G.R. No. L-19490 - People vs. Ubaldo

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19490)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence showed that, on a market day, the group formed a plan while drinking tuba and later executed a coordinated robbery at the store of Eng Wan along the provincial road in Tunga, Leyte. The Supreme Court relied heavily on the testimony and corroborated account of state witness Alfonso Hembra, who had direct and personal knowledge of the events.

At about 1:00 p.m. on April 24, 1958, Hembra left his house in Jaro, Leyte, to watch cockfights in the adjoining municipality of Tunga. After about two hours, he passed by the house of Antonio Pacli and found the other accused drinking tuba. Hembra joined the group in the “toma,” and the plan to rob Eng Wan was proposed by Antonio Pacli at about 5:00 p.m. The group agreed with the words “go ahead,” and the members prepared to execute the robbery. Antonio Pacli fetched firearms from the back of his house and distributed them among the group: a carbine to Norberto Lumpay, a carbine to Valentin Superable, a Thompson to Crispin Villablanca, Jr., a .38 caliber revolver to Gorgonio Ubaldo, a .45 caliber pistol to Severo Caigoy, and pistols to Vicente Calabia and Hembra.

At about 6:00 p.m., the group moved toward Eng Wan’s store. Valentin Superable suggested a division of roles: Lumpay, Ubaldo, and Caigoy would enter the store while others would remain outside as lookouts. They arrived at about 7:00 p.m. and divided into three groups. Lumpay, Ubaldo, and Caigoy entered the store, while Superable, Villablanca, and Hembra positioned themselves at one corner of the road about ten meters away, and Caigoy (and the Pacli brothers) stood watch at the other corner about eight meters away. The lookouts crouched or prone with their guns pointed toward the store to guard against interference.

When Jorge Go, the younger brother of Eng Wan, stood outside, Ubaldo ordered him to get inside the store. At the same time, Lumpay aimed his gun at Mana Lilia, Go’s sister-in-law. Caigoy went further inside. Upon returning, Caigoy brought Co Cui Hui, the mother of Jorge Go. The group then demanded the location of their hidden money. Ubaldo opened a drawer and took P200.00 in cash and also obtained about P50.00 worth of jewelry.

A critical sequence of killings and assaults followed. Jorge Go slipped out unnoticed and proceeded to another bodega to hide. While watching, he saw Caigoy come out through the door of Bodega A, dragging Co Cui Hui by the neck of her dress. Around the same time, policeman Margarito Cotoner entered the store, leading to an exchange of shots between him and Ubaldo. Outside, Caigoy shot Co Cui Hui, who fell on the sidewalk between the canal of the road and the wall of the store.

The gunfire attracted the attention of policeman Marcial Glore, who was about 300 meters away, eating supper with his family. Glore investigated immediately. However, before he could reach the store, at a distance of 8 to 10 meters, he was fired upon. The Supreme Court described that Glore focused a flashlight toward the source of the shots, then saw Lumpay, Calabia, and Villablanca pointing their guns at him in the middle of the road. When Glore tried to load his gun and failed, a second shot hit him at the right shoulder below the scapula, fired by Superable from behind him. Glore fell, and the robbers left; one of them dragged a body toward the river behind the store. Glore later survived, was taken for treatment, and was discharged after nineteen days, with additional treatment until healing.

The police investigation began the same evening around 11:00 p.m., with Lt. Gaudencio Ruiz arriving to conduct the investigation and establishing a cordon around the area by about 1:00 p.m. the following day. At Eng Wan’s store, the investigating officers found the lifeless bodies of policeman Cotoner and Co Cui Hui. They recovered empty shells inside the store and later discovered Gorgonio Ubaldo half-submerged in the nearby river. He was still alive but helpless from his injuries, including a bullet that pierced his pocket containing part of the money taken from the store. Ubaldo was brought to the municipal building and later to the provincial hospital in Tacloban, where he died.

Before his death, Ubaldo gave an ante mortem statement naming his companions in the robbery and identifying their roles in the plan and execution. In Exh. C, taken on April 25, 1958 before a justice of the peace, Ubaldo stated that his companions included Valentin Superable, Berto Lumpay (as named), Biroy Caigoy, Vicente Calabia, Alfonso (by first name only), Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli. He described the meeting at the Pacli house, the distribution and carry of firearms, the entry of Lumpay, Caigoy, and himself into the store, and that it was Lumpay who shot the policeman and Co Cui Hui. He also stated that Superable was the leader, while the Pacli brothers planned the robbery, and that after the shooting, the group ran toward Jaro, leaving him behind due to his wound. Based on these revelations, authorities apprehended the named persons.

Ante-Mortem and Extra-Judicial Statements; Subsequent Apprehensions

After Ubaldo’s ante mortem statement, the persons named were arrested and brought before him. Ubaldo positively identified Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli as his companions. The decision emphasized that neither Pacli brother protested the identification when Ubaldo pointed to them.

