[G.R. No. 118140. February 19, 1997]
PEOP OPL LE OF THE PHILIPPINE NES S, plaintiff plaintiff-appellee, -appellee, vs . DNTE PINDIONG ! "LD, #ES$S %ORLLOS ! "LD, R"HIE &$LN ! %P$LN, %P$LN, a'( T)O *+ #OHN DOES, accused . DNTE PINDIONG ! "LD, #ES$S %ORLLOS ! "LD, R"HIE &$LN ! %P$LN, accused-appellants.
The wheels of tragic fate began to turn at around 10 o' clock on the evening of February 21, 1994, when Percival atindig, P!1 "erry Pere#, $eonisa %& acay, and (owena (eyboneria boarded a )assenger *ee)ney on their way ho+e& fter the vehicle had travelled less than a kilo+eter, another grou grou) ) of five five )ers )erson ons, s, boar boarde ded d the the sa+e sa+e *ee) *ee)ne ney y and and not not long long afte after r anno announ unce ced d a hold hold-u -u), ), and and ther thereu eu)o )on n dive divest sted ed the the )ass )assen enge gers rs of thei their r valuables, and shot and killed P!1 "erry Pere#& For the cri+e of robbery with ho+icide, the herein accused-a))ellants accused-a))ellants and two unidentified .ohn /oes were charged in an nfor+ation reading as follows That on or about the 21st day of February, 1994 in Kalookan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aboe!na"ed accused, cons#irin$ to$ether and "utually hel#in$ one another, with intent of $ain and by "eans of force, threats and inti"idation e"#loyed u#on the #ersons of %&'C()*+ C*T(-(. / +*C0 and %1 .&''/ %&'& / 30(. 30(., did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry cash "oney in the a"ount of %255655 belon$in$ to the for"er for"er and one 718 6: caliber reoler "arked "arked ;*'M*3C'; with with 3 %1<111 %1<111 worth %:,555655 belon$in$ to the latter, to the da"a$e and #rejudice of the icti"s in the afore"entioned a"ount of= that on the occasion of the said 'obbery and for the #ur#ose of enablin$ the" to take, rob and carry away the said articles, the herein accused in #ursuance to their cons#iracy, did then and there wilfully, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shoot %1 .erry %ere> hittin$ the latter on his chest, thereby inflictin$ u#on the latter serious #hysical injuries which injuries directly caused his death6
7#6 ?<, Rollo68
fter due trial, the court a quo on ove+ber 3, 1994, rendered a decision dis)osing @H&'&F'&, in iew of the fore$oin$ considerations, the Court finds accused -*T& %(*-(. / C*+-*, A&33 M'*++3 / C*+-* and *'CH(& 0+* / *M%+* .(+T/ beyond reasonable doubt of the cri"e of '00&'/ @(TH HM(C(-& and sentences each of the" to suffer the "aBi"u" #enalty of -&*TH= to #ay, jointly and seerally, the heirs of icti" %1 .erry %ere> the su" of F(FT/ TH3*- 7%<5,5556558 %&33 as death inde"nity= the su" of &(.HT TH3*- 7%:,5556558 %&33 re#resentin$ the alue of the 6: caliber reoler of the sa"e icti"= to inde"nify the said heirs the su" of & H-'&- (& TH3*- 7%159,5556558 %&33 as actual and co"#ensatory da"a$es= the su" of F(FT/ TH3*- 7%<5,5556558 %&33 as "oral da"a$es and finally, to #ay %ercial Catindi$ his stolen "oney in the su" of T@ H-'&- 7 %2556558 %&336 @ith costs6 The case as a$ainst the other two 728 unidentified accused who are still at lar$e is hereby archied #endin$ their arrest6 7#6 9, Rollo68
n view of the fact that the )enalty i+)osed is death, the case is now before this ourt on auto+atic review& n his brief, accused-a))ellant rchie ulan contends in his lone assigned error that the evidence of the )rosecution is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt )& 56, Rollo)& For their )art, accused-a))ellants /ante Piandiong and .esus 7orallos +ake the following assign+ent of errors 16 The Honorable 'e$ional Trial Court erred in not considerin$ the reason why the #rosecution witnesses were able to identify the accused!a##ellants durin$ the trial6 26 The Honorable 'e$ional Trial Court erred in holdin$ that the eidence adduced by the #rosecution clearly established the $uilt of the accused!a##ellants6
