People of the Philippines vs. Romualdo Capillas, Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas

In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, dwelling and abuse of superior strength are properly appreciated as aggravating circumstances, but the death penalty must be reduced to reclusion perpetua where the required number of votes for its imposition is not obtained.

The accused Romualdo, Antonio, and Julianito Capillas were residents of San Antonio, Samar, and were known to the victim Pablo Amante for 27 years before the incident. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, the Court of First Instance of Samar having imposed the death penalty.

At about 7:00 p.m. on October 25, 1964, Pablo Amante, his wife Consorcia Melendres, who was two months pregnant, and their two children, aged five and three, were in the living room of their house situated atop a hill in Sitio Lagbangan, San Antonio, Samar. Consorcia was resting with their three-year-old child in a hammock tied in the living room, while Pablo was teaching their five-year-old child to count. As it was already dark, Pablo tied their door with a rope.

While they were thus situated, their door was forcibly broken down together with the frame of the shutters, prompting Pablo to stand up and ready himself. Through the broken door entered Romualdo, Antonio, and Julianito, all surnamed Capillas, whom Pablo had known for 27 years, together with a fourth masked man he could not recognize. The group demanded money, and Romualdo told Pablo to surrender. Antonio, armed with a short bolo locally known as a "Flamingo," then wrestled with Pablo, but Pablo was able to take possession of the bolo. While Pablo and Antonio struggled for the bolo, Romualdo, who was armed with a revolver, shot Consorcia three times while she was still in the hammock. Seeing what Romualdo had done, and having gained possession of the bolo, Pablo stabbed Romualdo.

Wounded, Romualdo scampered away while his companions, Julianito, who had with him a flashlight which he threw away during the melee, and the masked man, carried away the family's trunk containing money and clothing. Pablo immediately went to the aid of his wife; picking up the flashlight Julianito had thrown away, he beamed it in the direction of the fleeing group and saw Felicisimo Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva, and Merlito Pariol on the ground just outside the house. Inside the trunk were P100.00 in clothing, a piggy bank containing P300.00, and paper bills amounting to P600.00.

After the group had escaped, Pablo, with the aid of his father Abdon Manakod and Sinro David, brought his wife to a clinic for treatment. At the health center of San Antonio, Consorcia told her husband that she felt she was going to die, mentioning Antonio and Romualdo as her assailants. Victoriano Pernito, the Chief of Police, who was present, propounded questions to her, which she answered; after reducing the questions and answers to writing, he asked her if she was willing to affix her thumbmark on the declaration, and she said yes. A few minutes after affixing her thumbmark, she expired. On October 26, 1964, her body was autopsied by Dr. Vicente Gutay, who found the cause of death to be severe acute hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds; the trajectory of the bullet showed that the assailant must have been at a higher level than the victim, and the powder burns indicated that the shots were fired at a distance of more than one meter. The bolo, the flashlight, empty shells, and slugs recovered from the scene were surrendered by Pablo to the Chief of Police.

On November 9, 1964, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Nicolas Galing filed an information for robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries against Romualdo, Antonio, and Julianito Capillas, together with Felicisimo Genotiva, Thelmo Genotiva, and Merlito Pariol, who remained at large. Upon arraignment on October 19, 1965, Romualdo pleaded guilty, while Antonio and Julianito pleaded not guilty.

The defense presented a different version. Romualdo testified that at the time of the commission of the crime he was in the company of Thelmo Genotiva, Felicisimo Genotiva, and Merlito Pariol, and that his co-accused Antonio and Julianito were not with him; according to him, the two were included in the information only because Antonio is his younger brother and Julianito is his uncle. Antonio and Julianito denied participation and set up alibi, testifying that they were at a gambling den in Puntahan District, Poblacion of San Antonio, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. of October 25, 1964, a claim corroborated by defense witness Brigido Bobles. The trial court did not believe them. It found all three guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and physical injuries — not robbery in band, there being no evidence that more than three armed malefactors participated — and sentenced them to death.

• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: Appellants argued that the trial court erred in finding the evidence adduced by the prosecution logical, probable, and credible, citing inconsistencies and improbabilities in Pablo Amante's testimony.
• Alibi: Appellants argued that the trial court erred in not giving credence to the defense of alibi of Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas.
• Death Penalty: Appellants argued that, granting their guilt of robbery with homicide and physical injuries, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

• Improbability of Amante's Testimony: The Solicitor General countered that Romualdo Capillas could have been shocked and distracted by the gravity of the crime he had just committed in shooting a woman in cold blood, temporarily losing his presence of mind, and was thus unaware of Amante's intention to stab him.

• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in finding the evidence adduced by the prosecution logical, probable, and credible, thereby convicting the appellants of robbery with homicide and physical injuries.
• Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the defense of alibi of appellants Antonio Capillas and Julianito Capillas.
• Death Penalty: Whether, granting that the appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide and physical injuries, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: No. The alleged improbabilities in Pablo Amante's testimony were satisfactorily explained, and the dying declaration of Consorcia Melendres was duly executed.
• Alibi: No. Alibi fails where it is not shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime, and it is further weakened by positive identification.
• Death Penalty: The death penalty was correctly imposed by the trial court, but due to lack of the required number of votes, the penalty next lower in degree — reclusion perpetua — must be imposed.

• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: The contention that Pablo Amante's stabbing of Romualdo was improbable because the latter was armed with a revolver was devoid of merit; Romualdo could have thought that Amante was already being taken care of by one of his companions, or could have been shocked and distracted by the gravity of the crime he had just committed, temporarily losing his presence of mind. The failure of the masked man to aid Antonio was explained by the likelihood that he, like Romualdo, thought Antonio capable of resisting Amante, and that the robbers' foremost concern was to escape with their loot rather than risk capture. The apparent inconsistency regarding the flashlight was clarified on redirect examination: Amante picked it up after Julianito threw it away, not wrestled it from him. The dying declaration of Consorcia Melendres was duly executed; Pablo Amante positively declared that many people witnessed Chief of Police Victoriano Pernito take down the declaration while his wife was alive, reinforced by the rebuttal testimony of Judge Noynay that the victim affixed her thumbmark while still alive. The testimony of Victoriano Pernito was more credible than that of Melecio Cordova, who claimed the victim was already dead; it was difficult to believe that Cordova witnessed the irregular taking of the declaration without protesting, especially since the persons implicated were related to him by marriage, and it was surprising that none of the several persons present protested. Dr. Gutay did not categorically state that it was impossible for the victim to survive more than 30 minutes, and the defense presented no evidence that 30 minutes had elapsed from the infliction of the wound to the taking of the declaration.

• Alibi: For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendants were somewhere else when the crime was committed; it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime before, during, or after the time they were at such other place. The gambling den where Antonio and Julianito claimed to be was about two kilometers from the farm of the Amantes, so it was not physically impossible for them to have been at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime. Their alibi was further weakened by Pablo Amante's positive identification of them as responsible for the crimes committed in his house.

• Death Penalty: The trial court correctly appreciated abuse of superior strength, Consorcia Melendres being a pregnant woman shot in cold blood while lying in a hammock, there being a marked difference in physical strength between her and the offenders. Dwelling aggravated the commission of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide; where the offense committed is robbery with violence or intimidation, dwelling is aggravating, because this class of robbery could be committed without transgressing the sanctity of the home. The trial court erred in considering uninhabited place, nocturnity, breaking of the door, and disregard of sex. Uninhabited place cannot be considered although the nearest house was about two kilometers away, because it is not apparent that the defendants selected the place of the commission of the crime either to better obtain their object without interference or to secure themselves against detection and punishment. Nocturnity is aggravating only when it is purposely and deliberately sought to facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent recognition and ensure unmolested escape; here, there was no evidence that the appellants precisely sought nighttime for those purposes, and despite being known to the victims, they made no attempt to disguise themselves. Breaking the door must be utilized as a means to commit the crime; here, the appellants first broke the rope used to close the door, and after the rope was broken they could already have entered the house, so breaking the shutters and the door frame to insure surprise did not aggravate the crime. Disregard of respect due on account of rank, age, or sex may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when there is some insult or disrespect shown, and it is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property, homicide being a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals. The trial court correctly found the three accused guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and dwelling, the maximum penalty of death was correctly imposed, but due to lack of the necessary votes, the penalty next lower in degree is to be imposed.

• Alibi — Alibi is a defense that requires two elements: (1) the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime before, during, or after the time they were at such other place. In this case, the alibi of Antonio and Julianito Capillas failed because the gambling den where they claimed to be was only about two kilometers from the Amantes' farm, so it was not physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene; their alibi was further weakened by Pablo Amante's positive identification of them.

• Special complex crime of robbery with homicide — Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, in which homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals. The conviction of the three accused under this provision was affirmed.

• Aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide — In robbery with homicide, dwelling is aggravating because this class of robbery could be committed without transgressing the sanctity of the home. Abuse of superior strength is also aggravating where there is a marked difference in physical strength between the offender and the victim. Uninhabited place, nocturnity, breaking of the door, and disregard of sex are not aggravating absent proof that they were deliberately sought or used as means to commit the crime.

• Dying declaration — The due execution of the dying declaration of Consorcia Melendres was upheld, the victim having been shown to be still alive when she affixed her thumbmark, and the testimony of the Chief of Police who took the declaration being more credible than that of the defense witness who claimed she was already dead.

• "For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendants were somewhere else when the crime was committed but it must, likewise, be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime either before, during, or after the time they were at such other place." — This states the two-fold requirement for alibi, the ratio for rejecting the defense of Antonio and Julianito Capillas.

• "Dwelling aggravated the commission of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Where the offense committed is robbery with violence or intimidation, dwelling is aggravating." — This states the rule sustaining dwelling as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.

• "Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex may be taken in account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property." — This states the rule rejecting disregard of sex as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.

• People vs. Angeles, 92 SCRA 432, 448 — Cited for the rule on alibi, that it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime.
• People vs. Lucero, 96 SCRA 694, 703 — Cited for the rule that alibi is weakened by positive identification.
• People vs. Gatcho, G.R. No. L-2725, February 26, 1981 — Cited for abuse of superior strength, in turn citing U.S. vs. Devela et al.
• U.S. vs. Devela et al. — Cited in Gatcho for abuse of superior strength.
• People vs. Apduhan, 24 SCRA 800, 815 — Cited for dwelling as aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation.
• People vs. Mongado, 28 SCRA 642 — Cited with Apduhan for dwelling.
• People vs. Deguia, et al., 88 Phil. 520, 526 — Cited for the rule on uninhabited place.
• People vs. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 893 — Cited for the rule on nocturnity.
• U.S. vs. Billedo, 32 Phil. 575, 579 — Cited for the rule on nocturnity.
• People vs. Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, November 28, 1980 — Cited for the rule on nocturnity.
• People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 571, 577 — Cited for the rule on disregard of sex.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines the special complex crime of robbery with homicide; the three accused were found guilty of this crime.
• Article 14, paragraph 19, Revised Penal Code — On breaking of walls, roof, floor, door, or window as an aggravating circumstance; the Court held that breaking the door must be utilized as a means of the commission of the crime to be appreciated.

• Fernando, C.J.; Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ. — Concurred in the majority opinion.
• Makasiar, J. — Concurring: Nocturnity and uninhabited place should also support the crime and all the more justify the imposition of the death penalty.
• Abad Santos, J. — Concurring: Considering that the appellants have been in death row for over 15 years, voted for reclusion perpetua. Barredo, J., concurred.
• Melencio-Herrera, J. — Concurring: Voted for the imposition of the death penalty.