People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal

9/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 070
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal
No. L-30713. April 30, 1976.*
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and

appellee, vs. VICTORINO SUMAYO Y BERSEBAL, ET
AL., defendants, VICTORINO SUMAYO Y BERSEBAL,
ANTONIO JUANINGO Y PESEBRE, and JESUS SALLAN
Y PAZ, defendants and appellants.
Criminal law; Conspiracy; Liability of co-conspirators; All

those who conspire to commit crime responsible for consequences of
criminal act.—All of those who conspired to commit the crime of
robbery, knowing that members of the group were armed for the
purpose of attaining their unlawful objective, should be
responsible for the consequences of the criminal act, in this case
the death of the victim. As conspirators they cannot afterwards
claim that they planned to rob only and not to kill and that if
someone in the group killed in the course of the robbery he alone
should be responsible. Any person with ordinary foresight can
forsee that committing robbery with the use of force upon person
always entails the danger of injuring or killing the victim,
especially if the conspirators plan to commit, and did commit,
their dastardly act while armed and in a group.
Same; Same; Same; All those who conspire to commit crime
liable as principals for consequences of criminal act.—The
agreement to commit the crime took place and not one of the
accused did anything to prevent it from being carried out. Hence,
all those who conspired must be held liable as principals for the
consequence of the offense committed.
Same; Aggravating circumstances; Recidivism; Case at bar.—
The two accused are recidivists because at the time they were
convicted in this case they had been previously convicted by final
judgment of another offense embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d0cc91a8c6af7cfe3003600fb002c009e/p/AQS443/?username=Guest 1/19
489
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 489
Same; Same; Nighttime; Case at bar.—The crime charged was

committed at night time which facilitated the commission of the
robbery, the same having taken place at around 10:00 o’clock in
the evening of May 24, 1969.
Evidence; Admissions; Extrajudicial confession deemed given
voluntarily where said confession includes facts which could be
known by accused only.—There is an amazing consistency and
accuracy in the narration of events and of facts which according to
the trial court “could have not been known to the police
investigators if the same were not voluntarily given by the said
accused.”
Same; Same; Lack of evidence on the part of investigators for
resorting to unlawful means in obtaining admissions; Case at bar.
—There is not a single indication nor evidence of motive on the
part of the police investigators that could have induced them to
resort to unlawful means in the method of determining true facts,
thereby deviating from normal procedure in investigation and
thus perverting the quest for truth and justice. The candid
admission of the accused, who at the time he testified could not
have forseen that he would be acquitted, that he voluntarily
signed the statement and that he was not maltreated, it being
clear that this accused was investigated together with the others
on the same night and in the same place, in the presence of other
people, is the most convincing argument that those statements
were really signed voluntarily by the accused.
Same; Same; Interlocking confessions; Admissibility of.—the
statements are consistent in many material details and they are
admissible against the accused on the doctrine of interlocking
confessions as corroborative evidence.
Same; Presumptions; Regularity of performance of official
duty and obedience to law.—It is also observed that the disputable
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and
that the law has been obeyed heavily favor the presumed
regularity in the execution of the sworn statements signed as they
are by the Assistant Fiscal of Pasay City, and each one of them
accompanied by the Pasay City Police Department Booking Sheet

and Arrest Report duly accomplished.
PER CURIAM:
The deceased, Domingo Viernes, while driving a taxi-cab

“in order to earn extra money for the matriculation of his
children”, a dutiful father whose “devotion to his family is a
pearl beyond
490

