10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. San Pedro

*
No. L-44274. January 22, 1980.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. LUISITO SAN PEDRO, et al., accused. ARTEMIO
BANASIHAN, defendant-appellant.

Criminal Law; Craft cannot be considered absorbed by

treachery in this case of robbery with homicide as craft was
employed to facilitate the taking of the jeep and treachery is
appreciated only in crimes against persons.—We cannot subscribe
to the theory of craft being absorbed by treachery, as nighttime
and abuse of superior strength may be so absorbed, as held in
numerous decisions of this Court. In the instant case, craft was
employed not with a view to making treachery more effective as
nighttime and abuse of superior strength would in the killing of
the victim. It was directed actually towards facilitating the taking
of the jeep in the robbery scheme as planned by the culprits. From
the definition of treachery, it is

_____________

* EN BANC

307

VOL. 95, JANUARY 22, 1980 307

People vs. San Pedro

manifest that the element of defense against bodily injury makes

treachery proper for consideration only in crimes against person
as so explicitly provided by the Revised Penal Code (Art. 14[16]).
Same; Lack of instruction is not applicable to the crimes of
theft and robbery.—Lack of instruction is not applicable to crimes
of theft and robbery, much less to the crime of homicide. The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

reason is that robbery and killing are, by their nature, wrongful

acts, and are manifestly so to the enlightened, equally as to the
ignorant (People vs. Salip Mania, et al., 30 SCRA 389 [1969]).

AQUINO, J., concurring:

Criminal law; Despoblado should also be considered

aggravating as victim was killed in an uninhabited place.—I
think despoblado should also be considered aggravating. The
malefactors used the victim’s jeep to bring him to an uninhabited
place where he was killed with impunity. Hence, the death
penalty was properly imposed.

APPEAL from the decision of the Court of First Instance of

Laguna.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Haydee B. Yorac for appellant.
     Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Automatic review of the death penalty imposed on

appellant by the Court of First Instance of Laguna, for the
crime of robbery with homicide, committed, according to
the evidence, and as stated in the appellee’s brief, which
We quote, as follows:

“In the afternoon of June 2, 1970, the lifeless body of a person was
found somewhere between the barrios of Masaya and Paciano
Rizal, Municipality of Bay, Laguna. The body was brought to the
municipal building of Bay for autopsy. Dr. Fe Manansala-Pantas,
in her autopsy report, Exh. B, noted that the deceased died of
profuse hemorrhage due to 23 lacerated and stab wounds and
multiple abrasions found on the different parts of the body of the
deceased.
“The deceased was identified to be Felimon Rivera, a driver of
a passenger jeep belonging to Pablito delos Reyes, a fruit vendor.
Earlier in the day, Rivera was out driving the jeep. But that was
to

308

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. San Pedro

be the last time for him to drive the jeep for on that same day, he
was killed, and his jeep was no longer found or recovered.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

“It was not until June 11, 1971, that the police authorities
found a concrete lead to the solution of the case. Rodrigo
Esguerra, when apprehended and interviewed by the police,
admitted his participation and named his companions. He gave a
written statement, Exh. F. Soon the police began rounding up the
other suspects.
“Artemio Banasihan was apprehended sometime in 1972. On
March 3 of said year, he was investigated by Sgt. Juan Tolentino
of the Philippine Constabulary. He gave a statement which was
sworn to before the Acting Municipal Judge of Los Baños, Laguna,
confessing his participation in the robbery and killing of Felimon
Rivera (Exh. H). In said statement, Banasihan recounted that
four days before June 2, 1970, he and his co-accused met and
planned to get the jeep driven by the deceased. Carrying out their
plan, he and Luisito San Pedro approached Rivera in the
afternoon of June 2, 1970 and on the pretext of hiring Rivera’s
jeep to haul coconuts, they proceeded to Bo. Puypuy, in Bay,
Laguna, where they were joined by Salvador Litan and Rodrigo
Esguerra. Esguerra was then carrying a water pipe wrapped in
paper. Upon reaching a river between the barrios of Mainit and
Puypuy, San Pedro ordered Rivera to stop. Whereupon, at
Esguerra’s signal, Litan hit Rivera at the nape with the water
pipe. Rivera jumped out of the jeep but was chased by San Pedro
and Litan who stabbed him at the back several times with a
dagger. Esguerra then drove the jeep and the group proceeded to
Makati, Rizal, where they joined Nelson Piso and Antonio Borja.
The jeep was brought to Cavite City where it was sold for
P2,000.00. Four days later, Piso went to Los Baños and gave San
Pedro, Litan and Banasihan P50.00 each, with the promise that
the balance would be given later. However, the promised balance
was not given them.”

