Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > October 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17530. October 30, 1962.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAUSIANO ENOT and PABLO VIÑALON, Defendants-Appellants.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Manuel U. Llamas, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF INTOXICATION; FACT OF INTOXICATION TO BE PROVED. — To be available as a ground to lighten the penalty, the fact of intoxication must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. (People v. Noble, 77 Phil. 93, 101.)

2. ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LACK OF INSTRUCTION; TO WHAT CRIMES IT IS NOT APPLICABLE. — The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction is not applicable to crimes of theft or robbery, much less to the crime of homicides. (U.S. v. Pascual, 9 Phil. 491; People v. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154; People v. De la Cruz, 77 Phil. 444; People v. Mendova, 100 Phil., 811.) No one, however unschooled he may be, is so ignorant as to know that theft or robbery, or assault upon the person of another, is inherently wrong and a violation of the law.

3. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF NOCTURNITY; WHEN NOCTURNITY IS ABSORBED BY TREACHERY. — Nocturnity should not be taken as an aggravating circumstance separate and independent of that of treachery, because it forms part of the peculiar treacherous means and manner adopted to insure the execution of the crime. (People v. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 675; People v. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568; People v. Bautista, 79 Phil., 652; People v. Magsilang, 82 Phil. 271).

4. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY; TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NIGHTTIME TO COVER UP MOVEMENT. — The crime committed in the case at bar, that of robbery with multiple homicide and physical injury, is aggravated by treachery, in that accused took advantage of nighttime to cover up their movements and commenced attack on their victims at a time when the latter, unaware of their approach and their intention, were in no position to offer any defense (People v. Pengzon, 44 Phil., 224, 234; People v. Palomo, 43 Off. Gaz. No. 10, 4190).

5. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DISREGARD OF SEX AND AGE. — The commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the sex and age of the victims, because the latter, with but one exception, were all women, one only five years old, another, a minor, and the third, a seven-month old baby (People v. Medina, 71 Phil. 383).


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:



Review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, Hon. Mariano V. Benedicto, presiding, sentencing each of the accused Causiano Enot and Pablo Viñalon to undergo the penalty of death for the crime of robbery with multiple homicide and physical injuries.

The above-named accused, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to the charges contained in the information filed against them, which reads as follows.

"That on or about the 8th day of July, 1960, in the barrio of San Jose, Municipality of Cataiñgan, Province of Masbate, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring together and helping each other, with intent of gain and by means of violence and force upon things, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Macario Conje who was then sleeping with the members of his family and once inside take and carry away one trunk belonging to Macario Conje which said accused forcibly opened outside the house and from which they took, stole and carried away therefrom assorted clothings and also one fighting cock all valued in the total amount of P35.00, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount; that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the articles above-mentioned, the herein accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, the use of superior strength, cruelty, abuse of confidence and treachery — all with intent to kill, attack, assault and stab with sharp bolos the persons of Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado, Monina Conje, a minor Baby Conje, 7 months old and Santiaga Conje, 5 years old and thereby inflicting upon Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado and Monina Conje serious multiple wounds on the different parts of their bodies and upon Baby Conje incise wound at the middle of the head cutting the skull and brain which injuries directly caused their instantaneous death; and upon Santiaga Conje incise wound in the left leg below the knee joint which injury required medical attendance for a period of from 15 to 20 days."cralaw virtua1aw library

After they had entered their plea of guilty, the accused were asked by the judge if they understood the information as read to them, and they both answered "Yes, sir." However, in view of the seriousness of the offense charged and the gravity of the penalty imposable therefor, the trial judge, instead of immediately pronouncing sentence upon their plea of guilty, propounded questions to both of them to assure himself.

The examination conducted by the judge himself in open court established the following facts: The accused Causiano Enot and Pablo Viñalon, having previously planned to rob the house of Macario Conje located in the barrio of San Jose, Cataingan, Masbate, went up the said house on the night of July 8, 1960, armed with bolos. Upon gaining entrance thereto, they found therein Macario Conje, his wife Maximina Arreglado, Santiaga Conje, 5 years, Monina Conje, a minor, and Baby Conje, 7 months, all of whom were still awake, with the exception of the last. Of those awake "some were sitting and some were lying down." Without provocation whatsoever, and in accordance with their plan to assault the occupants to insure the perpetration of the crime they had conspired to commit, the accused did then and there attack Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado, Monina Conje, Baby Conje, and Santiaga Conje, by stabbing and hacking them with their bolos and inflicting wounds on their persons, which brought instantaneous death to the first four named and injury to the left leg just below the knee of Santiaga Conje, which required 15 to 20 days of medical care. Having thus eliminated possible obstacles to the accomplishment of their criminal purpose of robbing the victims, the accused then proceeded to bring outside the house one fighting cock and a trunk belonging to Macario Conje, which trunk they forcibly opened and took therefrom assorted clothing. All the things taken by them are valued in the amount of P35.00.