6 The Honorable 'e$ional Trial Court erred in holdin$ that there was no "otie on the #art of the #rosecution witnesses to falsely testify a$ainst the accused!a##ellants6 46 The Honorable 'e$ional Trial Court erred in not considerin$ that the #olice line!u# was not #ro#erly conducted6 <6 The Honorable 'e$ional Trial Court erred in holdin$ that the defense of alibi is weak without lookin$ any further on the eracity of the sa"e6 and, ?6 (n $eneral, the Honorable 'e$ional Trial Court erred in not usin$ the #owers of the court to su""on other witnessesD#ersons who can shed li$ht on the case and to eBercise eBtra dili$ence and efforts to ascertain the true facts of the case considerin$ the $raity of the offense char$ed6 7##6 12:!129, Rollo68
The facts of the case, as su))orted by the evidence and as correctly su++ari#ed by the trial court are as follows %rosecution witness %ercial Catindi$ is a 2: year old e"#loyee and a resident of 4? +ibis, &s#ina, Kalookan City6 He testified that on February 21, 1994 at about 15 oEclock in the eenin$, he boarded a #ublic utility jee#ney bound for oaliches with his co"#anions, na"ely %1 .erry %ere>, +eonisa 36 0acay and 'owena 'eyboneria6 *ccordin$ly, the $rou# had just isited &ric de Castro at the latterEs house in %an$ara# )illa$e, Kalookan City6 *fter coerin$ the distance of about <55 "eters the ehicle sto##ed and so"e #assen$ers ali$hted fro" the jee#ney6 (t was at this #oint that about fie to siB 7
Thereu#on, *rchie 0ulan who was holdin$ a 6: caliber reoler, started diestin$ the #assen$ers of their "onies, jewelries and other #ersonal belon$in$s6 The witness recounted that %iandion$ was seated at the left side of the jee#ney while 0ulan was #ositioned at the ri$ht side of the ehicle o##osite the for"er6 The unidentified co"#anions of the three 78 accused who were holdin$ a 6: caliber reoler each, #reented the #assen$ers fro" ali$htin$ the ehicle6 *t this #oint, the icti", %1 .erry %ere> who was seated at the back of the drierEs seat, atte"#ted to draw his $un but accused -ante %iandion$ swiftly $rabbed the for"erEs neck with his left hand and shot the #olice"an at the ri$ht side of his chest6 The bloodied #olice officer then #leaded that he be brou$ht to the hos#ital6 (n res#onse, the cul#rits confiscated the icti"Es serice #istol, his two 728 rin$s and his n ecklace6 *fter the hold!u##ers ali$hted fro" the ehicle with their loot, accused -ante %iandion$ a$ain shot the icti" at the ri$ht side of his cheek6 -urin$ all the ti"e, herein witness was not able to do anythin$ since a $un was "enacin$ly leelled at the ri$ht side of his body6 His %255655 as well as his coin #urse was also confiscated by accused %iandion$6 The witness i""ediately took the icti" to the nearest hos#ital6 Clai"in$ lack of necessary eGui#"ents, the hos#ital staff refused to ad"it the icti" for "edical assistance6 @hen the jee#ney neared 0aesa, ue>on City, the witness s#otted a 'ed Cross ehicle and lost no ti"e in transferrin$ the wounded #olice"an in the said ehicle which in turn, rushed the icti" to the e"er$ency roo" of the MC Hos#ital6 +ater on, the witness was infor"ed that 3%1 .erry %ere> died6 He stayed at the hos#ital u# to oEclock in the "ornin$ of February 22, 19946 He eBecuted his first sworn state"ent relatie to the incident on February 2, 1994 before the Kalookan City %olice 3tation 2 while his second state"ent was $ien before the rduja %olice 3tation, Kalookan City on February 2:, 19946 7##6 ?:!?9, Rollo68
ccused-a))ellant ulan contends that cons)iracy was not established by )ositive evidence& 8e argues that all that the records could show is the unreliable and uncorroborated declaration of alleged eyewitness $eonisa acay that accused-a))ellant was holding a gun at the ti+e of the alleged hold-u) incident& !ther than this, the records will indubitably show accuseda))ellant never did any other act un+istakably tending to show his cri+inal cons)iracy with the acts of the other accused, /ante Piandiong in shooting P!1 "erry Pere#, and co++andeering his service )istol, and .esus 7orallos
