Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > May 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-51797 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VERDAD

207 Phil. 204:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-51797. May 16, 1983.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE VERDAD alias ALFREDO VERDAD, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Liberato Bauto, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ATTEMPTED FELONY; NOT ACCOMPANIED BY OVERT ACTS; CASE AT BAR. — There is an attempt to commit a felony then the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Article 6, Revised Penal Code.) Applying the criterion to the case at bar, it is a fact that in his extra-judicial confession, the accused admitted that he had intended to abuse the victim. As the crime unfolded, however, the accused did not perform any direct overt act commencing the execution of the crime of rape.

2. ID.; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; ACTUAL CRIME COMMITTED. — The Court finds then that the Trial Court had properly characterized the offense as Robbery with Homicide. That the accused’s intent was tempered with a design to abuse the victim did not affect the propriety of the charge of that indivisible felony. The fact that the accused took cash and valuables immediately after he had killed the victim clearly proves robbery. It is well settled that when there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing - whether the latter he prior to, subsequent to the former, or whether both crimes he committed at the same time - it is unquestionable that they constitute the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. (People v. Hernandez, 46 Phil. 48 [1924], citing Sentence of Supreme Court of Spain of May 26. 1877)

3. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS. — The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness (Article 14[4], Revised Penal Code.), and abuse of superior strength (Article 14[15], ibid.) were properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The accused was treated like a member of the family and was completely trusted. That confidence facilitated the commission of the offense.

4. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH. — The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is likewise present. The accused had abused that superiority which his sex and the weapon he had employed afforded him and from which the 14-year-old Rowena was unable to defend herself (People v. Guzman, 107 Phil. 1122 [1960]; People v. Braña, 30 SCRA 307 [1969]).

5. ID.; PENALTY IMPOSED FOR LACK OF THE NECESSARY VOTES. — With the plea of guilty offsetting only one of the aggravating circumstances, there still remains another aggravating circumstance that calls for the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period, or death (Article 294[l], Revised Penal Code), as found by the Trial Court. However, for lack of the necessary votes to impose this extreme penalty, the sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


Mandatory review of the death penalty imposed by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch II, on the accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad, for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

The Amended Information charged the accused as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 7th day of July, 1979, in Cabanatuan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bolo, with intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation of person, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, steal and carry away from the residence of Tomas Ramos the following, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Stereo Casette — P1,000.00

2. Cash money amounting to P30.00

3. Assorted jewelries valued at P5,000.000

belonging to Maria Rowena Ramos and Tomas Ramos and, as a further result thereof said accused by reason of or on the occasion of said robbery, with intent to kill, assaulted and used violence upon the person of the same Maria Rowena Ramos, that is by hacking her thru the use of a bolo, inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries particularly on the head which directly caused the latter’s death.

The crime was committed with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, evident premeditation, taking advantage of and with use of superior strength and with the use of a motor vehicle and nighttime.

CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused pleaded guilty upon arraignment notwithstanding clarification by the Court of the gravity of the crime and the effects of conviction. Mindful of the doctrines of this Tribunal, however, warning against the entry of improvident pleas of guilty, the Trial Court resolved to take additional evidence as to the guilt of the accused and practically conducted a full-dress trial. Before and after trial, the lower Court gave the accused the chance to withdraw his plea of guilty but the accused remained adamant. 1

We adopt the counter statement of facts contained in the People’s Brief, which we find sufficiently substantiated by the evidence on record:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"Appellant Jose Verdad was employed as house boy in the residence of Tomas Ramos in Cabanatuan City since February 26, 1979. Because appellant enjoyed the trust and confidence of Tomas Ramos and his family, appellant was allowed to sleep in the sala and to stay alone in the house when the whole family was away. He was also entrusted with the keys to the house.

"At 2:00 p.m. of July 6, 1979, Tomas Ramos and his wife, Zenaida, motored to Manila, leaving behind their three children, Raymond, Lourdes and Rowena, with appellant. (Rowena was a 14-year old girl, the eldest of the three). The couple returned to Cabanatuan at about 12:30 a.m. of July 7, and found their children already asleep. Half an hour later, the couple retired to their bedroom.

