THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL DAMO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Automatic review of a death sentence, indemnity to the heirs of Lucretia
D. Calina in the amount of P12,000.00, and payment to them the sum of
P408.50 corresponding to the money taken by the accused from the victim,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and payment of
the costs, imposed by the then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte
(Laoag City) in its Criminal Case No. 1792.

The record before Us is to the effect that Arnel Damo was charged with
the crime of robbery with homicide committed in the manner described in
the information, as follows:

“That on or about the 27th day of November 1981, in the City of
Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously strangle one Lucretia D.
Calina to death and dumped her body into a well, and with intent of gain
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry
away her belongings consisting of two big leather baggages and seven
cartons containing her belongings and personal effects, as well as cash
in the amount of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P400.00),
to the damage and prejudice of her parents in the total amount of the
aforestated case, belongings and personal effects.

“That the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity as well as
having deliberately augmented the crime by causing other wrong
unnecessary for its commission were present.” (p. 2, Rollo)

Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by counsel de oficio,
entered a plea of guilty. Notwithstanding, the trial court did not
immediately impose the death sentence but proceeded to inquire the
circumstances surrounding the case to satisfy itself if appellant
understood the meaning and effect of the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, evident premeditation and nocturnity alleged in the
information.

Evidence shows that appellant, 25 years old and a tricycle driver in
Laoag City, was in the bus terminal of Laoag City at about 3:30 in the
morning of November 27, 1981. A short while thereafter, one of the
buses of the De Leon Transportation arrived from Manila and among its
passengers was Lucretia D. Calina, 54 years old, who returned to the
Philippines after 22 years stay abroad. Appellant approached Lucretia
and asked her where she was going. She answered that she was bound for
Bangui. Since there were no buses that early morning for Bangui which
is about 75 kilometers from Laoag City, appellant offered to bring her
to the place for P125.00. When Lucretia agreed, appellant loaded her
baggages consisting of seven (7) cartons and two (2) big suitcases in
his tricycle. Instead of going to Bangui, appellant brought Lucretia to
a vacant house at Barangay Naldo, Laoag City, near the Northwestern
College, about four (4) kilometers away from the poblacion of Laoag.
Appellant invited Lucretia inside the house to rest for a while.
Lucretia hesitated but later acceded when appellant put on the lights
inside the house. When they were inside the house appellant made love
to his lady passenger who, at first, resisted but later on succumbed and
consented to having sexual intercourse with him. After satisfying his
lust, he told her to dress up as they would proceed to Bangui. He then
went outside the house and after sometime returned passing through the
kitchen door. Upon seeing her still standing by the door, appellant
approached her and at once strangled her to death with his bare hands.

Appellant then carried Lucretia and dumped her into a nearby well, hid
the seven (7) cartons inside the house and proceeded to Barangay
Barabar, San Nicolas where he hid the two (2) leather luggages.
Thereafter, he returned to Laoag City at about 8:00 in the morning where
at the Philippine Rabbit Bus station he took his breakfast.

On December 26, 1981, at about 3:30 in the morning, the Laoag police,
acting upon a tip, arrested appellant. He admitted his guilt in an
extra-judicial confession which was signed in the presence of Sgt.
Alipio and sworn to before an Assistant City Fiscal.

In this appeal, the defense assailed the decision of the lower court in
that it erred (1) in finding that there was evident premeditation; (2)
in finding that the offense was aggravated by nocturnity; (3) in
appreciating treachery as an aggravating circumstance; (4) in not
offsetting the aggravating circumstance of treachery by the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty; (5) in not appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of intoxication; and, (6) in imposing the death penalty.

With respect to the first assigned error, We take note of the fact that
the Solicitor General admits that in the commission of the crime the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was not present. “We
agree, it appearing that appellant thought of killing the deceased only
after succeeding in satisfying his lust upon her. In fact, the
appellant was waiting for her in his tricycle for sometime, after the
carnal act, but as the deceased was not yet around, he returned to the
house, and meeting her at the door of the kitchen, he strangled her (pp.
13-15, tsn., February 2, 1982 hearing). Thus, there does not seem to
be sufficient time for him to reflect on his evil resolution.” (pp. 4-5,
Appellee’s brief)

We also agree with appellant that the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity is absent in the case. For, nocturnity to be appreciated as
an aggravating circumstance, it must be purposely and deliberately
sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime. In the
case at bar, the meeting of appellant and Lucretia was by chance and,
therefore, it cannot be said that he purposely sought nighttime to
commit the offense. Their meeting was accidental. Being a tricycle
driver, he was in the bus terminal waiting for passengers when he met
the victim.

Appellant’s contention that there was no treachery is untenable. After
satisfying his lust, no woman would have anticipated that the man who
took advantage of her would thereafter suddenly kill her. Time and
again, We have ruled that treachery is present in the commission of a
crime when executed suddenly and unexpectedly even if made face to face
(People vs. Doria, 55 SCRA 435). However, treachery in cases of robbery
with homicide is not a qualifying circumstance but only a generic
aggravating circumstance which may be offset by appellant’s plea of
guilty.

Finally, appellant’s claim that he was drunk at the time he executed the
criminal act, is untenable. He failed to establish by convincing
evidence that his reason was blurred to the extent that he was deprived
of that degree of control of himself. The fact that he was able to
drive his tricycle to the place where he brought his victim, made love
to her following which he killed and dumped her into a well and then
drove his vehicle back to Laoag City, shows that he had complete control
of his mental faculties.

Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, provides for
reclusion perpetua to death as the penalty for the offense of robbery
with homicide. Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance
of treachery which is offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty, the correct penalty in the case at bar is reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the decision under review must be, and is hereby modified in
that appellant Arnel Damo is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, is ordered
to pay the heirs of Lucretia D. Calina in the sum of P30,000.00
(instead of P12,000.00 as adjudged below), and the sum of P408.50,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,
Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.