As synthesized above, the facts of the instant case are as

also found by the trial court, which appellant, through
counsel de oficio, confesses inability to dispute. Admitting
thus the accuracy of the factual finding of the court a quo,
appellant raises only questions of law, particularly in the
appreciation of the modifying circumstances proven by the
evidence, with a view to reducing the penalty of death as
imposed, to reclusion perpetua, as prayed for. This
notwithstanding, We did not relieve ourselves of the duty of
reviewing the evidence, for the purpose of the proceedings
before Us is to discover any possible error, specially in the
appreciation of the evidence, that

309

VOL. 95, JANUARY 22, 1980 309

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

People vs. San Pedro

might have been committed by the trial court that led to an

improper imposition of the supreme penalty. After
undertaking the task, We express complete agreement that
no reversible error has been committed by the trial court as
to the culpable participation of the appellant as one of the
perpetrators of the capital offense charged.
Specifically, the legal questions raised affecting the
degree of culpability of appellant is whether the
aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by treachery,
and whether the resulting single aggravating circumstance
of treachery should be offset by the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction, as appellant claims
should be appreciated in his favor, thereby calling for the
reduction of the death penalty to that of life imprisonment.
We cannot subscribe to the theory of craft being
absorbed by treachery, as nighttime and abuse of superior
strength may be so absorbed,
1
as held in numerous
decisions of this Court. In the instant case, craft was
employed not with a view to making treachery more
effective as nighttime and abuse of superior strength would
in the killing of the victim. It was directed actually towards
facilitating the taking of the jeep in the robbery scheme as
planned by the culprits. From the definition of treachery, it
is manifest that the element of defense against bodily
injury makes treachery proper for consideration only in
crimes against person as so explicitly provided by the
Revised Penal Code (Art. 14[16]).
Aside from the foregoing observation, decisional rulings
argue against appellant’s submission. Thus in the case of
U.S. vs. Gampoña, et al., 36 Phil. 817 (1917) where the
crime charged was murder, qualified by treachery, craft
was considered separately to aggravate the killing. Note
that in this cited case, the crime was killing alone, which
has a weightier ra-

_____________

1 People vs. Undong, 66 SCRA 386; People vs. Tizon, 66 SCRA 372;
People vs. Echaluce, 66 SCRA 221; People vs. Berdida, et al., 17 SCRA 520;
People vs. Enot, 6 SCRA 325; People vs. Pajenado, 69 SCRA 172; People vs.
Abletes, 58 SCRA 241; People vs. Layson, 30 SCRA 92; People vs.
Lumantas, 28 SCRA 764; People vs. de Gracia, 18 SCRA 197.

310

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

People vs. San Pedro

tionale for merging the two aggravating circumstances,

than when, as in the crime of robbery with homicide, craft
has a very distinct application to the crime of robbery,
separate and independent of the homicide. Yet, it was held
that craft and treachery were separate and distinct
aggravating circumstances. The same ruling was
announced in People vs. Sakam, et al., 61 Phil. 27 (1934).
In People vs. Malig, 83 Phil. 804, (1949) craft which
consisted in luring the victim to another barrio, was
considered absorbed by treachery. This may be so because
craft enhanced the effectiveness of the means, method or
form adopted in the execution of the crime, one against
persons, “which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.” Even so, the Court
was divided in the inclusion or absorption of craft by
treachery. And again, the offense charged was one solely
against persons.
With the presence of two aggravating circumstances,
craft and treachery, it would make no difference even if the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction were
appreciated in appellant’s favor—which is even doubtful
from the fact alone, as was allegedly proven by the
testimony of ap-pellant that he cannot read and write but
can only sign his name (p. 9, t. s. n., Sept. 1, 1975). This,
apart from the fact that as held categorically in the case of
People vs. Enot, 6 SCRA 325 (1962) lack of instruction is
not applicable to crimes of theft and robbery, much less to
the crime of homicide. The reason is that robbery and
killing are, by their nature, wrongful acts, and are
manifestly so to the enlightened, equally as to the ignorant
(People vs. Salip Mania, et al., 30 SCRA 389 [1969]).
As recently held by this Court, speaking through Justice
Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., the “criteria in determining
lack of instruction is not illiteracy alone, but rather lack of
sufficient intelligence.” It is significant that neither to the
trial court nor to the appellant’s counsel has the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction entered the mind. No
attempt was made to prove it, as direct proof, not mere
inference, is required, and must be invoked in the court
below (People vs.

