Facts:

In the case of The United States vs. Cornelio Devela et al., the defendants, Cornelio Devela and Silvestre Absolio, were charged with robbery with homicide under clause No. 1, article 503 of the Penal Code. The incident occurred on September 22, 1903, near the shore of the Sabang River. The victim, Luis Oleta, was sent by his employer to deliver 500 pesos to a store in the town of Mauban. While en route, Oleta was approached by the defendants, who were armed with a bolo and a dagger. Upon seeing that Oleta was carrying money, they demanded he hand it over. Oleta resisted by throwing a stone at Absolio, which led to a violent confrontation. The defendants attacked Oleta, inflicting seven wounds, six of which were fatal. The prosecution's case relied on the statements made by the defendants during their capture and the testimony of Absolio during the trial. Absolio admitted that they intended to rob Oleta and that he struck the first blow. The trial court found ...

Facts:

Background of the Case:

• The defendants, Cornelio Devela and Silvestre Absolio, were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide under clause No. 1, article 503 of the Penal Code.
• They were found guilty by the Court of First Instance on September 22, 1903, and sentenced to death.

The Crime:

• Luis Oleta, the deceased, was sent by his master to deliver 500 pesos to a store in Mauban.
• While traveling near the Sabang River, the defendants, armed with a bolo and dagger, approached Oleta and demanded the money.
• Oleta resisted by throwing a stone at Absolio, striking him on the thigh.
• The defendants attacked Oleta, inflicting seven wounds, six of which were fatal.

Defendants' Testimony:

• Silvestre Absolio testified that he and Devela had gone out to retrieve clothes from a tailor when they encountered Oleta carrying money.
• They decided to rob him, and when Oleta resisted, they attacked him with a bolo until the money fell, which they then seized and fled.
• Absolio stated that Devela was the first to wound Oleta.

Evidence Presented:

• The prosecution relied on statements made by the defendants at the time of their capture and Absolio’s testimony during the trial.
• It was unclear whether the bolo used by Devela was an ordinary working tool or a prohibited weapon.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. On Alevosia:

   • Alevosia requires that the crime be committed using means, methods, or forms that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to the perpetrator.
   • The attack on Oleta was sudden and without premeditation, and there was no evidence that the defendants employed methods to ensure their safety, such as lying in wait or attacking from behind.
   • Oleta’s resistance (throwing a stone) showed that the attack was not entirely without risk to the defendants.

2. On Despoblado:

   • There was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place.
   • The brother of the deceased arrived shortly after the attack, and law enforcement pursued the defendants soon after, indicating the area was not entirely isolated.

3. On Abuse of Superior Strength:

   • The mere fact that two defendants attacked one victim does not automatically constitute abuse of superior strength.
   • The court found no marked difference in physical strength or the use of means to weaken the defense, as required under article 10, No. 9 of the Penal Code.

4. On Penalty:

   • In the absence of aggravating circumstances, the crime of robbery with homicide should be punished in its medium degree, which is life imprisonment.
   • The trial court erred in applying the maximum penalty of death.

Dissenting Opinion (Willard, J.):

• Justice Willard dissented, arguing that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength existed.
• He cited previous decisions of the court and the Spanish Supreme Court to support his view that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.