price, a rare virtue that shone with special luster”, was

stabbed to death on the night of May 24, 1969, in a robbery
hold-up at Donada Street, Pasay City, for the measly sum
of P30.00.
Sergeant Severo Tizo and patrolmen Agustin and
Villacorta of the Pasay City Police Department, responding
to a call reporting the robbery hold-up that night,
proceeded to the place of the incident at Donada Street,
Pasay City, in front of the North Philippine Union Mission
of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and there saw the
victim lying flat on his back “with blood oozing from the
mouth and left lower arm-pit which was caused by a stab
wound of about four inches in length”, and that there was a
“Belmas” taxicab painted yellow with left front door widely
opened, parked at the center of the street with a fare of
P6.80 registered on its meter.
A security guard of the Seventh Day Adventist Church
by the name of Eduardo de Vera was able to shed some
light on the incident when he narrated in his sworn
statement (Exhibit “C”) that while on duty as security
guard on the night of May 24, 1969, at about 11:45 P.M. in
the vicinity of the North Philippine Union Mission of the
Seventh Day Adventist at 2059 Donada Street, Pasay City,
he heard sounds of people arguing on the street, so he
approached the gate and shouted inquiring what the
trouble was; that suddenly three persons emerged from a
taxicab and they ran towards Buendia street; then the
driver of the taxicab emerged and told de Vera that he was
wounded and requested to be brought to the hospital but de
Vera was at that moment looking at the three persons who

ran away; that when de Vera saw the victim wounded at
his left side, he fired a shot to stop the fleeing three persons
but they simply increased their speed; that after several
minutes a policeman came and called up the headquarters;
that the Metrocom came and also the doctor summoned by
de Vera.
According to the autopsy report (Exhibit “D”) of Dr.
Ricardo G. Ibarrola, Jr., Medico-Legal Officer of the
National Bureau of Investigation, the cause of death of the
victim was the stab wound at the left side of the chest.
The accused Victorino Sumayo (alias Batman), Jesus
Sallan (alias Boboy), Antonio Juaningo (alias Totoy), and
Hubert Villaruz (alias Bert) were apprehended “thru
reliable information of a civic-minded lady who invited Sgt.
Severo Tizo to her house and informed him that her
brother overheard the gang of a certain Batman in a
drinking spree, talking about the
491
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 491

robbery hold-up of a taxi driver committed by them on May

24, 1969, somewhere at Donada Street, Pasay City”. The
Pasay City Police Department had knowledge by dossier or
tip that the Batman gang included Jose Sallan, alias
Boboy; Genaro Flores, Jr., alias Rock Boy; Antonio
Juaningo, alias Totoy; Victorino Sumayo, alias Batman;
Hubert Villaruz, alias Bert; and two others known as Tony
and Boy. Policemen went to the hideout of the Batman
gang at Callejon San Juan in front of 189 Donada Street
(house of Mrs. Isabel Gallardo) but none of the gang-
members was there at the time. In the afternoon of May 28,
1969, at about 4:00 P.M., Major Juanito Gusayco, Sr., the
Acting Chief of the Secret Service Division of the Pasay
City Police Department, informed the policemen that the
accused Jesus Sallan, Victorino Sumayo, Antonio Juaningo
and Hubert Villaruz were apprehended and ready for
investigation.
Based on an information charging the four accused,
together with Genaro Flores, Jr. (not apprehended), John
Doe, alias Tony, and Peter Doe, alias Boy Tramo (accurate
identity unknown), with the crime of “Robbery Hold-Up
with Homicide”, filed by Special Counsel Manuel G. Garcia
with the conformity of Pasay City Fiscal Gregorio G.
Pineda, the four accused, Sallan, Sumayo, Juaningo and
Villaruz, were arraigned and they pleaded not guilty on
May 31, 1969.
After a speedy trial that ended with the case being
submitted for decision on June 9, 1969, the Hon. Onofre A.
Villaluz of the Circuit Criminal Court (Branch VII) of
Pasig, Rizal, found the accused Victorino Sumayo, alias
“Batman” and Jesus Sallan, alias “Boboy” guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the commission of the crime of robbery
(hold-up) with homicide, under Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code, as charged in the information, and sentenced
each one of them to suffer the penalty of death; to
indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the amount of
P12,030.00, jointly and severally, and to pay their
proportionate share of the costs. With respect to the
accused, Antonio Juaningo, the Court found him guilty,
beyond reasonable doubt, of the same offense as charged in
the information and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the offended
party in the amount of P12,030.00, jointly and severally
with the accused, Victorino Sumayo and Jesus Sallan, and
to pay the costs. As far as the accused, Hubert Villaruz is
concerned, based on the evidence on record, the Court
entertained doubt as to his guilt for
492

