People v. Cabuena
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the evening of November 18, 1949, an armed group raided the house of Andres Bantiles in barrio Soron, Balamban, Cebu. The intruders, who entered the house after firing shots from outside, killed Andres Bantiles, his wife Simplicia Lauron, and their niece Macaria Bantiles. The group also stole P2,500 in cash, jewelry, a shotgun with ammunition, and other belongings. The crime was prosecuted as robbery in band with triple homicide. 2. Procedural History: Seven men were arrested and prosecuted for the crime. Three pleaded guilty, and three others were found guilty after trial, resulting in convictions for robbery in band with triple homicide. One defendant was acquitted. The present appeal concerns only two of the convicted individuals, Gregorio Cordizar and Eutiquio Bohol, who were sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. 3. The Petition: The defendants-appellants, Gregorio Cordizar and Eutiquio Bohol, are appealing their conviction for robbery in band with triple homicide. They contend that their affidavits, which admitted their participation in the crime, were obtained under duress. However, the evidence presented, including the testimony of investigators and the justice of the peace, disproved this claim. The appellants argue they should not be held liable as principals because they did not directly participate in the shooting or enter the house, but the Court found they acted as lookouts and contributed significantly to the crime's success. The Court modified the sentence, affirming the conviction but clarifying that the crime is a single complex offense of robbery with homicide, not to be multiplied by the number of victims, and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment due to insufficient votes for the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was robbery in band with triple homicide. Whether the appellants are liable as principals despite not directly participating in the shooting. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for robbery in band with triple homicide but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the crime of robbery with homicide is a complex crime and the number of deaths does not multiply the offense. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment, with indemnity imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the crime committed was robbery in band with triple homicide: The Court affirmed that the crime committed was robbery in band with triple homicide. The evidence, including the affidavits of the convicted individuals and their guilty pleas, established the perpetration of the crime. The Court reiterated the principle that the complex crime of robbery with homicide does not multiply with the number of persons killed; all homicides or murders are merged in the composite, integrated whole so long as the killings were perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. This was consistent with the facts presented, where the killings occurred during the commission of the robbery. On whether the appellants are liable as principals despite not directly participating in the shooting: The Court held that both appellants were liable as principals. Gregorio Cordizar's affidavit indicated his participation in the plan to kill and rob, his role in carrying the stolen items, and his knowledge of the victims. Eutiquio Bohol's affidavit showed he was taken along with the group knowing their purpose was to kill the Bantiles. The Court found their claims of being threatened incredible, as those committing grave crimes would not typically force an unwilling companion who might denounce them. Their role as guards or lookouts downstairs was deemed a significant contribution to the success of the enterprise, making them liable as principals under the law. On whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct: The Court agreed that the crime was robbery in band with triple homicide but found error in sentencing the appellants to three life imprisonments as if three separate crimes were committed. The Court clarified that the complex crime of robbery with homicide is not to be multiplied by the number of victims. The crime is punishable under Article 294 in relation to Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion perpetua to death. The Court noted that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling attended the commission of the crime, warranting the maximum penalty. However, due to a lack of sufficient votes for the death penalty, the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is a complex crime and the number of deaths does not multiply the offense. Homicides committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling are considered in the imposition of the penalty.