El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Datu Alimpang Mantawar

When robbery and homicide are linked by reason or on occasion of the robbery, they constitute the single indivisible special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code; treachery is then only a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying one.

The accused were Moro residents of Parang, Cotabato, while the victims were Philippine Army Sergeants Federico Cuaresma and Antonino Regaspe. The prosecution charged the accused with robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the special complex crime that punishes robbery attended by homicide as a single indivisible offense.

Two weeks after Japanese forces arrived in Barrira, Parang, Cotabato, in May 1942, Philippine Army Sergeants Federico Cuaresma and Antonino Regaspe asked Datu Alimpang Mantawar to guide them to Galigayan, where their families had evacuated. Datu Alimpang, together with Mamantar Bationg and Bituanin Macalangan, accompanied the sergeants to the house of Bakar Mato to ask him to lead them along the shortest trail. Bakar Mato and his brother Amigos Mato joined the group. Bakar Mato led the party in single file, followed by his brother Amigos, Datu Alimpang, Sgt. Cuaresma, Bituanin, Sgt. Regaspe, and Mamantar Bationg.

After walking about one kilometer beyond the Lipawan River, between four and five in the afternoon, Bakar Mato heard the word “na,” which in Moro means “start.” When he turned his face backward, he saw Bituanin attack Sgt. Cuaresma with slashes on the right arm and neck, and Mamantar attack Sgt. Regaspe; both sergeants collapsed and died almost instantly. Datu Alimpang took the P800 on Sgt. Cuaresma and the P200 on Sgt. Regaspe, later distributed the money to his companions, and seized Cuaresma’s rifle and Regaspe’s revolver with their ammunition. The accused also took the sergeants’ belts, bullets, hats, and shoes. Bakar Mato ran and hid about ten meters away, but when Datu Alimpang called him he approached and thus learned the amount the Datu distributed to his companions.

Bakar Mato was an eyewitness because he was guiding the party; he had been one of five accused in the justice of the peace court and was released from the complaint to testify for the prosecution. Sgt. Braulio T. Dural wrote Datu Alimpang’s sworn confession, and Sgt. Abraham Saliling, a Bagobo who spoke English like the Moro, served as interpreter when the statement was taken. Datu Alimpang, testifying for the defense, admitted the authenticity of Exhibit “B,” his sworn statement, and said its contents were true.

Bituanin testified for the defense that on the afternoon of a Tuesday, Sergeants Cuaresma and Regaspe arrived at the house of the other accused Mamantar and asked him to guide them to Buldon; Mamantar answered that he would accompany them the next morning because it was already late. Some time later, around five o’clock, two soldiers named Tararajan and Talarahan arrived; Mamantar asked where they were going, and they answered that they were going to Buldon; Mamantar told them to wait because it was night and he would accompany them in the morning. The next day, after breakfast, Bituanin accompanied them all; when they reached the beach around noon, the sergeants sent him to gather guavas. While he was picking fruit, the Moros Baradie, Bakar, Amigos, and Bañgon arrived and, recognizing the soldiers who had tied their hands in Oriang for stealing rifles, attacked them left and right and killed them. Bituanin came down from the guava tree and shouted, “no maten a los soldados,” and the Moros answered, “porque no, si ellos fueron los que nos ataron las manos.” Bituanin reported the killing to Datu Alimpang; he was investigated by Sgt. Dural with Sgt. Saliling as interpreter; he signed his sworn statement; when Sgt. Dural asked whether he killed the sergeants, he answered no; during the attack, Sarosong was present, and he and Bituanin told the four Moros not to kill the soldiers.

Mamantar Bationg, also testifying for the defense, said he knew of the deaths of Sergeants Cuaresma and Regaspe only through information. Datu Alimpang testified that Bituanin reported the killing to him to make it appear that he had no participation. Datu Alimpang also said he was accused because the Moro Cabe killed the Moros Blie and Palantong; that his son Bator filed a complaint against the two; that Palantong was investigated and Blie released; that after Blie obtained his liberty he accused Datu Alimpang because he was Bator’s father; and that Amigos, Baradie, and Bakar testified against him out of resentment because he reported the crimes committed in the area.

• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Accused-appellants argued that their counsel de oficio in the trial court failed to make efforts to have the defense witnesses testify.
• Involuntary and Illegal Extrajudicial Confession: Accused-appellants argued that the conviction rested solely on an involuntary and illegally obtained extrajudicial confession.
• Credibility of Bakar Mato: Accused-appellants argued that Bakar Mato’s testimony should not be credited because he was one of the accused and his testimony came from a polluted source.
• Identity of the Killers: Accused-appellants maintained that they were not the killers; Bituanin testified that four other Moros — Baradie, Bakar, Amigos, and Bañgon — attacked and killed the sergeants.

