G.R. No. L-47459; April 14, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. GERALD J. MASSE y JOSEPH DE MAIO, acusados-apelantes.

FACTS

The accused, Gerald J. Masse and Joseph De Maio, members of the U.S. Navy, were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, allegedly committed in the early morning of October 22, 1939, in Talaba, Bacoor, Cavite. They were on a three-day leave. On the evening of October 21, they went to Manila with their Filipino girlfriends. After leaving their girlfriends at a hotel, they visited various places, drinking wine and beer. They decided to go to Los Baños, Laguna, the next day and wanted to pick up a friend from Cavite. Past 1:00 a.m., they hired a car (PU-531) driven by Prudencio Balat to go to Cavite. The driver, Balat, was later found dead. The trial court convicted both accused of robbery with homicide, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding Joseph De Maio guilty of robbery with homicide.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding both defendants guilty of robbery with homicide.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting Gerald J. Masse on the ground of self-defense.
Additionally, the government sought the imposition of the maximum penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision.
1. On the charge of Robbery: The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove robbery as the motive for the crime. The circumstances cited by the trial court—that the accused needed the car to go to Los Baños, that the car was for five passengers but they were six, and that they might have lacked money—were deemed weak and insufficient to conclude that the accused intended to take the car. The Court reasoned it was contrary to common sense for the accused, who were on leave to enjoy their vacation, to commit an act that would necessarily frustrate that purpose. Therefore, the element of robbery was excluded.
2. On the participation of Joseph De Maio: The Court found no evidence demonstrating De Maio’s participation in the killing. His testimony—that he had asked the driver to stop to relieve himself, that he tried to wake Masse before leaving, that he heard noises and returned to the car upon hearing Masse call his name—was partly corroborated by prosecution witness Apolinario Eusebio. The fact that De Maio’s knife and one of his hands had bloodstains was not, by itself, proof of his participation, especially given the abundance of bloodstains found in the car. The Court concluded De Maio was not complicit in the homicide.
3. On the liability of Gerald J. Masse for Homicide and the claim of Self-Defense: The Court examined how the fatal injuries were inflicted. Masse admitted to striking the deceased with an iron bar (Exhibit B). The Court found that the evidence did not prove Masse was the aggressor. The nature and location of the wounds (contusions, not incised wounds) suggested they were inflicted with the iron bar, not with the accused’s knives. The logical inference, according to the Court, was that the iron bar belonged to the driver and was wrested from him during a struggle. All facts and circumstances led to the conclusion that the aggressor was the deceased, not Masse or De Maio. Therefore, Masse acted in self-defense.
Disposition: The appealed judgment was reversed, and both accused, Gerald J. Masse and Joseph De Maio, were acquitted, with costs de oficio.