U.S. vs. Reguera

Barrio lieutenants, by virtue of their official position as agents of authority entrusted with maintaining order and protecting life and property, cannot invoke the special mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education under Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, even in crimes of robbery and theft. Where multiple aggravating circumstances concur and are not fully offset by mitigating circumstances, the maximum penalty prescribed by law must be imposed.

The accused, Basilio Reguera (alias Teniente Asir) and Alejandro Asuategui (alias Teniente Nando), were barrio lieutenants in the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo. Under the municipal system established by Act No. 82, barrio lieutenants were recognized as agentes de la autoridad (agents of authority), clothed with authority for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property within their respective barrios. The case was prosecuted under the old Penal Code then in force, specifically Article 503, case No. 1, which defined and penalized the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Act No. 2142 had amended Article 11 of the Penal Code to substitute the offender's degree of instruction and education for the earlier criterion of racial affiliation as a basis for discretionary mitigation of penalties. Act No. 2726 required unanimity of votes among all justices present for the imposition of the death penalty.

On the afternoon of July 22, 1919, at about 5 p.m., Basilio Reguera (alias Teniente Asir), armed with a dagger, and Alejandro Asuategui (alias Teniente Nando), armed with a dagger and a bolo, assaulted the house of Josefa Pasaporte, situated in Calle Pilar, poblacion of the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo. Upon gaining entrance, they closed the doors and, brandishing their weapons, tied the inmates: the aged Josefa Pasaporte, the young Natalia Peronce (fifteen years old), her deaf brother Sixto, and two grandchildren of Pasaporte — Esteban and Corazon Guangco, the latter being five years old. While Asuategui guarded the tied occupants, Reguera threatened the old woman with death, demanding P200. When she answered that she had no money, he opened wardrobes, several tampipis, and two boxes (Exhibits C and B), taking possession of jewels such as rings, bracelets, and chains, which he gathered and placed in the smaller box, wrapping it with the underwear he had worn upon entering. He then removed that underwear and changed into a cundiman, a red cloth. At dusk, the accused lighted lamps — a small one in a bottle prepared ad hoc and another larger lamp used for outing purposes.

At about 6 p.m., Porfirio Guangco, son-in-law of Josefa Pasaporte, arrived at the house, having been absent with his wife Sofia Perenas, Pasaporte's daughter. Porfirio called his mother-in-law, but one of the culprits looked out the window and demanded money, threatening to kill everyone in the house if refused. The demand began at P1,000, was reduced to P500 when Porfirio said he did not have that sum, and was further reduced to P200. Porfirio answered that he would go and look for the money. He returned with the P200, wrapped it in a handkerchief, and delivered it to the accused Asir by throwing it through the window. After receiving the money, Reguera ordered the occupants to light the way as they were going down, warning that they would kill the old woman and the children if shots were heard.

The group descended in the following order: Josefa Pasaporte led, held by the shoulder by Reguera, with one hand tied and the other loose and carrying the child Corazon; then Sixto, carrying the lamp, with one hand tied to that of Natalia Peronce, who carried the child Esteban in her arms; behind them came Asuategui with a drawn dagger in his right hand and a bolo in his left; at the rear, about two arms' length away, was Porfirio Guangco accompanied by Donato Parcon, who carried another lamp. They had gone some distance from the house when shots were heard coming from the west. Reguera, who was in front holding the old woman by the shoulder, stabbed her in the abdomen and then stabbed the child Corazon in the right collar bone, the wound passing into the breast. Asuategui, who was at the rear, stabbed the child in the left inguinal region. The culprits then fled. Josefa Pasaporte and Corazon Guangco died on the same night as a result of their wounds.

Upon examining the corpses that same night, Doctor Arancillo found that Josefa Pasaporte had a cut 1½ to 2 centimeters wide in the epigastric region, caused by a cutting and pointed instrument, and necessarily mortal. The child Corazon received four wounds: the first, a cut 2½ centimeters long by ½ centimeter wide and 18 centimeters deep in the right shoulder blade; the second, a continuation of the first, 2 centimeters long and ½ centimeter wide on the interior edge of the joint of the scapular and collar bones, both wounds having been caused by a single blow of a cutting instrument; the third, an almost round wound 8 centimeters deep in the right hip, caused by a firearm; and the fourth, 10 centimeters deep in the left inguinal region, caused by a pointed and cutting instrument. The first, second, and third wounds were necessarily mortal, though the first two, given with a single blow, were more deadly than the third.

The trial court found the presence of aggravating circumstances: entry into the dwelling of the deceased, disregard of the age and sex of Josefa Pasaporte in her killing, and alevosia in the killing of the child Corazon, as the crime was committed when the old woman had one hand tied and carried the child with the other, and because the child was of tender age. The trial court compensated these aggravating circumstances with the special mitigating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, and imposed the penalty in its medium degree — cadena perpetua — pursuant to Rule 2 of Article 80 of the Penal Code.

• Error in Finding Guilt as Principals: Counsel for the accused alleged that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty as principals in the crime charged.
• Entitlement to Reasonable Doubt: Counsel maintained that the accused were entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, the only question raised in the defense brief being whether the accused were sufficiently identified as the perpetrators.
• Alibi: The accused presented witnesses Pedro Sorianoso and Geronimo Atadero to prove that from 5 p.m. on the day in question until 7 a.m. the following morning, they were playing monte in the house of Jacinto Pesadilla in Guinacas, a barrio about 3 kilometers from the poblacion where the crime occurred.
• Impeachment of Prosecution Witnesses: The defense impeached the credibility of prosecution witnesses Adriano Pasaporte and Cirilo Lapatin, alleging that Pasaporte had personal disputes with the accused Asuategui nine months before the event, suggesting a motive for false testimony.
• Discrepancy in Testimony: The defense called attention to an alleged discrepancy among the declarations of witnesses Peronce, Lapatin, and Pasaporte regarding the language or dialect Reguera used in demanding money from Porfirio Guangco.
• Inherent Improbability: Counsel contended that it was hard to believe the accused committed the offense because of the extraordinary manner of the attack, because the accused would have fled rather than gone gambling after the crime, and because the accused enjoyed a good reputation.

• Inapplicability of Mitigating Circumstance: The Attorney-General argued that the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction under Article 11 of the Penal Code should not be considered in crimes against property, and much less in this case, because the accused were barrio lieutenants — a position implying cognizance of their duties regarding the protection of persons and property.
• Imposition of Maximum Penalty: The Attorney-General maintained that the penalty should be the maximum — death, prescribed in Article 503 of the Penal Code — instead of cadena perpetua, which the trial court had imposed.

• Sufficiency of Identification: Whether the accused were sufficiently identified as the perpetrators of the robbery with double homicide.
• Validity of Alibi: Whether the defense of alibi should prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the alleged discrepancies in prosecution testimony and the alleged motives for false testimony undermine the prosecution's case.
• Applicability of Mitigating Circumstance: Whether the special mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education under Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, may be applied in favor of the accused who are barrio lieutenants.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the maximum penalty of death should be imposed given the concurrence of multiple aggravating circumstances.

• Sufficiency of Identification: Yes. The accused were positively and conclusively identified by multiple prosecution witnesses who observed them at close range under adequate lighting conditions, and who identified them both at the time of arrest and during trial.
• Validity of Alibi: No. The alibi was rebutted by prosecution witnesses Pesadilla and Cordura, who testified that the accused arrived at the gambling place only at about 10 p.m., approximately two hours after the crime ended at about 8 p.m., and the trial court found the defense witnesses unworthy of credence, even ordering an investigation for perjury.
• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The alleged discrepancies regarding the language used by Reguera were not contradictory but corroborative, as one witness said the conversation was partly in Spanish and partly in Visayan, and the alleged personal dispute with one accused did not supply a motive to falsely implicate the other accused against whom no resentment was alleged.
• Applicability of Mitigating Circumstance: No. Barrio lieutenants, as agents of authority entrusted with maintaining order and protecting life and property, cannot be considered as lacking in instruction and education within the meaning of Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, even though the robbery occurred outside the jurisdiction of their respective barrios.
• Proper Penalty: Yes, the death penalty was imposed on Reguera. Multiple aggravating circumstances concurred — entry into the dwelling, disregard of age and sex of the victim, and alevosia — and even if the mitigating circumstance were considered, it could not completely offset all aggravating circumstances, particularly alevosia, which remained uncompensated. Asuategui received cadena perpetua because unanimity of votes for the death penalty could not be secured as required by Act No. 2726.

