THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEOCADIO BAUTISTA Y BASA @ CADIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ARMANDO GONZALES Y JOSE @ BOY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Leocadio Bautista, alias Cadio, Armando Gonzales, alias Boy, and Fortunato
Angeles, alias Totoy, were charged with robbery with
homicide in two separate informations filed in the
Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 72552 where the defendants
were Bautista and Gonzales, and Criminal Case No. 72619 where the lone defendant was Angeles).  After a joint trial upon a plea of not guilty
entered by all the defendants, the court found them
guilty of attempted robbery with homicide and rendered judgment as follows:

“FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds the
accused herein, Leocadio Bautista y Base @ Cadio, Armando Gonzales y Jose @ Boy and Fortunato Angeles Y Sarmiento
@ Totoy, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of attempted robbery with homicide, as defined and punished under Art. 297 of
the Revised Penal Code, and considering the ag­gravating circumstance of superior
strength, hereby sentences each and all of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indem­nify
the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally in the amount of P5,000, without, however, any further subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the proportionate amount of the costs.

SO
ORDERED.”

From the above decision
only Gonzales and Angeles appealed (G. R. L-23303 and L-23304, respectively).

The evidence shows that at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon of
August 28, 1963, while a delivery truck of the Central Salted Foods
Manufacturing Company driven by Filemon King, with
truck helper Jose Tan beside him, was cruising near the corner of Yakal and Tayabas streets,
Manila, an unidentified person stepped on its running board on the side of Tan,
while appellant Angeles stepped on the opposite running board beside King and
asked liquor money from him.  When King
refused to give, the unidentified man on the running board threw a stone at
Tan.  The stone hit the switch of the
truck and forced it to a stop.  Thereupon
King and Tan went down but were met with a volley of stones thrown at them by
Angeles, Gonzales, Bautista and others. 
Upon being hit King asked Tan to call a policeman.  Tan then ran towards Camarines street where, with
the help of someone, he was able to contact a policeman, whom he informed that
they had been held up at the corner of Yakal and Tayabas streets. 
Having done this, Tan re­turned to the scene of the incident where he
found King sprawled on the gutter.  He
then hailed a tricycle and brought him to the North
General Hospital
where, in spite of medical assistance, King died the following morning.

Dr. David S. Cabrera of the Manila Police Department per­formed
an autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased and found the latter to have
sustained the following injuries:

“MISCELLANEOUS EXTERNAL WOUNDS AND EXTENSION
INTERNALLY:

(1)                
Sutured contused lacerated wound,
measuring 3 cm. long on the frontal region of the head, left.

(2)                
Another sutured contused lacerated
wound measuring 2.5 cm. long located on the vertex of the head.

(3)                
Multiple (10) incised wounds,
measure­ment ranging from 2 to 3 cm. long, located on the right face.

MISCELLANEOUS FINDINGS IN INTERNAL ORGANS:

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM:

Hemorrhage,
subdural, extensive, brain.

BONES AND JOINTS:

Compound comminuted fracture, occipi­tal,
left and right parietal bone.  Fracture-separation, sagittal suture, parietooccipital bone.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Shock and hemorrhage
due to traumatic fracture of the skull and subdural
hemorrhage, severe.” Exh. A, p. 68, rec. of L-23303; pp. 1-2, t.s.n.).

A criminal complaint in connection with the death of King was
subsequently lodged with the Manila Police Department by the manager of the
latter’s employer, this having led to the arrest of Gonzales and Bautista.  Subsequently, the correspond­ing information
against them was filed.

In the course of
the police investigation, the names of the other confederates of Bautista and
Gonzales were revealed, among them being Fortunato
Angeles who, as a result, was pro­secuted in a separate
information (Criminal Case 72691).

Appellant Armando Gonzales (in G.R. L-23303) and appellant Fortunato Angeles (in G.R. L-23304) submitted separate
briefs.

Angeles’ brief submits the following assignment of errors:

“I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED DEMANDED LIQUOR
MONEY FROM THE VICTIM.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT VICTIM’S REFUSAL TO GIVE
LIQUOR MONEY WAS THE CAUSE OF THE STONING
OF SAID VICTIM.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED ACTED IN CONCERT
WITH EACH OTHER IN STONING THE VICTIM.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FORTUNATO ANGELES
OF THE CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.

V

THAT, GRANTING ARGUENDO, THAT THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE WAS COMMITTED
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA AND IN NOT
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ATTENDING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS
CASE.”

