G.R. No. L-15307 - People vs. Duenas

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15307)

Factual Background

On February 16, 1958, fighting occurred among prisoners in the National Penitentiary in Muntinglupa between a group of Manila boys calling themselves the “Sigue-sigue” gang and a group of Visayans and Ilocanos calling themselves the “OXO” gang. The Manila boys occupied Brigade 3-A on the second floor, while the Visayans and Ilocanos occupied Brigade 3-D. The spatial arrangement placed Brigades 3-A and 3-B on the second floor, facing each other, while Brigades 3-C and 3-D were on the first floor beneath Brigades 3-A and 3-B.

Early in the morning of February 17, a Tagalog inmate, Dionisio Valdez, who was in Brigade 3-D, was asked by his companions—Juanito Tobias, Constantino Duenas, and Custodio Mainar, alias “Inchik”—to go with them to Brigade 3-A to help break its door. The reason was that Brigade 3-A, like Valdez’s place of origin, was occupied by Tagalogs, and the group believed Valdez could persuade inmates to open the door. Valdez was afraid of his companions, so he went with them. The group was able to leave Brigade 3-D because the lock to the door had been destroyed the night before. However, upon reaching the door of Brigade 3-A, the inmates refused to open it despite the door having been rendered accessible.

At about the same time, another inmate of Brigade 3-D, Nataniel Labampa, went up to the door of Brigade 3-A accompanied by Angel Flores, Custodio Mainar, and Pablo Roxas. Like Valdez, Labampa and the others attempted to secure the opening of the door, but the inmates kept it securely locked.

While they stood near the door, the prosecution evidence showed that Constantino Duenas came out of Brigade 3-B together with Carlos de los Reyes, the “ranchero” or food distributor of the brigade. As they stepped out, Duenas had his arm on the back and shoulder of De los Reyes. Felipe Gonzales then approached De los Reyes and hit him on the head with a piece of wood about one yard long and two inches by two inches in thickness. De los Reyes immediately fell. Juanito Tobias then approached and stabbed De los Reyes in the chest. Afterward, Sofronio Dagami and Pablo Roxas helped lower De los Reyes down the fire escape, while other prisoners hauled him to the ground.

The evidence also established a revenge motive. Because of the fighting on February 16, members of the “OXO” gang in Brigade 3-D gathered on the night of the following day and agreed to take revenge against the members of the “Sigue-sigue” gang. Their plans included breaking the lock to their brigade and preparing sharp instruments. Custodio Mainar was shown to have especially incited his companions to take revenge. Juanito Tobias and Felipe Gonzales helped in destroying the lock of Brigade 3-D. The intended purpose was to avenge the previous day’s deaths and injuries. They had shouted “We should revenge” as a sign of resolve.

It was further shown that Carlos de los Reyes was a Manila boy and belonged to the “Sigue-sigue” gang, a rival of the “OXO” gang to which the accused belonged. The medical findings on the corpse identified the causes of death as (1) strangulation; (2) stab wound, penetrating the chest, right side; and (3) lacerated wounds, forehead, and it was found that there were equimosis in the neck caused by a piece of cloth tied around De los Reyes’s neck.

Defendants’ Denials and Theories

All of the accused denied participation. They imputed the fatal acts to their co-accused Jose de la Cruz, who had been acquitted by the trial court. Jose de la Cruz had executed an affidavit dated February 22, 1958 stating that he struck De los Reyes as “ranchero” on February 17, 1958 in Brigade 3-D, but when shown the affidavit at trial, he denied making such statement and claimed instead that De los Reyes stabbed him on the forearm while Jose was guarding Brigade 3-B with a piece of wood about two feet long and that he did not report the stabbing. Because Jose was acquitted, the appellate narrative treated that defense as immaterial to the final determination of guilt or innocence of the remaining appellants.

Felipe Gonzales denied clubbing De los Reyes and claimed he had always been inside his brigade. Juanito Tobias denied stabbing De los Reyes and said he was inside the brigade in the morning of February 17 and did not see anything happen; he also asserted that his brigade’s door was closed, preventing him from going out, and he denied being a member of the “OXO” gang, while admitting that Nataniel Labampa and Dionisio Valdez were companions in Brigade 3-D. Custodio Mainar claimed that at the time De los Reyes was stabbed he was sleeping in his brigade, feeling unwell, and he asserted the brigade had just been raided by the “Sigue-sigue” gang; he denied that he, Duenas, and Tobias went up, and he denied seeing various individuals including Duenas in the morning. Constantino Duenas also denied prosecution witnesses’ testimony that he was seen in the company of De los Reyes and declared that he did not know De los Reyes, insisting the person who provided food that morning was a certain “Jaime.” Duenas further stated he had nothing to do with the commotion and that after breakfast he met Loreto Villanueva, who directed him to clean the dormitory. Loreto Villanueva testified for Duenas that Duenas was in Brigade 3-D on the morning of February 17 and that he met Duenas before Duenas went out, where Villanueva warned him not to go out. Villanueva stated that he noticed the incident near the fire escape but did not see or know who were involved. Villanueva added on direct examination that Duenas was still performing his duty when the incident happened.