insufficiency of evidence and acquitted him of the crime of

robbery (hold-up) with homicide as charged in the
information. Said accused was ordered released from
detention immediately unless detained for some other legal
cause.
Accused Antonio Juaningo was given a penalty of
reclusion perpetua based on the trial court’s finding that he
was only seventeen years of age at the time he committed
the offense. Under paragraph 2, Article 68 of the Revised
Penal Code, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by

law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period, upon
a person of over fifteen and under eighteen years of age.
The penalty prescribed by law (Art. 294 of the Revised
Penal Code) for the crime charged is reclusion perpetua to
death.
This case is now before Us for review because of the
death sentence imposed on accused Sumayo and Sallan,
and because of the appeal of accused Juaningo.
A close scrutiny of the trial court’s judgment of
conviction readily shows that the court based its
approximation of moral certainty on the guilt of the
accused on the assumption that the sworn statements
(Exhibits “A”, “B”, “F”, and “G”) by the accused Sallan,
Sumayo, Juaningo, and Villaruz, respectively, were
voluntarily given and not extracted by force or
intimidation, as claimed by the accused Sallan, Sumayo
and Juaningo. The trial court was convinced of the
credibility of the narration freely given in their
extrajudicial confession when it stated that said statements
reveal “so many details in the commission of the crime,
details that could have not been known to the police
investigators if the same were not voluntarily given by the
said accused.” The defense of denial and alibi interposed by
the accused Sumayo, Sallan and Juaningo, were considered
significantly deficient to overwhelm the convincingly
credible evidence of the prosecution proving their
participation in the commission of the crime.
Under these circumstances it becomes imperative for Us to

determine in the light of the evidence on record the crucial
issue of whether or not the extrajudicial confessions of the
accused (Exhibits “A”, “B”, “F” and “G”) were given
voluntarily or extracted from them by force or intimidation,
as they claim in their defense. These extrajudicial
confessions were supposed to have been given before Sgt.
Severo Tizo of the Pasay City Police
493
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 493
Force (statements of Sallan and Sumayo, pp. 10-14 t.s.n.

hearing of June 4, 1969), Patrolman Claro R. Agustin of the
Pasay City Police Force (statement of Juaningo, p. 19 t.s.n.
hearing of June 5, 1969), and Detective Conrado Rogaccion
of the Pasay City Police Force (statement of Villaruz, p. 30
t.s.n. hearing of June 5, 1969) on the night of May 28, 1969,
and the same statements were supposedly sworn to before
Assistant Fiscal Manuel Garcia of Pasay City on the
morning of May 29, 1969. Sergeant Tizo, Patrolman
Agustin and Detective Rogaccion testified that the answers
to the questions in the extra-judicial confessions were given
voluntarily, and that the investigation took place on the
night of May 28, 1969, after the accused were apprehended
and all of them were then at the Police Headquarters of
Pasay City. The accused were investigated in one place
where there were many persons present because of other
cases (pp. 24 to 25 t.s.n. hearing of June 5, 1969).
When the accused, Victorino Sumayo, testified he
claimed that he was forced to sign the extrajudical
confession, Exhibit “B”, and he was whipped with rattan
but he could not point to any definite person who allegedly
maltreated him. The court could not find any signs of
maltreatment nor scars when he was examined by the
Judge during his testimony on June 6, 1969 when he was
supposed to have been physically maltreated on May 28,
1969 or just a few days before he appeared before the court
(pp. 7 and 8, t.s.n. hearing of June 6, 1969). No cases
against the policemen who allegedly maltreated him were
even filed (p. 6 t.s.n. hearing of June 6, 1969). He admitted
that he signed Exhibit “B” and even if he alleged that he
was forced to sign he could not point to anybody who forced
him to do so (p. 11 t.s.n. hearing of June 6, 1969). He even
admitted that he answered voluntarily some of the
questions asked him during the investigation (p. 10 t.s.n.
hearing of June 6, 1969).
Accused Jesus Sallan also claimed that he was hit at the
stomach to compel him to confess but he could not identify
the person who hit him (p. 8 t.s.n. hearing of June 7, 1969).
He admitted that he signed Exhibit “A” but claimed “they
covered this paper and they just let me sign it”. (p. 12 t.s.n.
hearing of June 7, 1969).
Likewise, accused Antonio Juaningo claimed that he

