GR L 48217; (January, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48217 January 30, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANITO MABILANGAN & ARSENIO MABILANGAN, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Juanito and Arsenio Mabilangan, along with others, were charged with robbery with multiple homicide. The Mabilangan brothers, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to the charges. The trial court conducted a searching inquiry, fully explained the consequences of their plea, and still they reiterated their guilty plea. The prosecution presented evidence to establish the degree of culpability. The undisputed facts reveal that on November 27, 1975, after drinking for hours, the appellants and their co-accused Adriano Gualba went to the house of Vivencio Cabarles. Upon entering, Gualba immediately began stabbing the occupants. The appellants joined in the attack, resulting in the deaths of the hired help, Dionisio Llantos, and Cabarles’s four minor children, all under ten years old. The appellants stole a radiophonograph. The homeowner, Vivencio Cabarles, witnessed the appellants leaving his house carrying stolen items.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty upon the appellants for the crime of robbery with multiple homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty, though it corrected the trial court’s appreciation of aggravating circumstances. The Court held that the crime was not committed “by a band,” as this requires more than three armed malefactors, and only three individuals were armed. However, three other valid aggravating circumstances were present: treachery, as the young children were suddenly attacked while seated; dwelling, as the crime was committed in the victim’s home; and habitual drunkenness, as the appellants admitted to frequent drinking sessions. These three aggravating circumstances were offset only by the single mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, the number of killings does not increase the penalty but should be appreciated as an additional aggravating circumstance to avoid the anomalous situation where a single killing is treated with the same severity as multiple killings. Consequently, with three aggravating circumstances against one mitigating circumstance, the penalty for robbery with homicide was properly imposed in its maximum period, which is death. The decision of the trial court was affirmed.