THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. SILVERIO LUNA, DEFENDANT.

People versus Luna

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Silverio Luna, a criminal case for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, decided by the Supreme Court in July 1974 on automatic review of a death sentence. It matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it fixes the rule that an intent to rob must precede the taking of life for the complex crime to lie even when revenge also moves the offender; it measures when a taking is committed by a band; and it shows how the aggravating circumstances of recidivism, nocturnity, treachery, and cruelty are each tested against the evidence and the statute.

Procedural History

Two related cases were tried in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Lucena City Branch. In the first, for robbery in band with frustrated homicide, the trial court convicted Luna and imposed an indeterminate penalty of sixteen years, five months and eleven days to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, with an indemnity of 1,176 pesos to Eduardo Adal. Luna did not appeal from that judgment. In the second, for robbery in band with homicide, the same court found him guilty, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Alfredo Adal in the sum of 6,070 pesos, with costs de oficio. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review under the Rules of Court, and the Court rendered its decision through a per curiam opinion.

Facts

At about eight o'clock in the evening of October 15, 1960, Eduardo Adal, a sixty-four-year-old fisherman, was taking supper in his house on an island near Pagbilao, Quezon, with his common-law wife Maria Granada, their son Manuel, and their grandson Bernardo Magtanggol. Two masked men entered, one short and one tall. The short man poked a balisong knife at Eduardo's ribs and a gun at his temple and told the family not to move. The household was hogtied and made to lie face up on the floor. The short man demanded money; Maria's hands were untied and she gave him 200 pesos in paper bills. When she said she had no more, he slapped and kicked her, and at that point his mask fell, revealing him to be Silverio Luna. She then produced coins amounting to another 200 pesos and pieces of jewelry, and Luna removed her eyeglasses and trampled on them. The robbers took cash, a twenty-two caliber rifle and bullets, a radio, clothes, and a flashlight worth a total of 1,182 pesos.

Luna then told Eduardo that he would be taken along. Eduardo pleaded and offered the proceeds of his copra, but Luna replied that had Eduardo given the coconut plantation to Pablo, he would not be killed. Pablo Adal was Eduardo's son by his first wife, and Pablo's wife was the sister of Luna's mother. Eduardo was taken out, and at the stairs Luna asked Pablo for instructions; Pablo directed him to bring Eduardo to the house of Alfredo Adal, Eduardo's eldest son by Maria. There Luna hogtied Alfredo, demanded money, and boxed him when he said he had none. Alfredo's wife Milagros gave fifty pesos from a wallet taken from the ceiling, and Luna grabbed the wallet and took the remaining twenty pesos. Both men were then taken toward the wharf. At a cross-roads they met Pablo and his son Virgilio, and Luna handed them a pandan bag containing the radio and clothes. Pablo ordered Luna to use the motorboat of Venancio de Leon and to throw the two into the sea. Luna then forced De Leon, at gunpoint, to come along and to steer the boat far out, about two kilometers from shore.

At sea, Luna tried to shoot Alfredo with the rifle but did not know how to operate it. He and his companion, Pedro, then seized Alfredo and tried to throw him overboard, but Alfredo, his hands tied behind him, held tightly to the side of the boat. Luna stabbed him and threw him overboard, and Eduardo was likewise jettisoned. The two warned De Leon not to report the incident. Eduardo managed to loosen his bonds, but Alfredo disappeared; Eduardo swam to shore, reported the matter to the barrio lieutenant and later to the Constabulary, and on the following day Alfredo's body was found on the beach, his hands and feet still bound, having died of asphyxia by drowning. Luna went into hiding and was arrested only in March 1963 in Montalban, Rizal, where he gave an extrajudicial confession in Tagalog, read and sworn to before the municipal judge of Lucena City. At trial he admitted his signatures but claimed maltreatment, and he put up an alibi that he was working as a logger in Camarines Sur.

