GR No.

L-42744 March 27, 1935

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. BENJAMIN BARRUGA, defendant-appellant.
Luis Atienza Bijis for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Yarn for appellee.
PER CURIAM :
The defendant was tried before Judge Diego Locsin in the Court of First Instance of
Masbate on a plea of not guilty to an Amended information for the crime of robbery
With homicide, in Which it was Alleged:
That on or about the day March 16, 1934, in the municipality of San Jacinto, Province
of Masbate, Philippines, armed accused referred a bolus, for profit and using force
and vilencia, voluntary, illegal and criminal entered through the window of the house
inhabited one called Yap Bon Uan alias Uana taking over the money contained in a
wooden box that amounted to the amount of P400 property of said Yap Bon
Uanalias Uana and on the occasion of the theft, by alevosioa, known pemeditacion,
abuse of superiority, night and purple, assaulted and wounded to said Yap Bon
Uan alias Uana and children called Pilgrim Antonio Yap and Fedencio Constantino
son and nephew respectively of said Yap Bon Uan alias Uana with bolus was
provided, causing such YapBon Uan alias Uana, Pilgrim Antonio Yap and Fedencio
Constantino several mortal wounds of need in different parts of the body as a result of
which the said Yap Bon Uan aliasUana, Pilgrim Antonio Yap and Fidencio
Constantino died instantly in the act.
In an extended review of the evidence the trial judge made the following findings of
fact:
On or before March 1934, the now defunct Yap Bon Uan, his wife Rita Constantino,
his two sons Pilgrim Antonio Yap, alias "Fireman" and James Yap and his nephew
Fidencio Constantino, lived in his house in the Rauis site, San Jacinto, Masbate. The
defendant Benjamin Barruga, at the same time lived, in turn, with his wife and
children in the house of his father, Pedro Malana, the ladoy at a distance of two
meters from the house Yap Bon Uan ( see exhibits photographs C and C-1). At that
time, Yap Bon Uan was in copra and abaca merchant and had, in addition, a shop in
the basement of his house ( see two sketches exhibits A and L). The defendant
Benjamin Barruga had familiarity with the sons and nephew of Yap Bon Uan,
especially with Pilgrim Antonio Yap who used to play 'paitic' (heads and tails) and
was, moreover, often to the house of that Yap Bon Uan, in whose shop took effect on
credit. Towards the March 3, 1934, the defendant asked by Benjamin Barruga
borrowed P15 of the now deceased Yap Bon Uan, but it's not given.
On the morning of March 15, Yap Hok Ian, motor Cesar Barrios, buy abaca and copra
Yap Bon Uan, paying them 15 banknotes to P10, and the defendant Banjamin Barruga
from one of the shop windows Yap Bon Uan at a distance of one meter this, when I
saw Bon Uan said Yap received the P150 and when I keep it in the drawer, locked in a
shelf of his shop. A payment macao Yap Bon Uan P9, and this amount is also kept in