• Conspiracy and Robbery with Homicide: Whether the accused conspired and committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code when they killed Sergeants Cuaresma and Regaspe and took their money, firearms, and personal effects.
• Treachery: Whether treachery should qualify the killing as murder or be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation should be considered as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.
• Lack of Instruction: Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction may offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
• Credibility of Bakar Mato: Whether the testimony of Bakar Mato, a former co-accused, may be credited despite coming from a polluted source.
• Voluntariness of the Extrajudicial Confession: Whether Datu Alimpang’s extrajudicial confession was involuntary or illegally obtained and therefore could not support the conviction.
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Whether the failure of trial counsel de oficio to present defense witnesses vitiated the conviction.

• Conspiracy and Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The accused acted in concert: upon the signal “na,” Bituanin and Mamantar attacked the two sergeants, and Datu Alimpang took their money and weapons. This established conspiracy and the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).
• Treachery: No, not as a qualifying circumstance. Because the killing was absorbed in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, treachery could only be considered a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Evident Premeditation: No. Evident premeditation could not be aggravating because it is inherent in the crime of robbery; the record did not show that the accused primarily agreed to kill the sergeants.
• Lack of Instruction: Yes. The aggravating circumstance of treachery was offset by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Credibility of Bakar Mato: Yes. Although Bakar Mato had been a co-accused, his eyewitness testimony was corroborated by other evidence and by Datu Alimpang’s admission that his sworn statement was true.
• Voluntariness of the Extrajudicial Confession: Yes. Datu Alimpang admitted the authenticity and truth of Exhibit “B,” while Sgts. Dural and Saliling denied maltreatment; the claim of involuntary or illegal confession was not sustained.
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: No. The defense witnesses had been subpoenaed, and the presumption that counsel de oficio employed all efforts for the defense was not overcome by the mere failure to present them.

• Conspiracy and Robbery with Homicide: The SC inferred conspiracy from the accused’s concerted action. Bakar Mato heard the signal “na” and saw Bituanin and Mamantar attack the sergeants; after the killings, Datu Alimpang took P800 and P200, distributed the money, and seized the rifle and revolver, while the accused took the sergeants’ belts, bullets, hats, and shoes. These acts showed a common design to kill and rob, and the taking of personal property by reason or on occasion of the homicide made the crime robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).
• Treachery: The SC found the attack treacherous because the two sergeants were completely off guard and unsuspecting, believing they were with guides rather than assassins and robbers, and the accused incurred no danger to themselves. But because the charge was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, alevosia could not qualify the killing as murder; it was only a generic aggravating circumstance, following United States vs. Antonio and People vs. Mataram.
• Evident Premeditation: The SC said there was no doubt the accused acted with known premeditation, but it could not be considered aggravating because it is inherent in robbery, following United States vs. Blanco and United States vs. Hermosilla. It distinguished the Spanish Supreme Court decision of March 1, 1880, cited by the fiscal: for premeditation to be appreciated in robbery with homicide, it must apply to the killing, with prior concert and cold reflection to commit it. The record showed no proof that the accused primarily agreed to kill the sergeants; Moros usually rob firearms, for which they have a special predilection, as their principal aim, and use killing only as a means if necessary.
• Lack of Instruction: Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code treats lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance. The SC applied it to offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
• Credibility of Bakar Mato: The SC acknowledged that Bakar Mato had been one of five accused in the justice of the peace court and was released to testify for the prosecution, so his testimony came from a polluted source and had to be received with caution. It nevertheless credited him because his eyewitness account was corroborated by other evidence, including Datu Alimpang’s sworn statement, which Datu admitted was authentic and true, and the SC found no doubt that the accused killed the sergeants to rob them.
• Voluntariness of the Extrajudicial Confession: Sgts. Dural and Saliling denied the alleged maltreatment, and Datu Alimpang himself declared that he told the truth in his extrajudicial statement, Exhibit “B,” because he wanted to be a government witness. The SC therefore rejected the claim that the conviction rested solely on an involuntary or illegally obtained confession.
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The SC held the accusation against counsel de oficio unfounded. The defense witnesses Concejal Sumaquina, Butad Mato, Tomas Montawar, Guraki Alimpang, and Sarusong Mamantal were subpoenaed, as pages 62 to 65 of the record showed; if they did not testify, it was because counsel de oficio believed their testimony could not help. Mamantar Bationg, who should have corroborated Bituanin, only said he learned of the killing by information. Sarosong, who was present during the attack, was subpoenaed at Datu Alimpang’s request but was not presented, and the presumption was that his testimony would have been adverse to Datu Alimpang. The SC presumed that every lawyer employs all efforts to serve the ends of justice.

