G.R. No. L-32756 March 28, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO FUENTES Y PITELO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of October 17, 1969, in Sampaloc, Manila, the victim, Manuel delos Santos, was robbed and fatally stabbed. The information charged Rogelio Fuentes with robbery with homicide, alleging he conspired with others to take the victim’s wristwatch valued at P40.00 and, on the occasion of the robbery, stabbed the victim multiple times, causing his death. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of eyewitness Eduardo Lozana and the appellant’s own extrajudicial confession.
Lozana testified that after drinking with a group including the appellant, he saw appellant Fuentes place his hand on the victim’s shoulder and lead him into a house under demolition, followed by other companions. Lozana later heard the victim plead for mercy and saw the group emerge with blood on their hands, discussing the stolen watch. Fuentes, in his sworn confession, admitted to taking the watch from the victim upon the order of a cohort named “Abat” and stated that he later learned the victim had been stabbed by another cohort, Rudolfo Nartea. The trial court convicted Fuentes and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is the correctness of the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. His extrajudicial confession, given voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel, was admissible and corroborated by the eyewitness account of Lozana. The confession detailed his direct participation in the robbery, which was integrally linked to the killing, satisfying the elements of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding the penalty, the Court corrected the trial court’s appreciation of aggravating circumstances. While the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly considered due to the number of assailants, the Court held that nocturnity (nighttime) should not be appreciated. The evidence showed the crime was not premeditated but was committed on impulse after the malefactors had been drinking for two hours. This inebriation, which was not habitual, constituted a mitigating circumstance of intoxication. Consequently, the sole aggravating circumstance was offset by this mitigating circumstance. Under the law, this equipoise results in the imposition of the penalty in its medium period. For the complex crime of robbery with homicide, the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. With the aggravating and mitigating circumstances canceling each other, the proper penalty is the medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. Thus, the death sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnity and damages was sustained.