in divesting the +oney and other valuables of Percival atindig& :e sub+it, that +ere holding of a gun, under an ad+ittedly incri+inating and co+)ro+ising circu+stances will not a+ount to a valid conclusion that accused-a))ellant subscribed and i+bibed the sa+e cri+inal intent of the herein other accused-a))ellants /ante Piandiong and .esus 7orallos ))& 59-90, Rollo)& The contention of accused-a))ellant ulan runs counter to the evidence& 8e and his co-accused boarded the *ee)ney together; they drew out their guns and )ointed the+ at the victi+s, while si+ultaneously announcing a hold-u) and ordering the )assengers not to +ake any wrong +ove& Percival atindig testified that accused-a))ellant ulan was one of the +alefactors who divested the )assengers of their valuables and +oney& %uch act, even if taken inde)endently of another incri+inatory deed, that of )ointing his gun at the )assengers, clearly and un+istakably indicates that he was acting in concert with his fellow co-accused& t is egregiously farcical to state that accused-a))ellant ulan was a +ere by-stander at the scene who *ust innocently drew out his gun in i+itation of the hold-u))ers without in any way *oining in their design to rob the )assengers& :hat was his intention in drawing out his gun and )ointing it at the )assengers e
> ?1994@A& oncerted acts of the accused to obtain a co++on cri+inal ob*ective signify cons)iracy Peo)le vs& %ilong, 262 %( 453 ?1994@A& 8ere, the overt acts of accused-a))ellants +anifestly show that they acted in concert& They were together in boarding the *ee)ney& They were together in announcing a hold-u)& They were one grou) in divesting the victi+s of the valuables& ot one of the co+)anions of accused-a))ellant Piandiong relented even after he shot the )olice+an& They were together in getting off the vehicle& f there was no unison a+ong accused-a))ellants in their evil and cri+inal designs, there could not ever be a conviction based on cons)iracy& n Peo)le vs& /ela ru# 213 %( 256 ?1996@A, a case which is on all fours with the case at bar, the ourt categorically ruled that
Cons#iracy a"on$ the #er#etrators was duly #roen6 %retendin$ to be #assen$ers, they boarded the jee#ney at the sa"e ti"e near the foot of the +a"bin$an 0rid$e6 @hen the hold!u# was announced, each "oed with #recision in #ursuit of an assi$ned task obiously earlier a$reed u#on6 ne #oked his $un at the head of the drier while the rest #ointed their knies at the #assen$ers6 *t the sa"e ti"e, they diested the said #assen$ers of their aluables6 They all ali$hted fro" the jee#ney at the sa"e ti"e with the loot6 These acts, taken to$ether, are sufficient to establish the eBistence of a co""on desi$n a"on$ the a##ellant and his co"#anions to co""it the offense char$ed6 therwise stated, such acts showed nothin$ less than a joint #ur#ose and desi$n, and a concerted action and co""unity of interest= these establish beyond reasonable doubt the eBistence of cons#iracy6 -irect #roof is not essential to #roe cons#iracy, it "ay be shown by acts and circu"stances fro" which "ay lo$ically be inferred the eBistence of a co""on desi$n, or "ay be deduced fro" the "ode and "anner in which the offense was #er#etrated6
ccused-a))ellants Piandiong and 7orallos )ut forth the argu+ent that they were not sufficiently identified& ccording to the+, the )rosecution witnesses identified the+ as the )er)etrators of the cri+e only u)on the suggestion of .un 7usli+, a )olice+an, who allegedly held accuseda))ellants' hands to sort of finger the+ as the )er)etrators of the cri+e when there was a confrontation with the witnesses thus the easy identification later in court& ccused-a))ellants' argu+ents are not entitled to any +erit& n the first )lace, this assertion is not corroborated by any disinterested and reliable witness& n the second )lace, it is contrary to hu+an nature for the witnesses to finger innocent )ersons as the )er)etrators of a very serious cri+e& The wish of the witnesses, as the victi+s of the cri+e, is only for the a))rehension and )unish+ent of the actual )er)etrators of the cri+e so that the wrong done to the+ +ay be vindicated& To be sure, the record is devoid of any evidence showing that the )rosecution witnesses were actuated by ill +otives as to testify falsely against accused-a))ellants& Their testi+ony +ust, therefore, be given full faith and