The facts above set forth were voluntarily and spontaneously admitted by the two accused before the trial judge. When the judge asked them for the second time if they reiterate their plea of guilty, and if they realized that the court could sentence them to any penalty provided by law, the accused again answered in the affirmative.

On the basis of the admissions made by the accused, the court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with multiple homicide and physical injuries, with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, superior strength, treachery and evident premeditation, with only one mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, and thereby sentenced them to the penalty of death. Capital punishment having been imposed, the records of the case were forwarded to this Court for review.

Defendants-appellants do not question the facts as found by the trial judge, but doubt the propriety of the penalty imposed by him, claiming that at most the penalty to which they should have been sentenced is reclusion perpetua. They allege that the death penalty was erroneously imposed because the trial court (1) did not consider intoxication and lack of instruction or education as mitigating circumstances; (2) considered nocturnity and abuse of superior strength as distinct and separate from the aggravating circumstance of treachery; and (3) considered evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance.

We have already held that to be available as a means to lighten the penalty, the fact of intoxication must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. (People v. Noble, 77 Phil. 93, 101). In the case at bar, defendants-appellants made no offer to show that during the commission of the crime they were drunk to the point of losing the use of their reason and self-control. Neither has it been shown that just before they committed the crime defendants-appellants had in fact been drinking. The extrajudicial confession of Pablo Viñalon found on page 30 of the record, which counsel for the defense brings to the attention of this Court to prove that Viñalon was drunk during the commission of the crime, may not be taken into account, not having been offered as an exhibit. Besides, all that said confession states is that Viñalon had been drinking tuba together with a certain Sulpicio Cuadera before he repaired to the house of Macario Conje, without stating the amount or quantity of liquor they had consumed, upon which the court could base its finding as to the degree of their intoxication. (Ibid.) Hence the lower court acted Rightly in not appreciating drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance in their favor.

The benefit of lack of instruction is likewise unavailing to mitigate the crime committed by defendants-appellants as this circumstance is not applicable to crimes of theft or robbery, and much less to the crime of homicide, (U.S. v. Pascual, 9 Phil. 591; People v. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154; People v. De la Cruz, 77 Phil. 444; People v. Mendova, G.R. No. L-7030, Jan. 31, 1957.) Needless to say, no one, however unschooled he may be, is so ignorant as not to know that theft or robbery, or assault upon the person of another, is inherently wrong and a violation of the law.

However, nocturnity should not have been taken as an aggravating circumstance separate and independent of that of treachery, the reason being that nighttime forms part of the peculiar treacherous means and manner adopted to insure the execution of the crime. (People v. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 675, 677; People v. Parde, 79 Phil. 568, 579; People v. Bautista, 79 Phil. 652, 657; People v. Magsilang, 82 Phil. 271, 275.)

The crime committed, that of robbery with multiple homicide and physical injury, is aggravated by treachery, in that the accused took advantage of nighttime to cover up their movements and commenced attack on their victims at a time when the latter, unaware of their approach and their intention, were in no position to offer any defense (People v. Pengzon, 44 Phil. 224, 234; People v. Palomo, 43 Off. Gaz. No. 4190); by the use of superior strength and disregard of the sex and age of the victims, the latter, with the exception of Macario Conje, all being women, one only five years old, another, a minor, and the third, a seven-month old baby (People v. Medina, 71 Phil. 383); by evident premeditation, in that prior to the crime, they had conspired to rob the house of Macario Conje and to assault and attack the occupants thereof if necessary to better accomplish their purpose (People v. Galang & Guzman, 73 Phil. 184, 198-200); and by dwelling, consisting in the violation of the privacy of the home of the deceased Macario Conje and his family (People v. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333, 340; People v. Bautista, 79 Phil. 653, 657; People v. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 480).

