People v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Mario Aquino and Ernesto Gallego, employees of Hacienda Helvetia, were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The Information alleged that on June 4, 1977, they conspired to steal a wristwatch valued at P100.00 from Bienvenido Laud by means of violence. On the occasion of the robbery and to facilitate it, they assaulted, struck with a stone, and stabbed Bienvenido Laud, inflicting multiple wounds, which resulted in his death. The prosecution's statement of facts, based on extrajudicial confessions, re-enactment, and circumstantial evidence, stated that on payday, June 4, 1977, the appellants and the deceased were at a canteen. Later that evening, appellants saw Bienvenido Laud walking home. Gallego hit Laud with a stone twice, and Aquino took Laud's knife and stabbed him. Laud fell dead, and appellants dumped his body in a ditch. Aquino took the deceased's watch and sold it the next day. The body was discovered the following day with numerous wounds. Appellants were apprehended and gave written confessions. Procedural History: The Circuit Criminal Court, 12th Judicial District, at Bacolod City, convicted Mario Aquino and Ernesto Gallego of Robbery with Homicide, with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime or uninhabited place, and sentenced them to suffer capital punishment. This decision is under automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed their conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide. Whether conspiracy was established between the accused-appellants. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place should be appreciated. Whether the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense is applicable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Homicide but modified the sentence by removing the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place. The penalty was reduced from capital punishment to reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the crime of Robbery with Homicide: For Robbery with Homicide to exist, the homicide must be committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery, meaning it must be committed in the course or because of the robbery. An intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The Court found that the appellants' concerted acts of attacking the deceased, taking his watch, and dumping his body in a ditch, followed by the sale of the watch, established the commission of robbery. The homicide was committed on the occasion of the robbery, as the intent to gain from the watch was present during the commission of the crime. The Court rejected the defense's contention that the homicide preceded the intent to rob, citing jurisprudence that an intent to commit robbery must precede the killing. On conspiracy: The Court found that the appellants' concerted acts clearly demonstrated that they were of one mind, imbued with the same purpose and objective, thereby establishing conspiracy. Gallego attacked the deceased with a stone, and Aquino then used the deceased's knife to stab him multiple times. Both appellants carried the victim to a canal and dumped his body. Gallego stood by while Aquino took the watch, and Gallego was with Aquino when the watch was sold. When conspiracy exists, the act of one is the act of the other, and they are equally liable. On the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place: The Court ruled that nighttime cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance because it was not specially sought. The crime was committed at night, but the notion to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission when the appellants and the deceased merely chanced upon each other. Similarly, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was not appreciated. Although the place was secluded, it was the usual road leading to the residences of the appellants and the deceased, and there was no evidence that the accused selected the place to obtain their object without interference or to secure themselves against detection. On the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense: The Court rejected the defense's attempt to invoke incomplete self-defense. The evidence, particularly the extrajudicial confessions, indicated that the aggression originated from the appellants, not from the deceased. Gallego hit Laud with a stone, and Aquino stabbed him. While the deceased may have put up a fight, it was an automatic response to the instinct of self-preservation, not unlawful aggression on his part. The Court gave fuller faith and credence to the extrajudicial confessions, which were closer in time to the occurrence, over the re-enacted version presented by the defense.
Main Doctrine
For Robbery with Homicide to exist, the homicide must be committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. An intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place were not appreciated as they were not specially sought.