468 Phil. 869
CORONA, J.:
The undersigned hereby accuses MAJOR EMILIO COMILING, GIL SALAGUBANG, BONG CLOTARIO, GERALDO GALINGAN, EDDIE CALDERON, BALOT CABOTAJE and RICKY MENDOZA @ Leo of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE and PHYSICAL INJURIES, committed as follows:Accused Eddie Calderon and Balot Cabotaje have remained at large to this day. The remaining accused (Comiling, Galingan, Mendoza, Salagubang and Clotario) pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.That on or about the 2nd day of September, 1995, in the evening, inside the Masterline Grocery located at Bonifacio Street corner Quezon Blvd., municipality of Tayug, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused including certain JOE, REY and PAUL, whose family names have not yet been known, armed with firearms and handgrenade, aboard an owner-type stainless jeep and motorized tricycle, with intent to gain and with the use of violence against or intimidations upon persons, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the Masterline Grocery pretending to be customers and once inside, poked their guns and intimidated the owner of said grocery, MR. INCIONG CO, and his worker to open the drawers of the tables of said grocery and when opened, took and carried away EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P81,000.00) and three (3) pieces of Chinese gold necklace worth TWENTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P26,000.00), and afterwhich the above-named accused on their way out to escape with their loot, shot and hit a responding Tayug Policeman, PO3 ERWIL V. PASTOR, mortally wounding him on his face that subsequently led to his untimely death, and when said accused were cornered by other responding policemen, ran and passed to an adjacent store (Good Taste Bakery) and used it as their exit and while there also shot, hit and mortally wounded MRS. CONCHING CO, the owner of said bakery causing her injuries, the accused having thus performed the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, and that is due to the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the said MRS. CONCHING CO, to her damage and prejudice and also to the heirs of PO3 ERWIL V. PASTOR.CONTRARY to Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.[2]
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having failed to establish their alleged guilt beyond moral certainty, a judgment of ACQUITTAL is hereby rendered in favor of the accused Gil Salagubang and Mario Clotario alias “Bong,” and their respective bail bonds are hereby ordered released.Appellants Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeal briefs.
However, on the basis of the evidence the prosecution has adduced, which in the Court’s perception satisfies the requisite proof beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, the Court hereby renders a judgment, as to the accused MAJ. EMILIO COMILING of Block 18, Lot 3, Camella Classic Phase II, Bicutan, Parañaque, Metro Manila, GERALDO GALINGAN alias “Bong” of Iris, Brgy. “B,” Tayug, Pangasinan and RICKY MENDOZA, said to be a resident of Parañaque, Metro Manila, as per records of the BJMP district jail, Balugnao, Pangasinan, finding them GUILTY of the special complex crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, defined and penalized under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 63, same Code, hereby sentences them to each suffer the penalty of DEATH, and in solidum to restitute, when possible, to private complainant Ysiong Chua his lost valuables, otherwise to make reparation therefor and pay to him their value of P26,000.00, plus the cash amount aggregating P81,000.00, and the heirs of PO3 Erwil Pastor, P50,000.00 for his death, and P100,000.00 for consequential damages as naturally must have arisen therefrom; and, to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[4]
None of their dark attributes dissuades the Court from giving credence to their respective narratives, however. The Court agrees that Panimbaan knew too much, for her open-court testimony was abundantly detailed, generally consistent, straightforward and credible.We find no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court. Indeed, prosecution witness Naty Panimbaan proved credible during the trial. She never wavered in her testimony on the details of the crime:xxx xxx xxx
The Court believes Panimbaan’s testimony that finally, at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1995 the accused Comiling, Galingan, Calderon, Clotario and Mendoza, together with Rimas, Paul, Rey and Jose left Lani’s place, while she stayed behind.
The Court believes Panimbaan’s testimony that all throughout the four meetings conducted before September 2, the accused Comiling and Galingan presided, gave instructions and provided firearms and explosives.[5]
Naty’s tenacious insistence on the minute details of what happened suggested nothing else except that she was telling the truth. We do not doubt her credibility.
ATTY. CALPITO: Q Since when was Geraldo Galingan your boyfriend, if you can still remember? A Since September 1994, sir. Q You mentioned a while ago that they are going to talk (sic) their plan to rob the Masterline Grocery, who are these people whom you refer as they? A Maj. Comiling, Gil Salagubang, Eddie Calderon, certain Paul, Leo, Rey and Eddy, Bong Clotario and Sonny Rimas. ATTY. CALPITO: Q How about your boyfriend Geraldo Galingan?
