People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Villas y Tanti

Nocturnity and grave abuse of confidence are properly appreciated as aggravating circumstances where the offender purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the crime and abused the trust and access given to him as a household helper; the death penalty may be affirmed despite the mitigating plea of guilty offsetting only one aggravating circumstance.

Felipe Villas y Tanti had been employed for almost four years as a house boy or helper by Catalina Colman, a 47-year-old spinster who owned the Afable Flower Shop on Taft Avenue, Manila. Villas lived in the same premises where the flower shop operated, together with Teresita Zavalla, Teresita’s mother, a niece of Teresita, another female helper, and two male cousins. His duties were to clean the shop and the rooms and to run errands. The applicable statutory framework was Article 294, Cases Nos. 1 and 2, in relation to Article 335, Case No. 3, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632.

Felipe Villas y Tanti, 27 years old and single, had been employed for almost four years prior to October 1962 by Catalina Colman, a 47-year-old spinster, as a “house boy” or helper in the Afable Flower Shop she owned on Taft Avenue, Manila. He lived in the same premises where the business was conducted, together with Teresita Zavalla; Teresita’s mother; a niece of Teresita; another female helper; and two male cousins, one of whom was named Ernesto. His duties were to clean the shop and the rooms and to run errands.

At about 8:00 p.m. on October 3, 1962, Catalina, accompanied by Teresita, went to Lourdes Hospital in Mandaluyong, Rizal, to visit Mrs. Felisa Afable, owner of the Afable building. At about 9:00 p.m., Villas closed the flower shop. At 10:00 p.m., using a key left hanging near the rear door, he reentered the premises, closed the door, and returned the key to where he had taken it. He then entered Catalina’s private room, closing the door but leaving it unlocked, and hid under her bed with the intention of waiting for her to return and then stealing the key to her dresser once she had fallen asleep.

At about 11:00 p.m., Catalina and Teresita returned, and Catalina went to her room and undressed preparatory to going to bed. After some time, believing Catalina was already asleep, Villas crawled out from under the bed armed with a hammer he had taken from under a wooden trunk inside the room. Catalina was still awake and sitting on her bed, so Villas hit her on the face with the hammer and continued hitting her with more blows on the face and four more times on other parts of her body. As Catalina lay prostrate but still alive, Villas took off her underwear and raped her.

After the sexual intercourse, Villas took a key from Catalina’s bag and used it to open her night table, from which he got cash in different denominations amounting to P476.80. He then opened her dresser and took pieces of jewelry, which he wrapped in a blue dress belonging to her and hid in the storeroom of the shop; he wrapped the money in a paper bag and hid it underground just outside the premises. He also took a piggy bank from atop the deceased’s bed and a ring from her left finger. After doing all these, he removed his blood-tainted clothes and placed them in a can of water. At about 6:00 a.m., he got up and went inside the flower shop, where he told Ernesto that robbers had broken into the place. Ernesto woke Teresita, who, upon seeing the lifeless body of her aunt, called the police.

An autopsy performed by Dr. Mariano B. de Lara placed the death at about midnight of October 3, 1962. The post-mortem findings included extensive fragmentary depressed fractures of the left side of the cranium and across the left posterior parietal bone, massive epidural clotted hematoma compressing the left side of the brain, fractures of the left VII through IX ribs, lung contusions, and spermatozoa in the vaginal smear; the cause of death was repeated blunt blows with a hard circular object and evidence of recent sexual intercourse. When first interrogated, Villas denied knowledge of the crime, but on October 11, 1962, he broke down and confessed that he had committed it (Exhibit A). The authenticity and voluntariness of that confession were not disputed. The trial court found that Villas had served as a trusted house boy with access to Catalina’s private room and that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime.

• Nocturnity: Defendant-appellant argued that the trial court erred in further finding him guilty of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
• Grave Abuse of Confidence: Defendant-appellant argued that the trial court erred in further finding him guilty of the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence.
• Penalty: As a consequence of the alleged errors, defendant-appellant argued that the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of death by electrocution instead of reclusion perpetua.

