PO People v Cabrera

7/25/2019 PO People v Cabrera

1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1755 March 4, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,vs.

GRACIANO L. CARERA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Vicente Sotto for appellants.

Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appelle.

MALCOLM, J.:

No more serious violation of the criminal law of these sland and nor more wanton defiance of the law b! the ver! men whosesworn dut! it was to enforce the law, has ever been brou"ht before this court than is now presented for consideration in this case.#o aven"e a fancied wron", member of the Philippine Constabular! murdered si$ member of the police force of the Cit! ofManila, amon" them the respected Captain %illiam E. %ichman, assistant chief of police, and two private citi&ens, and "ravel!wounded three other civilians.

#o the tas' of reviewin" the facts, of preparin" an opinion on the pertinent issues, and of renderin" (ud"ement, if no reversibleerror be found, re"ardin" the appropriate penalt!, we no propose to address ourselves.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS

)n *ecember +, +/, policemen of the cit! of Manila arrested a woman who was a member of the household of a

Constabular! soldier stationed at the 0anta 1ucia Barrac's in this cit!. #he arrest of the woman was considered b! some of theConstabular! soldiers at 0anta 1ucia Barrac's as an outra"e committed b! the policemen, and it instantl! "ave rise to friction

between members of the Manila police department and members of the Philippine Constabular!.

#he ne$t da!, *ecember +2, at about sunset, a policeman named Artemio Mo(ica, posted on Calle Real, in the *istrict ofntramuros, cit! of Manila, had an encounter with various Constabular! soldiers which resulted in the shootin" of privateMacasina" of the Constabular!. Private Macasina" was seriousl!, and as afterwards appeared, mortall! wounded.

#he encounter between policeman Mo(ica and other companions of the Manila force and private Macasina" and othercompanions of the Constabular!, with its "rave conse3uences for the Constabular! soldier, en"endered a deep feelin" of

resentment on the part of the soldiers at 0anta 1ucia Barrac's. #his resentment was soon converted into a desire for reven"ea"ainst the police force of the cit! of Manila. #he officers of the Constabular! appear to have been aware of the state of

e$citement amon" the soldiers at 0anta 1ucia Barrac's because almost immediatel! after the shootin" of private Macasina",Captain Pa"e, the commandin" officer of the barrac's, increased the number of "uards, and confined all the soldiers in the

barrac's.

*urin" the afternoon of the ne$t da!, *ecember +4, +/, a rumor spread amon" the soldiers in 0an 1ucia Barrac's to the effectthat policeman Mo(ica was allowed to continue on dut! on the streets of ntramuros and that private Macasina" had died as aconse3uence of the shot he received the ni"ht before. #his rumor contributed in no small de"ree in precipitatin" a movement forreprisal b! the Constabular! soldiers a"ainst the policeman.


2/9


3/9

%hat occurred on the occasion above described can best be told in the e$act lan"ua"e of Colonel 0weet@

After conferrin" or spea'in" amon" themselves, for probabl! two minutes, inferred or observed from their attitudethat the! were waitin" for a call to order. Accordin"l!, called them to order and some ei"ht-five too' one step forward.After that called them to attention advised them that for the "ood of themselves and their companions who did not

participate in the shootin" of the ni"ht before, for the "ood of the bod! and also of all parties interested, those who too'

part in the shootin" of the ni"ht before should ta'e another step forward. spo'e so rapidl! that it is impossible for meto repeat e$actl! what told them that mornin". spo'e them that mornin" approvin" the decision of those of them whotoo' one step forward. believe that some sevent!-two 5 too' one step forward as admittin" that the! too' part in

the shootin" on the ni"ht before. then as'ed if the! brou"ht with the, ammunition or arms not belon"in" to them. #he!answered viva voce that each one of them carried their own arms and ammunition. as'ed them if there was an! one

who was with them the ni"ht before but who was not present that mornin" whereupon, one or two soldiers mentionedthe names of some who were not then present. #hat is how the total number of those who left and who were not in the

Barrac's reached sevent!-seven 55.

