G.R. No. L-19831, September 5, 1967
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Fortunato Buco alias Ramsey, ET AL., defendants; Fortunato Buco alias Ramsey, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An information for murder was filed against Fortunato Buco and others for the killing of Conrado G. Dizon, the municipal mayor of Sta. Ana, Pampanga, on May 17, 1955. Buco was arrested, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution established the killing through the testimony of Dr. Elpidio G. Yumul, an eyewitness who saw the mayor gunned down. Buco had previously signed a statement (Exhibit B) admitting that he and Eden Lee killed Dizon with a garand rifle and a carbine, respectively. The defense argued that the killing was part of the crime of rebellion for which Buco had already been charged, pleaded guilty, and sentenced on July 16, 1959, covering the period from May 28, 1946, to August 17, 1954. The defense contended that the murder prosecution constituted double jeopardy. The trial court rejected the double jeopardy plea, found Buco guilty of murder, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution for murder constitutes double jeopardy since the accused had already been convicted of rebellion, which allegedly absorbed the killing.
2. Whether the accused was sufficiently identified as one of the killers.

RULING

1. No, the prosecution for murder does not constitute double jeopardy. The act of killing Dizon on May 17, 1955, was not among the acts alleged in the previous rebellion charge, which covered a period ending on August 17, 1954. Since the killing was committed after the filing of the rebellion charge, it could not have been included therein and is therefore not absorbed by the rebellion offense. Furthermore, the record shows that Dizon was killed not because of his position as mayor to further rebellion, but due to a private matter related to his administration of his father’s 90-hectare land, as indicated in Buco’s statement.
2. Yes, the accused was sufficiently identified as one of the killers. His identification is established by his own signed statement (Exhibit B), which was explained to him in Tagalog, and by his testimony in court admitting the truth of the answers in said statement that he and Eden Lee killed Dizon. His contention that Dizon was killed for being responsible for the deaths of Huks is negated by his statement that a civilian, Luna, ordered the killing because Dizon “was not good when it comes to the land.”
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court noted that the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty could not be considered, as the admission of killing was made after the prosecution presented its evidence. For lack of the required votes to impose the death penalty, the penalty next lower in degree, reclusion perpetua, was imposed.