EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 131837-38. April 2, 2002.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C2C RODNEY T. DUMALAHAY, ALLAN A. HALASAN (at large), REMEGIO FUENTES (at large), SGT. ROY HALASAN (at large), Accused. C2C RODNEY T. DUMALAHAY, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Accused were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, with two counts of Murder, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Criminal Case No. 6655 —
That on or about December 18, 1985, at about 8:30 in the evening, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, principals, C2C Rodney T. Dumalahay, PC, Allan A. Halasan and Remegio A. Fuentes, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and armed with an armalite rifle which they were then conveniently provided, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill Geronimo Layagon alias Loloy on board a Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle by then and there firing upon the victim several times with an armalite rifle, while the victim was seated on (sic) the running Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle, and driven by accused Rodney Dumalahay, thereby inflicting serious gunshot wounds on the victim, resulting to (sic) his instantaneous death.
That accused Sgt. Roy Halasan, PC, is an Accessory after the Fact of the said crime in that he assisted in the escape of the three principal accused by driving a Chimite B150 vehicle stationed at Camp Alagar and towed the Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle used in the murder which bogged down after the killing near Agora Market, until the engine had started, well-knowing that the 3 principals accused killed the victim and he had seen the dead bodies inside the Hi-Lux vehicle when he towed the same and was given P1,000.00 from the money of one of the dead victim (sic).
That the commission of the said offense is accompanied by the following aggravating circumstance namely: abuse of confidence; nighttime obviously sought to facilitate the commission of the offense; treachery and evident premeditation.
Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code. 1
Criminal Case No. 6656 —
That on or about December 18, 1985, at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening, more or less, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, principals, C2C Rodney T. Dumalahay, PC, Allan A. Halasan and Remegio A. Fuentes, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and armed with an armalite rifle which they were then conveniently provided, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill Antonio Escalante on board a Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle by then and there firing upon the victim several times with an armalite rifle, while the victim was seated on (sic) the running Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle, and driven by accused Rodney Dumalahay, thereby inflicting serious gunshot wounds on the victim, resulting to (sic) his instantaneous death.
That accused Sgt. Roy Halasan, PC, is an Accessory after the Fact of the said crime in that he assisted in the escape of the three principal accused by driving a Chimite B150 vehicle stationed at Camp Alagar and towed the Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle used in the murder which bogged down after the killing near Agora Market, until the engine had started, well-knowing that the 3 principals accused killed the victim and he had seen the dead bodies inside the Hi-Lux vehicle when he towed the same and was given P1,000.00 from the money of one of the dead victim (sic).
That the commission of the said offense is accompanied by the following aggravating circumstance namely: abuse of confidence; of nighttime obviously sought to facilitate the commission of the offense; treachery and evident premeditation.
Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. 2
The facts, as culled from the extrajudicial confessions of accused Rodney Dumalahay, 3 Allan Halasan 4 and Remegio Fuentes, 5 are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On December 15, 1985, Constable Second Class Rodney T. Dumalahay was approached by Geronimo "Loloy" Layagon and Antonio Escalante asking if he knew where they can buy an M-16 Baby Armalite. Coincidentally, Dumalahay had such a firearm but he pawned it to Nanong Cagang sometime in August 1985 for P5,000.00. Dumalahay told Layagon and Escalante that he can buy the firearm for P18,000.00, and asked for a downpayment of P7,000.00. When Dumalahay tried to redeem the Baby Armalite, however, Cagang told him that the amount of his loan had reached P14,300.00, inclusive of interests. So, Dumalahay asked for an additional P7,300.00 from Layagon and Escalante. On December 18, 1985, Dumalahay was able to redeem the Baby Armalite from Cagang.
Driving a Toyota pick-up truck, Dumalahay fetched Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes at the house of Sgt. Roy Halasan, Allan’s brother. He dropped off Fuentes at the Double "E" Batchoy restaurant where Layagon and Escalante were waiting. Dumalahay then drove around with Allan Halasan and gave him instructions to shoot Layagon and Escalante on board the pick-up truck when he heard the word, "gen." Dumalahay then drove back to Double "E" Batchoy and picked up Layagon, Escalante and Fuentes. Inside the truck, Dumalahay showed the Baby Armalite to Layagon and Escalante. They headed towards Agora, Lapasan, purportedly to get additional ammunition.
