GR L 18035; (February, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. 18035 ; February 28, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELINO SIMON Y CUILAO, ET AL., defendants, FELINO SIMON Y CUILAO and REMIGIO DE VERA Y SERRANO, defendant-appellants.
FACTS
The accused, Felino Simon and Remigio de Vera, were charged with attempted robbery in an inhabited house with homicide and frustrated homicide. The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning of October 4, 1958, Chua Sam, a “puto” vendor, arrived at a store on San Anton Street, Manila, to make a delivery. Upon knocking, he was pulled inside by a taller man. Inside the well-lit store, he saw the store helper, Co Too, lying face down and bound. A shorter man, holding a gun, then shot Chua Sam and Co Too. Both assailants fled immediately. Chua Sam survived his injuries, but Co Too died. The store showed no signs of robbery, as money and goods were intact.
At the hospital, the sole eyewitness, Chua Sam, positively identified appellants Simon and de Vera from a police lineup as the perpetrators. He testified he knew them from seeing them loitering in the area before the incident. The trial court found his testimony credible, straightforward, and unshaken, noting he did not incriminate two other co-accused who were later acquitted. The defense of alibi presented by both appellants was rejected by the trial court as unconvincing.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellants are guilty of the crimes charged, and if not, what crimes they may properly be convicted of based on the allegations in the information.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, upholding the credibility of Chua Sam’s positive identification and rejecting the appellants’ alibis. The Court found conspiracy and treachery (alevosia) were present, as the appellants acted in concert to attack the unarmed and helpless victims, who were squatting and bound, eliminating any risk to the assailants.
However, the Court modified the conviction. The appellants were originally convicted of murder and frustrated murder. The legal logic for the modification hinges on the principle that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense graver than that charged in the information. The information specifically alleged “attempted robbery in an inhabited house with homicide and frustrated homicide.” Since attempted robbery was not proven, the complex crime alleged did not materialize. Consequently, the appellants could only be held liable for the component crimes actually proven—homicide and frustrated homicide—as these were included within the allegations of the complex crime charged. They could not be convicted of murder and frustrated murder, which require qualifying circumstances like treachery to be specifically alleged, as these constitute different and more serious offenses.
Thus, the Court found both appellants guilty of two separate crimes: homicide and frustrated homicide, both aggravated by the circumstance of treachery. The penalties imposed by the trial court for de Vera in its amended judgment were made applicable to Simon as well. The case records concerning allegedly coerced confessions from the acquitted co-accused were ordered referred to the Department of Justice for investigation.