G.R. No. 40331 - People vs. Daos

On June 7, 1933, at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, the body of Felino Dumalo, a chauffeur of notably poor physical constitution, was found inside taxicab No. 771 of the Malate Taxi Cab Co. in an isolated area within San Juan del Monte, Rizal.
Felino Dumalo had recently been employed as a chauffeur by the taxi company and was targeted due to his perceived status as a strike breaker among chauffeurs during a labor strike.

An autopsy conducted on June 8, 1933, by Dr. Pablo Anzures revealed multiple marks of violence on the victim:

Horizontal cord marks and ecchymoses beneath the thyroid cartilage;
Irregular depressions and multiple ecchymoses on areas including the mandible, behind and on the ear, the forehead, cheeks, and nose;
Abrasions on the lateral eyelid, elbow, and knee; hemorrhages in muscle tissues and in the eye’s cornea;
A lacerated wound on the left upper lip, fractured hyoid cartilage, and signs of respiratory distress such as lung congestion, emphysema, and petechial hemorrhages in the heart.

These findings led to the conclusion that the cause of death was asphyxia induced by strangulation or compression of the neck.

The three appellants—Silverio Daos, Dominador Sablada, and Gerardo Bacabizas—were apprehended and made confessions:

Dominador Sablada was the first to reveal how the crime was committed during his arrest on June 23, 1933.
Bacabizas gave similar confessions shortly after his arrest in the Radio Theater and later at the Intelligence Division of the Constabulary.
Silverio Daos, though initially pleading not guilty, eventually admitted his participation when informed of his co-appellants’ confessions.

Their confessions, documented in Exhibits H, I, and J, were ratified by them on June 24, 1933, under the supervision of Lieutenant-Colonel Quimbo and other officials.

The appellants conspired to commit a robbery with homicide against Felino Dumalo, planning the heist by pretending to be bona fide riders in the taxi to avoid arousing the victim’s suspicions.
They selected the first taxi (taxicab No. 771) encountered on the day of the crime and drove it first to Taft Avenue, Manila, then to Santa Mesa, San Juan del Monte, and Mariquina before returning to San Juan del Monte.
While in transit, they intermittently feigned looking for someone to justify their presence and to avert suspicion from their intended victim.

Multiple testimonies from law enforcement agents and independent witnesses corroborated the confessions:

Witnesses such as Jose Ma. Barredo, Pio Borja, Vicente Call, and others provided consistent accounts regarding the movements of the taxi, the behavior of the appellants, and the physical evidence linking them to the crime.
Testimonies described how the victim was struck on the back of the head and then strangled with a handkerchief, with detailed accounts of the abrupt change in the number of passengers in the taxi.

Physical evidence such as the discovery of personal effects (coats belonging to Daos and Sablada) further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The appellants were demonstrably motivated by a need for money since they had been jobless following the declaration of a strike on May 25, 1933.
In addition to financial desperation, the crime was meant as a warning to strike breakers, thereby linking their actions directly to the labor disputes of the time.

They were wrongfully convicted of robbery with homicide when their acts should constitute simple murder.
The imposition of the death penalty was improper and should have been replaced by another penalty.
They had been subjected to powerful impulses (passion and obfuscation) which should qualify as mitigating circumstances.

These claims were met with contrary evidence and testimony demonstrating premeditation, the use of treachery, and the absence of any lawful basis for such mitigating circumstances.

Whether the appellants should be correctly convicted of robbery with homicide instead of simple murder.
The necessity of characterizing the crime based on the premeditated and conspiratorial nature of the act.

Whether imposing the death penalty was proper given the aggravating circumstances such as craft and treachery.
The consideration of whether any mitigating factors, such as passion or obfuscation, should have altered the severity of the sentence.

Whether the appellants' claim of acting under strong impulses (passion and obfuscation) could serve as a valid mitigating circumstance.
Impact of such mitigating circumstances on the overall criminal liability given the presence of premeditation.