G.R. No. L-27758. July 14, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DEMETRIO NABUAL, LUIS NABUAL, AND ELPIDIO BACHICHA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
PER CURIAM:
This case is before Us on automatic review of a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Samar, convicting
defendants Demetrio Nabual,
Luis Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha, of the crime of robbery with homicide, under an
information alleging:
“That on or about the 7th day of January, 1967, in the
Municipality of Calbiga, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together
and helping one another with one Cresencio Mabute who is still at large, armed with guns and a knife,
with intent to kill and to gain, by means of force, violence against and
intimidation of persons, and at nighttime, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of one Carlota P. Ocenada, and once inside thereat, pointed their guns at
said Carlota P. Ocenada and demanded money from her
and because of fear that she might be killed, said Carlota P. Ocenada handed said accused money in cash which was placed
inside their trunk, amounting to One Hundred Thirty Five (P135.00) Pesos, and
accused forcibly opened the suitcase and got another money in cash amounting to
Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos, which the said
accused took, stole and carried away with them, to the damage and
prejudice of the said owner in the
total sum of Five Hundred Thirty Five (P535.00) Pesos, Philippine currency; and
accused, pursuant to their conspiracy and on such occasion thereof and for the
purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away with them said amount of
money, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab several times one Pablo Ocenada, husband of
said Carlota P. Ocenada with said knife with which
the said accused had conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby
inflicting upon said Pablo Ocenada several wounds on
the different parts of his body which wounds caused his death.
“That in the commission of the crime the following aggravating
circumstances were present: (1)
Nighttime; (2) the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
the latter not having been giving provocation for it; (3) habituality
or reiteration, they having been convicted on September 5, 1962, in the Court
of First Instance of Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar, for murder, in Criminal Case No. 6074, and was
sentenced to imprisonment from 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional to 8 years of prision
mayor, with accessory penalties provided by law and indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of Loreto Cabrillas and pay the
costs; as to accused Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual; (4) evident
premeditation; (5) taking advantage of superior strength in number and
arms.”
When the case was called for arraignment, counsel de oficio for the defendants informed said Court of
their intention to enter a plea of guilty, whereupon His Honor, the trial
Judge, propounded to them the questions and the defendants gave the answers
quoted hereunder:
COURT – (To the three accused)
“Q – Your lawyer
has manifested to this court that you desire to enter the plea of guilty to the
offenses charged. Do you agree to that
manifestation of your lawyer?
“A – Yes, sir (all the three accused)
“Q – Do
you know that by so agreeing to that manifestation of your lawyer you will be
admitting the commission of the crime charging you with robbery with homicide?
“A – Yes, sir (all the three accused)
“Q – And
for which this court will sentence you to death or of imprisonment for which
length of time that it will determine?
“A – Yes, sir (both the three accused).
“Q – And,
notwithstanding what was explained to you you still
insist your desire to enter the plea of guilty to the offense charged?
“A – Yes, sir (both the three accused).
“Q – The
court would like to inform you again that this robbery with homicide is punishable
with reclusion perpetua with death.
“A – Yes, sir (both the three accused).
“Q – And
there is a likelihood that you might be sentenced to death.
“A – Yes, sir (both the three accused).
“Q – And, notwithstanding what is explained to you
by the court you still insist in your desire to enter the plea of guilty?
“A – Yes, sir (both the three accused).
“COURT
Arraign the accused.
“INTERPRETER
(Reading the information to the three accused).
“INTERPRETER
“Q – Did
you understand what was read to you?
(Interpreter asking the same question to the three accused)
“A – Yes, sir (both the three accused).
“Q – What
is your plea Demetrio Nabual?
“A – Guilty.
“Q – What
is your Luis Nabual?
“A – Guilty.
“Q – What
is your plea Elpidio Bachicha?
“A – Guilty.
COURT
“Q – Why did you enter the plea of guilty to the
crime charged?
“A – I pleaded guilty because I have done it. (Both the three accused answering one by
one).”
Thereupon, the trial court rendered judgment finding the defendants
guilty of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime, dwelling, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, in
addition, insofar as Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual are concerned, to
the aggravating circumstance of reiteration, with no mitigating circumstance in
favor of any of said defendants except that of plea of guilty, which is,
however, insufficient to offset all of the aforementioned aggravating
circumstances, and, accordingly, sentenced them to death, to jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of Pablo Ocenada in the
sums of P6,000 and P535, which latter sum represents the amount stolen, and to
pay the costs. Hence, the present
automatic review.
During the pendency thereof, or on December 24, 1968, Demetrio Nabual died in
consequence of injuries sustained when prison guards fired at him, as he,
together with other prisoners, tried to escape from the New Bilibid
Prisons, where he was undergoing preventive imprisonment. By resolution of this Court, dated February 21, 1969, the case against
him was, therefore, dismissed, so that the present decision refers exclusively
to defendants Luis Nabual and Elpidio
Bachicha.
Conceding the propriety of the judgment of conviction against
these defendants, their counsel de oficio
maintains[1]
that the lower court erred in considering that the crime charged was committed
with the aggravating circumstances of reiteration, nighttime and evident
premeditation; that the commission of said crime was attended by no other
aggravating circumstances than those of dwelling and abuse of superior
strength; that these two (2) aggravating circumstances should be deemed offset
by the plea of guilty entered by the defendants, so that they should be
sentenced merely to life imprisonment; and that said judgment should be
modified accordingly.
