People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Badilla y Oñes

A conviction for robbery with homicide may stand where the information, read as a whole, sufficiently alleges the elements of robbery and homicide, the robbery itself is proven, and the killing is shown to have been committed on the occasion of the robbery; the death penalty, however, cannot be imposed under the 1987 Constitution and is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Danilo Badilla y Oñes alias Dodong was charged under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with robbery with homicide for the death of Nestora Horohoro and the taking of a radio cassette recorder and an electric fan from the house of Praxedes Quidang, where Horohoro lived. The case was tried in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 3, and reached the Supreme Court on appeal after an earlier automatic-review judgment had been set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings. The governing statute penalized the offense with reclusion perpetua to death, but the 1987 Constitution’s prohibition on the death penalty supplied the constitutional backdrop to the penalty imposed.

On July 18, 1984, Nestora Horohoro was living in the house of Praxedes Quidang on Calceta Street, Tagbilaran City, together with Ruth Torrefranca, her ten-year-old niece. Quidang, the owner, was in Manila. Danilo Badilla y Oñes, alias Dodong, a twenty-one-year-old jobless relative of Horohoro who was vacationing in Bohol, had visited the house three times before that day. On the morning of July 18, he was at the house; he and Horohoro had lunch there with Ruth. After lunch, Ruth left for school.

At about 8:00 a.m. that day, Badilla went to Tagbilaran Champion Enterprises, the store of Joseph Lim, and offered to sell a radio cassette recorder and a rota air electric fan. Lim told him to return because he wanted to examine the items. After Badilla left, Lim called radio station DYRD to inquire about lost items; advised to call the police, he did so. Policemen arrived at the store at about 9:00 a.m. and waited. Badilla, meanwhile, returned to the Quidang house, where he had lunch with Horohoro and Ruth. After lunch, Ruth left for school.

At about 1:00 p.m., Erica Requina, a neighbor whose house was separated from the Quidang house by a fence, heard the gate of the Quidang house. She went out and saw Badilla leaving through the gate carrying a radio cassette recorder and a rota air electric fan. She called for Horohoro but received no answer. Entering the gate, she found Horohoro lying dead in a pool of blood. She roused her husband and reported the matter to the police. Ruth, who had been informed at about 2:00 p.m., returned home and saw Horohoro lying dead, face down and bathed in blood at the porch, while the radio cassette recorder and electric fan were missing.

At past 1:00 p.m., Badilla returned to Lim’s store with the radio cassette recorder and electric fan. He and Lim negotiated a price of P3,000. The policemen, in plain clothes, then held Badilla’s shoulder, identified themselves, and invited him to the police station for questioning. They noticed a bandage on his right little finger stained with blood; at the station the bandage was removed and marked as Exhibit D.

Pat. Erlende Bantugan responded with Erica Requina to the Quidang house, cordoned the area, and found Horohoro lying face down in a pool of blood. Near her body were two pieces of a broken pestle, marked Exhibits G and G-1. When Fiscal Geulen rolled the body, a knife, Exhibit H, was found underneath. Bantugan also saw bloodstains and pieces of cloth near the comfort room. Dr. Marcial Escobia, Jr. examined the body and issued a post-mortem certificate and autopsy report. The body showed multiple lacerated wounds, an incised wound, and fifteen stab wounds; four stab wounds penetrated the lungs. The cause of death was hemorrhage and collapse of the lungs. Dr. Escobia testified that the lacerated wounds could have been caused by a blunt object such as the broken pestle, the incised wound by a knife, and the stab wounds by the knife marked Exhibit H.

Badilla testified that he had gone to the Quidang house to borrow the radio cassette recorder so he could pledge it to Joseph Lim for P500 for daily expenses. He had lunch with Horohoro, and after lunch, when he told her he was leaving with the radio cassette, she refused. He approached her, but she pushed him and shouted. He tried to cover her mouth; his little finger entered her mouth and she bit it. When he pulled his finger free and saw it bleeding, he felt obfuscated and stabbed her with his knife. He could not remember how many times he stabbed her but claimed he had no intention to kill. Thinking her dead, he took the radio cassette recorder and the electric fan and proceeded to Champion Enterprises. He said the broken pestle was already broken and he did not use it; the bolo Horohoro had been using was stuck in a banana plant.

