GR 30780; (November, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30780 November 28, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DALMACIO PAHIL Y PITALCO, ET AL., defendants, DANTE LUCAS Y DIOKNO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Dante Lucas, along with Dalmacio Pahil, was charged with Robbery with Homicide for the death of Raymundo Salazar. Pahil pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Lucas pleaded not guilty. The prosecution established that on July 30, 1967, Salazar was found dead in his Taal, Batangas home with stab wounds. He was known to keep large sums of money, and a roll of bills was missing. Investigation led to Lucas based on the affidavit of his brother-in-law, Jose Punzalan, who stated he saw Lucas cleaning a bloodied knife and admitting he and Pahil stabbed the victim. Lucas was later arrested in Pasay City, where he allegedly confessed to the stabbing.
The trial court convicted Lucas of Robbery with Homicide and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review of the death sentence. The principal evidence against Lucas was his extrajudicial confession, wherein he admitted inflicting the fatal wound but did not admit to taking any money.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Dante Lucas of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Robbery with Homicide to Homicide. The legal logic is that for a conviction of the complex crime, the prosecution must prove both the robbery and the homicide, and that the killing was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Lucas’s extrajudicial confession was admissible against him but was limited in scope; he admitted to the stabbing but did not confess to the robbery. The prosecution presented no eyewitness to the robbery. The confession of co-accused Pahil, which might have implicated Lucas in the robbery, was not presented in evidence and would be hearsay as to Lucas. Therefore, the element of robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt against Lucas.
Consequently, Lucas could only be held liable for Homicide. The Court found the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling, but not treachery, as the assault, though unexpected, was not shown to be deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk. The death penalty was set aside. Lucas was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the victim’s heirs.