G.R. No. L-34291 February 12, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADRIANO LEVA Y CRUZ, accused.

FACTS

The case involves the automatic review of the death penalty imposed on Adriano Leva for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The victim, Augusto Gamban, was fatally stabbed near his residence on April 5, 1971. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on Leva’s extrajudicial confession, wherein he admitted being present during the incident. In his confession, Leva stated that his companions, Totoy Musang and Benjamin Salazar, initiated a holdup against Gamban, and it was Totoy Musang who stabbed the victim when he resisted. Leva claimed he ran away afterward. No eyewitness to the crime was presented. The defense presented an alibi, with Leva testifying he was in Pangasinan at the time and that his confession was extracted through police intimidation and maltreatment.
Attorney Pedro Espino, the victim’s father-in-law, testified that Gamban’s college ring and cash were missing after the killing. However, the trial court, presided by Judge Manuel R. Pamaran, convicted Leva of consummated robbery with homicide based on his confession, finding the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority, and imposed the death penalty. Notably, in a separate subsequent trial, Judge Pamaran acquitted Totoy Musang (Eusebio Lopez, Jr.), the alleged actual killer identified in Leva’s confession, on grounds of reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Adriano Leva of the consummated crime of robbery with homicide based on his extrajudicial confession and circumstantial evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of evidence to prove the element of consummated robbery beyond reasonable doubt. While Leva’s confession was admissible and established his participation in an attempted holdup that resulted in homicide, it did not conclusively prove that property was actually taken. The Court found the testimony regarding missing items (a ring and cash) to be inadequate, as it came from a witness who did not see the robbery occur, and the official police report only mentioned the ring. The confession itself detailed an attempt that was thwarted when the victim resisted. Therefore, the crime committed was Attempted Robbery with Homicide, not the consummated special complex crime. Under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Attempted Robbery with Homicide is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Considering Leva was a co-conspirator, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction to Attempted Robbery with Homicide and sentenced Leva to reclusion perpetua, with an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the victim’s heirs.