G.R. No. 2180 : May 5, 1905

FACTS:
Domingo Candelaria, Nicolas Rus, and Marcelo Cabaltea were convicted in the Court of First Instance of the complex crime of assassination and robbery for the killing of Mariano Villar and were sentenced to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court en consulta (automatic review due to the death penalty). The evidence established that Domingo and Nicolas killed Mariano Villar. Marcelo Cabaltea was present at the scene but fled with Mariano’s companion, Teodora, without taking an active part in the killing. The trial court convicted Marcelo based on: (1) an extrajudicial statement of co-accused Domingo Candelaria given before a justice of the peace, which implicated Marcelo as the inducer of the crime; and (2) evidence suggesting Marcelo had ordered the baggage carriers to travel ahead of the main party. The Solicitor-General also argued that secret conferences occurred between Marcelo and the other two accused during the journey.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Domingo Candelaria is admissible as evidence against his co-accused, Marcelo Cabaltea.
2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of Marcelo Cabaltea as a co-conspirator.
3. Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime by Domingo Candelaria and Nicolas Rus, warranting the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING:
1. On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Supreme Court ruled that the extrajudicial statements made by Domingo Candelaria before the justice of the peace, while properly proved and admissible as evidence against Domingo himself, were inadmissible hearsay and incompetent evidence against his co-accused, Marcelo Cabaltea. The Court cited the precedent in United States vs. Caligagan (2 Phil. Rep., 433).

2. On the guilt of Marcelo Cabaltea: The Court acquitted Marcelo Cabaltea. Eliminating the inadmissible confession, the remaining circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient to prove his conspiracy in the crime. The testimony regarding the baggage carriers indicated they were ordered to go ahead by the victim himself, not by Marcelo. Furthermore, the alleged “secret conferences” were not clearly established, as a witness testified he could not hear the conversations due to rain and wind, and it was shown the victim also conversed with the accused during the trip. The Court found reasonable doubt as to Marcelo’s criminal liability.

3. On the penalty for Domingo Candelaria and Nicolas Rus: The Supreme Court found the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation not to have been proven. The plan to kill the victim, as found by the trial court, was based on Marcelo’s alleged participation. With Marcelo’s acquittal, the evidence for premeditation was significantly weakened. The fact that the accused initially carried no weapons and used the victim’s own bolo indicated a lack of a deliberate prior plan. Consequently, the penalty for the complex crime of robbery with homicide was reduced from death to cadena perpetua (life imprisonment).

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the Court of First Instance was REVERSED as to Marcelo Cabaltea. He was ACQUITTED, with one-third of the costs de oficio.
The judgment was MODIFIED as to Domingo Candelaria and Nicolas Rus. Their penalty was reduced to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua). The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, with two-thirds of the costs of the instance taxed against them.