What has attracted the attention of the Court is the senseless depravity with which the accused committed the offense. For no conceivable reason, they hacked the head of the baby in two. The three other victims were defenseless women who offered no resistance at all; yet disregarding their helplessness, sex and tender age, defendants stabbed and hacked them to death without mercy.

In view of the plea of guilty and the aggravating circumstances which attended the commission of the crime, the Court is constrained to affirm, as it hereby affirms, the death sentence imposed by the trial judge upon each of the Accused-Appellants. Considering that the decision of the lower court does not impose any indemnity for the death of the victims, namely, Macario Conje, Maximina Arreglado, Monina Conje, and Baby Conje, the defendants-appellants are hereby sentenced to pay jointly and severally the amount of P6,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims. Costs against defendants-appellants. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10614 October 22, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. BAGTAS

  • A.C. No. 57 October 30, 1962 - HERMENEGILDO U. ABSALUD v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48922 October 30, 1962 - AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO v. N. T. DEEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12919 October 30, 1962 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS HOSPITAL v. U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15183 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: PAULINO P. GOCHECO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO T. ESTACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15548 October 30, 1962 - JOSE KABIGTING v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16096 October 30, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. DY BUNCIO & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16174 October 30, 1962 - RUBEN O. SANGALANG v. BRIGIDA VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-16519 October 30, 1962 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO PALISOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16705 October 30, 1962 - ANTONIO E. QUEROL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17053 October 30, 1962 - GAVINO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17176 October 30, 1962 - ROSENDO RALLA v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17207 & L-17372 October 30, 1962 - U.S.T. PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17399 October 30, 1962 - BONIFACIO SY PIÑERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17570 October 30, 1962 - ROSALINA MARTINEZ v. AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17645 October 30, 1962 - JULIANA ZAPATA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17784 October 30, 1962 - MARIANO GARCHITORENA v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17822 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO DOMENDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17924 October 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18008 October 30, 1962 - ELISEA LAPERAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18066 October 30, 1962 - JUANITA NAIRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18068 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18216 October 30, 1962 - STOCKHOLDERS OF F. GUANZON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-18235 October 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. KIN SAN RICE AND CORN MILL COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18622 October 30, 1962 - LIM SON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-18953 October 30, 1962 - EMILIO ARZAGA v. FRANCISCO BOBIS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-20010 October 30, 1962 - FRANCISCO BOIX, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13486 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BAGSICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13968 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14366 October 31, 1962 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14542 October 31, 1962 - MANUEL A. CORDERO v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14848 October 31, 1962 - COLUMBIAN ROPE COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. TACLOBAN ASSOC. OF LABORERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201 and L-15202 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO G. TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15310 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ABLOG

  • G.R. No. L-15605 October 31, 1962 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15983 October 31, 1962 - MAXIMO ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16587 October 31, 1962 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, ET AL. v. RUFINO P. HALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-16789 October 31, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17008 October 31, 1962 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17062 October 31, 1962 - MARIANO S. RAMIREZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO

  • G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17560 October 31, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE FENOY

  • G.R. No. L-17619 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCA GATCHALIAN v. GORGONIO PAVILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17439 October 31, 1962 - JOSE IRA, ET AL. v. MARINA ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17760 October 31, 1962 - RAMCAR, INC. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17772 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17898 October 31, 1962 - PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17914 October 31, 1962 - ROSARIO MARTIN VDA. DE MALLARI v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17991 October 31, 1962 - JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18006 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: CUAKI TAN SI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18030 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SUSUKAN

  • G.R. No. L-18078 October 31, 1962 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING CORP. v. GOYENA LUMBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18231 October 31, 1962 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO, ET AL. v. SALVADORA G. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18253 October 31, 1962 - WENCESLAO PLAZA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18285 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: TOMASA V. BULOS v. VICENTE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-18338 October 31, 1962 - KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA v. RICARDO TANTONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18379 October 31, 1962 - AMANDA V. CABIGAO v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18588 October 31, 1962 - INES R. DE PAGES, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19968-69 October 31, 1962 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. FILOMENO B. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20131 October 31, 1962 - MACO STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20141-42 October 31, 1962 - JOAQUIN CUATICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20389 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO B. BAUTISTA v. PRIMITIVO A. GARCIA