The trial court credited the prosecution’s evidence and found that Badilla had planned to take the items and that the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery. Badilla admitted the killing but claimed obfuscation and lack of intent to kill.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Appellant argued that the information failed to aver robbery with homicide because the phrase “with the intent to gain and by the use of force and violence” qualified the homicide charge rather than the robbery, and therefore did not charge the offense defined in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Robbery as Occasion of the Killing: Assuming robbery was committed, appellant maintained that the killing was the result of a quarrel between him and the victim and was not committed as a consequence of or on occasion of the robbery.
• Admissibility of Post-Mortem Certificate and Autopsy Report: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibits “E” and “F” because they were prepared and signed by Dr. Albert Jones, who was not presented as a witness; the best evidence should have been the hospital records from which the entries were copied.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Appellant contended that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, obvious ungratefulness, and dwelling were not supported by evidence.
• Death Penalty: Appellant argued that the death penalty imposed by the trial court had been declared unconstitutional under the 1973 and Freedom Constitutions.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Appellant maintained that the offense committed was only simple homicide, with the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no offsetting aggravating circumstances.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the information failed to aver the commission of robbery with homicide as defined in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Robbery as Occasion of the Killing: Whether, assuming robbery was committed, the killing was committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery.
• Admissibility of Post-Mortem Certificate and Autopsy Report: Whether the trial court erred in admitting Exhibits “E” and “F” prepared and signed by Dr. Albert Jones, who was not presented as a witness.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the crime was committed with treachery, obvious ungratefulness, and dwelling.
• Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty imposed was unconstitutional under the 1973 and Freedom Constitutions.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Proper Offense: Whether the offense committed was simple homicide with the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and without offsetting aggravating circumstances.

• Sufficiency of the Information: No. The information, read as a whole, sufficiently alleged robbery with homicide; the placement of the phrase “with the intent to gain and by the use of force and violence” did not render it defective.
• Robbery as Occasion of the Killing: Yes. The killing was committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery; the robbery itself was proven by the intent to gain and the use of force.
• Admissibility of Post-Mortem Certificate and Autopsy Report: Yes. The objection was waived for lack of timely objection, and Dr. Escobia, who personally examined the cadaver, was competent to testify on the matters covered by the post-mortem certificate.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery and dwelling attended the crime; obvious ungratefulness was not appreciated for lack of evidence.
• Death Penalty: No. The death penalty could not be imposed under the 1987 Constitution; the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Proper Offense: No. The crime was robbery with homicide, not simple homicide; lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong was not mitigating, while plea of guilty was mitigating but did not prevent the penalty from being reduced only by constitutional prohibition.

• Sufficiency of the Information: The information alleged that the accused, with intent to gain and by use of force and violence, assaulted, attacked, and beat Nestora Horohoro with a wooden pole, stabbed her with a stainless knife, causing her death, and thereafter forcibly took and carried away a rota-air electric fan and a Sanyo Dynamic radio cassette recorder. Although the phrase “with the intent to gain and by the use of force and violence” preceded the homicide allegation, the information taken as a whole contained the essential elements of robbery with homicide and enabled a person of common understanding to know the offense charged. Rule 110, Section 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure permits the acts constituting the offense to be stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily in the terms of the statute. The Court nevertheless reminded Chief Prosecutors to train subordinates to prepare carefully crafted and grammatically precise informations.

