People v. Regato
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three persons, including appellants Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda, approached the house of Victor Flores at night, pretending to buy cigarettes. Felicisima Flores, wife of Victor, opened the door and recognized Regato and Salceda. Regato struck Felicisima's hand holding a lamp, causing it to fall, and then pointed a gun at her. Felicisima fled to a neighbor's house. Subsequently, Felicisima heard a gunshot. Inside the house, their son Godofredo witnessed Regato and another person, Rito Ramirez, dragging Victor Flores downstairs. Salceda took hold of Florencio, another son, and brought him inside the bedroom where Godofredo was hiding. Regato demanded money from Victor Flores, maltreating him when he denied having any. Salceda ransacked a trunk in the bedroom and took P870.00. After Salceda confirmed finding the money, Ramirez shot Victor Flores, and the three fled. Felicisima returned to find her husband bleeding and the money gone. Victor Flores died the same day due to severe hemorrhage from a gunshot wound. Procedural History: Appellants Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda were convicted of robbery with homicide by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV, and sentenced to death. They were also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Victor Flores. Rito Ramirez remained at large. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, raising several errors concerning the denial of a motion for new trial, the classification of the crime, the appreciation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the absorption of circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying Salceda's motion for a new trial. Whether the conviction for robbery with homicide was proper, or if it should have been simple robbery. Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong should have been considered. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was properly considered. Whether the aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by nocturnity.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, except as to the penalty, which is modified to reclusion perpetua. The death penalty cannot be imposed due to lack of necessary votes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of Salceda's motion for a new trial: The Court found no merit in the motion for a new trial, which was based on an affidavit from Miguel Regato claiming his companions were Loreto Ramirez and Ernesto Mutsamuel, not Jose Salceda. The Court held that this was not newly discovered evidence but rather forgotten evidence, as it existed and was available to the defense before conviction. Furthermore, the Court deemed Regato's statement in the affidavit to be highly unbelievable and not sincere, as it was contradicted by the positive declarations of eyewitnesses. On the conviction for robbery with homicide: The Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide, classifying it as a complex crime. The evidence showed that the appellants, along with Ramirez, demanded money from Victor Flores. When he refused, Regato maltreated him, while Salceda took the money from a trunk. Ramirez then shot Victor Flores. The Court held that the killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, making it a complex crime, even though the shooting occurred after the money was taken. The Court cited the lower court's decision stating that the killing was clearly done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. On the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong: The Court found no merit in this contention. It explained that intention is judged by the actions and external acts of the accused. In this case, the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result of the victim's death. Therefore, this mitigating circumstance could not be appreciated. On the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity: The Court found that the crime was committed past 9:00 in the evening, and the culprits sought the "hiding mantle of the night" to facilitate its commission. This justified the consideration of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. On the absorption of craft by nocturnity: The Court found that craft was also present. The appellants gained entrance to the house by pretending to buy cigarettes, which induced the inmates to open the door. The Court held that gaining entrance by such pretense constitutes craft, citing People vs. Napili. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether craft is absorbed by nocturnity in this specific instance, but it found both circumstances to be present and relevant to the commission of the crime.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is a complex crime where the killing is done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, regardless of whether the killing precedes or follows the taking of the property. Conspiracy among the perpetrators is evident from their collective and individual acts demonstrating a common design.