When they reached Gaabucayan Street, Allan Halasan heard Dumalahay utter the signal, "gen," so he immediately fired at Layagon and Escalante with the M-16 Baby Armalite. Dumalahay saw that Escalante was still alive and ordered Halasan to finish him off. The pick-up truck suddenly stalled near Agora Market. Allan Halasan went to Camp Alagar to ask for help from his brother, Sgt. Roy Halasan. Moments later, the brothers arrived in a Chimite B150, an armored military vehicle. They towed the pick-up truck until its engine started. Then, Dumalahay drove the truck towards Cabula, where they dumped the dead bodies of Escalante and Layagon. It was already 11:00 in the evening.
At their arraignment, C2C Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes entered a plea of not guilty. Sgt. Roy Halasan, on the other hand, has not been apprehended.
On October 7, 1997, the lower court rendered judgment as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, finding principal accused Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante they are each hereby sentenced to double penalties of death one for the death of Geronimo Layagon and the other for the death of Antonio Escalante, plus all the accessory penalties provided by law. Each of them too is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Geronimo Layagon in the sum of P50,000, to pay them moral damages in the sum of P50,000 and exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000. Likewise, they are each ordered to indemnify the heirs of Antonio Escalante in the sum of P50,000, to pay moral damages in the sum of P50,000 and exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000.
They are also ordered to pay the costs of this case.
Since the accused Allan Hasalan and Remegio Fuentes are at large, let a warrant for their arrest issue.
The present custodian of Rodney Dumalahay is hereby directed to transport him to the higher authorities without delay.
The baby armalite rifle, which is the weapon of death, which is Exh. Q, is hereby confiscated in favor of the State.
SO ORDERED. 6
During the trial of the cases before the court a quo, Accused Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes escaped detention. They remain at large to this day. However, the trial court proceeded to try the case against them. Since the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sgt. Roy Halasan, judgment was not rendered against him.
In view of the imposition of the death penalty, these cases are now before us on automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.
In his Appellant’s Brief, Accused-appellant Dumalahay argues that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because it was obtained by means of duress, and the lawyer who assisted him during the investigation was provided by the police. By way of defense, he alleges that he sold his Baby Armalite rifle to Antonio Escalante; that while they were on board the pick-up truck, the rifle, which was being held by Allan Halasan while seated in front of the double cab pick-up truck, accidentally went off and hit Escalante and Layagon, who were both at the backseat. 7
We are not persuaded.
The self-serving statements of accused-appellant Dumalahay is belied by the testimony of Atty. Manuel Ubay-ubay, the lawyer who assisted the three accused in their confession. He narrated that at 6:00 in the evening of May 28, 1986, he was fetched at his house by Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes, together with CIS Agent Bernardo Cabillar, Staff Sgt. Basilio Mangubat and Napoleon dela Torre. The three accused wanted to engage his services in connection with the investigation of the deaths of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante. Atty. Ubay-ubay acceded and went with them to the CIS Office in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City. There, he assisted the three accused in giving their respective confessions to the police officers. 8
The sworn confessions of the three accused show that they were properly apprised of their right to remain silent and right to counsel, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee. 9
At 8:00 in the morning of the next day, the three accused proceeded to the office of Atty. Rexel Pacuribot, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. All of the three accused, still accompanied by Atty. Ubay-ubay, subscribed and swore to their respective written confessions. Before administering the oaths, Atty. Pacuribot reminded the three accused of their constitutional rights under the Miranda doctrine and verified that their statements were voluntarily given. Atty. Pacuribot also translated the contents of each confession in the Visayan dialect, to ensure that each accused understood the same before signing it. 10
No ill-motive was imputed on these two lawyers to testify falsely against the accused. Their participation in these cases merely involved the performance of their legal duties as officers of the court. Accused-appellant Dumalahay’s allegation to the contrary, being self-serving, cannot prevail over the testimonies of these impartial and disinterested witnesses.
