G.R. No. L-28811 March 31, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO LUCERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 30, 1960, in Babak, Davao, three men entered the house of Juan Bastasa under the pretense of buying tuba. After the victim arrived, two men, including appellant Pedro Lucero, followed him upstairs. One assailant poked a gun at Juan, demanding money. Upon receiving only a small amount, the gunman pushed Juan into the sala where he was shot dead. The robbers then took cash and valuables. The crime was witnessed by the victim’s 12-year-old daughter, Otilia Bastasa, who later escaped to report the incident. Investigation revealed the perpetrators wore uniforms of inmates from the Davao Penal Colony (DAPECOL). Otilia positively identified Lucero from photographs and subsequently from a police line-up at DAPECOL. It was established that Lucero was an escaped convict at the time.
The prosecution established the robbery and killing through Otilia’s credible eyewitness account, corroborated by the Chief of Police. The defense consisted of alibi, claiming Lucero was elsewhere, and an attempt to impugn Otilia’s identification. The trial court convicted Lucero of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and imposed the death penalty, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, and quasi-recidivism.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the conviction of Pedro Lucero for the complex crime of robbery with homicide is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the imposition of the death penalty is correct in light of the attendant circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court found the testimony of Otilia Bastasa to be clear, convincing, and consistent, satisfying the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Her positive identification of Lucero, both from photographs and in a line-up, was deemed credible and reliable, outweighing the weak defense of alibi. The Court upheld the finding that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, constituting the single, indivisible complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).
All aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated. The crime was committed in the victim’s dwelling, which is aggravating under Article 14. Superior strength was present as three armed men attacked an unarmed victim and his family. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 was also properly applied since Lucero committed the crime while serving a sentence for murder as an escaped convict from DAPECOL. With these three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the imposition of the supreme penalty of death was in accordance with law. The Court modified the civil indemnity, increasing it from P4,000 to P12,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision was affirmed with this modification.