People v. Damo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Arnel Damo, a 25-year-old tricycle driver, was charged with robbery with homicide. He approached Lucretia D. Calina, a 54-year-old passenger who had just arrived from abroad, at the bus terminal. He offered to take her to Bangui for P125.00. Instead, he brought her to a vacant house, where he coerced her into sexual intercourse. After satisfying his lust, he strangled her to death, dumped her body into a well, hid her belongings, and disposed of her luggage. He was later arrested and confessed his guilt in an extra-judicial confession. Procedural History: The then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte (Laoag City) imposed the death sentence, indemnity to the heirs of the victim, and payment for the stolen money. This case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Petition: The defense assailed the decision of the lower court on several grounds, including the erroneous appreciation of evident premeditation, nocturnity, and treachery as aggravating circumstances, the failure to offset treachery with the plea of guilty, the failure to appreciate intoxication as a mitigating circumstance, and the imposition of the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime. Whether nocturnity was an aggravating circumstance. Whether treachery was an aggravating circumstance. Whether the plea of guilty should have offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Whether intoxication was a mitigating circumstance. Whether the death penalty was the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower court. The accused-appellant, Arnel Damo, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to pay the heirs of Lucretia D. Calina the sum of P30,000.00 as indemnity and P408.50 for the stolen money, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime: The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General that evident premeditation was not present. The Court noted that the appellant conceived the idea of killing the deceased only after he had satisfied his lust. There was insufficient time for him to reflect on his evil resolution, as he returned to the house and met the victim at the kitchen door before strangling her. This indicates that the intent to kill arose spontaneously after the commission of the primary offense of rape, not before. On Whether nocturnity was an aggravating circumstance: The Court found the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity to be absent. For nocturnity to be appreciated, it must be purposely and deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime. In this case, the meeting between the appellant and the victim was by chance at the bus terminal, and he was waiting for passengers as a tricycle driver. Therefore, he did not purposely seek the nighttime to commit the offense. On Whether treachery was an aggravating circumstance: The contention that there was no treachery was found to be untenable. The Court held that treachery is present when the execution of the crime is sudden and unexpected, even if face to face. After satisfying his lust, the victim could not have anticipated that the appellant would suddenly kill her. However, the Court clarified that treachery in cases of robbery with homicide is a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying one. On Whether the plea of guilty should have offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery: The Supreme Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of treachery could be offset by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. This is a standard application of the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances, where a plea of guilty generally serves to mitigate the penalty. On Whether intoxication was a mitigating circumstance: The claim of intoxication as a mitigating circumstance was found to be untenable. The appellant failed to present convincing evidence that his reason was blurred to the extent of losing control of himself. The fact that he was able to drive his tricycle, commit the acts of sexual intercourse and homicide, dump the body, and return to the city demonstrated that he had complete control of his mental faculties. On Whether the death penalty was the appropriate penalty: Considering that the aggravating circumstance of treachery was offset by the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty, the Court determined that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, not death. Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides for reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with homicide. The presence of treachery as an aggravating circumstance, when offset by the plea of guilty, leads to the imposition of the lower end of the penalty range.
Main Doctrine
In robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance that can be offset by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. Nocturnity is not present if the meeting was accidental. Evident premeditation is absent if the intent to kill arose after the commission of the primary offense.