THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO PAGAL Y MARCELINO AND JOSE TORCELINO Y TORAZO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

In Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-5 (70) of the Circuit Criminal Court
of Manila, the accused, Pedro Pagal y Marcelino and Jose Torcelino y Torazo,
were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, committed as follows:

“That on or about December 26, 1969, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating toge­ther and
mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to gain, and by means of violence, take away from the
person of one Gau Guan, cash amounting to P1,281.00, Philippine currency, to
the damage and pre­judice of the said Gau Guan in the said sum of P1,281.00;
that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them
to take, steal and carry away the said amount of P1,281.00, the herein accused,
in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior
strength, treacherously at­tack, assault and use personal violence upon the
said Gau Guan, by then and there stab­bing him with an icepick and clubbing him
with an iron pipe on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death
thereafter.

“Contrary to law, and with the gene­ric aggravating
circumstances of (1) night­time purposely sought to better accomplish their
criminal design; (2) evident premedi­tation; (3) in disregard of the respect
due the offended party; and (4) with abuse of confidence, the accused being
then employees of the offended party.”^[1]

When the case was called for arraignment, counsel de oficio
for the accused informed said court of their in­tention to enter a plea of
guilty provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating
circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse
so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.^[2]
Thereafter, the trial judge propounded to them the questions and the accused
gave the answers quoted hereunder:

“Court:

Your lawyer here has
manifested your desire to enter a plea of guilty to the offense charged,
robbery with homicide.  Do you know that
by agreeing to that manifestation of your lawyer, you will be admitting the
commission of the crime charged?

“Accused:

We agree, your honor, to
what our law­yer said, but we would like to explain something.

“Court:

Your lawyer here has
stated that you will still prove mitigating circumstances.  Is that what you like to explain?

“Accused:

Yes, your honor.

“Court:

If that is the case, I will give you a chance.

“Accused:

Yes, your honor.

“Court:

Do you know that by
agreeing to that manifestation, you will be admitting the commission of the crime
charged, robbery with homicide?

“Accused:

Yes, your honor.

“Court:

And for which this court
might sen­tence you to death or life imprison­ment?

“Accused:

Yes, your honor.

“Court:

And notwithstanding what
is explained to you, you still insist in your desire to enter a plea of guilty
to the offense charged?

“Accused:

Yes, your honor.

“Court:

Q    Notwithstanding
again the warning of the court that the maximum penalty impos­sable is death?

A     Yes,
your honor.

“Court:

Arraign the accused.

(At this stage, both
accused were arraigned and both pleaded guilty to the offense charged).”^[3]

Thereafter, the accused presented evidence to prove the
mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim immediately
preceding the act and acting upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion
and obfuscation.  After the accused had
rested their case, the prosecution presented the statements^[4]
of the accused, and other pertinent documents regarding the investigation of
the case.^[5]

After the trial, the court a quo rendered its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, both accused are hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as prin­cipals of the crime of robbery with homicide and there
being proven the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, evident premeditation
and disregard of respect due the offended party off­set only by the mitigating
circumstance of their plea of guilty, sentences each one of them to DEATH, to
jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased the following:  the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the
deceased Gau Guan; P15,000.00 for moral damages; P15,000.00 for exemplary
damages, all amounts to bear interest until they shall have been fully paid;
the sum of P1,281.00 representing the amount taken from the victim; and to pay
proportionately the costs.”^[6]

The case is now before this Court for mandatory review on account
of the death penalty imposed upon the accused.

The appellant Pedro Pagal contends that the trial court erred in
convicting him of the crime of robbery with homi­cide instead of declaring him
liable only for his individual acts,
claiming that the record is bereft of any proof or evidence that he and his
co-appellant Jose Torcelino conspired to commit the crime of robbery with
homicide.

The appellant’s position is not well-taken.  His denial of conspiracy with his
co-appellant Jose Torcelino cannot be given credence in view of the clear and
convincing confession of his guilt in
his statement^[7] signed by him before the police
investigators several hours after the commission of the crime.  Besides, when he pleaded guilty to the
charge, he is deemed to have admitted all the material facts alleged in the
information.^[8] By his plea, the appellant
admitted not only the commission of the crime but also the circumstances
surrounding its commission, including the allegations of conspiracy.  A plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment,
is sufficient to sustain a conviction even for a capital offense without the
introduction of further evidence,^[9]
the requisite proofs having been supplied by the accused himself.^[10]
We find, therefore, that the trial court did not commit any error in convicting
the appellant Pedro Pagal of the crime of robbery with homicide.

The appellants further assail the trial court in not appreciating
in their favor the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, and
passion or obfuscation.

