People vs. Luna

Robbery with homicide is committed where intent to rob precedes the killing and the robbery and killing are interlinked, even if the offender is also moved by revenge, and with three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death must be imposed in its maximum period. Luna's confession and positive identification proved the complex crime, band was not established for lack of four armed malefactors, and neither lack of instruction nor cruelty as defined in penal law was appreciated.

Eduardo Adal, a fisherman of Barrio Ilayang Pulo, Pagbilao, Quezon, was the father of Pablo Adal by his first wife and of Alfredo Adal by his common-law wife Maria Granada. Silverio Luna was connected by affinity to Pablo Adal, Luna's mother Pilar Ensenares being the sister of Pablo's wife Maria Ensenares. A dispute over Eduardo's coconut plantation and partition of bienes, in which Pablo claimed he was deprived of his share, formed the motive backdrop for Pablo's alleged order to rob and kill Eduardo and Alfredo.

At about eight o'clock in the evening of October 15, 1960, Eduardo Adal, a sixty-four-year-old fisherman, together with his common-law wife Maria Granada, their son Manuel Adal and their grandson Bernardo Magtanggol, were taking supper at their house in Barrio Ilayang Pulo, an island near Pagbilao, Quezon Province. Two masked men, one short and the other tall, wearing buri hats, entered, shoved away the plates, hogtied the inmates and ordered them to lie face up. The short man pointed a balisong at Eduardo's ribs and a gun at his temple, saying "Don't move, you greedy ones," while the other pointed a gun at Maria and Manuel.

Thereafter the short man demanded money. Maria's hands were untied and she gave P200 in paper bills, then, after being slapped and kicked for saying she had no more, produced coins amounting to P200 and pieces of jewelry. During the assault the mask fell, revealing the short man as Silverio Luna, then thirty-four, single and a laborer. He removed and trampled Maria's eyeglasses. The articles taken from Eduardo's house — cash, a .22 caliber rifle and bullets, an Avegon radio, clothes and a flashlight — had a total value of P1,182. Luna ordered Eduardo to come along, rejecting Eduardo's plea and promise to give copra proceeds secretly, remarking "Had you given the coconut plantation to Pablo, I will not kill you, you old man." At the stairs Eduardo saw Pablo Adal and his son Virgilio; Luna asked Pablo for instructions and Pablo directed that Eduardo be taken to Alfredo Adal in another house.

When they reached Alfredo's house, Eduardo as ordered called "Fredo, Fredo, somebody needs you." After Luna fired two shots at the door, Alfredo, forty-four, opened it and was hogtied and ordered with Eduardo to lie face down. Luna demanded money, boxed Alfredo for denying he had any, and Alfredo directed his wife Milagros Batocabe to get a wallet from the ceiling containing fifty pesos, with Luna grabbing the wallet and extracting twenty pesos more. After opening the aparador and finding nothing to his liking, Luna ordered Eduardo and Alfredo to rise, kicked them, rejected Alfredo's offer to sell his cow and give the proceeds, and repeated that had the plantation been given to Pablo they would not be doomed to die. Luna and his companion then took the two to the trail to the wharf at Sitio Anday, where at the cross-roads they met Pablo and Virgilio, conferred with them, and delivered a pandan bag containing the radio and clothes. Pablo ordered Luna to use Venancio de Leon's motorboat and throw Eduardo and Alfredo into the sea. Luna compelled De Leon to come along, had Eduardo and Alfredo lifted into the moored motorboat with hands bound, and ordered De Leon to take the boat about two kilometers out to Anday sea.

Far out at sea Luna ordered Alfredo to stand on the prow to be shot, rejected the kneeling victims' pleas for mercy with statements that both were greedy and would be killed, failed to operate the rifle, and with his companion Pedro seized Alfredo, stabbed him when he clung to the boat side, and threw him overboard, then jettisoned Eduardo as well, warning De Leon not to report on pain of death before heading to shore. Father and son tried to swim while bound; Alfredo pleaded "Please save me because I will die" and Eduardo answered helplessly "How could I since I am also tied and may die?" By a miraculous twist Eduardo loosened his bonds, lost sight of Alfredo, swam toward Sitio Balete following the wind, rested, then reported to teniente del barrio Perfecto Edrad and to the poblacion of Pagbilao, naming Luna, Pablo Adal and Virgilio Adal. Maria Granada had earlier jumped through the window after the robbers left with Eduardo and, with Milagros Batocabe, had reported the robbery and kidnapping to the authorities. Lieutenant Colonel Dominador Dawa of the Constabulary had Eduardo's statement taken at Lucena City and ordered search for Alfredo, whose cadaver was found on the beach on October 17 and examined by acting municipal health officer Doctor Vicente Reyes, who found hands and feet still bound and cause of death asphyxia by drowning or submersion. Luna fled on Pablo's instruction and was arrested only at about three o'clock in the morning of March 27, 1963 in Barrio San Jose, Montalban, Rizal by Constabulary investigator Sebastian Jolo, who took his Tagalog extrajudicial confession the same date, read to Luna and subscribed and sworn before the municipal judge of Lucena City. At trial Luna admitted his three signatures but claimed maltreatment and denial of chance to read, while also confirming recitals about other 1963 robberies and prior imprisonment and parole; he interposed alibi that since January 1960 he worked as a logger in Sitio Bolala, Barrio Menasag, Capalonga, Camarines Sur with Felix Antonia for a Chinaman named Cheng, corroborated by Antonia's widow Maria Lazona, and suggested Eduardo implicated him due to the property dispute and a 1959 visit with mayoral candidate Trinidad Alvarez.