More importantly, the confessions are replete with details which could possibly be supplied only by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and coherence which psychologically cannot be associated with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied. 11 These factors are clear indicia that the confessions were voluntarily given.
When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they could not have been concocted by one who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in the extraction of the confession is unsubstantiated and where abundant evidence exists showing that the statement was voluntarily executed, the confession is admissible against the declarant. There is greater reason for finding a confession to be voluntary where it is corroborated by evidence aliunde which dovetails with the essential facts contained in such confession. 12
The confessions dovetail in all their material respects. Each of the accused gave the same detailed narration of the manner by which Layagon and Escalante were killed. This clearly shows that their confessions could not have been contrived. Surely, the three accused could not have given such identical accounts of their participation and culpability in the crime were it not the truth.
It is worthy to note that Dumalahay escaped on September 7, 1987, while Halasan and Fuentes escaped on April 30, 1988. While Dumalahay was rearrested on May 4, 1994, the other two have remained at large up to this day. Their flight from justice betrayed their guilt.
. . . In criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt. In fact, we have held that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or submits himself to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. 13
Therefore, we find that Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes are criminally liable as principals for the killing of Layagon and Escalante. Their respective roles in the crime show that they acted in conspiracy. Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the case at bar, it was proved that Dumalahay. planned the execution and Halasan agreed to carry out the same. As regards Fuentes, his acts before, during, and after the crime show that he shared in the joint design, concerted action and common sentiment of his two co-accused. Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation. 14
We also find that treachery qualified the killing to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 15 In this case, the deceased were killed inside the pickup truck. The signal to shoot was treacherously and surreptitiously pre-arranged between Dumalahay and Allan Halasan. The gunshot was so sudden that it deprived the deceased of any opportunity to put up a defense. The fact that they were seated at the backseat of the moving truck ruled out any possibility of escape.
Based on the facts proven and the allegations in the information, the circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle attended the killing. Notwithstanding the attendance of these aggravating circumstances, the death penalty cannot be imposed on the three accused. It is true that the dual killings were committed on December 18, 1985, before the suspension of the death penalty. When the 1987 Constitution took effect, the provision therein proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, being more favorable to the accused, could have been retroactive applied to them, 16 However, the cases at bar were decided by the trial court on October 7, 1997. In the interim, Republic Act No. 7569 took effect on January 1, 1994, reinstating the death penalty. The accused cannot be faulted for the delay in the disposition of the cases against them.
In the case of People v. Cogonon, 17 we held that the death penalty cannot be imposed on an accused notwithstanding that at the time judgment was rendered, the said penalty had been reinstated. In the same vein, the accused in this case cannot be sentenced to death just because the same was reinstated at the time the trial court rendered judgment against them. They should continue to enjoy the benefit under the 1987 Constitution, which could have been applied to them if only these eases had been decided earlier. In criminal cases, all doubts shall be resolved in favor of the accused. 18 Hence, the accused should only be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Insofar as the damages are concerned, the accused are liable to pay the heirs of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante, respectively, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Civil indemnity and moral damages in murder cases require no further proof other than death. 19 On the other hand, exemplary damages shall be imposed as part of the civil liability arising from crime where the aggravating circumstances attended the commission thereof. 20 The trial court, however, erred in ordering each of the accused to pay the full amount of the aforesaid damages. The civil liability of co-principals in a criminal case is solidary. 21
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in Criminal Cases Nos. 6655 and 6656, finding Rodney T. Dumalahay, Allan A. Halasan and Remegio A. Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that each of the said accused are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of Murder. Further, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages each to the heirs of Geronimo Layagon and the heirs of Antonio Escalante.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Puno and Vitug, JJ., on official leave.
Criminal Case No. 6655 —
That on or about December 18, 1985, at about 8:30 in the evening, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, principals, C2C Rodney T. Dumalahay, PC, Allan A. Halasan and Remegio A. Fuentes, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and armed with an armalite rifle which they were then conveniently provided, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill Geronimo Layagon alias Loloy on board a Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle by then and there firing upon the victim several times with an armalite rifle, while the victim was seated on (sic) the running Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle, and driven by accused Rodney Dumalahay, thereby inflicting serious gunshot wounds on the victim, resulting to (sic) his instantaneous death.
