G.R. No. L-27177 October 23, 1981
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS, ANTONIO CAPILLAS and JULIANITO CAPILLAS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of October 25, 1964, in Sitio Lagbangan, San Antonio, Samar, appellants Romualdo, Antonio, and Julianito Capillas, along with three others who remained at large, forcibly broke into the house of spouses Pablo Amante and Consorcia Melendres. The armed group demanded money. During the ensuing struggle, Antonio wrestled with Pablo Amante for a bolo. Meanwhile, Romualdo, armed with a revolver, shot Consorcia Melendres, who was pregnant and resting in a hammock, three times, causing her death. The assailants then fled, carrying away a trunk containing cash and personal property. Pablo Amante sustained physical injuries requiring medical attention. Romualdo Capillas pleaded guilty upon arraignment, while Antonio and Julianito Capillas pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted all three of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries and sentenced them to death.

ISSUE

The primary issue for automatic review is the correctness of the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, specifically concerning the appreciation of aggravating circumstances and the proper penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the finding that the appellants committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The killing of Consorcia Melendres and the infliction of injuries upon Pablo Amante were deemed committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, constituting a single indivisible offense. The Court agreed with the trial court’s appreciation of several aggravating circumstances, including dwelling, nocturnity, and abuse of superior strength. For Romualdo Capillas, his plea of guilty was correctly considered as a mitigating circumstance. However, the Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of “in an uninhabited place,” as the sitio, though isolated, was not entirely devoid of inhabitants. Furthermore, the circumstance of “by a band” was inherent in the crime of robbery in band as charged and should not have been separately considered as generic. After a proper recalculation of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the penalty prescribed by law for robbery with homicide, which is reclusion perpetua to death, was imposable. The Court, lacking the necessary votes to impose the death penalty, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with the rules. The indemnity to the heirs of Consorcia Melendres was increased to P12,000.00.