PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SEVERO CORONEL, ET AL., DEFENDANT SEVERO CORONEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Review of a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rlzal imposing the death penalty upon Severo Coronel.

In an amended information dated September 19, 1947, the above named
accused, with several others, were charged before the lower court for
the complex crime of robbery with multiple homicide committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 7th day of
September 1947, in Barrio Hulong Duhat, Municipality of Malabon,
Province of Rlzal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and mutually helping one another, and each and all of them armed with
deadly weapons, such as carbines, automatic rifles, pistols, grease
guns, and hand grenades, and machine guns, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously break into and enter the house of
Judge Basillo Bautista, then occupied by the latter and his family, in
said Barrio Hulong Duhat, Malabon, Rizal, and once inside, with
intimidation of and violence upon persons and force upon things, break
open a wardrobe and other furniture, and with intent of gain and
against the consent of the owner, take, steal and carry away the
following personal properties valued at P1,360, to wit:

* * * * * * *

to the prejudice and damage of the owners thereof in the aforesaid sum of P1,360;

“That on the occasion of the same robbery and in pursuance of their
conspiracy and to carry out their criminal designs and purposes, the
above named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot with their
aforementioned weapons the said Judge Basilio Bautista and his son
Crispin Bautista and the MFC soldiers, Privates Jesus Alejandro, Emilio
Magsisi and Bernabe Diosomito who, in the performance of their duties,
came to the aid of Judge Basilio Bautista and his family, causing upon
the aforementioned persons mortal wounds which caused th e immediate
death of Basilio Bautista and Pvt. Jesus Alejandrino, and the death of
Crispin Bautista and Pvts. Emilio Magsisi and Bernabe Diosomito a few
days thereafter;

“That the commission of the crime was
attended by the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
abuse of superior strength, use of motor vehicle, dwelling, night-time,
which was purposely sought and taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crijne, and by an armed band.”

Since
the apprehension and arrest of all the accused were not effected at the
same time, separate trials were had. The record shows that in a
decision dated October 9, 1947, Bonifacio Valeriano and Benjamin Cruz
were sentenced to the capital penalty of death, while David de la Cruz
was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. This was affirmed by the Supreme
Court per curiara on September 19, 1951. On March 20, 1948,
Faustino Cruz was also sentenced to the death penalty. The remaining
others, except Severe Coronel, however (Rufino Pascual, Gregorio Uriam
and Magno Carpio) were not sentenced to the death penalty but were
merely made to suffer reclusion perpetua because of mitigating
circumstances attendant in their favor.

When the accused
Severo Coronel was arraigned on September 19, 1955, he entered a plea
of “Not Guilty? Trial thus proceeded and after the Government had
rested its case, the defense filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the
evidence presented show that the crime committed is not robbery with
multiple homicide as charged, but rebellion, thus a mistake had been
made in charging the proper offense. This motion, however, was denied,
the lower court finding that “there is nothing in the evidence
introduced against the accused Severo Coronel, both oral and
documentary, to show or even hint that the present crime for which the
accused stands charged has been committed by the Hukbalahap
Organization in the furtherance of its resistance movements against the
government.”

At the resumption of the hearing, and after
several postponements for the presentation of evidence had been granted
to the defense, the accused voluntarily entered a plea of “Guilty” at
the same time invoking the mercy of the court for a lighter penalty.
The said accused has shown that he surrendered to Col. Benjamin G.
Molina on June 2, 1954 at Camp Murphy. He also presented evidence
consisting of excerpts from a decision of the then Hon. Judge Oscar
Castelo tending to show that the crime charged was committed by the
accused in the furtherance of the Hukbalahap rebellion movement.

The
evidence for the defense having been submitted, the court rendered
judgment finding the accused guilty of the crime charged, imposing upon
hijn the death penalty, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of each
of the deceased victims, to wit: Basilio Bautista, Pvt. Jesus
Alejandrino, Crispin Bautista, Pvts. Emilio Magsisi and Bernabe
Diosomito, the sum of P6,000.00, and to indemnify the family of Judge
Basilio Bautista in the amount of P1,360.00, the value of the stolen
articles, and to pay the proportionate costs.

Since the accused appellant has admitted his guilt, this review is confined to the matter of penalty.

In begging for a lighter penalty, the appellant once again reiterates
his contention that he should have been charged for rebellion under
articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of robbery with
homicide. We believe that the following quoted observation of the trial
court on this regard is sufficient to dismiss this contention:

“***
In addition to what has been ruled by Judge Victoriano in his Order of
April 21, 1958, it is to be stated at this instant that with his plea
of guilty, the herein accused has admitted the truth of all the
allegations in the Information above-quoted, and inasmuch as in said
Information the crime charged is that of ‘Robbery with Multiple
Homicide’ and there is no-showing therefrom that the same was committed
in the furtherance of the rebellion movement of the Hukbalahap
organization, the criminal liability of the accused must necessarily be
for the offense subject of the Information. It is further to be
observed that although it is true that in the Decision of the Honorable
Oscar Castelo dated October 9, 1947, mention was made of the Hukbalahap
organization as being linked with the commission of the crime, the very
Decision quoted by counsel for the accused and marked as Exhibits ‘3’
and ‘3-a’ shows nevertheless that the robbing and killing of Judge
Basilio Bautista and others could not be considered essential elements
or ingredients of the crime of rebellion so as to be absorbed by the
latter. It is to be remembered that the principal crime committed in
this case was robbery which is one offense which definitely cannot be
countenanced and sanctioned as one of those which may be considered as
necessary and essential to the commission of the political crime of
rebellion. The attack and assault of Judge Basilio Bautista and his
son, Crispin Bautista, on the occasion of said robbery, which attack
resulted in their death and that of several others has served merely to
aggravate the principal offense of robbery under the provisions of
paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Robbery feeing
the main crime committed by the herein defendant, no amount of argument
in his behalf can convince this Court that the said offense was
consummated to further the interests and insure the success of the
rebellion movement of the hukbalahap organization.”

There
is no question that the appellant enjoys in his favor the lone
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which, however, is not
sufficient to offset the aggravating circumstances found to be
attendant in the commission of the crime. While the accused entered a
plea of guilty, he did it only during the continuation of the trial so
that this circumstance may not, under the law, be considered to
mitigate the liability of the accused. We feel, though, that such an
admission of guilt indicates his submission to the law and a moral
disposition on his part to reform. This considering, and considering
further that not all those involved in the crime were sentenced to the
extreme penalty of death, this Court cannot give the sufficient number
of votes to affirm in toto the decision of the lower court.

WHEREFORE, the decision under review is modified
in that the penalty imposed is changed to life imprisonment. The
decision is affirmed in all other respects.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.