• Sufficiency of Identification: The Court examined the declarations of prosecution witnesses Natalia Peronce, Adriano Pasaporte, Cirilo Lapatin, and Porfirio Guangco and found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts charged. Natalia Peronce saw the accused at close range in plain daylight at 5 p.m. and later by lamplight; she was young with perfect eyesight and was under constant threats of death, conditions that produced a profound impression facilitating identification. She identified the accused the day after the event when they were arrested. Adriano Pasaporte had known the accused for more than six years and had played monte with them on various occasions, making their features familiar to him. The trial judge, Honorable Antonio Villareal, analyzed the circumstances of observation and found them sufficient for accurate identification. The Court found nothing in the witnesses' declarations that would justify altering the trial court's factual conclusions.

• Validity of Alibi: Although no evidence directly contradicted the alibi witnesses' testimony, the defense of alibi could not outweigh the direct, positive, and conclusive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the alibi was affirmatively rebutted: Pesadilla and Cordura, the very persons at whose house the accused claimed to have been gambling, testified for the prosecution that the accused arrived only at about 10 p.m., approximately two hours after the attack ended at about 8 p.m. The trial judge believed the prosecution witnesses and found the defense witnesses so untruthful that he ordered the prosecuting attorney to investigate them for perjury. The Court also noted that the accused going to gamble after the crime was the most natural course, as by appearing at a place where they were known gamblers, they attempted to deflect suspicion.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The alleged discrepancy regarding the language used by Reguera was not a true contradiction. Peronce did not positively state that Reguera spoke only in Spanish; Lapatin said the conversation was partly in Visayan and partly in Spanish; and Pasaporte declared Reguera spoke partly in Spanish and partly in Visayan — these statements corroborated rather than contradicted each other. Regarding the alleged personal dispute between Pasaporte and Reguera, Pasaporte denied the incident, and even assuming it occurred, it was insufficient to inspire a desire for vengeance, particularly because Pasaporte testified against both accused, including Asuategui, against whom no motive of resentment was alleged. The defense witness Epifanio Lucasi, who claimed the accused were not the culprits, was discredited because he failed to observe whether the men wore hats, casting doubt on his claimed close observation, and his description of the man coincided with that given by prosecution witnesses.

• Applicability of Mitigating Circumstance: The Court traced the evolution of the doctrine on Article 11 of the Penal Code. Prior to amendment by Act No. 2142, courts had held that racial affiliation alone did not justify mitigation for crimes of theft and robbery. After amendment, the ground shifted to the degree of instruction and education of the offender, and the Court in U.S. vs. Maqui established that lack of instruction could be considered even in robbery and theft when circumstances warranted more lenient treatment of an ignorant offender. However, the Court agreed with the Attorney-General that in this case the mitigating circumstance should not apply because the accused were barrio lieutenants. Citing U.S. vs. Fortaleza, the Court noted that barrio lieutenants were recognized as agentes de la autoridad, entrusted with maintaining order and protecting life and property. That the robbery occurred outside the jurisdiction of their respective barrios did not divest them of the knowledge that they acted in violation of their duties. Even assuming the mitigating circumstance applied, weighing it against the aggravating circumstances — entry into the dwelling, disregard of age and sex in the killing of Josefa Pasaporte, and alevosia in the killing of the child Corazon — the mitigating circumstance could not completely destroy the effects of all the aggravating circumstances. After compensating it with one or two aggravating circumstances, the penalty under Article 503, No. 1, still required the maximum penalty because multiple aggravating circumstances remained, one of which — alevosia — was no longer susceptible of compensation due to the absence of other mitigating circumstances.