credit& :hen there is no showing that the )rosecution witnesses were actuated by any i+)ro)er +otive, the )resu+)tion is that they are not so actuated and their testi+ony is entitled to full faith and credit Peo)le vs& /e la ru#, 229 %( 3B4 ?1994@; Peo)le vs& Perciano, 266 %( 696 ?1994@A& t +ust be re+e+bered that the witnesses and the robbers were seated close to or facing each other, thus, the )ositive identification by Percival atindig of accused-a))ellants as the hold-u))ers )& 6, tsn&, ug& 22, 1994A& $ikewise, $eonisa acay was )ositive and categorical in her identification of accused-a))ellants as the +alefactors, to wit -& :ould it be correct to say that this )erson who announced the hold-u) situated beside Percival in line with your seat, is not one of the three accused in this case= . 8e was one, sir& -. :ho a+ong these three 6A accused are you referring to= . /ante Piandiong, sir& -. nd the other accused also fronting "erry Pere# is not also one of the three sus)ects in this case= . 8e is one of the+, sir& -. :ho is he= . 7orallos, sir& -. 8ow about the third one, would it be correct to say that he is not one of the sus)ects in this case= . 8e is one, sir& -. :ho is he= . rchie ulan, sir& -. The one situated o))osite Percival= . Ces, sir&
-. 8ow about the other three, were they seated= . cannot e, tsn, %e)te+ber >, 1994A
7##6 19:!199, Rollo68
ccused-a))ellants try to cast doubt on the veracity of the testi+ony of, es)ecially the identification by, the )rosecution witnesses on the ground that they were friends of the victi+ "erry Pere#& This argu+ent carries no weight whatsoever& 7ere relationshi) of a witness to the victi+ does not i+)air his credibility as to render his testi+ony unworthy of credence where no i+)ro)er +otive can be ascribed to hi+ for so testifying Peo)le vs& Pastoral, 22> %( 219 ?1996@; Peo)le vs& .otoy, 222 %( 501 ?1996@; Peo)le vs& %arino, 221 %( 264 ?1996@A, and there being no ill +otives which can be attributed to the )rosecution witnesses in the case at hand, their )ositive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under sole+n oath deserve full faith and credence& Turning their attention to the )olice line-u), accused-a))ellants Piandiong and 7orallos contend that the sa+e was irregularly conducted& ccording to the+, .un 7usli+ coached the witnesses to )oint to the+ as a+ong the +alefactors& s aforesaid, this argu+ent is totally uncorroborated by an un)re*udiced witness& !n the other hand, the testi+ony of P!6 elerino %usano clearly shows that the )olice line-u) was not attended by any irregularity, thusly For what #ur#ose were the #ersons of %iandion$ and Morallos turned oer to you by the duty desk officerI * The two 728 sus#ects were turned oer to "e by the arrestin$ officers for the reasons that both were char$ed with robbery with ho"icide6
*nd after these two 728 #ersons were turned oer to you by the duty desk officer, what did you do if any relatie to these two 728 #ersons na"ely, %iandion$ and MorallosI * @hen the two 728 #ersons were turned oer to "e, ( went to the #lace of the witness to confront the"6 *nd who are these witnesses you are referrin$ toI A: +eonisa 0acay, 'owena 'eynoberia and %ercial Catindi$6 Q: (n what #articular #lace in Caloocan City did you $o so as to contact these
witnesses to who" you are earlier "entionedI A: +ibis, Caloocan City6 Q: 0y the way Mr6 @itness, how did you co"e to know that these #ersons were
witnessesI A: ( know that these #ersons were witnesses because ( "et the" already at the
hos#ital6 Q: *nd were you able to contact these three 78 #ersonsI A: /es, sir6 Q: Thereafter, where did you inite the" to if anyI A: ( inited the" to the headGuarters to confront with the witnesses6 Q: *nd did they $o with youI A: /es, sir6 Q: *nd after they arried at the #olice headGuarters, what did you do neBt if anyI A: @hen they arried at the #olice headGuarters we "ade a #olice line!u#6 Q: (n what way did you "ade this #olice line!u#I
A: @e lined u# siB 7?8 #ersons includin$ the two 728 sus#ects6 Q: @here were they when you lined u# these siB 7?8 #ersonsI A: *t the #recinct6 Q: (n what #articular #lace of the #recinctI A: 3(- roo"6 Q: *side fro" these siB 7?8 #ersons, who else were there inside the 3(- roo"I A: The other "e"bers of the #olice line!u#6 Q: *nd after you hae lined!u# that two 728 sus#ects on the four 748 other #ersons,
what did these witnesses do the three 78 witnesses you "entioned earlier doI A: The witnesses #ersonally #in#ointed Morallos and %iandion$6 Q: *s whatI A: *s the #ersons who robbed the" and shot %1 %ere>6 Q: *nd after they were identified by witnesses Catindi$, 'eyboneria and 0acay, what