Trial Court Findings and Appellate Review

The trial court had convicted all of the accused-appellants of murder and imposed the death penalty, including a judgment of joint and several indemnity to the heirs of De los Reyes in P6,000.00, and corresponding shares of costs. On appeal, the Court of review examined whether the evidence supported conspiracy and whether each appellant’s acts were sufficient to make them criminally responsible for De los Reyes’s death.

The Parties’ Contentions and the Evidence on Conspiracy

The appellate Court held that the evidence established a conspiracy among the accused-appellants to take revenge against members of the “Sigue-sigue” gang. It found that they had prepared to assault their opponents and had broken the lock to Brigade 3-D. The Court further found that Duenas, Tobias, and the others asked Valdez and Labampa to go up with them to Brigade 3-A so that the Manila boys would serve as a ruse to secure the opening of the door of Brigade 3-A. The Court also found the identity of the actual attackers as to the lethal assault.

The Court found that the persons who assaulted and killed De los Reyes were Constantino Duenas, who led De los Reyes out of Brigade 3-B; Felipe Gonzales, who struck the deceased on the head; and Juanito Tobias, who stabbed the deceased in the chest. The Court characterized their participation as clear and positive.

However, as to the remaining accused-appellants, the Court held that grave doubts existed as to whether they could be held responsible for De los Reyes’s death. The appellate Court emphasized that, based on the established agreement, the plan was to take revenge by assaulting the inmates of Brigade 3-A. It found no agreement to kill every Manila boy encountered, since Valdez and Labampa themselves were Manila boys and also companions. As to Dagami and Roxas, it acknowledged their role in helping lower the victim’s body down the fire escape but found no showing that they took part in the attack. The Court also held there was no evidence that the accused-appellants had previously agreed to assault and kill De los Reyes if they could not enter Brigade 3-A.

The Court considered the evidence that, at the time the attack occurred, Duenas and De los Reyes were in front of the door of Brigade 3-A. It regarded the actions of Gonzales approaching De los Reyes and striking him and of Tobias approaching the fallen De los Reyes and stabbing him as not shown to have been induced by the other accused. Accordingly, the Court ruled that only the three accused—Duenas, Gonzales, and Tobias—could be made responsible for the direct acts causing De los Reyes’s death.

Ruling on Criminal Liability, Penalty, and Civil Indemnity

The Court affirmed the trial court’s conviction and death sentence as to Constantino Duenas, Felipe Gonzales, and Juanito Tobias. For the other appellants—Angel Flores, Sofronio Dagami, Pablo Roxas, and Custodio Mainar, alias “Inchik”—the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment of conviction and declared them acquitted.

In determining the proper penalty, the Court treated the crime as murder qualified by treachery, reasoning that the victim had been attacked suddenly and with the use of deadly weapons, without provocation and without opportunity to defend himself. It found no mitigating circumstance and treated the fact that the appellants were serving sentences at the time of the commission of the crime as requiring the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for murder, which was death, pursuant to Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the Court held that the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court was correct.

The Court then addressed the corresponding monetary consequence of conviction. It ordered proportionate costs against the three accused-appellants found guilty and required a proportionate share of the costs de oficio as to the shares of the other appellants. The appellate disposition also reflected that only the convictions that stood would support the civil and costs consequences imposed under the trial court’s judgment, while those set aside resulted in acquittal for the remaining accused.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The legal foundation of the appellate ruling rested on the differentiation of criminal liability within a conspiracy. While the Court recognized

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-15307)

The case involved a review of a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal convicting all accused-appellants of murder and sentencing each to death, with joint and several civil indemnity to the heirs of Carlos de los Reyes and payment of corresponding costs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the death penalty for Constantino Duenas, Felipe Gonzales, and Juanito Tobias.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Angel Flores, Sofronio Dagami, Pablo Roxas, and Custodio Mainar, alias “Inchik.”
The Supreme Court acted per curiam.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case as plaintiff and appellee.
The accused-appellants were Constantino Duenas, Felipe Gonzales, Juanito Tobias, Angel Flores, Sofronio Dagami, Pablo Roxas, and Custodio Mainar, alias “Inchik.”
The appeal sought review of the trial court’s judgment of conviction for murder and imposition of death on all accused.
The Supreme Court’s disposition sustained the trial court as to only three accused and reversed as to the remaining four.