• Proper Penalty: The maximum penalty of death prescribed by Article 503, case No. 1, of the Penal Code was proper given the number of aggravating circumstances, the greater portion of which were interrelated and lacked other mitigating circumstances to offset them, pursuant to Article 80, Rule 4. The death penalty was imposed on Reguera. However, the death penalty could not be executed as to Asuategui because, upon reconsideration by the Court en banc, unanimity of votes of all justices present could not be secured, a condition required by Act No. 2726. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2 of Act No. 2726, the penalty immediately inferior to death under graduated scale No. 1 of Article 91 of the Penal Code — cadena perpetua — was imposed on Asuategui.

• Identification Under Stressful Conditions — A witness subjected to constant threats of death during a prolonged criminal assault retains a profound impression of the perpetrators' physiognomy, enabling reliable identification. The Court applied this principle by crediting Natalia Peronce's identification, made under conditions of adequate lighting and extreme emotional stress, and corroborated by her identification of the accused the day after the event.

• Alibi as a Defense — Alibi cannot prevail over direct, positive, and conclusive testimony identifying the accused, and it is further weakened when rebuttal witnesses contradict the alibi witnesses' account. The Court rejected the accused's alibi because prosecution rebuttal witnesses testified the accused arrived at the gambling place only two hours after the crime, and the trial court found the alibi witnesses so untruthful as to warrant a perjury investigation.

• Lack of Instruction as Mitigating Circumstance for Persons in Authority — Under Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, the special mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education may be considered even in crimes of robbery and theft when the offender's circumstances warrant more lenient treatment. However, barrio lieutenants, as agents of authority entrusted with maintaining order and protecting life and property, cannot invoke this mitigating circumstance, as their position implies cognizance of their duties. The fact that the crime was committed outside their jurisdiction does not divest them of this knowledge.

• Compensation of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances — A mitigating circumstance may be compensated with one or several aggravating circumstances to reduce the penalty, but it will not prevent imposition of the maximum penalty when aggravating circumstances remain uncompensated due to the absence of other mitigating circumstances. Under Article 80, Rule 4 of the Penal Code, when the penalty is indivisible and multiple aggravating circumstances concur, the maximum penalty must be imposed.

• Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide — When robbery and homicide are committed on the same occasion, the offense constitutes the complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized under Article 503, case No. 1, of the Penal Code, in accordance with the doctrine in U.S. vs. Tiongco.

• "We agree with the Attorney-General in that in the present case the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education should not be considered because the accused were barrio lieutenant, a position which implies that they are cognizant of their duties with respect to the protection of persons and properties." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the inapplicability of the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction to persons holding official positions as barrio lieutenants, who are presumed to know their duties as agents of authority.

• "That the robbery in question took place out of the jurisdiction of the barrios of which the accused are lieutenants, does not divest them of the knowledge that they acted in violation of their duties, for which reason they cannot be considered as lacking in education and instruction within the meaning of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142." — This clarifies that the inapplicability of the mitigating circumstance is not limited to crimes committed within the accused's territorial jurisdiction but extends to any crime revealing knowledge of the violation of official duties.

• "the special mitigating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142, that is, the lack of instruction and education of the convict, may be and should be considered, as a general rule, even in cases of robbery and theft, when it appears that, under all the circumstances which surrounded the commission of the crime, the strict degree of responsibility which the Penal Code imposes upon common convicts should not be exacted of them" — This formulation, synthesizing the Court's doctrinal position, establishes the general rule that lack of instruction may mitigate even property crimes, subject to the exception for persons in authority.