was the neBt ste# you undertook relatie to the inesti$ationI A: ( took their sworn state"ents6 Q: How about accused %iandion$ and Morallos what did you do with the" if anyI A: *fter the witnesses were #in#ointed Morallos and %iandion$ ( "ade a referral
letter6 Q: ow, Mr6 @itness, tell to this Honorable Court whether or not %iandion$ and
Morallos had any occasion to $ie their written state"ents relatie to this caseI A ( infor"ed the" that if they want to $ie their state"ents, they can $et their own
counsel6 Q *nd what was their answerI
A They answer in the ne$atie, and they were not $ien any state"ent6 Q ow, before you told these two 728 sus#ects na"ely, %iandion$ and Morallos about
their ri$ht to $et a lawyer, what other ri$hts if any did you a##rise the" aboutI A: ( infor"ed the" that they hae the ri$ht to re"ain silent6 Q: @hat else if anyI A: ( think that is the only thin$ ( told the"6 Q: (n what dialect or lan$ua$e did you a##rise %iandion$ and Morallos about their
ri$hts to re"ain silentI A: (n Ta$alo$, sir6 Q: @ho was #resent when you infor"ed the" those constitutional ri$htsI A: @e only, sir6 Q: How about *rchie 0ulan Mr6 @itness, when did you "et hi" relatie to the
inesti$ation you conducted in this caseI A: *rchie 0ulan ( "et hi" when the arrestin$ officer turned oer to "e6 Q: @hen was thatI A: *#ril 11, 1994 about 15 oEclock in the eenin$6 Q: @ho turned hi" oer to youI A: The arrestin$ officer, sir6 Q: (n the #erson of I A: %1 .ilbert *nnan$, sir6 Q: *nd after accused *rchie 0ulan was turned oer to you by #olice officer .ilbert
*nnan$, what did you do neBt if anyI
A *$ain, ( went to the residence of the witnesses and brou$ht the" to the
headGuarters for confrontation of the sus#ects6 Q: @ho are these witnesses to who" you wentI A: +eonisa 0acay, 'owena 'eyboneria and %ercial Catindi$6 Q: *$ain, Mr6 @itness, in what way did you "ake the #olice lined!u# relatie to
*rchie 0ulanI A ( also #laced hi" in a #olice lined!u# with siB 7?8 #ersons and then the witnesses
#in#ointed *rchie 0ulan was the sa"e #erson who robbed the" and shot %ere>6 Q Mr6 @itness, with re$ards to the witnesses and then referred the" to the fiscalI A ( took the sworn state"ents of these witnesses if you still re"e"ber6
7##6 25!2, tsn, ctober <, 19948
:hen Dueried by the trial court, %usano testified Q *lri$ht, this is a clarificatory Guestions fro" the court6 @hen you lined u# siB 7?8
#ersons includin$ the two 728 accused Morallos and %iandion$ were the witnesses already #resentI A o, your Honor6 Q The Guestion of the court is, when you actually lined u# siB 7?8 #ersons to$ether
with the two 728 accused Morallos and %iandion$, tell to the court whether the #rosecution witnesses 'eyboneria, 0acay and Catindi$ were already #resentI A *re not #resent, your Honor6 Q 3o in other words, is it now your testi"ony that the three 78 #rosecution witnesses
had not been infor"ed by you or in any #olice officer of the #resence of accused Morallos and %iandion$ in that siB 7?8 #ersons who were #laced in a line!u#I A one, your Honor6
7#6 29, Ibid 8
t is significant to note at this )oint that the cri+e was co++itted on February 21, 1994, and accused-a))ellants Piandiong and 7orallos were arrested and subseDuently identified at the )olice line-u) on February 23, 1994 ))& 3-5, (T /ecision; ))& 26-24, Rollo), or only > days after the co++ission of the cri+e& The +e+ory of the events and the dramatis personae of February 21, 1994 were thus still fresh in the +inds of the witnesses& t any rate, a )olice line-u) is not essential Peo)le vs& %artagoda, 221 %( 2B1 ?1996@; Peo)le vs& untan, %r&, 221 %( 421 ?1996@A& / ecisive of the guilt or innocence of an accused is the testi+ony of witnesses in court identifying hi+ as the )er)etrator of the cri+e& .udicial decisions are based on testi+ony and other evidence )resented in court, and not on e6B ?1994@A& To )ros)er, alibi +ust +eet strictly the reDuire+ents of ti+e and )lace Peo)le vs& /ela ru#, 229 %( 3B4 ?1994@A, +eaning that the accused was not at the scene of the cri+e at the ti+e it was co++itted, and that it was )hysically i+)ossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the cri+e at the ti+e of its co++ission Peo)le vs& %aguban, 261 %( 344 ?1994@A; Peo)le vs& /olor,261 %( 414 ?1994@A& n the case at bar, by their own testi+ony accused-a))ellants Piandiong and 7orallos were in )laces only about an hour's travel fro+ the scene of the cri+e, while accuseda))ellant ulan was in a+arin, aloocan ity, which is only a B-+inute walk away fro+ the scene of the cri+e& t was, therefore, not )hysically i+)ossible for accused-a))ellants to have been )resent at the scene of the cri+e at the ti+e of co++ission thereof&