Background Prison Factions

The evidence described prison fighting in the National Penitentiary in Muntinglupa among inmate factions.
On February 16, 1958, fighting occurred between a “Sigue-sigue” gang (Manila boys) and an “OXO” gang (Visayans and Ilocanos).
The factions occupied different brigades: the “Sigue-sigue” inmates occupied Brigade 3-A on the second floor, while the “OXO” inmates occupied Brigade 3-D.
Brigades 3-A and 3-B faced each other on the second floor, while 3-C and 3-D were on the first floor beneath 3-A and 3-B.

Events Leading to the Killing

On the early morning of February 17, inmate Dionisio Valdez of Brigade 3-D was asked by companions including Juanito Tobias, Constantino Duenas, and Custodio Mainar to go with them to Brigade 3-A to help break its door.
The prosecution evidence stated that Valdez was afraid of his colleagues, so he went with them with the belief that he could persuade inmates in Brigade 3-A to open the door.
The group was able to leave Brigade 3-D because the lock to the door of Brigade 3-A had been destroyed the night before, but Brigade 3-A was still securely locked when they arrived.
Another inmate, Nataniel Labampa, also went up to the door of Brigade 3-A with Angel Flores, Custodio Mainar, and Pablo Roxas, but they were likewise unable to enter because the door remained securely locked.

Witness Accounts of the Assault

While the group stood near the door of Brigade 3-A, they saw Constantino Duenas coming out of Brigade 3-B with Carlos de los Reyes, identified as the “ranchero” or food distributor.
The prosecution testimony stated that as they stepped out, Duenas had his arm on De los Reyes’s back and shoulder.
The evidence further alleged that Felipe Gonzales approached Duenas and De los Reyes and hit the latter on the head with a wooden piece measuring about one yard long and two inches by two inches in thickness.
The deceased then fell, after which Juanito Tobias approached and stabbed De los Reyes in the chest.
The evidence also stated that Sofronio Dagami and Pablo Roxas approached De los Reyes and helped lower the body down the fire escape, while other prisoners hauled the victim to the ground.

Proof of Premeditation and Revenge

The prosecution evidence indicated that because of the February 16 fighting, members of the “OXO” gang gathered on the night of February 17 and agreed to take revenge against members of the “Sigue-sigue” gang.
The evidence stated that the lock of Brigade 3-D was broken and sharp instruments were prepared for the projected assault.
The Supreme Court found that Custodio Mainar especially incited his companions to take revenge.
The Supreme Court also found that Juanito Tobias and Felipe Gonzales helped destroy the lock of Brigade 3-D.
The Supreme Court noted that the group shouted “We should revenge” as an expression of determination.

Identity of the Victim

The evidence described Carlos de los Reyes as a Manila boy belonging to the “Sigue-sigue” gang.
The Supreme Court treated the gang rivalry as relevant to motive and to the revenge context.

Medical Findings on Cause of Death

A physician examined the corpse and found the causes of death as: strangulation, a stab wound penetrating the chest on the right side, and lacerated wounds on the forehead.
The physician also found equimosis in the neck caused by a piece of cloth tied around the neck of the deceased.

Trial Court Theory

The trial court’s theory, as reflected by the verdict, attributed the killing to all accused on the basis of the circumstances of the prison incident and the coordinated actions among them.
The trial court convicted all accused-appellants of murder, imposed death, ordered joint and several indemnification of P6,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, and assessed costs.

Accused’s Defenses and Denials

All accused-appellants denied participation in the acts causing De los Reyes’s death.
Each accused attempted to impute responsibility to Jose de la Cruz, who had been acquitted by the trial court.
An affidavit by Jose de la Cruz, dated February 22, 1958, alleged that he struck De los Reyes, but when presented at trial he denied having made such statement.
Jose de la Cruz claimed he was the guard of Brigade 3-B, was holding a two-feet long piece of wood while guarding, and asserted that De los Reyes stabbed him on the forearm but he did not report the incident.
The Supreme Court considered Jose de la Cruz’s affidavit and later testimony immaterial because he was acquitted.

Specific Denials by Each Accused

Felipe Gonzales denied clubbing De los Reyes and claimed he had always been inside his brigade.
Juanito Tobias denied seeing anything and asserted he was inside his brigade in the morning of February 17, and he claimed his brigade door was closed so he could not have gone out; he also denied membership in the “OXO” gang.
Custodio Mainar denied involvement, stated he was sleeping in his brigade when the stabbing happened, and asserted that his brigade had just been raided by the “Sigue-sigue”