G.R. No. L-49831 June 27, 1990 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA, ALFREDO ENDENCIO Y SALVADOR and REYNALDO RUGA Y RESURRECCION alias REYNALDO BUSTAMANTE Y MUTAS, defendants. ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA, defendant-appellant. This case involves the dastardly killing of an old couple in Forbes Park and their housemate and serious injury to a daughter in the course of a robbery of a wristwatch worth P100.00 and a transistor radio worth P60.00. It reached this Court on mandatory review of the judgment promulgated on 10 August 1977 by the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, 1 convicting the accused of the crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and imposing the penalties of three death sentences for each of the accused. Facts:
On July 29, 1977, the accused met at the residence of Reynaldo Ruga at Quezon City, and planned to buy a motorcycle to rob the residence of the Gonzaga family. Emesto Ga withdrew from Savings Bank of Manila and they bought a kitchen knife and a dagger. Thereafter, the three went to the Ocean Theater to plan the robbery and agreed to kill who ever will stop them. When they went out of the movie house in the evening of the same day, they bought whiskey and proceeded to the Gonzaga residence in Forbes Park. They invited Bonifacio Marteja, Andres Laxion and Francisco Melorin to a drinking spree in the servants' quarters of the Gonzaga residence. They drank until midnight. Endencio gave Ga a signal to start their plan; he then declared hold up as he pulled the knife from his bag. Alfredo Endencio took some pieces of cord and torn clothes and hog-tied Larion, Marteja and Melorin, and the accused went out to proceed to the main door of the entrance of said residence. Due to their failure to open the entrance, they went back to the servants' quarters and took Bonifacio Marteja with them to lead them in entering inside the Gonzaga residence. Inside the servants'quarters, they saw Larion being unruly and scandalous, and fearing that neighbors would hear them, they gagged him, and then, Endencio kicked Larion on his body, and when Ernesto Ga saw blood coming out from the mouth of Andres Larion, he stabbed Larion on his stomach with the use of the dagger. Endencio got the key from Marteja and he managed to enter the residence thru the back door. Later on, the three accused, together with Bonifacio Marteja, who was stin hog-tied, entered the room of Ester Gonzaga, but upon seeing that she is cripple, they did not harm her. Then, they entered the masters' bedroom, leaving Ruga behind to guard Ester Gonzaga; that when Alfredo Endencio saw that Dona Juliana Gonzaga was awake, he shouted to Ga that she was awake, and then Endencio approached Doiia Juliana and stabbed her mercilessly with the kitchen knife. Don Julio Gonzaga, who was sleeping on the other bed inside the masters' bedroom, was awakened by the violence. He was met by Ernesto Ga and was told to calm down. But Rogelia Gonzaga came rushing towards her parent's room, shouting. Because of that reaction, Ernesto Ga stabbed Don Julio with a dagger and after stabbing him, rushed to the door where accused Endencio, who also met Don Juho, who was then going out of the bedroom, stabbed Juho Gonzaga also. The accused Endencio and Ga met Rogelia Gonzaga [by] the door and they also stabbed her on the face and several parts of her body. Rogelia Gonzaga, though wounded, managed to call the Forbes Park security guards for help. Lt. Lope Celestial and Victorino Sindayon and Cesario Pabillaran called the Makati Medical Center ambulance that took Rogelia Gonzaga and Dofia Juliana Gonzaga to the said hospital.
The weapons used by Emesto Ga and Alfredo Endencio were thrown by them near the concrete wall of the Gonzaga residence and at the servants'quarters, and they managed to escape. They spent the night at the ground floor of the residence of Mr. Malulis, unnoticed by the occupants; early next morning, they jumped off the wall of that residence and fled.

Issue: Appellant questions only the application of certain aggravating circumstances and the exclusion of some mitigating circumstances by the courta quo, which found the facts attendant to the commission of the crime charged Ruling: As to the seventh assigned error, appellant assails the failure of the trial court to consider his minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance inspire of the presentation of his birth certificate (Exhibit 1-Ga) and baptismal certificate (Exh. 5-Ga) indicating that he was born on 1 August 1960, and therefore one day short of his 17th birthday at the time of the commission of the offense. While appellant cites the Court of Appeals case of People v. Ibaez Jr., 37 to show that the birth certificate would be the best evidence of age, the Solicitor General points out that the birth certificate was discredited by the trial court because it was full of erasures and alterations. 38 We understand, then, why the trial court had to resort to the Social Security System Identification card (Exh. "D"), the driver's license (Exh. "N"), and the Medicare Identification card (Exh. "O") of appellant, all of which show that he was bom on 1 August 1956. Therefore, as proven by other equally admissible and more competent evidence indicating that when appellant committed the crime he was 20 years, 11 months and 29 days old, minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code should not be considered in his favor. Regarding the penultimate assigned error on the entitlement of the appellant to the benefits under Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, suffice it to say that, in any event, recourse to the benefit of a suspended sentence as a youthful offender in accordance with said law has become moot and academic inasmuch as appellant is now above 21 years of age, and the rule is that if an accused reaches the age of majority during appeal, he is no longer entitled to a suspended sentence. The lower court, however, was in error when it convicted the accused of "the crimes of Robbery with Triple Homicide, and Frustrated Homicide," and in imposing on each of the accused the death penalty three times. We reiterate at this point Our ruling in People v. Cario, 45 that there is no crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The term 'Homicide' in paragraph 1, Art. 294 is to be understood in its generic sense. It includes murder and slight physical injuries committed during the occasion of the robbery wmeh crimes are merged in the crime of robbery with homicide as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Saquing, 30 SCRA 834)." Notwithstanding the fact that three persons were killed and one seriously injured in the commission of the robbery, the charge should have been only for robbery with homicide.