• Robbery as Occasion of the Killing: The appellant’s claim that the killing arose from a quarrel and was not on the occasion of robbery was self-serving. The more believable account was that he wanted the radio cassette recorder and electric fan and was willing to obtain them at any cost. Joseph Lim’s testimony showed that the appellant had planned to get both items even before the killing: he offered them for sale as early as 8:00 a.m. on July 18, 1984. When the victim refused to give them, he attacked and killed her, then took the items to sell to Lim. The police were already waiting because of a tip that someone would return to sell probably hot items. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code defines robbery as taking personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. Intent to gain was shown by Lim’s testimony and by the appellant’s own statement that he would use the proceeds for his fare; force was also shown. Because robbery was proven, the killing was committed as a consequence of or on occasion of the robbery. The Court cited People vs. Repuela that in robbery with homicide the robbery itself must be proven, otherwise the accused may be convicted only of the killing.

• Admissibility of Post-Mortem Certificate and Autopsy Report: Objections to the admission of evidence must be made at the proper time; otherwise they are waived. The proper time is when the inadmissibility is or may be inferred from the question, answer, or presentation of proof. The appellant did not object to the admissibility of Exhibits “E” and “E-1”; his statement that he would not admit Exhibit “E” without seeing the original was not the objection raised on appeal. Even without the waiver rule, Dr. Escobia had personally examined the cadaver and was competent to testify on the same matters covered by the post-mortem certificate.

• Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery was present because the appellant employed measures intended to ensure the commission of the offense without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might make. The numerous stab wounds, some inflicted at the victim’s back, showed a sudden and brutal attack. The suddenness deprived the victim—a woman, unarmed, and alone—of the opportunity to run or fight back. The appellant, a strong young man, suffered no injury except the small wound on his finger from the bite. Obvious ungratefulness could not be appreciated because there was no evidence of the generosities and their extent received by the appellant from the victim. Dwelling was also aggravating. Although the appellant cited cases from the 1940s and 1950s requiring the house to belong to the victim or be her permanent dwelling, People vs. Sto. Tomas held that dwelling may mean temporary dwelling. The victim was living in the house of Praxedes Quidang with her niece even though the owner was in Manila; this was sufficient.

• Death Penalty: Robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling were appreciated, along with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. Under Article 63(4) of the Revised Penal Code, death was the proper imposable penalty. However, Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution, as interpreted in People vs. Munoz, prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Since February 2, 1987, the Court had not imposed the death penalty whenever it was called for under the Revised Penal Code but instead reduced it to reclusion perpetua, as in People vs. Solis. Accordingly, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

• Mitigating Circumstances and Proper Offense: The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong addresses the offender’s intention at the particular moment when he executes or commits the criminal act. It could not be considered here because the appellant’s intention was clearly manifested in his overt acts: the victim suffered at least eighteen stab wounds, multiple lacerated wounds, abrasions, and other injuries. The offense was not simple homicide but robbery with homicide. The plea of guilty was a mitigating circumstance, but the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling were present. The penalty remained death under Article 63(4) of the Revised Penal Code, but was reduced to reclusion perpetua by constitutional prohibition.

• Sufficiency of Information — An information is sufficient if the acts or omissions constituting the offense are stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily in the terms of the statute, such that a person of common understanding knows the offense charged and the court can pronounce proper judgment. Applied: the information for robbery with homicide was sufficient despite the placement of the phrase “with the intent to gain and by the use of force and violence” before the homicide allegation, because the elements appeared when read as a whole.
• Proof of Robbery in Robbery with Homicide — In robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proven; otherwise, the accused may be convicted only of the killing, whether homicide or murder. Applied: intent to gain and use of force were established, so the killing was committed on the occasion of robbery.
• Waiver of Objection to Evidence — Objections to the admissibility of evidence must be raised at the proper time; failure to do so waives the objection. Applied: appellant did not timely object to the post-mortem certificate, and Dr. Escobia was in any event competent to testify on the autopsy matters.
• Treachery — Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. Applied: the sudden and brutal stabbing of an unarmed woman who was alone deprived her of any chance to defend herself.
• Dwelling as Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling may be appreciated even if the victim is not the owner of the house, and it may refer to a temporary dwelling. Applied: the victim lived in Praxedes Quidang’s house with her niece, so dwelling was aggravating.
• Obvious Ungratefulness — Obvious ungratefulness requires proof of the generosities received by the offender from the victim and the extent thereof. Applied: not appreciated because no such evidence was presented.
• Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave a Wrong — This mitigating circumstance addresses the offender’s intention at the particular moment of execution of the criminal act. Applied: not appreciated because the victim suffered at least eighteen stab wounds and multiple other injuries, showing clear intent.
• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating Circumstance — A plea of guilty, not withdrawn, is a mitigating circumstance. Applied: the appellant’s plea of guilty was considered mitigating, but it did not offset the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling for purposes of the imposable penalty under Article 63(4).
• Death Penalty Prohibition — Under Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty may not be imposed; where the Revised Penal Code calls for death, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Applied: the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide — Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime in which the killing is committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Applied: the appellant was convicted of the special complex crime, not simple homicide.

