G.R. No. L-37912. January 18, 1982.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFO PATINGA, ANTONIO CUDIERA @ ANTONIO COLON and ROBERTO GRANADO @ BOB GRANADO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In the evening of August 12, 1972, three armed men robbed the house of spouses Antonio and Fe Luna in Surigao City. The robbers took cash and jewelry. During the robbery, Fe Luna was fatally stabbed. Her sister, Teresita Ocon, who was present, was hog-tied but managed to escape. Appellant Rufo Patinga was arrested the following morning. An information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against Patinga and two others, alleging conspiracy.
Patinga initially pleaded not guilty. During trial, after the prosecution presented its first witnesses—including Dr. Bernardo Mora, Jr. and co-conspirator Antonio Anol—Patinga, through counsel, manifested a desire to change his plea to guilty. The trial court accepted the change of plea. However, it later disregarded this plea as a mitigating circumstance, finding it was not spontaneous and was made only after the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence. The trial court convicted Patinga and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellant Rufo Patinga for the crime of Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the establishment of conspiracy and the credibility of witness testimony. The Court found the testimonies of Antonio Anol and Teresita Ocon credible and sufficient to prove Patinga’s guilt. Anol’s uncontradicted testimony detailed a conspiracy hatched during a drinking spree, wherein Patinga and others planned and executed the robbery. This narrative was corroborated by Teresita Ocon, who identified Patinga inside the lit house during the crime and heard her sister plead, “That is enough Mang Rufo, do not kill us all.”
The Court rejected Patinga’s attempt to cast doubt using evidence from a separate trial of a co-accused, as that evidence was not part of the record on appeal. Furthermore, Patinga’s own counsel, during the plea change, admitted his participation in the crime, stating he was “still outside the house” during its commission. This judicial admission solidified his culpability within the conspiracy. The aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime were correctly appreciated, as three men attacked a defenseless woman under cover of darkness to facilitate the crime. The penalty was thus properly imposed.