was compelled to admit his participation in the crime
because “they hit me”, but could not identify the person or
persons who hit
494

him (p. 12 t.s.n. hearing of June 9, 1969). He admitted

having signed Exhibit “F”, but claimed “it was covered and
they forced me to sign it.” (p. 13 t.s.n. hearing of June 9,
1969). He could not point to any definite person who
allegedly forced him to sign (p. 13 t.s.n. hearing of June 9,
1969).
On the other hand, accused Hubert Villaruz, while
admitting that he together with accused Jesus Sallan,
Victorino Sumayo, and Antonio Juaningo were arrested
and investigated on May 28, 1969, stated that he
voluntarily signed Exhibit “G” and was never maltreated
(pp. 28-29 t.s.n. hearing of June 9, 1969).
The mother of accused Juaningo, Consuelo Juaningo,
testified that she and her daughter visited her son Antonio
in Jail after he was arrested and that she saw contusions
at the back of her son and “cracked lips” and she was told
by her son that he was whipped (pp. 24 to 25 t.s.n. hearing
of June 9, 1969). This witness, however, admitted on cross
examination that she once complained to Sergeant Tizo
against her son Antonio for quarelling with her and her
daughter while he was drunk (p. 26 t.s.n. hearing of June
9, 1969).
To bolster the contention that accused Sumayo, Sallan
and Juaningo were maltreated to force them to admit
participation in the crime, the defense presented as witness
Dr. Aurora Padilla Cruz who was ordered by the trial court
on June 2, 1969, to conduct a physical examination of
accused Sumayo, Sallan and Juaningo. She testified that
she examined the three of them and made a report (page 15
of Record, C.C.C-VII-161 Pasay City) on June 2, 1969,
wherein she found on Victorino Sumayo, a contusion on
lateral portion of the scapula, left, a contusion of the left
arm and a contusion of the elbow, left arm. No physical
injury was found on Jesus Sallan and on Antonio Juaningo.

On the contusions found on Sumayo, Dr. Padilla Cruz
testified that the same could have been caused by a blow
and these contusions were inflicted a day before she
examined Sumayo on June 2, 1969 (p. 4 t.s.n. hearing of
June 9, 1969). If the accused alleged that the maltreatment
took place on May 28, 1969, then it is very manifest that
the contusion found by Dr. Cruz on Sumayo as of June 2,
1969, supposed to have been inflicted a day before, or June
1, 1969, could not have resulted from the alleged
maltreatment but from some other cause.
It is also observed that the disputable presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed and that the law
has been obeyed (Sec. 5, (m) (ff), Rule 131, Rules of Court)
495
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 495

heavily favor the presumed regularity in the execution of

the sworn statements Exhibits “A”, “B” and “F”, signed as
they are by the Assistant Fiscal Manuel Garcia of Pasay
City, and each one of them accompanied by the Pasay City
Police Department Booking Sheet and Arrest Report duly
accomplished (Exhibits “A-1”, “B-3”, and “F-1”).
Not one of the accused complained to Assistant Fiscal
Manuel Garcia at the time he signed those sworn
statements that they were extracted by force or
intimidation from those subscribing to them. There is not a
single indication nor evidence of motive on the part of the
police investigators that could have induced them to resort
to unlawful means in the method of determining true facts,
thereby deviating from normal procedure in investigation
and thus perverting the quest for truth and justice. The
candid admission of the accused, Villaruz, who at the time
he testified could not have forseen that he would be
acquitted, that he voluntarily signed the statement Exhibit
“G” and he was not maltreated, it being clear that this
accused was investigated together with accused Sumayo,
Sallan and Juaningo on the same night and in the same
place, in the presence of other people, is the most
convincing argument that those statements (Exhibits “A”,

