G.R. No. L-36039 May 17, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO ABEJERO y VILLON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 26, 1971, victims Clinton Tan and Chua Sy were riding a calesa in Manila when they were held up by a group including Leopoldo Abejero. The assailants, armed with knives, demanded and received money. Not satisfied, Abejero stabbed Sy when further demands were not met, causing fatal injuries. Tan escaped. Based on a description, police apprehended Abejero, who voluntarily executed a detailed extrajudicial confession before a fiscal, admitting the holdup and stabbing, and even sketching the knife used. His confession led to the arrest of his companions, Jesus Reyes and Benjamin Mallari, who also confessed and implicated Abejero as the killer. All three were convicted of robbery with homicide.
After conviction, Abejero secured a new trial based on a recanting affidavit from Reyes, who claimed sole responsibility for the stabbing. During the new trial, Reyes disowned his recantation, testifying he was forced to sign it and could not read it. The trial court reaffirmed the conviction. Abejero appealed, arguing his confession was coerced, the killing was not to conceal the robbery, and the eyewitness testimony needed corroboration.

ISSUE

The core issues were the validity of Abejero’s extrajudicial confession and the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the confession as voluntary and credible. Abejero’s claim of maltreatment was rejected because he failed to complain to the administering fiscal when he swore to the confession, which he signed twice, and did not raise the issue with his counsel. The Court emphasized that a retraction at trial does not automatically invalidate a confession; the motives for repudiation must be scrutinized. Here, the recantation was unreliable, as Reyes himself disavowed it during the new trial.
The legal logic for finding robbery with homicide was clearly explained. The Court held that the crime under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code requires only that the homicide occurs “by reason or on occasion of the robbery.” It is sufficient that a mere occasional relationship exists between the robbery and the killing; it is not necessary for the homicide to be a means of execution or to conceal the robbery. The killing here was senseless but directly occasioned by the ongoing robbery when the victims did not yield more money. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority was correctly applied, as multiple armed assailants overwhelmed two unarmed victims. Abejero’s alibi was rightly dismissed given the positive identification and his own confession. The judgment was affirmed.