G.R. No. L-23109 & L-23110, June 29, 1984
People of the Philippines vs. Realino Zea, Severino Elegio, and Ricardo Awitin

FACTS

The case involves the automatic review of a death sentence for robbery with homicide. The victim, Tan Diong Ong, a business agent carrying cash for grain purchases, was killed during a trip. His employees, appellants Realino Zea (the regular driver) and Severino Elegio (a part-time driver), along with their acquaintance Ricardo Awitin, were implicated. On the day of the crime, Zea feigned illness, leading Elegio to drive. The truck diverted to Zea’s house where Zea, Awitin, and another (Edilberto Gutierrez) boarded. The truck later stopped at a secluded area. A witness heard gunshots and saw five men, including the appellants, flee from the truck via a tartanilla. The victim was found mortally wounded, and most of the cash was missing. Appellants initially claimed a holdup by unidentified men, but evidence, including a blood-stained shirt linked to Awitin and a mechanical inspection showing the truck was operational, contradicted their story.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of use of motor vehicle, use of craft, and abuse of confidence to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty. The Court held that the aggravating circumstances were improperly applied. The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating only if it is purposely sought to facilitate the crime; here, the truck was used in the ordinary course of the appellants’ employment and was not indispensable to the crime’s commission. The circumstance of craft was not present, as Zea’s feigned illness, while deceptive, was not a significant scheme that aided the execution of the conspiracy, which could have been carried out regardless. Finally, abuse of confidence requires that the offender’s trusted position facilitated the crime. The Court found that Zea and Elegio had only been employed for about two weeks, and such brief association did not establish a high degree of confidence that was abused to facilitate the crime. With no aggravating circumstances present, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court thus sentenced each appellant to reclusion perpetua and upheld the civil indemnities.