G.R. No. L-3012 - People vs. De la Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3012)

Factual Background

On December 18, 1947, just before midnight, six men arrived at the house of Mariano Macadangdang where Juan Cadiz was staying. One of them called out “apo” and informed the occupants they were looking for a prisoner, thereby implying they were peace officers. Mariano lighted the lamp and unbolted the door. At that moment, a shot was fired under the house—accidental or intended to scare the occupants and hasten the opening of the door. Instead of producing compliance, the shot caused Mariano and Juan Cadiz to push the door closed to counter the intruders’ attempts to force it open.

Mariano went to get his bolo, while Juan guarded the door, armed with a bolo. One intruder, later identified as Osias de la Cruz, partially forced the door open by grasping the door frame. Juan struck Osias’s hand with the bolo and wounded his fingers. Provoked by the injury and by the occupants’ resistance, Osias twice fired a .45 caliber pistol through the door. One bullet hit Juan in the left parietal region, inflicting a mortal wound that felled him to the floor.

After the resistance from within was subdued and the door was pushed open, one intruder with his face partly covered entered, expecting to carry out the planned robbery. Upon seeing Juan Cadiz sprawled on the floor as if dead, he backed out and the group quickly left. Juan was brought to the hospital and died the following afternoon from the gunshot wound.

The next morning, Mariano observed two bullet holes on the door smeared with blood, found two empty shells under the batalan (or bansag) of the house, another empty shell under the stairs, and a pellet inside the house not far from where Juan had fallen.

Arrest, Written Statements, and Preliminary Investigation

Subsequently, Jose Baxa and Carmelo Tumamao were arrested by municipal policemen of Bacarra, while Manuel Marcos was apprehended by military police. While under confinement, the three men made written statements (identified as Exhibits E, G, and H) admitting their participation in the attempted robbery at Mariano’s house on the night of December 18, 1947. The statements described that Osias de la Cruz acted as the mastermind and proposed the robbery, which the other members agreed to support. The statements identified the roles and arms of the participants: Baxa carried a .32 caliber pistol (Exhibit B); Marcos carried a “paltik”; Tumamao had other companions, including Serafin Florentino and Marcelo Cadelinia.

All six persons were charged with murder in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bacarra. The written statements of Baxa, Tumamao, and Marcos were sworn to and signed after the justice of the peace explained the contents to them and provided assurance that the contents were true.

At the preliminary investigation, the three affiants testified, and their testimonies taken down in writing by the justice of the peace in Exhibits F, J, and I substantially corroborated their affidavits.

In the Court of First Instance, upon the fiscal’s instance, Serafin Florentino and Marcelo Cadelinia were excluded from the information to serve as government witnesses; however, only Cadelinia actually testified. Osias de la Cruz remained at large, so the case proceeded only against Baxa, Tumamao, and Marcos.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

After trial, the trial court, in a well-prepared decision by Judge Manuel P. Barcelona, found the accused guilty of attempted robbery with homicide under article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, with aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling. The court imposed reclusion perpetua on each of the three accused, ordered them to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Juan Cadiz in the sum of P6,000, and required payment of costs pro rata, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Pending appeal, the Supreme Court granted Baxa’s motion to withdraw his appeal by resolution dated March 14, 1950, and judgment was entered accordingly. Thus, the Supreme Court appeal was confined to Marcos and Tumamao.

The Parties’ Contentions

Marcos and Tumamao admitted being present at or near the house of Mariano during the night of the attempted robbery and the killing of Juan Cadiz. They claimed, however, that they were either forced into going there or that they did not know that Osias intended to take part in a robbery. They asserted that when they realized Osias’s evil design—armed with a .45 caliber pistol—they attempted to dissuade him but were too late, and they left after hearing the three pistol shots.

They also challenged the prosecution’s use of their sworn written statements. They maintained that their affidavits were obtained through force and intimidation and were not voluntary.

The prosecution relied on their written statements and the corroborating testimony at the preliminary investigation and trial, including testimony by other participants, to establish that the appellants not only took part in the attack but actively participated in the attempted robbery in a manner consistent with conspiracy and shared criminal intent.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court examined the trial court’s treatment of the alleged coercion. It agreed with the trial court that the claim of torture or coercion was not borne out by the record. The Court noted that the accused did not file any criminal or administrative complaint against the alleged torturers. It also observed that the municipal police—not the military police—had apprehended Jose Baxa and Carmelo Tumamao and had taken their affidavits, which they willingly subscribed without coercion or intimidation.