#he statements of the sevent!-seven soldiers were ta'en in writin" durin" the afternoon of the same da!, *ecember +?. #he3uestionnaire prepared b! the fiscal of the Cit! of Manila was the same for each soldier, and was filled out either in En"lish or0panish. #he 3uestions and answers were, however, when re3uested b! the soldiers, translated into their dialects Each statementwas si"ned b! the soldier ma'in" it in the presence of either two or three witnesses.

Althou"h the answers to the 3uestions contained in these statements var! in phraseolo"!, in substance the! are the same. )ne of

them, the first in numerical order, that of ser"eant 8raciano 1. Cabrera, ta'en in 0panish and interpreted into #a"alo", ma! beselected as t!pical of the rest, and is here literall! transcribed@

+. 8ive !our name, a"e, status, occupation, and residence. D 8raciano 1. Cabrera, 2 !ears old, sin"le, ser"eant of thefirst compan! of the 8eneral 0ervice, of the Constabular!, residin" in 0anta 1ucia Barrac's.

. #o what compan! of the Philippine Constabular! do !ou belon" D 7irst compan!, 8eneral 0ervice of theConstabular!.

. %here were !ou "arrisoned !esterda! afternoon, *ecember +4, +/ D n the 0anta 1ucia Barrac's.

2. *id !ou leave the barrac's at about 5 o6cloc' !esterda! evenin" D Fes, sir.

4. 7or what reason, and where did !ou "o D %e went in search of the policemen and secret service men of Manila. thas been sometime now since we have been havin" standin" "rud"e a"ainst the police of Manila. #he wife of one ofour comrades was first arrested b! the policemen and then abused b! the same and not content with havin" abused her,the! "ave this woman to an American after this incident, the! arrested two soldiers of the Constabular!, falsel!accusin" them of 'eepin" women of bad reputation after this incident, came the shootin" of Macasina", a shootin" not

(ustified, because we have come to 'now that Macasina" did nothin" and the policemen could have arrested him if the!desired. Moreover, the rumor spread amon" us that the police department of Manila had "iven orders to the policemento fire upon an! constabular! soldier the! found in the streets, and we believe that the rumor was not withoutfoundation since we noticed that after the Macasina" affair, the policemen of Manila, contrar! to the usual practice,

were armed with carbines or shot-"uns. 7or this reason we believed that if we did not put an end to these abuses of thepolicemen and secret service men, the! would continue abusin" the Constabular!. And as an act of ven"eance we didwhat we had done last ni"ht.

?.


4/9

G. *o !ou 'now private Crispin Macasina", the one who was shot b! the Manila police the ni"ht before last on CalleReal D Fes, sir, 'now him because he was our comrade.

. %ere !ou offended at the a""ression made on the person of said soldier D ndeed, !es, not onl! was offended, butm! companions also were.

+/. 0tate how man! shots !ou fired, if an!, durin" the riot last ni"ht. D cannot tell precisel! the number of shots fired because was somewhat obfuscated all can assure !ou is that fired more than once.

++. *o !ou 'now if !ou hit an! policemen or an! other person D f so, state whether the victim was a policemen oran! civilian.

+. 0tate the streets of the cit! where !ou fired shots. D cannot "ive an e$act account of the streets where fired m!"un. had full possession of m! faculties until reached Calle >ictoria afterwards , became aware that was bathedwith perspiration onl! upon reachin" the barrac's.

+. %hat arms were !ou carr!in" and how much ammunition or how man! cartrid"es did !ou use D carried a

carbine cannot tell precisel! the number of cartrid"es used however, placed in m! poc'et the twent! cartrid"es

belon"in" to me and must have lost some on the wa!.

+2.


5/9

8arcia, 7eli$ 1iron, Bonifacio Eu"enio, Patricio Bello, Baldomero Rodri"ue&, Roberto Palaba!, Ro3ue Ebol, ldefonso de laCru&, Cipriano 1i&ardo, 7rancisco 8arcia, 8enaro Ela!da, allado, Ma$imo Perlas and Beni"no #a"avilla did not leave the 0anta 1ucia Barrac'son the ni"ht of the tra"ed!, is predicated on the special defense raised in the lower court for these defendants and which wasfound untenable b! the trial court. An! further discussion of this 3uestion falls more appropriatel! under our consideration of

assi"nment of error No. , relatin" to the conspirac! between the accused.

