THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EPIFANIO PUJINIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, EPIFANIO PUJINIO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case is before Us for an automatic review of
the sentence of death imposed by the Court of First In­stance of Cebu upon Epifanio Pujinio whom it found guilty of robbery with homicide, with
six aggravating circum­stances
and only one mitigating circumstance.

Epifanio Pujinio and Eladio Pacquiao were charged in the lower court as follows:

“The undersigned accuses Epifanio Pujinio and Eladio Pacquiao of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed
as follows:

“That on or about the 18th day of Feb­ruary 1963, at about
10:00 o’clock in the evening, in the municipality of San Fernando, province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused together with one Sofonias
Balbuena who is still at large and who shall be
prosecuted also when arrested, conspiring and confederating together and
helping one another, armed with firearm and a scythe and with disguise by half
covering their faces, with intent of gain and with force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there willful­ly, unlawfully and feloniously, enter
the dwelling or house of Aquilino Sebial
thru the kitchen and once inside shot the latter, pointed their firearm at the
occupants there­of and demanded from them money and other valuables, thereafter
ransacked the house and without the consent of the owner took and carried away
a transistor radio worth P180.00 and cash in the amount of P100.00 to the
damage and prejudice of the owner, the family of said Aquilino
Sebial in the total amount of P280.00; that on the
occasion of the said robbery and in order to insure success of their purpose,
the said accused in pursuance of their conspiracy, with intent to kill and with
evident premeditation, trea­chery and taking advantage of night time, superior
number, strength and the use of their firearm, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack and shot the said Aquilino
Sebial while the latter was asleep, thereby
inflicting upon him:

“At the abdomen a semicircular wound located 2-1/2 inches
above umbilicus at line of abdomen. 
Wound surrounded by con­tusion with blood oozing out and measures 1 inch at its widest length and 1/2 inch.

“Right forearm-ulnar side, 3 inches below elbow joint is
another semicircular wound is 1/2 inch in width.

“Right arm a clean cut wound measur­ing 1/2 inch in length is
found at the ulnar side about 1/2 inch above elbow
joint with blood oozing out which injuries resulted
in the death of said Aquilino Sebial
shortly thereafter.

“That in the commission of the offense the aggravating
circumstances of evident pre­meditation, treachery, night time, superior number
and strength, committed in the dwelling of the offended party, disguise, and in
addi­tion, recidivism with respect to Epifanio Pu­jinio, for having been previously convicted by final
judgment to a life sentence in Crim. Case No. V-6110 for Murder on February 27, 1960, but he escaped
from Davao Penal Colony while serving said penalty on
Dec. 31, 1962.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

“Cebu
City, March 14, 1963.

(Sgd.)
TOMAS EVANGELISTA

Actg. Asst. Provincial Fiscal”

Upon being arraigned on May 17, 1963, both defendants pleaded not guilty.  However, at the hearing called on the 30th of
the same month and year, their counsel de parte
stated in open court that Pujinio was willing to
withdraw his former plea of not guilty and thereafter to plead guilty, provided
the court would allow him to prove the mitigating circumstances of extreme
poverty and lack of instruction.  Having
been allowed to withdraw his previous plea of not guilty and thereafter arraigned
anew, Pujinio pleaded guilty and was sentenced as
stated above.

The other defendant, Eladio Pacquiao, after trial, was
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) years and two (2)
months of prisión correccional
to ten (10) years of prision mayor, to indemnify the
offended party in the sum of P100.00 (the money in cash that was stolen),
jointly and solidarily with his co-defendant, and to
pay one-third of the costs.

Before the decision against Pujinio had become final and executory,
appearance on his behalf was made by Atty. I. V. Binamira,
who subsequently filed two motions for re­consideration.  Both were denied by the lower court.  In this instance, the brief submitted by the
same counsel on behalf of Pujinio claims that the
lower court erred in imposing the capital punishment upon the latter inspite of the fact that “his affidavit shows that he
was not the one who fired the fatal shot that killed the victim but it was Sofonias Balbuena“.  This contention is exclusively based upon the
sworn statement (now in the record as Ex­hibit C) made by Pujinio
before Sgt. Alfoja of the Cebu
P.C. Command.  It appears, however, that
the same was presented as part of the testimony of Sgt. Alfoja
and of the Justice of the Peace of San Fernando, Cebu, against the other defendant, Eladio
Pacquiao, to prove the latter’s participation in the
conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery with homicide.  At that stage of the proceedings the case had
already been submitted as far as Pujinio was
concerned.  Moreover, it is obvious that,
with his plea of guilty, Pujinio was deemed to have
admitted all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information which, as a
matter of fact, was read to him twice before he entered his plea.

Pujinio’s counsel further claims that although the latter
entered a plea of guilty he, however, explained to the court that it was Balbuena who killed Aquilino Sebial, end that, therefore, he should be found guilty only
of robbery.  This contention finds
support only in the sworn statement mentioned heretofore and which, as already
stated, can not be considered in connection with Pujinio’s
case.

Moreover, even assuming that Pujinio testified to that effect, it would not justify a
finding that he was guilty only of robbery, for it is settled that one who
participated in the commission of the crime of robbery in connection with which
homicide was also committed – as in this case – will be equally guilty as
principal of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is clear evidence
that he tried to prevent the commission of the latter offense (People vs. Morados, 70 Phil., 558; People vs. Carunungan,
et al., G. R. No. L-13283, September 30, 1960).

With respect to the propriety of
the penalty imposed by the lower court, it appears that the information charged
Pujinio with robbery with homicide, with the
attendance of seven aggravating circumstances, namely: evident premedi­tation,
treachery, nighttime, superior number and strength, commission of the offense
in the dwelling of the victim, use of disguise, and recidivism.  On the other hand, the lower court considered
in his favor only the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, and refused to
consider in his favor the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and
extreme poverty as follows:

“But the other two mitigating circum­stances that he was
claiming in his favor, namely (1) lack of instruction
and (2) extreme poverty, cannot be appreciated in his favor.  He admitted that he has studied up to sixth
grade.  That is more than suf­ficient
schooling to give him a degree of instruction as to properly apprise him of
what is right and wrong.  And with
respect to poverty, he himself said that his mother owns real properties.  He could have gain­fully occupied himself by
working on these properties, if he cared to. 
Moreover, this accused once had an employment with the Cal­tex way back in the year 1960, which he lost when he
embarked on his carrier of crimina­lity by committing his first case of
murder.  In short, he impoverished
himself and lost his gainful occupation by committing crimes.  He was not driven to the commission of crimes
due to want and poverty (pp. 94-95, record).”

We agree with the lower court that
the two mitigating circumstances mentioned heretofore can not be considered in
favor of Pujinio.

The offense having been committed
with six aggravat­ing circumstances – that of nighttime being absorbed in
treachery – and with only one mitigating circumstance to offset them, the
penalty provided by law should be imposed in its maximum degree – Death.

WHEREFORE, the decision under review is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., on leave.

Capistrano, J., did not take
part.