People v. Gano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Castanito Gano, was charged with robbery with homicide for the killing of three victims and the taking of their valuables. The victims were Conchita Marbella, Ponciano Salen, and Anicia Salen. Alberto Marbella, husband of Conchita and son-in-law of Ponciano and Anicia, learned of the murders and discovered that P30,000.00 in cash, two gold bracelets, and two wristwatches were missing from their home. A four-year-old witness, Angelica Marbella, testified that she saw the accused kill her mother and grandparents and steal money and her Mickey Mouse watch. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, convicted Castanito Gano of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death. The trial court considered the admission of the killings as a mitigating circumstance and the multiplicity of homicides as two aggravating circumstances. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the element of robbery and that he should only be convicted of homicide. The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of robbery with homicide. Whether the multiplicity of homicides can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Whether the accused's admission of the killings constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Whether dwelling can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court ruled that the multiplicity of homicides and dwelling cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances, and the accused's confession was not a mitigating circumstance as it was qualified. The Court also modified the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for robbery with homicide: The Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide. The testimony of the minor witness, Angelica Marbella, was given full credence. She categorically stated that the accused killed her mother and grandparents and stole money from her mother's drawer, as well as her Mickey Mouse watch. While the ownership of other items recovered from the accused was not satisfactorily established as fruits of the crime, the taking of Angelica's Mickey Mouse watch was sufficiently proved, thus establishing the element of robbery. The Court held that the accused killed three persons by reason or on the occasion of this robbery. On the multiplicity of homicides as an aggravating circumstance: The Court ruled that the multiplicity of homicides committed on the occasion of robbery cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Citing People v. Regala, the Court stated that there is no law providing for this as an aggravating circumstance, and the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive. The Court acknowledged the "anomalous situation" where robbery with one homicide is on the same level as robbery with multiple homicides but noted that the remedy lies with the legislature. On the admission of killings as a mitigating circumstance: The Court found that the trial court erred in considering the accused's admission as a mitigating circumstance. The accused admitted to the killings but denied the charge of robbery. For voluntary confession to be mitigating, it must be unconditional and admit to the entire offense charged, which in this case was robbery with homicide. Since the confession was qualified, it could not be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance. On dwelling as an aggravating circumstance: The Court found that dwelling could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because it was not alleged in the Information. Pursuant to the amended provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which require aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the information, and the rule of retroactive application of penal statutes favorable to the accused, dwelling could not be considered.
Main Doctrine
The multiplicity of homicides committed on the occasion of robbery cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Furthermore, a confession is only mitigating if it is unconditional and admits to the offense charged, not merely a part of it.