As regards the aggravating circumstances of reiteration and
nighttime, it is urged that, according to the information, the defendants had
been previously “convicted” of the crime of murder and
“sentenced” therefor; that there is no
allegation that they had served the sentence; that actual punishment or service
of the sentence is essential to the aggravating circumstance of reiteration,[2]
unlike recidivism, for which previous conviction of a crime falling under the
same title of the penal code is sufficient; and that the information fails to
aver that nighttime had been purposely or especially sought or that the
defendants had taken advantage thereof in order either to facilitate the
commission of the offense or to afford them impunity. We deem it unnecessary, however, to discuss
these aggravating circumstances, because even if we discarded them, the result would be the same.
Indeed, appellants affirm that evident premeditation is inherent
in the crime of robbery and that robbery with homicide is essentially a crime
against property. It is true that in the
case of People v. Valeriano,[3]
which was one of robbery with homicide, it was held that:
“Evident premeditation is not considered as an
aggravating circumstance in crimes of robbery because the same is inherent in
the crime specially where it is committed by various persons; they must have an
agreement, they have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out the
crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed. x x x“
However, in the same case, this Court added:
“x x x But in the crime of robbery with homicide, if there is
evident premeditation to kill besides stealing it is considered as an
aggravating circumstance. x x x In the instant case, it has
been proven that the accused, on various occasions before committing the
crime, planned and decided not only to steal but also to kill Judge
Bautista. Hence, there is present
evident premeditation.”
Similarly, in the case at bar, the information explicitly alleges
that the “accused conspiring, confederating together and helping one
another x x x armed with
guns and a knife x x x with
intent to kill x x x
did x x x willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously enter the house” of the offended parties
and steal the aggregate sum of P535, and “pursuant to their conspiracy, x x did x x stab several times x x Pablo Ocenada x x with said knife with which said accused had
conveniently provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said
Pablo Ocenada several wounds x x x which x x
x caused his death.” This allegation was
admitted by the defendants, who acted, therefore, with evident premeditation to
kill.
Independently, therefore, of the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and reiteration, evident premeditation, dwelling, and abuse of
superior strength should be considered present at the commission of the
offense. In the light of the conditions
obtaining in the present case, we believe that defendants’ plea of guilty is
insufficient to offset these three aggravating circumstances, and that the
extreme penalty was properly meted out to.
Luis Nabual and Elpidio
Bachicha.
We have not overlooked the fact that, in People v. Apduhan,[4]
we refrained from imposing the extreme penalty, for lack of the number of votes
necessary therefor, despite the existence of three
aggravating circumstances as against the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty. Such case should not be
construed, however, as implying that this mitigating circumstance has as much
weight as three aggravating circumstances, whatever the latter may be. Obviously, some aggravating circumstances are
graver than others. Indeed, the same
aggravating circumstance may connote a greater degree of malice or perversity
in one case than in another. Conversely,
the same mitigating circumstance may merit more weight in one case than in
another, depending upon the conditions surrounding each. In the very nature of things, judges must
exercise their sound judgment in the appraisal thereof.
In the present case, the defendants had planned not only the
robbery. They had entered the house of
their victims with the intent to kill.
For this purpose, they had armed themselves with deadly weapons. This, notwithstanding the fact that they had
been previously convicted of and sentenced for murder. Even if the legal feasibility of considering
such conviction and sentence as sufficient to establish the aggravating
circumstance of reiteration may be debatable, said fact is undoubtedly
indicative of the marked moral perversion of the defendants and of the grave
danger they pose to society.
Then, again, there is every reason to believe that the plea of
guilty entered into by them was prompted, not by a feeling of regret or remorse
and a willingness to pay their debt to society, but by a desire to avail of the
only means to create a possibility, no matter how remote, of preventing the
imposition of the death penalty, by establishing one mitigating circumstance in
their favor. This assertion is based
upon the fact that otherwise the prosecution would have, in all probability,
proven that nighttime had been purposely sought or taken advantage of, and that
the defendants had not only been convicted of and sentenced for murder, but,
also, served the sentence therefor. In fact, the lower court found – upon
informal examination of the documents that the prosecution intended to introduce
in evidence, had the defendants chosen to proceed to trial – that Luis Nabual
and Demetrio Nabual were parolees, so that they must have served part of their
aforementioned sentence. In short, had a
plea of not guilty been entered, there was a great likelihood that the
following aggravating circumstances would have been established, namely: (1) nighttime; (2) dwelling; (3) abuse of
superior strength; (4) evident premeditation; and (5) as regards Luis Nabual and Demetrio Nabual, reiteration.
With no mitigating circumstance to offset any of these aggravating
circumstances – in the absence of a plea of guilty – defendants’ chances of
avoiding the extreme penalty were nil.
Hence, they had no choice but to enter said plea.
WHEREFORE, modified as to the indemnity of P6,000 which is hereby increased to
P12,000,[5]
in addition to the stolen sum of P535, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, in all other respects, with costs against defendants Luis Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, Teehankee,
and Barredo,
JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., took no part.
[1]
Citing People v. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887,
891-893; People v. Trumata, 49 Phil. 192; U.S.
v. Billedo, 32 Phil. 574, 579.
[2]
Citing the Revised Penal Code by Judge Luis B. Reyes, 2nd ed., 1956, p. 188. See, also, The Revised Penal Code by M. A. Albert,
1946 ed., 119.
[3]
90 Phil. 15, 34. Underscoring supplied.
[4]
L-19491, August 30, 1968.
[5]
People v. Pantoja, L-18793, Oct. 11, 1968; People v. Gutierrez, L-25372, Nov. 29, 1968; People v. Buenbrazo, L-27852, Nov. 29, 1968.