People vs. Nabaluna and Empuerto

Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the malefactors before, during, and after the crime, and the killing of the victim on the occasion of robbery makes them liable for robbery with homicide; aggravating circumstances must be clearly proven and cannot be presumed. Under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, absent any aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua, not death.

Nazario Bendanillo was a 72-year-old resident of Landahan, Toledo City, married to Ursula Bendanillo, with whom he had two sons. Juan Nabaluna and Edgardo Empuerto were charged with Arcadio Lacaron, who remained at large, for robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code.

Nazario Bendanillo, a 72-year-old man, was left alone in his house at Landahan, Toledo City on the morning of December 4, 1977, after his wife Ursula went to Toledo City to buy provisions and their two sons went to Sitio Dao, Barangay Subayon for a basketball tournament. At about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Cipriano Pajaganas, a resident of Landahan, was on his way to Dao to see the games; just after he passed the victim’s house, he met Juan Nabaluna and Edgardo Empuerto in the company of Arcadio Lacaron, greeted Empuerto, his only acquaintance among the three, and saw the trio proceed toward the victim’s house.

Thereafter, Martin Linihan, who was gathering “nito” in the semi-forested area at Sitio Babao, Barangay Landahan, heard shouts for help coming from the direction of the victim’s house. He dropped the “nito” and went to investigate, but stopped short of nearing the house when he saw Empuerto, who appeared to be guarding the place. Linihan hid behind an “aciotes” tree and watched; moments later he saw Nabaluna jump out of the window of the house, and almost simultaneously saw Lacaron come out of the main door holding a butcher’s knife about 12 inches long drenched with blood. The trio then left together toward the east, while Linihan hurried back to where he left his “nito” and proceeded home.

On their way back to Subayon, the three saw Norma Baylosis resting in her mother’s house after washing clothes at a nearby creek. Surprised at seeing Norma, Empuerto exclaimed, “Oh si Norma!” Because Norma knew them since their schooldays at Landahan, she asked Empuerto where they came from, and he answered that they went to see the basketball games at Dao. Meanwhile, Ursula arrived home at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, called for her husband but got no answer, and saw blood on the kitchen steps; she ran upstairs and found her husband dead inside the kitchen with two gaping wounds on his head and nape. She cried and shouted hysterically, then went to the house of her husband’s niece, Norma’s mother, who responded with Norma; when they accompanied Ursula back, she discovered the wooden trunk inside their bedroom forced open with its contents scattered on the floor, and the wooden savings bank, previously inside the trunk, forcibly opened and emptied of its contents amounting to P200.00, with a few coins scattered over the floor.

Pat. Nicanor Ricana of the Integrated National Police Force of Toledo City, who had been in Sitio Dao, Tubod, Toledo City the whole day of December 4, 1977 to maintain peace and order at the basketball tournament, was informed of the incident. He went to the scene while waiting for the Police Investigation Team from Toledo City, cautioned the curious people who accompanied him against moving any object within the vicinity, and went up the victim’s house, where he saw the victim lying dead in the kitchen with a gaping wound on his nape almost severing his head and another cracking wound on his head. Inside the bedroom he saw the wooden trunk forced open with its contents scattered on the floor and the wooden savings bank opened and emptied; looking out the window, he noticed fresh footprints underneath indicating that someone must have jumped out, and bloody footprints leading to the kitchen stairs down to the ground. Norma Baylosis told Pat. Ricana that at about the time of the incident she saw the three accused pass by her mother’s house coming from the direction of the victim’s house, and that she was surprised because that was not the usual route.

The Police Investigating Team headed by Corporal Bienvenido Blanco arrived at the crime scene at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening that same day. Acting on Norma’s lead, the team proceeded to her house early the following morning and then to Empuerto’s house, where Empuerto confirmed that he and the other accused, Lacaron, passed by Norma’s mother’s house in the afternoon of December 4, 1977. The team summoned Lacaron, who was caught by surprise with traces of hardened blood on his right hand and left foot and said he got it while decombing a cock. The team invited the trio for investigation at the Police Headquarters in Toledo City that same morning; after being informed of their constitutional rights, the appellants voluntarily gave sworn statements in which they practically pointed to each other as the culprit. The records refer to Empuerto’s statements dated December 5, 1977 (Exhibit E) and December 14, 1977 (Exhibit M), and to Nabaluna’s statements dated December 6, 1977 (Exhibit F) and December 12, 1977 (Exhibit H); in his first statement Nabaluna pointed to Lacaron as the culprit and claimed that he and Empuerto desisted, while in his second statement he confessed having agreed and acted as look-out, with Empuerto and Lacaron going up the victim’s house. Empuerto later claimed that he saw Lacaron and Nabaluna beaten and that Cpl. Blanco threatened him with the same fate, which prompted him to sign Exhibit F, while Nabaluna argued that the lengthy investigation and delayed ratification should excite suspicion regarding voluntariness. The trial court found that the appellants were present at the scene approximately at the time of the crime; that Nabaluna and Lacaron went up the victim’s house while Empuerto acted as look-out; that the three hastily left the victim’s house together immediately after the robbery and killing; and that the appellants acknowledged that Lacaron proposed the robbery and that, despite claimed initial reluctance, they agreed and performed their respective tasks.

• Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Statements: Appellants argued that their extrajudicial statements (Exhibits F, H, E, and M) were improperly admitted because they were obtained in violation of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution, as they were not assisted by counsel during investigation; although the statements carried a foreword advising them of their constitutional rights, they were never informed that if they could not afford a lawyer the State would provide one free of charge, citing People vs. Pascual, 109 SCRA 197. They also argued that the lengthy investigation and delay in ratification should excite suspicion regarding voluntariness, and Empuerto claimed that he saw Lacaron and Nabaluna beaten and was threatened by Cpl. Blanco with the same fate before signing Exhibit F.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellant Empuerto argued that the lower court erred in ruling that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, while appellant Nabaluna argued that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Martin Linihan: Appellant Empuerto argued that the lower court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Martin Linihan.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Appellants argued that the lower court erred in appreciating treachery, abuse of superior strength, and disregard of old age, there being no evidence tending to show how the crime was committed.
• Conspiracy: Appellant Nabaluna argued that the lower court erred in finding that conspiracy was present.
• Liability for Simple Robbery: Appellant Empuerto argued that, assuming the prosecution evidence constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is liable only for the simple crime of robbery.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Statements: Whether the extrajudicial statements of the appellants were inadmissible for having been obtained without counsel assistance and without informing them that the State would provide free counsel, in violation of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the guilt of the appellants for robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Martin Linihan: Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Martin Linihan.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established among the appellants and Arcadio Lacaron.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether treachery, abuse of superior strength, and disregard of old age attended the commission of the crime.
• Liability for Simple Robbery: Whether appellant Empuerto is liable only for the simple crime of robbery.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Statements: No. The trial court did not err in admitting the statements because the stricter waiver guidelines were laid down after its judgment; in any event, the testimonial and circumstantial evidence sufficed without them.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Martin Linihan: No. The trial judge’s appraisal of Linihan’s testimony is entitled to the highest respect absent a showing that he ignored or disregarded circumstances of weight or influence sufficient to call for a different finding.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by the acts of the three malefactors before, during, and after the crime, including going together to the scene, Nabaluna and Lacaron going up the house, Empuerto acting as look-out, and leaving together.
• Aggravating Circumstances: No. Treachery, abuse of superior strength, and disregard of old age were not proven; treachery cannot be presumed, abuse of superior strength requires a showing of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense, and disregard of old age is not proper in crimes against property.
• Liability for Simple Robbery: No. The killing was directly linked to the robbery and occurred during and on the occasion thereof; with conspiracy, the appellants are liable for robbery with homicide.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Statements: Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution was invoked because the appellants were not assisted by counsel during investigation and were allegedly not told that the State would provide free counsel. The SC acknowledged the requirements in Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, People vs. Galit, and People vs. Pascual that a person under custodial investigation may properly waive the right to counsel only with counsel present to assist him. But those requirements were laid down only after the trial court had already rendered judgment in this case, so no error attached to the trial court’s admission of the extrajudicial statements; the trial court was sufficiently convinced that the accused had waived assistance of counsel, and there was then no pronounced guideline requiring counsel’s presence for a valid waiver. The facts also differed from People vs. Galit, where the acquittal was due to the absence of any other evidence aside from the supposed confession, because here there was other strong evidence. Even if the extrajudicial statements were discounted or excluded, the testimonial evidence was more than sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The SC also noted that the statements acknowledged that the appellants were informed of their rights, and Special Counsel Gabriel L. Trocio testified that he informed Empuerto of his rights, offered to refer him to the CLAO if he could not afford counsel, asked whether he was forced, threatened, or promised anything, and examined him for injuries; Nabaluna was similarly informed and waived his right to counsel.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Apart from the extrajudicial confessions, there was equally strong evidence supporting conviction. The SC listed the established circumstances: (1) appellants’ presence at the scene approximately at the time of the commission; (2) Nabaluna, together with Lacaron, went up the victim’s house while Empuerto acted as look-out; (3) the three hastily left the victim’s house together immediately after the robbery and killing; and (4) the appellants acknowledged that Lacaron proposed the robbery and that, despite claimed initial reluctance, they agreed and performed their respective tasks. These circumstances unerringly pointed to the appellants as two of the three culprits and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Martin Linihan: The determination by the trial judge who weighs and appraises testimony as to the facts duly proved is entitled to the highest respect unless it is shown that he ignored or disregarded circumstances of weight or influence sufficient to call for a different finding, citing People vs. Seculles and People vs. Conchada. No such circumstances were shown to have been overlooked by the trial court, so the SC sustained the credence given to Linihan’s testimony.
• Conspiracy: The conspiracy was reflected by proven facts. The three malefactors were together in going to the scene; Lacaron and Nabaluna went up the house with Lacaron armed with a bolo while Empuerto stayed downstairs as a look-out. These acts demonstrated a common design toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose and objective. Their conduct before, during, and after the commission sufficiently reflected the conspiracy that bound them together.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The SC differed from the trial court’s finding of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and disregard of old age. There was no eyewitness to the crime, no evidence on record as to the method resorted to by the assailants in robbing and attacking the victim, and no showing that the victim was unaware when attacked; treachery cannot simply be presumed and must be clearly proven as the crime itself (People vs. Soriano). Abuse of superior strength was not shown by the mere fact that two accused, one armed with a bolo, acted together; there must be a showing of purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked (People vs. Cabiling). Disregard of old age should not be taken into account because, as held in People vs. Pagal, it is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property; robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property, with homicide a mere incident of the robbery.
• Liability for Simple Robbery: The killing of the victim was directly linked to the robbery and unquestionably happened during and on the occasion of the robbery. Whether the death occurred prior to or subsequent to the robbery, with the element of conspiracy linking the accused-appellants, they are necessarily liable for the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Empuerto’s argument that he is liable only for simple robbery therefore fails.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it; it may be inferred from the acts of the malefactors before, during, and after the crime. The SC found conspiracy from the three going together to the scene, Lacaron and Nabaluna going up the house with Lacaron armed with a bolo, Empuerto acting as look-out, and all fleeing together.
• Robbery with Homicide — The killing of the victim on the occasion of robbery is absorbed into the complex crime of robbery with homicide; whether death occurred before or after the robbery, with conspiracy the accused are liable for robbery with homicide. The SC applied this because the killing was directly linked to the robbery and happened during and on the occasion thereof.
• Aggravating Circumstances Must Be Clearly Proven — Aggravating circumstances must be clearly proven as the crime itself and cannot be presumed. Treachery requires proof of the method of attack and that the victim was unaware; abuse of superior strength requires a showing of purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense; disregard of old age is not proper in crimes against property. The SC found none of these proven.
• Waiver of Right to Counsel in Custodial Investigation — The stricter requirements for a valid waiver of the right to counsel, such as the presence of counsel to assist the accused when the waiver is manifested, were laid down in Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, People vs. Galit, and People vs. Pascual. The SC held those requirements did not retroactively apply to this case because they were laid down after the trial court’s judgment, and in any event the conviction rested on other evidence.
• Credibility of Trial Court’s Factual Findings — The trial judge’s determination of the facts and appraisal of testimony is entitled to the highest respect unless shown that he ignored or disregarded circumstances of weight or influence sufficient to call for a different finding. The SC found no such showing as to Martin Linihan’s testimony.
• Penalty for Robbery with Homicide — Under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Without any aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The SC applied this to reduce the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

