G.R. No. L-3269; April 20, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HONORIO MAGBANUA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Honorio Magbanua, was charged with robbery with double homicide in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the robbery and killing of Filomena Martires and Paulino Hospital in Pototan, Iloilo, on May 8, 1946. Filomena Martires, a palay trader, arrived in Pototan with a large sum of money and jewelry. Magbanua, acting as her agent to buy palay, lured her and her laborer, Paulino Hospital, to a field in barrio Barasan. There, without warning, he attacked and killed Paulino with a knife and then killed Filomena with the same knife and her own revolver. He robbed her of cash and jewelry, hid the bodies under dry grass, and fled. He traveled to Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Cebu, and finally hid in Davao for about two years before being arrested in Manila and returned to Iloilo. In custody, he executed an affidavit (Exhibit A) admitting to the crimes. During trial, he repudiated this affidavit, claiming it was extracted through torture by a soldier, but the court found this claim unsupported by the evidence, including a medical certificate showing only minor injuries inconsistent with the alleged severe beating. An eyewitness, Pacita Pendon, corroborated the killing. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of robbery with double homicide has been established beyond reasonable doubt. A secondary issue involves the correct application of the penalty, specifically whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The appellant’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt based on his voluntary extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A), which was corroborated by the eyewitness testimony of Pacita Pendon and the circumstantial evidence of his flight and prolonged absence from his hometown. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that his confession was coerced through torture, finding the evidence of alleged injuries insufficient and his conduct after the alleged torture inconsistent with such a claim. Regarding the penalty, the Court held that the trial court erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. As the crime was punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty under the law is reclusion perpetua in its medium degree, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to offenses punished with life imprisonment. Therefore, the decision was affirmed with the modification that the appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua.