G.R. No. L-6491, March 23, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAMPACAN, HAMIL and KAET, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In July 1910, at daybreak, the three defendants (Tampacan, Hamil, and Kaet), all Moros and armed with barongs, went to the house of Saliling. Finding Saliling and his family asleep, they cut the door fastenings and entered. Hamil seized Saliling’s trunk containing personal effects. When Saliling awoke and tried to recover the trunk, Tampacan struck him with a barong, causing instant death. Kaet then attacked Saliling’s wife, Iddao, and urged Tampacan to kill her to prevent her from reporting the crime. Tampacan inflicted two grave wounds on her. The defendants then pursued Saliling’s daughter, Sagdario, but she escaped. The defendants fled with the trunk. The crime was established by the testimonies of the wife and daughter, who clearly identified the defendants, and by Tampacan’s voluntary confession, which led to the recovery of the stolen trunk.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the defendants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty, considering the presence of aggravating circumstances and the possible mitigating circumstance of race under Article 11 of the Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The facts constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 502 in relation to Article 503(1) of the Penal Code. The following generic aggravating circumstances were present: (1) dwelling (No. 9, Article 10), as the crime was committed in the victim’s house; and (2) abuse of superior strength (No. 20, Article 10), as three armed men attacked an unarmed victim. The Court corrected the trial court by holding that nocturnity was not aggravating, as the crime occurred at daybreak with sufficient light for identification, and the defendants did not deliberately seek the cover of darkness.

The penalty for robbery with homicide under Article 503(1) is cadena perpetua to death. With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum degree (death). The Court considered, in its discretion, whether to apply the mitigating circumstance of race under Article 11 (lack of education and instruction due to the defendants’ status as Moros) to offset the aggravating circumstances. However, the Court declined to apply it. The crime was a deliberate, premeditated act for gain, not committed under passion or impulse, demonstrating a conscious disregard for human life. Given the gravity of the offense, the Court found no reason in strict justice to extend the benefit of Article 11.

Thus, the judgment condemning each defendant to death, joint and several indemnity to the heirs of Saliling in the amount of P1,000, and payment of costs, was AFFIRMED.