People v. Cha
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 16, 1922, at between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, two malefactors entered a tienda maintained by Lim Siam and his wife, Ki Chio, by removing boards from the back of the house. Lim Siam was awakened by his wife's shriek and witnessed Fausto Cha stabbing Ki Chio. Lim Siam intervened, was cut on the foot by Cha, and then stabbed in the side before Cha fled. Policarpio Milagrosa stood at the bedroom door observing the events. Ing Si, an employee sleeping in the loft, heard the commotion and saw Fausto Cha running away. He found Ki Chio dead and Lim Siam severely wounded. Lim Siam died five days later. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of the City of Manila found the appellants, Fausto Cha y Misal and Policarpio Milagrosa y Pascual, guilty of double homicide, sentencing each to eighteen years of reclusion temporal, indemnification, and costs. The Petition: The appellants brought this appeal to reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellants are guilty of double homicide. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide. Whether treachery was present as a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. Whether nocturnity and prior convictions are aggravating circumstances. Whether the penalty for each homicide should be imposed separately and accumulated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It affirmed the conviction for double homicide but modified the penalty. Each appellant was sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal for the homicide of Ki Chio, and a further seventeen years, four months, and one day for the homicide of Lim Siam, totaling thirty-four years, eight months, and two days of reclusion temporal. The indemnification and costs were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt for double homicide: The Court found the identification of the appellants to be complete. Lim Siam positively identified Fausto Cha as the assailant of his wife and himself, noting the presence of electric light allowed clear observation of Cha's features. Policarpio Milagrosa was identified by Lim Siam as the individual standing at the door observing the assault. Ing Si corroborated the identification of Fausto Cha by seeing him fleeing the scene. Furthermore, a blood-stained slipper found on Fausto Cha, with signs of attempted effacement, served as corroborating evidence. The Court concluded that no doubt could exist regarding the guilt of the appellants. On the crime committed (robbery with homicide): The Court held that while there were indications of a design to commit robbery, such as an open drawer and disordered premises, the proof did not afford convincing demonstration that robbery, frustrated robbery, or attempt to rob was committed. Lim Siam, in his ante mortem statement, did not know if anything was taken. Therefore, the charge of robbery was ignored, and the offense was resolved into its constituent elements, namely, two homicides. On treachery: The Court found that treachery (alevosia) was not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. It was evident that Lim Siam was not asleep when assaulted, as he intervened to save his wife. While Ki Chio might have been killed because she awoke, interrupting a planned robbery, this was considered a probable conjecture and not sufficient to establish treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The allegation of treachery in the information was deemed to be in view of the charge of robbery with homicide and not as a basis for elevating the offense to murder. On aggravating circumstances (nocturnity and prior convictions): The Court affirmed the presence of two aggravating circumstances: nocturnity, as the offense was committed in the early morning hours when the victims were asleep, and that the offenders had been previously punished for two or more crimes with lighter penalties than homicide. These circumstances justified the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree. On the penalty for each homicide: The Court ruled that the trial judge erred in imposing a single penalty for homicide. Citing United States vs. Balaba, the Court held that when the robbery element of robbery with homicide is not proven, and more than one homicide is committed, the penalties appropriate to each homicide should be imposed and accumulated, in accordance with Article 87 and Article 88(2) of the Penal Code. This principle was also applied in United States vs. Lahoylahoy and Madanlog. Therefore, separate penalties for each of the two homicides were imposed and accumulated.
Main Doctrine
When the complex crime of robbery with homicide is charged but the robbery is not proven, the offense resolves into its constituent elements. If more than one homicide is committed, the penalties appropriate to each homicide should be accumulated, applying Article 87 in relation to Article 88(2) of the Penal Code.