"At about 2:00 a.m., appellant sensing that the couple were already sound asleep, picked up an 18-inch bolo in the kitchen and knocked on the door of Rowena’s room. Rowena woke up and asked for the caller’s identity. After appellant had identified himself, Rowena opened the door and asked what it was that appellant wanted. Appellant told her that she was being called by her mother. Not believing him, Rowena started to close the door. However, appellant pushed his way in and started attacking Rowena. Rowena sustained three wounds on the head and one on the forearm. Appellant then entered the master’s bedroom, which was unlocked, took P30.00, a college ring, and a portable stereo casette. Appellant returned to Rowena’s bedroom and took her watch and necklace. Appellant then unlocked the door of the garage, opened the gate, and pushed out the car. Afterwards, he drove off, but rammed the car against a concrete flower pot near the national highway. Appellant abandoned the car and boarded a bus bound for Manila.

"At around 6:30 a.m. of that day, Tomas Ramos found Rowena dying and the loss of his stereo casette and jewelry. He took his daughter to the hospital and reported the incident to the police. Rowena died on July 15, 1979, but before her death, she was able to tell her mother how she was attacked by Appellant.

"Appellant was apprehended in Pasay City on August 7, 1979 and was immediately taken to Cabanatuan for investigation. There he readily confessed to his guilt in an affidavit (Exh. T). He was later charged of robbery with homicide to which he pleaded guilty (tsn., pp. 6-46, Aug. 27, 1979)." 2

In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "T"), the accused, 21 years of age, single, also declared that he had intended to abuse Rowena.

In its judgment, the lower Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, held the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and abuse of superior strength proven, and imposed the capital penalty, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, by his plea of guilty, the Court finds the accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide, defined and punished under Article 294, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 63, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty and two aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness and abuse of superior strength. One of two aggravating circumstances being offset by the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty, one more aggravating circumstance remains, which should be appreciated in determining the appropriate penalty upon the accused.

Accordingly, it now becomes the painful task of the Court to impose upon the accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad, as it hereby imposes upon said accused, the supreme penalty of DEATH, and to sentence him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rowena Ramos in the sum of P12,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, but with the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs." 3

Before us, de-officio counsel’s only submission is that the accused cannot be convicted under the present Information, which charges him with Robbery with Homicide, but that he should be charged instead under another Information for Attempted Rape with Homicide.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

There is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 4

Applying the criterion to the case at bar, it is a fact that in his extra-judicial confession, the accused admitted that he had intended to abuse the victim. In open Court, he had also declared that he entered Rowena’s room to frighten her and take advantage of her. 5 As the crime unfolded, however, the accused did not perform any direct overt act commencing the execution of the crime of rape. We quote the accused’s testimony:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. When you were already inside (the room), what did you do?

"A. I held her mouth, I covered her mouth.

"Q. With your hand?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Why?

"A. So that she could not shout.

"Q. When you were already covering the mouth of Rowena, what happened next?

"A. She was able to free herself from my hold.

"Q. What did you do when Rowena was able to free herself?

"A. When she was able to free herself, I happened to hack her." 6

The foregoing actuations of the accused do not disclose the criminal objective originally intended. If it were the accused’s intent to rape Rowena, there was no overt act showing it like kissing or embracing her or throwing himself upon her. There was no external act whatsoever in furtherance of his design. In fact, even Rowena’s private nurse in the hospital, Jose Dalusong, Jr., reiterated what he had stated in his affidavit (Exhibit "S", Folder of Exhibits), and testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. What else did Rowena Ramos tell her mother?

"A. She also related when she opened the door, the houseboy Jose rushed into her bedroom and hacked her head and body with a bolo.

"Q. Were those the only narration made by Rowena Ramos to her mother?

How about the mother, did not the mother ask any question to Rowena Ramos?

"A. Mrs. Ramos also asked Rowena Ramos if she was kissed.

"Q. What was the reply of Rowena Ramos if she did reply?

