G.R. No. L-23303 and L-23304, May 20, 1969.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOCADIO BAUTISTA Y BASA @ CADIO, ET AL., defendants, ARMANDO GONZALES Y JOSE @ BOY, defendant-appellant. / THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO ANGELES Y SARMIENTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Leocadio Bautista, Armando Gonzales, and Fortunato Angeles were charged with robbery with homicide in two separate informations. After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila found them guilty of attempted robbery with homicide and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity of P5,000 to the heirs of the deceased. Only Gonzales and Angeles appealed. The evidence established that on August 28, 1963, a delivery truck driven by Filemon King, with helper Jose Tan, was stopped near Yakal and Tayabas streets in Manila. An unidentified person stepped on the truck’s running board on Tan’s side, while appellant Fortunato Angeles stepped on the running board beside King and demanded “liquor money.” When King refused, the unidentified man threw a stone at Tan, hitting the truck’s switch and forcing it to stop. King and Tan alighted and were met with a volley of stones thrown by Angeles, Gonzales, Bautista, and others. Tan ran to call a policeman. Upon returning, he found King sprawled in a gutter. King was taken to the hospital but died the next morning from a skull fracture and severe subdural hemorrhage caused by the stoning. Police investigation led to the arrest of Gonzales and Bautista, and later Angeles. Prosecution witness Jose Tan identified all three appellants as among those who participated in the stoning. Appellants admitted presence at the scene but denied full participation: Gonzales denied throwing stones, while Angeles claimed he only threw a small stone at the truck’s rear window and ran home after being hit by a stone.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellants are factual, centering on: (1) the credibility of prosecution witness Jose Tan; (2) whether appellants acted in concert with others in stoning the victim; and (3) the sufficiency of evidence to convict them of attempted robbery with homicide. Specifically, the trial court’s findings on the demand for money, the cause of the stoning, conspiracy, and the imposition of the penalty are challenged.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court upheld the findings of fact, giving credence to the straightforward testimony of prosecution witness Jose Tan, who identified the appellants as participants. The Court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy, as the appellants, by concerted action, intended to extort money and, upon refusal, assaulted the victim. The act of one in demanding money is deemed the act of all due to conspiracy. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong was not appreciated because the evidence showed an intent to cause death, as the stones thrown caused a fatal skull fracture. The aggravating circumstance of superior strength was present but, not being alleged in the information, was considered only as a general aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty. The indemnity was increased from P5,000 to P12,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.