People v. Dejaresco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a charge of robbery with homicide. The prosecution alleged that on January 22, 1969, in San Pablo City, the defendants, armed with firearms and acting in conspiracy, forcibly entered the house of Modesto Icaro and Cesaria Cacao. They allegedly stole P90.00 and, during the commission of the robbery, intentionally killed Modesto Icaro by shooting him with their firearms. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, Branch III, where defendants Rufineo Dejaresco y Levit, Rudy Bulahan y Bundalian, and Eduardo Bulahan y Bundalian were found guilty as principals of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling. Each was sentenced to death. The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the review, Eduardo Bulahan died, and Rufineo Dejaresco and Rudy Bulahan escaped from prison. The case against Eduardo Bulahan was dismissed due to extinguished liability, but the appeal proceeded for the remaining appellants. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review of the death penalty imposed by the lower court. The defendants-appellants' brief assails the findings of the lower court, specifically questioning the consideration of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance since it was not alleged in the information, and the disregard of illiteracy or lack of sufficient instruction as a mitigating circumstance. The prosecution, through the Solicitor General, argues for the affirmation of the penalty, citing jurisprudence on the applicability of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance and the inapplicability of illiteracy as a mitigating circumstance in crimes of robbery and homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether dwelling can be considered an aggravating circumstance when not alleged in the information. Whether illiteracy or lack of sufficient instruction can be a mitigating circumstance for robbery with homicide. Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that appellants Rufineo Dejaresco y Levit and Rudy Bulahan y Bundalian are each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Modesto Icaro in the sum of P30,000.00, to pay said heirs the sum of P90.00 taken from the victim, and to pay the costs pro rata.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether dwelling can be considered an aggravating circumstance when not alleged in the information: The Supreme Court held that dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons because such crime can be committed without transgressing the sanctity of the home. The Court affirmed that even if dwelling is not alleged in the information, it can still be proven at the trial and considered for the imposition of the penalty, as it is not an element of the crime charged but a generic aggravating circumstance. This is in line with established jurisprudence, citing U.S. v. Leyva, People v. Sebastian, People v. Napili, People v. Apduhan, Jr., and Martinez v. Godinez. On whether illiteracy or lack of sufficient instruction can be a mitigating circumstance for robbery with homicide: The Court ruled that illiteracy is not a mitigating circumstance for crimes of theft or robbery, and certainly not for homicide. The reasoning is that no one, however unschooled, is so ignorant as not to know that theft, robbery, or assault is inherently wrong and a violation of the law. This principle was reiterated from previous rulings such as People v. Enot, U.S. v. Pascual, People v. Melendres, People v. De la Cruz, and People v. Mendova. On whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the guilt of the accused to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This was based on the positive identification by the victim's widow, Cesaria Cacao, of Rufineo Dejaresco and Eduardo Bulahan, despite their masks, supported by her prior acquaintance with them. The identification was further bolstered by the recovery of clothing worn by the accused on the night of the incident, which matched the widow's description. Moreover, the extrajudicial confessions of Rufineo Dejaresco and Rudy Bulahan, which were found to be voluntary and admissible, categorically admitted their participation in the crime. The Court also noted that the defense of denial and alibi was rejected in light of the strong evidence presented by the prosecution.
Main Doctrine
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling can be considered in robbery with homicide even if not alleged in the information, as it is not an element of the crime but a circumstance that affects the penalty. Illiteracy is not a mitigating circumstance for crimes of theft, robbery, or homicide.