That accused Sgt. Roy Halasan, PC, is an Accessory after the Fact of the said crime in that he assisted in the escape of the three principal accused by driving a Chimite B150 vehicle stationed at Camp Alagar and towed the Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle used in the murder which bogged down after the killing near Agora Market, until the engine had started, well-knowing that the 3 principals accused killed the victim and he had seen the dead bodies inside the Hi-Lux vehicle when he towed the same and was given P1,000.00 from the money of one of the dead victim (sic).
That the commission of the said offense is accompanied by the following aggravating circumstance namely: abuse of confidence; nighttime obviously sought to facilitate the commission of the offense; treachery and evident premeditation.
Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code. 1
Criminal Case No. 6656 —
That on or about December 18, 1985, at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening, more or less, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, principals, C2C Rodney T. Dumalahay, PC, Allan A. Halasan and Remegio A. Fuentes, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and armed with an armalite rifle which they were then conveniently provided, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill Antonio Escalante on board a Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle by then and there firing upon the victim several times with an armalite rifle, while the victim was seated on (sic) the running Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle, and driven by accused Rodney Dumalahay, thereby inflicting serious gunshot wounds on the victim, resulting to (sic) his instantaneous death.
That accused Sgt. Roy Halasan, PC, is an Accessory after the Fact of the said crime in that he assisted in the escape of the three principal accused by driving a Chimite B150 vehicle stationed at Camp Alagar and towed the Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle used in the murder which bogged down after the killing near Agora Market, until the engine had started, well-knowing that the 3 principals accused killed the victim and he had seen the dead bodies inside the Hi-Lux vehicle when he towed the same and was given P1,000.00 from the money of one of the dead victim (sic).
That the commission of the said offense is accompanied by the following aggravating circumstance namely: abuse of confidence; of nighttime obviously sought to facilitate the commission of the offense; treachery and evident premeditation.
Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. 2
The facts, as culled from the extrajudicial confessions of accused Rodney Dumalahay, 3 Allan Halasan 4 and Remegio Fuentes, 5 are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On December 15, 1985, Constable Second Class Rodney T. Dumalahay was approached by Geronimo "Loloy" Layagon and Antonio Escalante asking if he knew where they can buy an M-16 Baby Armalite. Coincidentally, Dumalahay had such a firearm but he pawned it to Nanong Cagang sometime in August 1985 for P5,000.00. Dumalahay told Layagon and Escalante that he can buy the firearm for P18,000.00, and asked for a downpayment of P7,000.00. When Dumalahay tried to redeem the Baby Armalite, however, Cagang told him that the amount of his loan had reached P14,300.00, inclusive of interests. So, Dumalahay asked for an additional P7,300.00 from Layagon and Escalante. On December 18, 1985, Dumalahay was able to redeem the Baby Armalite from Cagang.
Driving a Toyota pick-up truck, Dumalahay fetched Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes at the house of Sgt. Roy Halasan, Allan’s brother. He dropped off Fuentes at the Double "E" Batchoy restaurant where Layagon and Escalante were waiting. Dumalahay then drove around with Allan Halasan and gave him instructions to shoot Layagon and Escalante on board the pick-up truck when he heard the word, "gen." Dumalahay then drove back to Double "E" Batchoy and picked up Layagon, Escalante and Fuentes. Inside the truck, Dumalahay showed the Baby Armalite to Layagon and Escalante. They headed towards Agora, Lapasan, purportedly to get additional ammunition.
When they reached Gaabucayan Street, Allan Halasan heard Dumalahay utter the signal, "gen," so he immediately fired at Layagon and Escalante with the M-16 Baby Armalite. Dumalahay saw that Escalante was still alive and ordered Halasan to finish him off. The pick-up truck suddenly stalled near Agora Market. Allan Halasan went to Camp Alagar to ask for help from his brother, Sgt. Roy Halasan. Moments later, the brothers arrived in a Chimite B150, an armored military vehicle. They towed the pick-up truck until its engine started. Then, Dumalahay drove the truck towards Cabula, where they dumped the dead bodies of Escalante and Layagon. It was already 11:00 in the evening.
