People v. Opero y Cosipag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At approximately 4:00 AM on April 27, 1978, security guards at the House International Hotel in Binondo, Manila, discovered a three-year-old girl loitering. Upon investigation, they found Room 314 ransacked and emitting a foul odor. Inside, they discovered the dead body of Liew Soon Ping, the wife of Dr. Hong, with her hands and feet tied, mouth gagged with a towel, and a baby crying nearby. The room was in disarray, and personal belongings valued at P30,221.00 were reported missing by Dr. Hong. Neighbors provided names of suspects: Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, Asteria Avila, and an unidentified suspect. Police teams were dispatched to track down the suspects. Reynaldo Lacsinto, one of the suspects, was apprehended and gave a statement admitting his participation in the robbery and detailing the commission of the crime. Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, and Asteria Avila were apprehended in Samar with some of the stolen articles. Opero provided a supplemental statement admitting to the robbery, identifying some recovered items, and detailing the planning and commission of the crime, including the assault, tying, stabbing, and gagging of the victim with a piece of pandesal. Milagros Villegas identified stolen clothes given to her by Opero. Asteria Avila denied involvement. A reenactment of the crime was conducted with Opero and Lacsinto portraying their roles. Procedural History: The Circuit Criminal Court of Manila imposed the death sentence on Diego Opero for robbery with homicide. Reynaldo Lacsinto and Milagros Villegas did not appeal their conviction with lesser penalties, and Milagros Villegas was considered an accessory after the fact. Asteria Avila was acquitted. The Petition: Appellant Diego Opero appealed his conviction, raising only the propriety of the death penalty imposed upon him, specifically questioning the lower court's failure to consider Article 4, paragraph 1, and Article 49, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in not considering Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the criminal liability of the accused. Whether the trial court erred in not considering Article 49, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code in imposing the penalty on the accused. Whether the imposition of the death penalty on the appellant is proper.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court imposing the death penalty is affirmed. The Court found that the crime committed was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. While the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that committed was appreciated, it did not warrant a modification of the death penalty. The Court also clarified that Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and the nature of the crime committed: The Court reiterated the established doctrine that when there is a direct and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, regardless of the order or simultaneity, the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The appellant's theory that he only intended to rob and not to kill was rejected. The Court noted that the act of stuffing a "pandesal" into the victim's mouth, intended to prevent an outcry, led to asphyxiation when it slid into the neckline, a consequence that could reasonably be anticipated given the victim was hogtied. Even if the death was by accident, it is immaterial if it occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as the crucial factor is that death resulted from the robbery. The Court cited People vs. Hernandez, 46 Phil. 48, People vs. Sia Bonkia, 60 Phil. 1, U.S. vs. Samea, 5 Phil. 227, and People vs. Mangulabnan 99 Phil. 992 in support of this principle. On the issue of Article 49, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court clarified that Article 49, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with penalties when the crime committed is different from that intended, applies only when the crime committed befalls a different person from the one intended to be the victim. This was explicitly ruled in People vs. Albuquerque, 59 Phil. 150-153, citing Spanish Supreme Court decisions. In the present case, the intended victim was the one killed as a result of the robbery, thus Article 49 is inapplicable. The Court distinguished this from the situation where the intended victim is a stranger, but the actual victim is a relative, making the intended felony different from the committed crime. On the propriety of the death penalty: The Court acknowledged the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code. However, this mitigating circumstance was offset by aggravating circumstances, specifically superior strength and dwelling, which were present in the commission of the crime. The Court stated that even after considering the mitigating circumstance, the penalty for robbery with homicide, which is reclusion perpetua to death, still warrants the imposition of the death penalty. Therefore, the death sentence imposed by the lower court was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed when there is a direct and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, regardless of the order or simultaneity of the acts. Even if the death is accidental, if it occurs by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide. Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when the crime committed is different from that intended and the victim is different from the one intended.