The investigation also produced separate sworn statements from the accused. Antonio Pacli’s statement (Exh. I) was executed on April 26, 1958, sworn to before the Clerk of Court. Benjamin Pacli’s statement (Exh. D) was executed on April 25, 1958, sworn before a justice of the peace. Severo Caigoy’s statements (Exh. F and Exh. J) were executed before police officers and were later sworn to before a clerk of court. Norberto Lumpay’s statement (Exh. J) was also executed in a similar fashion prior to his death. The Supreme Court noted that Hembra corroborated key elements of the statements on material points during trial and that Glore and Jorge Go corroborated the accounts through their own direct observations and the physical evidence found at the scene.

Trial Court Proceedings and Sentence

After trial, on January 18, 1962, the Court of First Instance of Leyte found each tried accused guilty of robbery in band with double homicide, frustrated homicide, less serious physical injuries, and direct assault upon agents of persons in authority. It sentenced each to death, ordered indemnities to the heirs of the two deceased victims, and imposed further monetary and costs-related obligations described in the decision.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

In their respective defenses, the accused disclaimed participation and relied on alibis, each claiming to be somewhere else at the time of the robbery. Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli attacked the voluntariness of their extra-judicial statements and asserted that police maltreatment induced them. Severo Caigoy denied the allegations in his signed statement and offered an alibi allegedly corroborated by another witness. Valentin Superable, along with other defense witnesses, claimed he was at his work guarding a crane at the Naliwatan bridge. Vicente Calabia also presented an alibi anchored on being at work and later at a party in a nearby house. Crispin Villablanca, Jr. offered an alibi of being at a birthday celebration in Palo and also argued that the failure of Ubaldo to mention him in his ante mortem statement supported his innocence.

In addition to alibi, the defense presented Lucio Palconit, a detention prisoner, who allegedly admitted participation in the robbery-killings and implicated other supposed companions. The trial court rejected Palconit’s testimony as unreliable.

Evidence and Assessment for Each Accused

As to Antonio Pacli, although he admitted signing Exh. I, he claimed he did so because of maltreatment by Sgt. Moreno. He denied being one of the visitors in the house where the accused met on April 24, 1958. The Supreme Court found his alibi inherently incredible and inconsistent with the evidence of continuous firing and the proximity of his house to the store, noting glaring contradictions between his wife’s testimony and the testimony of the “hilot” (Evarista Penaranda) about gunshots and Pacli’s reactions. The Court also treated his extra-judicial statement as voluntarily given, based on testimony from the officers before whom the statement was sworn.

For Benjamin Pacli, the Supreme Court likewise rejected his alibi. It emphasized that Ubaldo identified Benjamin Pacli as a companion and that Benjamin Pacli did not protest when the identification was made. The Court also considered the sworn statements of Benjamin and Antonio Pacli as not amounting to full admissions of their participation, and it characterized them as exculpatory in the sense that they failed to directly admit distributing or firing weapons or participating in the entry into the store. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses who swore and affirmed the voluntariness of the statements were credible, and it concluded there were no valid motives to question their sincerity.

As to Severo Caigoy, the Supreme Court acknowledged testimony purportedly supporting his alibi, but it nonetheless found his alibi shaky and not capable of prevailing over the signed confession once the Court found the confession voluntarily executed. It reiterated the settled rule that alibi is the weakest defense and must be rejected when identity is sufficiently and positively established by eyewitness testimony. The Court considered identification by the victim’s own son as particularly persuasive and cited the existence of sufficient light between Bodega “A” and Bodega “B” to allow the witness’s mental picture to overcome the presumption of innocence.

As to Valentin Superable, the Court treated the alibi as insufficient even if he was seen at work earlier that day. It reasoned that the distance between h

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19490)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case involved an automatic review of a Court of First Instance of Leyte decision sentencing the accused-appellants-reviewees to suffer DEATH.
The trial court found the accused guilty of the special complex crime of robbery in band with double homicide, with additional offenses of frustrated homicide, less serious physical injuries, and direct assault upon agents of persons in authority.
The information originally charged nine persons, including Gorgonio Ubaldo, Valentin Superable, Norberto Lumpay, Alfonso Hembra, Severo Caigoy, Vicente Calabia, Crispin Villablanca, Jr., and the brothers Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli.
During the pendency of the case, Gorgonio Ubaldo died from gunshot wounds sustained during the robbery; Norberto Lumpay was shot to death while attempting to escape from confinement; and Alfonso Hembra was discharged to become a state witness.
Trial proceeded only as to six remaining accused, namely Valentin Superable, Severo Caigoy @ Beroy, Vicente Calabia, Crispin Villablanca, Jr. @ Pengpeng, and the brothers Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli.
Crispin Villablanca, Jr. appealed from the decision, while the other accused were represented by counsel de officio for purposes of this review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and adjusted the penalty by reducing the death sentence for two of the accused due to the vote requirements.

