THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DALMACIO SABENORIO, ROLANDO SABENORIO AND TORIBIO ORTIZ, DEFENDANTS (AT LARGE), ESTEBAN ANGCON, DEFENDANT WHOSE DEATH SENT…

People versus Angcon

The Case

This is the automatic review of a death sentence. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Esteban Angcon, together with his brother Policarpo Angcon and three companions, for robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries arising from a nighttime raid on the house of Melecio Marentes in Calubian, Leyte, in which Marentes was shot dead and three thousand pesos were taken. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows the limits of what a trial court may do when the information charges a special complex crime, it shows how the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and evident premeditation operate in robbery with homicide, and it shows the Court imposing the extreme penalty even while acknowledging the Solicitor General's plea for mercy.

Procedural History

Esteban Angcon and his brother Policarpo were tried by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Tacloban City, Branch Seven. The trial court convicted them of robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries and sentenced Esteban to death, ordering him to pay an indemnity of nine thousand pesos to the heirs of Melecio Marentes. Policarpo died during the pendency of the case. Because the penalty imposed was death, the decision was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review, and it is that review which produced this decision. The Sabenorio brothers and Toribio Ortiz remained at large.

Facts

In the afternoon of Sunday, December 6, 1964, Esteban Angcon was at the cockpit with his younger brother Policarpo and their companions Dalmacio Sabenorio, Lando Sabenorio and Dioso Ortiz. They agreed to rob Melecio Marentes because he had received, in Esteban's own words in his confession, plenty of money from the sale of his land. Thirteen days earlier, Prudencio Esmero had paid two thousand eight hundred twenty pesos to Gregoria Casas, the victim's wife, as part payment for an eight hectare parcel of land, and that payment formed the major part of the three thousand pesos later taken.

At seven o'clock in the evening the five men went to the Marentes house at Sitio Bunacan, Barrio Villalon. Dalmacio fired at the lock and Dioso pounded it with a piece of wood. The men entered. Esteban shot Marentes, who was kneeling and pleading for mercy while his wife begged that his life be spared. Marentes died from a gunshot wound in the chest that perforated his left lung and the ventricles of his heart. The robbers took three thousand pesos from an overnight bag and entrusted the money to Dalmacio, who gave Esteban no share.

Esteban signed an extrajudicial confession in the Cebuano dialect taken by the chief of police and sworn before the municipal mayor, and Policarpo signed a similar one. At trial the brothers claimed they had been maltreated, but the chief of police and the mayor testified that the confessions were executed without violence, coercion or duress, and when the municipal judge happened to arrive they did not complain of any maltreatment. Two eyewitnesses, the victim's wife Gregoria Casas and her mother Bonifacia Avila, both acquainted with Esteban as a neighbor and friend who frequented the house for practice cockfights, testified that they saw him shoot the kneeling victim and saw the money taken.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Esteban Angcon of physical injuries in addition to robbery with homicide when the information charged only the latter.
• Whether or not the crime was committed by a band, that is, by more than three armed malefactors.
• Whether or not nocturnity is an aggravating circumstance.
• Whether or not evident premeditation is an aggravating circumstance in the killing.
• Whether or not lack of instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong are mitigating circumstances.
• Whether or not the death penalty, rather than reclusion perpetua, is the proper penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, on the judgment to be rendered, provides:

If there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the defendant shall be convicted of the offense which as charged includes that proved, and the other offense or offenses proved shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.

The Court cites this rule to hold that the trial court could not expand the special complex crime charged by adding the offense of physical injuries.

Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, on the rules for the application of indivisible penalties, provides:

When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

This is the rule the Court applies in fixing death as the penalty for the robbery with homicide.

Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, provides:

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if the robbery is attended by any of the following circumstances: When by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the special complex crime of which Esteban Angcon was convicted and for which the extreme penalty was imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with counsel de oficio that the trial court erred in convicting Esteban of physical injuries in addition to robbery with homicide. Only robbery in band with homicide was charged in the original and amended informations and in the complaint filed in the municipal court. Although the record showed that Gregoria Casas and Bonifacia Avila suffered physical injuries, the information did not include them, and the trial court could not expand the special complex crime charged by adding the offense of physical injuries.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no conclusive evidence that the robbery was committed by a band. Policarpo's confession stated that only two of the five accused were armed with guns, and while prosecution witnesses testified that the three who entered the house were armed, it was not certain that the two who remained outside were also armed. Hence it could not be categorically averred that the crime was committed by a cuadrilla, a band of more than three armed malefactors.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, holding that it may be deduced from Esteban's confession and the surrounding circumstances that the five malefactors sought the cover of night in order to consummate the crime with impunity.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that evident premeditation is inherent in robbery with force upon things but may be aggravating in robbery with homicide with respect to the homicide. Since the conspiracy to rob was formed in the afternoon for a robbery in the evening, and since the robbers asked where the husband was, looked for him in the bedroom, kicked him and shot him while he knelt pleading for mercy, the conspirators' plan embraced the killing. Premeditacion conocida, known premeditation, was therefore aggravating.

On the fifth issue, the Court found no merit in the mitigating claims. Esteban knew how to sign his name, and the trial court made no finding that he was of low intelligence, so lack of instruction did not apply. As to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, Esteban shot the victim despite his submissive attitude and his wife's plea for mercy, acting with a high degree of perversity, so he plainly intended the grave wrong of killing an unarmed and docile victim.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that dwelling was admittedly aggravating, and that with three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the trial court did not err in imposing death. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's suggestion that executive clemency be requested, holding that until the lawmaking body sees fit to repeal or modify the imposition of the extreme penalty, the courts will continue to impose the same when the facts and circumstances in a case so warrant.

Doctrine

A trial court cannot convict an accused of an offense not charged in the information, nor expand a special complex crime by adding another offense proved at trial; the conviction must be limited to the offense charged, and any other offense proved is treated only as an aggravating circumstance where the rule on variance applies.

Robbery is committed by a band only when more than three armed malefactors take part; the prosecution must prove that at least four of them were armed, and where the evidence shows only two or three armed, the band circumstance cannot be appreciated.

Nocturnity is aggravating when the offenders deliberately sought the cover of night to consummate the crime with impunity. Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery with force upon things and cannot be separately appreciated, but it may aggravate a robbery with homicide with respect to the killing where the plan of the conspirators embraced the death of the victim.

Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when an indivisible penalty is prescribed and three aggravating circumstances attend the crime with no mitigating circumstance, the greater penalty, here death under Article 294, paragraph 1, must be imposed. The courts do not shirk the disagreeable duty of imposing the death penalty where the law requires it; relief from the severity of the penalty lies with the executive and the legislature, not the courts.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modifications: Esteban Angcon was sentenced to death for robbery with homicide, the indemnity of nine thousand pesos was increased to twelve thousand pesos, and he was ordered to pay the victim's heirs the further sum of three thousand pesos representing the amount taken in the robbery, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the courts do not shirk their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty where the law so requires, and that a trial court cannot add an uncharged offense to a special complex crime. Examiners use this case for the requisites of robbery in band, for the treatment of evident premeditation in robbery with homicide, and for the rule that clemency is not a judicial remedy.