People v. Lungbos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 12, 1980, Jackariya Lungbos alias "Nasser," Romeo Narido y Remigio, and two John Does, armed with .45 caliber pistols, allegedly formed a band and robbed the "ANGELS" GARDEN owned by Andres Enriquez y Fernandez. They took P800.00 in cash, a wallet with P40.00, and a wrist watch worth P500.00 belonging to Julian Legarde. During the commission of the robbery, they allegedly assaulted and shot Julian Legarde, inflicting a mortal gunshot wound that caused his death. An amended information was filed charging Jackariya Lungbos and Romeo Narido y Remigio with robbery in band with homicide. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Lungbos and Narido pleaded not guilty. Narido escaped from jail but was recaptured. During the trial, Narido, through his counsel de oficio, asked to be re-arraigned, changing his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty." After the amended information was explained to him in chavacano, he voluntarily and spontaneously pleaded guilty. The trial judge and defense counsel explained the meaning and effect of his plea. Narido admitted to the court that he committed the crime and was repentant. The court a quo rendered a partial decision finding Narido guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band with homicide and sentenced him to death. The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: The decision of the trial court is before the Supreme Court for mandatory review. Narido alleges that the court a quo erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of "robbery in band" and "nocturnity," in holding that he admitted the crime charged without mental reservation, and in imposing the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the aggravating circumstance of "robbery in band" and nocturnity were properly considered. Whether the appellant was bound by his judicial confession of guilt under the amended information. Whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper. Whether the overall conviction for robbery with homicide was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Romeo Narido y Remigio for robbery with homicide but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Julian Legarde and pay Andres Enriquez y Fernandez for the stolen money and watch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the aggravating circumstance of "robbery in band" and nocturnity: The Supreme Court found the assignment of error regarding "robbery in band" to be well-taken, reiterating that a band requires more than three malefactors acting together, and the prosecution failed to establish that all four were armed. Therefore, it could not be considered aggravating (citing People vs. Maalihan). The Court held that the trial court properly considered nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance because it facilitated the commission of the crime, even without direct evidence that the conspirators specifically sought the nighttime (citing People vs. Galapia). On the appellant's judicial confession of guilt: The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's holding that Narido was bound by his judicial confession of guilt, emphasizing that there is no higher evidence of guilt than an accused's own confession. A voluntary plea of guilty is admissible as high-quality evidence of guilt (citing People vs. Zea). The records showed that the trial had commenced, and the prosecution had presented evidence of guilt when Narido changed his plea. He was properly re-arraigned, and full opportunity was given to present his evidence, thus, the proceedings were not abbreviated. On the imposition of the death penalty: The Supreme Court noted that this assignment of error had become moot due to the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the trial court, which was death, had to be reduced. The Court applied Section 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that the penalty shall not be death. Therefore, the sentence was commuted to reclusion perpetua. On the overall conviction for robbery with homicide: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Romeo Narido y Remigio for the crime of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found that the elements of the crime were established, particularly the taking of personal property from Julian Legarde by means of violence and intimidation, and that on the occasion of the robbery, homicide was committed. The plea of guilty, coupled with the evidence presented, supported the conviction.
Main Doctrine
A plea of guilty entered after the commencement of trial, while binding, does not automatically entitle the accused to leniency, and the court must still consider the evidence presented. The abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution mandates the reduction of the sentence to reclusion perpetua.