GR 45554; (May, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45554 ; May 27, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO MABASSA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The defendants-appellants (Alberto Mabassa, Abelardo Labao, and Silverio Uy) were convicted of robbery with homicide for the killing of Clemente Aquino during the robbery of his chickens. The prosecution evidence included: (1) the testimony of the victim’s 10-year-old daughter, Maria Aquino, who witnessed the attack; (2) the ante mortem declaration of the deceased, Clemente Aquino, identifying the appellants as his assailants; and (3) the testimony of their co-accused, Domingo Tagalog (who pleaded guilty). The appellants challenged the credibility of the child witness, the admissibility of the ante mortem declaration, and the admissibility of the co-accused’s testimony.
ISSUE
1. Whether the testimony of the child witness, Maria Aquino, was credible.
2. Whether the ante mortem declaration of Clemente Aquino was admissible.
3. Whether the testimony of co-accused Domingo Tagalog was admissible against the appellants.
4. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide or theft with homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. The testimony of Maria Aquino was credible, natural, and sufficient to sustain conviction. The Court found no improbability in her account, including her ability to identify the appellants whom she knew beforehand and her manner of holding the lamp.
2. The ante mortem declaration was admissible. The declarant’s belief of imminent danger of death at the time of the statement is the controlling factor, not the actual time of death or the later medical opinion on the wound’s severity.
3. The testimony of co-accused Domingo Tagalog given at the trial was admissible against the appellants. The Court distinguished this from an extrajudicial confession, which is only admissible against the declarant.
4. The crime was robbery with homicide, not theft with homicide, as the evidence established that violence against the person (homicide) was employed on the occasion of the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength were present, but for lack of unanimity on whether nocturnity was deliberately sought, the penalty was reclusion perpetua instead of death. The Court affirmed the sentence of reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and restitution.
AI Generated by Armztrong.