“B” and “F1) were really signed voluntarily by the accused.
We went to great lengths on a thorough scrutiny of
available evidence to determine if accused Sumayo, Sallan
and Juaningo were maltreated to make them sign the
extrajudicial confessions Exhibits “A”, “B” and “F”, and
there is nothing sufficiently convincing for Us to alter the
trial court’s conclusion that the overwhelming evidence
indicate volun-tariness in the execution of the said sworn
statements.
II
Proceeding now from the premise that Exhibits “A”, “B”

and “F” were voluntarily given, as was also the case with
Exhibit “G”, We can reconstruct with some degree of
accurate approximation what really happened on the night
of May 24, 1969, when the victim was ruthlessly killed and
robbed of the paltry sum of P30.00.
One fact that is definitely sure is that on the night of
May 24, 1969, at about 10:00 o’clock, the accused Victorino
Sumayo, Genaro Flores, Jr. (not apprehended), Jesus
Sallan, Antonio Juaningo, Hubert Villaruz (acquitted) were
together, drinking beer and later hard liquor (Tanduay
rum) within the vicinity of
496

a barbeque stand at Dapitan Street; then at Suerte Street,

San Juan Street, Donada Street (where the crime was
committed) and Buendia Street, all situated in close
proximity to each other in Pasay City (Exhibits “A”, “B”,
“F” and “G”; testimonies of accused Sumayo, hearing of
June 6, 1969; accused Sallan, hearing of June 7, 1969; and
accused Juaningo, hearing of June 9, 1969).
The versions of the crime as contained in Exhibits “A”,
“B” and “F” are as follows:
(1) Exhibit “A”—Accused Sallan stated that after

drinking at Suerte Street, accused Sumayo (alias
Batman) suggested that they (the group) commit a

“hold-up”; that Sumayo instructed him (Sallan) to
call a taxi at the corner of San Juan and Leveriza
Streets, Pasay City; that Sumayo (Batman), Flores
Jr. (Rock-boy) (at large), Tony and Boy (John and
Peter Doe) rode in the taxi; that accused Villaruz
(Bert) (acquitted), accused Juaningo (Totoy), and
Sallan were given instruction to walk to Donada
Street and wait for the taxicab they boarded so they
could meet at Donada Street; that at about 11:40
p.m. the taxicab boarded by Batman and his three
companions arrived at Donada Street; that Sallan
saw the taxicab stop near a church and he saw
Batman (Sumayo) stab the driver who fought back;
that Sallan and Juaningo (Totoy) ran towards San
Juan Street; that the five in the group arrived at
San Juan Street near Leveriza Street at the
designated place about 4:00 a.m. of May 25, 1969,
where Batman (Sumayo) gave Sallan eleven pesos,
five pesos of which the latter kept and six pesos
given to Totoy (Juaningo).
(2) Exhibit “B”—Accused Sumayo stated that he was
with the group but he was not the one who killed
since it was accused Genaro Flores, Jr. (Rock-boy)
(at large) who killed the taxi driver; Sumayo
identified the homemade kitchen knife used by
Rock-boy (Flores) but said Totoy (Juaningo) owned
the knife which was entrusted to Sumayo by
Juaningo; that he did not know Boy and Tony (John
and Peter Doe); that the color of the taxicab they
held-up was yellow; that he identified the victim
when he was shown a photograph; that he saw
Rock-boy (Flores Jr.) when the latter stabbed the
victim; that Tony got the money from the victim;
that they afterwards fled to San Juan Street; and
that the group subsequently met at Suerte Street
where Sumayo was given five pesos by Tony.
(3) Exhibit “F”—Accused Juaningo stated that the
“hold-up” took place on Donada Street, near San
Juan Street; that accused Sallan was the one who
called the taxi that was held up; after drinking, Boy
and Tony (John and Peter Doe) came while they
were at the end of Suerte Street, where Sallan
(Boboy), Flores (Rock-boy), and Sumayo (Batman)
talked; Sallan called a taxi and Sumayo (Batman),

