GR L 1248; (April, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1248; April 30, 1948
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DATU ALIMPANG MANTAWAR, BITUANIN MACALANGAN y MAMANTAR BATIONG, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Two weeks after the arrival of Japanese forces in Barrio Parang, Cotabato, in May 1942, two Filipino Army Sergeants, Federico Cuaresma and Antonino Regaspe, asked Datu Alimpang Mantawar to guide them to Galigayan where their families had evacuated. Datu Alimpang, together with Mamantar Bationg and Bituanin Macalangan, accompanied them to the house of Bakar Mato to ask him to guide them via the shortest path. Bakar Mato and his brother Amigos Mato joined. While walking single file, after crossing the Lipawan River, Bakar Mato heard the signal “na” (meaning “start”). He turned and saw Bituanin attack Sgt. Cuaresma and Datu Alimpang attack Sgt. Regaspe with bolos, killing them almost instantly. The accused then robbed the victims of their money (P800 and P200), firearms (a rifle and a revolver with ammunition), belts, hats, and shoes, with Datu Alimpang distributing the cash. The trial court convicted Datu Alimpang Mantawar, Bituanin Macalangan, and Mamantar Bationg of the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with indemnities and costs. They appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the killing was committed on the occasion of the robbery, constituting the single, indivisible complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence, including the eyewitness account of Bakar Mato (who was discharged as an accused to become a state witness) and the judicial confession (Exhibit “B”) of Datu Alimpang, clearly established conspiracy among the appellants. The attack was treacherous (alevosia), but in this complex crime, treachery is considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance, not as a qualifying circumstance for murder. The aggravating circumstance of treachery was offset by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction (education) of the appellants under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. The defense’s alternative version of the events (that other Moros killed the sergeants) was uncorroborated and unworthy of credence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper.
AI Generated by Armztrong.