G.R. No. 28600, March 21, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO ABEDOSA, ET AL., defendants. PEDRO ABEDOSA and MARCIANO ABEDOSA, appellants.

FACTS

In the early morning of June 7, 1927, a group of six or seven armed men attacked the house of Rafael de Fiesta in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. The assailants forced open the door. Inside, Rafael de Fiesta resisted but was fatally hacked by appellants Pedro Abedosa and Marciano Abedosa. Another occupant, Rufino Esteban, was injured. Rafael’s father, Nicolas de Fiesta, who tried to help, was also wounded by persons outside the house. Rafael died later that day from his wounds. The appellants, Pedro and Marciano Abedosa, were convicted by the trial court of the complex crime of *allanamiento de morada* (trespass to dwelling) with homicide and sentenced to *reclusion temporal*. They appealed the conviction.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the confession of appellant Pedro Abedosa was admissible in evidence.
2. Whether the statement of the deceased Rafael de Fiesta to the chief of police was admissible as a dying declaration.
3. Whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the crime committed was the complex crime of *allanamiento de morada* with homicide or simple homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the legal qualification of the crime.

1. On the admissibility of Pedro Abedosa’s confession: The Court held that the charge that the confession was obtained through force or promises was refuted by the testimony of the chief of police. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the old rule (under Act No. 619) requiring the prosecution to prove affirmatively that a confession was voluntary had been repealed by the Administrative Code. The burden to prove that a confession was involuntary now rests on the defense, which the appellants failed to discharge.

2. On the admissibility of the deceased’s statement as a dying declaration: The Court upheld its admissibility. The declaration was made on the day of his death while he was suffering from seven serious wounds, two of which were fatal, with his intestines protruding. Under these circumstances, it was highly improbable that the deceased expected to survive, satisfying the requirement for a dying declaration even without an express statement of impending death.

3. On the proof of guilt: The Court found the guilt of both appellants sufficiently established. Pedro Abedosa was positively identified by the deceased and a witness, and he had confessed and pleaded guilty during the preliminary investigation. Marciano Abedosa was identified by the deceased and by another witness who met him fleeing from the crime scene. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s findings on their identity and participation.

4. On the proper classification of the crime: The Court disagreed with the trial court’s classification. It held that when *allanamiento de morada* is a direct means to commit a graver offense (like homicide), it is not a separate crime but is absorbed as an aggravating circumstance of the principal crime. Therefore, the appellants committed simple homicide, not a complex crime. The information sufficiently alleged homicide. Considering the presence of three aggravating circumstances (nocturnity, superiority, and dwelling) and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for homicide was properly imposed in its maximum degree, which was the same penalty (*reclusion temporal*) originally imposed by the trial court.

The Court also noted the Attorney-General’s suggestion to punish the appellants for the assaults on Rufino Esteban and Nicolas de Fiesta. However, it declined, holding that those offenses were misdemeanors within the original jurisdiction of lower courts (justices of the peace/municipal courts), over which the Supreme Court could not assume jurisdiction.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
With the sole modification that the appellants are found guilty of simple homicide instead of *allanamiento de morada* with homicide, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are divided between the appellants.