GR L 33951; (September, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33951 September 28, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL COMPACION alias MANING, ERNESTO PIALAGO, deceased-(PATERNO BARBECHO), CRISANTO MANTALABA alias SANTOS and ELACIO LAOGLAOG, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The case involves the robbery and killing of members of the Gabutan family in their home in Kibol, Taluya Glan, South Cotabato, on the evening of September 17, 1970. The appellants, who were relatives and acquaintances of the victims, conspired to rob the household, knowing that the male head of the family, Felipe Gabutan, and his two sons were away at their farm. Armed with a homemade revolver and bladed weapons, the group proceeded to the house. Paterno Barbecho, Crisanto Mantalaba, and Elacio Laoglaog acted as lookouts outside, while Manuel Compacion and Ernesto Pialago gained entry by deceit, with Pialago pretending to be the victim’s son. Once inside, they killed Andrea Barbecho Gabutan and her daughter Aniceta, seriously wounded two other daughters, Adelaide and Neria, and stole P2,820.00. Only a ten-month-old infant was spared.
ISSUE
The primary issue for review is the correctness of the conviction for the complex crime of robbery with double homicide and double frustrated homicide and the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court, which found the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances without any mitigating factor.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the appreciation of aggravating circumstances. The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy, which was evident from the coordinated actions of the appellants in planning and executing the crime. The legal logic is that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Here, the collective actions—the prior knowledge of the victims’ absence, the division of roles between lookouts and perpetrators, the use of deception to gain entry, and the subsequent division of the loot—clearly established a common criminal design. Consequently, all conspirators are equally liable for the crimes committed in furtherance of that design, regardless of the extent of their individual participation.
Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed with the imposition of the death penalty but expressed doubt on the trial court’s finding of the aggravating circumstance of “band,” which requires that more than three armed malefactors act together. The evidence was unclear on whether all four principal appellants were armed. However, the presence of other aggravating circumstances—namely, dwelling, nocturnity, evident premeditation, and treachery—remained uncontested and were sufficient to justify the capital punishment, as there were no mitigating circumstances to offset them. The crime was committed with extreme cruelty and abuse of confidence, targeting defenseless women and children in their own home. Thus, the affirmance of the death sentence was legally proper.