Flores (Rock-boy), Boy and Tony (John and Peter
Doe) boarded the
497
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 497

taxi; that after the taxi left, accused Sallan (Boboy)

told Juaningo that Batman and his companions will
commit a “hold-up” of the driver in the taxi they
rode in and for Sallan and him (Juaningo) to walk
towards Donada to help in the robbery; they went to
Donada Street in front of the church and after ten
minutes the taxi with Batman and his companions
arrived; that Juaningo heard the driver groaning;
that after Batman, Rock-boy, Tony and Boy
alighted from the taxi, accused Sallan and Juaningo
ran towards San Juan Street; that at about 4:00
a.m. of that morning they saw each other at San
Juan Street, near Leveriza where Batman gave
Juaningo six pesos; that on said occasion Rock-boy
(Flores) showed the knife with blood telling the
group that the driver resisted and that was the
reason why Flores stabbed him; that Batman also
told the group that he also stabbed the driver but
there was no blood and he did not know if he was
able to hit the driver; that when shown the kitchen
knife, he said it was not the knife shown to the
group by Rock-boy (Flores) but the knife belonged to
Batman; and that after the stabbing of the victim,
Batman, Tony, Boy, and Rock-boy ran towards
Buendia.
The version of accused Hubert Villaruz (acquitted)

contained in Exhibit “G” was that on May 29, 1969 he was
with accused Juaningo, Sallan, Sumayo and Flores at
Suerte Street, near Leveriza Street, Pasay City but before
eleven o’clock the group left and he separated from them.
Aside from the statement contained in Exhibit “A” made by
accused Sallan that accused Villaruz was also given
instruction by Batman to walk towards Donada Street,
together with accused Sallan and Juaningo to aid in the

robbery, a lone version not corroborated by the statements
of Sumayo and Juaningo, there is no evidence indicating
accused Villaruz’s participation in the crime and the trial
court correctly exonerated him.
III
When the accused Victorino Sumayo, Jesus Sallan, and

Antonio Juaningo testified for the defense, all of them
admitted that on the night of May 24, 1969 they (Antonio
Juaningo, Hubert Villaruz, Jesus Sallan, Genaro Flores,
Victorino Sumayo) were together at Suerte Street, Pasay
City, drinking beer and hard liquor (Tanduay rum). As
alibi, they narrated that after drinking and telling stories
they slept and denied that they participated in the crime.
Examining the statements (Exhibits “A”, “B” and “F”)
given voluntarily by the accused Sumayo, Sallan and
Juaningo about four days after the commission of the crime
We find an amazing consistency and accuracy in the
narration of events and of facts
498

which according to the trial court “could have not been

known to the police investigators if the same were not
voluntarily given by the said accused.” The narrations
contained in the extrajudicial confessions leave Us no room
for doubt that when the group on the night of the incident
was already under the influence of liquor, accused Sumayo
(Batman) proposed that they commit “hold-up”; that all
agreed and accused Sallan was the one instructed to call a
taxi; that they were armed, the accused Juaningo even
claiming in his sworn statement that the kitchen knife
(Exhibit “B-1”) shown him during the investigation was not
the same knife shown to the group by Rock-boy (Flores)
after the stabbing, but said knife belonged to accused
Sumayo (Batman). The question of ownership of the death
weapon (whether owned by Juaningo as claimed by
Sumayo or by Sumayo as claimed by Juaningo) becomes
immaterial and irrelevant because what appears

significant is that at the time the accused agreed to commit
robbery they were armed, showing that they intended to
inflict harm on the victim if thwarted in their design to rob.
Accused Juaningo could not claim that there was no
concerted plan to rob because the evidence clearly shows,
even by his own statement, that they as a group agreed to
commit the hold-up and he (Juaningo) knew at the time
that the group was armed, accused Sumayo even pointing
to Juaningo as the owner of the death knife (Exhibit “B-1”).
This weapon was recovered from the house of Mrs. Isabel
Gallardo (Aling Abeng), known hideout of the Batman
gang, and even accused Sumayo admitted that said weapon
was recovered from that place (p. 32 t.s.n. hearing of June
4, 1969; p. 14 t.s.n. hearing of June 6, 1969). All of those
who conspired to commit the crime of robbery, knowing
that members of the group were armed for the purpose of
attaining their unlawful objective, should be responsible for
the consequences of the criminal act, in this case the death
of the victim. As conspirators they cannot afterwards claim
that they planned to rob only and not to kill and that if
someone in the group killed in the course of the robbery he
alone should be responsible. Any person with ordinary
foresight can forsee that committing robbery with the use
of force upon person always entails the danger of injuring
or killing the victim, especially if the conspirators plan to
commit, and did commit, their dastardly act while armed
and in a group.
There is no doubt in Our mind that the agreement to
commit
499
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 499

