THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CAUSIANO ENOT AND PABLO VIÑALON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, Hon.
Mariano V. Benedicto, presiding, sentencing each of the accused
Causiano Enot and Pablo Viñalon to undergo the penalty of death for the
crime of robbery with multiple homicide and physical injuries.

The above-named accused, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to
the charges contained in the information filed against them, which
reads as follows.

“That on or about the 8th day of July, 1960, in the
barrio of San Jose, Municipality of Cataingan, Province of Masbate,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused conspiring together and helping each other, with
intent of gain and by means of violence and force upon things, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of
Macario Conje who was then sleeping with the members of his family and
once inside take and carry away one trunk belonging to Macario Conje
which said accused forcibly opened outside the house and from which
they took, stole and carried away therefrom assorted clothings and also
one fighting cock all Valued in the total amount of P35.00, to the
damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount; that on
the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them
to take, steal and carry away the articles above-mentioned, the herein
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and
with evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity, the use of superior strength, cruelty, abuse of confidence
and treachery—all with intent to kill, attack, assault and stab with
sharp bolos the persons of Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado, Monina
Conje, a minor Baby Conje, 7 months old and Santiaga Conje, 5 years old
and thereby inflicting upon Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado and
Monina Conje serious multiple wounds on the different parts of their
bodies and upon Saby Conje incise wound at the middle of the head
cutting the skull and brain which injuries directly caused their
instantaneous death; and upon Santiaga Conje incise wound in the left
leg below the knee joint which injury required medical attendance for a
period of from 15 to 20 days.”

After they had entered their plea of guilty, the accused were asked
by the judge if they understood the information as read to them, and
they both answered “Yes, sir”. However, in view of the seriousness of
the offense charged and the gravity of the penalty imposable therefor,
the trial judge, instead of immediately pronouncing sentence upon their
plea of guilty, propounded questions to both of them to assure himself.

The examination conducted by the judge himself in open court
established the following facts: The accused Causiano Enot and Pablo
Viñalon, having previously planned to rob the house of Macario Conje
located in the barrio of San Jose, Cataingan, Masbate, went up the said
house on the night of July 8, 1960, armed with bolos. Upon gaining
entrance thereto, they found therein Macario Conje, his wife Maximina
Arreglado, Santiaga Conje, 5 years, Monina Conje, a minor, and Baby
Conje, 7 months, all of whom were still awake, with the exception of
the last. Of those awake “some were sitting and some were lying down.”
Without provocation whatsoever, and in accordance with their plan to
assault the occupants to insure the perpetration of the crime they had
conspired to commit, the accused did then and there attack Macario
Conje, Maximina Arreglado, Monina Conje, Baby Conje, and Santiaga
Conje, by stabbing and hacking them with their bolos and inflicting
wounds on their persons, which brought instantaneous death to the first
four named and injury to the left leg just below the knee of Santiaga
Conje, which required 15 to 20 days of medical care. Having thus
eliminated possible obstacles to the accomplishment of their criminal
purpose of robbing the victims, the accused then proceeded to bring
outside the house one fighting cock and a trunk belonging to Macario
Conje, which trunk they forcibly opened and took therefrom assorted
clothing. All the things taken by them are valued in the amount of
P35.00.

The facts above set forth were voluntarily and spontaneously
admitted by the two accused before the trial judge. When the judge
asked them for the second time if they reiterate their plea of guilty,
and if they realized that the court could sentence them to any penalty
provided by law, the accused again answered in the affirmative.

On the basis of the admissions made by the accused, the court found
them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
multiple homicide and physical injuries, with the aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity, superior strength, treachery and evident
premeditation, with only one mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty,
and thereby sentenced them to the penalty of death. Capital punishment
having been imposed, the records of the case were forwarded to this
Court for review.

