People v. Mongado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Gaudencio Mongado, Jilly Segador, and Belesande Salar, along with two others, were charged with robbery with double homicide and rape. The second amended information alleged that the accused, conspiring and armed with various weapons, entered the residence of Silvino Lincuna and Emilia Dalit by abusing their goodwill. They forcibly broke into aparadors and a trunk, taking valuables and cash totaling P1,710.00. On the same occasion, they treacherously attacked the spouses, with specific actions described for each accused leading to the deaths of Silvino Lincuna and Emilia Dalit. Furthermore, it was alleged that Belesande Salar raped Emilia Dalit while she was alive and helpless. Procedural History: During arraignment, the information was translated into the Visayan dialect. Accused Gaudencio Mongado, Jilly Segador, and Belesande Salar pleaded guilty, with the assistance of counsel de officio. They were informed of the consequences of their plea, including the possibility of the death penalty, and affirmed their understanding. The trial court, satisfied with the voluntariness and awareness of the consequences of their plea, proceeded to judgment without further evidence, relying on the affidavits of admission attached to the record. The court found the crime attended by aggravating circumstances of treachery, ignominy, evident premeditation, dwelling, and abuse of confidence, with recidivism for Mongado, offset only by the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty. Consequently, the three accused were sentenced to death. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in considering the affidavits of admission of the accused without them being formally offered in evidence. Whether treachery was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Whether ignominy was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance due to the commission of rape. Whether dwelling was properly considered an aggravating circumstance. Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction could be invoked. Whether the penalty of death is the appropriate penalty given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, sentencing Gaudencio Mongado, Jilly Segador, and Belesande Salar to the penalty of death. They were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 each, plus P596.15 for the value of the unrecovered items, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of affidavits of admission: The Court held that the trial court committed clear error in considering the affidavits of admission without them being formally offered in evidence. Affidavits are generally hearsay evidence and are inadmissible unless formally presented and admitted. The rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered is fundamental. Therefore, only the factual averments in the second amended information, to which the accused pleaded guilty, could be the basis for findings on aggravating circumstances. On treachery: The Court found that treachery was properly appreciated. While treachery generally attends the inception of an attack, it is also present if a person is first seized and bound to render them incapable of defense, and then slain. The information specifically alleged that Silvino Lincuna was clubbed, tied helplessly to a chair, and had his mouth stuffed, before being attacked with fatal thrusts. This scenario clearly fits the principle that the accused availed themselves of means directly tending to insure the execution of the deed without risk to themselves from any defense. On ignominy: The Court did not believe that the rape committed added ignominy to the crime. The information stated the rape occurred after the wife was fatally assaulted and while she was alive and helpless. The Court doubted whether this act, performed in such circumstances and without evidence of it being done in the presence or knowledge of the husband, truly added ignominy. However, the Court noted the uniform jurisprudence that in robbery with homicide and rape, the rape itself is considered an aggravating circumstance, rather than ignominy. On dwelling: Dwelling was properly considered an aggravating circumstance, even if not specifically alleged as such in the information. The robbery, killings, and rape were perpetrated in the residence of the offended parties. The Court reiterated the settled rule that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation against persons, as it shows greater perversity and produces greater alarm by transgressing the sanctity of the home. On lack of instruction: The Court found no proof of lack of instruction, which must be proven and cannot be inferred. It was also not invoked in the lower court. Therefore, this potential mitigating circumstance could not be considered. On the penalty: Considering the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, and rape against all three accused, and the additional aggravating circumstance of recidivism against Gaudencio Mongado, offset only by the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty, the Court concluded that the three accused merited the penalty of death as prescribed by law.
Main Doctrine
An unqualified plea of guilty constitutes an admission of all material facts alleged in the information, including aggravating circumstances, provided they are not mere conclusions of fact or conjectures. However, affidavits of admission not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered by the court.