• Robbery with Homicide as a Special Complex Crime — Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, when robbery and homicide are linked by “con motivo o con ocasion” of the robbery, they become a single indivisible crime. The SC applied this to the killing of the two sergeants and the taking of their money, firearms, and personal effects; treachery could not qualify the killing separately.
• Treachery as Generic Aggravating in Robbery with Homicide — In robbery with homicide, alevosia is not a qualifying circumstance because the killing is absorbed in the special complex crime; it is only a generic aggravating circumstance. The SC found the attack treacherous because the sergeants were completely off guard, but treated treachery only as aggravating.
• Evident Premeditation Inherent in Robbery — Evident premeditation cannot be separately appreciated as aggravating when it is inherent in robbery. The SC acknowledged known premeditation but did not consider it aggravating; it also required proof that premeditation applied to the killing, which was absent.
• Conspiracy Inferred from Concerted Action — Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the accused’s concerted acts. The SC inferred agreement from the signal “na,” the simultaneous attacks by Bituanin and Mamantar, and Datu Alimpang’s taking and distribution of the victims’ money and weapons.
• Lack of Instruction as Mitigating Circumstance — Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code treats lack of instruction as mitigating. The SC applied it to offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
• Credibility of a Former Co-Accused — Testimony from a former co-accused comes from a polluted source and must be received with caution, but it may be credited when corroborated. The SC credited Bakar Mato because his account was corroborated by Datu Alimpang’s sworn statement and other evidence.
• Presumption of Competence of Counsel — A lawyer is presumed to have employed all efforts to serve the ends of justice; blaming counsel requires clear proof. The SC rejected the claim that counsel de oficio was ineffective for not presenting defense witnesses, since they had been subpoenaed and counsel could have decided their testimony would not help.

• “De los hechos probados se deduce claramente que hubo acuerdo entre los acusados, pues obraron concertadamente: al oirse la palabra "na" que, segun Bakar Mato podia haber sido pronunciada por el Datu Alimpang o Mamantar, los acusados Bituanin y Mamantar inmediatamente agredieron a los sargentos Cuaresma y Regaspe que estaban de espalda a ellos respectivamente.” — The SC used this passage to infer conspiracy from the accused’s coordinated attack after the signal “na” and their subsequent taking of the victims’ property.
• “El robo y asesinato cometidos, por estar ligados entre si por la clausula con motivo o con ocasion del robo, se convierten en un solo delito indivisible, el de robo con homicidio, segun sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de España de 17 de Diciembre de 1875 y 11 de Septiembre de 1878 y de este Tribunal en Estados Unidos contra Villorente y Bislig, 30 Jur. Fil., 62; Estados Unidos contra Perez, 32 Phil., 163; y Estados Unidos contra Landasan, 35 Phil., 359.” — This is the core ruling that robbery and homicide linked by reason or occasion of robbery form one indivisible crime, not separate offenses.
• “La alevosia en el caso presente debe considerarse no como circunstancia cualificativa sino solamente como agravante.” — The SC held that alevosia could not qualify the killing as murder in a robbery with homicide charge; it was only a generic aggravating circumstance.
• “La circunstancia agravante de alevosia queda compensada con la atenuante de falta de instruccion de los acusados.” — The SC applied Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code and offset the aggravating treachery with the mitigating lack of instruction.

• United States vs. Villorente y Bislig, 30 Jur. Fil., 62 — Followed; robbery and homicide linked by occasion become a single indivisible crime.
• United States vs. Perez, 32 Phil., 163 — Followed; same rule on robbery with homicide as a single indivisible crime.
• United States vs. Landasan, 35 Phil., 359 — Followed; same rule on robbery with homicide.
• United States vs. Antonio, 31 Phil., 205 — Followed; treachery in robbery with homicide is only a generic aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Mataram, 52 Phil., 789 — Followed; same rule on treachery as generic aggravating.
• United States vs. Blanco, 10 Phil., 298 — Followed; evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and cannot be separately aggravating.
• United States vs. Hermosilla, 31 Phil., 405 — Followed; same rule on evident premeditation in robbery.
• Spanish Supreme Court decision of March 1, 1880 — Distinguished; its requirement that premeditation in robbery with homicide apply to the killing was not applicable because there was no proof the accused primarily agreed to kill the sergeants.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery with homicide as a single indivisible crime; the SC applied it to the killing of the two sergeants and the taking of their money, firearms, and personal effects.
• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Treats lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance; the SC applied it to offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery.