GR L 21495; (July, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21495 July 21, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. POLICARPIO HALASAN, ET AL., defendants. POLICARPIO HALASAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Policarpio Halasan and thirteen others were charged with robbery in band with homicide and frustrated homicide for an incident on January 16, 1959, in Barrio Calian, Zamboanga del Sur. The armed band forcibly entered the store-residence of Maximino Maghuyop, killed Leoncio Balaobao, wounded Maghuyop, hogtied the occupants, and robbed cash and merchandise worth P1,289.75. Only four accused, including Halasan, were apprehended. Initially pleading not guilty, Halasan, during the trial and after the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence (including the direct examination of a state witness), changed his plea to guilty. In open court, he confessed to the crime, declared himself a habitual delinquent by detailing other unsolved killings, and stated he wanted the death penalty to atone for his sins. The trial court accepted his plea but did not consider it as a mitigating circumstance, finding him guilty and imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the plea of guilty entered by the accused after the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence should be considered a mitigating circumstance, and whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The plea of guilty was correctly not considered a mitigating circumstance because it was entered after the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence, following precedents such as People vs. Co Chang. The crime of robbery in band with homicide carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Under the applicable law (Republic Act 12), the maximum penalty (death) is to be imposed even without aggravating circumstances. However, for lack of the requisite number of votes to impose death, the Court imposed the penalty next lower in degree, which is reclusion perpetua. The request for a new trial or reception of additional evidence was denied, as no valid justification was shown. The decision was affirmed in all other respects, including the indemnities.