THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ODONCIO TARRAYO ALIAS ODON, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS, SALVADOR EGANG AND FELIPE ROBLES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

In an amended information filed before the Court of First
Instance of Samar, Odoncio Tarrayo alias Odon, Felipe Tarrayo alias Peping,
Salvador Egang and Felipe Robles were charged with the crime of “robbery
with homicide with rape” (Criminal Case No. D-1316), al­legedly committed
as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of May, 1966, in the nighttime,
in Sitio Lamod, Bo. Dao, municipality of San Jose, province of Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abovenamed accused, all armed with small bolos locally known as ‘depang’ and a
piece of wood used in unhusking coconuts locally known as ‘palaw’, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, and taking advantage
of their superior strength, enter the dwelling of Feliciano Fajardo, with
intent to gain and by means of violence against and intimidation of persons,
with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and beat one Olimpio
Gremio with said piece of wood used in unhusking coconuts which the herein
accused had conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby
inflicting upon said Olimpio Gremio a wound, scalp about 3 1/2 inches in
length, frontal region, with basal fracture, which wound caused the
instantaneous death of said Olimpio Gremio; and in pursuance of their conspiracy,
the herein accused, took, stole and carried away with them money in cash
amounting to FIVE PESOS and 75/100 (P5.75), Philippine currency, which were
placed inside the pocket of one Olimpio Gremio and inside the piece of cloth
used as belt by Cornelia Bulan, an old woman, against the will and consent of
the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the owners thereof, in the amount
aforestated; and on the occasion of the said robbery, the herein accused,
actuated by lust and by means of force, threats and personal violence and with
lewd designs , did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag one
Rosilla Gremio outside the house and the said accused took turns in having
sexual intercourse with said Rosilla Gremio, a woman under 18 but over 12 years of
age against the will and consent of said Rosilla Gremio.

“That in the commission of the offense the fol­lowing
aggravating circumstances were present: 
(1) nighttime; (2) superior strength; (3) dwelling; and (4) in an uninhabited place.”

Arraignment
was set for 18 July 1966,
during which accused Salvador Egang and Felipe Robles,^[1]
through their counsel de oficio, manifested their desire to plead
guilty to the charge.  And as
notwithstanding the explana­tion and warning by the judge of the implication
and possible consequence thereof the said accused remained firm in their
decision to enter the plea, the trial judge (Hon. Manuel Pamaran) postponed the
arraignment to 21 July 1966
to give them more time to deliberate on their announced stand.  On the scheduled date of arraignment, the
accused pleaded guilty, their counsel de oficio invo­king in their
favor only the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and volun­tary
surrender.  With such plea, the court,
after receiving in evidence the transcript of the stenographic notes taken at
the preliminary investigation by the fiscals, in the course of which the
accused narrated in detail the commis­sion of the crime and their respective
participation therein (Exhibit A), and the certificates of the examining
physicians (Exhibit B and C), found both accused guilty of the crime of robbery
with homicide and rape, attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
superior strength, dwelling and uninhabited place, as charged in the
information, with only the plea of guilty con­sidered as mitigating
circumstance.  Voluntary surrender was
not appreciated in their favor in view of the finding that although the accused
were in police custody when the warrants for their arrest in this case were
issued it was only because they were already under arrest on account of another
charge.  Consequently, the court
sentenced Salvador Egang and Felipe Robles to the penalty of death; both of
them, jointly and severally, to indemnify
the heirs of Olimpio Gremio in the sum of P6,000.00; to pay the sum of P5.75
that they took from the victims, and the costs. 
The case is now on automatic review by this Court.

