People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Motin Cocoy et al., Defendants, Motin Cocoy and Apolonio Cocoy, Defendants-Appellants, G. R. No. L-6019, Dec. 15, 1953 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Motin Cocoy et al., Defendants, Motin Cocoy and Apolonio Cocoy, Defendants-Appellants, G. R. No. L-6019, Dec. 15, 1953 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Criminal Law; Criminal case; Homicide; Robbery; Court of First Instance
Rights
Abstract: [This is a complex crime of robbery with homicide charged to Motin Cocoy, Apolonio Cocoy, and one named Abi for killing Jose Leyson’s wife Maria and their children name Gardenia and Golpihan. Despite the hideous crime committed, the trial court reduced Motin and Apolonio’s sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment due to the defendant’s ignorance, lack of instruction, being non-Christians, and lack of association with a civilized community. It was stated here that Abi, who was mentioned as the leader of the crime, was not yet arrested during the said trial.]
Fulltext: trine. We were merely considering the main prayer contained in appellant's petition, namely, that he be declared councilor-elect in the place of the respondent-appellee. In other words, we only olr served that petitioner could not properly ask for his proclamation aa councilor elect without alleging a.nd stating not mere conclusions of law but facts showing that he had the right and was entitled to the granting of his main prayer. Considering the subject of cause of action in its entirety, it will be noticed that Section 173 of the Revised Election Code provides that when a person who is not eligible is elected, any registered candidate for the same office like the petitioner-appellant in this ~ase, may contest his right to the office by filing a petition for quo warranto. To lega1ize the contest this section just mentioned does not i-equire that the contestant prove that he is entitled to the office. In the case of Llamson v. Fel'?er, 47 0. G. No. 2, p. 727, wherein petitioner Llamoso who claimed to have received the next highest number of votes for the post of Mayor, contested the right of respondent Ferrer to the office fo.r which he was proclaimed elected, on the ground of ineligibility, we held that Section 173 of the Revised Election Code ·while providing that any registered candidate may contest the right of one elected to any provincial or municipal office on the gr.ound of ineligibility, it does not provide that if the contestee is later declared ineligible, the contestant will be proclaimed elected. In other words, in that case, we practically declared that under Section 173, any registered candidtae may file a petition for quo warranto on the ground of ineligibility, and that would constitute a sufficient cause of. action. It is not necessary for the contestant to claim that if the contestee is declared ineligible, he (contestant> be declared entitled to the office, As a matter of fact, in the case of Llamoso v. Ferrer, we declared the office vacant. In view of the foregoing, the failure of Catano to allege that he is entitled to the office of councilor now occupied by the respondent Cruz does not affect the sufficiency of his cause of action. Reversing the order of dismissal, the case is hereby remnaded to the trial court for further proceedings. No costs. PMaS, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla., Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Lab-radOt", J. J., concur. XI Peopk of tM Philippines, Pla..i:ntiff-Appellee, -vs. Motin Coc<>'Jh et al., Defetulants, Matin Cocoy and Apolonio CocOj/, Defetula:nta .. Appellatn.s, G. R. No. L..6019, Dec. 15, 1953. CRIMINAL LAW; COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. - A, B and C went to the house of D, and there boloed to death D's wife, daughter and son. Afterwards, thP.y ransacked the house and left it dean of its contents. Heltl: The crime cor.mitted is the complex crime of robbery with ho~icide, not robbery with triple murder, . Henninio P. Villam.~yor for appellants. Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Jose G. Bautista. for appellee. DECISION MONTEMAYOR, J.:. MOTIN COCOY, his younger brother APOLONIO COCOY, their father BARBIN COCOY, one named MAGDALENO VILLORENTE and another calli!d ABI, were originally o!harged with robbery with triple murder in the Justice of the Peace Court of Libae&D, Capiz. With tJ:!.e exception of Abi, all were arrested and aubmitt.ed to the preliminary investigation conducted by the Justice of the Peace who later sent the case up to the Court of Fil'St Instance. Upon representations Of tlte Provincial l<'iscal that the evidence for the prosecution was not enough "to convict Barbin CocoY and Magdaleno Villorente, the infonna.tion was dismissed as against the two. Upon arraignment the remaining two accused Motin and Apolonio pleaded guilW. Because of the seriousness of the offense charged and because the two l.rothers were illiterate non..Christians, instead of thenceforth sentencing them, the trial court presided over by Judge Luis N. de Leon had Motin Cocoy take the witness stand. With his testimony the trial judge had the impression tha.t the two accused might not have understood the meaning and effect of their plea ·of guilty and so ordered a plea of not guilty. Arter trial the lower court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with triple murder and sentenced them to suffer the death penalty and to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the sum of PS,000.00 plus P273.60 for the value of the things taken away, and to pay one..half of the costs. Tl)e case is now hei:e for review under the provisions of Rule 118, Section 9, of the Rules of Court providing for the transmission to this Court of all C'l'iminal cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court. There is no dispute as to the following facts. In the month of 'Ma1·ch, 1952, Jose Leyson, his wife Maria Felix, their daughter Gardenia. aged three and their son Golt>ihan 1-1/2 yei.rs old were living in the barrio of Manica, municipality of Libacao, province of Capiz, in a sort of temporary building commonly known as an evacuation hut, consisting of one sing1e room, including the kitchen, situated near the forest snd standing only about two feet f1'0m the ground. Their nearest neighbor was about two kilometers away, The hut was a good many miles from the poblaeion, requiring many hours hiking over trails and fording streams to negotiate the dis.. tance. In the morning of March 12, 1952 <Wednesday) Leyson left his family in the house to go to the poblacion to make pur .. chases the following day <Thursdayl which was & market day. That same afternoon Wednesday, several marauders entered his house and after killing Maria and the two children by means of bolo blows, ransacked the house and left it clea.n of its contents such as plates, kitchen utensils,·money amounting to P210.oo. jeweley valued at P50.00, clothes costing P40.00 and one cavan of rice worth Pl0.00, According to investigation by the police, the body of Maria bore seven wounds. Gardenia - 6 wounds and the little boy - 8 wounds. The two eyes of the boy were found to have been gouged and extracted from their sockets. Due U. the distance of the poblacion from his house and because upon his return home he could not cross swollen streams, Leyson did not reach his home until &aturday afternoon March 15. We can only imagine the shock that must have stunned him and his reactions to the scene of death and desolation that greeted his eyes, - his dear ones whom only three days before he had left alive end hale, now but corpses scattered on the floor, and the house itself <fespoiled of all its contents. He notified his relatives and then hurried back to his home where they arrived two or three days later. We agreed with the trial court and the Solicitor General that the evidence adduced during the trial is conclusive that Martin Cocoy and his brother Apolonio Cocoy and according to them one named Abi were responsible for the robbery a.nd the killing of the three victims. According to the testimony of Kotin and Apolonio, together with Abi and upon suggestion of the latter they all went to the house of Leyson late in the afternoon of Wednesday. Upon arrival there Abi asked for food telling Maria that they were hungry and the housewife said she would prepare for them. After a long wait Abi impatient a.sked her about the food promised them and she answered that there was no food in the house, whereupon Abi began boloing and otherwise attacking Maria and the two children Golpihan and Gardenia until they were all dead. Motin said that he did not see the killing because at the time he was at the window looking toward the forest. His brother Apolonio equall)' disclaimed having witnessed the actual killing, because aecordinl' to him he was a.t the door looking cut and when the two brothers turned around, Maria and her children were already lying dead on the