G.R. No. 28243, December 27, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. SAWAJAN, ET AL.

FACTS

The appellants, Sawajan, Hali, Barahama, and Asmani (Moros from Sulu), along with two others, were charged with robbery in gang with murder. The prosecution evidence established that on May 10, 1926, the appellants borrowed a vinta (boat) under the pretense of fishing. Instead, they proceeded to Patian Island, armed with bolos or barongs. There, they went to the house of the victim, Hassan, at night. While Hassan and his family were asleep in a house with no walls, Hali and Barahama entered, attacked and mortally wounded Hassan. The family escaped. The appellants then stole a trunk and two boxes, carried the booty to their vinta, returned to their sitio, divided the contents among themselves, and later fled to the hills upon learning they were suspects. The trial court convicted the four appellants and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings and assessment of witness credibility.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of minority (for Barahama) and lack of instruction should be appreciated.
3. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of recidivism (for Sawajan), band (cuadrilla), and nocturnity.
4. Whether the imposition of the death penalty was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the trial court.

1. On questions of fact and credibility: The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings, which were supported by the evidence. The appellants’ denials and alibis were properly rejected.

2. On mitigating circumstances:
Minority: The claim that Barahama was a minor was not sufficiently proven.
Lack of Instruction: The Court rejected this mitigating circumstance. It held that the Moro population of Sulu had been under the administration of Philippine justice for over a quarter of a century and should be presumed to know that robbery with homicide is a capital offense, irrespective of formal education.

3. On aggravating circumstances:
Recidivism (Sawajan): The record of Sawajan’s previous conviction for murder was properly admitted in evidence, proving recidivism.
Band (Cuadrilla) and Nocturnity: The Court held that in the compound crime of robbery with homicide under Article 503 of the Penal Code, the aggravating circumstances of band (as all appellants were armed) and nocturnity (as they purposely chose the nighttime to commit the crime) are separate from the qualifying circumstance of treachery (awebra) present in the homicide. These generic aggravating circumstances can be considered independently to justify the imposition of the supreme penalty. The Court cited U.S. vs. Perez as direct precedent.

4. On the penalty: With multiple aggravating circumstances (treachery, band, nocturnity, recidivism for one) and no mitigating circumstances, the imposition of the death penalty was correct and in accordance with law.

The sentence was to be executed pursuant to Act No. 3104.