• "Notwithstanding this conclusion arrived at by the court, the sentence of death cannot be executed with respect to the accused Alejandro Asuategui, in view of the fact that upon the reconsideration of the case by the court in banc, it was not possible to secure, with respect to said accused, the unanimity of votes of all the justice present, a condition which Act no. 2726 requires for the imposition of the death penalty." — This passage explains the procedural requirement under Act No. 2726 that unanimity of votes is necessary for the death penalty, and the consequence — imposition of the next lower penalty — when unanimity cannot be obtained.

• U.S. vs. Tiongco, 37 Phil., 951 — Controlling precedent establishing the doctrine that robbery and homicide committed on the same occasion constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 503 of the Penal Code. The Court applied this doctrine to classify the accused's acts.

• U.S. vs. Maqui, 27 Phil., 97 — Leading precedent establishing that after the amendment of Article 11 by Act No. 2142, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education may be considered even in crimes of theft and robbery when circumstances warrant lenient treatment of an ignorant offender. The Court followed this doctrine but distinguished it as inapplicable to barrio lieutenants.

• U.S. vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472 — Authority for the proposition that barrio lieutenants are agentes de la autoridad, clothed with authority for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property. The Court relied on this case to deny the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction to the accused.

• U.S. vs. Antonio, 31 Phil., 205 — Precedent on the compensation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, holding that even when the mitigating circumstance of Article 11 is applied, the maximum penalty may still be imposed when multiple aggravating circumstances remain uncompensated. The Court applied this principle to impose the death penalty on Reguera.

• U.S. vs. Solana, 33 Phil., 582 — Followed precedent applying the benefits of Article 11 to reduce the penalty for offenders of manifest ignorance who appeared to be ignorant tools of band leaders. The Court cited this as part of the doctrinal line supporting consideration of lack of instruction, while distinguishing it from the present case.

• U.S. vs. Baul, 39 Phil., 846 — Cited as authority for the aggravating circumstance of alevosia where the crime was committed against a victim whose hands were tied and who carried a child of tender age.

• U.S. vs. Tan Corteso, 32 Phil., 104; U.S. vs. Landasan, 35 Phil., 359; U.S. vs. Maido, 36 Phil., 847 — Cases following the doctrine of U.S. vs. Maqui on the applicability of Article 11 as amended by Act No. 2142, cited to confirm the state of jurisprudence on the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.

• Article 503, case No. 1, Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the complex crime of robbery with homicide, prescribing the penalty of death as the maximum. Applied to classify the accused's acts as the complex crime of robbery with double homicide and to determine the proper penalty.

• Article 11, Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142 — Provides the special mitigating circumstance of the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The Court held that this provision cannot be invoked by barrio lieutenants, whose position implies cognizance of their duties, but may generally be considered even in property crimes for ignorant offenders.

• Article 80, Penal Code — Governs the application of penalties when aggravating and mitigating circumstances concur. Rule 2 (imposing the penalty in its medium degree when mitigating and aggravating circumstances compensate each other) was applied by the trial court; Rule 4 (imposing the maximum penalty when aggravating circumstances remain uncompensated) was applied by the Supreme Court.

• Article 91, Penal Code — Provides the graduated scale of penalties. The penalty immediately inferior to death under graduated scale No. 1 — cadena perpetua — was imposed on Asuategui pursuant to this article.

• Act No. 2726 — Requires unanimity of votes of all justices present for the imposition of the death penalty. Section 2 provides that where unanimity cannot be secured, the penalty immediately inferior to death shall be imposed. Applied to reduce Asuategui's penalty from death to cadena perpetua.

• Act No. 1577 — Governs the execution of the death penalty. The Court directed that the death penalty on Reguera be executed at the time and date fixed by the trial judge in accordance with this Act.

Mapa, C.J., Araullo, Streets, and Malcolm, JJ., concurred.

N/A — The text does not identify any dissenting justice by name or summarize the content of any dissent. The decision notes only that unanimity of votes could not be secured as to Asuategui for the death penalty, but does not identify which justice or justices declined to vote for that penalty or state their reasons.