G.R. No. L-44274 January 22, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUISITO SAN PEDRO, et al., accused, ARTEMIO BANASIHAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the afternoon of June 2, 1970, the body of jeepney driver Felimon Rivera was found in Bay, Laguna, bearing 23 lacerated and stab wounds. His passenger jeep was missing. The crime remained unsolved until June 1971, when Rodrigo Esguerra, upon apprehension, confessed and implicated his companions. Appellant Artemio Banasihan was arrested in 1972 and gave a sworn confession detailing the crime.
Banasihan admitted that days before the incident, he and his co-accused planned to steal Rivera’s jeep. On June 2, 1970, he and Luisito San Pedro hired Rivera under the pretext of hauling coconuts. They proceeded to a designated place where they were joined by Salvador Litan and Rodrigo Esguerra. At a river between barrios, San Pedro ordered Rivera to stop. At a signal, Litan struck Rivera with a water pipe. When Rivera fled, San Pedro and Litan chased and stabbed him to death. The group then stole the jeep, sold it in Cavite for P2,000.00, and Banasihan received P50.00 as his share.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances and in not applying the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, thereby justifying the imposition of the death penalty for robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty. The legal questions centered on the appreciation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court rejected the argument that the aggravating circumstance of craft was absorbed by treachery. Craft, employed to facilitate the robbery by luring the victim, was distinct from treachery, which ensures the execution of the killing without risk. Citing U.S. vs. Gampona, the Court held craft and treachery as separate aggravating circumstances in crimes like robbery with homicide, where craft directly relates to the robbery component.
Furthermore, the Court found no basis to apply the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. The criterion is not mere illiteracy but a proven lack of sufficient intelligence. Banasihan, a merchant, did not present direct evidence of such deficiency at trial. As held in People vs. Enot, lack of instruction is generally inapplicable to crimes like robbery and homicide, as their wrongful nature is manifest to all. With two aggravating circumstances (craft and treachery) and no mitigating circumstance, the imposition of the death penalty under the Revised Penal Code was correct. The indemnity awarded by the trial court was likewise affirmed.