• Guilt: Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Felipe Villas y Tanti for robbery with homicide complexed by rape.
• Nocturnity: Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
• Grave Abuse of Confidence: Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence.
• Penalty: Whether the trial court erred in imposing death by electrocution instead of reclusion perpetua.

• Guilt: Yes. The extrajudicial confession, whose authenticity and voluntariness were undisputed, and the other evidence of record established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for robbery with homicide complexed by rape.
• Nocturnity: No. The trial court did not err; nighttime was purposely sought and facilitated the commission of the crime to the extent that it was consummated without detection.
• Grave Abuse of Confidence: No. The trial court did not err; Villas had served as a trusted house boy for almost four years and had access to the victim’s private room.
• Penalty: No. The death penalty was properly imposed and affirmed, with only one of the two aggravating circumstances offset by the mitigating voluntary plea of guilty.

• Guilt: The record, including defendant’s confession whose authenticity and voluntariness are not disputed, and the other evidence of record, shows beyond cavil that defendant committed the crime. The trial court’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt was affirmed.
• Nocturnity: Nocturnity is aggravating when purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. The defendant took the first measures by taking advantage of the victim’s departure at about 8:00 p.m.; he reentered the flower shop about an hour later, proceeded to the victim’s room, hid under her bed, and later attacked her. Nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime to such an extent that he was able to consummate it with all its dastardly details without anyone of the persons living in the same premises becoming aware of what was going on.
• Grave Abuse of Confidence: Abuse of confidence was present because, for almost four years prior to the commission of the crime, the defendant had served the deceased Catalina as a trusted house boy; in the discharge of his duties he was allowed to enter and clean her room and the flower shop. He therefore had access not only to the flower shop but also to the private room of his victim.
• Penalty: Since guilt and the aggravating circumstances were established, and only one of them was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, the decision under review was in accordance with law and the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in all respects.

• Nocturnity — Nocturnity is an aggravating circumstance when the offender purposely sought nighttime or took advantage of it to facilitate the commission of the crime. The Court applied it because Villas waited for the victim to leave, reentered the premises at 10:00 p.m., hid under her bed, and attacked her at about 11:00 p.m., thereby consummating the crime without detection by the other persons in the same premises.
• Grave abuse of confidence — Grave abuse of confidence is present when the offender enjoys the confidence of the offended party and abuses that trust. The Court applied it because Villas had served as a trusted house boy for almost four years and was allowed to enter and clean the victim’s room and the flower shop, giving him access to her private room.
• Voluntary plea of guilty — A voluntary plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance. In this case, it offset only one of the two aggravating circumstances found by the trial court.
• Robbery with homicide complexed by rape — The crime is defined and penalized under Article 294, Cases Nos. 1 and 2, in relation to Article 335, Case No. 3, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632. The conviction under these provisions was affirmed.

• "The least that could be said, considering the evidence of record, is that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime to such an extent that the defendant was able to consummate it with all its dastardly details without anyone of the persons living in the same premises becoming aware of what was going on." — The passage states the ratio for appreciating nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.
• "He, therefore, had access not only to the latter place but also to the private room of his victim." — The passage supports the finding of grave abuse of confidence based on Villas’s access as a trusted house boy.
• "IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We agree with the trial court that the guilt of the defendant of the crime charged, committed under the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, has been established beyond all reasonable doubt." — The passage affirms the conviction and the presence of the aggravating circumstances.
• "As the decision under review is in accordance with law and the evidence, it is our painful duty in the premises to affirm as we do hereby affirm it in all respects." — The passage is the Court’s dispositive affirmance of the trial court’s decision.

• Article 294, Cases Nos. 1 and 2, Revised Penal Code — The trial court convicted the defendant under this provision for robbery with homicide, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
• Article 335, Case No. 3, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632 — The crime was complexed by rape under this provision, and the conviction was affirmed.
• Republic Act No. 2632 — Amended Article 335, Case No. 3, of the Revised Penal Code; the trial court applied the amended provision and the Supreme Court affirmed.
• Section 9, Rule 118, Rules of Court — The record was forwarded to the Supreme Court for review because the penalty imposed was death.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concurred. Castro and Capistrano, JJ., took no part.