Would he or would he not participate? A He was there, sir. He was one. Q And so Madam Witness, when you were there at Zariza Village Inn, who were the persons whom you saw there, if any? A We were inside the hotel. When we arrived I saw the group of Maj. Comiling. Q You refer to a group of Maj. Comiling, will you be kind enough to enumerate their names? A Maj. Emilio Comiling, Bong Galingan, Eddie Calderon, Gil Salagubang, Sonny Rimas, Bong Clotario, Rey and Paul. Q Madam Witness, when you said that you saw this group when you arrived there, what did you do upon arrival there? COURT: When you said you whom you were (sic) referring to? He or a bigger number? ATTY. CALPITO: Q What did you do? Specifically you, sir. A I sat beside them. Q Will you tell the Honorable Court your distance from the members of the group when you sat beside them? COURT: That will be very difficult to answer, counsel. Since this was a group you will have to measure the distance from one person to another and up to the last member of the group. Why don’t you refer to the group as a whole? And probably establish who was nearest to her. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Madam Witness, when you said you went and sat beside the group, will you then describe the physical arrangement of the group when you went and sat beside them? A I was beside Bong Galingan and the group was in a circle formation. Q And so what transpired when you were there within the group, Madam Witness? A Since I was beside them I overheard their conversation. Q And what was the conversation all about, Madam Witness? A That they are going to stage a hold-up at the Masterline Grocery, sir. Q What was the result of that conversation? A The others left. Q Who specifically left? A Eddie Calderon, Sonny Rimas. Q Who else, if any? A Bong Clotario. Q And do you know the reason why these three persons left? A Yes, sir. Q Please tell the reasons to the Court? A They observed the Masterline Grocery if there are policemen or people around and when they came back they said it is not possible. COURT: Q How did you come to the conclusion that the three persons left in order to observe because you told that you stayed behind? WITNESS: A We were all there, sir, when Maj. Comiling ordered that they must go to the Masterline Grocery. COURT: Q For what purpose, if any? A To stage a hold-up. Q You mean Galingan and Comiling ordered them to go and hold-up Masterline at that time when they were about to leave? A Bong Galingan and Maj. Comiling ordered these men because they were the brains of that hold-up. Q And whom did they order? A Their men, sir. Q Who? A Clotario, Calderon and Rimas. Q I am referring to the three whom (sic) according to you left. Were they ordered by Galingan and Comiling to leave? A Yes, sir. Q Do you know what for? A Yes, sir. Q What? A They will observe the Masterline grocery. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Madam Witness, you said that when the three persons you just named came back and said it is not yet possible, what was the consensus of the group, if any? A They drank again. COURT: That was the consensus. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Madam Witness, you mentioned that the three left to haze (sic) the Masterline grocery and when they came back they said it is not yet possible. With respect to that plan what was the consensus or decision of the group then? ATTY. STA. MARIA: Objection, your Honor. Already answered. COURT: The objection is sustained not on that ground but on the ground that there is still no premise. You are referring to a consensus when there was still no evidence that a consensus was being set up. Lay the basis. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Madam Witness, when the three persons arrived or came back and they said that it was not yet possible was there any reply from the group that was left? A None, sir. Q How about a decision or a consensus from the group was there any Madam Witness after they learned that it is not yet possible? ATTY. DANCEL: Objection, your Honor. Leading. COURT: Sustain (sic). Q What happened after the three allegedly reported back? . A When the three reported that it was not yet possible to stage such plan because there were many policemen, Maj. Comiling decided to forego COURT: Q To forego what? A Not to stage the hold-up yet because there were many policemen. ATTY. CALPITO: Q So what happened next Madam Witness after Comiling said that? A We just tarried along but they kept on planning. Q You said that they kept on planning how did you know that they kept on planning after that meeting in June 1995? A Because I was always with them whenever they talk with each other. Q You said that you were always with them whenever they plan. Are you telling the Honorable Court that it was not only once that they planned, Madam Witness? A Yes, sir. They planned several times. COURT: Q What did they plan? A They kept on planning about the hold-up but it was not continued. ATTY. CALPITO: Q How many times did this group plan in your presence? A Many times, sir. Q Could you please give your estimate? A Four times. Q If you said that they planned for four times when was the second time? A July, but I cannot remember the date. COURT: Q What year? A 1995, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Where was this that the group planned sometime in July 1995? A At the house of Lani Galingan at Iris, Tayug, Pangasinan. Q And who were present at that second meeting at the place of Lani Galingan? A Sonny Rimas, Eddie Calderon, Bong Clotario, Eddie Tangkad, Rey, Paul, Leo, Gil Salagubang, Maj. Comiling and Bong Galingan. Q