Key Factual Allegations

The robbery-killings occurred on the night of April 24, 1958, at the store of Eng Wan, located along the provincial road in Tunga, Leyte.
The group’s plan began after cockfights and a drinking spree when accused members invited state witness Alfonso Hembra to join them in the “toma.”
Around 5:00 p.m., Antonio Pacli proposed robbing Eng Wan, and the group agreed using the words “go ahead.”
The group prepared by distributing firearms: a carbine to Lumpay, a carbine to Superable, a Thompson to Villablanca, a .38 cal. revolver to Ubaldo, a .45 cal. pistol to Caigoy, and a pistol each to Calabia and Hembra.
At about 7:00 p.m., the robbers coordinated roles: Lumpay, Ubaldo, and Caigoy entered the store, while Superable, Villablanca, and Hembra acted as lookouts on one side and Calabia and the Pacli brothers stood guard on the other side.
Jorge Go, family member of the store owner, was surprised and commanded by Ubaldo to go inside the store.
Lumpay aimed his gun at Mana Lilia, Go’s sister-in-law, while Caigoy brought Co Cui Hui (Go’s mother) out of the store area and into the custody of the robbers.
The robbers demanded the location of money, and Ubaldo opened a drawer and took P200.00 in cash and also obtained about P50.00 worth of jewelry from another drawer.
Jorge Go managed to slip out and hide, and later witnessed Caigoy conducting Co Cui Hui by the neck of her dress.
A policeman, Margarito Cotoner, entered the store and an exchange of shots ensued between him and Ubaldo.
Outside the store, Caigoy shot Co Cui Hui, who fell on the sidewalk between the canal and the wall of the store.
Another policeman, Marcial Glore, heard the gunfire and approached within 8 to 10 meters of the store but was fired upon by lookouts and then wounded by a shot fired by Superable.
After Glore fell, the robbers left the area, and one of them dragged a body toward the river.
Soon thereafter, investigating officers found the lifeless bodies of Cotoner and Co Cui Hui, recovered empty shells, and discovered Ubaldo half-submerged in the nearby river.
A bullet had pierced Ubaldo’s pocket, which contained part of the money taken, and Ubaldo gave an ante mortem statement naming his companions.

Evidence of Conspiracy and Participation

The prosecution anchored its case on an ante mortem statement of Gorgonio Ubaldo reduced to writing on April 25, 1958, and affirmed before the justice of the peace.
In the ante mortem statement (Exh. C), Ubaldo identified the companions: Valentin Superable, Berto/Lumpay, Biroy/Caigoy, Vicente Calabia, an Alfonso whose surname he did not know, and the Pacli brothers Antonio Pacli and Benjamin Pacli.
The ante mortem statement described the division of roles: Caigoy, Lumpay, and Calabia entered the store; Ubaldo remained outside with Superable and Hembra; and Lumpay shot the policeman and the Chinese woman.
The ante mortem statement also described planning at Antonio Pacli’s house and indicated that the Pacli brothers planned the robbery, although Antonio and Benjamin were unarmed.
The accused named in the ante mortem statement were later apprehended and positively identified by Ubaldo when brought before him.
The case treated the coordinated movement of the robbers as consistent with conspiracy, emphasizing precision in their actions and role allocation.
The Court held that it was not necessary to pinpoint which conspirator fired the shots that killed each victim because all conspirators were liable for the assaults committed by the band.
The Supreme Court reasoned that each accused participated according to role—lookouts, those who guarded, and those who entered and secured valuables—showing unity of purpose to consummate the robbery.

Witness and Physical Evidence

Alfonso Hembra, discharged as a state witness, narrated events based on personal knowledge of the group’s activities before and during the robbery.
Marcial Glore, a policeman, testified about being attacked while investigating the gunfire and about the identity of the assailants who fired at him.
Jorge Go, a family member whose store was robbed, provided corroboration of the robbery’s occurrence and the group’s conduct inside the premises.
Lt. Gaudencio Ruiz and other officers testified to investigative facts, including discovery of bodies, recovery of empty shells, and finding Ubaldo in the river.
The Court treated physical circumstances found at the scene and Ubaldo’s wound and pocket money as corroborative of the robbery narrative.

Confessions and Statements

The accused executed extra-judicial statements after apprehension, which the Court evaluated for voluntariness and credibility.
Antonio Pacli executed a statement (Exh. I) on April 26, 1958, sworn before a justice of the peace and earlier taken by Sgt. Moreno of the PC.
In Antonio Pacli’s statement, he acknowledged visitors in his house including several accused members and admitted distribution of firearms in his house, but he claimed ignorance of why they came and denied knowledge of their discussion topic.
Antonio Pacli also stated that after shots were heard, he closed house lights and later heard that Ubaldo was shot, and he was later arrested in his house.
Benjamin Pacli executed a statement (Exh. D) on April 25, 1958, wherein he admitted seeing the group in Antonio Pacli’s house