Defendants-appellants do not question the facts as found by the
trial judge, but doubt the propriety of the penalty imposed by him,
claiming that at most the penalty to which they should have been
sentenced is reclusion perpetua. They allege that the death
penalty was erroneously imposed because the trial court (1) did not
consider intoxication and lack of instruction or education as
mitigating circumstances; (2) considered noqturnity and abuse of
superior strength as distinct and separate from the aggravating
circumstance of treachery; and (3) considered evident premeditation as
an aggravating circumstance.

We have already held that to be available as a means to lighten the
penalty, the fact of intoxication must be proved to the satisfaction of
the court. (People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93, 101). In the case
at bar, defendants-appellants made no offer to show that during the
commission of the crime they were drunk to the point of losing the use
of their reason and self-control. Neither has it been shown that just
before they committed the crime defendants-appellants had in fact been
drinking. The extrajudicial confession of Pablo Viñalon found on page
30 of the record, which counsel for the defense brings to the attention
of this Court to prove that Viñalon was drunk during the commission of
the crime, may not be taken into account, not having been offered as an
exhibit. Besides, all that said confession states is that Viñalon had
been drinking tuba together with a certain Sulpicio Cuadera before he
repaired to the house of Macario Conje, without stating the amount or
quantity of liquor they had consumed, upon which the court could base
its finding as to the degree of their intoxication. (Ibid.) Hence the lower court acted rightly in not appreciating drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance in their favor.

The benefit of lack of instruction is likewise unavailing to
mitigate the crime committed by defendants-appellants as this
circumstance is not applicable to crimes of theft or robbery, and much
less to the crime of homicide, (U.S. vs. Pascual, 9 Phil. 491; People vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154; People vs. De la Cruz, 77 Phil. 444; People vs.
Mendova, 100 Phil., 811; 52 Off. Gaz. [7] 3574.) Needless to say, no
one, however unschooled he may be, is so ignorant as not to know that
theft or robbery, or assault upon the person of another, is inherently
wrong and a violation of the law.

However, nocturnity should not have been taken as an aggravating
circumstance separate and independent of that of treachery, the reason
being that nighttime forms part of the peculiar treacherous means and
manner adopted to insure the execution of the crime. (People vs. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 675, 677; People vs. Parde, 79 Phil. 568, 579; People vs. Bautista, 79 Phil. 652, 657; People vs. Magsilang, 82 Phil. 271, 275.)

The crime committed, that of robbery with multiple homicide and
physical injury, is aggravated by treachery, in that the accused took
advantage of nighttime to cover up their movements and commenced attack
on their victims at a time when the latter, unaware of their approach
and their intention, were in no position to offer any defense (People vs. Pengzon, 44 Phil. 224, 234; People vs.
Palomo, 43 Off. Gaz. No. 4190); by the use of superior strength and
disregard of the sex and age of the victims, the latter, with the
exception of Macario Conje, all being women, one only five years old,
another, a minor, and the third, a seven-month old baby (People vs.
Medina, 71 Phil. 383); by evident premeditation, in that prior to the
crime, they had conspired to rob the house of Macario Conje and to
assault and attack the occupants thereof if necessary to better
accomplish their purpose (People vs. Galang & Guzman, 73
Phil. 184, 198-200); and by dwelling, consisting in the violation of
the privacy of the home of the deceased Macario Conje and his family
(People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333, 340; People vs. Bautista, 79 Phil. 653, 657; People vs. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 480).

What has attracted the attention of the Court is the senseless
depravity with which the accused committed the offense. For no
conceivable reason, they hacked the head of the baby in two. The three
other victims were defenseless women who offered no resistance at all;
yet disregarding their helplessness, sex and tender age, defendants
stabbed and hacked them to death without mercy.

In view of the plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstances
which attended the commission of the crime, the Court is constrained to
affirm, as it hereby affirms, the death sentence imposed by the trial
judge upon each of the accused-appellants. Considering that the
decision of the lower court does not impose any indemnity for the death
of the victims, namely, Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado, Monina
Conje, and Baby Conje, the defendants-appellants are hereby sentenced
to pay jointly and severally the amount of P6,000 to the heirs of each
of the victims. Costs against defendants-appellants. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.