G.R. No. L-8776; May 19, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO CRUZ, LUCIO MOLDES, BALDOMERO RUBILLOS and EMILIANO SALDIVIA, defendants. ANTONIO CRUZ, LUCIO MOLDES and BALDOMERO RUBILLOS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On May 12, 1954, the body of Mariano de Guzman was discovered along the Tacloban-Guintigui-an Road, bearing multiple fatal wounds from a hard blunt instrument and stab wounds. Investigation revealed a bloodstained envelope in the victim’s shirt containing a telegram from “Tony” (Antonio Cruz) and a PAL ticket. Police found that Antonio Cruz and Mariano de Guzman had stayed at the Leyte Hotel from May 7 to May 9, 1954. Cruz was arrested while attempting to leave Tacloban by boat. Upon arrest, Cruz was found with P906.00 and, when confronted with the cadaver, stated, “Never mind about that. I will stand for that we were three.” Cruz subsequently signed a written confession (Exhibit B) admitting to a conspiracy with Lucio Moldes and Baldomero Rubillos to kill his uncle, De Guzman, due to a family disagreement, and that he offered P200.00 to Rubillos for the killing. Rubillos and Emiliano Saldivia (later excluded from the information to become a state witness) also gave written statements admitting their participation. The evidence established that Cruz had lured De Guzman to Tacloban by telegram to bring money for buying jeep parts. The conspirators attacked and killed De Guzman on the night of May 11, 1954, after which Cruz took the victim’s wristwatch and money.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants-appellants (Antonio Cruz, Lucio Moldes, and Baldomero Rubillos) are guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

Yes, the defendants-appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Tacloban, finding them guilty and imposing the death penalty. The Court found that the killing was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as the conspirators knew De Guzman had brought a substantial amount of money, and Cruz immediately took the victim’s money and wristwatch after the killing. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, nighttime, superior strength, price/reward, and craft were present, with no mitigating circumstances to offset them, justifying the imposition of the death penalty. The Court modified the decision to order the return of the P906.00 recovered from Cruz and the wooden valise recovered from Moldes to the heirs of the deceased.