People v. Cando
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Roger Cando, Arnel Vargas, and Wilberto Rapcing, employees of Rosarian Candle Factory, along with Nonoy Sayson, were drinking. Cando joined them later and, upon Vargas's prompting, went to the factory to get his salary. He returned angry after failing to get his salary and a loan from the caretaker, Luis D. Remoriata, whom he threatened to kill. Later that night, Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando, armed with knives and a bag, climbed the factory fence, entered through a window, and proceeded to the victim's room. Cando struck the victim with a lead pipe, demanded money, and struck him again when the victim stated he had none. The victim identified Cando. Cando continued hitting the victim until he became unconscious, then took his radio cassette. They proceeded to the parked van, took its keys, and pushed it out. Vargas drove the van, and they abandoned it the next morning. Procedural History: The victim's body was discovered, and the factory van was missing. An investigation led to the recovery of a bloodstained firewood and a steel pipe. Vargas admitted his participation and implicated Cando and Rapcing, executing an extrajudicial admission and waiver of rights. Cando and Rapcing were subsequently arrested, and Rapcing also executed an extrajudicial admission corroborating Vargas's statement. Vargas later executed another admission, stating Cando gave him the stolen items for safekeeping, and led NBI agents to the bag, which bore Cando's name. The appellants were charged with robbery with homicide. The trial court convicted them, sentencing them to death, and acquitted them of carnapping. The Petition: The case is on automatic review before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery can be appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the mitigating circumstance of intoxication can be appreciated. Whether the penalty of death is the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, not a qualifying one. Evident premeditation was not appreciated as the prosecution failed to prove a preconceived plan to kill. Intoxication was considered a mitigating circumstance. With one aggravating circumstance (treachery) and one mitigating circumstance (intoxication), the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, not death. The award of exemplary damages was also affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appreciation of treachery: The Court held that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. While treachery exists when the offender employs means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself, and the victim was attacked while sleeping, it does not qualify the offense to murder. Instead, it is considered as a generic aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty for robbery with homicide, as per established jurisprudence. The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of means that neutralize any defense the victim might offer, which was evident in this case as the victim was attacked while asleep and unable to retaliate. On the appreciation of evident premeditation: The Court found that evident premeditation could not be appreciated. For evident premeditation to exist, the prosecution must prove the time the offenders decided to commit the crime, an act showing adherence to the determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution for reflection. While the prosecution proved the intent to rob and disable the victim, it failed to establish a preconceived plan to kill. The victim was still alive when the appellants left, indicating the killing was not pursuant to a prior resolve to commit murder alongside the robbery. On the appreciation of intoxication: The Court considered intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. This was based on the finding that the appellants had consumed alcoholic drinks to the extent that their reason was blurred and they lost a degree of control. Crucially, the intoxication was not habitual nor did it occur subsequent to the plan to commit the felony, fulfilling the requirements for its application as a mitigating factor. On the penalty to be imposed: Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. The Court found one aggravating circumstance (treachery) and one mitigating circumstance (intoxication). In the presence of one mitigating and one aggravating circumstance, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the death penalty imposed by the trial court was modified to reclusion perpetua. The award of exemplary damages was also affirmed based on the presence of an aggravating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
In robbery with homicide, treachery is considered a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying one. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated if the prosecution fails to establish that the killing was pursuant to a preconceived plan. Intoxication, if not habitual and not subsequent to the plan, is a mitigating circumstance. The penalty for robbery with homicide, with one mitigating and one aggravating circumstance, is reclusion perpetua.