GR 32605; (April, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32605. April 28, 1980. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO ACEJO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of December 25, 1969, accused Carlito Acejo and two companions arrived at the house of spouses Ricardo Bonifacio and Herminia Belalo in Pontevedra, Capiz. After soliciting Christmas gifts, Acejo became angered by Bonifacio’s offer of only a few items. Acejo then stabbed Bonifacio in the back while his companions held the victim, and subsequently struck him on the head with an iron bar, causing his death. Acejo then attacked Herminia, rendering her unconscious. Upon recovering nine days later, Herminia discovered that several personal items, including a rifle and a transistor radio, were missing from their home.
The prosecution charged Acejo with robbery with homicide, rape, and frustrated homicide. Acejo pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense. He testified that Bonifacio had aimed a rifle at him after a trivial dispute, forcing him to stab Bonifacio and seize the weapon in a struggle. He claimed he took the rifle and radio only for safekeeping. The trial court rejected this defense as fabricated and convicted Acejo of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted Carlito Acejo of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found Acejo’s claim of self-defense utterly lacking in credibility. His narrative—that Bonifacio threatened him with a rifle over a minor disagreement about listening to a radio program—was deemed inconsistent with human experience and the evidence, particularly given their familial relationship and the hospitable context of Christmas. The fact that Bonifacio’s body was found inside the house contradicted Acejo’s story that the spouses had fled.
On the element of robbery, the Court held that Acejo’s unlawful taking of the rifle and radio was proven beyond reasonable doubt. His possession of these items and his unsatisfactory explanation established the animus lucrandi (intent to gain). The subsequent restitution initiated by his mother did not negate criminal liability, as the robbery was already consummated; it merely extinguished civil liability for those specific items. However, the taking of other personal articles (pants, shirts, watch, cash) was not conclusively proven, as no eyewitness testified to their actual taking. The crime was properly classified as robbery with homicide, aggravated by abuse of superiority, dwelling, nocturnity, and use of a motorized banca. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was insufficient to offset these aggravating factors. While the trial court properly imposed the death penalty, the Supreme Court, lacking the required votes for its affirmation, imposed reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was modified accordingly.