and regulations shall be held in restraint until
satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has been established. 1. At the end of each month, it shall be the duty of the Station
Commander concerned to:
4. Articles for which no satisfactory evidence of legitimacy of
acquisition is established and which are found to be stolen property (a) Make and maintain a file in his office of all clearances/permit issued
shall likewise be held under restraint and shall, furthermore, be subject by him.
to confiscation as evidence in the appropriate case to be filed. If, upon
termination of the case, the same is not claimed by their legitimate (b) Submit a full report to the INP District Superintendent on the
owners, the article/s shall be forfeited in favor of the government and number of applications for clearances or permits processed by his office,
made subject to disposition as the circumstances warrant in accordance indicating therein the number of clearances/permits issued and the
with applicable existing laws, rules and regulations. The Commission on number of applications denied. The report shall state the reasons for
Audit shall, in all cases, be notified. denial of an application and the corresponding follow-up actions taken
and shall be accompanied by an inventory of the articles to be sold or
5. Any personnel of the Integrated National Police found violating the offered for sale in his jurisdiction.
provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 or any of its implementing
rules and regulations or who, in any manner whatsoever, connives with 2. The INP District Superintendent shall, on the basis of the reports
or through his negligence or inaction makes possible the commission of submitted by the Station Commander, in turn submit quarterly reports to
such violations by any party required to comply with the law and its the appropriate INP Director containing a consolidation of the
implementing rules and regulations, shall be prosecuted criminally information stated in the reports of Station Commanders in his
without prejudice to the imposition of administrative penalties. jurisdiction.

VI. Visitorial Power


3. Reports from INP District Superintendent shall serve as basis for a THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
consolidated report to be submitted semi-annually by INP Directors to PHILIPPINES, respondents.
the Director-General, Integrated National Police.
Lord M. Marapao for petitioner.
4. In all cases, reports emanating from the different levels of the
Integrated National Police shall be accompanied with full and accurate The Solicitor General for respondents.
inventories of the articles acquired from unlicensed dealers or suppliers
and proposed to be sold or offered for sale in the jurisdictions covered
by the report.
SARMIENTO, J.:
These implementing rules and regulations, having been published in a
newspaper of national circulation, shall take effect on June 15, 1979. This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision rendered by
the Court of Appeals in "People v. Jorge Taer," CA-G.R. CR No.
FOR THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY DIRECTOR-GENERAL, 01213, 1 dated May 26, 1988, which affirmed in toto the conviction
INP: of Jorge Taer for the crime of cattle rustling by the Regional Trial
Court of Bohol in Criminal Case No. 3104, 2 and the resolution of
the same court denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

After the required preliminary investigation in the 11th Municipal


Circuit Court at Valencia-Dimiao, in the province of Bohol, the
following information was filed in the then Court of First Instance
of Bohol, 14th Judicial District, Branch IV, at Tagbilaran City:

The undersigned, Third Assistant Provincial Fiscal, hereby accuses


Emilio Namocatcat alias Milio, Mario Cago, Jorge Taer and Cerilo
Saludes for the crime of Theft of Large Cattle, committed as
follows:

That on or about the 5th day of December, 1981, in barangay


Lantang, municipality of Valencia, province of Bohol, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
ARTICLE 19 named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
helping with each other, with the intent of gain and without the
G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990 consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and lead away two (2) male
JORGE TAER, petitioner, carabaos with the total value of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS
vs. (P4,000.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to and owned by Tirso
Dalde and Eladio Palaca; to the damage and prejudice of the said submits that the acquittal of these two by the trial court should also lead
offended parties in the aforestated amount. to his acquittal; 5

Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Articles 308, 309 and 2. That the only evidence proving the alleged conspiracy between him
310 of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance and Emilio Namocatcat was the confession of his co-accused Emilio
of nighttime being purposely sought for or taken advantage by the Namocatcat. However this should not be considered as admissible
accused to facilitate the commission of the crime. because the same is hearsay under the rule of res inter alios
acta. 6
City of Tagbilaran, June 1, 1982. 3
The undisputed facts as found by the trial court show that:
After proper proceedings and trial, Saludes and Cago were acquitted but
Taer and Namocatcat were convicted. The dispositive portion of the In the evening of December 5, 1981, accused Cirilo Saludes slept in the
decision of the trial court, dated July 6, 1984, reads as follows: house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez,
Bohol, whereat he was benighted. At about 2:00 o'clock dawn,
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge December 6, 1981, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived
Taer GUILTY beyond doubt of the theft of large cattle and appreciating at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by and which
against them the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and pursuant to Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend. The said carabaos were left at Taer's
Presidential Decree No. 533 each is hereby sentenced to undergo the place.
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca of Lantang, Valencia Bohol discovered in
TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS, together with the accessory penalties, and the morning of December 6, 1981 that their respective male carabaos, 3
to pay the costs; they are entitled to credit for their preventive to 4 years old, were missing at the different grazing grounds whereat
imprisonment. Accused Mario Cago and Cirilo Saludes are they tied the same the afternoon preceding.
ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. 4
After searching in vain for the carabaos at the vicinity, Dalde and Palaca
Only Jorge Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of reported the matter to the police. On December 15, 1981, one Felipe
Appeals, finding the evidence of the prosecution that conspiracy indeed Reyes of Hinopolan, Valencia, Bohol, informed Dalde that he saw the
existed between Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer, affirmed in toto the latter's lost carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and
decision appealed from. But the affirmance did not affect Emilio Palaca went on that day to Datag and there they found their missing
Namocatcat because, as adverted to earlier, he did not appeal his carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near the house accused Taer who was
conviction by the Regional Trial Court. then not in the house as he was in Napo, Garcia-Hernandez, attending
the fiesta where he cooked for the accused Saludes. Upon query by
Hence, this petition for review was filed by Taer alone. Dalde and Palaca why their carabaos were found at his place, accused
Taer, according to Dalde and Palaca replied that the carabaos reached
In sum, Taer interposed these twin arguments: his place tied together without any person in company. According to
accused Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the carabaos were
1. That the extent of his participation did not go beyond the participation brought to his place by the accused Namocatcat who asked him to tell
of the original defendants Cirilo Saludes and Mario Cago. Therefore, he anybody looking for them that they just strayed thereat.
The 2 carabaos were taken by Dalde and Palaca from accused Taer's We disagree with the findings of the respondent court; they are mere
possession on that day, December 15. 7 suspicions and speculations. The circumstances adverted to above do
not establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
xxx xxx xxx
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
The Court of Appeals would consider these as proof of the existence of regarding the commission of an offense and decide to commit it.
conspiracy: Although the facts may show a unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective, essential however is an agreement
Altho (sic) accused Taer admitted that before December 6, 1981, he had to commit the crime and a decision to commit it. 9
not met accused Namocatcat since 1975 and had not previously tended
any carabao belonging to Namocatcat, it is unbelievable that Taer was Only recently we emphasized the rule that:
not suspicious of the origin of the 2 male carabaos which to say the least
were delivered to him to be tended under strange circumstances, to wit, Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and
at the unholy hour of 2:00 o'clock dawn after a travel of 14 kilometers' conclusive evidence. The same degree of proof necessary to establish
in the dead of the night. He unreservedly accepted the charge of tending the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of criminal
them with the agreement as to the sharing of the produce out of said conspiracy, which is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. 10
carabaos (sic) use. If, as he asserted, Namocatcat left the carabaos with
him with the word that if anybody would look for them he was to tell Thus mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without
that the carabaos just strayed into his other carabaos (sic), the more Taer cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a
ought to be more suspicious as to the origin of said carabaos, yet, since party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in the
that dawn delivery on December 6, 1981, until they were retrieved from transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
his possession, he never apprised the barangay captain, living just 2 purpose.
kilometers away from his house, about the matter. He continued to hold
on to the stolen carabaos until they were recovered 10 days later. At most the facts establish Taer's knowledge of the crime. And yet
without having participated either as principal or as an accomplice, for
Ordinarily, one would not hold on to a thing he suspects to be stolen to he did not participate in the taking of the carabaos, he took part
obviate any criminal responsibility or implication. But accused Taer did subsequent to the commission of the act of taking by profiting himself
the opposite-a clear indication that he and accused Namocatcat did have by its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact.
some kind of an unlawful agreement regarding the stolen carabaos. He
did not even reveal immediately to the authorities that the carabaos Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code states:
delivered to him by Namocatcat were stolen and he tried his best to
keep under cover Namocatcat's Identity. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
The Court, therefore, finds that conspiracy between accused Namocatcat accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
and Taer in the theft of the carabaos has been established beyond following manners:
doubt. 8
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
xxx xxx xxx effects of the crime; 11
xxx xxx xxx seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the
commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing shall be imposed. 17
that the same property had been stolen is guilty as an accessory because
he is profiting by the effects of the crime." By employing the two xxx xxx xxx
carabaos in his farm, Taer was profiting by the objects of the theft. 12
Inasmuch as Taer's culpability is only that of an accessory after the fact,
On the conspiracy charge, the most cogent proof that the prosecution under Art. 53 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by two
could ever raise was the implication made by the accused Namocatcat degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
(he did not appeal his conviction to the Court of Appeals) in his affidavit imposed.
of confession. 13
The penalty two degrees lower than that imposed under the first
However, the settled rule is that the rights of a party can not be sentence of Section 8 of PD No. 533 is arresto mayor maximum or 4
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. 14 months and one day to 6 months to prision correccional medium or 2
years 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. In addition, the
The testimony, being res inter alios acta, can not affect another except Revised Penal Code provides that when the penalties prescribed by law
as provided in the Rules of Court. This rule on res inter alios contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
acta specifically applies when the evidence consists of an admission in composed of three different penalties, the courts shag observe the rule
an extrajudicial confession or declaration of another because the that when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances,
defendant has no opportunity to cross-examine the co-conspirator they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium
testifying against him. 15 period. 18 Hence the imposable penalty would be prision
correccional minimum or 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
Since this is the only evidence of the prosecution to prove the imprisonment.
conspiracy with Namocatcat, this uncorroborated testimony can not be
sufficient to convict Taer. Since the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds one year, we apply
the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 19
The offense for which Taer is accused is covered by Articles 308, 309,
and 310, as amended by "Me Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. 1116 This law provides that the maximum term of imprisonment shall be that
The penalty imposed on the principal for the crime of cattle rustling is: which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said code which is prision
Sec. 8. Penal provisions. — Any person convicted of cattle rustling as correccional minimum or 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months.
herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle And the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to
involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The penalty next lower
to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed would be in the range of destierro maximum or 4 years 2 months and 1
without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. day to 6 years to arresto mayor medium or 2 months and 1 day to 4
If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of months.
persons or force upon things, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a person is
WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Tagbilaran and affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby
MODIFIED in that the herein JORGE TAER is convicted as an
accessory of the crime of cattle-rustling as defined and penalized by PD
No. 533 amending Arts. 308, 309, and 310 of the Revised Penal Code
and he will serve the minimum penalty within the range of arresto
mayor medium, which we shall fix at 4 months imprisonment and the
maximum penalty of prision correccional minimum which we shall fix
at 2 years.

With costs.

SO ORDERED.