G.R. No. L-673 - People vs. Sardoma

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-673)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence showed that while Manuel Lanticse and his common-law wife, Paula Embalsado, were preparing their supper, three gunshots were fired through a hole in the wall of their kitchen, hitting Manuel Lanticse. Immediately thereafter, Aguedo Sardoma and Bonifacio Samarana broke through an opening at the top of the kitchen wall, while Honorato Gesoro and Daniel Gesoro climbed the stairs.

Aguedo Sardoma reportedly pointed a pistol at Manuel Lanticse, who was seriously wounded on the floor, and asked his companions: “Do I have to finish him?” Lanticse begged to be spared and offered the money he had tucked beneath his belt. Paula Embalsado, becoming nervous upon hearing the gunshots and seeing her husband wounded, ran to the living room and shouted for help. Honorato Gesoro and Daniel Gesoro then allegedly told her, at the point of a pistol, to disclose where the money was kept. Paula revealed the location. Honorato Gesoro obtained the money, identified in the record as P3,000, while Daniel Gesoro stood guard over her. After accomplishing their purpose, the appellants left the house.

Shortly thereafter, Fortunato Lanticse (Paula’s brother-in-law) arrived together with Corporal Armando Alfoja and enlisted men after hearing the gunshots and Paula’s cries. First aid was given to Manuel Lanticse, who was in a dying condition. Corporal Alfoja questioned him on his condition and later asked for the identity of his assailants. Manuel Lanticse responded in Visayan dialect, which Corporal Alfoja wrote in English as part of Exhibit E. In substance, the dying declaration stated that Manuel was at the side of the stove when he was shot, that the shooting continued even after he fell on the floor, that Aguedo and Bonifacio entered through the top opening of the kitchen wall, and that Aguedo, approaching him with a weapon pointed towards him, asked “Do I have to finish him?” The statement further reported that Aguedo took P71 from Manuel’s waist. Fortunato Lanticse corroborated the making of this dying declaration, and the victim was brought to the hospital where he died shortly thereafter.

Doctor Vidal Montayre testified that Manuel Lanticse was in a dying condition when brought for medical treatment, with very weak pulse and pale appearance, and that the wounds caused his death.

Statements and Trial Evidence

Upon arrest, Honorato Gesoro, Bonifacio Samarana, and Daniel Gesoro signed written statements, Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively, admitting participation in the commission of the crime. These statements were sworn to before Jose L. Kintanar, the municipal mayor of Argao. Honorato Gesoro later made an additional statement in Exhibit D, which was sworn to before Celedonio S. Salvador, acting justice of the peace of Argao; the record indicated that he impliedly reiterated his guilt.

At trial, however, the three appellants disowned the written statements. They testified that they signed them because they were intimidated and forced.

Each appellant except the one whose defense differed interposed alibi. Daniel Gesoro stated that on the night of October 12, he was with his father in the father’s camarin and denied participation or knowledge of the crime. He alleged that on October 13 he was investigated by the military police and refused to acknowledge any participation. He claimed that after being called a “bandit” and maltreated, he was forced to sign Exhibit C prepared by the chief of police, and that when brought before the mayor who swore the statement, he informed the mayor that he was forced and that everything stated was false.

Honorato Gesoro testified similarly. He claimed that while fetching breakfast to Daniel in the municipal jail on October 14, he was arrested by the military police and turned over to the chief of police of Argao. He alleged that the chief of police maltreated him and forced him to sign Exhibit A. He further testified that he told the mayor, before whom the statement was sworn, that he was forced and that the contents were false. He also stated that on October 12 he was in his father’s farm.

Bonifacio Samarana likewise claimed alibi and alleged force and intimidation in disowning his confession, asserting that he was with Honorato and Daniel in the farm and repeating the general explanation used by the Gesoro brothers.

The chief of police Mauricio de la Pena, Mayor Kintanar, and the acting justice of the peace Celedonio S. Salvador contradicted the claims of force and intimidation. The chief of police testified that he prepared Exhibits A, B, and C in accordance with the appellants’ voluntary answers, with no force or violence used. Mayor Kintanar testified that before swearing the statements the appellants voluntarily and spontaneously ratified them and did not then claim intimidation or ill-treatment. The acting justice of the peace assured the trial that Exhibit D was prepared based on voluntary statements made by Honorato Gesoro.

Aguedo Sardoma presented a distinct account. He stated that on the night of October 12 he was at barrio Manga, Alcantara, approximately forty kilometers away from Manuel Lanticse’s house. He claimed that while in Manga, he and Marcos Lanticse stayed in the barrio lieutenant’s house. He learned of the killing of Manuel on October 14 after returning to Bug-ot. He alleged that he was arrested the same day, maltreated, and accused of the crime.

Trial Court Ruling

The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted the appellants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The dispositive portion found Aguedo Sardoma, Honorato Gesoro, Daniel Gesoro, and Bonifacio Samarana guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty for each of them, except Daniel Gesoro, was reclusion perpetua. The court ordered them to jointly and severally pay the heirs of the deceased an indemnity of P2,000, to return the money taken in the amount of P3,071, and to each pay one-fourth of the costs.

As to Daniel Gesoro, the trial court noted that he was under eighteen years, his birthdate being July 21, 1929, and it ordered the suspension of proceedings with respect to him pursuant to Article 80 of the Penal Code, as amended. It directed that he be placed under the custody of the Director of Public Welfare, Manila, to be confined in a charitable institution under the director’s control.

The Appellants’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, the appellants persisted in denying participation and relied on alibi. They also renewed objections to their written statements by claiming intimidation and force.

