G.R. No. L-6246; May 26, 1954
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Felix Ripas, Ramon Orbista, Carmo Agudes, Sanguban Esto and Dupigan Esto, defendants. Ramon Orbista, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendants, led by Felix Ripas, were members or sympathizers of the Hukbalahap (HUK) organization in Libacao, Capiz. Eduardo Apio was captured by them and released after promising to pay P100, which he failed to do. On May 24, 1951, the group went to the house of Enrico Cocoy, tied him up, took supplies, and forced him to guide them to Apio’s evacuation hut. They arrived the next morning, tied up Apio, beat him, and demanded the money. Defendants Ramon Orbista and Carmo Agudes went into the house and took rice, clothing, uniforms, and cash. The group then took Apio with them. At Aibatung Creek, Felix Ripas slashed Apio in the stomach. Each of his five companions then inflicted a bolo blow. Sanguban Esto cut Apio’s tongue, Ramon Orbista cut his ears, and Danugan Basilio cut his lips. As Apio was still moving, Ripas, Orbista, Sanguban Esto, and Carmo Agudes crushed his skull with stones. Apio’s wife, Crisanta, witnessed the killing and pleaded in vain for his life. The defendants were charged with robbery with homicide. After trial, they were found guilty of murder with the aggravating circumstance of cruelty and sentenced to death. All five defendants escaped after the promulgation of the sentence. Ramon Orbista was recaptured, while Sanguban Esto was later killed. Due to the escape, the defendants were deemed to have waived their right to appeal, but the case against Orbista is before the Court for automatic review because of the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of defendant-appellant Ramon Orbista for the crime of murder has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding Ramon Orbista guilty of murder. The Court agreed that his guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the credible and corroborated testimonies of prosecution witnesses Crisanta (the victim’s wife) and Enrico Cocoy. The defense’s theory that a “Commander Inday” ordered the killing and that some defendants, including Orbista, did not witness it was rejected. The Court found the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was present, as evidenced by the cutting of the victim’s tongue, ears, and lips, and the crushing of his skull. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was considered, but the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction was not, as its existence is for the trial court to determine and it was not sufficiently proven. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) as the death penalty was not unanimously affirmed. The Court also took the occasion to comment on the problem of frequent jailbreaks and urged stricter custody of prisoners.