Gonzales’ brief, in turn, submits the following assign­ment of
errors:

“I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING GREATER WEIGHT AND CREDIT TO THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION DES­PITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
THE DEFENSE IS MORE TRUSTWORTHY, RELIABLE AND MORE WORTHY OF CREDIT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ARMANDO
GONZALES ACTED IN CONCERT WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF
ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ARMANDO
GONZALES OF THE CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE
OF THE PROSECUTION WITH RESPECT TO HIM
IS UTTERLY INSUFFI­CIENT TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

It is clearly
deducible from the assignment of errors and statement of facts made in the
separate briefs submitted by appellants that they admit having been present at
the scene of the crime.  Gonzales,
however, denies having thrown stones at the deceased King, while Angeles claims
that the only thing he did was to pick up a small stone and throw it against
the glass window et the rear of the truck, and that when he was hit on the leg
by a stone he ran home.  Thus it is clear
that the main questions raised by both appellants are factual.

The trial court, after a
thorough examination of the evidence, including the sworn statements made by
the three defendants, arrived at the following conclusions:

“There is then no dispute over the fact that the deceased Filemon King, driver of the delivery truck of the Central
Salted Foods Manufacturing Company, was stoned to death by several
persons.  The three accused herein are
the only ones charged in connection with the said stoning.  As far as they are concerned, it is a
question of evidence whether they are guilty or not as co-participants in the
commission of this crime.  The only
witness of the prosecution who identified the three accused as among those who
took part in the stoning of the deceased is Jose Tan, the truck helper who was
on the truck during the commission of the crime.  According to him, these three persons,
particular­ly Fortunato Angeles, who was the one who
asked for money for liquor, boarded the truck on the running board nearest the
driver.  The other person who boarded on
the other side of the truck on the running board has not been identified.  However, among those who took part in the
stoning were not only Fortunato Angeles but the two
other accused Leocadio Bautista and Armando Gonzales
in this case.  The accused Leocadio Bautista, who was arrested first, admitted having
stoned the deceased no less than 3 times with big stones.  Fortunato Angeles
was surrendered by his mother for being involved, admitted having taken part in
the said stoning of the Chinese and named his other com­panions.

“Having thus
participated in the act that led to the death of the deceased, their responsibility for the consequences remains the
same, whether it was their stones that finished with the deceased or not.  They have acted in concert and, therefore,
answerable for the direct and natural consequences of their acts and those of
their companions.”

After going over the record ourselves we have come to the
conclusion that the evidence fully sustains the findings made by the trial
court.

Prosecution witness Jose Tan unquestionably saw the incident at
close range and could not have been mistaken as to the identity of the parties
who attacked him and the deceased King. 
He gave a straight forward narration of the incident and, as far as the
whole record is concerned, there is nothing
to indicate that he perjured himself and testified falsely.

Appellant Gonzales’ main contention, on the other hand, is that
the trial court erred in giving credence to the pro­secution evidence in spite of the fact that the
evidence for the defense is more trustworthy and reliable.  As already stated, an examination of the
record has failed to disclose anything justifying the conclusion that the trial
judge had seriously misconstrued the evidence and had arrived at his
conclusions arbitrarily.  Inasmuch as he
had the advantage – which is denied
to us – of having heard the testimony of the witnesses, and had the opportunity
to observe their con­duct and demeanor on the witness stand, it is clear that
we must accept, as we do accept, his conclusions concerning the weight and credibility
of the evidence and of the witnesses presented by both parties.

As regards
Gonzales’ contention that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the
crime of attempted robbery with homicide, the following must be taken into
consideration:  Gonzales, Angeles,
Bautista and their other companions, by concerted action, had shown that their
intention was to extort money when they stopped the truck driven by
King.  When the latter refused to
capitulate to their demand, they assaulted him and his truck helper.  It is true that, according to the evidence,
only one of them actually demanded money from King, but there being sufficient
evidence of conspiracy, all his companions must also be deemed guilty of
attempted robbery (People vs. Timbol, G. R. L-47471-73, August 4, 1944 and People vs. Macabuhay, G. R. L-16150, April 29, 1949).

The Solicitor General recommends that, in the light of the facts
established by the evidence, the mitigating cir­cumstance of lack of intention
to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed be considered in favor
of appel­lants.  We are constrained not to agree with such recommenda­tion
precisely because the evidence shows that, if not all the persons who attacked
the deceased King, at least some of them, intended to cause his death by
throwing at him stones of such size and
weight as to cause, as in fact they caused, a fracture of his skull.  And as the act of one or some of them is deemed to be the act of the others
in view of suf­ficient proof of conspiracy, We believe
that the Court a quo was right in not considering such mitigating circumstance
in favor of appellants.

On the other hand, the
commission of the crime must be deemed aggravated by the circumstance that the attackers took advantage of their superior strength.  Since
this cir­cumstance is not alleged in the information, it may only be considered as a general aggravating circumstance in the im­position of the corresponding penalty.

The indemnity of P5,000.00 which appellants were sen­tenced to pay, jointly and severally, is however raised to P12,000.00 in accordance with previous
rulings of this Court.

WHEREFORE, thus modified, the appealed decision is
affirmed, with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L. (Acting C.J.), Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ.,
took no part.

Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are
on official leave.