Title
People vs. Pajanustan
Case
G.R. No. L-38162
Decision Date
May 17, 1980
A 1970 robbery-homicide case involving the brutal murder of four family members; Vicente Pajanustan convicted based on circumstantial evidence, flight, and prior criminal record, upheld by the Supreme Court.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37750)

Facts:

  • Overview of the Case
    • The case involves a charge of robbery with homicide committed on the evening of December 1, 1970.
    • The victims were the elderly couple Jesusimo Aco (70) and Simeona Subia (63), along with their two grandsons, Rodolfo Lucapa (14) and Jose Ultra (9).
    • The crime occurred in the home of the victims located at Sitio Cabalocawe-an, Barrio Quezon, Las Navas, Northern Samar.
  • Details of the Crime
    • During the incident, the perpetrators committed robbery:
      • They stole coins amounting to ₱250.
      • They took a necklace valued at ₱120.
      • A ring worth ₱150 was taken.
      • Other items included a gold button (₱50), two new pants (₱50), two polo shirts (₱40), and two additional shirts (₱60).
    • The total value of the objects robbed was ₱720.
    • The assailants’ violent actions resulted in multiple stab and incised wounds on all victims:
      • Jesusimo Aco suffered four wounds, including a fatal stab wound to the abdomen that perforated his small intestine and two neck stab wounds severing vital arteries.
      • Simeona Subia sustained twenty-three wounds, several of which compromised her lungs, heart, and carotid artery.
      • Rodolfo Lucapa was found with seventeen wounds affecting vital organs like the lungs, kidney, and small intestines.
      • Jose Ultra received nine stab wounds, some injuring his carotid artery.
  • Position and Statements of the Accused
    • Vicente Pajanustan, a 45-year-old farmer residing at Sitio Pagdadalitan, Barrio San Miguel, Las Navas, was identified as being present at the scene, along with two companions.
    • At the time of the incident, Pajanustan and his two companions were fed and lodged in the victims’ house.
    • During the preliminary investigation, Pajanustan:
      • Pleaded guilty to charges but shifted blame by stating that his companions—identified as Nori Magtolis and Quirico Pajares—committed the murders.
      • Claimed he did not actively participate in the killing and left the premises when the murders commenced.
      • Admitted to having a previous criminal charge for frustrated murder linked to an assault on Remegio Panco in 1969.
    • The fiscal later filed a second amended information on December 8, 1971, now charging Vicente Pajanustan alongside his first cousin, Domingo Pajanustan, with robbery with multiple homicide.
    • At trial:
      • Vicente reiterated his version of events, contending he attempted to dissuade Magtolis from stabbing Jesusimo Aco.
      • The trial court acquitted Domingo Pajanustan but convicted Vicente on the charges of robbery with homicide, aggravated by treachery and abuse of confidence (through the absorption of dwelling).
  • Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimony
    • Prosecution witness Julio Nungay, a farmer residing approximately 150 meters from the crime scene, testified:
      • He encountered Vicente Pajanustan and his two companions near the house while checking on his fishing hooks.
      • Upon noticing a bloodstain on Pajanustan’s shirt, Nungay inquired about its origin.
      • Pajanustan’s confused behavior, evidenced by his inability to correctly indicate the trail to Sitio Bay-ang—despite being familiar with the locale—suggested nervousness and guilt.
    • Additional circumstantial factors included:
      • Pajanustan’s delay in reporting the crime to the authorities.
      • His escape and eight-month period in hiding.
      • His established criminal record, which further cast doubt on his claims of non-involvement.

Issues:

  • Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that:
    • Vicente Pajanustan was an active co-conspirator and co-principal in the commission of the robbery with homicide.
    • The evidence conclusively refuted his claim of non-participation in the murders committed by his companions.
  • Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of confidence were properly attended to in imposing the death penalty.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.