You just mentioned several persons whom you claimed to be present at that second meeting at the house of Lani Galingan. Why do you know that they were the persons who were there, Madam Witness? A Because I was fetched by Bong Galingan and I overheard their plan to stage a hold-up at the Masterline. Q In short you are saying that you were there? A Yes, sir. I was there. Q And did the plan materialize at that time, Madam Witness? A No, sir. Q And what was the reason, Madam Witness, if you know? A Yes, sir. Q What was the reason? A Because there were many people at the Masterline grocery. Q And how did the group came (sic) to know that there were a lot of people at the Masterline grocery? ATTY. STA. MARIA: Incompetent, your Honor. COURT: If you know. WITNESS: A Because that was being told after Comiling and Bong Galingan ordered somebody. COURT: Q And who said that? A Eddie Calderon and Bong Clotario. ATTY. CALPITO: Q If you said that the plan did not materialize at that second meeting when was the third meeting then, if you know? A August, sir. I cannot remember the date. COURT:
Q What year? A 1995. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Will it be first week, second week or third week or 4th week? I am referring to the third meeting. A First week, sir. Q And where was this meeting held? A At the house of Lani Galingan, sir. Q And who were the persons who were present at that time, Madam Witness? A The group of Maj. Comiling, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Please enumerate them. A Bong Galingan, Maj. Comiling, Sonny Rimas, Gil Salagubang, Eddie Calderon, Leo, Paul and Rey. Q And what was the result of this third meeting? A It did not materialize yet. COURT: Q What did not materialize the meeting or what? A The meeting was held but the schedule of the hold-up did not materialize. ATTY. CALPITO: Q And when was the fourth meeting, Madam Witness? A In the house of Lani Galingan. Q When? A I cannot remember the date. Q How about the month? A Last week of August, sir. COURT:
Q What year? A 1995, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q And how do you know that this 4th meeting was held on the last week of August 1995 at the house of Lani Galingan? A Because I was in the house of Lani Galingan, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Why? Do you usually reside there or not? A Bong Galingan made me resign at J-5 restaurant. Q When was that? A August 21, sir. COURT:
Q How far was this J-5 from Lani Galingan’s place? A Not too far. Q In other words in response to the last question propounded by the private prosecutor you were not actually residing at Lani Galingan’s place? A I was residing there at the time because Bong Galingan made me resign. Q You resigned from your job and your boyfriend lodged you at Lani Galingan’s place. Is that what you are saying? A Yes, sir. Q Were you such a resident at Lani Galingan’s place throughout the four alleged meetings that you testified on? A Yes, sir. Q From the first meeting to the fourth you were already residing or lodging at Lani Galingan’s place? A No, sir. Q So when did you start residing at Lani’s place? A August 21, 1995. COURT: Q What makes you remember that? A Because that is when Bong Galingan lodged me.xxx xxx xxx Q Madam Witness, you enumerated some names of persons whom you claimed to be present in the last week of August 21, 1995 at Lani Galingan’s residence. Why do you know that these were the persons who were there at the time for the 4th meeting? A Because we usually went together. Q So that Madam Witness during that particular time of the 4th meeting where were you? A I was at the house of Lani Galingan. ATTY. CALPITO: Q And what happened at that time Madam Witness? A They were talking about the supposed hold-up at the Masterline. Q And what else transpired, if any? I am referring to that 4th meeting? A They were talking about the subject matter Masterline grocery. Q What about the Masterline grocery? A Their staging of a hold-up. Q And what was the result of that 4th meeting? A It did not yet materialize. Q You mentioned a while ago that there were four meetings. You just mentioned now that in that 4th meeting it resulted into the plan not pushing through. Was there any other meeting, Madam Witness? ATTY. STA. MARIA: Objection, your Honor. COURT: Sustain (sic). ATTY. CALPITO: Q That was in the last week of August 25, 1995. So what happened after that? A The staging of the hold-up pushed through. Q If you said that the plan of the hold-up of the Masterline grocery pushed through when was that Madam Witness? A September 2, 1995, sir. COURT: Q What time? A At 4:00 they were still at the house. Maybe that was at 6:00. Q You mentioned 4:00 and 6:00, what was that? A In the afternoon, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q You said that at around 4:00 in the afternoon of September 2, 1995 they were still there. Whom are you referring to as the persons still there? A Bong Galingan, Maj. Comiling, Sonny Rimas, Eddie Calderon, Bong Clotario, Joe, Gil Salagubang. Q And what were these people doing there? By the way Madam Witness, where is this place that you are referring to? A Lani Galingan’s place. Q What were these people doing there at 4:00 in the afternoon? A They were just there waiting for the persons being sent by Maj. Comiling. COURT: Q You have mentioned of four alleged meetings and you even enumerated names. Could you tell the Court if there was anybody who presided? A Bong Galingan and Comiling. Q How did you know that? A I have known that and he said that all the orders of Bong are being followed. Q The orders of who? A Bong, sir. COURT: Q I am asking you who presided, if any? A Bong Galingan and Maj. Comiling. Q How did you know that? A Because all the orders of Maj. Comiling and Bong Galingan are being followed by their men. ATTY. CALPITO: Q And what time did these people leave Lani Galingan’s place? A 4:00 o’clock. Q Where did they go? A They proceeded towards Masterline. Q How about you Madam Witness, what did you do? A I was just there at the house of Lani. Q So after they left at 4:00, what happened next? What happened next as far as you are concerned? A After some time there were shots at the town. Q Around what time would that be when you heard gunshots? A 6:00 o’clock. COURT: Q And where were you then at 6:00 o’clock? A I was at the house of Lani. Q Did you ever stay put at Lani’s place at 6:00 o’clock? A No, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q Did you personally see those people leave Lani’s place before the gunshots? Before you heard the gunshots? A Yes, sir. COURT: Q About how many minutes or hours passed from the time you allegedly saw the people leave Lani’s place from the time you allegedly heard shots in town? A I heard the gun fire at 6:30. Q So are you saying that it was almost 2-1/2 hours? A Yes, sir. ATTY. CALPITO: Q If you say Madam Witness that you saw them when they left Lani Galingan’s house, did they take any ride with them or not? ATTYS. DANCEL & STA. MARIA: Leading. COURT: Answer. WITNESS: A Yes, sir. There was. ATTY. CALPITO: Q How many rides were there? A Three rides, sir. Q And what were these rides? A One owner-type and two tricycles. COURT: Q Owner type plane or what? A Owner-type jeep. ATTY. CALPITO: Q And who were the persons who rode on the owner-type jeep, if you know? A Bong Galingan, Leo, Paul and Rey. Q And you said that there were two tricycles who rode on the two tricycles? A Maj. Comiling and Joe. COURT: Q One tricycle each you mean? A No, sir. The other tricycle were on board Sonny Rimas and Bong Clotario. ATTY. CALPITO: Q If I will add the persons whom you named there were 8 whom you said boarded the three vehicles. Is that all, Madam Witness? A Eddie Calderon and Gil Salagubang. Q And how about them? Where did they ride? A Tricycle.[6]
Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.This rule prescribes that any declaration made by a conspirator relating to the conspiracy is admissible against him alone but not against his co-conspirators unless the conspiracy is first shown by other independent evidence.
Naty’s testimony showed that Comiling was determined to commit the crime as early as June 1995. The fact that the heist was finally executed only on September 2, 1995 indicated that Comiling had indomitably clung to his determination. Principalship by inducement (or by induction) presupposes that the offender himself is determined to commit the felony and must have persistently clung to his determination.[11] In all the meetings prior to the commission of the crime, Comiling was seen and heard presiding over and leading the group. He was even the one who assigned each of his men his specific role in the robbery. Then, in the house where the perpetrators regrouped after the commission of the crime, Comiling was handed the money and jewelry stolen from the grocery store. It was also Comiling who instructed Naty and Lani to hide in Makati after the incident. He paid for the monthly rental of the room where Naty and Lani stayed. All this can only prove that Comiling was the acknowledged leader of the group.
Q And what happened to this fourth meeting, Madam Witness?A They talked about the projected robbery and Major Comiling decided that they will push through on September 2.Q What else happened during that fourth meeting?A Major Comiling gave their respective assignments.Q You said Major Comiling gave their respective assignments to the members of this group, what assignments if you know was given to Bong Galingan?A Bong Galingan should be in front of the LBC.Q How about Sonny Rimas?COURT: Your answer should be one at a time.WITNESS: A Sonny Rimas and Bong Clotario should be at the tricycle.ATTY. ESTRADA: Q What about Gil Salagubang?A Gil Salagubang and Eddie Calderon should be in front of the Masterline Grocery.Q What about Major Comiling?A Major Comiling should be posted at the back of the bakery including Joe.[10]
In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.[17] (italics ours)Moreover, Galingan failed to substantiate his claim that Naty was driven by ill will or false motive in testifying against him. His vain attempt to portray Naty as a “woman scorned by her lover” certainly did not constitute sufficient reason for Naty to accuse him of a very serious crime where the possible penalty could either be death or life imprisonment. In fact, the trial court did not perceive such improper motivation on the part of Naty and the other prosecution witnesses as would make them falsely implicate appellants in the commission of the very serious crime. To us, the only plausible motivation for Naty was her honest desire to speak the truth.
Q Who shot you?Under Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, the declaration of a dying person with the consciousness of impending death may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death. There are four requisites which must concur in order that a dying declaration may be admissible: (1) it must concern the crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) at the time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (4) the declaration is offered in any criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant was the victim.[20]
A Bong Galingan, x x x [19]