floor. We do not blame the trial court for calling and consider .. ing this story of the two brothers "too fantastic, a downright lie." The infliction of the seven wounds on Maria, six wounds on Gar .. denia and three wounds on the little Soy could not ha.ve been accom. plished in an instant like the exploaion of bomb but must haveo taken some time, and undoubtedJy accompanied by resistance even if ineffective, shouts or even noiB"! &nd commotion produced by the assault, and 7et Motin and Apolonio would have the court believo that all these happened without their Jmowledge because they were engrossed in contempl&ting the scenery. There is every reason to believe a:nd to find that tHere was a previous agreement on the ~82 LAWYERS JOURNAL part of the two brothe1·s and Abi to rob the house and to kill the inmates in order to better hide the crime, an agreement which they aetually carried out. This is supported not only by the vE:ry testimony of the two brothers Motin and Apolonio, admitting that after the killing they took part in rans&eking the house and taking awar money and articles, but by t.he test.l.mony of Roque Idala whl) l\ccording to him responded to Maria's shouts for help and witnes~d p:ll't C'l the killing by the two brothers from his place of hiding and observation, a distance of several metE:l'S from the house, He also s:iw the killers, including the two brothers leave the house ca.rrying in bundles what they had taken from Leyson's dwelling, According to ldala after the marauders had left be entered the house and saw the dead b~dies on the floor. Tb~ participation of Motin and Apolonio in the ki1ling a11d the l"Obbery is further supporb .. -d by their own affidaYits, Exhibits A-1 a.nd B-1, wherein they admit that once in the house of Leyson and afte1· Maria had told ti.em that there was no food in the house, the two brothe1·s took part in killing the inmates after they saw Abi initiate the murderous assault. This, to sa.y nothing ot' thoir spont9.neous plea of guilty to th(' eha1·ge applied equally to all. It cannot fail to create a resentment in the hearts of the herein accused beca.~se, whereas they are to suffer the extreme penalty of the law for the crime, Abi, who is as guilty, if not more, as they are, is free. Ca.ses as this is one of the causes of tlie people's losing respect for the law and faith in the government. But the non-prosecution of Abi canr.ot be an impediment to the conviction of the accused if they are really guilty." With the modification above euutrterated, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Department of Justice a.nd the Chief, Philippine Cons.. tabulary. Paras, Pablo, Beng:um, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, J'ugo, Bautista Angelo ll.nd Labrador, J. J., concur. XII Juan D. Crisologo, Petitioner, 11s. People of tlu Philippines and Hon. Pablo Villalobo8, Respondents, G. R. No. L-6277, February 26, 1954. of robbery with homicide, not robbery with triple murder (l) was striken from the record. As to the voluntariness of the affidavits, Exhibits A-1 nnd B-1, Eufr<'.lnio A. Escalona, Justice of the Peace l. of Libaea?, before whom they were sworn ~ssured the Court that CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; CASE AT BAR. - C was on March 12, 1946, accused of treason under A1ticle 114 of the Penal Code in an information filed in the people's court but before C could be bi-ought under the jurisdiction of the cou1t, he was on January 13, 1947 indicted for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise known as the articles of war before a military court. The indictment contained three charges two of which were those of treason, while the other was that of having certain civilians killed in time of war, He ws.s found guilty of the second and was sentenced to life impri-sonment. he read to the affiants the contents in t.he local dialeet and told them tha.t they could either affirm or deny the truth the1·eof, but. that they told him that they contained the truth. Even during the trial Motin and ApoJonio told the court that they were neither intimidated nor maltreated by the Ccnstnbulary or the police. The crime committed' by ap11ellants which is the complex crime of robbery with homicide, not r.:ibbery with triple mul'der Cl) was truly hideous and shocking, not only beeause of the massacre of th1·ee innocent persons but because the killing of two of the victims was clearly unnecessary. Even if the two had been spal'ed, they were too young Caged 3 and 1-1/2 years) to remember and to relate the occurence and identity of the culprits; and the gouging of the eyes of the little boy as confessed by Apolonlo is a manifestation of waD.. ton cruelty and hruta)ity. Ordinarily, this honifying crime deserves the death penalty imposed by the trial court because of the pusence of SPVeraI aggravating circumstances, such as dwelling, uninhabited place, abuse of superior strength, etc.