Assi"nment error No. 2 relatin" to the (ud"e decidin" the case without ta'in" into consideration the transcript of the steno"raphicnotes in the case for sedition does not constitute reversible error. Counsel for the defendants is the first to admit b! stipulation

that the facts in the two case are substantiall! the same.

#he three pertinent issues in this case relate to@ + #he admission of E$hibits C to C-5? of the prosecution assi"nment error No.

, murder case assi"nment of error No. +, sedition case the conspirac! between the accused assi"nment of error No. ,murder case assi"nment of error No. 2, sedition case and the defense of double (eopard! assi"nment of error No. +, murdercase.

1. THE ADMISSION OF E!HIITS C TO C"7#

Appellants claim that fraud and decit mar'ed the preparation of the sevent!-seven confession. t is alle"ed that some of thedefendants si"ned the confessions under the impression that those who had ta'en part in the affra! would be transferred to

Mindanao, and that althou"h the! did not in fact so participate, affirmed that the! did because of a desire to leave Manila thatothers stepped forward ;for the "ood of the service; while still other simpl! didn6t understand what the! were doin", for the

remar's of Colonel 0weet were made in En"lish and onl! translated into #a"alo", and their declarations were sometimes ta'en ina lan"ua"e which was unintelli"ible to them. Counsel evidence of E$hibits C to C-5?, and the Attorne!-8eneral is wron" in

statin" otherwise.


6/9

0ection 2 of Act No. ?+ entitled ;An Act to promote "ood order and discipline in the Philippines Constabular!; and readin"@;No confession of an! person char"ed with crime shall be received as evidence a"ainst him b! an! court of (ustice unless it befirst shown to the satisfaction of the court that it was freel! and voluntaril! made and not the result of violence, intimidation,threat, menace, or of promises or offers of reward or lenienc!,; was repealed b! the first Administrative Code. But the same ruleof (urisprudence continues without the law. As has been repeatedl! announced b! this and other courts, ;the true test ofadmissibilit! is that the confession is made freel!, voluntaril!, and without compulsion or inducement of an! sort.; f the

confession is freel! and voluntaril! made, it constitutes one of the most effectual proofs in the law a"ainst the part! ma'in" it.%ilson vs. :. 0. K+G4L, +? :. 0., ?+. #he burden of proof that the confession was not voluntaril! made or was obtained b!undue pressure is on the accused. :. 0. vs. Iara K++L, 2 Phil., /G.

%hat actuall! occurred when the confessions were prepared is clearl! e$plained in the record. #he source of the rumor that the

defendants would be transferred to Mindanao if the! si"ned the confessions, is not established. )n the contrar! it is establishedthat before the declarations were ta'en, 1ieutenant 8atuslao in response to a 3uer! had shown the improbabilit! of such a

transfer. %ith Militar! where the dialect is #a"alo", all of the defendants must have understood the substantial part of Colonel0weet6s remar's. %hat is more important, there could be no misunderstandin" as to the contents of the confessions as writtendown. n open court, si$t!-nine of the defendants reiterated their "uilt. #he officers who assisted in the investi"ation were of thesame service as the defendants and would naturall! not be inclined to pre(udice the ri"hts of their own men.

must also be remembered that each and ever! one of the defendants was a member of the nsular police force. Because of the

ver! nature of their duties and because of their practical e$perience, these Constabular! soldiers must have been aware of thepenalties meted out for criminal offenses. Ever! man on such a momentous occasion would be more careful of his actions thanordinaril! and whatever of credulit! there is in him, would for the moment be laid aside. )ver and above all desire for a moree$citin" life, over and above the so-called espiritu de corps, is the instinct of self-preservation which could not but be full!aroused b! such stirrin" incidents too recent to be for"otten as had occurred in this case, and which would counsel prudence

rather than rashness secretiveness rather than "arrulit!.

