G.R. No. L-13901; September 19, 1961
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Francisco Bayubay and Valentin Garingan, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Francisco Bayubay and Valentin Garingan, along with a deceased accomplice, Alfredo de la Cruz, were convicted of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and multiple frustrated homicide. The evidence established that on the evening of September 24, 1952, the trio halted two trucks driven by the victims in Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya. They robbed the passengers, including Ester Diaz de la Cruz, and took control of the vehicles. The victims were then taken to a secluded area. Magbitang and Eduardo were beaten and stabbed, left for dead, but survived. Ostares was also stabbed but escaped. Mrs. De la Cruz was shot and killed. Her body was recovered the following day.
After their conviction and sentence to life imprisonment and additional penalties for the frustrated homicides, the appellants filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This consisted of an affidavit from a convict, Castillo, who claimed that the killing was contracted by the victim’s husband and his paramour. Another affidavit from the alleged paramour, previously offered and rejected at trial, was also presented.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial. A secondary issue involves the correctness of the penalties imposed by the trial court for the complex crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for new trial and affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The alleged newly discovered evidence was deemed utterly unreliable and insufficient to overturn the conviction. The testimony of a convict, like Castillo, is highly suspicious and easily fabricated, offering little danger of contradiction, as established in prior jurisprudence. Furthermore, the husband’s demonstrated active interest and anxiety in solving the crime contradicted the claim of his involvement. The affidavit of Maria Hernandez did not constitute newly discovered evidence, as it had been previously offered and rejected during the trial for immateriality.
On the penalty, the Court corrected the trial court’s imposition of separate penalties for the homicide and each frustrated homicide. The crime committed is the single, indivisible complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The multiple frustrated homicides are absorbed into the complex crime and do not warrant separate penalties. The Court found the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and the accused being armed, with no mitigating circumstances, which would ordinarily warrant the death penalty. However, due to the lack of the necessary votes for capital punishment, the penalty was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The decision was thus affirmed with this modification.