G.R. No. L-7457; April 25, 1956
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUENCONSEJO DACIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 21, 1951, Uy Moy was closing his store in Sinamar, San Mateo, Isabela. Two strangers requested wine and, after drinking, were asked to leave. Instead, they approached Uy Moy and his helper, Jao Ka Chiong. A third armed man with a carbine entered, ordered the front door closed, and the back door opened. All three were armed. They demanded money from Uy Moy, who, out of fear, opened a drawer allowing one to take the money. Unsatisfied, they tied Uy Moy’s hands and ordered him outside to be shot. When he refused, the one who took the money ordered the man with the carbine to shoot Uy Moy, who was hit in the stomach and died. The robbers fled. Jao Ka Chiong reported the incident and conveyed Uy Moy’s dying statement implicating a woman, Felisa Marte, due to a prior credit dispute. Investigation led to the identification of three suspects: appellant Buenconsejo Dacio, Ceferino Feliciano, and Carlito Ortega. Dacio made confessions (Exhibits “B” and “D”) admitting his presence during the robbery and that Feliciano shot Uy Moy, and they divided the loot. He initially pleaded guilty to robbery with homicide before the justice of the peace but later pleaded guilty only to robbery before the Court of First Instance, which entered a not guilty plea to robbery with homicide. At trial, prosecution witnesses, including Jao Ka Chiong who identified Dacio in a lineup, and Dr. Alejandro who testified on the cause of death, established the crime. The defense presented no testimonial evidence, only a statement of Jao Ka Chiong (Exhibit “1”).

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not warning appellant of the effects of his plea of guilty and in not advising him to take the witness stand to explain his lack of responsibility for the homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in appellant’s arguments. Since appellant was represented by counsel at trial, the judge had no duty to warn him of the charge’s seriousness or advise him to testify. Counsel’s decision not to present appellant as a witness was likely based on the legal principle that all conspirators in a robbery are liable for homicide committed during the crime, unless they attempted to prevent it. Appellant’s confessions contained no indication of any attempt to prevent the homicide. Therefore, his liability was for robbery with homicide, not robbery alone. Testifying to fabricate a defense would have been futile against his prior confessions. The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for robbery with homicide and the sentence of reclusion perpetua, but reduced the indemnity for the money taken from P400 to P100.