It may be gathered from the records, principally from the
statements of the accused themselves, that at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon
of 28 May 1966 Salvador Egang, his brother-in-law Felipe Robles, and the
brothers Odoncio and Felipe Tarrayo met in the road in barrio Salhag, San Jose,
Samar.  Felipe Tarrayo, after informing the others that there was money
and a girl in the house of Olimpio Gremio, proposed that they rob the said
house, to which proposal the three apparently agreed.  That same evening, at about 10 o’clock, the four plotters, all armed with
small bolos locally called “depang”, reached the house of Olimpio
Gremio in sitio Lamod, barrio
Dao, of the same municipality.  Egang and
Robles ascended the house by removing a temporary nipa wall, while the Tarrayo
brothers remained in the yard standing guard. 
Once inside the house which was then
lighted with a bottle lamp, Salvador Egang struck Olimpio Gremio, who was
seated on a mat, with a “palaw”.^[2]
Gremio fell back and expired.  Thereupon,
Felipe Robles took the money that the victim had in his pocket, amounting to
P1.25.  He also forcibly took the piece
of cloth which was being used as belt by Cornelia Bulan, Olimpio’s mother, from
where he got the sum of P4.50.  Then,
Egang and Robles dragged down from the house Olimpio’s 16-year old daughter,
Rosilla, brought her to a coconut plantation about half a kilometer away, and
there took turns in abusing her.  They
allowed her to return home alone afterwards. 
It may be mentioned that when the two malefactors went down the house
taking along Rosilla Gremio with them, Odoncio and Felipe Tarrayo were nowhere
to be found; both had apparently run away.

After committing the crime, Egang and Robles returned to Salhag,
then proceeded to barrio Sumisip, Lavezares, Samar, where they stayed with one
Esperato Borja for about two months doing “kaingin”.  When the warrants for their arrest in this
case were issued on 16 July 1966,
Egang and Robles were found in the custody of the police authorities of Bobon, Samar,
in connection with a robbery committed in the house of one Emeliano Vasquez on 7 July 1966.^[3]

There can be no question that with their plea of guilty the
accused (who were duly advised, not only by counsel de oficio,
but also by the trial judge himself, of the serious implications and probable
consequences of such plea) are deemed to have admitted all the allegations of
the information.^[4]
It may be pointed out, however, that the circumstance of uninhabited place
should not have been appreciated in the case. 
For while there was testimony that the nearest house to the place where
the homicide was committed was about 150 meters away, there was no showing that
the isolation of the place was purposely sought by the accused to enable
attainment of their objective without interference, or to secure themselves
against recognition and punishment.^[5]
True it is accused Salvador Egang declared that he and Felipe Robles brought
the girl to a plantation about a kilometer away to avoid discovery of the
rape.  But the accused are not being
charged here of the specific crime of rape; they are accused of robbery with
homicide.  In fact, as recited in the
information, the rape constituted merely an aggravating circumstance, and
should properly be appreciated as such.^[6]

Upon the other hand, the lower court should have considered the
ag­gravating circumstances of evident premeditation and band which were also
properly averred in the information as having attended the commission of the
crime.  There is evidence on record that
Egang, Robles and the two Tarrayo brothers were all armed with bolos known as
“depang”,^[7]
and that their deliberate plan was to rob the house, and if the inmates therein
would offer resistance, to kill them.^[8]
Under such circumstances, evident premeditation to kill is not inherent in
robbery with homicide.^[9]

As thus established, therefore, the crime committed is robbery
with homicide, attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of
superior strength, dwelling, rape, evident premeditation and band.  With only one mitigating circumstance (plea
of guilty) present, the lower court was correct in imposing upon the accused
the penalty therefor (Rev. Penal Code, Article 294, reclusion perpetua
to death) in its maximum period.

WHEREFORE, the decision under review is affirmed; the
accused Salvador Egang and Felipe Robles are imposed the death penalty, and
ordered, jointly and severally, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Olimpio
Gremio in the sum of P12,000.00, to pay to the robbery victims the sum of P5.75
and the costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, and
Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., on leave.

Barredo, J., took no part.

^[1]
Accused Odoncio Tarrayo and Felipe Tarrayo managed to elude arrest and have
remained at large to the present.

^[2]
A piece of wood used in unhusking coconuts.

^[3]
Page 24, Court of First Instance record.

^[4]
U. S. vs.
Barba, 29 Phil. 206; U. S.
vs. Santiago, 35 Phil. 20;
People vs. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 675.

^[5]
People vs. Deguia, 88 Phil. 520.

^[6]
People vs. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136; People vs. Ganal, 85 Phil. 743.

^[7]
Declarations of Salvador Egang and Felipe Robles during the preliminary
investigation (Exhibit A, page 27).

^[8]
Pages 18, 26, Exhibit A.

^[9]
People vs. Atencio (January 17, 1968) 22 SCRA 88, 102; People vs.
Valeriano, 90 Phil. 15; People vs. Pulido, 85 Phil. 695; Decisions,
Supreme Court of Spain, 1 September 1877 and 1 March 1888.