the crime took place and not one of the accused did
anything to prevent it from being carried out. Hence all
those who conspired must be held liable as principals for
the consequence of the offense committed. It is very
difficult to believe accused Juaningo’s statement that he
was told of the plan to rob the taxicab by accused Sallan
only after the group (Sumayo and his companions) had
boarded the taxicab, because he admitted he was with the

group on that night since they started drinking and he
(Juaningo) even stated that in the “hold-up” it was the
accused Sallan who called the taxicab. The statements in
Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “F” are consistent in many material
details, persistently so if We may say, and they are
admissible against the accused on the doctrine of
interlocking confessions as corroborative evidence [People
vs. Condemena, G.R. L-22426, May 29, 1968; People vs.
Prudente, 45 O.G. No. 12, 5587 (1949)].
What strikes Us as the most deplorable aspect of this
crime, and which characterizes it as one of the utmost
depravity and wanton deviltry, is that the robbery that
caused the death of the victim and for the paltry sum of
thirty pesos was perpetrated by human beings who were
not in dire need of food or other necessities of life but who
could afford to go on a drinking spree and run afoul of the
law as if they were having some fun or a form of relaxation
to while away their idle time. The lower court did not err in
stating:
“The accused though in their prime youth, have already shown

criminal perversity of the highest order. It is clear that it was not
necessary for them to kill the deceased, in order that they may
take away his earnings. Yet they went beyond killing the poor
earner, confirming their complete disregard of the value of human
life, for mercy or pity is a total stranger to them. By their own
misdeeds, they must be denied free association with society, for
what is needed is their complete isolation as a means of self-
preservation, before they envelop us in a disaster beyond our
capabilities to overcome.”
In the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide

herein charged, the same was attended by two aggravating
circumstances as against the accused, Victorino Sumayo
and Jesus Sallan. Victorino Sumayo was charged with
robbery (snatching) on December 31, 1967, and served a
sentence of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor
in Criminal Case No. 7700-P, Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch VII, Pasay City. Jesus Sallan was charged
with robbery (hold-up) on August 12, 1967, and served a
sentence of six (6) months of
500

arresto mayor by order of Judge Pedro J. Bautista, Branch

III, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City. The two
accused abovenamed are, therefore, recidivists because at
the time they were convicted in this case they had been
previously convicted by final judgment of another offense
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Art.
14, par. 9, Revised Penal Code. See Exh. “E”, pages 122-
123, original record of c.c.c-VII-161-Pasay City).
The crime herein charged was committed at night time
which facilitated the commission of the robbery, the same
having taken place at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of
May 24, 1969.
The imposition of the extreme penalty of death under
the circumstances of this case is, therefore, fully justified,
there being no mitigating circumstance to offset the
aggravating circumstances.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on the
accused Antonio Juaningo is not in accordance with law.
Because of the fact that he was only 17 years at the time he
committed the crime, under paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code the proper imposable penalty must be
one degree lower than that prescribed by law in its proper
period. The penalty prescribed by law (Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code) for the crime committed is reclusion
perpetua to death (two indivisible penalties). The penalty
next lower in degree is reclusion temporal, or 12 years and
1 day to 20 years (Art. 61, par. 2, Revised Penal Code).
Reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty that has three
periods (12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months as
minimum; 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4
months as medium; 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
years as maximum). The crime having been committed
without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
insofar as Antonio Juaningo is concerned, the penalty in its
medium period must be imposed. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (People vs. Sanidad, et als.,
G.R. No. L-32495, August 13, 1975) the proper
indeterminate penalty for Antonio Juaningo is a minimum
of not less than ten (10) years of prision mayor and a
maximum of not more than 17 years and 4 months of

reclusion temporal
WHEREFORE, modified as above indicated as regards
the penalty for the accused, Antonio Juaningo, the decision
of the trial court imposing the death penalty and other
penalties on
501
VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 501

Victorino Sumayo y Bersebal and Jesus Sallan y Paz is

affirmed.
Costs against all accused.
SO ORDERED.
Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,

Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion
Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur.
Antonio, J., took no part.
Decision affirmed with modification.
Notes.—a) Proof of existence of conspiracy.—Article 8 of

the Revised Penal Code provides that conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. The agreement of which the law speaks is not limited to
one which is written or otherwise expressly or directly
made prior to the commission of the crime. It is not
necessary that the malefactors, for an appreciable time
prior to the commission of the crime, had actually come
together and agreed in express terms to pursue a common
design. For conspiracy to exist, it is enough that the
participants had the same purpose and were united in its
execution, as may be inferred from the attendant
circumstances. To establish conspiracy, it is not necessary
to prove previous agreement to commit a crime if there be
proof that the malefactors have acted in concert and in
pursuance of the objectives. Conspiracy may be inferred
from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to
a joint purpose and design. Their action must be judged not
by what they say, for what men do is the best index of their
intention. (People vs. Largo, L-28106, August 18, 1972).
b) Validity of voluntary confession.—The Constitution in
its Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees: “No person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.” There is thus a
safeguard against the compulsory disclosure of
incriminating facts. It does not bar, as Justice Tuason
pointed out, the conviction of an accused “on a voluntary
extrajudicial statement.” Certainly, however, where the
confession is involuntary, being due to maltreatment or
induced by fear or intimidation, there is a violation of this
constitutional provision. Any form of coercion whether
physical, mental, or
502

People vs. Mojica
emotional thus stamps it with inadmissibility. What is

essential for its validity is that it proceeds from the free
will of the person confessing. (People vs. Bagasala, L-
26182, May 31, 1971).
c) Reputation of a confession.—A confession, to be
repudiated, must not only be proved to have been obtained
by force or violence or intimidation, but also that it is false
or untrue, for the law rejects the confession when by force
or violence, the accused is compelled against his will to tell
a falsehood, not when by such force and violence is
compelled to tell the truth. This is in consonance with the
principle that the admissibility of evidence is not affected
by the illegality of the means with which it was secured.
(People vs. De los Santos, L-4880, May 18, 1953).
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 070

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L-30713. April 30, 1976.*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and

Criminal law; Conspiracy; Liability of co-conspirators; All

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 489

People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal

Same; Same; Nighttime; Case at bar.—The crime charged was

accompanied by the Pasay City Police Department Booking Sheet

The deceased, Domingo Viernes, while driving a taxi-cab

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

price, a rare virtue that shone with special luster”, was

Vera was at that moment looking at the three persons who

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 491

robbery hold-up of a taxi driver committed by them on May

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

insufficiency of evidence and acquitted him of the crime of

Penal Code, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by

Under these circumstances it becomes imperative for Us to

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 493

People vs. Sumayo y Bersebal

Force (statements of Sallan and Sumayo, pp. 10-14 t.s.n.

Likewise, accused Antonio Juaningo claimed that he

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

him (p. 12 t.s.n. hearing of June 9, 1969). He admitted

injury was found on Jesus Sallan and on Antonio Juaningo.

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 495

heavily favor the presumed regularity in the execution of

convincing argument that those statements (Exhibits “A”,

Proceeding now from the premise that Exhibits “A”, “B”

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a barbeque stand at Dapitan Street; then at Suerte Street,

(1) Exhibit “A”—Accused Sallan stated that after

Batman) suggested that they (the group) commit a

talked; Sallan called a taxi and Sumayo (Batman),

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 497

taxi; that after the taxi left, accused Sallan (Boboy)

The version of accused Hubert Villaruz (acquitted)

together with accused Sallan and Juaningo to aid in the

When the accused Victorino Sumayo, Jesus Sallan, and

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

which according to the trial court “could have not been

immaterial and irrelevant because what appears

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 499

boarded the taxicab, because he admitted he was with the

“The accused though in their prime youth, have already shown

In the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

arresto mayor by order of Judge Pedro J. Bautista, Branch

maximum of not more than 17 years and 4 months of

VOL. 70, APRIL 30, 1976 501

Victorino Sumayo y Bersebal and Jesus Sallan y Paz is

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,

Decision affirmed with modification.

Notes.—a) Proof of existence of conspiracy.—Article 8 of

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

emotional thus stamps it with inadmissibility. What is

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like