311

VOL. 95, JANUARY 22, 1980 311

People vs. San Pedro
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

Mongado, et al., 28 SCRA 642, [1969]), the reason being

that the trial court can best gauge a person’s level of
intelligence from his manner of answering questions in
court (People vs. Manuel, 29 SCRA 337 [1969]). If the trial
court did not consider the mitigating circumstance invoked
for the first time here on appeal, it must be because from
appellants testimony, and even more so from his given
occupation as a merchant (t.s.n., p. 3, Sept. 1, 1975), his
alleged lack of intelligence never suggested itself to the
trial court or to his lawyer, as entitling him to the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.
WHEREFORE, there being no error committed by the
trial court, its decision imposing the death penalty,
together with the indemnity awarded, has to be, as it is
hereby, affirmed.
SO ORDERED.

     Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Concepcion

Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro
and Melencio Herrera, JJ., concur.
     Fernando, C.J., did not take part.

AQUINO, J., Concur:

I concur in the result. Although Luisito San Pedro, Artemio

Banasihan, Rodrigo Esguerra, Nelson Piso and Antonio
Borja were charged with robbery with homicide in the
lower court (Salvador Litan was not included in the
charge), only
Banasihan and Piso were arrested and brought to trial.
Banasihan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death. Piso was convicted as an accessory. His
case is not under automatic review.
Esguerra was later apprehended. He pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
I think despoblado should also be considered
aggravating. The malefactors used the victim’s jeep to
bring him to an uninhabited place where he was killed with
impunity. Hence, the death penalty was properly imposed.
Decision Affirmed.
312

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. San Pedro

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

Notes.—Once an accused admits the killing of the

offended party, the burden shifts on him to establish his
exculpation or justification for the acts by clear,
satisfactory and convincing evidence. (People vs. Versola,
80 SCRA 600).
Craft is not clearly established where the evidence
showed that the accused and his companions, who came out
behind a patch of bamboo trees, did not camouflage their
hostile intentions at the incipiency of the attack as they
announced their presence at the scene of the crime with
shouts and gunshots. (People vs. Cunanan, 75 SCRA 15).
The act of testifying for the prosecution is considered a
mitigating circumstance analogous to a plea of guilty.
(People vs. Navasca, 76 SCRA 70).
Obfuscation is not mitigating when the evidence shows
that the commission of the crime was calmly meditated
before its execution. (People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570).
Nocturnity is aggravating only when specially sought by
the accused. (People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570).
The description in detail by a witness of how the victims
were first stripped of their clothes and thereafter attacked
by one with bamboo stick, first while standing, the latter
while already lying on the ground, until each of them died,
constitutes sufficient proof of corpus delicti. (People vs.
Taruc, 5 SCRA 132).
Corpus delicti may be sufficiently established by a skull
identified to be that of the deceased. (People vs. Pasilan, 14
SCRA 694).
Corpus delicti simply means the fact of the crime.
(People vs. Taruc, 16 SCRA 834).
Abuse of superior strength necessarily included in
treachery. (People vs. Undong, 66 SCRA 386).
There is abuse of superior strength where four accused
confronted victim with a bolo in the latter’s house at night
after the latter had just awakened from sleep and was not
armed. (People vs. Saliling, 69 SCRA 427).
Abuse of superior strength should always be considered
whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between
the
313

VOL. 95, JANUARY 22, 1980 313

Onchengco vs. City Court of Zamboanga

victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of

superiority of strength notoriously advantages for the
aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

commission of the crime. (People vs. Cabiling, 74 SCRA

285).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e23776618b7b93003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8