449 Phil. 547
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Dr. Cerna signed the Certificate of Death of Ronito.[3]POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Normally developed, fairly nourished, male cadaver, in the state of rigor mortis. Pallor, marked, generalized; pupils, dilated. Livor [sic] mortis, brownish most prominent at the neck, shoulder blades, buttocks and calves.
Abrasions, brownish; chin, mid-anterior aspect, 1.0 x 1.0 cm.; face, right, 1.0 x 0.2 cm.; face, left, 1.5 x 1.0 cm.
Incised wound, gaping, mid-frontal area, 2.0 x 0.3 cm.
Lacerated wounds; forehead, right, 3.0 x 1.5 cm.; face, left, 1.0 x 0.3 cm.
Stab wound:
Triangular in shaped [sic] 2.0 x 1.0 x 1.cm; extremities sharp, edges, clean-cut; forehead, left, just above eyebrow; directed backward, downward and medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues, making a punch-in fracture on the left frontal bone, attaining a depth of 3.0 cm. (fracture on the left frontal bone is 2.0 cm. in length and not triangular in shaped [sic], and did not involved [sic] the whole thickness of the bone).
Stab wounds:
Six in number[s], all elliptical in shaped [sic] and of varying sizes, three with a length of 1.0 cm. and the other three with a length of 0.7, 0.6 and 0.4 cm.; one extremity of the six stab wounds, rounded, while the other extremities were sharp, and all edges clean-cut; located at the neck, anterior aspect closed [sic] to each other; all were directed backward, downward and then either laterally or medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues, 3 stab wounds perforated the trachea and the other 3 stab wounds, incised the blood vessels, attaining depthness ranging from 1.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 and 8.0 cms.
Stab wound:
Triangular in shaped [sic], 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0 cm.. extremities sharp, edges clean-cut; right supra clavicular area, directed backward, downward and medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues, perforating the oarta [sic], attaining an approximated depth of 11.0 cm.
Stab wounds:
Three in number[s], all elliptical in shaped [sic], of varying sizes ranging from 2.5, 2.0 and 1.2 cm., one extremity rounded, other extremities sharp, edges clean-cut; thoracic area, anterior aspect; one was directed backward, upward and laterally penetrating thoracic cavity, and perforating the heart, with a depth of 8.0 cm.; other stab wound was directed backward, upward and medially, penetrating thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, with a depth of 9.5 cm.; other stab wound was directed backward downward and medially, penetrating thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, with a depth of 11.0 cm.
Stab wound:
Elliptical, 1.8 cm. one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; arm, deltoid area; directed backward, upward and to the right, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues, attaining a depth of 4.5 cm.
Stab wound
Two in number[s], both elliptical in shaped [sic], with sizes of 2.0 and 1.0 cm.; one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; thoracic area, right anterior aspect; one was directed backward, downward and medially, penetrating thoracic cavity, incising the upper lobe of the right lung, attaining a depth of 10.0 cm.; other stab wound was directed backward then upwards and medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues, penetrating thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, attaining an approximated depth of 12.0 cm.
Stab wound
Four in number[s], all elliptical in shaped [sic], of varying sizes, ranging from 1.5, 1.7, 1.5 and 2.0 cm.; one of the extremities were [sic] sharp, the others were contused, edges clean-cut; located at the thoraco-abdominal area, anterior aspect; directed backward, then either downward and upwards and medially or laterally; one penetrated abdominal cavity and perforated the stomach, with a depth of 9.0 cm.; the other three incised the sternum, and non-perforating with depthness ranging from 5.0, 2.0 and 1.5 cms.
Stab wound
Elliptical, 1.3 cm. long, one extremity contused, other extremity, sharp, edges clean-cut; abdomen, left anterior aspect; directed backward, upwards and medially, penetrating abdominal cavity, perforating small intestine, attaining an approximated depth of 9.0 cm.
Stab wound
Elliptical, 1.5 cm. long, one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; abdomen, left antero-lateral aspect; directed backward, upward and medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues only, attaining a depth of 3.5 cm., non-perforating.
Stab wounds
Elliptical, 2.0 cm. long, one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; back, thoracic area, mid-posterior aspect; directed forward, downwards and to the left, penetrating left thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, attaining a depth of 15.0 cm.
Stab wound
Elliptical, 3.2 cm. long, one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; back, left scapular area; directed forward, downward and lateral, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues only, attaining a depth of 4.0 cm.
Brain and other visceral organs, pale;
Hemothorax, approximately 2000 cc.
Hemoperitoneum, approximately 500 cc.
Stomach, full of food particles (positive for alcoholic odor).