Even assuming arguendo that force was used to obtain the affidavits, the Court held that the defense position was undermined by their subsequent sworn declarations before the justice of the peace and their testimony at the preliminary investigation, which was public and where the Court found it implausible that force could have been employed. The Court further relied on the trial court’s finding that the appellants substantially confirmed the contents of their affidavits in sworn declarations taken at the preliminary stage. The Court also accepted the trial court’s assessment that one appellant’s attempt to deny knowledge of the criminal purpose was contradicted by testimony of a companion, who stated that Osias revealed his purpose “to get the money of Juan Cadiz” to all companions.

The Court also emphasized that, regardless of whether the written statements were attacked as improperly obtained, the appellants’ own participation and the circumstances of the assault showed that they had joined the plan to rob Juan Cadiz. The record showed that they readily accepted Osias’s proposition to commit robbery, particularly to get the money Juan Cadiz had with him. Their active participation was supported by evidence that they went up the house and stood on the batalan/bunsag while Osias tried to force the door open. This participation was disclosed through the affidavits, corroborated by their testimony at preliminary investigation, and reinforced by trial testimony from Marcelo Cadelinia.

On the legal effect of conspiracy, the Court held that once there was agreement and conspiracy to commit robbery—particularly between Osia

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3012)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Osias de la Cruz et al., with Manuel Marcos and Carmelo Tumamao as the remaining appellants.
The prosecution arose from an incident at the house of Mariano Macadangdang, where Juan Cadiz was fatally wounded during an attempted robbery.
All six persons were originally charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bacarra with murder.
At trial, the case proceeded only against Baxa, Tumamao, and Marcos, because Serafin Florentino and Marcelo Cadelinia were excluded from the information for use as government witnesses, and Osias de la Cruz was still at large.
After trial, the trial court found Baxa, Tumamao, and Marcos guilty of attempted robbery with homicide and imposed reclusion perpetua on each.
The appellants sought reversal and acquittal from the Court of last resort.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Court granted Baxa’s motion to withdraw his appeal, and judgment was ordered accordingly.
Consequently, the appeal was confined to Marcos and Tumamao.

Key Factual Allegations

Juan Cadiz previously mortgaged his land in Ilocos Norte to secure a loan of P1,000, and later negotiated the sale of the land for P2,500.
After the sale, Juan Cadiz received P1,500, and he stayed at his nephew Mariano Macadangdang’s house in the barrio of Pasngal, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, keeping the proceeds before returning to Nueva Vizcaya.
News of Juan Cadiz’s possession of a relatively large amount reached malefactors, particularly Osias de la Cruz.
On December 18, 1947, shortly before midnight, a group of six men arrived at Mariano’s house and conveyed that they were looking for a prisoner, thereby suggesting they were peace officers.
Mariano lighted the lamp and unbolted the door, but a shot was fired under the house, apparently to scare the occupants and induce them to open the door more quickly.
Instead of opening the door, Juan Cadiz and Mariano pushed it closed to resist the intrusion, and Mariano went to get his bolo while Juan remained to guard the door.
One intruder, who turned out to be Osias de la Cruz, partially forced the door while holding the frame.
Juan struck at Osias’s hand with a bolo, wounding the fingers, and in response Osias twice fired a .45 caliber pistol through the door.
One bullet hit Juan in the left parietal region, causing a mortal wound that felled him to the floor.
After resistance from within subdued the door, the intruder with part of his face covered by a handkerchief entered, saw Juan apparently dead, and backed out with the others, leaving in a hurry.
Juan Cadiz was taken to the hospital and died the following afternoon from the gunshot wound.
The next morning, Mariano observed two bullet holes on the door smeared with blood, found two empty shells under the house, another empty shell under the stairs, and a pellet inside the house near where Juan fell.
Afterward, Jose Baxa and Carmelo Tumamao were arrested by municipal policemen, while Manuel Marcos was apprehended by the military police.
Under confinement, the three prepared written statements admitting participation in the attempted robbery, detailing planning for that night and identifying Osias de la Cruz as the mastermind.
The statements identified the group members and the weapons each carried, including Jose Baxa with a .32 caliber pistol, Manuel Marcos with a paltik, and Carmelo Tumamao with the other listed participants.
The sworn written statements were made before the justice of the peace after the contents were explained to the affiants and after they assured the justice that the contents were true.
At the preliminary investigation, the affiants (Baxa, Tumamao, and Marcos) testified, and their testimony as reflected in the record was said to practically corroborate the affidavits.

Evidentiary Issues on Appellants’ Admissions

The appellants admitted their presence at or near the house but claimed they were either forced to go there or did not know Osias’s plan to rob.
The appellants also claimed they attempted to dissuade and stop Osias when he proceeded armed with his .45 caliber pistol, but they argued it was already too late a