• but some members of this Tribunal are inclined to reduce the penalty to life imprisonment not only because of ignorance and lack of instruction of the defendants ~i~~ ~::s: ::vi~::~ :::;u:~~;~hri~~~n~i:e~d ~:: ~:c~s:f i:s~:;:: 2· tion in the mountains, Apolonio told the court th&t he had never been to. the poblacion of Libacao within whose territorial jurisdiction he had· been living since birth. Lacking the necessary number of votes to impose the extreme penalty, the death penalty imposed by the trial court is hereby reduced to life imprisonment; and following the. sugg~_stion of the Solicitor General, the indemnity to the heh·s imposed by trial cou1·t fo1· the killing should be raised to P6,000.00, and the value of the articles taken away raised fl"Om P273-.60 to P303.60. We notice that Abi, the person who according to the two bi:others, was the leader, up to no\v has not yet been arrested despite the issuance of the conesponding warrant against him and although 3. according to the appellant he was still living in the sitio of Taroytoy not f&r from their home. The authoriiies should continue or renew their efforts to bring him to justice. We quote with approval a paragraph of the decision from on this point. With the approval of Republic Act No. 311 abolishing the people's court, the criminal case in the court against C was, pursuant to . the p1-ovisions of said act, tra.nsferred to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga and there the charges of treason were amplified. Arraigned in that court upon the amended information petitioner presented a motion to quash, challenging the jurisdiction of the cou1t and pleading double jeopardy because of his sentence in the military court. The court denied the motion. IBID; TREASON A CONTINUOUS OFFENSE. - Treason being a continuous offense, one who commitS it is not criminally liable for as many crimes as the1·e are overt acts, because all overt acts specified in the information for treason even if those constitute but a single offense." (Guinto vs. Veluz, 44 Off. Gaz., 909; People vs. Pacheco, L-4750, promulgated July 31. 1953l and it has been repeatedly held that a person cannot be fouttd guilty of treason and at the same time also guilty of overt acts specified in the inform&tion for tr~son even if those overt acts, considered separately, are punishable by law, for the simple reason that those ove1t acts are not separate offens"a distinct from that of treas~n but constitutes ingredients thereof. COURT; CONCURRENT JUR>ISDICTION. - Mere priority in the filing of the complaint in one court does not give that court prfority to take cognizance af the offense, it being neces.. s&ry in addition that the court wher~ the information is filed has custody or jurisdiction of the J;iel'Son of the defendant. "The court notes that Abi was a co-accused in the Justice of the Peace of origin. A warrant was issued for his arrest. The record does not show what happened with the case with respect to Abi after the warrant of arrest was issued. This, in spite of the fact that Abi, according to the herein accused. is not hiding. HE: is in Taroytoy. This shows reluctance on the part of the peace and prosecuting officers to bring Abi to the bar of justice. Such an attitude cannot fail to create in the mind$ of many a belief that, &t times, the law is not 4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; CONVIC.. {l) U.S. v, Landeean, 36 Phil. 869. People v. M1111uel, 44 Phil. 533. Tl-ON OR ACQUITTAL IN A CIVIL COURT NOT A B~R TO A PROSECUTION IN THE MILITARY COURT; EXCEPTION. - There is, for sure, a rule that where an act trans.. gre.sses both civil and military law and subjects the offender to punishment by both civil and military authority, a conviction or O.Il aCquittal in a civil court cannot be pleaded as a bar to a p1-oseeution in the military court, and vice 11uaa. But the rule "is strictly limited to the case of a singie act which infringes both the civil and the military law in such a manner as to constitute two distinct offenses, one of which is within the co:gMay 31, 1954 LAWYERS JOURNAL 288