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hemorrhage, acute, severe, secondary to multiple stab wounds, forehead, neck, chest, abdomen and back. [2]
That on or about the 31st of March, 1996, about 2:00 a.m., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other, armed with bladed weapons and handguns, with deliberate intent and with intent to kill, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Ronito Enero by stabbing him on the vital parts of his body with said bladed weapons, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries thus causing his instantaneous death, and with intent of gain, did then and there take and carry away therefrom the following:CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
a) 1 gold necklace worth ……………………..P7,000.00 b) 1 pair of gold earrings ……..……………… 1,100.00 c) 2 gold rings worth ………………………… 3,800.00 d) cash amounting to………………………… 30,000.00 e) 1 Seiko wristwatch ……………………….. 900.00 f) 1 Seiko wristwatch ……………………….. 1800.00 g) 1 gold ring worth ………………………….. 900.00
valued in all atP45,500.00, belonging to Ronito Enero and Maria Fe Balo, to the damage and prejudice of the owners in the amount ofP45,500.00, Philippine Currency.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, accused Manuel Daniela alias Manuel de la Cruz @ Tagalog and Jose Baisac Baylosis are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH to be carried out in the manner prescribed by law. The accused are further directed to pay jointly and severally, to the heirs of the victim the sum ofThe trial court declared that Manuel and Jose having pleaded guilty to the crime charged in the information, the prosecution was deemed to have proven their guilt of the crime charged, the remaining matter still to be ascertained was the presence of any modifying circumstances.P50,000.00 and to restitute to the heirs the cash & pieces of jewelry taken by them as aforementioned and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. [7]
Anent the first assigned error, the appellants contend that their plea of guilty to the crime charged in the information was improvidently made. When they pleaded guilty, they did so only for homicide but not for robbery. Neither did appellant Manuel plead guilty to rape. They assert that their plea of guilty to the crime charged in the information should be set aside. The trial court erred in convicting them of the charge on the basis solely on their improvident plea of guilty. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with the contention of the appellants that their plea of guilty to the crime charged in the information was improvidently made. Nevertheless, it contends that there is no more need for the Court to still remand the case to the trial court as their conviction for the crime charged is warranted by the evidence adduced by the prosecution independent of their plea of guilty.I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH WHEN THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH WHEN THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF NIGHTTIME AND DWELLING WERE NOT DULY PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION.
III
RULE 110, SECTIONS 8 AND 9, OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED, DECEMBER 1, 2000, SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.[8]
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequence of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his behalf.The felony of robbery with homicide is a capital offense, the imposable penalty therefor being reclusion perpetua to death.
(1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea, and the accused’s full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.[10]As explained by the Court in People v. Alicando,[11] the searching questions must focus on (1) the voluntariness of the plea; and (b) the full comprehension of the accused of the consequences of the plea. As elaborated on by the Court in People v. Nadera,[12] the trial court -
The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. For more often than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge must erase such mistaken impressions. He must be completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under duress or promise of reward. The judge must ask the accused the manner the latter was arrested or detained, and whether he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigation. In addition, the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age, educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case, the trial court must ask questions concerning them. . . . [13]In this case, the certificate of arraignment on record states that when the case was called for trial on February 4, 1997, the appellants were called by the trial court and were informed of the nature of the charge against them. The trial court propounded questions on the appellants and the latter answered the questions. Forthwith, the appellants changed their former plea of not guilty to that of guilty.[14] However, there is no record of what questions were asked by the trial court, and what answers were given by them, or whether the court explained to the appellants the nature of the crime with which they were charged, and that they may be sentenced to death. It cannot be determined whether the questions of the trial court were searching. The records do not even show if the trial court explained to the appellants the meaning and legal effect of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, or if the appellants were asked why they were changing their plea from not guilty to guilty. Clearly then, the plea of guilty of the appellants was improvident; hence, inefficacious. Their conviction for the crime charged cannot be based solely on their plea of guilty to said crime.