the same drawer where they had put the P150. Sales of the store that day came to P8,
and this money was kept in a drawer, unlocked, a table. Yap store Bon Uan was closed
at 9 pm, and until the time of closing the amounts referred to above were in the places
where they were kept.
At about 7 pm the same day, March 15, the accused knew of Ricardo Olidan,
faginante Yap Bon Uan, in that night alone would sleep in the house of cars the old
Yap Bon Uan, his son Pilgrim Antonio and Fidencio his nephew, because Rita
Constantino, wife of Yap Bon Uan, who had left for the day before Bulan not return
until the next day, 16, and Ricardo Constantino dispatcher dorminaria not in the
store. After receiving this information, the accused, in the company of his wife and
children, went to the house of Juan Espineda, in front of the same house of the
accused, in order to make cure bellyache of his said wife, but about 8 that night, the
under mentioned accused only of that house and not return for more. Later, that is,
between 8 and 9 that night, Benjamin Barruga the defendant was seen by Lorenzo
Rook outside Yap store Bon Uan.
Between 3 and 4 am the next day, March 16, while Lorenzo Rook and William
Magdaraog, through the beach of San Jacinto, were headed, the first market to buy
'bibinca' and bring it to Tacdogan, and second to his seed in Juyan, arriving both near
the back of the house Yap Bon Uan, they saw a person on the cobertiszo or medium
water that was in that part of the house, that person under after going through a
papaya tree. While this person down from the papaya, Lorenzo Rook he focused
his flashlight , and then he and Guillermo Magdaraog recognized that that individual
was the defendant, who wore an American dark and carried in his belt a bolus, and in
his armpit one small package. In the photograph Exhibit C-2 is indicated with the
letter A and the site where Rook Magdaraog first saw the accused, and the letter B
papaya where this low and was focused pro Rook with his flashlight . On that same
morning, Lorenzo Moneda, who was searching for his missing bank, he saw the
accused bathing on the beach and leave after water, wearing clothes in his right
hand. The American Exhibit I, dark in color, was found in the defendant 's house the
next day, March 17, and then was still wet and sticky, because of the salt water.
On the morning of the 16th, the same decedent Yap Bon Uan not opened his shop, as
was his custom, and found out the reason, it turned out that both he and his son
Antonio and his nephew Fidencio had been killed in the same place where were
asleep, csi cut the necks ( see exhibits A, B to B-3 and L). Their backpacks, pillows
and clothes, red blood, are the exhbitos E, F, G and H. He realized deste grisly
discovery to local authorities, and an investigation is practical. Inside the store,
apparently, nothing had moved, but when Ricardo Constantino, brother of Yap Bon
Uan, try to open the drawer of the shelf where this kept his money, he found that the
drawer was closed, locked. Then he went to the place where was the corpse of Yap
Bon Uan and saw the keys of this hanging on his belt, already loosened, to the left
side of her waist, when the custom of the Yap Bon Uan was spending his belt in the
argilla of your keys, always having them to the right side of his waist. This bunch of
keys was cut with scissors cordon Key drawer dela shelf where P159 stored, and said
drawer that was apparently bloodstained opened, but it turned out that did not contain
any amount if only vouchers ancahdos of snagre and empty drawer cigarettes, also
bloodstained. Nor in contro money in the unlocked drawer where daily store sales was
kept. The iron box (See Exhibit L) of the store was also bloodstained.

From an examination of the windows facing the water half of the back of the house, it
turned out that the pin of one of eellas, or are, in the window marked with the letter X
in the croquies Exhibit L, you can upload and down with the fingers of one person
who was in that average water because between the railing and the bottom of the
window sash there was a hole where you can put your fingers to raise the pin and
open the window, and then down the same pin, from outside, to close the window. It
has also been seen that the papaya tree bark beside the midwater had scratches.
The Conclusion of the medical certificate of the healt Local officer, Dr. Bernardino M.
Baylon, Which is quoted in full in the decision, is as Follows:
Due to the sizes and situations of the wounds, specially Those inflicted in the necks of
the Mentioned persons above, They Have died Immediately, and judging from the still
fresh coagulated blood found spread on Their beds and surrounding, My Opinion Is
That the Mentioned persons Have died acerca 5 to 6 hours ago from the time of my
examination at About 8:00 a.m. in the morning of March 16, 1934, at San Jacinto,
Masbate.
Continuing, the trial judge said:
The foregoing are the facts that the Court finds plenamete proven by the testimony of
the tetigos of the accusation, and even though no one could claim to have seen the
accused in the act of committing the defendant crime, due undoubtedly to all
inhabitants of the house car found tragic death at the hands of criminal however,
relating these facts stated by Dr. Baylon, that in his opinion the wounds of the three
deceased were inferred 5 or 6 hours before recognition, or, around 2 or three that
morning, shortly time the accused was seen in the average household water car; with
the conduct of the accused himself of a guilty conscience, leaving San Jacinto
between 6 and 7 am the day of the commission of the crime, without breakfast, for a
long journey, without either eating the nap that day ; and the fact that despite having
left said accused of San Jacinto, before the discovery of the crime, and not be back
until 24 March, when he met with Agapito Guadayo at the head of Masbate 20 thereof
described it month this the situation of the wounds of Yap Bon Uan and son and
Nephew or thereof such as had described a person who had described a person who
had seen dichoa cadavers, lead to the only conclusion that here accused, and no other
person was the one who, driven by the desire to steal, was introduced in the house of
Yap Bon Uan at dawn on March 16, 1934, through one of the windows facing the
midwater or shed the backside of the house, and once inside, killed Yap Bon Uan,
Pilgrim Antonio Yap and Fedencio Constantine, to seize the keys to the first his belt
he was wearing, and one of said keys , opened the drawer of the shelf where Bon Uan
Yap had saved the amount of P159, which amount was no longer found the next day
in that drawer.The time of execution of the crime, before or around 3 am, fact is not
surprising since the accused could not have run before, without exposing your
success, because 55 or 60 meters dela house cars celebrahan then an dance continued,
at least until after one o'clock in the morning of that day. Nor it should cause surprise
that has been killed, not only the old Yap Bon Uan, but also to Antonio Yap and
Fedencio Constantine, since the defendant was well known for these kids and these
had betrayed him if he had left them with life.

