THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO

PAGAL y MARCELINO and JOSE
TORCELINO y TORAZO,
defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-32040 | 1977-10-25
A discussion citing this case or law
is available.
Criminal Law; Aggravating
Circumstance; Disregard of Rank,
Age, Sex or Dwelling of Offended
Party
DECISION
CONCEPCION, J:
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?

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:

"Accused:

And for which this court might

sentence you to death or life
imprisonment?

We agree, your honor, to what our

lawyer said, but we would like to
explain something.

"Accused:
Yes, your honor.

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

And notwithstanding what is

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

"Accused:
"Accused:
Yes, your honor.
Yes, your honor.
"Court:
"Court:
If that is the case, I will give you a

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 hear 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 coappellant Jose Torcelino conspired
to commit the crime of robbery
with homicide.
The appellant's position is not welltaken. 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 curt 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 then
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 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.

These safeguards appear to have

been taken in the instant case.

SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
Castro, C.J., Fernando, Aquino,
Martin, Santos, Fernandez and
Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Teehankee and Makasiar, JJ.,
concur in the result.
Antonio, J., took no part.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J., concurring:
Concurs. While I am not fully
satisfied that appellants were
entirely aware of the meaning of
their plea of guilty, I find that the
rebuttal evidence of the
prosecution proved their guilt,
which evidence the appellants did
not dispute.
MU'OZ PALMA, J., concurring:
Concurs. I would state however
that the rulings in People vs. Parete
and People vs. Santos, et al., cited
in page 7 of the Opinion must be
taken in conjunction with recent
jurisprudence that extra solicitous
care is required in the admission of
a plea of guilty and that the taking
of testimony and other evidence
notwithstanding a plea of guilty is
the prudent and proper course to
follow by trial judges. (People vs.
Villafuerte, March 28, 1974, citing
numerous cases; People vs.
Hondolero, August 25, 1976).

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
"F1", 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-127758,
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.