G.R. No. L-18777. May 29, 1964.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO CONDE alias BENITO, ET AL., defendants, DIONISIO CONDE alias BENITO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early hours of April 20, 1958, an armed band broke into a warehouse and a house within the hacienda of Lourdes Sison in San Manuel, Pangasinan. The robbers assaulted Rodolfo Ganancial, taking a twenty-peso bill, and then forced Florencio Imbuido to lead them to the nearby house of Mariano Raquiza. Upon kicking the door open and hearing Raquiza’s inquiry from inside, one of the intruders shot and killed him. The band then fled. The subsequent investigation led to the filing of an information for robbery in band with homicide against several individuals, including appellant Dionisio Conde and Felipe Ortiz.
At trial, the prosecution presented, among others, discharged co-accused Dominador Bermudez as a state witness. Bermudez testified that the robbery was planned and ordered by Conde, who appointed Dioscoro Flores as the on-site leader because Conde excused himself, citing his wife’s illness. Bermudez stated Conde provided him with a .38 caliber pistol for the operation. Felipe Ortiz corroborated Bermudez’s presence at the scene but claimed he believed the group was going serenading. Appellant Conde denied any involvement, testifying he was in Tarlac with his common-law wife throughout that evening and did not know his co-accused except Bermudez.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the testimony of state witness Dominador Bermudez sufficiently establishes the guilt of appellant Dionisio Conde as a principal by induction for the crime of robbery in band with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the trial court’s assessment of Bermudez’s credibility to be sound and without grounds for reversal. Appellant Conde’s defense of alibi was deemed weak and uncorroborated, as he failed to present his common-law wife to substantiate his claim. In contrast, Bermudez’s detailed account of Conde’s role as the planner and inducer, who supplied firearms and appointed the leader, was partly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses on the circumstances of the crime and even by co-accused Ortiz on their presence at the locus criminis.
The Court rejected the trial court’s application of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The fact that Conde armed the band and the crime was committed by a band and at nighttime, which was deliberately sought, indicated a conscious disregard of the probable lethal consequences. The prescribed penalty for robbery in band with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. The Court noted that the maximum period (death) was applicable due to the aggravating circumstances of band and nighttime, but for lack of the necessary votes, the penalty next lower in degree—reclusion perpetua—was correctly imposed. The decision of the Court of First Instance was therefore affirmed.