• Identity, Alibi and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Petitioner contended that he was not positively identified as one of the malefactors, that his alibi of working as a logger in Capalonga, Camarines Sur on October 15, 1960 should be sustained, and that in any event guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Nature of Crime as Separate Robbery and Homicide: Petitioner argued that no robbery with homicide was committed because the primary intention was revenge for refusal to give coconut land to Pablo Adal as mastermind, pointing to Alfredo's post-robbery offer to sell his cow and give proceeds.
• Non-Imposition of Death Penalty: Petitioner maintained that capital punishment should not be imposed because he was entitled to mitigating lack of instruction and because the special complex crime of robo con homicidio was not committed, while conceding the crimes were atrocious.

• Affirmance of Death Penalty: Respondent through the Solicitor General recommended affirmance of the trial court's death sentence, the unusual perversity and moral callousness of Luna as an instrument of Pablo Adal's vengeful desire justifying the gravest penalty.
• Additional Aggravating Circumstances: Respondent observed that use of motorboat regarded as motor vehicle and despoblado should be considered aggravating, even though not taken into account by the trial court, with maximum penalty still required absent mitigation.

• Identification, Confession and Alibi: Whether Luna was positively identified and his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt despite alibi, in light of his extrajudicial confession.
• Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide: Whether the acts constituted robbery with homicide rather than separate crimes of robbery and homicide where revenge motivated the killing.
• Band, Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether band attended the commission, whether lack of instruction mitigates, whether nocturnity, treachery, recidivism, cruelty and conspiracy are aggravating, and whether death was properly imposed.

• Identification, Confession and Alibi: Yes. Guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt by the voluntary confession corroborated by eyewitness identification, against which fabricated alibi cannot prevail.
• Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide: Yes. Robbery with homicide was committed, the robbery and killing being interlinked with intent to rob preceding death despite concurrent revenge motive.
• Band, Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: No as to band and cruelty, conspiracy and lack of instruction; Yes as to nocturnity, treachery and recidivism. Death was properly imposed under Arts. 63(1) and 294(1) with three aggravators and no mitigator.

• Identification, Confession and Alibi: Any doubt on complicity vanishes in the face of the confession, unobjected to at trial, wherein Luna admitted robbing Eduardo's house of Avegon radio, .22 rifle and cash and described taking Eduardo and son to the sea on Pablo Adal's order to bind, bring to mid-sea and drop them. Voluntariness was shown by investigator Jolo's testimony on advice of rights, waiver of counsel, cooperative questioning from morning to noon and resumption in afternoon, reading and swearing before Judge Villanueva, and by Luna's trial admissions confirming confession recitals on prior robberies, Davao Penal Colony service and parolee status. Alibi was fabricated and incredible, claiming four years logging in Sitio Bolala yet arrested in Montalban in March 1963, with Maria Lazona's corroboration inaccurate and incoherent on dates, and motive for false implication flimsy.
• Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide: The confession revealed Pablo's instruction to rob and kill (looban at patayin), and the pandan bag with robbery effects was delivered to Pablo and Virgilio, proving robbery and killing interlinked and inseparable. Under U.S. vs. Villorente and Bislig, intent to commit robbery preceding taking of life sustains robbery with homicide even if tempered with desire to revenge grievances, rejecting the argument based on revenge motive and cow-proceeds offer.
• Band, Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: As to Luna, band was absent because no proof Pablo and Virgilio were armed; only Luna and the tall intruder supposed to be Obciana were armed, while Arts. 14(6) and 296 require at least four armed members for cuadrilla. Lack of instruction did not mitigate where Luna finished Grade two and answered in Tagalog after English questions, per People vs. Gorospe, People vs. Sahibol Sari, and People vs. Ripas. Nocturnity facilitated robbery with homicide and killing of bound robbery victims is treacherous per People vs. Madrid and U.S. vs. Elicanal. Recidivism, though generally required to be alleged per U.S. vs. Tieng Pay and U.S. vs. De Mesa, was aggravating because Luna himself proved by confession and testimony prior final robbery convictions and service under Art. 14(9). Cruelty (ensañamiento) under Arts. 14(21) and 248(6) was absent absent proof culprits for pleasure caused slow gradual suffering with unnecessary moral and physical pain; conspiracy is not aggravating and price, promise or reward was neither alleged nor proved, relationship by affinity and taking spoils explaining inducement. With robo con homicidio punished by reclusion perpetua to death and three aggravators without mitigation, death was properly imposed under Arts. 63(1) and 294(1), indemnity raised to P12,000.

