People v. Gamao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of January 3, 1957, Miguel Gamao, Kinok Pendatun, and other companions broke into the house of spouses Federico Planas and Saturnina Singong de Planas. Armed with bladed weapons, they attacked the couple while they were eating supper, inflicting multiple fatal wounds. The intruders allegedly took a trunk and other items. The following morning, a neighbor discovered the bodies and reported the incident. An investigation was conducted, and the bodies were found in an advanced state of decomposition. Procedural History: The Provincial Fiscal of Davao filed an information against Miguel Gamao and Kinok Pendatun for Robbery in Band with Double Homicide. One of the alleged malefactors, Ponso Bila-an, was apprehended and used as a state witness. The trial court found the defendants guilty of robbery with double homicide and sentenced them to reclusión perpetua, with civil indemnity. The defendants appealed. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, arguing their guilt was not sufficiently proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was robbery with double homicide. Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were present. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It found the appellants guilty of double murder, not robbery with homicide, due to insufficient evidence of robbery. The penalty of reclusión perpetua was affirmed, along with the civil indemnity. The Court ruled that while the killing was proven, the elements of robbery were not sufficiently established.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the crime committed was robbery with double homicide: The Court ruled that the crime was not robbery with homicide. The evidence presented to prove the robbery was deemed tenuous and inconclusive. The state witness, Ponso Bila-an, testified that he left the scene immediately after witnessing the hacking of the victims and did not see the accused take anything. Furthermore, the items allegedly stolen were not recovered, and the contents of the trunk found nearby were not identified. The Court reiterated the principle that if the evidence fails to support one of the component offenses of a complex crime, the defendant can be convicted of the other component offense if proven. Thus, the conviction for robbery with homicide was deemed impossible due to the lack of proof of robbery. On whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were present: The Court found that treachery attended the commission of the offense. The appellants, without risk to themselves and without warning, suddenly attacked and hacked the victims from behind, as evidenced by the numerous back wounds sustained by both spouses. The Court also found evident premeditation to be present, as the appellants, along with their co-conspirators, had plotted the killing five days prior to its actual commission. These aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information and were sufficient to qualify the offense to murder. On whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct: The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusión perpetua. It noted that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, coupled with the circumstance of dwelling (though not explicitly appreciated for penalty purposes), would have justified the supreme penalty of death. However, due to the lack of the necessary number of votes among the members of the Court, the penalty of reclusión perpetua was imposed. The civil indemnity of P6,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased spouses was also affirmed.
Main Doctrine
Where a complex crime of robbery with homicide is charged, and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses (robbery), the defendant may be convicted of the other component offense (homicide/murder) if sufficiently proven.