At their arraignment, C2C Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes entered a plea of not guilty. Sgt. Roy Halasan, on the other hand, has not been apprehended.
On October 7, 1997, the lower court rendered judgment as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, finding principal accused Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante they are each hereby sentenced to double penalties of death one for the death of Geronimo Layagon and the other for the death of Antonio Escalante, plus all the accessory penalties provided by law. Each of them too is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Geronimo Layagon in the sum of P50,000, to pay them moral damages in the sum of P50,000 and exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000. Likewise, they are each ordered to indemnify the heirs of Antonio Escalante in the sum of P50,000, to pay moral damages in the sum of P50,000 and exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000.
They are also ordered to pay the costs of this case.
Since the accused Allan Hasalan and Remegio Fuentes are at large, let a warrant for their arrest issue.
The present custodian of Rodney Dumalahay is hereby directed to transport him to the higher authorities without delay.
The baby armalite rifle, which is the weapon of death, which is Exh. Q, is hereby confiscated in favor of the State.
SO ORDERED. 6
During the trial of the cases before the court a quo, Accused Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes escaped detention. They remain at large to this day. However, the trial court proceeded to try the case against them. Since the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sgt. Roy Halasan, judgment was not rendered against him.
In view of the imposition of the death penalty, these cases are now before us on automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.
In his Appellant’s Brief, Accused-appellant Dumalahay argues that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because it was obtained by means of duress, and the lawyer who assisted him during the investigation was provided by the police. By way of defense, he alleges that he sold his Baby Armalite rifle to Antonio Escalante; that while they were on board the pick-up truck, the rifle, which was being held by Allan Halasan while seated in front of the double cab pick-up truck, accidentally went off and hit Escalante and Layagon, who were both at the backseat. 7
We are not persuaded.
The self-serving statements of accused-appellant Dumalahay is belied by the testimony of Atty. Manuel Ubay-ubay, the lawyer who assisted the three accused in their confession. He narrated that at 6:00 in the evening of May 28, 1986, he was fetched at his house by Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes, together with CIS Agent Bernardo Cabillar, Staff Sgt. Basilio Mangubat and Napoleon dela Torre. The three accused wanted to engage his services in connection with the investigation of the deaths of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante. Atty. Ubay-ubay acceded and went with them to the CIS Office in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City. There, he assisted the three accused in giving their respective confessions to the police officers. 8
The sworn confessions of the three accused show that they were properly apprised of their right to remain silent and right to counsel, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee. 9
At 8:00 in the morning of the next day, the three accused proceeded to the office of Atty. Rexel Pacuribot, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. All of the three accused, still accompanied by Atty. Ubay-ubay, subscribed and swore to their respective written confessions. Before administering the oaths, Atty. Pacuribot reminded the three accused of their constitutional rights under the Miranda doctrine and verified that their statements were voluntarily given. Atty. Pacuribot also translated the contents of each confession in the Visayan dialect, to ensure that each accused understood the same before signing it. 10
No ill-motive was imputed on these two lawyers to testify falsely against the accused. Their participation in these cases merely involved the performance of their legal duties as officers of the court. Accused-appellant Dumalahay’s allegation to the contrary, being self-serving, cannot prevail over the testimonies of these impartial and disinterested witnesses.
More importantly, the confessions are replete with details which could possibly be supplied only by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and coherence which psychologically cannot be associated with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied. 11 These factors are clear indicia that the confessions were voluntarily given.
When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they could not have been concocted by one who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in the extraction of the confession is unsubstantiated and where abundant evidence exists showing that the statement was voluntarily executed, the confession is admissible against the declarant. There is greater reason for finding a confession to be voluntary where it is corroborated by evidence aliunde which dovetails with the essential facts contained in such confession. 12
The confessions dovetail in all their material respects. Each of the accused gave the same detailed narration of the manner by which Layagon and Escalante were killed. This clearly shows that their confessions could not have been contrived. Surely, the three accused could not have given such identical accounts of their participation and culpability in the crime were it not the truth.
