People vs. Damaso

The Court held that separate but consistent extrajudicial confessions, voluntarily sworn before a judge and corroborated by independent evidence such as a crime reenactment and the corpus delicti, sufficiently establish guilt for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. An ulterior motive of personal vengeance does not negate the complex crime provided the intent to rob preceded the killing and the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place subsist independently and justify the imposition of the death penalty in its maximum period.

On the evening of November 21, 1959, armed assailants entered the dwelling of Donata Rebolledo in Victoria, Tarlac, bound her son-in-law, and forcibly removed valuables from a cabinet. The intruders then located Rebolledo’s daughters, Catalina and Susana Sabado, dragged them from the premises, and transported them to a nearby sugarcane plantation. There, the assailants tied the sisters’ forearms together, fatally stabbed them, and severed their throats with a scythe. The bodies were discovered the following morning in the secluded field. Five suspects were subsequently apprehended and executed separate sworn statements before a municipal judge detailing their participation, which they later repudiated during trial by alleging police torture and asserting alibi.

• On November 21, 1959, at approximately 9:00 p.m., armed men entered the house of Donata Rebolledo in Barrio Bangar, Victoria, Tarlac. They pointed firearms at her and her son-in-law, Victoriano de la Cruz, bound Victoriano’s hands, and covered him with a blanket.
• The assailants forced Donata to open an aparador, from which they took jewelry, clothing, documents, and cutting instruments valued at P125.90. They also demanded the whereabouts of her daughters, Catalina and Susana Sabado.
• The intruders forcibly brought Catalina downstairs, located Susana in an adjacent store, and transported both sisters to a nearby sugarcane plantation owned by Ignacio Fabros.
• In the plantation, the assailants tied the sisters’ forearms together. Gregorio, armed with a scythe, fatally stabbed and cut the throats of both women while others held them. The victims died instantly from profuse hemorrhage.
• The bodies were discovered the following morning. Municipal Health Officer Dr. Carlos Briones confirmed the cause of death as lacerated wounds above the Adam’s apple, consistent with a sharp, pointed instrument.
• Police apprehended five suspects: Damaso, Eugenio, Gregorio, Alviar, and Espejo. Each executed a separate sworn statement before Municipal Judge Conrado de Gracia, admitting participation, detailing their respective roles and weapons, and confirming the taking of P15 in cash alongside other valuables.
• At trial, the accused repudiated their confessions, alleging extraction through torture and third-degree methods. They raised alibi and challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the characterization of aggravating circumstances, and the existence of conspiracy.
• The prosecution presented a crime reenactment conducted spontaneously by the accused in the presence of a fiscal and an independent photographer, which substantially conformed to the details in their sworn statements. Eyewitnesses Donata and Victoriano positively identified Damaso as one of the intruders.
• The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of band, treachery, and uninhabited place, and imposed the death penalty.

• Appellants maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the element of robbery, arguing that no direct evidence established the taking of personal property.
• Appellants contended that the homicides were not committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, pointing to a pre-existing motive of vengeance on Gregorio’s part over an unpaid carabao debt, which allegedly severed the causal link required for the complex crime.
• Appellants argued that the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place were improperly appreciated. They questioned whether Damaso was armed, whether stones constitute arms, whether the victims were truly deprived of defense, and whether the sugarcane field qualified as uninhabited given its proximity to a highway and houses.
• Appellants asserted that their extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible and insufficient, as they were extracted through duress and subsequently repudiated. They emphasized the absence of direct evidence proving conspiracy or their physical presence at the crime scene.
• Appellants maintained that the defense of alibi was credible and should prevail over circumstantial evidence.
• Regarding the firearms charge, Alviar argued that the Justice of the Peace Court acquired exclusive jurisdiction first, depriving the CFI of authority, and challenged the evidentiary weight of a thumbmarked receipt/confession document.

