THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PRIMITIVO PINGA ALIAS TIBOY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PRIMITIVO PINCA ALIAS TIBOY AND PASCUALITO ADORA ALIAS LITOY, DEFENDA…

People versus Pinca

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Primitivo Pinca, also known as Tiboy, and Pascualito Adora, also known as Litoy, together with several co-accused. The two appellants, with their companions, were charged with the crime of robbery in band with multiple homicide and serious physical injuries, committed in the dead of night in a barrio of Gamay, Samar. They pleaded guilty to an amended information, and the trial court sentenced them to death. The case matters because it is a classic illustration of how the Revised Penal Code treats aggravating circumstances in a crime of robbery with homicide — which circumstances absorb one another, which stand alone, and how a plea of guilty offsets the aggravating circumstances in fixing the penalty.

Procedural History

The accused were charged before the Court of First Instance of Samar with robbery in band with multiple homicide and serious physical injuries. They voluntarily pleaded guilty to the amended information. The defense was then allowed to present evidence on claimed mitigating circumstances, namely lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, and incomplete self-defense. After receiving the evidence for the defense and the rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, the trial court rendered judgment. It found Primitivo Pinca and Pascualito Adora guilty of robbery with triple homicide and serious physical injuries, with three aggravating circumstances offset by only one mitigating circumstance, and sentenced them to death. The other accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The case came before the Supreme Court on automatic review because of the death penalty imposed on the two appellants. The other accused did not appeal.

Facts

In the early morning of October 18, 1958, in sitio Cadahonan, Gamay, Samar, a group of armed men forcibly entered the house of Ambrosio Montallana by passing through a hole in the kitchen, an opening not intended for entrance or egress. Inside, they attacked the occupants. Ambrosio Montallana, Donato Arceno, and Gregorio Ortiz were shot and hacked, causing their instantaneous death. Teodoro Montallana, a ten-year-old child, was seriously wounded on his left ear, involving the mastoid process, with internal squint of both eyes and loss of hearing in his left ear. Virginia Tan de Montallana, the wife of Ambrosio, was tied to a post and threatened with death if she did not reveal where the money was hidden. The malefactors took cash and jewelry and personal effects with a total value of five thousand two hundred ninety-seven pesos.

According to the testimony of Primitivo Pinca, he and Pascualito Adora planned the robbery without the knowledge of the other accused. They waited under the coconut trees until the household had retired, and then entered through the kitchen hole. Pinca fired successive shots at Montallana with a carbine, and also shot the two other men, after which Adora hacked them with a bolo. Pinca claimed that it was not his intention to kill the victims, that he repented, that he voluntarily confessed, and that he pointed out to the soldiers where the firearms and ammunition were hidden. Adora confirmed the testimony and admitted that he told Pinca of Montallana's wealth.

The trial court rejected the claimed mitigating circumstances of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and incomplete self-defense, holding that one who fires several shots and strikes several blows with a bolo cannot claim that his intention was not to commit so grave a wrong, and that there was no unlawful aggression to support incomplete self-defense. The only mitigating circumstance found in favor of the appellants was the plea of guilty.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place as separate and distinct from nighttime.
• Whether or not treachery absorbed the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
• Whether or not the three aggravating circumstances should be taken only as one because they absorb each other, so that, with the plea of guilty, the proper penalty should be life imprisonment rather than death.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 8 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

This is the provision the Court applies when it holds that the crime was committed with the aid of armed men, since at least the two appellants were armed with a carbine and a bolo when the five accused perpetrated the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place, known in the law as despoblado, does not exist in this case. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling, however, is present, because the crime was committed inside the house of the victim. The Court explained that dwelling and scaling are aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide, since the crime could have been committed without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of the victim. Here, the victims were killed inside the house of Montallana after the appellants gained entrance through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.

On the second issue, the Court held that nighttime and treachery always go together and are absorbed in the same offense, except in special cases. Nighttime cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance independent of treachery and abuse of superior strength. The Court also held that abuse of superior strength is not treachery, although it may be absorbed by the latter, and that if treachery is present, it may absorb superior strength. In this case, treachery cannot be successfully disputed, because the position of the wounds clearly reveals that the victims were shot in their sleep, and the bullet holes on the floor are mute but eloquent proofs that the victims were at least lying down and not standing when shot.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime was committed with the aid of armed men, since at least the two appellants were armed with a carbine and a bolo when the five accused perpetrated the crime. The Court concluded that there exist three aggravating circumstances, namely dwelling, treachery, and the crime was committed with the aid of armed men. These three aggravating circumstances are offset by one mitigating circumstance, the plea of guilty, thereby justifying the imposition of the capital punishment upon the appellants. The Court added that the whole record shows a criminal perversity which entitles the State to demand the forfeiture of the appellants' right to live, in the name of peace, order, and retributory justice.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, uninhabited place, or despoblado, is not present where the crime is committed in a dwelling; dwelling, however, is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide because the crime could have been committed without violating the domicile of the victim. Second, nighttime and treachery always go together and are absorbed in the same offense, except in special cases; nighttime cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance independent of treachery and abuse of superior strength. Third, abuse of superior strength is not treachery, although it may be absorbed by the latter; if treachery is present, it may absorb superior strength. Fourth, the crime is committed with the aid of armed men under paragraph 8 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code when the malefactors are armed in the perpetration of the crime. Finally, a plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance that may offset the aggravating circumstances in fixing the penalty.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that nighttime and treachery always go together and are absorbed in the same offense, except in special cases, while dwelling and the aid of armed men stand as separate aggravating circumstances. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a candidate can distinguish which aggravating circumstances absorb one another and how a plea of guilty offsets them in a crime of robbery with homicide.