G.R. No. L-6246 - People vs. Ripas

The accused – Felix Ripas, Danugan Basilio, Ramon Orbista, Carmo Agudes, Sanguban Esto, and Dupigan Esto – were charged with robbery with homicide for robbing the house of Eduardo Apio and subsequently murdering him.
An amended information dated August 6, 1952 filed the charges before the Court of First Instance of Capiz.
Before the trial, Danugan Basilio escaped custody; the trial proceeded with the remaining five defendants.
The five defendants were convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances of cruelty, sentenced to death, ordered to indemnify the deceased’s heirs with P5,000, and to pay the costs.

After the promulgation of the decision on October 17, 1952, the defendants were confined in the municipal jail of Calibo, Capiz.
A mass jailbreak occurred on October 19, 1952, during which all five defendants escaped along with other prisoners.
Ramon Orbista was recaptured shortly thereafter; his co-accused remained at large, and one, Sanguban Esto, was later found dead.
Their escape was treated as a waiver of the right to appeal under Rule 120, section 18 of the Rules of Court, although the case against Orbista was reviewed due to the imposition of the death penalty.

In or before May 1951, members of the Hukbalahap Organization (Huks), led by Felix Ripas, infiltrated barrios in Libacao, Capiz.
Eduardo Apio was initially captured and released upon his promise to pay P100, a promise he failed to deliver—whether from disbelief, inability, or fear of reprisals.
The dissident group embarked on a foraging expedition on May 24, 1951, aiming to confiscate supplies and contributions from local residents.

The group, composed of known Huks and sympathizers (including Danugan Basilio, Ramon Orbista, Carmo Agudes, Sanguban Esto, and Dupigan Esto), tied up a local farmer, Enrico Cocoy, and looted his property.
After interrogating Cocoy, they were guided to Apio’s residence where Apio was taken, searched for weapons, and his hands were tied.
Despite pleas from Apio’s wife, Crisanta—who even offered herself in exchange for her husband’s life—the kidnappers, led by her uncle Felix Ripas, brutally murdered Apio.
The execution involved multiple acts of cruelty:

Felix Ripas initiated the killing by slashing Apio’s stomach.
Subsequent bolo blows were inflicted by his accomplices.
Sanguban Esto cut Apio’s tongue, while Ramon Orbista and Danugan Basilio dismembered other parts of the victim’s face.
Finally, the perpetrators pounded his head with stones, crushing his skull.

Testimonies of Crisanta (Apio’s wife) and Cocoy (the local guide) corroborated the events, including the acts of cruelty and the precise manner of execution.
The trial court highlighted the credibility of the witnesses, noting their composure and apparent veracity during testimony.
Defense arguments regarding inconsistencies (e.g., claims of an alternative leader “Commander Inday”) were dismissed, as the witnesses only identified the accused present at the scene.

The defense posited that the group was led not by Felix Ripas but by a “Commander Inday,” who allegedly ordered the kidnapping and execution.
It was further argued that defendant Ramon Orbista and some co-accused did not witness the murder because they were sent ahead as scouts.
Additional mitigating circumstances raised included the alleged delay in filing the complaint due to prevailing law and order issues and the notion of “lack of instruction” (linked to Orbista’s thumb marking the promulgation document).
The trial court, however, found the testimony and evidence against Orbista sufficient to uphold his conviction.

Mitigating circumstances considered included voluntary surrender; despite the escape after sentencing, Orbista had been recaptured.
The defense’s claim of “lack of instruction” was rejected due to the lack of evidence proving deficient intelligence rather than mere illiteracy.
The court acknowledged premeditation was not clearly established, noting the killing appeared to be a spur-of-the-moment decision triggered by Apio’s failure to pay.
In line with the recommendations of the Solicitor General, the original death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

The decision reflects on contemporary issues of mass jailbreaks and the systemic challenges of adequately securing prisoners accused or convicted of serious crimes.
The case underscores the judiciary’s responsibility for the custody of accused persons pending finality of their cases.
It calls for stricter security measures, potential involvement of the Philippine Constabulary, and disciplinary actions against negligent jail personnel to prevent similar escapes in the future.

Whether the evidence, particularly the credible testimonies of Crisanta and Cocoy, established the defendants’ guilt in the execution of Eduardo Apio beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the claim that “Commander Inday,” rather than Felix Ripas, led the group and ordered the killing has any merit.
Whether the defense’s contention that some accused did not witness the killing due to their role as scouts is sufficiently substantiated.

Whether voluntary surrender, despite the escape following sentencing, should mitigate the assigned penalty.
Whether the alleged mitigating circumstance of “lack of instruction” due to Orbista’s thumb marking the decision should be considered in reducing criminal liability.

Whether the imposition of the death penalty should be substituted with reclusion perpetua in view of the mitigating factors and the nature of the crime committed.

Whether the post-sentence escape, in light of Rule 120, section 18, constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal, and how this impacts the review of Orbista’s case under Rule 118, section 9 of the Rules of Court.