People v. Nismal y Eupalao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Romeo Nismal y Eupalao, a security guard assigned to the Republic Bank, UP Compound, Diliman, Quezon City, was charged with robbery with homicide. The information alleged that on December 15, 1975, at nighttime, the accused, by means of violence and intimidation against Jose Teehankee, Jr., the bank's Manager-Cashier, with intent of gain, took P65,000.00. The accused also attacked Teehankee, inflicting mortal stab wounds which caused his death, with treachery and evident premeditation, to the prejudice of the victim's heirs. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, entered a plea of guilty. The prosecution presented ten witnesses. The accused opted not to present evidence or testify on his own behalf. The trial court convicted the accused of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty. The Petition: The accused appealed, faulting the trial court for basing its judgment on an improvident plea of guilty and for not convicting him of two separate crimes (theft and homicide) instead of the complex offense of robbery with homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the plea of guilty was improvident. Whether the accused should have been convicted of two separate crimes (theft and homicide) instead of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction and the imposition of the death penalty are affirmed in toto. The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improvident plea: The claim of an improvident plea has no basis. As a rule, convictions based solely on pleas of guilty in capital offenses are set aside if the plea is improvident. However, when the trial court, in obedience to the Supreme Court's injunction in cases like People vs. Apduhan, receives evidence to determine the accused's guilt, the plea loses its significance. The conviction is then predicated on the evidence presented, not on the plea itself. In this case, ten witnesses testified for the prosecution and were cross-examined by the defense. The accused submitted the case without presenting any evidence and did not testify to deny the inculpatory testimonies and documents. Therefore, insisting on the invalidity of the plea would only deprive the accused of the mitigating circumstance it connotes. On the issue of separate crimes versus complex crime: The accused implicitly admits to killing the victim and taking the money. His theory of two separate offenses is based on a self-extenuating circumstance in his confession: that the victim threw money at him, causing him to feel insulted and stab the victim. This version is highly unbelievable. The circumstances demonstrate that the appellant remained in the bank not as a security guard but to rob it, a plan conceived days before. He was armed with a concealed kitchen knife, which is unusual for a security guard in a secured area like the UP Compound. The bank closed at 5:00 PM, and he knew the manager-cashier often stayed late alone. This points to a pre-planned robbery and killing. Evidence such as the victim's unusual voice during a phone call, the nature and number of wounds, the disarray of the bank suggesting a struggle, and the neat arrangement of recovered money support the conclusion of robbery with homicide. The appellant's confession and admissions to the NBI polygraph examiner, corroborated by police investigators, clearly show he stabbed the victim with evident premeditation and treachery, and then robbed the bank. His claims of the victim throwing money at him and his request for a P50.00 loan are inconsistent with common sense and human behavior, especially considering the victim's character and the amount of money involved. The neat arrangement of the money recovered further indicates it was taken from the bank's safe, not scattered on the floor as claimed. The appellant made contradictory statements in his confession and admission to the polygraph examiner regarding the sequence of events, the cause of the stabbing, and the location where the loot was left, further undermining his self-serving narrative. The court found that the appellant planned to await nighttime, knowing the manager-cashier would be alone, which, along with other circumstances, established evident premeditation.
Main Doctrine
A plea of guilty, even in capital offenses, loses legal significance when the trial court, in obedience to the Supreme Court's injunction, receives evidence to determine the accused's guilt. In such cases, the conviction is predicated not on the plea but on the evidence presented.