PP Vs Sarip

PEOPLE VS. SARIP ET AL.

G.R. Nos. L-31481, L-31482 and L-31483
February 28, 1979

FACTS:

At six o'clock in the morning of April 30, 1966, Ernesto Sarip, requested Manuel Raop to
accompany him to the house of the latter's Aunt located at Barrio Lampanosan, Pangantucan,
Bukidnon. Raop consented to go with him. Sarip gave him a homemade gun called "paliuntod".

At about four o'clock in the afternoon Condalla encountered his first cousin Sarip and a man
named Raop at Lampanosan, they were armed. Sarip asked Condalla to accompany them to
Barrio Malipayon. Condalla refused but Sarip poked his gun at him and he agreed to go along
with them. At Barrio Kitalo, they met Makadatar Tayao (Mabpan) who joined them. Condalla
claimed that he was forced to join them in robbing Mision's house in Barrio Malipayon several
kilometers away.

At about eleven in the evening of April 30, 1966, Ernesto Sarip, Manuel Raop, Condalla Sarip
and Makadatar Tayao Mabpan (Madpan) were in the vicinity of the house of the spouses
Cirlaco Mision and Pamposa Mision located at Barrio Malipayon. Sarip, Makadatar and Raop
had two American rifles and a paltik firearms. They made known their presence by means of
gunshots. Sarip asked Mision to open the door of his house. Mision refused. Sarip asked him to
come down. Mision likewise refused because he was scared. Upon Sarip's order, Makadatar,
who was wearing a turban went under the house and took the chickens which they gave to
Raop and Condalla Sarip. The intruders wanted to get also the carabao which was inside the
coral under the house. Makadatar asked Ciriaco in a loud voice to open the corral but the latter
kept silent. Makadatar, was armed with a gun and a bolo. Sarip destroyed the corral, took the
carabao and gave it to Raop and Condalla who brought it to the plowed field nearby.

Makadatar and Sarip returned to the house and asked Ciriaco to give them rice and money but
the latter replied that he did not have any. Angered by Ciriaco's refusal to comply with their
demand, Makadatar and Sarip fired several shots directed at the inmates of the house. Ciriaco,
who was lying on the floor, was not hit but his wife, Pamposa, and daughter, Amparo, were
wounded. Makadatar went up the stairs, cut the string which tied the door, pushed the shutter,
and, on seeing Ciriaco lying on the floor face down, hacked him to death. Sarip, armed with a
rifle, followed Makadatar and went up the house. Makadatar and Sarip took clothes and a
sewing machine. The carabao was later released by the robbers because it impeded their flight
‘from the scene of the crime.

This incident lead to the death of three persons. Ciriaco, 37, suffered an incised wound, eleven
by three inches, across his back, two stab wounds also in the back and a lacerated wound on
the chin. His wife, Pamposa, 35, sustained an entrance gunshot wound in the right
infra-clavicular region. The bullet penetrated her right lung and exited on her back. Amparo
Mision, a daughter of the said spouses, sustained a mortal wound in the back and died in the
hospital.
Condalla Sarip and Dumato Mabpan were acquitted in the lower court's order of July 15, 1969.
The acquittal was based on Sarip’s testimony that Dumato had no participation in the robbery
and that Sarip and Raop forced Condalla "at the point of a gun" to take part in the robbery.
Raop admitted his participation in the robbery but he averred that he acted under dures
exercised by his friend, Ernesto Sarip.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Manuel Raop can use as exempting circumstances his claim that he acted under
dures exercised by Ernesto Sarip when he participated to the crime of robbery with triple
homicide?

HELD:

No, it is clear that Raop version of the robbery with homicide does not exculpate him at all.
Even if he claims that he acted against his will, to which that contention is belied by his own
admission that he and Sarip are close friends and that the two were residents of Barrio
Kalilangan. Raop did not prove that he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force or
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. His pretension that
he was threatened with a gun by his friends, Sarip, is not credible because he himself Raop was
armed with a rifle.

The trial court failed to include in the indemnity the value of the stolen articles which it found
to be P1,000. The indemnity for the three should be raised from P30,000 to P36,000. The death
penalty imposed by the trial court on Ernesto Sarip and Manuel Raop is affirmed and they are
ordered to pay solidarily to the heirs of the Mision spouse the sum of P1,000 as the value of the
articles taken during the robbery and P36,000 to the heirs of the three victims or P12,000 for
each set of heirs.

PP Vs Sarip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Vs Sarip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

PP Vs Sarip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS. SARIP ET AL.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.