Case Summary (G.R. No. 34888)
Factual Background
The Supreme Court found that, on the occasion in question, a robbery was committed and, in connection therewith, Go Bongco was assaulted and killed. The Court relied in substantial part on the testimony of the victim’s wife, who stated that Go Bongco had P22 with him when he left home on the morning of the crime. The record showed that he reached the town of La Paz, where he cured Chua Siaco, who paid him P18.
While returning, Go Bongco was observed by Gui Uy Co exchanging loose change amounting to P10 for paper money and placing it with other bills he carried. Later, a witness, Yu Piao, saw Go Bongco get into Yu Piaco’s motor car to be taken on his way. The victim arrived at the barrio of Guinarona around half an hour later, approximately 8 o’clock, and then walked the rest of the distance to his home in the municipality of Dagami. Nearly an hour thereafter, when the defendants attacked Go Bongco, he exclaimed: “Wah-pay-ah! Apolonio take my money if you want, but don’t kill me, for we are fellow-countrymen!”
The Court treated this exclamation as supporting an inference that the victim was carrying money at the time he was attacked. In the absence of contrary evidence, it was presumed that the money consisted of the P22 the victim had at the time he left home, and the P18 received in La Paz, for a total amount of P40. The Court also noted that the money disappeared when the body was being removed, although various personal articles remained strewn about, including a handkerchief, buttons torn from the victim’s shirt, and other items.
Trial Court Findings and Appeal
In convicting both defendants of robbery with homicide, the trial court held them responsible for the taking of the victim’s money and the killing that occurred in connection with the robbery. On appeal, the defendants argued that the evidence warranted a different allocation of criminal responsibility: they insisted that the court should have convicted only Apolonio Dumduma and only for homicide, while acquitting Candido Caindoy.
The Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Robbery and the Homicide
The Supreme Court held that the robbery aspect was “fully proven” and that the homicide occurred in connection with that robbery. It reasoned that the circumstances showed that Go Bongco entered the assault with money and that the money then disappeared after he was beaten. From these facts, the Court drew a “clear and unavoidable conclusion” that the accused took the money, and that the taking of the money was the motive of the homicide.
The Court thus rejected the defense position that the evidence supported a mere killing by Apolonio Dumduma without the robbery element as to both accused.
Evidence Relating to Each Defendant’s Participation
On the question of Candido Caindoy’s participation, the Supreme Court reviewed testimony describing the defendants’ appearance and conduct before and during the assault, as well as conduct afterward.
The Court noted that Yu Piao had seen two persons passing in front of his shop shortly before the incident, both proceeding toward Dagami. One wore black trousers with a white shirt; the other wore a white undershirt, also with black trousers. One person had a cap, and the other had a pandan hat. Another witness, Pedro Balatar, saw and recognized the defendants walking in front of him, separated by about five arm’s lengths from another person who was not recognized at the time. During the assault, Cornelio Balatar recognized Apolonio Dumduma as wearing a cap, short sleeves, and black trousers, and observed the companion as wearing a pandan hat and a shirt with short sleeves. The Court observed that, although Cornelio Balatar saw Candido Caindoy, the witness did not recognize him at that time.
Further, Ramon Maray testified that he also saw two assailants during the incident; he did not recognize Candido Caindoy immediately. However, he stated that one assailant wore a pandan hat, an undershirt, and black trousers, and he affirmed that Candido Caindoy—pointed out at trial—was one of the two he saw that night.
The Court placed decisive weight on the testimony of Mateo Amado, who stated that at about 9 o’clock in the morning of June 2, 1930, the day after the nighttime incident, Candido Caindoy entered his billiard hall with his shirt stained with blood on the right side and in the armpit. When Amado questioned him, Caindoy allegedly called him aside and secretly instructed him: “Say nothing about these stains, lest someone should say they are bloodstains; especially since a Chinaman was murdered last night—Chinaman Go Bunsuan. Furthermore, many people knew that Apolonio and I were constant’ companions; but I did not help in that murder committed by Apolonio;” After this, Caindoy allegedly went to a nearby river and washed off the bloodstains.
The Court stated that th
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 34888)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Apolonio Dumduma and Candido Caindoy for robbery with homicide.
- The Court of First Instance of Leyte convicted both defendants of robbery with homicide.
- The trial court sentenced both defendants to life imprisonment with the accessory penalties.
- The trial court ordered the defendants, jointly and severally, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Go Bongco, in the amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs.
- The defendants appealed to challenge the trial court’s findings on criminal participation and the nature of the offenses proven.
- On appeal, the defendants argued that only Apolonio Dumduma should be convicted, and only for homicide, while Candido Caindoy should be acquitted.
Key Factual Allegations
- The deceased, Go Bongco, left his home in the morning of the crime carrying P22.
- In the town of La Paz, Go Bongco cured Chua Siaco, who paid him P18.
- On the way back, Gui Uy Co saw the deceased that night exchanging loose change totaling P10 for paper money and combining it with other bills he carried.
- Later that evening, about 7.30, the deceased rode Yu Piaco’s motor car toward Guinarona, arriving about 8:00 and then walking the remaining distance to his home in Dagami.
- Nearly an hour later, the defendants attacked the deceased.
- During the attack, the deceased exclaimed: “Wah-pay-ah! Apolonio take my money if you want, but don’t kill me, for we are fellow-countrymen!”
- The physical evidence found during the removal of the body included a handkerchief, buttons torn from his shirt, and other articles, but the money the deceased initially had was no longer present.
- The evidence showed that the motive for the homicide was the taking of the deceased’s money.
- The evidence also showed that two assailants attacked the deceased, with identifying features described by multiple witnesses.
- Apolonio Dumduma was described as wearing a cap and black trousers during the assault, and the other assailant was described as wearing a pandan hat with a shirt with short sleeves.
- Candido Caindoy’s participation was supported by identification at trial as one of the two assailants, and by post-crime conduct involving attempts to conceal bloodstains and statements suggesting concealment of the victim’s murder.
Witness Accounts and Evidence
- The Court relied on the testimony of the deceased’s wife to establish the deceased’s initial possession of money and his accumulation of additional funds in La Paz.
- The Court treated the testimony of Gui Uy Co as showing the deceased’s night activities involving money exchange and consolidation into paper money.
- Yu Piaco testified to observing two persons passing in front of his shop shortly before the incident, describing their clothing with precision.
- Pedro Balatar testified that shortly after, he saw and recognized the defendants walking in front of him, with the second person nearby, whom he did not recognize at the time.
- Cornelio Balatar, who witnessed the assault, recognized Apolonio Dumduma based on wearing a cap, short sleeves, and black trousers, and he did not recognize the companion wearing a pandan hat.
- Upon reviewing Cornelio Balatar’s testimony alongside his affidavit (Exhibit 1), the Court concluded that Candido Caindoy was seen but not recognized at that time.
- Ramon Maray testified that he saw two assailants and that one wore a pandan hat, an undershirt, and black trousers.
- Ramon Maray further affirmed that Candido Caindoy, pointed out to him at trial, was one of the assailants he saw on that night.
- Mateo Amado testified that on June 2, 1930, the day after the incident, Candido Caindoy entered his billiard hall with his shirt stained with blood on the right side and armpit.
- Mateo Amado testified that Cand