G.R. No. L-12090; April 30, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO BAUTISTA, ET AL., defendants. ERNESTO VELASCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of April 4, 1952, a group including appellant Ernesto Velasco, his brother Diosdado Velasco, Ildefonso Larit (who later became a state witness), Federico Bautista, Nicanor Dizon, and others went to the house of Marcelino Buenafe at Hacienda Calubcub. Appellant was the leader and was armed with an unlicensed .30 caliber rifle (Exh. H). Using a ruse to lure Buenafe out, appellant ordered him hogtied and tied to a post. The group then robbed his house, taking 15 sacks of palay and his carabao. After loading the loot onto a cart and ordering some companions to go ahead, two shots were heard. Bautista testified that he looked back and saw Diosdado Velasco and Larit at a distance, and farther behind them, appellant coming from the victim’s house carrying the rifle. The group later divided the stolen palay at appellant’s direction. The following morning, Buenafe’s body was discovered, still tied, with a fatal gunshot wound to the head. Two empty .30 caliber cartridges were found nearby. Appellant later surrendered the rifle and pleaded guilty to its illegal possession. At trial, some co-accused testified that Bautista was the killer, but Bautista pointed to appellant. The trial court convicted appellant of robbery with homicide.

ISSUE

Who killed Marcelino Buenafe, and is appellant Ernesto Velasco guilty of robbery with homicide?

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding appellant Ernesto Velasco guilty of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that appellant was the killer, giving credence to Bautista’s testimony that appellant was the last person seen leaving the crime scene with the rifle, which was the only weapon present. The Court noted appellant’s leadership role throughout the robbery, giving all orders and being in possession of the firearm. The commission of the robbery was undisputed. The killing was attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity, abuse of superior strength, disregard of the victim’s age (60 years old), and treachery (as the victim was hogtied). These were offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua to death. The case called for the maximum penalty of death, but due to insufficient votes for its imposition, the penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) imposed by the trial court was affirmed. Appellant was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.