G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR. alias JUNIOR, ET AL., defendants, APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR. alias JUNIOR, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is an automatic review of a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Bohol convicting Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to death. The second amended information charged Apduhan, along with others, with the complex crime. It alleged that on May 23, 1961, in Mabini, Bohol, a band of more than three armed persons, using unlicensed firearms and other weapons, conspired to enter by violence the dwelling house of the Miano spouses. Once inside, they attacked, hacked, and shot Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton, causing their deaths, and took cash amounting to P322.00. The information cited the special aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms (Art. 296, Revised Penal Code), and other aggravating circumstances: commission in the dwelling of the offended parties without provocation, nighttime purposely sought, and advantage taken of superior strength. Initially pleading not guilty, Apduhan, through counsel de oficio, later manifested a desire to change his plea to guilty. The trial judge repeatedly apprised him of the severity of the offense and the possibility of the death penalty despite a guilty plea. After equivocating, Apduhan eventually entered a categorical plea of guilty on August 30, 1961. On the same day, the trial court rendered judgment, finding him guilty and imposing the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue for review is the correctness of the penalty imposed, specifically: (1) the appreciation of the use of an unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance under Article 296 in relation to Article 294(1) for robbery with homicide committed by a band; and (2) the interplay and counter-balancing of the attendant mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the use of an unlicensed firearm, as a special aggravating circumstance under Article 296, is applicable to the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) when committed by a band. This circumstance, being special and specific, qualifies the penalty and is not subject to the rule that generic aggravating circumstances can be offset by a mitigating circumstance. The Court found that the crime was committed by a band with the use of an unlicensed firearm, which is a special aggravating circumstance. The plea of guilty was correctly appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. However, the three generic aggravating circumstances alleged (dwelling, nighttime, superior strength) were not proven with certainty because the plea of guilty did not automatically admit these circumstances; the prosecution still had the burden to prove them, which it did not do. Therefore, only the special aggravating circumstance (band with unlicensed firearm) and the mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty) remained. These two circumstances, being of different categories and natures, cannot offset each other. Consequently, with one mitigating and one special aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period, which for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) is death. However, for failure to secure the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty, the Court reduced the sentence to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.