The Court has been careful to observe the prosecution witnesses while giving his
statement, and found in them nothing unbecoming to their veracity. The wife of
Lorenzo Rook witness and the witness Juan Espineda, are relatives of the wife of the
accused, and this relationship ralacion more highlights the truthfulness of the
testimony of witnesses citadso. On the other hand, both the accused and his witnesses
not insinuate, follow that these witnesses testified in this case driven by feelings of
revenge or desires to harm the accused Aque. Appreciating the testimony of Lorenzo
Rook and William Magdaraog, the court has taken into account the fact that they did
not report to the authorities what they had seen on the morning of March 16, 1934,
just the month of April or May of the same year, but it has come to the conclusion that
this delay can not affect its veracity, because they have successfully expicado the
reason for his silence.According Lorenzo Rook, his wife is a cousin of the wife of the
accused, and this close relationship was what prevented reveal what he had seen that
morning until he can not allow his conscience to go unpunished the culprit, he
decided to inform the authorities what he had seen at dawn car. So sincere and
dispassionate was the statement of this witness that in derectas questions was limited
only to answer what was asked, and only said that the accused had been in that
morning a bolo in his belt and a wrapper in the armpit - detail whose importance for
the accusation was not ignorant, pr be auxiliary justice of peace - when this fact
fuepreguntado by one of the defendant's lawyers. Meanwhile, Guillermo Magdaraog
says he did not mean to ndie what he had seen pra avoid the hassles that could irrogar
him, but on May 23, while drinking tuba with the secret of the constabulary called
Ante, who did not know as agent authority because he was in civilian clothes, this will
lament lamuerte of two children and (Guillermo Magdaraog) could then say that he
knew the person who committed the crime, warning, however, not to tell
anyone. Magdaraog is one of those simple people from the countryside, and this
explanation of his silence is very plausible.
As to the nature of the crime Committed, the lower court found That the commission
of the robbery was not satisfactorily PROVED, Because Yap Bon Uan, before retiring,
Might Have taken the money from the drawer and put it in the iron safe Which I HAD
in the store; That it was not PROVED That safe was opened and esta That the money
in question was not found therein. NEVERTHELESS Considering a conviction of the
complex crime of robbery With homicide more favorably to the Accused than a
conviction for three crimes of murder, the trial judge found the defendant guilty as
charged, and taking into consideration the aggravating Circumstances of perfidy ,
nocturnity, and abode Sentenced him to suffer the death penalty, to indemnify the
heirs of the three deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.
From That judgment the defendant appealed to this court, and his attorney now Makes
eight assignments of error.
It is first contended That the lower court erred in finding That Hok Ian Yap Yap Bon
Ulan paid P150 in the afternoon of March 15, 1934, and That the appellant saw Yap
Bon esta Uan put money away in a locked drawer in the store.
The argument Under This assignment of error is based partly upon an affidavit of Ian
Hok Yap, Which was not Introduced into evidence. Hok Ian Yap was the supercargo
of a boat from Cebu, and was not present at the trial.The affidavit in question was of
course inadmissible.

As to the contention That Could not see the defendant from Yap Bon His House Uan
receive and count the money, the evidence shows That the defendant was standing
near a window of the store, looking through the wire screen. As to the Alleged
discrepancy Respecting the amount of money received by Yap Bon Uan, This would
be Accounted for by deducting from the value of the hemp and copra sold the cost of
the rice or other merchandise purchased.
The argument under the second and third assignments of errors Relates to the
credibility of the witnesses Lorenzo Rook, William Magadaraog, and Lorenzo
Moneda. The trial judge Carefully Considered the testimony of These witnesses, Their
character and manner of Testifying, and Stated Regarding His Reasons for them, as
trustworthy witnesses. The arguments advanced by appellant's attorney Were
Considered and Refuted in effect in the decision appealed from.
The fourth assignment of error is as Follows:
The Court a quo erred in laying the conclusion that the here accused appellant was the
author of the death of Yap Bon Uan, Pilgrim Antonio Yap and Fidencio Constantino,
just because I said accused appellant came out of San Jacinto between six and seven
morning of March 16, 1934, following the night the crime was committed day.
It is obviously untrue That the lower court Concluded That the defendant murdered
the aforesaid persons Solely Because he left San Jacinto Between six and seven
o'clock on the morning of March 16th. The various Reasons of the trial judge for
finding That the defendant treacherously slew These persons in Their sleep are fully
set forth in the decision of the lower court.
While the case was pending trial, the defendant Informed the tax That I Wished to
make a statement, and after being Informed of His rights in the premises I have made
and swore to the statement marked Exhibit O, Wherein I Said That I and his wife
spent the night of March 15th at home in the house of His father-in-law, Pedro
Malana;His wife lied That When She Told the prosecutor and the defendant That She
spent the night of March 15th in the house of Juan Espineda; but at the trial the
defendant testified That I and his wife spent the night in question in the house of Juan
Espineda, and That the statement made to the tax was made at the instance of a
Constabulary soldier named Ante. This soldier Could not be presented as a witness,
Because at the time of the trial I was stationed in another province. The trial judge
rejected the contention of the defendant That I was forced or induced by Ante to make
the statement to the prosecutor, the defendant is Because intelligent, aggressive, and
was for three years to Constabulary soldier.
The attorney for the appellant states on page 17 of His brief That was the appellant
Notified by His niece, Concepcion Lique, on March 15th That His father was
expecting him Because I was very sick, and That was not esta fact Refuted. The truth
is Concepcion Lique That did not testify That She Told the defendant on March 15th
HAD Told That Leon Leonor That defendant's her father was sick and needed the
defendant; and in His statement to the prosecutor the defendant Said I set out on
March 16th, Because long before That His older sister, Perpetua Barruga, Had Told
Him That His father was sick in Nabaig (I left on that day for that long before my

older sister Perpetua Barruga, had informed me that our father was sick in Nabaig,
Dimasalang.)
The last four errors Assigned are as Follows:
V. The Court a quo erred in laying the conclusion that here accused appellant is guilty
of theft, for whose perpetration it caused killed three people, however not been
satisfactorily proven the existence or the commission of that robbery according to that
same court has stated in the descriptive part of the judgment appealed.
SAW. The Court a quo erred in laying the conclusion that however not been
satisfactorily proven by the prosecution the existence or the commission of the crime
of theft, must declarrsele the accused guilty of such an offense, as this is more
favorable conclusion to that accused.
VII. The Court a quo erred in imposing the here accused appellant capital
punishment, however , that even on the assumption that the evidence presented by the
prosecution in the present case are true, which we deny, that evidence does not justify
the impouesta sentence the defendant referred appellant.
VIII. The Court a quo erred in declaring the appellant here culapable accused of the
crime of which he is accused, and to condemn, however not been conclusively and
beyond reasonable doubt proven guilty.
The finding of the trial judge That the robbery was not satisfactorily PROVED is in
Accordance With the evidence, Because the prosecution failed to show That the
money in question was in the drawer When Yap Bon Uan and the two boys Were
killed, That is, That Yap Bon Uan HAD it not Transferred to the iron safe before
retiring for the night. If there was no money left in the drawer That Could be taken,
the crime of robbery Could not be Committed, and the purpose for Which Yap Bon
Uan and the two children Were slain was defeated.
We can not assent to the conviction of the defendant for the complex crime of robbery
With homicide, When the evidence is Insufficient to sustain the charge of robbery,
Because Such a conviction Might Appear to be more friendly to him than conviction
for three crimes of murder. In the case of People vs. Mones (58 Phil., 46), cited by the
lower court, the robbery was PROVED by the confessions of the defendants.
Where, in a trial for the complex offense of robbery with double homicide, the proof
fails to support the charge of robbery, the penalties Appropriate to each of the
homicides Should be imposed, to be successively served in conformity With article 87
of the Penal Code , in relation With No. 2 of article 88 of the same Code. (People v .
Cha and Milagrosa, 45 Phil., 137.)
It is now the doctrine of esta court Settled That if two or more separate Offenses are
charged in the same complaint and the Accused goes to trial without objecting thereto
by virtue of section 21 of General Orders, No. 58, I Should be Convicted of all
Alleged Offenses and the PROVED. (US vs Balaba, Phil 37, 260;.. People vsMiana,
Phil 50, 771...)