It is worthy to note that Dumalahay escaped on September 7, 1987, while Halasan and Fuentes escaped on April 30, 1988. While Dumalahay was rearrested on May 4, 1994, the other two have remained at large up to this day. Their flight from justice betrayed their guilt.
. . . In criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt. In fact, we have held that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or submits himself to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. 13
Therefore, we find that Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes are criminally liable as principals for the killing of Layagon and Escalante. Their respective roles in the crime show that they acted in conspiracy. Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the case at bar, it was proved that Dumalahay. planned the execution and Halasan agreed to carry out the same. As regards Fuentes, his acts before, during, and after the crime show that he shared in the joint design, concerted action and common sentiment of his two co-accused. Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation. 14
We also find that treachery qualified the killing to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 15 In this case, the deceased were killed inside the pickup truck. The signal to shoot was treacherously and surreptitiously pre-arranged between Dumalahay and Allan Halasan. The gunshot was so sudden that it deprived the deceased of any opportunity to put up a defense. The fact that they were seated at the backseat of the moving truck ruled out any possibility of escape.
Based on the facts proven and the allegations in the information, the circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle attended the killing. Notwithstanding the attendance of these aggravating circumstances, the death penalty cannot be imposed on the three accused. It is true that the dual killings were committed on December 18, 1985, before the suspension of the death penalty. When the 1987 Constitution took effect, the provision therein proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, being more favorable to the accused, could have been retroactive applied to them, 16 However, the cases at bar were decided by the trial court on October 7, 1997. In the interim, Republic Act No. 7569 took effect on January 1, 1994, reinstating the death penalty. The accused cannot be faulted for the delay in the disposition of the cases against them.
In the case of People v. Cogonon, 17 we held that the death penalty cannot be imposed on an accused notwithstanding that at the time judgment was rendered, the said penalty had been reinstated. In the same vein, the accused in this case cannot be sentenced to death just because the same was reinstated at the time the trial court rendered judgment against them. They should continue to enjoy the benefit under the 1987 Constitution, which could have been applied to them if only these eases had been decided earlier. In criminal cases, all doubts shall be resolved in favor of the accused. 18 Hence, the accused should only be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Insofar as the damages are concerned, the accused are liable to pay the heirs of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante, respectively, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Civil indemnity and moral damages in murder cases require no further proof other than death. 19 On the other hand, exemplary damages shall be imposed as part of the civil liability arising from crime where the aggravating circumstances attended the commission thereof. 20 The trial court, however, erred in ordering each of the accused to pay the full amount of the aforesaid damages. The civil liability of co-principals in a criminal case is solidary. 21
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in Criminal Cases Nos. 6655 and 6656, finding Rodney T. Dumalahay, Allan A. Halasan and Remegio A. Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that each of the said accused are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of Murder. Further, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages each to the heirs of Geronimo Layagon and the heirs of Antonio Escalante.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Puno and Vitug, JJ., on official leave.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, Criminal Case No. 6655, p. 1.
2. Rollo, Criminal Case No. 6656, p. 1
3. Exh. "F"
4. Exh. "E"
5. Exh. "D"
6. Rollo, pp. 81-82; penned by Judge Anthony E. Santos.
7. Ibid., pp. 125-128.
8. TSN, December 10, 1987, pp. 14-18.
9. Exhs. "D", "E" and "F" .
10. TSN, June 11, 1997, pp. 4-11; TSN, December 10, 1987, pp. 20-21.
11. People v. Aquino, 310 SCRA 437, 439 [1999].
12. People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190, 202 [2000]
13. People v. Cirilo, SCRA 648, 660 [2000]
14. People v. Hericla, G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001.
15. People v. Ibo, G.R. No. 132353, March 5, 2001.
16. People v. Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001.
17. 262 SCRA 693, 707 [1996].
18. Ibid.
19. People v. Tumanon G.R. No. 135066, February 15, 2001.
20. Civil Code, Article 2230.
21. Revised Penal Code, Article 110, first paragraph.
