PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE REPATO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Repato

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Jose Repato, known as Peping, and his companion Francisco de la Cruz, known as Pancit, tried for the robbery and killing of an old American Navy pensioner in his isolated house in Marikina, Rizal, on the night of August 14, 1960. The action is a criminal prosecution for robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, and it reaches us on automatic review because the trial court imposed the death penalty. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should carry into the examination room: it shows how the Court treats the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, which must be purposely sought, and it shows that in robbery with homicide, treachery is only a generic aggravating circumstance that does not raise the killing from homicide to murder.

Procedural History

The two accused were charged before the Court of First Instance at Rizal, Branch Two. At arraignment, De la Cruz pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly, leaving Repato to stand trial alone. After trial, the court convicted Repato of robbery with homicide, found two aggravating circumstances, namely nighttime and the deliberate killing of the victim, and imposed the death penalty, with an indemnity of six thousand pesos to the heirs, the amount of the unrecovered watch, the cash taken, and a proportionate share of the costs. Repato appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning three errors against the judgment. While the appeal was pending, Repato escaped from the New Bilibid Prison on August 4, 1968, and remained at large, but the Court held that his escape did not affect the automatic review of the judgment of conviction.

Facts

Before the incident, Repato and De la Cruz lived with one Clemente Hermogene in a bodega at a construction project in Balara, Quezon City, where construction materials were stored. In the evening of August 14, 1960, Hermogene saw Repato take a carbine from under the box they used as a bed, clean it, dismantle it, wrap the pieces in a paper cement bag, insert the bundle among pieces of wood, and place it in a buri bag secured by De la Cruz. The two went out although it was rainy and stormy, and returned after midnight carrying a leather valise instead of the bayong they had brought.

The next morning, the Marikina police received a report that Francisco Bernal, an ex-Navy man and pensioner of the United States government, had been shot and robbed the previous night in his isolated house in Mapunso, Parang, Marikina. The police found him lying face downward in the sala, his hands tied behind his back with galvanized wire. Several articles were missing, including an Omega wrist watch engraved with his name, a pair of binoculars, polo shirts, trousers, a leather trunk, a traveling bag, a brief case, and cash. The autopsy showed that death was caused by hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds.

On August 16, 1960, Repato went to the house of his cousin Artemio Damio in Aguilar, Pangasinan, bringing a valise, a traveling bag, several pairs of pants, binoculars, a jacket, and a gun. He told Damio that he and others had robbed and killed a man in Marikina, and showed him a newspaper of August 16, 1960 carrying the picture of the dead man. Damio jotted the serial number of the carbine on the back of a bus ticket, and later surrendered the letter Repato wrote him from the provincial jail, the trunk, and the binoculars to the authorities. Ballistics examination showed that an evidence bullet had been fired from the carbine marked as the prosecution's exhibit.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Hermogene and Damio.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in refusing to give full faith and credit to the testimonies of Repato and his co-accused De la Cruz.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Repato of robbery with homicide and imposing upon him the death penalty.
• Whether or not nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.
• Whether or not treachery attended the killing, and if so, whether it qualifies the homicide to murder in robbery with homicide.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidating of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the provision under which Repato was convicted, and it fixes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, which the Court then graduated according to the aggravating circumstances present.

The decision also adopts the definition of treachery from the Revised Penal Code, thus:

Employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This definition governs the Court's finding that the killing of the bound victim was treacherous, and therefore attended by a generic aggravating circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in crediting Hermogene and Damio. There is no incongruity between a clean-cut appearance and working in a construction project. Dismantling the carbine was necessary so that it would fit in the buri bag and be inconspicuous among the pieces of wood, showing precaution to avoid suspicion. That a man makes a clean breast of a crime to a relative is not unusual, and Damio's act of preserving the serial number on a bus ticket is a civic-spirited act to be commended, not viewed with cynicism. The general rule is that the relationship of a witness to a victim does not render clear and positive testimony less worthy of full faith and credit, and absent credible proof of improper motive, it is presumed that witnesses would not impute so grave an offense unless it were true.

On the second issue, the Court found no error. De la Cruz recanted his sworn statement but offered no proof of intimidation, and the presumption of regularity was granted to the officer who took it. His claim that the carbine was not the weapon used was demolished by the ballistics finding. As to Repato, the Court upheld the trial court's reliance on the authenticity of his letter to Damio, and reiterated the settled rule that where the issue is credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, which heard the witnesses and observed their manner of testifying, unless it plainly overlooked facts of substance that might affect the result.

On the third issue, the Court held that the evidence showed the accused intended from the very start to commit robbery, and killed to insure the absence of any witness. De la Cruz himself admitted that after they got the things, Repato shot the Navy man, and Repato told Damio that they had robbed and killed him.

On the fourth issue, the Court refused to appreciate nighttime, because the prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the conspirators purposely sought the cover of nighttime, or that it facilitated the commission of the crime.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the killing of the victim after his hands were tied was treacherous, since the means tended directly to insure the consummation of the crime without risk to the aggressors, the victim being bound and unable to defend himself. But in robbery with homicide, treachery is only a generic aggravating circumstance and is not qualifying; it does not change the qualification of homicide to murder. Since the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, and there is present one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

Doctrine

First, in robbery with homicide, treachery is only a generic aggravating circumstance and is not qualifying; it does not change the qualification of homicide to murder. Second, there is treachery when the victim is first bound before being killed, because such means tend directly to insure the consummation of the crime without risk to the aggressors. Third, nighttime is appreciated as an aggravating circumstance only when the prosecution shows that the offender purposely sought it or that it facilitated the commission of the crime. Fourth, where the penalty prescribed by law is composed of two indivisible penalties and there is one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. Fifth, the relationship of a witness to the victim does not render clear and positive testimony less worthy of full faith and credit, and the findings of the trial court on credibility are generally not disturbed on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, imposing upon Repato the penalty of death, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased was raised to twelve thousand pesos, in addition to the amounts already ordered.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in robbery with homicide, treachery is only a generic aggravating circumstance and does not qualify the killing to murder. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances, and to test when nighttime may properly be appreciated.