ART. 294. - Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:The law was taken from the Spanish Penal Code which reads:
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
1. O. Con la pena de reclusion perpetua a muerte, cuando con motivo o con occasion del robo resultare homicidio.The elements of the crime are as follows:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence orintimidation against persons;A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The animo lucrandi must proceed the killing. If the original design does not comprehend robbery, but robbery follows the homicide either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the homicide, then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, that of homicide or murder and robbery, and not of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, a single and indivisible offense.[19] It is the intent of the actor to rob which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide.[20]
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.[18]
Q | At about 2:00 A.M. of the following day March 31, 1996 what happened? |
A | This Manuel Daniela pushed the door of our room. |
| |
Q | And what did he do after he pushed the door of your room? |
A | I was awakened and then I asked him what is it Log. Referring to Manuel Daniela. [sic] alias Tagalog. |
| |
Q | What did you see in Tagalog when he pushed the door open? |
A | When Manuel Daniela alias Tagalog entered our room he poked his handgun caliber 38 on me at that time because he was bringing a gun. |
| |
Q | What is this caliber 38? |
A | A pistol, caliber 38 weapon. |
| |
Q | But how did you know it was a 38 caliber if you do not know the weapon? |
A | Because I . . . this caliber 38 he was brining. |
| |
Q | And you said he was bringing a kerosene lamp? |
A | Yes. |
| |
Q | What did he do with the kerosene lamp? |
A | When he poked his firearm towards me I stood up and then Manuel Daniela told me to go back to lie down. At that time Jose Baylosis entered the room. |
| |
Q | Did you lie down following the order of Manuel Daniela? |
A | Yes, maam. [sic] |
| |
Q | Your [sic] said that Jose Baylosis entered the room what did Jose Baylosis do while you were already lying down? |
A | Manuel Daniela order [sic] Jose Baylosis to tie me. |
| |
Q | How were you tied? |
A | He extended my two hands but Tagalog said that it is not the way to tie her. So they placed my hands at the back and they put a masking tape. |
| |
Q | Aside from your hands what were tied? |
A | Only my hands were tied but Manuel Daniela ordered Jose Baylosis to let Leo Quilongquilong my cousin to get inside the room. |
| |
Q | Did Jose Baylosis compky [sic] with the instruction of Manuel Daniela to let your cousin Leo Quilongquilong to get inside the room? |
A | Yes, maam. |
| |
Q | Did Leo Quilongquilong get inside your room/ |
A | Yes, maam. |
| |
Q | What did they do with Leo Quilongquilong at the time Leo Quilongquilong was already inside the room? |
A | They also tied Leo Quilongquilong by extending his both hands towards them and they also ordered to place his hands at his back. |
| |
Q | Is that how Leo Quilongquilong was tied? |
A | Yes, maam. |
| |
Q | After you and Leo Quilongquilong were tied what did Manuel Daniela do? |
A | They asked money from me but I did not tell them and so they got my jewelries [sic]. |
| |
Q | What jewelries [sic] were taken from you? |
A | Necklace. |
| |
Q | How much was the cost? |
A | |
| |
Q | Was it a gold, silver or what kind of metal? |
A | Chinese gold. |
| |
Q | Where was it placed? |
A | They took it from my neck. |
| |
Q | Who of the two took your gold necklace from your neck? |
A | Jose Baylosis. |
| |
Q | After taking the gold necklace from your neck what else did Jose Baylosis do? |
A | Jose Baylosis also removed my gold ring? |
| |
Q | How many rings? |
A | 2. |
| |
Q | How much is the value of these two rings? |
A | P3,800.00. |
| |
Q | From where did Jose Baylosis take these two gold rings? |
A | From my fingers. |
| |
Q | While your hand were tied at the back? |
A | Yes, maam. |
| |
Q | Aside from the two rings and one necklace what other piece of jewelries [sic] were taken from you by Jose Baylosis? |
A | My Chinese gold earrings. |
| |
Q | How much was the value of the Chinese gold earrings? |
A | |
| |
Q | From where did Jose Baylosis get your Chinese gold earrings? from me [sic] |
A | From my ears. |
| |
Q | While Jose Baylosis was divesting you these pieces of jewelry what did Manuel Daniela do? |
A | Manuel Daniela keep on poking his firearm towards me and his left hand holding a hand grenade, and told me not to shout. |
| |
Q | After the two accused were able to divest you of your pieces of jewelry what else did they do? |
A | While Manuel Daniela keep on poking his firearm toward me Manuel Daniela insisted that the moeny [sic] would be given and I told them we have no money because my money was paid for the fish and also to my partner of fish vending but they did not believe. |
| |
Q | Since Manuel Daniela did not believe you that you have no money what did Manuel Daniela do? |
A | They ransacked our room by scattering our clothes looking for money. |
| |
Q | Was he able to find your money? |
A | No maam. |
| |
Q | What did he do as he did not find anything after scattering your clothes? |
A | Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis told me to give money so they will not harm us. |
| |
Q | What did you do? |
A | That time my cousin Leo woke yo [sic] and gave the money to them but Leo also told [sic] if we will give you the money then we will ha [sic] no more capital for our business. |
| |
Q | And what did you do finally? |
A | Later on, we decided to gather [sic] with my cousin to give the money in order they will not be killed. |
| |
Q | Did you give the money? |
A | Yes, maam because my money was inside the box which was placed inside, it was a waist pouch. |
| |
Q | And what material was your pouch made of which contained the money? |
A | It was made of cloth. |
| |
Q | How much was the content of your pouch which you said was placed inside the map. |
A | |
| |
Q | And how much is the c[v]alue of the wrist watch? |
