9/18/2016

G.R.No.L32040

TodayisSunday,September18,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L32040October25,1977
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
PEDROPAGALyMARCELINOandJOSETORCELINOyTORAZO,defendantsappellants.
SolicitorGeneralFelixQ.Antonio,AssistantSolicitorGeneralCrispinV.BautistaandSolicitorLeonardoL.Cruz
forappellee.
CiriacoLopez,Jr.forappellants.

CONCEPCION,JR.J.:

t . h q w

InCriminalCaseNo.CCCVI5(70)oftheCircuitCriminalCourtofManila,theaccused,PedroPagalyMarcelino
andJoseTorcelinoyTorazowerechargedwiththecrimeofrobberywithhomicide,committedasfollows:
+ . w p h !1

ThatonoraboutDecember26,1969,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused,conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
andfeloniously,withintenttogain,andbymeansofviolence,takeawayfromthepersonofoneGau
Guan,cashamountingPl,281.00.Philippinecurrency,tothedamageandprejudiceofthesaidGau
GuaninthesaidsumofPl,281.00thatontheoccasionofthesaidrobberyandforthepurposeof
enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said amount of P1,281.00, the herein accused, in
pursuanceoftheirconspiracy,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,withintenttokill
and taking advantage of their superior strength, treacherously attack, assault and use personal
violenceuponthesaidGauGuan,bythenandtherestabbinghimwithanicepickandclubbinghim
withanironpipeondifferentpartsofhisbody,therebyinflictinguponhimmortalwoundswhichwere
thedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeaththereafter.
Contrarytolaw,andwiththegenericaggravatingcircumstancesof(1)nightimepurposelysoughtto
betteraccomplishtheircriminaldesign(2)evidentpremeditation(3)indisregardoftherespectdue
the offended party and (4) with abuse of confidence, the accused being then employees of the
offendedparty.1
Whenthecasewascalledforaffaigmnent,counseldeoficiofortheaccusedinfomredsaidcourtoftheirintention
to enter a plea of guilty provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of
sufficientprovocationorthreatonthepartoftheoffendedpartyimmediatelyprecedingtheact,andthatofhaving
acteduponanimpulsesopowerfulastoproducepassionandobfuscation. 2Therafter,thetrialjudgepropoundedto
themthequestionsandtheaccusedgavetheanswersquotedhereunder:

+ . w p h !1

Court:
Your lawyer here has manifested your desire to enter a plea of guilty to the offense
charged,robberywithhomicide.Doyouknowthatbyagreeingtothatmanifestationof
yourlawyer,youwillbeadmittingthecommissionofthecrimecharged?
Accused:
Weagree,yourhonor,towhatourlawyersaid,butwewouldliketoexplainsomething.
Court:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/oct1977/gr_32040_1977.html

1/5

9/18/2016

G.R.No.L32040

Yourlawyerherehasstatedthatyouwillstillprovemitigatingcircumstances.Isthatwhat
youliketoexplain?
Accused:
Yes,yourhonor.
Court:
Ifthatisthecase,Iwillgiveyouachance.
Accused:
Yes,yourhonor.
Court:
Do you know that by agreeing to that manifestation, you will be admitting the
commissionofthecrimecharged,robberywit,.homicide?
Accused:
Yes,yourhonor.
Court:
Andforwhichthiscourtmightsentenceyoutodeathorlifeimprisonment?
Accused:
Yes,yourhonor.
Court:
And notwithstanding what is explained to you, you still insist in your desire to enter a
pleaofguiltytotheoffensecharged?
Accused:
Yes,yourhonor.
Court:
QNotwithstandingagainthewarningofthecourtthatthemaximumpenaltyimpossable
isdeath?
AYes,yourhonor.
Court:
Arraigntheaccused.
(Atthisstage,bothaccusedwerearraignedandbothpleadedguiltytotheoffensecharged).3
Thereafter,theaccusedpresentedevidencetoprovethemitigatingcircumstancesofsufficientprovocationonthe
partofthevictimimmediatelyprecedingtheactandactinguponanimpulsesopowerfulastoproducepassion
and obfuscation. After the accused had rested their case, the prosecution presented the statements 4 of the
accused,andotherpertinentdocumentsregardingtheinvestigationofthecase.5

Afterthetrial,thecourtaquorendereditsdecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:

