G.R. No. L-10398; June 30, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADRIANO DAGUNDONG, FEDERICO BULAON, MELCHOR LAO and RICARDO SERRANO, defendants. ADRIANO DAGUNDONG, FEDERICO BULAON and RICARDO SERRANO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On October 7, 1950, at about 7 p.m., a masked and armed gunman entered the residence of movie actress Alice Lake (Anita Linda) at Pasong Tamo, Makati, Rizal. The gunman confronted Alice’s niece, Josephine, in the kitchen and forced her into the sala. Alice and her sister, Mamey Lake Hewell, rushed out upon hearing Josephine’s scream. Mrs. Hewell pleaded for her daughters. Alice and the children fled to a bedroom. Several gunshots were then heard from the sala. After the assailants left, police found Mrs. Hewell’s bullet-ridden body. The investigation revealed her bedroom had been ransacked. The autopsy confirmed she died from multiple .45 caliber gunshot wounds.
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Joseph Ebrada, a co-accused who was discharged to become a state witness. Ebrada testified that on October 5, 1950, appellants Adriano Dagundong, Federico Bulaon, Ricardo Serrano, and Melchor Lao planned to raise money, including by robbery, to bail out an inmate, Pablo Rabaton. On the evening of October 7, they used a jeep to go to Alice Lake’s house. Lao stayed with the jeep. Dagundong and Bulaon entered the house, while Ebrada and Serrano stood guard outside. After hearing a shot, Ebrada entered and saw Mrs. Hewell dead on the sala floor. The group then fled.
The trial court found Melchor Lao, Federico Bulaon, and Ricardo Serrano guilty of frustrated robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. It found Adriano Dagundong guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to death. All were ordered to pay indemnity. Lao withdrew his appeal; thus, the appeal proceeded only for Dagundong, Bulaon, and Serrano.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testimony of discharged co-accused Joseph Ebrada is credible and admissible.
2. Whether the appellants are guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted, specifically whether appellant Dagundong should be convicted of murder or of frustrated robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the convictions with modification regarding appellant Dagundong’s crime.
1. On the Credibility and Admissibility of Ebrada’s Testimony: The Court held that the propriety of Ebrada’s discharge as a co-accused under the Rules of Court has no bearing on the admissibility or competency of his testimony. While his testimony as a confessed participant required scrutiny, a meticulous review of the evidence convinced the Court of its reliability. His sworn statement was consistent, and he maintained his account despite knowing his co-accused could present the inmate Pablo Rabaton to contradict him, which they did not do. The trial court correctly denied the motion for a new trial based on this.
2. On the Crimes Committed:
* For appellants Federico Bulaon and Ricardo Serrano, the Court agreed with the trial court that they were guilty of frustrated robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. It was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Serrano acted as a lookout and Bulaon helped ransack the room inside the house.
* For appellant Adriano Dagundong, the Court found that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder. While it was established that he fired the fatal shots with treachery, the crime is not murder. The term “homicide” in Article 294 (and by relation, Article 297) of the Revised Penal Code is used in its generic sense. It comprehends both robbery with homicide and robbery with murder. Therefore, the offense is not removed from the scope of frustrated robbery with homicide merely because the killing amounted to murder.
DISPOSITIVE:
Appellant Adriano Dagundong is found guilty of frustrated robbery with homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. Costs against appellants.