• “Although the term ‘with the intent to gain and by the use of force and violence’ precedes the part alleging the ‘homicide’, the information taken as a whole is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know that the crime charged is that of robbery with homicide as the necessary elements of the said offense are present in the above information.” — The passage resolves the first assignment of error and states the ratio on the sufficiency of an information for robbery with homicide.
• “It has been held that in robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proven, otherwise, the accused may be convicted only for the killing, homicide or murder as the case may be.” — This is the controlling rule on the necessity of proving robbery as a separate element in the special complex crime.
• “Dwelling, then, may mean temporary dwelling.” — The sentence adopts People vs. Sto. Tomas and supports the appreciation of dwelling despite the victim not owning the house.
• “Robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling are appreciated in this case with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. Death, then is the proper imposable penalty (Article 63 (4), Revised Penal Code). In view, however, of Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution as interpreted in our ruling in People v. Munoz, et al., G.R. Nos. L-38969-70, February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 107 [1989]; prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the Court has since February 2, 1987 not imposed the death penalty whenever it was called for under the Revised Penal Code but instead reduced the same to reclusion perpetua.” — This passage states the penalty computation and the constitutional reason for reducing death to reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Repuela, et al., G.R. No. 85178, March 15, 1990 — Cited for the rule that in robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proven; otherwise, the accused may be convicted only of the killing.
• People vs. Mariño, 130 SCRA 595, 600-601 [1984] — Cited for the rule that objections to evidence must be raised at the proper time or are waived.
• People vs. Verges, 105 SCRA 744, 755 [1981] — Cited together with Mariño for the same waiver rule on admissibility of evidence.
• People vs. Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 69580, February 15, 1990 — Cited for the definition of treachery as employing measures intended to ensure the commission of the offense without risk to the offender from the victim’s defense.
• People vs. Sto. Tomas, 138 SCRA 206, 219 [1985] — Cited and followed for the rule that dwelling may mean temporary dwelling and may be appreciated even if the victim is not the owner of the house.
• People vs. Abueg, 145 SCRA 622, 634 [1986] — Cited for the rule that lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong addresses the offender’s intention at the particular moment of execution.
• People vs. Munoz, et al., G.R. Nos. L-38969-70, February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 107 [1989] — Cited as the controlling interpretation of Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the death penalty.
• People vs. Solis, et al., G.R. Nos. 78732-33, February 14, 1990 — Cited for the practice of reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua whenever the Revised Penal Code calls for death.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide; the provision under which the accused was convicted. The Court held the information sufficiently charged this offense and affirmed conviction.
• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery as taking personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. The Court applied its elements to find robbery proven.
• Article 63(4), Revised Penal Code — Cited in computing the penalty; with aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling and the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, death was the proper imposable penalty, later reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Article 39, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5465 — Cited in the trial court’s dispositive portion regarding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for the indemnity. The Supreme Court increased the indemnity but did not discuss subsidiary imprisonment.
• Rule 110, Section 9, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the acts or omissions constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily in the terms of the statute, sufficient for a person of common understanding to know the offense and for the court to pronounce judgment. Applied to uphold the information.
• Article III, Section 19(1), 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Applied to reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

Chief Justice Fernan; Justices Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes concurred.