GR L 12270; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12270; April 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO CANO, ET AL., defendants. PEDRO POBLAR, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the night of May 28, 1956, Silvino Esplago and his wife Eleuteria Mosqueso were asleep in their house in Calbayog City when someone outside called to buy kerosene. Silvino’s son Salvador, recognizing the voice as possibly that of appellant Pedro Poblar (“Pedring”), accompanied Silvino as he opened the door. Immediately, a man blew out the lamp Salvador was holding and stabbed Silvino, causing him to fall. Salvador and his sister Teofila fled. A gunshot followed, hitting Eleuteria and her child Corazon. One assailant then demanded money from Eleuteria at gunpoint while another opened her trunk and stole a container holding over one thousand pesos in coins and bills. Silvino died hours later from his wounds. Eleuteria sustained a through-and-through bullet wound in her left arm, and Corazon suffered a bullet wound with a comminuted fracture of the humerus.
The prosecution’s evidence, which the court found credible, established appellant’s guilt based on: (1) Unrefuted testimony placing him among the malefactors; (2) His voluntary sworn statements (Exhibits “6” and “6-A”) confessing his participation, which he later unconvincingly claimed were not read to him; and (3) His unrebutted re-enactment of the crime before police officers, considered a voluntary confession.
ISSUE
The primary issue resolved in the ruling pertains to the proper classification of the crime and the correct penalty to be imposed, specifically whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide and double frustrated homicide or robbery with homicide and physical injuries, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances for sentencing.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the crime committed was robbery with homicide and physical injuries, not robbery with homicide and double frustrated homicide. The evidence did not establish an intent to kill Eleuteria and Corazon, only that they sustained physical injuries from the gunfire.
Regarding the penalty, the trial court correctly found one aggravating circumstance but erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Offsetting these, the proper penalty under the law was reclusion perpetua, not death. Consequently, the decision was affirmed with the sole modification that appellant Pedro Poblar is sentenced to reclusion perpetua.