"A. She answered in the negative side." (T.s.n., September 3, 1979, p. 5).

We find then that the Trial Court had properly characterized the offense as Robbery with Homicide. That the accused’s intent was tempered with a design to abuse the victim did not affect the propriety of the charge of that indivisible felony. The fact that the accused took cash and valuables immediately after he had killed the victim clearly proves robbery. It is well settled that when there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing — whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, or whether both crimes be committed at the same time — it is unquestionable that they constitute the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. 7

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, 8 and abuse of superior strength 9 were properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The accused was treated like a member of the family and was completely trusted. That confidence facilitated the commission of the offense. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is likewise present. The accused had abused that superiority which his sex and the weapon he had employed afforded him and from which the 14 year-old Rowena was unable to defend herself. 10

With the plea of guilty offsetting only one of the aggravating circumstances, there still remains another aggravating circumstance that calls for the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period, or death, 11 as found by the Trial Court. However, for lack of the necessary votes to impose this extreme penalty, the sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, with the modification as to the penalty, which is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua, the judgment under automatic review is hereby affirmed in all other respects.

Costs against the accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., I vote for affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.

Fernando, C.J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. T.s.n., August 27, 1979, pp. 2-3.

2. pp. 2-4, Appellee’s Brief, p. 46, Rollo.

3. p. 8, Decision, p. 16, Rollo.

4. Article 6, Revised Penal Code.

5. T.s.n., September 17, 1979, p. 12.

6. T.s.n., ibid, p. 15.

7. People v. Hernandez, 46 Phil. 48 (1924), citing Sentence of Supreme Court of Spain of May 26, 1877; U.S. v. Landasan, 35 Phil. 359 (1916); U.S v. Antonio, 31 Phil. 205 (1915).

8. Article 14 (4), Revised Penal Code.

9. Article 14 (15), ibid.

10. People v. Guzman, 107 Phil. 1122 (1960); People v. Braña, 30 SCRA 307 (1969).

11. Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code.




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






May-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-58113 May 2, 1983 - ADELINA B. GABATAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    207 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-30612 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ALISON

    207 Phil. 8

  • G.R. No. L-32074 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO S. MAGNAYON

    207 Phil. 22

  • G.R. No. L-34249 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN D. BARROS

    207 Phil. 32

  • G.R. No. L-35099 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL DIMATULAC

    207 Phil. 43

  • G.R. No. L-37080 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SALCEDO

    207 Phil. 49

  • G.R. No. L-57625 May 3, 1983 - AVELINO PULIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    207 Phil. 58

  • A.C. No. 1216 May 10, 1983 - MARCELINA C. MANIKAD v. NARCISO V. CRUZ, JR.

    207 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-51282 May 10, 1983 - FELIX V. TENORIO v. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    207 Phil. 72

  • A.M. No. P-2316 May 16, 1983 - ALEJANDRO C. SILAPAN v. BERNARDO ALCALA

    207 Phil. 76

  • G.R. No. L-25084 May 16, 1983 - ELENITA V. UNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION

    207 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-28809 May 16, 1983 - JULIO LLAMADO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    207 Phil. 102

  • G.R. Nos. L-31327-29 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NONCETO GRAVINO

    207 Phil. 107

  • G.R. No. L-32265 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. RAMOS

    207 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-33606 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO L. DE LA ROSA

    207 Phil. 129

  • G.R. No. L-35648 May 16, 1983 - PERSHING TAN QUETO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 186

  • G.R. No. L-38139 May 16, 1983 - TEODORO DOMANICO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 195

  • G.R. No. L-46397 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ

    207 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-51797 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VERDAD

    207 Phil. 204

  • G.R. No. L-52772 May 16, 1983 - ESCAÑO HERMANOS INCORPORADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-53973 May 16, 1983 - ANANIAS S. LAZAGA v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    207 Phil. 224

  • G.R. No. L-57636 May 16, 1983 - REYNALDO TIANGCO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

    207 Phil. 235

  • G.R. No. L-58286 May 16, 1983 - AGAPITO B. DUCUSIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 248

  • G.R. No. L-58469 May 16, 1983 - MAKATI LEASING and FINANCE CORP. v. WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC.