7ore i+)ortantly, accused-a))ellants' alibis cannot )revail over their )ositive identification by eyewitnesses who had no i+)ro)er +otive to falsely testify Peo)le vs& .avier, 229 %( >65 ?1994@; Peo)le vs& Talaver, 260 %( 251 ?1994@A& $astly, accused-a))ellants argue that the trial court failed to su++on other witnesses who could have shed light on the case& f accused-a))ellants were aware that there were certain witnesses who could have given the case a view fro+ another angle, they should have )etitioned the trial court to sub)oena said witnesses& ut they did not& The fault, therefore, lies with the+, not with the trial court& n the )resent case, the co++ission of ho+icide on the occasion of robbery is beyond dis)ute& P!1 "erry Pere# was shot at the right side of his chest by accused-a))ellant Piandiong& fter the hold-u))ers had alighted fro+ the vehicle with their loot, accused-a))ellant Piandiong again shot P!1 "erry Pere# at the right side of his face, with the slug entering the cheek& P!1 "erry Pere# was rushed to the e+ergency roo+ of the 7E 8os)ital where he later on died, as indeed, any of the wounds could have been fatal )& 5, (T /ecision; )& 24, Rollo)& For the cri+e of robbery with ho+icide to e9 %( 423 ?193>@A& t is a well-settled rule that when ho+icide takes )lace as a conseDuence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took )art in the robbery are guilty as )rinci)als of the cri+e of robbery with ho+icide, although they did not actually take )art in the ho+icide& The e %( 434 ?1994@A& n the )resent case, there is no evidence that accused-a))ellants ulan and 7orallos tried to )revent accused-a))ellant Piandiong fro+ shooting P!1 "erry Pere#& Their liability, therefore, is the sa+e as that of Piandiong& ll accused-a))ellants are thus guilty of the cri+e of robbery with ho+icide which under Paragra)h 1 of rticle 294 of the (evised Penal ode, as a+ended by (e)ublic ct o& 3>B9, is )unishable by reclusion perpetua to death&
The ourt holds that the court a quo did not err in i+)osing the +a of rticle 14 of the (evised Penal ode; Peo)le vs& /ela ru#, supra)& There being one aggravating circu+stance attendant to the co++ission of the felony without any +itigating circu+stance to offset the sa+e, the )enalty i+)osable under Paragra)h 1 of rticle 294 of the (evised Penal ode, as a+ended by (e)ublic ct 3>B9, is death, the +a6 of the (evised Penal odeA& The i+)osition of the death )enalty for robbery with ho+icide which is considered a heinous cri+e for being ?a@ grievous, odious and hateful offense and which, by reason of ?its@ inherent or +anifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and )erversity ?is@ re)ugnant and outrageous to the co++on standards and nor+s of decency and +orality in a *ust, civili#ed and ordered society was found co+)elling and *ust by ongress in the interest of *ustice, )ublic order, and the rule of law& n )oint of fact, even under the original rticle 294 of the (evised Penal ode, the )enalty i+)osable for a cri+e such as the one co++itted by accused-a))ellants, attended as it was by an aggravating circu+stance, is death& %aid )enalty was +erely sus)ended by the 1953 onstitution until it was rei+)osed by (e)ublic ct o& 3>B9& The act of accused-a))ellants before alighting fro+ the *ee)ney in shooting P!1 "erry Pere# at the right side of the face while he was already +ortally wounded and lying cru+)led and unconscious in the e+brace of his girl friend, $eonisa acay, )atently reveals the brutality, +ercilessness, wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, )erversity, and +alevolence of accuseda))ellants which calls for the condign )unish+ent of death, as +andated by law& onetheless, two 7e+bers of the ourt voted to i+)ose the )enalty of reclusion perpetua& )HEREFORE, the a))ealed decision is hereby FF(7/, with costs against accused-a))ellants&