+ . w p h !1

WHEREFORE,bothaccusedareherebyfoundguiltybeyondreasaonabledoubtasprincipalsofthe
crimeofrobberywithhomicideandtherebeingproventheaggravatingcircumstancesofnighttime,
evident premeditation and disregard of respect due the offended party offset only by the mitigating
circumstance of their plea of guilty, sentences each one of them to DEATH, jointly and severally
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Gau Guan P15,000.00 for moral damages P15,000.00 for
exemplary damages, all amounts to bear interest until they shall have been fully paid the sum of
P1,281.00represntingtheamounttakenfromthevictimandtopayproportionatelythecosts.6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/oct1977/gr_32040_1977.html

2/5

9/18/2016

G.R.No.L32040

The case is now before this Court for mandatory review on account of the death penalty imposed upon the
accused.
The appellant Pedro Pagal contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime of robbery with
homicideinsteadofdeclaringhimliableonlyforhisindividualacts,claimingthattherecordisbereftofanyproof
orevidencethatheandhiscoappellantJoseTorcelinoconspiredtocommitthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide.
Theappellant'spositionisnotwelltaken.HisdenialofconspiracywithhiscoappellantJoseTorcelinocannotbe
givencredenceinviewoftheclearandconvincingconfessionofhisguiltinhisstatement7signedbyhimbeforethe
policeinvestigatorsseveralhoursafterthecommissionofthecrime.Besides,whenhepleadedguiltytothecharge,heis
deemedtohaveadmittedallthematerialfactsallegedintheinformation. 8Byhisplea,theappellantadmittednotonlythe
commissionofthecrimebutalsothecircumstancessurroundingitscommission,includingtheallegationsofconspiracy.A
plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even for a capital offense without
the introduction of further evidence, 9 the requisite proofs having been supplied by the accused himself. 10 We find,
therefore, that the trial court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant Pedro pagal of the crime of robbery with
homicide.

The appellants further assail the trial court in not appreciating in their favor the mitigating circumstances of
sufficientprovocation,andpassionorobfuscation.
Again, the appeflants'contention is devoid of merit. Firstly, since the alleged provocation which caused the
obfuscationoftheappellantsarosefromthesameincident,thatis,theallegedmaltreatmentand/orilltreatment
oftheappellantsbythedeceased,thesetwomitigatingcircumstancescannotbeconsideredastwodistinctand
separate circumstances but should be treated as one. 11 Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation
cannot be mitigating in a crime which as in the case at bar is planned and calmly meditated before its execution.
Thus, in People vs. Daos, 12 a case of robbery with homicide, this Court rejected the claim of the appellants therein that
passion and obfuscation should have been estimated in their favor, because the death of the victim therein took place on
theoccasionofarobbery,which,beforeitsexecut,.on,hadbeenplannedandcalmlymeditatedbytheappellants.Thirdly,
themaltreatmentthatappellantsclaimthevictimtohavecommittedagainstthemoccurredmuchearlierthanthedateofthe
commission of the crime. Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately
proceeding the act. We hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not appreciating the said mitigating
circumstancesinfavoroftheappellants.

Finally, the appellants claim that the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
evidentpremeditation,anddisregardoftherespectduetheoffendedpartyonaccountofhisrankandage.
Although the trial court correctly considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the same was
purposely and deliberately sought by the a,)pellants to facilitate the commission of the crime, nevertheless, We
disagreewithitsconclusionthatevidentpremeditationanddisregardoftherespectduetheoffendedpartywere
presentinthecommissionofthecrime.
Evidentpremeditationisinherentinthecrimeofrobbery. 13However,inthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide,ifthereis
evident premeditation to kill besides stealing, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. 14 In other words, evident
premeditationwillonlybeaggravatinginacomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideifitisprovedthattheplanisnotonlyto
rob, but also to kill. 15 In the case at bar, a perusal of the written statements 16 of the appellants before the police
investigatorsshowthattheiroriginalplanwasonlytorob,andthat,theykilledthedeceasedonlywhenthelatterrefusedto
openthe"kahadeyero",andfoughtwiththem.Thetrialcourt,therefore,erredintakingintoconsiderationtheaggravating
circumstanceofevidentpremeditation.

The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offendedpartyonaccountofhisrank,ageorsexmaybetakenintoaccountonlyincrimesagainstpersonsor
honor,wheninthecommissionofthecrimethereissomeinsultordisrespectshowntorank,age,orsex. 17ltis
not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. 18 Robbery with homicide is primarily a
crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main
purposeandobjectofthecriminal.19Thetrialcourterredintakingintoaccountthisaggravatingcircumstance.

