THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANCHO CORACHEA Y RAMOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Corachea

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Juancho Corachea y Ramos, an automatic review of a death sentence imposed for the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The accused robbed and shot a Chinese merchant collecting debts in Batangas, pleaded guilty to the amended information, and was sentenced to death by the Circuit Criminal Court of Batangas on the strength of two aggravating circumstances, evident premeditation and nocturnity. The case matters because the Supreme Court, even in a capital case where the accused had confessed, refused to accept the aggravating circumstances at face value and reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. It is a compact lesson on the limits of a plea of guilty, on the strict requisites of evident premeditation in robbery with homicide, and on when nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Circuit Criminal Court of Batangas on December 27, 1968, and pleaded not guilty. After a recess to confer with counsel, he was allowed to withdraw that plea and to plead guilty to an amended information from which the word treachery had been deleted. Because of the gravity of the offense and the possible imposition of the death penalty, the trial court deferred sentence and required the prosecution to present evidence on the alleged aggravating circumstances. The trial court then rendered judgment finding him guilty of robbery with homicide attended by nocturnity and evident premeditation, offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, and sentenced him to death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 12,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The records were transmitted to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Counsel de oficio did not seek acquittal but asked that the death penalty be reduced to reclusion perpetua, assigning three errors: the use of the extrajudicial statements to prove evident premeditation, the finding of evident premeditation itself, and the finding of nocturnity.

Facts

On the evening of December 18, 1968, at about half past seven, the accused, armed with a caliber .45 pistol, boarded a bus in Barrio Balagtas, Batangas, where the victim, Sia Lak, also known as Paeng, a Chinese merchant, was riding. The accused had been following the victim since two o'clock that afternoon in San Jose, Batangas, as the latter made his rounds collecting money from customers. He had, by his own statement, been tailing the victim since October 1968, planning to rob him and waiting for a good opportunity.

On the bus, the accused drew his pistol, warned the passengers not to move or they would die, and pointed the gun at the victim, demanding his bag. The victim kept pulling at the contents of the bag instead of handing it over. The accused then shot him in the neck, took the bag containing personal effects and money worth no less than 73 pesos and 46 centavos, and fled toward Barrio Tinga. The victim died on the spot.

In his extrajudicial statements, the accused admitted the robbery and the killing but described the shooting as a reaction to the victim's refusal to surrender the bag and his persistent reaching into it. The trial court nonetheless read those statements as proving a deliberate plan, hatched as early as October 1968, to kill as well as to rob.

Issues

• Whether or not the extrajudicial statements of the accused were admissible, given that he was not assisted by counsel during custodial interrogation.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that evident premeditation attended the killing of the victim.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.

Applicable Provisions

Article III, Section 1, paragraph 17 of the 1935 Constitution, as quoted in the decision, provides:

In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.

The Court construed the phrase criminal prosecution as beginning only at arraignment, which is why the absence of counsel during the earlier custodial interrogation did not make the statements inadmissible.

Article III, Section 1, paragraph 18 of the 1935 Constitution, invoked by the accused against self-incrimination, is discussed in the decision as protecting the accused from being compelled to testify against himself, but the Court held it was not violated because the statements were taken before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, to which the new procedural safeguards on custodial interrogation apply.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the extrajudicial statements were admissible. The right to counsel under the Bill of Rights attaches only in a criminal prosecution, which the Court has consistently interpreted as the proceeding before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of judgment. No such right was afforded an accused before arraignment at the time the statements were taken, and the safeguards against confessions obtained during custodial interrogation apply only to confessions obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. No constitutional right of the accused was therefore violated.

On the second issue, the Court held that evident premeditation did not attend the killing. While a plea of guilty admits the material facts alleged in the information, including aggravating circumstances, the Court recognized an exception where those circumstances are disproven by the evidence. Here the accused's own statement showed that it was the robbery, not the killing, that was planned. In robbery, evident premeditation is inherent and cannot be considered aggravating; in robbery with homicide, there must be evident premeditation to kill, besides the intent to steal. The statement failed to prove the requisites of evident premeditation: the time when the accused determined to kill and rob, the act showing he clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval between determination and execution for meditation and reflection. The warning to the passengers was a mere threat to forestall resistance, and the shooting came at the spur of the moment when the victim refused to hand over the bag and kept reaching into it.

On the third issue, the Court held that nocturnity was not proven. Nighttime is not aggravating per se; it must have been purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the crime or secure impunity. Nothing showed the accused deliberately chose nighttime, which was dictated by the victim's late collection rounds and his choice of the seven o'clock bus. The crime was moreover committed in the presence of other passengers who could recognize the accused, so darkness did not facilitate it.

With the aggravating circumstances removed and the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty remaining, the Court imposed the lesser of the two indivisible penalties for robbery with homicide, which are reclusion perpetua to death.

Doctrine

A plea of guilty admits all the material facts alleged in the information, including aggravating circumstances, but where those circumstances are disproven by the evidence, they must be disallowed in the judgment. In robbery with homicide, evident premeditation is aggravating only if it is proved that the plan was not only to rob but also to kill; premeditation to steal is inherent in robbery and cannot be appreciated. Evident premeditation requires the time of the determination to kill, an act showing the offender clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval for meditation and reflection. Nighttime is not aggravating per se; it must be shown to have been purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the crime or prevent recognition. The right to counsel under the Bill of Rights attaches only from arraignment, and the safeguards on custodial interrogation apply only to confessions obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court was modified: the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 12,000 pesos and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in robbery with homicide, evident premeditation is aggravating only if the plan was to kill as well as to rob, and nighttime is aggravating only if it was purposely sought. Examiners use this case to test the exception to the rule that a plea of guilty admits the aggravating circumstances alleged, and to test the requisites of evident premeditation and nocturnity.