Again, the appellants’ contention is devoid of merit.  Firstly, since the alleged provocation which
caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is,
the alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the
deceased, these two mitigating circum­stances cannot be considered as two
distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as one.^[11]
Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a
crime which – as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly meditated before
its execution.  Thus, in People vs. Daos,^[12] a case of robbery with homicide, this Court
rejected the claim of the appellants therein that passion and obfuscation
should have been estimated in their favor, because the death of the victim
therein took place on the occasion of a robbery, which, before its execution,
had been planned and calmly meditated by the appellants.  Thirdly, the maltreatment that appellants
claim the victim to have committed against them occurred much earlier than the
date of the commission of the crime. 
Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient
and immediately preceding the act.  We
hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not appreciating the said
mitigating circumstances in favor of the appellants.

Finally, the appellants
claim that the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstances
of nighttime, evident premeditation, and disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank and age.

Although the trial court
correctly considered the aggra­vating circumstance of nocturnity because the
same was purposely and deliberately sought by the appellants to faci­litate the
commission of the crime, nevertheless, We dis­agree with its conclusion that
evident premeditation and dis­regard of the respect due the offended party were
present in the commission of the crime.

Evident premeditation is
inherent in the crime of robbery.^[13] However, in the crime of robbery with
homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing, it is
considered as an aggravating circumstance.^[14] In other words, evident premeditation will
only be aggravating in a complex crime of robbery with homicide if it is proved
that the plan is not only to rob, but also to kill.^[15] In the case at bar, a perusal of the written
statements^[16] of the appellants before the police
investigators show that their original plan was only to rob, and that, they
killed the deceased only when the latter refused to open the “kaha de
yero”, and fought with them.  The
trial court, therefore, erred in taking into consideration the aggra­vating
circumstance of evident premeditation.

The aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken
into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when
in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to
rank, age, or sex.^[17] It is not proper to consider this
aggravating circumstance in crimes against property.^[18] Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime
against property and not against persons. 
Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal.^[19] The trial court erred in taking into account
this aggravating circum­stance.

It results that in the
commission of the crime, there is only one generic aggravating circumstance,
i.e., night­time or nocturnity.

Robbery with homicide is
punished by reclusion perpetua to death.^[20] Since the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime is offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the
lesser penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed upon the appellants.^[21]

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the trial court is modified,
and the appellants Pedro Pagal y Marcelino and Jose Torcelino y Torazo are
hereby sentenced to suffer each the penalty of reclusion perpetua.  In all other re­spects, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.  With costs
against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Aquino, Martin, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., he concur, while
he is not fully satisfied that appellants were entirely aware of the meaning of
their plea of guilty and find that the rebuttal evidence of the prosecution
proved than guilt, which evidence the appellants did not dispute.

Muñoz Palma, J., see concurring
opinion.

Teehankee, and Makasiar,
JJ., concurs in the result.

Antonio, J., no part.

^[1]
p. 2, Record.

^[2]
p. 3, t.s.n., January 8, 1970.

^[3]
pp. 3-4, t.s.n., January 8, 1970.

^[4]
Exhibits “A” & “B”, pp. 4, 7, Record.

^[5]
Exhibits “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “F-1”, pp. 9, 10, 11, 14, 15,
Record.

^[6]
pp. 26-27, Record.

^[7]
Exhibit “B”, supra.

^[8]
People vs. Roldan, L-22030, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 907; People vs.
Arpa, L-26789, April 25, 1969, 29 SCRA 1037.

^[9]
People vs. Perete, 1 SCRA 1290.

^[10]
People vs. Santos and Vicente, 103 Phil. 40.

^[11]
People vs. Reyes, L-33154, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474.

^[12]
60 Phil. 143.

^[13]
U.S. vs. Blanco, 10 Phil. 298; People vs. Daos, 60 Phil. 143;
People vs. Pulido, 85 Phil. 695; People vs. Valeriano, 90 Phil.
15.

^[14]
People vs. Nabual, L-27758, July 14, 1969, 28 SCRA 747.

^[15]
People vs. Atencio, L-22513, Jan. 17, 1968, 22 SCRA 88.

^[16]
Exhibits “A” and “B”, pp. 4, 7, Record.

^[17]
Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1946 Ed., p. 109; Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 1974
Ed., Vol. I, p. 297.

^[18]
Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., Vol. I, p. 286, citing U.S. vs.
Samonte, 8 Phil. 286.

^[19]
Ibid, Vol. III, 1976 Ed., p. 1434, citing U.S. vs. Ipil,
27 Phil. 530, 535.

^[20]
Article 294, par. 1, Revised Penal Code.

^[21]
Article 63, (4) and (2), Revised Penal Code.

105
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}