People v. Penillos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 31, 1981, in Legazpi City, four individuals forcibly entered the house of spouses Aproniano Lladones and Epifania Lopez Lladones. They demanded money, and upon Aproniano's refusal, they took P1,000.00. The intruders then attacked Aproniano, hogtied him, and stabbed him, causing his death. Epifania was hacked on the shoulder when she tried to follow her husband. Accused-appellant Abelardo Penillos was apprehended the following morning. The other co-accused remained at large. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 7, convicted Abelardo Penillos of Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The case was appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which erroneously forwarded it to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed his conviction, raising errors concerning the identification by the victim and the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession.
Issue(s)
Whether the identification of the accused-appellant by the victim, Epifania Lopez Lladones, was sufficient for conviction. Whether the accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession was admissible in evidence. Whether the accused-appellant's defense of alibi was credible. Whether the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Homicide, or the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Whether dwelling should be considered an aggravating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for Robbery with Homicide, modified the designation of the crime to the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, considered dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and increased the civil indemnity. The extrajudicial confession was declared inadmissible.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of identification: The Court held that Epifania Lopez Lladones' identification of Abelardo Penillos was sufficient for conviction. Despite the defense's arguments regarding illumination and the victim's state of shock, the Court found her testimony credible. Epifania recognized Penillos because she had known him prior to the incident, and he was one of the intruders who sat on her husband's belly and demanded money. The Court noted that the illumination from the kerosene lamp, though from the kitchen, was sufficient for identification, especially since the table where she was pinned was only about two meters away. The Court also dismissed the defense's theory that Penillos would have worn a mask, stating it lacked empirical basis and that the alleged prior verbal exchange between Penillos and Epifania was too trivial to motivate a false accusation. On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court ruled that the accused-appellant's sworn statement (Exhibit "B") was inadmissible in evidence. The Court found that the constitutional safeguards afforded to an accused under investigation were not fully complied with. Specifically, the investigator failed to show an affirmative offer to provide the appellant with counsel de oficio if he could not afford one, and the waiver of the right to counsel was not made in the presence of counsel. The Court reiterated the ruling in Morales v. Enrile that a waiver of the right to counsel is invalid unless made with the assistance of counsel, and any statement obtained in violation of this procedure is inadmissible. On the credibility of the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi unavailing. The appellant claimed he was in Sorsogon until the evening of the incident and then traveled to Legazpi City. However, his alleged companion was not presented as a witness, and his presence at the house of his co-accused, a mere thirty meters from the scene of the crime, militated against his defense. The Court reiterated the settled rule that alibi cannot prevail over a positive identification made by a prosecution witness, and for alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime. On the designation of the crime: The Court clarified that the crime committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The information charging "Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Homicide" was modified because the term "homicide" in Article 294 is generic and includes any physical injuries committed during the robbery, which are merged into the special complex crime. The Court emphasized that there is no separate crime of robbery with attempted homicide; the attempted homicide is absorbed. On the aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The Court held that dwelling should have been considered an aggravating circumstance. Although the homicide occurred outside the house, the principal offense of robbery was perpetrated inside the dwelling, and the killing resulted from the initial evil design to steal. The Court noted that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because such a crime could be committed without transgressing the sanctity of the home. Considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, the penalty should have been death, but due to the abolition of the death penalty, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court clarified the distinction between reclusion perpetua and "life imprisonment," stating that the latter is not a penalty defined in the Revised Penal Code. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty years and carries accessory penalties, unlike "life imprisonment." The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity for the death of Aproniano Lladones from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime, absorbing any other offenses committed during the robbery, such as physical injuries. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. A confession obtained in violation of the right to counsel is inadmissible in evidence.