• The Solicitor General countered that robbery was established through positive eyewitness testimony and the appellants’ own sworn admissions regarding the taking of valuables and cash.
• Respondent argued that the complex crime of robbery with homicide was properly charged because the intent to rob preceded the killings, and a concurrent motive of vengeance does not negate the statutory requirement under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Respondent maintained that the aggravating circumstances were independently proven: four or more armed malefactors acted together; the victims were bound and held, eliminating any chance of defense; and the secluded sugarcane field at night offered no reasonable possibility of rescue.
• Respondent emphasized that the extrajudicial confessions were voluntarily executed before a municipal judge who verified their authenticity, and were corroborated by a spontaneous reenactment, partial eyewitness accounts, and the corpus delicti.
• Respondent asserted that conspiracy was sufficiently inferred from the coordinated planning, division of roles, and simultaneous execution of the criminal design.
• Respondent clarified that the JP Court’s prior involvement was limited to preliminary investigation, which does not confer exclusive jurisdiction over the merits, and that Alviar’s possession of an unlicensed firearm was proven through the receipt, verbal admission, and a separate sworn confession.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Justice of the Peace Court acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the illegal possession of firearm charge upon initial filing, thereby depriving the Court of First Instance of jurisdiction to try the case on the merits.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the evidence sufficiently proves the special complex crime of robbery with homicide; whether the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place were properly established and appreciated; whether the repudiated extrajudicial confessions and crime reenactment overcome the defense of alibi and allegations of coercion; and whether conspiracy was sufficiently inferred from the acts of the accused.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that the CFI validly acquired jurisdiction over the firearms case. The prior filing before the Justice of the Peace Court was solely for preliminary investigation, which does not vest the lower court with exclusive jurisdiction to try the case on the merits. Jurisdiction over the substantive offense properly vested in the CFI.
• Substantive: The Court affirmed the convictions. The robbery and homicide were sufficiently proven by consistent extrajudicial confessions, corroborated by the corpus delicti, eyewitness identification, and a spontaneous reenactment. The presence of an ulterior motive of vengeance does not negate the complex crime when the intent to rob precedes the killing and the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery, and uninhabited place subsist independently, each revealing a distinct degree of perversity, and properly warrant the maximum penalty. Conspiracy was validly inferred from the concerted, cooperative, and simultaneous acts of the accused. The defense of alibi fails against positive identification and credible corroborative evidence. The firearms conviction was sustained by the receipt, verbal admission, and voluntary confession.

• Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide — The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life, but the existence of a concurrent motive of personal vengeance does not preclude conviction for the complex crime if the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the appellants' argument that Gregorio's alleged debt dispute severed the causal link between the robbery and the killings.
• Admissibility and Corroboration of Extrajudicial Confessions — Repudiated confessions are viewed with caution but remain admissible and probative when executed voluntarily before a judicial officer, and when corroborated by independent evidence such as a crime reenactment, partial eyewitness testimony, and the corpus delicti. The Court relied on this principle to uphold the trial court's reliance on the sworn statements despite allegations of torture.
• Conspiracy by Inference — Direct proof of a prior agreement is unnecessary; conspiracy may be inferred from the coordinated, simultaneous, and cooperative acts of the accused in executing the crime, demonstrating a common design and concert of action. The Court applied this to impute criminal liability equally to all participants based on their collective planning and execution.
• Uninhabited Place — The determination of whether a place is uninhabited depends not on its proximity to dwellings or highways, but on whether there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving assistance at the time of the crime. The Court found the sugarcane field at night met this standard due to obstructed visibility and deliberate seclusion.

• "In a complex crime of robbery with homicide, while an intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life, the fact that the intent of the culprit was tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against the person killed does not prevent the punishment of the accused for the complex crime." — The Court invoked this principle to clarify that a concurrent motive of vengeance does not sever the causal nexus required by Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code when the homicide occurs by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
• "The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help." — The Court applied this standard to reject the defense's proximity argument, holding that the secluded sugarcane field at night, with tall crops obstructing visibility, eliminated any realistic chance of rescue, thereby satisfying the aggravating circumstance.

• US v. Vilorente and Bislig — Cited as controlling precedent to establish that a concurrent motive of personal vengeance does not negate the complex crime of robbery with homicide when the statutory elements are otherwise satisfied.
• People v. Apduhan, Jr. — Followed to classify the aggravating circumstance of armed band as generic under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code when the offense is penalized under Article 294(1), rather than under the specific provision for robbery by a band.
• People v. Saguing — Applied to support the finding that a secluded, forested, or obstructed area qualifies as an uninhabited place when it precludes the victim from receiving assistance.
• People v. Berdida, et al. — Cited to establish that alibi is a factual defense hinging on witness credibility and cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
• Neñaria, et al., v. Veluz — Relied upon to hold that a Justice of the Peace Court acting solely for preliminary investigation does not acquire exclusive jurisdiction over the merits, thereby preserving the trial court's jurisdiction.

• Article 14(6) and (16), Revised Penal Code — Defines the aggravating circumstances of band, treachery, and uninhabited place. The Court applied these provisions to justify the imposition of the death penalty in its maximum period.
• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of robbery, which the Court found established by the taking of personal property through force and intimidation.
• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with homicide. The Court applied this provision to classify the offense as a special complex crime and to determine the applicable penalty range.