Counsel for the appellants further contended that the trial court erred “in pronouncing” Daniel Gesoro, a minor under eighteen, guilty of the crime charged in the information. The argument focused on the effect of Article 80 and the proper handling of a minor’s case.

Issues Presented

The appeal raised, in substance, whether the prosecution proof established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the assailants and their criminal participation through conspiracy; whether the trial court correctly evaluated the defenses of alibi and the credibility of the prosecution evidence, including the dying declaration and disowned statements; and whether the trial court’s finding of guilt for Daniel Gesoro complied with the requirements of Article 80.

Appellate Court Reasoning

The Court held that the appellants were rightly convicted after a careful review of the evidence. It gave little weight to the alibi defenses because such defenses may easily be manufactured, and because no evil motive or bias on the part of the mayor, chief of police, and justice of the peace of Argao was shown to warrant the conclusion that they willfully distorted the truth. The Court further ruled that the positive, clear, and convincing proof presented by the prosecution regarding the identity of the assailants prevailed over the defenses.

The Court treated conspiracy as established. It inferred concert of action from the appellants’ coordinated acts in the execution of the robbery and the resulting homicide. It was persuaded by the account from Paula Embalsado and the victim’s dying declaration, which identified the assailants and recounted Aguedo Sardoma’s conduct during the assault.

On the particular defense of Aguedo Sardoma, the Court noted that he was seen early in the morning of October 12, 1945 in the house of Marcos Lanticse in the same barrio where the crime occurred, and that he was positively identified by Paula Embalsado and again in the victim’s dying declaration as one of the assailants.

As to the contention involving the minor, the Court addressed counsel’s argument that the trial court erred in pron

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-673)

The case arose as an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Cebu convicting Aguedo Sardoma, Honorato Gesoro, Daniel Gesoro, and Bonifacio Samarana of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The trial court’s dispositive part found all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, except that Daniel Gesoro was treated as a minor under eighteen with suspension of proceedings as ordered by law.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the accused were properly convicted and that the minor’s adjudication of guilt remained valid, with suspension limited to the imposition of penalty.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff and appellee, while Aguedo Sardoma, Honorato Gesoro, Daniel Gesoro, and Bonifacio Samarana acted as defendants and appellants.
The appeal challenged the conviction for complex robbery with homicide rendered by the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record and sustained both the finding of guilt and the procedural disposition regarding Daniel Gesoro.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Paula Embalsado and the dying declaration of the victim Manuel Lanticse.
The victim and Paula Embalsado, his common-law wife, were preparing supper in barrio Bug-ot, Argao, Cebu, on the evening of October 12, 1945.
Three gunshots were fired through a hole in their kitchen wall, wounding Manuel Lanticse, and the shooting was followed by an entry into the kitchen area.
The entry was described as follows: Aguedo Sardoma and Bonifacio Samarana broke through an opening on top of the kitchen wall, while Honorato Gesoro and Daniel Gesoro climbed the stairs.
Aguedo Sardoma approached with a pistol pointed at the wounded victim and asked, “Do I have to finish him?”
The victim begged to be spared and offered the money he had kept beneath his belt, described as P71.
Paula Embalsado ran to the living room when she heard the gunshots and saw her husband wounded, where she was confronted by Honorato Gesoro and Daniel Gesoro at the point of a pistol.
Paula was compelled to disclose where the money was kept, and she revealed it; Honorato Gesoro took the money described as P3,000, while Daniel Gesoro stood guard.
After the robbery, the appellants left the house.
Fortunato Lanticse, Paula’s brother-in-law, arrived shortly thereafter with corporal Armando Alfoja of the MPC detachment and enlisted men after hearing the gunshots and Paula’s cries for help.
First aid was given to the victim, and corporal Alfoja elicited statements from the victim while the victim was in a dying condition.
The victim died shortly after being brought to the hospital, and the attending physician, Doctor Vidal Montayre, testified that the wounds caused his death.

Dying Declaration Evidence

The prosecution presented a dying declaration written in English by corporal Armando Alfoja from statements made by the victim in a Visayan dialect.
Exhibit E contained the victim’s account, including that he was shot while near the stove and that the shooting continued even after he lay down.
The victim’s statement identified Aguedo and Bonifacio as entering through the top opening of the kitchen wall.
The victim’s written declaration also recounted Aguedo’s question to his companions while the weapon was pointed toward him, namely whether he had to finish the victim.
The dying declaration also stated that Aguedo took P71 from the victim’s waist.
Fortunato Lanticse corroborated the dying declaration by testifying that he was present when the statements were made and that they were consistent with what was written in Exhibit E.

Confessions and Written Statements

Upon arrest, Honorato Gesoro, Bonifacio Samarana, and Daniel Gesoro each signed written statements identified as Exhibits A, B, and C, admitting participation in the crime.
The statements were sworn to before Jose L. Kintanar, the municipal mayor of Argao, for Exhibits A, B, and C.
Honorato Gesoro was shown to have impliedly reiterated guilt through Exhibit D, which was made and sworn to before Celedonio S. Salvador, the acting justice of the peace of Argao.
At trial, the three accused disowned the statements and testified that they had been intimidated and forced to sign them.
The prosecution countered with testimony from the chief of police, the municipal mayor, and the justice of the peace denying coercion and confirming voluntariness.

Allegations of Intimidation Rebutted

Daniel Gesoro testified that he was maltreated, called a “bandit,” and forced to sign Exhibit C prepared by the chief of police, and that when he later appeared before the mayor he informed the mayor that he was forced and that ev