G.R. No. L-5332
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff, vs. TEODORO BAGUIO and CRISTOBAL ALBAÑO (alias UBAL), defendants.
October 4, 1909

FACTS:

Teodoro Baguio and Cristobal Albaño were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide (robo con homicidio). On October 4, 1908, at 8 o’clock in the evening, in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, the defendants forcibly entered the garita (guardhouse) of Rafael Estrada. They inflicted five serious bolo wounds on Rafael Estrada, severely beat his wife Ambrosia Rioca, and then took P31 in money and P26 worth of jewelry and other effects belonging to the couple. Rafael Estrada died from his wounds a few days later.

Both defendants were positively identified by Ambrosia Rioca and by Rafael Estrada himself in his ante-mortem statement, which was made in the presence of the accused. Estrada specifically identified Teodoro Baguio as the one who cut him with the bolo. The defendants’ alibi defense was rejected by the trial court.

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan found the defendants guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to death, ordered them to indemnify the family of the deceased in the sum of P500, and pay one-half of the costs each. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court en consulta.

ISSUE:

Whether the death penalty was correctly imposed by the trial court, specifically if any aggravating circumstance was present to warrant the maximum penalty.

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings of fact regarding the guilt of the defendants for the crime of robbery with homicide. However, the Court modified the penalty imposed.

Under Article 503, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code, the penalty for robbery with homicide ranges from cadena perpetua to death. Article 81 of the Penal Code specifies that the maximum penalty (death) cannot be imposed in the absence of an aggravating circumstance.

The Court found no aggravating circumstances present:
1. A garita is not considered a “dwelling” within the meaning of Article 10, subdivision 20, of the Penal Code.
2. There was no evidence that the place where the crime was committed was “uninhabited.”
3. Regarding “nocturnity” (Article 10, subdivision 15), the Court held that its appreciation as an aggravating circumstance is discretionary and depends on the nature and characteristics of the crime. In this case, the victims (Estrada and his wife) were travelers who had only recently occupied the garita. The defendants, unaware of their presence until the moment of the crime, did not specifically seek out the cover of night to facilitate the crime or ensure impunity. Thus, nocturnity was not considered an aggravating circumstance.

Since no aggravating circumstances were found, the maximum penalty of death could not be imposed. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court was modified. The defendants were sentenced to cadena perpetua, to the corresponding accessories provided by law, to indemnify the family of the deceased in the sum of P500, and to pay one-half of the costs each. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.