52 People-v-Pulusan

G.R. No.
110037 May 21, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EDUARDO PULUSAN y ANICETA, ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ y MACALINO,
ROLANDO TAYAG and JOHN DOE Alias Ramon/Efren, accused. EDUARDO
PULUSAN y ANICETA And ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ y MACALINO, accused-
appellants.
KAPUNAN, J.:
FACTS:
On January 20, 1986 at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Constancio Gomez was then
plying his route from Balagtas, Bulacan along the MacArthur Highway going towards Malolos,
Bulacan on board a passenger jeepney with six (6) passenger. pon reaching Bry. Tikay, Malolos,
Bulacan, a group of four (4) male passengers boarded the jeepney. Suddenly, the man who was
later identified to be appellant Eduardo Pulusan, who sat behind the driver, poked a knife at
Constancio Gomez and announced: "Hold-up ito, huwag kayong kikilos. Appellant Pulusan's
three (3) companions followed suit, poked their knife and "sumpak" (homemade shotgun) at the
passengers and divested them of their valuables. Thereafter, appellant Pulusan took over the
wheels from driver Gomez and drove towards Pampanga. He later stopped at Quezon Road,
Bgy. San Pablo, San Simon, Pampanga. He parked the jeepney in a "talahiban" where there
were no people around except for the occupants of the passenger jeepney. Afterwards, appellant
Rolando Rodriguez (Rodriguez) dragged Marilyn Martinez, 17 year old, to the "talahiban" a few
meters away from the parked jeepney where his three (3) companions, including appellant
Pulusan, were left guarding Gomez and his other passengers. Appellant Rodriguez, then armed
with a kitchen knife, through force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of
Marilyn Martinez who was then still virgin. Subsequently, Pulusan and two other companions
similarly took turns in having carnal knowledge of Marilyn Martinez at the "talahiban".
Subsequently, the four called three other passengers inside the jeepney one by one.
When the three (3) passengers managed to run towards the "talahiban" but his captors pursued
and eventually killed him. Subsequently, Cresenciono Pagtaluan was hit with pipe and clubbed
by appellant and their companions but one of them uttered: Pare, huwag na yan, matanda na yan,
hindi na papalag”. Thereafter, Gomez was ordered to start the jeepney while a shotgun was
aimed at his temple and threatened not to report the incident (ibid.) Eventually, their captors
boarded Marilyn Martinez in the jeepney and threatened her not to report the incident and sent
them home. Appellants and his companions then dispersed to different directions.
Gomez and his two surviving passengers Marilyn Martinez and Cresenciano Pagtalunan,
left their four (4) co-passengers who had been killed by their captors and proceeded to the
Municipal Building of Apalit, Pampanga to report the incident to the Apalit police.
Thereafter, Pat. Maniago, Investigator of San Simon, prepared an "Initial Investigation

Report" addressed to Corporal Santiago Rodriguez, Station Commander of the San Simon Police
Station at San Simon, Pampanga concerning the "Robbery In Band, Rape, Multiple Homicide
and Illegal Possession of Firearms/Deadly Weapons" committed on or about 9:30 to 10:30 P.M.
of January 20, 1986 at Quezon Road, San Pablo Propio, San Simon, Pampanga.
In the afternoon of January 23, 1986, the joint police and PC team informed the three (3)
surviving victims Gomez, Pagtalunan and Martinez that the suspects had been arrested and
invited them and the wives of the victims who were killed, including Lucila Cruz, Susana Surio
and Mrs. Cundangan, to go to the PC Headquarters in the morning of January 24, 1986.
Three persons, including appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez, were presented to Gomez,
Martinez and Pagtalunan and they were asked if they knew them. Pagtalunan pinpointed only
two of them, appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez as the persons who held them up in Malolos on
January 20, 1986.
The Accused’s Defense:
Rodriguez testified that he was a nephew of co-accused Eduardo Pulusan. He denied

knowledge of the crime charged against him. He asserts that he had not committed any crime,
and that in fact, he was able to get an NBI clearance as a requirement for his work as a driver in
Iraq.
Regional Trial Court:
Both accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court of the offense
of Robbery with Homicide penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, and
hereby sentences each of them to suffer and undergo imprisonment for life or RECLUSION
PERPETUA, indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Cruz, Magno Surio, Constancio Dionisio
and Armando Cundangan the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) for each
dead victim as civil indemnification for their death, pay, jointly and severally, as
indemnification to the rape victim Marilyn Martinez, the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P60.000.00), pay moral damages to the respective heirs of the deceased Magno Surio,
Rodolfo Cruz, Constancio Dionisio and Armando Cundangan, the amount of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), ay moral damages to the respective heirs of the deceased
Magno Surio, Rodolfo Cruz, Constancio Dionisio and Armando Cundangan, the amount of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) to each victim and to rape victim Marilyn
Martinez the amount of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40.000.00).
Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby furthermore ordered, jointly, and
severally, to reimburse the heirs of the dead victims for the funeral expenses incurred by them,
finally, both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to return
to the victims or their heirs the items they have taken during the robbery or to reimburse the
value.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the testimonies against the accused are credible.

2) Whether or not they should be charged of highway robbery attended with multiple
homicide with multiple rape or the crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING:
1) Yes, it still is. Witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in
every detail considering the inevitability of differences in their recollection, viewpoint or
impression. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required as long as the witnesses
concur on material points.
2) The crime committed was robbery with homicide. A conviction for highway robbery
requires proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. There is no such proof in this case. Neither is there proof that the four
men previously attempted to commit similar robberies indiscriminately. Rape had not
been proven to be the original intention of the appellants, the crime having been
committed simply because there was a female passenger in the jeep. Hence, rape can only
be considered as an aggravating circumstance and not a principal offense.

52 People-v-Pulusan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

52 People-v-Pulusan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

52 People-v-Pulusan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

110037 May 21, 1998

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Thereafter, Pat. Maniago, Investigator of San Simon, prepared an "Initial Investigation

The Accused’s Defense:

Rodriguez testified that he was a nephew of co-accused Eduardo Pulusan. He denied

Regional Trial Court:

1) Whether or not the testimonies against the accused are credible.

You might also like