A | |
| |
Q | Who got the pouch under the map? |
A | I was the one pushing out the pouch from over the map towards Tagalog. |
| |
Q | During this time when Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis were divesting you of pieces of jewelry and money what was your husband Ronito doing? |
A | At that time my husband Ronito was sleeping. Manuel Daniela took a blanket and then Manuel Daniela ordered Jose Baylosis to kill my husband and Jose Baylosis took a blanket and covered the mouth of my husband and placed himself on top of the body of my husband and stabbed. |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
Q | With what weapon? |
A | Kitchen knife. |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
| Proceed. |
| |
ATTY. DALAWAPU: | |
| |
Q | Who owned that kitchen knife? |
A | That was taken from our kitchen. |
| |
Q | So you owned the knife? |
A | Yes we owned. |
| |
Q | And then after Jose Baylosis stabbed your husband several times that did Manuel Daniela do? |
A | While Jose Baylosis stabbed several times my husband mu [sic] husband shouted, “aray” and then I attempted to stand up and then Manuel Daniela took over and place himself on top of my husband and he also stabbed my husband several times using a batangas knife. At that time Manuel Daniela was on top of my husband Jose Baylosis also pulled the legs of my husband and he was stabbed on the lower oar [sic] of the body. |
| |
INTERPRETER: | |
| |
| Witness pointing to her abdomen. |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
Q | So your husband was never able to stand? |
A | No my husband was never able to stand up because they helped each other in stabbing him several times. |
| |
ATTY. DALAWAPU: | |
| |
Q | At the time that Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela were stabbing your husband what were you doing? |
A | While they were stabbing mu [sic] husband I and my cousin could not say anything because they threatened to explode the hand grenade they were holding. We were just on the side of the room tied and looking them stabbing my husband because they threatened to explode the hand grenade if we should [sic] for help. |
| |
Q | How about Juliefer Barrera your helper what was she doing at this time that Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela were stabbing your husband? |
A | Our helper who slept in the bed was awakened and while she was awakened Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela approached her and told not to shout and the her hands were tied. |
| |
Q | Do you mean to tell this Honorable Court that Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis stabbed and killed your husband after they were able to get your pieces of jewelry from your person and the pouch from under the map which contained the sum of |
A | Yes, mam [sic ]. |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
Q | What time was it at the time your husband was stabbed several times by both Daniel and Jose? |
A | About 2:00 o’clock dawn the following day. |
| |
ATTY. DALAWAPU: | |
| |
Q | Ma. Fe after Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela stabbed Ronito what else did they do? |
A | After Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela killed my husband Manuel Daniela told me that there was somebody who ordered them to kill my husband and then I told them if you will kille [sic] me what will happene [sic] to my three small children who will support them and also who willsupport [sic] my parents because they depend for my support. |
| |
Q | What did Manuel Daniela say after you told them this? |
A | Manuel Daniela said that I would be killed. When Manuel Daniela was about to stab me my husband also groaned three times like a dying pig and then this Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela immediately went back to my husband and they stabbed my husband again several times and then Manuel Daniela strucked [sic] the head of my husband with the bat of the firearm while Jose Baylosis stabbed my husband in the neck, made a slit on the neck with the use of the knife to ensure that he would be deed [sic]. In fact, the forehead of my husband was broken as a result of the striking of the bat of the firearm. |
| |
ATTY. DALAWAMPU: | |
| |
| I would like to make it of record from the very start that the witness related here how both accused divested her of the pieces of jewelry and money and killed dead [sic] her husband she keep on crying. |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
| Before this Honorable Court’s question. |
| |
Q | Can you still go on your testimony despite your feelings? |
A | Yes, Your Honor. |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
| So, let’s proceed. |
| |
ATTY. DALAWAMPU: | |
| |
Q | After they stabbed your husband again what did they do? |
A | They stabbed again my husband and strucked [sic] the head of my husband and they went back to me and saying let us kill them Bay because they are very noisy.[28] |
The defense argues that appellant never had the original design to rob when he went to the Co compound. That may be so. The compound of the Cos is fenced and the only entrance is through the gate with a security guard. It was only 7:00 o’clock in the evening and a number of people were still awake, hardly the proper occasion for staging a successful robbery. Notable too is the fact that the amount recovered from appellant was only in the amount of the separation pay which he demanded, leading to the inference that perhaps appellant had no original intent to rob the Cos.
Nonetheless, even if there was no original design to commit robbery, appellant is still liable for robbery if at the time of the taking of the personal property of another with violence or intimidation there was intent to gain. Although the Court gives considerable weight to the theory of the prosecution, we are not inclined to entirely do away with the version of the defense, especially with regard to his claim that he went to the Co compound to demand his separation pay. Although disputed by the Cos, it is possible that appellant believed, rightly or wrongly, that he had the right to a separation pay.