People v. Amit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marcelo Amit was charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide. He entered a plea of guilty. To satisfy the gravity of the offense, the prosecution presented additional evidence, including the appellant's extrajudicial confession detailing the commission of the crime, the autopsy report of the victim, Rufina Arellano, and a medical certificate detailing injuries sustained by the appellant during the victim's resistance. Procedural History: The trial court, based on the plea of guilty and the presented evidence, rendered judgment sentencing Marcelo Amit to suffer the supreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rufina Arellano in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs. Pursuant to the rules, the judgment was elevated to the Supreme Court for review. The Petition: The appellant, through his counsel de officio, did not question his guilt but argued that the penalty of death should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. He claimed the presence of three mitigating circumstances: (1) plea of guilty, (2) voluntary surrender, and (3) lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed, which the trial court should have considered.
Issue(s)
Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed should be considered in favor of the appellant. Whether the penalty of death imposed by the trial court is proper, considering the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, modifying only the civil indemnity awarded. The penalty of death was upheld, and the civil indemnity was increased to P12,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong: The Court disagreed with the appellant's contention that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed should be considered. The Court emphasized that this circumstance must be judged in light of the acts committed and the circumstances under which they were committed. The appellant's extrajudicial confession revealed that the victim resisted his advances by biting and scratching him. In response, the appellant boxed her left cheek and held her neck, pressing it down, while she was lying on her back and he was on top of her. The Court found these acts, which involved brute force, to be reasonably sufficient to produce the death of the victim. Citing People vs. Yu, the Court held that the lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated when brute force is employed, as intention is determined by the offender's conduct, external acts, and the results of those acts. The disproportion between the means employed and the consequences was not such as to warrant the application of this mitigating circumstance. On the propriety of the death penalty: The Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty. It noted that the penalty of death prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is an indivisible penalty. As such, it must be imposed regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances, especially when aggravating circumstances are present. In this case, the Court found that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength, as indicated by the evidence of record. Therefore, the death penalty was the mandatory and proper sentence.
Main Doctrine
The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in favor of an accused who employed brute force, especially when the external acts and the results of those acts clearly indicate such intention. The penalty of death, being an indivisible penalty, must be imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances when aggravating circumstances are present.