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

People versus Coronel

The Case

This is People versus Coronel, a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Severo Coronel and several others for the complex crime of robbery with multiple homicide. Coronel was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death, and the case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of that capital judgment. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it teaches how a plea of guilty entered only after trial has begun is treated, and it teaches the rule that acts of robbery and killing committed on the occasion of a rebellion are not absorbed by the political crime when they are not essential to it.

Procedural History

An amended information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal charging Coronel and several others with robbery with multiple homicide. Because the accused were not all arrested at the same time, separate trials were held. Several of the co-accused were earlier convicted and sentenced, some to death and some to reclusion perpetua, and those earlier judgments were affirmed by the Supreme Court. When Coronel was finally arraigned, he pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded. After the prosecution rested, the defense moved to dismiss on the ground that the crime proved was rebellion and not robbery with multiple homicide, but the trial court denied the motion. After several postponements, Coronel voluntarily changed his plea to guilty while invoking the mercy of the court. The trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty as charged, imposing the death penalty, ordering indemnity to the heirs of each of the five deceased victims and reimbursement for the stolen articles, and imposing proportionate costs. The case then came before the Supreme Court on review of the death judgment.

Facts

On or about the seventh day of September 1947, in Barrio Hulong Duhat, Malabon, Rizal, a group of armed men broke into the house of Judge Basilio Bautista. They were armed with carbines, automatic rifles, pistols, grease guns, hand grenades, and machine guns. Once inside, they intimidated the occupants, broke open a wardrobe and other furniture, and carried away personal property valued at one thousand three hundred sixty pesos.

On the occasion of that robbery, and in pursuance of their conspiracy, the armed men attacked and shot Judge Basilio Bautista, his son Crispin Bautista, and three soldiers of the Military Police Command, Privates Jesus Alejandrino, Emilio Magsisi, and Bernabe Diosomito, who had come to the aid of the judge and his family. Judge Bautista and Private Alejandrino died immediately, and the others died a few days later.

Coronel surrendered to Colonel Benjamin Molina on the second of June 1954 at Camp Murphy. At his trial he raised the theory that the killings were committed in furtherance of the Hukbalahap rebellion, relying on excerpts from a decision of Judge Oscar Castelo. The trial court found nothing in the evidence to show that the crime charged was committed in furtherance of the resistance movement against the government, and it held that the robbery and killing could not be considered essential ingredients of rebellion.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused should have been charged with rebellion instead of robbery with multiple homicide.
• Whether or not the plea of guilty entered by the accused after trial had already begun may be considered a mitigating circumstance.
• Whether or not the death penalty imposed by the trial court should be affirmed.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph one of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines robbery with homicide, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the provision under which the killing of Judge Bautista and the four others was treated as aggravating the principal offense of robbery, and it carries the two indivisible penalties from reclusion perpetua to death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court rejected the contention that the accused should have been charged with rebellion. The Court relied on the trial court's observation that with his plea of guilty the accused admitted the truth of all the allegations in the information, and that the information charged robbery with multiple homicide without any showing that it was committed in furtherance of the Hukbalahap rebellion. Even the decision of Judge Castelo, which the defense itself offered, showed that the robbing and killing of Judge Bautista and the others could not be considered essential elements of rebellion so as to be absorbed by it. The trial court's words, quoted with approval, were these:

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.

On the second issue, the Court held that the plea of guilty could not mitigate the liability of the accused because he entered it only during the continuation of the trial. The Court nevertheless observed that the admission of guilt indicated his submission to the law and a moral disposition to reform.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the accused enjoyed the lone mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, but that this was not sufficient to offset the aggravating circumstances found attendant in the commission of the crime. Considering further that not all those involved in the crime were sentenced to the extreme penalty of death, the Court could not muster the sufficient number of votes to affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Doctrine

First, robbery with homicide is a complex crime in which the killing is treated as aggravating the principal offense of robbery, and it is punished under paragraph one of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion perpetua to death. Second, acts of robbery and killing are not absorbed by the political crime of rebellion unless they are essential ingredients of that crime; where the principal crime is robbery committed for gain, the taking and the killing on that occasion remain punishable as robbery with homicide. Third, a plea of guilty entered only after trial has already begun does not, under the law, mitigate criminal liability, although it may be considered as evidence of submission to the law and a disposition to reform. Fourth, voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance, but it does not offset aggravating circumstances that attend the commission of the crime.

Disposition

The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court by changing the penalty from death to life imprisonment, and affirmed the decision in all other respects.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that robbery is the principal crime, and the killing on the occasion of the robbery merely aggravates it under paragraph one of Article 294; it is not absorbed by rebellion unless it is essential to the political crime. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between rebellion and common crimes, and to test the rule that a plea of guilty made after trial has begun does not mitigate liability.