G.R. No. L-14623, December 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. YAKANS ASPALIN, ET AL., defendants. YAKAN ABANG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An amended information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Basilan City charging Yakans Aspalin, Arasil Jajis, and Yakan Abang with the complex crime of robbery in band with murder. The information alleged that on or about April 29, 1958, in Sitio Lagasan, Lamitan, Basilan City, the accused, conspiring with another at-large companion, armed with bladed weapons (“Barong”), with treachery, evident premeditation, and taking advantage of nighttime, assaulted, attacked, and hacked Antonio Trota, causing his instant death. Thereafter, they took personal belongings from the victim, including a pistol, ammunition, a flashlight, pants, a wallet with cash, and a lighter, with a total value of P435.60. Upon arraignment, Yakan Abang, assisted by counsel, had the information read and translated to him, after which he voluntarily and spontaneously pleaded guilty. His co-accused pleaded not guilty. Based on his plea, the trial court found Abang guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, offset by the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed “in band,” and found other aggravating circumstances—nocturnity, alevosia (treachery), and premeditation—to remain. The court imposed the death penalty, indemnity, and restitution. During the promulgation of the sentence, the trial judge noted Abang’s lack of repentance and laughter, suggesting he might be “mentally unbalanced” or a “moral pervert.” Abang later filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming insanity. At a hearing, a doctor testified Abang had shown suicidal tendencies during confinement. The trial court denied the motion, noting that Abang had testified intelligently and in an orderly manner in another criminal case (for double homicide), and that the insanity plea was not raised at arraignment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing appellant despite entertaining a belief that he might be mentally unbalanced.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

1. On the issue of insanity: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err. The record did not support the claim that the trial judge believed Abang was mentally unbalanced. The judge’s statement was an alternative surmise based on Abang’s conduct during promulgation, suggesting he was either mentally unbalanced or a moral pervert. Furthermore, Abang was given a full opportunity to prove his insanity at the hearing on his motion for reconsideration. The trial court correctly found him sane, as evidenced by his orderly and intelligent testimony in another criminal case. No sufficient evidence was presented to show otherwise.
2. On the imposition of the death penalty: The Supreme Court clarified the nature of the crime. Citing jurisprudence (People vs. Sawajan and People vs. Manuel), the Court held that the term “homicide” in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code (robbery with violence or intimidation of persons) is used in a generic sense and includes killings qualified by circumstances under Article 248 (murder). Therefore, when a killing is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide, not robbery with murder. Any qualifying circumstances (like treachery, abuse of superior strength, or commission by a band) attendant to the killing are considered only as generic aggravating circumstances. The trial court, therefore, correctly treated the aggravating circumstances as generic. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s judgment. However, for lack of the required number of votes to impose the death penalty, the penalty was commuted to life imprisonment. The decision of the lower court was affirmed in all other respects, as modified.