• Robbery with homicide — intent to rob preceding death; revenge motive immaterial — In robbery with homicide, intent to commit robbery must precede taking of human life, but desire to revenge grievances against the victim does not prevent punishment for the complex crime. Applied where Pablo ordered to rob and kill and spoils were delivered to him, making robbery and killing interlinked despite statements about the coconut plantation.
• Band (cuadrilla) — at least four armed malefactors required — Under Arts. 14(6) and 296 of the Revised Penal Code, at least four members of the band should be armed for cuadrilla to be aggravating. Applied to reject band because only the two actual perpetrators were proved armed, with no proof Pablo and Virgilio were armed.
• Confession vs. alibi — A voluntary extrajudicial confession, unobjected to and corroborated by positive identification and trial admissions confirming its recitals, prevails over alibi and renders alibi fabricated where physically and testimonially inconsistent. Applied to sustain Luna's complicity despite Capalonga logging alibi.
• Lack of instruction as mitigating circumstance — Lack of instruction is not mitigating for one who is not illiterate, exemplified by finishing Grade two and ability to follow proceedings. Applied to deny mitigation following People vs. Gorospe, People vs. Sahibol Sari, and People vs. Ripas.
• Treachery in robbery with homicide — Killing of a robbery victim while bound is regarded as treacherous, and nighttime facilitating consummation aggravates as nocturnity. Applied to appreciate treachery and nocturnity following People vs. Madrid and U.S. vs. Elicanal.
• Recidivism proved by accused's own admissions — Generally recidivism should be alleged in the information, but it may be appreciated where the accused himself by confession and testimony proves prior final conviction and service of sentence. Applied to appreciate Art. 14(9) despite non-allegation, distinguishing U.S. vs. Tieng Pay and U.S. vs. De Mesa where objection applies.
• Cruelty (ensañamiento) — deliberate augmentation of suffering — There is cruelty when the wrong in the crime is deliberately augmented by unnecessary wrongs or by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting suffering or outraging the person or corpse under Arts. 14(21) and 248(6); sadistic pleasure with slow gradual infliction of unnecessary pain must be shown. Applied to reject cruelty in stabbing and drowning bound victims.

• "Don't move, you greedy ones" — Spoken by the short masked man pointing weapons at Eduardo Adal during the house intrusion, showing the robbery context preceding identification when the mask fell revealing Luna.
• "Had you given the coconut plantation to Pablo, I will not kill you, you old man." — Luna's statement linking the taking to Pablo Adal's property grievance, relied upon to show concurrent revenge motive did not negate robbery with homicide.
• "In robbery with homicide, an intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life." — States the controlling test for the complex crime, applied to hold robbery and killing interlinked despite revenge tempering intent.
• "Ang usapan po namin ay aking patayin si Eduardo Adal at ang anak na lalaki dahil sa sabi ni Tiyo Pablo ay siya api, kaya ako ay naawa sa kanya" — Luna's confession on motive and agreement to kill because Uncle Pablo was aggrieved over bienes not partitioned, establishing Pablo as mastermind and revenge-property linkage.

• U.S. vs. Villorente and Bislig, 30 Phil. 59 — Controlling precedent that revenge-tempered intent does not prevent punishment for robbery with homicide where intent to rob precedes killing; followed to reject separate-crimes theory.
• People vs. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 — Precedent that killing a bound robbery victim is treacherous; followed to appreciate treachery.
• U.S. vs. Elicanal, 38 Phil. 209 — Cited with Madrid for treachery in killing bound victims; followed.
• People vs. Gorospe, 105 Phil. 84; People vs. Sahibol Sari, 99 Phil. 1040; People vs. Ripas, 95 Phil. 63 — Precedents denying lack-of-instruction mitigation to literate accused; followed to deny mitigation to Grade-two finisher.
• U.S. vs. Tieng Pay, 42 Phil. 212; U.S. vs. De Mesa, 7 Phil. 729 — Precedents requiring allegation of recidivism to prove it over objection; distinguished where accused himself proved recidivism by admissions.

• Arts. 14(6) and 296, Revised Penal Code — Define and punish band/cuadrilla aggravation; applied to reject band for failure to prove at least four armed members.
• Art. 14(9), Revised Penal Code — Defines recidivism as aggravating; applied where Luna admitted prior final robbery convictions and service before trial.
• Arts. 14(21) and 248(6), Revised Penal Code — Define cruelty/ensañamiento; applied to reject cruelty absent deliberate unnecessary augmentation of suffering.
• Arts. 63(1) and 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Provide penalty for robo con homicidio of reclusion perpetua to death and rule that with aggravating and no mitigating circumstances maximum is imposed; applied to impose death with three aggravators.
• Sec. 9, Rule 122, Rules of Court — Provides automatic review of death sentences; basis for Supreme Court review with costs de oficio.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur. Barredo and Makasiar, JJ., took no part.