#hese confessions contain the statements that the! were made freel! and voluntaril! without an! promise of immunit!. #hat such

was the case was corroborated b! the attestin" witnesses whose credibilit! has not been successfull! impeached.

%e rule the trial court did not err in admittin" E$hibits C to C-5? of the prosecution.

2. THE CONSPIRAC$ ET%EEN THE ACCUSED

#he contention of the appellants is that evidence is lac'in" of an! supposed connivance between the accused. Counsel

emphasi&es that in answer to the 3uestion in the confession, ;%ho as'ed !ou to (oin in the riot,; each of the accused answered,;Nobod!.; #he ar"ument is then advanced that the appellants cannot be held criminall! responsible because of the so-called

ps!cholo"! of crowds theor!. n other words, it is claimed that at the time of the commission of the crime the accused were mereautomatons obe!in" the insistent call of their failure of evidence and the positive evidence, counsel would deduce the absence of

conspirac! between the accused.

t is a primar! rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a criminal act, each is responsible for all the acts of the othersdone in furtherance of the common desi"n and ;the results is the same if the act is divided into parts and each person proceedswith his part unaided.; :. 0. vs. Ma&a K+/4L, 4 Phil., 2? :. 0. vs. Remi"io K++GL, 5 Phil., 4 decision of the supremecourt of 0pain of 0eptember , +GG People vs. Mather K+G/L, 2 %endell, .

Conspiracies are "enerall! proved b! a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which var! accordin" to the

purposes to be accomplished. f it be proved that the defendants pursued b! their acts the same ob(ect, one performin" one partand another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same ob(ect, one will be (ustified in the

conclusion that the! were en"a"ed in a conspirac! to effect that ob(ect. 4 R. C. 1., +/GG. Applied to the facts before is, it isincontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which was to aven"e themselves on the police force

of the cit! of Manila. A common feelin" of resentment animated all. A common plan evolved from their militar! trainin" wasfollowed.


7/9

#he effort to lead the court into the realm of ps!cholo"! and metaph!sics is unavailin" in the face of actualities. #he e$istence ofa (oint assent ma! be reasonabl! inferred from the facts proved. Not alone are the men who fired the fatal shots responsible, notalone are the men who admit firin" their carbines responsible, but all, havin" united to further a common desi"n of hate andven"eance, are responsible for the le"al conse3uences therefor.

%e rule that the trial court did not err in declarin" that there was a conspirac! between the accused.

&. THE DEFENSE OF DOULE 'EOPARD$

#he constitutional inhibition in the Philippine Bill of Ri"hts is ;that no person for same offense shall twice be put in (eopard! ofpunishment.,; 0omewhat in application thereof, the code of Criminal Procedure provides that ;%hen a defendant shall have been

convicted or ac3uitted or once placed in (eopard! upon an information or complaint, the conviction, ac3uittal or (eopard! shall bea bar to another information or indictment for the offense char"ed, or for an attempt to commit the same, or for a frustrationthereof, or for an! offense necessaril! therein included of which he mi"ht been convicted under such complaint or information.;0ec. ?. #he "uarant! in Philippine or"anic and statutor! law relatin" to double (eopard! has received controllin" interpretation

both b! the 0upreme Court of the Philippines and the 0upreme Court of the :nited 0tates.

#he prohibition is a"ainst a second (eopard!for the same offense. #o entitle a defendant to plead successfull! former (eopard!,

the offense char"e in the two prosecutions must be the same in law and in fact. #he test is not whether the defendant has alread!been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in (eopard! for the same offense. #he same acts ma! violate two or more

provisions of the criminal law. %hen the! do, a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under another.