It results that in the commission of the crime, there is only generic aggravating circumstance, i.e., nighttime or
nocturnity.
Robbery with homicide is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. 20 Since the aggravating circumstance of
nighttimeisoffsetbythemitigatingcircumstanceofpleaofguilty,thelesserpenalty,whichisreclusionperpetua,shouldbe
imposedupontheappellants.21

ACCORDINGLY,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtismodifiedandtheappellntsPedroPagalyMarcelinoandJose
TorcefinoyTorazoareherebysentencedtosuffereachthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Inallotherrespects,
thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Withcostsagainsttheappellants.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/oct1977/gr_32040_1977.html

3/5

9/18/2016

G.R.No.L32040

SOORDERED.
Castro,C.J.,Fernando,Aquino,Martin,Santos,FernandezandGuerrero,JJ.,concur.

1 w p h 1 . t

TeehankeeandMakasiar,JJ.,concurintheresult.
Antonio,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions
MUOZPALMA,J.,concuring:
IwouldstatehoweverthattherulingsinPeoplevs.PareteandPeoplevs.Santos,etal.,citedinpage7ofthe
Opinion must be taken in conjunction with recent jurisprudence that extra solicitous care is required in the
admissionofapleaofguiltyandthatthetakingoftestimonyandotherevidencenotwithstandingapleaofguiltyis
theprudentandpropercoursetofollowbytrialjudges.(Peoplevs.Villafuerte,March28,1974,citingnumerous
casesPeoplevs.Hondolero,August25,1976).Thesesafeguardsappeartohavebeentakenintheinstantcase.
BARREDO,J.,concurring:
WhileIamnotfullysatisfiedthatappellantswereentirelyawareofthemeaningoftheirpleaofguilty,Ifindthat
therebuttalevidenceoftheprosecutionprovedtheirguilt,whichevidencetheappellantsdidnotdispute.

SeparateOpinions
MUOZPALMA,J.,concuring:
IwouldstatehoweverthattherulingsinPeoplevs.PareteandPeoplevs.Santos,etal.,citedinpage7ofthe
Opinionmustbetakeninconjunctionwithrecentjurisprudencethatextrasolicitouscareisrequiredinthe
admissionofapleaofguiltyandthatthetakingoftestimonyandotherevidencenotwithstandingapleaofguiltyis
theprudentandpropercoursetofollowbytrialjudges.(Peoplevs.Villafuerte,March28,1974,citingnumerous
casesPeoplevs.Hondolero,August25,1976).Thesesafeguardsappeartohavebeentakenintheinstantcase.
BARREDO,J.,concurring:
WhileIamnotfullysatisfiedthatappellantswereentirelyawareofthemeaningoftheirpleaofguilty,Ifindthat
therebuttalevidenceoftheprosecutionprovedtheirguilt,whichevidencetheappellantsdidnotdispute.
Footnotes

+ . w p h !1

1p.2,Record.
2p.3,t.s.n.,January8,1970.
3pp.34,t.s.n.,January8,1970.
4Exhibits"A"&"B",pp.4,7,Record.
5Exhibits"C","D","E","F"and"F1",pp.9,10,11,14,15,Record.
6pp.2627,Record.
7Exhibit"B",supra.
8Peoplevs.Roldan,L22030,May29,1968,23SCRA907Peoplevs.Arpa,L26789,April25,
1969,29SCRA1037.
9Peoplevs.Perete,1SCRA1290.
10Peoplevs.SantosandVicente,103Phil.40.
11Peoplevs.Reyes,L33154,February27,1976,69SCRA474.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/oct1977/gr_32040_1977.html

4/5

9/18/2016

G.R.No.L32040

1260Phil.143.
13U.S.vs.Blanco,10Phil.298Peoplevs.Daos,60Phil.143Peoplevs.Pulido,85Phil.695
Peoplevs.Valeriano,90phil.15.
14Peoplevs.Nabual,L127758,July14,1969,28SCRA747.
15Peoplevs.Atencio,L22513,Jan.17,1968,22SCRA88.
16Exhibits"A"and"B",pp.4,7,Record.
17Albert,RevisedPenalCode,1946Ed.,p.109Reyes,RevisedPenalCode,1974Ed.,Vol.I,p.
297.
18Aquino,RevisedPenalCode,1976Ed.,Vol.I,p.286,citingU.S.vs.Samonte,8Phil.286.
19Ibid,Vol.III,1976Ed.,p.1434,citingU.S.vs.Ipil,27Phil.530,535.
20Article294,par1revisedPenalCode.
21Article63,(4)and(2),RevisedPenalCode.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/oct1977/gr_32040_1977.html

5/5