G.R. No. 25095 , September 18, 1926
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO BAUTISTA, ET AL., defendants. MARIANO BAUTISTA, CLEMENTE BAAL and PATRICIO SUCIAS, appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, along with others, were charged with *robo en cuadrilla con homicidio* (robbery in band with homicide). The crime occurred on March 3, 1925, in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, where an armed band entered the house of Marcelo Gonza, robbed him of P2.51, killed him, and injured other occupants. After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted the appellants and their co-accused. Mariano Bautista, Clemente Baal, and Patricio Sucias appealed.

The prosecution presented as witnesses several co-accused, including Gregorio Benedicto, Evaristo de Vera, and Alfonso Suaviso, who gave confessions and testimony against the appellants. Another individual, Clemente Pila, a participant in the crime, was used as a prosecution witness without being included in the criminal complaint, pursuant to a prosecutorial motion.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the confessions and declarations of the appellants’ co-accused were admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the testimony of Clemente Pila, an accomplice who was not included in the complaint, was admissible under Act No. 2709.
3. Whether the appellants’ guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
4. What is the proper penalty for the crime committed?

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the convictions but MODIFIED the penalties.

1. On the admissibility of co-accused confessions: The Court held that while confessions of co-defendants must be examined with caution, they are admissible when corroborated by other indisputable proof. In this case, the confessions of Gregorio Benedicto, Evaristo de Vera, and Alfonso Suaviso were sufficiently corroborated by other evidence in the record.

2. On the admissibility of Clemente Pila’s testimony: The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that Act No. 2709 (which allows discharging an accused to be a state witness) required Clemente Pila to be first included in the complaint. Citing established jurisprudence (*U.S. v. De Guzman*, *U.S. v. Abanzado*, *U.S. v. Enriquez*, *People v. Panaligan*), the Court ruled that the manner of enforcement of the law is within the sound discretion of the court. The prosecution’s act of not including Pila in the complaint and using him as a witness was permissible.

* Dissenting Opinion (Avanceña, C.J.): The Chief Justice dissented on this specific point, arguing that the purpose of Act No. 2709 was defeated by not including the accomplice in the complaint. He maintained that the law’s requirement for inclusion and subsequent release was designed to make the witness independent of prosecutorial influence. However, he concurred in the result because he found the other evidence sufficient to convict.

3. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found the evidence, including the corroborated confessions and testimonies, sufficient to establish the guilt of all appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

4. On the proper penalty: The crime of *robo en cuadrilla con homicidio* under Article 504 of the Penal Code prescribes a penalty of *cadena perpetua* (life imprisonment) to death. As the leader of the band, Mariano Bautista was liable for the penalty in the next higher degree. However, because one member of the Court dissented from imposing the death penalty, it could not be imposed. Consequently, the Court modified the sentences imposed by the trial court.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The sentences of the lower court were modified. Each appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of *cadena perpetua* (life imprisonment), with the accessory penalties under Article 54 of the Penal Code, to indemnify the heirs of Marcelo Gonza jointly and severally in the sum of P1,000, and to pay their proportional share of the costs.

Separate Opinions:
* Justice Johns concurred in part and dissented in part, stating that he would have affirmed the lower court’s sentence for appellant Clemente Baal but agreed with the rest of Justice Johnson’s opinion.