n corroboration and in e$emplification of the rules pertainin" to the sub(ect of double (eopard!, we have onl! to turn to leadin"

decisions of the :nited 0tates 0upreme Court on Philippine appeals. n 7lemister vs.:nited 0tates K+/5L, /5 :. 0., 5,+ itwas held that treatin" as two different offenses assaults on two different individuals does not place the accused twice in (eopard!for the same offense, even if these assaults occurred ver! near each other, in one continuin" attempt to def! the law. n 8arcia8avieres vs.:nited 0tates K+++L, / :. 0. G, it was held that the offenses of behavin" an indecent manner in a public

place, open of insultin" a public officer b! deed or word in his presence, contrar! to the Penal Code, are not identical, so that aconviction of the first will bar a prosecution for the other, althou"h the acts and words of the accused set forth in both char"es arethe same. #he court said that ;t is true that the acts and words of the accused set forth in both char"es are the same but in thesecond case it was char"ed, as was essential to conviction, that the misbehavior in deed and words was addressed to a public

official n this view we are of opinion that while the transaction char"ed is the same in each case, the offenses are different.; n*ia& vs.:nited 0tates K++L, E. 0., 22, it was held that the prosecution for homicide of a person previousl! convicted of

an assault and batter! from which the death afterwards ensued does not place the accused twice in (eopard! for the same offense.#he court said that ;#he nstance and the assault and a batter! for which he was tried before the (ustice of the peace, althou"h

identical in some of their elements, were distinct offenses both in law and in fact. #he death of the in(ured person was theprincipal element of the homicide, but was no part of the assault and batter!.;

Appellants rel! principall! on the decision of this Court in the case of :nited 0tates vs.8ustillo K+++L, + Phil., /G. t wasthere onl! held that the possession of a shot"un and a revolver b! the same person at the same time and the in the same place, is

but one act of possession, one violation of the law, and that a conviction and punishment for the possession of the one arm is abar to the prosecution for the possession of the other. Compare with the :. 0. vs.Capurro and %eems K+/?L, 5 Phils., 2, andother Philippine Cases.

#he nearest analo"! to the two crimes of murder and sedition "rowin" out of practicall! the same facts, which can be found in theAmerican authorities, relate to the crimes of assault and riot or unlawful assembl!. A ma(orit! of the American courts have heldthat the offense of unlawful assembl! and riot and the offense of assault and batter! are distinct offenses and that a conviction or

an ac3uittal for either does not bar a prosecution for the other offense, even thou"h based on the same facts. K+G4L, 5 7ed.Cas., 0tate vs.>a&3ue& K+/4L, Porto Rico, 2GG contra, 0tate vs.1indsa! K+G?GL ?+, N. C., 24G.

t is merel! statin" the obvious to sa! that sedition is not the same offense as murder. 0edition is a crime not the same offense asmurder. 0edition is a crime a"ainst a crime directed a"ainst the e$istence of the 0tate, the authorit! of the "overnment, and the


8/9

"eneral public tran3uillit! murder is a crime directed a"ainst the lives of individuals. :. 0. vs.Abad K+/L, + Phil., 25.0edition in its more "eneral sense is the raisin" of commotions or disturbances in the state6 murder at common law is where a

person of sound mind and discretion unlawfull! 'ills an! human bein", in the peace of the soverei"n, with malice aforethou"ht,e$press or implied.

#he offenses char"ed in the two informations for sedition and murder are perfectl! distinct in point of law however nearl! the!

ma! be connected in point of act. Not alone are the offense eo nomine different, but the alle"ations in the bod! of theinformations are different. #he "ist of the information for sedition is the public and tumultuous uprisin" of the constabular! inorder to attain b! force and outside of le"al methods the ob(ect of inflictin" an act of hate and reven"e upon the persons of the

police force of the cit! of Manila b! firin" at them in several places in the cit! of Manila the "ist of the information in themurder case is that the Constabular!, conspirin" to"ether, ille"all! and criminall! 'illed ei"ht persons and "ravel! wounded three

others. #he crimes of murder and serious ph!sical in(uries were not necessaril! included in the information for sedition and thedefendants could not have been convicted of these crimes under the first information.

#he evidence re3uired to convict under the first information would not have been sufficient to convict under the second. Proof ofan additional and essential fact namel!, the death of one or more human bein"s, was necessar! to constitute the offense char"edin the second information. #he defendants ma! have been tried for the same act or acts the! have not been put in (eopard! for thesame offense.

