G.R. No. L-30028 - People vs. Doble

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30028)

Key Dates

Robbery and related killings: night of June 13–early morning of June 14, 1966.
Custodial interrogations and extra-judicial statements: June–July 1966 (as reflected in the record).
Trial court conviction and appeal: conviction imposed at trial; appellate review resulted in the judgment summarized below.

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Constitutional context: At the time of the custodial interrogations (1966) the right to counsel during in-custody police interrogation had not yet been made a constitutional requirement; that protection was recognized under the 1973 Constitution, but was not applicable retroactively to the 1966 interrogations. The Court therefore assessed admissibility primarily under prevailing law and the established test of voluntariness.
Relevant penal law: Provisions of the Revised Penal Code discussed include Article 17 (principals), Article 18 (accomplices), Article 294 (robbery in band), Article 295 (penalty ranges for robbery in band), and Article 296 (relief from liability for assaults under certain circumstances). The Court applied established Philippine precedents cited in the record concerning voluntariness of confessions and distinctions between principals, accomplices, and conspirators.

Facts of the Offense as Found by the Trial Court

Ten men embarked by motor banca to Navotas intending to rob the Prudential Bank; eight disembarked for the operation. They used long guns, carbines and Thompsons; they fired shots and forcibly opened the vault, looted cash (P10,439.95 taken), and fled by banca. Several persons including peace officers and a market collector were killed; others were wounded. A police outpost beside the bank was fired upon and police personnel were among the casualties. Five accused were brought to trial; two (Mateo Raga and Celso Aquino) were acquitted at trial; three (Cresencio, Simeon, Antonio) were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death.

Procedural History and Parties’ Positions on Appeal

The trial court imposed the death penalty on Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin. On appeal, the Solicitor General recommended acquittal of Simeon Doble, and defended the voluntariness and admissibility of the extra-judicial statements of Cresencio and Antonio. Appellants contested the admissibility of their custodial statements on grounds of coercion, denial of counsel, and self-incrimination, and disputed the degree of their criminal liability (denying they were principals).

Court’s Assessment of Simeon Doble’s Liability

The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s recommendation and the record evidence that Simeon’s only connection was that the malefactors held a planning meeting at his house. Simeon’s testimony and custodial statement showed he did not participate in the operation, that he did not actively cooperate, that he had a five‑year-old foot injury precluding participation, and that he even told the malefactors he would wait at home. The Court applied the principle that mere knowledge, acquiescence, or passive presence without intentional cooperation or an act aiding the crime does not establish conspiratorial liability or make one a principal. On that basis the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and ordered Simeon Doble’s acquittal and immediate release unless held for other lawful causes.

Admissibility and Evaluation of Cresencio and Antonio’s Extra‑Judicial Statements

The appellants alleged physical coercion and involuntariness in the taking of their custodial statements (claims of punches, being struck with a gun butt, blindfolding/pepper causing blurred vision, and forced signing). The Court examined corroborating and disconfirming evidence: (a) the extra‑judicial statements of both appellants contained mutually fitting details about their respective roles (e.g., involvement with the banca), (b) one co-accused (Celso Aquino) gave statements and testified that no violence was used against him, (c) no medical certificates were presented to prove the alleged injuries, (d) Sgt. Lacson, the only named interrogator, denied the allegations of violence, and (e) the failure to secure the identities of the principal malefactors (the “John Does”) and the subsequent killing of a suspect did not show coercion at the time the principal statements were made. The Court applied the established Philippine test that voluntariness governs admissibility and noted that voluntariness is presumed but may be rebutted by proof of coercion; it found the appellants’ self-serving testimony insufficient to overcome the presumption of voluntariness. The Court therefore deemed the custodial statements admissible and properly considered in evaluating culpability.

Court’s Findings on Degree of Criminal Liability of Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin

The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish that Cresencio and Antonio were co-principals by prior conspiracy or actual participation in the robbery and killings. Instead, the Court found they acted as accomplices: Cresencio accepted (or was asked to procure) a banca and assisted in bringing the banca and the malefactors to the scene; Romaquin provided the banca and received P441.00 (which the Court treated plausibly as rental or payment for cooperation). Additional indicia of culpable cooperation included a note from Cresencio to Romaquin urging concealment of names and Cresencio’s receipt of P41.00 from Romaquin. The Court emphasized that the banca was instrumental but not indispensable to the commission of the robbery (given the robbers’ armament and numbers), so the appellants’ cooperation, while knowing and intentional, was not indispensable to the crime’s execution. Consequently they were convicted as accomplices to robbery in band, not as principals responsible for homicide.

Sentencing and Civil Liability

For criminal liability as accomplices to robbery in band, the Court identified the applicable penalty as prision mayor (minimum to maximum range as provided in Article 295, considering aggravating circumstances of nighttime and use of a motorized banca). The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence for each appellant of from five years, four months, twenty-one days of prision correccional (minimum indeterminate term) to ei

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30028)

Procedural History

Case decided En Banc, G.R. No. L-30028, May 31, 1982; decision authored by Justice De Castro.
Criminal information charged a bank robbery committed in band with multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority, occurred on June 14, 1966, in Navotas, Rizal.
Ten persons were named in the information; only five were brought to trial; five remained at large and were designated as “John Does.”
Of the five tried, Mateo Raga and Celso Aquino were acquitted by the trial court; the Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted defendants-appellants Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin and imposed the death penalty.
The case came before the Supreme Court for review principally because the trial court had imposed the death penalty on the appellants.
The Solicitor General (Hon. Felix Q. Antonio) and appointed counsel for appellants agreed that the narrated facts in the appealed decision and appellants’ brief accurately reflect the evidence, except as to the number of malefactors (appellants averred eight rather than ten).

Facts — The Robbery and Killings (Narrative of Events)

Late night of June 13, 1966, ten men, most heavily armed with pistols, carbines and Thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor banca bound for Navotas, Rizal, with the mission to rob the Navotas branch of the Prudential Bank and Trust Company.
Upon arrival at Navotas, darkness prevailing, eight men disembarked from the banca and proceeded along the beach toward the bank; within minutes, shots were fired, causing panic and scattering of people.
The eight men returned to the banca after some time, still armed and some carrying objects described as “bayongs,” boarded the motor banca and sped away.
Resultant casualties included multiple deaths and injuries. Those killed included Sgt. Alejandro Alcala (Philippine Constabulary), Sgt. Eugenio Aguilos and Cpl. Teofilo Evangelista (Navotas Police Department), and Dominador Estrella (market collector). Those injured included Patrolman Armando Ocampo, Exequiel Manalus, Jose Fabian, Rosalina Fuerten and Pedro de la Cruz.
The Prudential Bank branch at North Bay Boulevard, Navotas, opened at midnight and closed at 8:00 a.m.; it had approximately ten employees, two teller cages (Domingo and Alejandro San Juan), and an assistant cashier, Cesar Reyes.
Around 12:30 a.m. on June 14, 1966, two men entered the bank seeking change; when refused, three armed men burst in, fired into the ceiling and walls, ordered employees to lie face down, demanded the vault key, and, upon being told they had none, fired upon the vault until it yielded doors that allowed entry.
The robbers could not open locked compartments inside the vault; they resorted to looting the two teller cages and took P10,439.95 before leaving.
A police outpost beside the bank was manned that night by Patrolman Nicolas Antonio, Sgt. Aguilos, and other patrolmen and corporals who were watching fish landings; Patrolman Antonio reported hearing Thompson-like bursts at about 1:30 a.m., saw comrades fall, saw victims wounded and dead, and later saw Sgt. Alcala lying dead.

Parties, Defendants and Trial Results

Defendants tried: Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble, Antonio Romaquin, Mateo Raga, Celso Aquino.
Mateo Raga and Celso Aquino were acquitted at trial.
Trial court convicted Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble, and Antonio Romaquin and imposed the death penalty.
On appeal, Solicitor General recommended acquittal of Simeon Doble based on insufficient proof of active participation; the Supreme Court reviewed and addressed the culpability of all three appellants.

Evidence Pertaining to Simeon Doble

Evidence showed the malefactors met in Simeon’s house for a conference before proceeding to Navotas.
Simeon’s custodial statement (Exh. I) admitted that eight persons met (later two more arrived), he was present and listened, he did not actively oppose or participate, and he said he could not join because of a five-year-old injury to his left foot.
Simeon stated he suggested he remain behind because of his injured foot; he did not actively cooperate in the plan; he asserted he had not yet received any share of the loot and later obtained P2.00 from Romaquin for cigarettes when he supposedly asked for his share.
Solicitor General stressed that mere presence at a meeting, without acts tending to perpetration, inducement, or cooperation, does not establish participation beyond reasonable doubt; mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval without cooperation is insufficient to constitute conspiracy or culpable participation.
The record, including Simeon’s full extra-judicial statement, was read in full by the Court, showing he did not join the malefactors’ venture and could not have been of help due to his physical condition; the meeting at his house was attributed to convenience relative to the banca landing site.

Court’s Conclusion as to Simeon Doble

The Supreme Court found no culpable participation of Simeon Doble in the commission of the crime.
The Court ordered Simeon’s immediate release unless he was held for other lawful causes, adopting the Solicitor General’s recommendation and the Court’s own examination of the evidence.
The Court explicitly agreed that Simeon’s presence and limited gestures (saying he could not join, offering to wait) did not amount to co-conspiracy or participation as a principal or accomplice.

Evidence Pertaining to Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin — Custodial Statements and Allegations of Coercion

Cresencio and Romaquin each gave extra-judicial (custodial) statements (Exhibits E, F, F-1, G, H-1, M and others) implicating their roles in procuring/using a banca to bring the malefactors and assist their departure.
Cresencio testified he was asked by gang leader Joe Intsik at 8:00 p.m. on June 13, 1966 to procure a banca; he accompanied Joe to get Romaquin at midnight; his custodial statement admitted consenting to search for a banca when told it would be used for robbery.
Romaquin’s statement described being asked by Cresencio to bring his banca, under a purported pretext that friends would board a launch for Palawan; Romaquin claimed he would have preferred to flee but was prevented by Cresencio being ordered by others to point a gun at him.
Both appellants testified at trial that their extra-judicial statements were obtained through force, intimidation and maltreatment: Cresencio alleged an unnamed person boxed him on the chest, Sgt. Lacson struck him with the butt of a gun causing unconsciousness, he was made to lie on a narrow table, peppery liquid was poured over his face, his eyesight blurred and he was forced to sign a document he could not read; Romaquin gave a simil