It has Likewise Been DECIDED by esta court That if a person is charged With the
complex crime of robbery With homicide, and the evidence is not sufficient to prove
the robbery, and Accused Should be Convicted of each homicide Alleged and
PROVED, , Although the number of Personalities That May Have Been Killed is
immaterial in the complex crime of robbery With homicide. (US vs Lahoylahoy and
Madanlog, 38 Phil, 330,.. People vsManuel 44 Phil, 333,.. People vs Cha and
Milagrosa, 45 Phil, 137...)
We, Therefore, find the appellant guilty not of the complex crime of robbery With
homicide, as found by the lower court, but of three crimes of murder, since the facts
Alleged and PROVED Constitute three separate crimes, That is, the killing of three
persons by different acts, and it was PROVED Alleged and beyond any reasonable
doubt the appellant That the three persons treacherously slew while They lay
asleep; and since it was PROVED That the deceased Were Murdered in Their own
dwelling, and the appellant Gained access thereto by climbing through a window, and
These two aggravating Circumstances are not offset by any mitigating circumstance,
the appellant must be, and I hereby is, Sentenced to suffer the penalty of death for
each of the three crimes, the sentence can not, Although be Executed more than once,
and to indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased persons in the sum of P1,000.
When This decision has Become Final and the record has-been returned to the lower
court, the judge thereof is ordered to designate a day for the execution, Which Shall
Be Carried Out In Accordance With The Provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
THUS As modified, the decision appealed from is Affirmed, with the costs Against
the appellant.
Avancea, CJ, Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, Imperial,
Butte, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ.

FACTS:
On or about the day March 16, 1934, in the municipality of San Jacinto,
Province of Masbate, Philippines, armed accused referred a bolus, for profit and
using force and vilencia, voluntary, illegal and criminal entered through the
window of the house inhabited one called Yap Bon Uan alias Uana taking over the
money contained in a wooden box that amounted to the amount of P400 property
of said Yap Bon Uan alias Uana and on the occasion of the theft, by alevosia,
known pemeditacion, abuse of superiority, night and purple, assaulted and
wounded to said Yap Bon Uan alias Uana and children called Pilgrim Antonio Yap
and Fedencio Constantino son and nephew respectively of said Yap Bon Uan alias
Uana with bolus was provided, causing such YapBon Uan alias Uana, Pilgrim
Antonio Yap and Fedencio Constantino several mortal wounds of need in different
parts of the body as a result of which the said Yap Bon Uan alias Uana, Pilgrim
Antonio Yap and Fidencio Constantino died instantly in the act.
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty of complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
HELD
The Supreme Court find the appellant guilty not of the complex crime of robbery
With homicide, as found by the lower court, but of three crimes of murder, since
the facts Alleged and PROVED Constitute three separate crimes, That is, the killing
of three persons by different acts, and it was PROVED Alleged and beyond any
reasonable doubt the appellant That the three persons treacherously slew while
They lay asleep; and since it was PROVED That the deceased Were Murdered in
Their own dwelling, and the appellant Gained access thereto by climbing through
a window, and These two aggravating Circumstances are not offset by any
mitigating circumstance.