• “The acts of Lacaron and Nabaluna in going up the house with the former armed with a bolo and Empuerto staying downstairs as a look-out, demonstrate the existence of common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose and objective.” — The SC used these acts to establish conspiracy among the three malefactors.
• “The killing of the victim is directly linked to the robbery and such unquestionably happened during and on the occasion of the robbery. Whether the death of the offended party occurred prior to or subsequent to the robbery with the element of conspiracy linking the accused-appellants, then the complex crime of robbery with homicide necessarily held liable therefor.” — The SC held that the killing was absorbed into the robbery with homicide because of the conspiracy.
• “The element of treachery cannot simply be presumed. This aggravating circumstance must be clearly proven as the crime itself in order to aggravate the penalty or liability incurred by the culprit” — The SC rejected treachery because there was no eyewitness and no proof of the method of attack.
• “Under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Without any aggravating circumstance that can be rightfully applied against the two herein accused, Juan Nabaluna and Edgardo Empuerto, the proper penalty that should be imposed against them would be reclusion perpetua.” — The SC modified the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Pascual, 109 SCRA 197 — Cited by the appellants for the requirements of waiver of counsel; the SC held the stricter guidelines were laid down after the trial court’s judgment.
• Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, G.R. Nos. 61106 and 61107, 121 SCRA 538 — Cited for the requisite steps before a person under custodial investigation may be deemed to have properly waived the right to counsel; the SC held these requirements did not retroactively apply.
• People vs. Galit, L-51770 — Distinguished; the acquittal there was due to the absence of any other evidence aside from the supposed confession, while here there was other strong evidence.
• People vs. Seculles, 132 SCRA 659 — Followed for the rule that the trial judge’s factual determination is entitled to the highest respect.
• People vs. Conchada, 88 SCRA 683 — Followed for the same rule on respect for the trial court’s appraisal of testimony.
• People vs. Soriano, 134 SCRA 542 — Followed for the rule that treachery must be clearly proven and cannot be presumed.
• People vs. Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285 — Followed for the rule that abuse of superior strength requires a showing of purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense.
• People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570 — Followed for the rule that disregard of old age is not proper in crimes against property.

• Section 20, Article IV, Constitution — Invoked by the appellants against the extrajudicial statements for lack of counsel assistance; the SC found no error in admission because the stricter waiver guidelines came after the trial court’s judgment, and the conviction was in any event supported by other evidence.
• Paragraph 1, Article 294, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty for robbery with homicide of reclusion perpetua to death; without any aggravating circumstance, the SC imposed reclusion perpetua.