People v. Angcon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Esteban Angcon, along with his brother Policarpo Angcon and companions Dalmacio Sabenorio, Rolando Sabenorio, and Toribio Ortiz, conspired to rob Melecio Marentes, who had recently received a substantial sum from a land sale. On December 6, 1964, at approximately 7:00 PM, the group, with Esteban armed with a sawed-off shotgun, went to Marentes' house. Dalmacio fired at the lock, and Dioso broke down the door. Upon entering, Esteban shot Marentes, who was in a kneeling position, killing him. The group stole three thousand pesos from an overnight bag, which was entrusted to Dalmacio. The victim's wife, Gregoria Casas, and mother-in-law, Bonifacia Avila, were present during the robbery and killing. Thirteen days prior, Prudencio Esmero had paid P2,820 to Gregoria Casas as part payment for an eight-hectare land, which constituted the bulk of the stolen money. Procedural History: Esteban Angcon and his brother Policarpo Angcon were convicted of robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Tacloban City Branch VII, and sentenced to death. Policarpo Angcon died during the pendency of the case. Esteban Angcon's death sentence was under automatic review by the Supreme Court. Both brothers initially confessed extrajudicially, but later claimed maltreatment during their detention. The trial court rejected their defense of alibi and their claims of maltreatment. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for automatic review of the death sentence imposed on Esteban Angcon. His counsel de oficio argued that the crime committed was robbery with homicide only, not robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries; that nocturnity and evident premeditation were not aggravating circumstances; that lack of instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong were mitigating circumstances; and that the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua, not death.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries, or solely robbery with homicide. Whether nocturnity and evident premeditation were aggravating circumstances. Whether lack of instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong were mitigating circumstances. Whether the penalty of death was the proper imposable penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence imposed on Esteban Angcon for robbery with homicide, with modifications. The conviction was modified to exclude physical injuries, as it was not included in the information. The civil indemnity was increased to P12,000.00, and the additional sum of P3,000.00, representing the stolen amount, was ordered to be paid to the victim's heirs. The Court found that dwelling was an aggravating circumstance, and considering three aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstances, the death penalty was correctly imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the crime committed: The Court agreed with the counsel de oficio that the trial court erred in holding Esteban Angcon guilty of physical injuries in addition to robbery in band with homicide. The information only charged robbery in band with homicide. Although there were indications of physical injuries sustained by witnesses, the Court could not expand the special complex crime charged to include physical injuries, as per Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Court found no conclusive evidence that the robbery was committed by a band, as it was not certain if all five accused were armed, thus it could not be categorically averred that the crime was committed by a cuadrilla. On nocturnity and evident premeditation: The Court sustained the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, as the malefactors sought the cover of night to commit the crime with impunity, as deduced from the confession and circumstances. Regarding evident premeditation, the Court found it aggravating in relation to the homicide. The oral evidence showed that the conspirators' plan embraced the killing of Marentes, evidenced by their actions upon entering the house, including searching for him, kicking him, and shooting him despite his pleading for mercy and his wife's entreaties. The conspiracy to rob in the afternoon and the execution of the robbery in the evening provided a sufficient basis to conclude that the plan included the homicide. On mitigating circumstances: The contention that lack of instruction was mitigating was rejected, as Esteban Angcon could sign his name, and the trial court made no finding of low intelligence. The claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was also dismissed because Esteban shot the victim despite his submissive attitude and his wife's plea for mercy, indicating a high degree of perversity in killing the unarmed victim. On the penalty: Dwelling was admitted as an aggravating circumstance. With three aggravating circumstances (nocturnity, evident premeditation, and dwelling) and no mitigating circumstances, the trial court did not err in imposing the death penalty on Esteban Angcon, pursuant to Articles 63(1) and 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reiterated that courts must impose the death penalty when the law and the facts warrant it, regardless of personal views on capital punishment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence for robbery with homicide, modifying the conviction to exclude physical injuries and increasing the civil indemnity, while also clarifying the application of aggravating circumstances like nocturnity and evident premeditation in robbery with homicide cases.