THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROMAN CAPA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the accused Roman Capa from the sentence of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu, convicting him of triple murder qualified by evident
premeditation, with the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery offset by
the mitigating circumstances of, passion and obfuscation, and lack of
instruction, and sentencing him for each of said crimes to seventeen years, four
months, and one day of cadena temporal, P1,000 indemnity to the heirs of each of
the deceased, with the costs of the prosecution.

In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following alleged error as
committed by the trial court in its judgment, to wit:

“The trial court erred in sentencing the accused to the penalty of fifty-two
years and three days, and the amount of P3,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the
deceased victims.”

In arguing the legal question raised in his brief, counsel for the appellant
contends that the trial court erred in convicting the accused solely upon his
plea of guilty, and without having received evidence to determine the
circumstances under which the defendant committed the three murders to which he
pleaded guilty.

The accused was accompanied by his counsel de oficio, Pedro G.
Aragon, when he was arraigned and pleaded guilty. Before the court pronounced
sentence, counsel prayed that only one aggravating circumstance be taken into
account, and two mitigating, namely, treachery, and obfuscation and ignorance.
The prosecuting attorney was agreeable to this petition, and the court below
imposed the sentence hereinbefore mentioned.

In the present instance the appellant mentions no other extenuating or
justifying circumstance which would have to be considered if the circumstances
under which the crime was committed had been investigated. Inasmuch as the
counsel de oficio, who was present when the accused pleaded guilty,
prayed the court to consider the mitigating circumstances of passion and
obfuscation, and ignorance only, it is to be assumed that he was acquainted with
all the details of the case and could find no other extenuating circumstance
that might be taken into account in favor of his client. This request of the
defendant’s counsel de oficio in behalf of the man he was defending,
implying as it does that he had investigated all the circumstances of the crime,
rendered it unnecessary for the court to make a further investigation, for no
one could know better than the defendants own counsel de oficio the
circumstances under which the crime was committed, or could have more interest
in having those favorable to his client taken into account by the court.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified so that the defendant is
further sentenced to the accessaries of law, and the total penalty is reduced to
forty years, according to article 88, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, and
affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, and
Imperial, JJ., concur.