    207 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59318 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO G. RAMOS

    207 Phil. 269

  • A.C. No. 1341 May 17, 1983 - ANTONIA MARANAN v. MAGNO T. BUESER

    207 Phil. 278

  • A.M. No. P-1714 May 17, 1983 - LUCIA PEDRASTA v. ELIAS MARFIL

    207 Phil. 280

  • G.R. No. L-35595 May 17, 1983 - LEONARDO AMPER v. PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH III, CFI-MISAMIS ORIENTA

  • G.R. No. L-29141 May 19, 1983 - MANUEL L. LIMSICO v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA

    207 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-35664 May 19, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO L. DE LA CRUZ

    207 Phil. 324

  • G.R. No. L-44302 May 20, 1983 - MARVEL BUILDING CORPORATION v. BLAS F. OPLE

    207 Phil. 351

  • G.R. No. L-34051 May 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TONY MONTES

    207 Phil. 354

  • G.R. No. L-35491 May 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMERITO MENDEZ

    207 Phil. 359

  • G.R. No. L-53460 May 27, 1983 - PROVINCIAL CHAPTER of LAGUNA, NACIONALISTA PARTY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    207 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-57093 May 27, 1983 - MONTE DE PIEDAD AND SAVINGS BANK v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

    207 Phil. 387

  • A.C. No. 2112 May 30, 1983 - REMEDIOS MUNAR v. ERNESTO B. FLORES

    207 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27328 May 30, 1983 - ISIDRO M. ONGSIP v. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO.

    207 Phil. 396

  • G.R. No. L-30685 May 30, 1983 - NG GAN ZEE v. ASIAN CRUSADER LIFE ASSURANCE CORP.

    207 Phil. 401

  • G.R. No. L-30837 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO ORNOPIA

    207 Phil. 408

  • G.R. No. L-31763 May 30, 1983 - RAMON SIA REYES v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    207 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-33131 May 30, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAVID P. AVILA

    207 Phil. 419

  • G.R. No. L-33320 May 30, 1983 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    207 Phil. 425

  • G.R. No. L-33422 May 30, 1983 - ROSENDO BALUCANAG v. ALBERTO J. FRANCISCO

    207 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-34199 May 30, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA

    207 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-41992 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LODRIGO IJURCADAS

    207 Phil. 449

  • G.R. No. L-43905 May 30, 1983 - SERAFIA G. TOLENTINO v. EDGARDO L. PARAS

    207 Phil. 458

  • G.R. No. L-45071 May 30, 1983 - MIGUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-45674 May 30, 1983 - EMILIANO A. FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 471

  • G.R. No. L-48131 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONCIO MENDEZ

    207 Phil. 483

  • G.R. No. L-51002 May 30, 1983 - SPECIAL EVENTS & CENTRAL SHIPPING OFFICE WORKERS UNION v. SAN MIGUEL CORP.

    207 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-52358 May 30, 1983 - INHELDER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 507

  • G.R. No. L-55831 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MEDRANO, ET AL.

    207 Phil. 516

  • G.R. No. L-57555 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESA JALANDONI

    207 Phil. 517

  • G.R. No. L-58004 May 30, 1983 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 529

  • G.R. No. L-58407 May 30, 1983 - FLORENTINA LUNA GONZALES v. MARCELINO N. SAYO

    207 Phil. 537

  • G.R. No. L-58482 May 30, 1983 - MOTOROLA PHILIPPINES, INC. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA

    207 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-59724 May 30, 1983 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 544

  • G.R. No. L-61586 May 30, 1983 - ISIDRO MILLARE v. LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA

    207 Phil. 548

  • G.R. No. L-62878 May 30, 1983 - MARGOT B. DE LOS REYES v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG

    207 Phil. 556

  • G.R. No. L-64023 May 30, 1983 - PEDRO TURINGAN v. BONIFACIO CACDAC

    207 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-54718 May 31, 1983 - CRISOLOGO P. VILLANUEVA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    207 Phil. 560