G.R. No. L-11562; August 31, 1916

FACTS:
On the night of August 20, 1915, an armed band of at least seventeen men surrounded the house of Catalina Madrazo in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Two armed men entered the house, demanded money, and struck Catalina and her granddaughter, Maura Lomboy, with the flat sides of their bolos. Out of fear, Catalina handed over P40 and P150. Upon hearing a voice from below threatening to kill Catalina, Maura retrieved and surrendered an additional P2,020. Meanwhile, Inocencio Alberto and Jorge Galang responded to the women’s cries for help. They were attacked by the band below, and Alberto suffered a severe bolo wound on his arm that resulted in the permanent loss of its use. The robbers fled after the disturbance. The defendants, Simon Lazaro, Juan Lazaro, and Francisco Manzano, were identified as participants. At trial, Maura Lomboy and Jorge Galang testified that they recognized the two men who entered the house as Simon and Juan Lazaro, despite initially telling police they did not recognize the assailants out of fear. Francisco Manzano was implicated through the testimony of Rufino Galina, who stated Manzano had invited him to join the robbery and later admitted participation. The trial court convicted the defendants of robbery in band with serious physical injuries, imposing the penalty of cadena temporal for nineteen years, one month, and eleven days.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendants guilty of the crime of robbery.
2. Whether the trial court erred in qualifying the crime as robbery in band.
3. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the wounds inflicted constituted serious physical injuries under paragraph 3 of Article 503 of the Penal Code.
4. Whether the trial court erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
5. Whether the penalty imposed was correct.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
1. The guilt of the defendants was sustained. The testimonies of Maura Lomboy and Jorge Galang, who were in a position to recognize the perpetrators, were credible despite their initial hesitance to identify them out of fear. Their testimonies were corroborated by other witnesses, including Telesforo Baltazar and Rufino Galina.
2. The crime was correctly qualified as robbery committed by a band, as it was perpetrated by more than three armed individuals.
3. The Court, however, disagreed with the trial court’s classification of the crime under paragraph 3 of Article 503 (which applies when the injury results in the loss of the use of a principal member). The information did not specifically allege that the victim lost the use of his arm, although the evidence proved it. The crime was properly classified under paragraph 4 of Article 503 in relation to Article 504 and paragraph 4 of Article 416, as the information alleged “serious physical injuries” which required medical attendance for more than thirty days.
4. The Court did not specifically address the alleged error on nocturnity in its dispositive ruling, as the modification of the penalty was based on the proper classification of the offense.
5. The penalty was modified. Applying the correct provision, the penalty of cadena temporal in its maximum degree was imposed. Thus, the sentence was reduced to fourteen years and eight months of cadena temporal. The rest of the judgment, including the indemnity and accessory penalties, was affirmed.