%e rule that the trial court did not err in not allowin" the defense of double (eopard!.

'UDGMENT

#he persistent effort of counsel to protect the interest of his client cannot be permitted to becloud the prominent facts of therecord. #his is as clear a case of cold-blooded murder as ever came to our attention. #he (udicial archives of the 0upreme Courtof the Philippines slands, for the full e$tent of its e$istence e$tendin" over more than two decades, can be searched in vain foranother case which compares with the instant one either in certaint! as to "uilt or in an unwaverin" necessit! for a severesentence. Not the learned briefs of the counsel for the accused and for the people, not the elo3uent pleas on the hand for merc!and on the other for conviction, not the application of various le"al authorities, not even the voluminous transcript of the oraltestimon!, either separatel! or all combined, constitute the sole elements which irresistibl! move us toward a stern (ud"ment, butthe most elo3uent pleaders for (ustice top the dead and safet! for the livin" come from the silent photo"raphs of the dead and

safet! for the livin" come from the silent photo"raphs of the dead introduced in evidence under the prosaic denomination ofE$hibits 9, , 11, M, N, , and ). #he blood! spot on the escutcheon of an otherwise "reat or"ani&ation must be removed.

t is a disa"reeable dut!, therefore, which the members of this court are called upon to perform. But that it is disa"reeable shouldnot of course swerve us from its performance. %ere cases of this nature allowed to pass without condemnation, the lives of

man'ind would constantl! be imperilled and there would be no securit! in the 0tate, for its peace and tran3uilit! would be upsetand the authorit! of the 8overnment would be put at nau"ht b! the ver! a"ents of law and order who have sworn to protect it.

#he courts were instituted precisel! to function in times of peril to the 0tate, to protect the ri"hts of the people, to mete outpunishment to those who have rendered it unsafe for individuals to live at peace with their fellowmen.

%ith the determination of the trial court as to the circumstances which fi$ the de"ree of the penalt!, we are, "enerall! spea'in",in accord. #he circumstance of evident premeditation was found to e$ist, thus 3ualif!in" the crime as that of murder. All theactions of the accused demonstrate that their purpose was to 'ill an! members of the cit! police whom the! should meet. Aconsiderable number of the accused in their confessions "ave as the reason for the affra! the desire to reven"e themselves on thecit! police. )ne of them while marchin" throu"h the streets was heard to e$claim ;#he! 'illed one of us we will 'ill tenpolicemen for one.; Another was heard to e$claim, ;Al cuartel=; and this was repeated b! his companions, ;Al cuartel=;

#he trial (ud"e found present as circumstances which a""ravate criminal liabilit!, that the crime was committed in the ni"httimeand that advanta"e was ta'en of superior stren"th, but, resolvin" the doubt in favor of the accused, was unable to find that the act

was committed with treacher!. %e concur with


9/9

better serve the unlawful purpose. 0event!-seven armed Constabular! soldiers in militar! formation were vastl! superior innumber and e3uipment to the policemen whom the! happened to meet.

#he trial (ud"e found present no circumstance which would miti"ate the criminal liabilit! of the ser"eants and corporals, but didestimate as a miti"atin" circumstance, in the cases of the privates, that provided b! article ++ of the Penal Code, as amended,relatin" to the de"ree of instruction and education of the offenders. Certain members of the Court entertain an identical opinion,

while other members ta'e a contrar! view. ictorino Merto, #imoteo )permaria, Bernabe 0ison, Eusebio Cerrudo, 9ulia Acantilado, Ma$imoPerlas, "nacio 1echoncito, Pascual *ionio, Marcial Pelicia, Rafael Nafrada, Cornelio li&a"a, Iacarias Baile, Roberto Palaba!,Ro3ue Ebol, Benito 8arcia, Cipriano 1i&ardo, ldefonso de la Cru&, 9uan Miranda,

PO People v Cabrera

Documents

Transcript of PO People v Cabrera