G.R. No. L-21690; April 29, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EPIFANIO PUJINIO, ET AL., defendants, EPIFANIO PUJINIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Epifanio Pujinio and Eladio Pacquiao were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that on February 18, 1963, in San Fernando, Cebu, they, together with an accomplice at large, conspired and, armed and with faces half-covered, entered the house of Aquilino Sebial through the kitchen. Once inside, they shot Sebial while he was asleep, pointed a firearm at the occupants, demanded money and valuables, ransacked the house, and took a transistor radio and cash totaling P280.00. The information alleged seven aggravating circumstances: evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, superior number and strength, dwelling, disguise, and recidivism as to Pujinio (who had a prior final conviction for murder and had escaped from prison). Initially, both pleaded not guilty. On May 30, 1963, Pujinio, through counsel, expressed willingness to withdraw his plea and plead guilty, provided he could prove the mitigating circumstances of extreme poverty and lack of instruction. The court allowed this. After withdrawing his plea and being arraigned anew, Pujinio pleaded guilty. The lower court found him guilty and, considering six aggravating circumstances (nighttime absorbed in treachery) and only one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty), imposed the death penalty. Pujinio’s counsel filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied, leading to this automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty upon Epifanio Pujinio despite his claim in a sworn statement that it was his accomplice, Sofonias Balbuena, who fired the fatal shot, and his plea of guilty with an explanation that he should only be guilty of robbery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Court held that Pujinio’s sworn statement (Exhibit C), presented during the trial of his co-defendant Pacquiao to prove conspiracy, could not be considered in his case as it was presented after his case had been submitted upon his plea of guilty. By pleading guilty, Pujinio admitted all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information, which was read to him twice. Furthermore, even assuming he testified that Balbuena was the triggerman, it would not make him guilty only of robbery. It is settled that one who participates in a robbery where a homicide is committed is equally guilty as a principal of robbery with homicide, unless there is clear evidence he tried to prevent the homicide. No such evidence existed. Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed with the lower court that the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and extreme poverty could not be appreciated in his favor. Pujinio had studied up to sixth grade, which was sufficient to understand right from wrong, and his claim of poverty was undermined by his admission that his mother owned real properties and he had previously been employed. The offense was committed with six aggravating circumstances and only one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty), thus warranting the imposition of the death penalty in its maximum degree. The decision was affirmed.