G.R. No. L-60087 July 7, 1986
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN NABALUNA Y LLAMOS and EDGARDO EMPUERTO Y JUAREZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Juan Nabaluna and Edgardo Empuerto, along with a co-accused at large, were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that on December 4, 1977, in Toledo City, they conspired to forcibly open the wooden bank of 72-year-old Nazario Bendanillo, stealing P200.00, and on the occasion thereof, attacked and killed him with a sharp instrument. The prosecution established that the victim was alone in his house. A witness, Cipriano Pajaganas, saw the appellants and their companion heading towards the victim’s house. Another witness, Martin Linihan, later heard shouts for help from that direction. Upon investigation, Linihan saw Empuerto acting as a lookout, Nabaluna jumping from a window, and their companion exiting the house holding a bloodied knife. The victim’s wife discovered his body with fatal wounds and the ransacked, emptied bank.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of Robbery with Homicide and properly appreciated the attendant aggravating circumstances to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The legal logic is that the prosecution successfully proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. The sequence of events—their presence at the scene, their actions observed by Linihan, and the immediate discovery of the robbery and homicide—constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that they conspired to commit the crime. The complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is committed when homicide occurs by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, which was clearly established here. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and disregard of old age. Treachery could not be presumed as there was no eyewitness to the manner of attack. Abuse of superior strength requires proof of deliberate use of excessive force out of proportion to the defense available, which was not established. Disregard of old age is not proper in crimes against property like robbery, where homicide is incidental. With no aggravating circumstances rightfully applicable, the proper penalty under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court thus sentenced each appellant to reclusion perpetua, with corresponding civil liabilities.