Issues

• Whether or not Luna was positively identified as one of the malefactors, and whether or not his alibi and his claim of maltreatment should be sustained against his extrajudicial confession.
• Whether or not the crimes committed were the separate offenses of robbery and homicide, rather than the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the crimes were committed by a band.
• Whether or not the death penalty was properly imposed, considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed by the Court, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the special complex crime of which Luna was convicted, and it fixes the range from which the penalty is drawn.

Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the Court, provides:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

The Court used this rule to reach death, there being aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance.

Article 14, paragraph 9, of the Revised Penal Code, on recidivism, provides:

That the offender is a recidivist.

The Court held that although recidivism is generally a generic aggravating circumstance that must be alleged in the information, Luna himself proved it by his admissions in his confession and on the witness stand.

Article 14, paragraph 21, of the Revised Penal Code, on cruelty, provides:

That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission.

The Court used this definition to reject the trial court's appreciation of cruelty, since the evidence did not show that Luna caused the victim to suffer slowly and gradually for his own pleasure.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that any doubt as to Luna's complicity vanished in the face of his confession, which his counsel did not object to at trial and did not even mention on appeal. His admissions on the witness stand, including his prior robberies and his confinement in the Davao Penal Colony, attested to the truth and voluntariness of the confession, and it precluded him from relying on alibi. The alibi was in any event fabricated: he claimed to have stayed as a logger in Camarines Sur for about four years, which would place him there until 1964, yet he was arrested in Montalban in March 1963, and the corroborating witness gave incoherent answers.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the primary intent was revenge. Luna's own confession revealed that Pablo's instruction was to rob and kill, and the spoils were delivered to Pablo and Virgilio. The Court stated the governing rule:

In robbery with homicide, an intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life.

It added that the fact that the intent is tempered with a desire to revenge grievances against the murdered person does not prevent punishment for the complex crime, and it held that the robbery and the killing were interlinked, one crime not being disassociable from the other.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with counsel that the crimes were not committed by a band, because there was no proof that Pablo and Virgilio were armed; only Luna and the tall intruder, the actual perpetrators, were armed. The Court held that at least four members of the band should be armed for the aggravating circumstance of cuadrilla, that is, of an armed band, to arise.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that lack of instruction could not mitigate, since Luna was not illiterate and had finished Grade two. It sustained nocturnity and treachery, the killing of a robbery victim while bound being treacherous, and it sustained recidivism because Luna himself proved his prior final conviction and service of sentence. It rejected cruelty, since cruelty requires that the sadistic culprit, for his pleasure and satisfaction, cause the victim to suffer slowly and gradually and inflict unnecessary moral and physical pain. It also held that the trial court erred in treating conspiracy as an aggravating circumstance, and that price, promise, or reward, which would be aggravating in this kind of case, was neither alleged nor proved. With three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the death penalty was properly imposed, and the Court raised the indemnity from 6,000 pesos to 12,000 pesos.

Doctrine

In robbery with homicide, the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life; but a motive of revenge against the victim does not prevent the offense from being punished as the special complex crime, so long as the robbery and the killing are interlinked. For the aggravating circumstance of an armed band to arise, at least four of the malefactors must be armed. Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance that generally must be alleged in the information, but it may be appreciated when the accused himself proves his prior final conviction and service of sentence by his own admissions. Cruelty requires proof that the offender deliberately and inhumanly augmented the victim's suffering for his own pleasure and satisfaction, causing pain not necessary to the crime. Lack of instruction is not mitigating where the accused is not illiterate. When the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are aggravating circumstances with none mitigating, the greater penalty is imposed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the death penalty imposed on Silverio Luna, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of Alfredo Adal was increased to 12,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that in robbery with homicide the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life, and that revenge as a concurrent motive does not dissolve the complex crime. Examiners use this case to test the armed-band requirement of four armed members, the appreciation of recidivism not alleged in the information but proved by the accused's own admissions, and the strict meaning of cruelty under Article 14.