G.R. No. L-7030; January 31, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HILARIO MENDOVA, ALFREDO MENDOVA and BAUTISTA RAGANDAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On January 31, 1953, in Sitio Pangdan, Barrio San Agustin, Municipality of Basey, Samar, the house of Matias Cabantac was robbed and his two daughters, Clarita (14) and Remedios (7), were killed. The defendants, Hilario Mendova, Alfredo Mendova, and Bautista Ragandan, were convicted of robbery with double murder and sentenced to death by the Court of First Instance of Samar. The prosecution’s evidence established that the defendants, harboring grudges against Matias Cabantac, conspired to commit the crime. Witness Fortunato Tabuaco saw the three defendants about to enter Cabantac’s house at around 8:00 a.m. that day. Eyewitness Jaime Manheron testified that at about 9:00 a.m., he saw Hilario Mendova drag Clarita while Alfredo Mendova and Bautista Ragandan held Remedios; after Clarita threatened to report the robbery, Hilario struck her with a bolo, Alfredo slashed Remedios, and Bautista joined in stabbing both girls. The defendants presented alibis, which the trial court found uncorroborated and unconvincing. The trial court found the crime attended by aggravating circumstances and imposed the death penalty, albeit with a recommendation for commutation to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of the defendants for the complex crime of robbery with homicide and the imposition of the death penalty are proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court held that the prosecution evidence sufficiently proved the defendants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of eyewitnesses Fortunato Tabuaco and Jaime Manheron were credible and consistent, and the defendants’ alibis were weak and uncorroborated. The Court found that the defendants conspired in committing robbery and, to eliminate witnesses and due to their grudges against the victims’ father, killed the two girls. The complex crime committed was robbery with homicide, not murder, even though two persons were killed. The Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of evident premeditation, as there was no direct evidence of notorious outward acts evincing a determined plan. However, the crime was attended by three aggravating circumstances (and four for Ragandan) with no mitigating circumstances, making the death penalty mandatory under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court rejected the trial judge’s recommendation for commutation, emphasizing the need to impose capital punishment in proper cases to deter criminality. The death sentence was affirmed, with civil liabilities.