People of the Philippines vs. Fernandez

A bare allegation that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night does not establish nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance; nocturnity must be sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the offense or ensure impunity. Where the law prescribes two indivisible penalties and no aggravating circumstance is established, the mitigating plea of guilty requires imposition of the lesser penalty.

Enrique Fernandez was charged, together with Dario Sitoy, Clemente Reposala, and Vencio Almonte, with Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and Multiple Homicide under Article 294, subparagraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Because the trial court imposed the death penalty after Fernandez pleaded guilty, the case was before the Supreme Court on mandatory review.

On or about January 4, 1970, at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, in Barrio La Suerte, City of Pagadian, Enrique Fernandez, together with Dario Sitoy, Clemente Reposala, and Vencio Almonte, was accused of the crime of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and Multiple Homicide. The information alleged that they conspired and mutually helped one another, with intent to gain, and by means of force and violence upon Sebastian Espelita, Sr., took and carried away cash in the amount of P350, to his damage and prejudice.

The information further alleged that, with intent to kill, the accused attacked Sebastian Espelita, Jr. with hunting knives, wounding him on the chest, performing all the acts of execution that would have produced homicide but which did not produce it by reason of timely and able assistance rendered to him. On the same occasion, they also attacked and assaulted Sebastian Espelita, Sr., Dolores Espelita, George Espelita, and Alejandra Espelita with hunting knives, inflicting fatal wounds that directly caused their deaths. Dolores Espelita was pregnant with a five-month-old baby inside her stomach. The information also alleged that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night.

Upon arraignment, Fernandez was assisted by counsel de oficio. After the court informed him of the seriousness of the charge and the penalty provided by law, he pleaded guilty. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and appreciated in his favor the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.

• Propriety of Penalty: Appellant argued, through counsel de oficio, that the death penalty was improper because the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilty existed and the trial court made no finding of any aggravating circumstance to offset it.

• Propriety of Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty imposed on Enrique Fernandez was proper given his plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance and the absence of a finding of any aggravating circumstance to offset it.
• Nocturnity as Aggravating Circumstance: Whether the information’s allegation that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night sufficed to establish nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.

• Propriety of Death Penalty: No. The death penalty was improper; with the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance established, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code required the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua where the law prescribes reclusion perpetua to death.
• Nocturnity as Aggravating Circumstance: No. A bare allegation of nighttime does not establish nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance; nocturnity must have been sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the offense or ensure impunity. Even if considered, it would only offset the plea of guilty.

• Propriety of Death Penalty: The crime was penalized under Article 294, subparagraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, with the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, composed of two indivisible penalties. The trial court appreciated the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance. The only possible aggravating circumstance was nighttime. Under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code, nocturnity aggravates only when it may facilitate the commission of the offense. Jurisprudence requires that nocturnity be sought or taken advantage of to improve the chances of success in the commission of the crime or to provide impunity for the offenders. The information’s bare statement that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night did not satisfy this criterion. Even if nocturnity were considered aggravating, it would only offset the mitigating plea of guilty. Under Article 63(2), where there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty should be applied when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties. Thus, reclusion perpetua was the proper penalty. The trial court’s judgment was modified accordingly, with accessories provided by law, and affirmed in all other respects.
• Nocturnity as Aggravating Circumstance: Nocturnity is not established by a bare allegation of darkness. It must be shown that the offender sought or took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the crime or ensure impunity. The information merely alleged that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night; no finding showed that darkness was purposely sought or used. Hence, nocturnity could not be used to offset the mitigating plea of guilty or to justify the death penalty.

• Nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance — Under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code, nighttime aggravates an offense only when it is shown that the offender sought or took advantage of the darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure impunity. A bare allegation in the information that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night does not suffice. In this case, the Court refused to consider nocturnity as aggravating because the information merely alleged darkness without showing it was purposely sought or used.
• Application of Article 63(2) when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties — Where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, and there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty must be imposed. Here, the mitigating plea of guilty and the alleged but unestablished nocturnity left no modifying circumstance to justify the death penalty; hence reclusion perpetua was proper.
• Plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance — The plea of guilty was appreciated in favor of the accused. The Court relied on this mitigating circumstance in determining that the lesser indivisible penalty should be imposed.

• "There is, to be sure, an allegation in the information "that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night," but this circumstance, in order to be considered as aggravating the offense, must be such that it "may facilitate the commission of the offense." Art. 14(6) Rev. Penal Code." — States the controlling rule that nighttime is aggravating only when it facilitates the commission of the offense.
• "The jurisprudence on this subject is to the effect that nocturnity must have been sought or taken advantage of to improve the chances of success in the commission of the crime or to provide impunity for the offenders." — Canonical formulation of the nocturnity doctrine applied by the Court.
• "Here the bare statement in the information that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night fails to satisfy this criterion." — Application of the nocturnity rule to the information in this case.
• "In any event, even if this particular circumstance be considered as aggravating it would only offset the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty; and under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, where there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance the lesser penalty should be applied of, as in this case, the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, namely reclusion perpetua to death (Art. 294, Sub-paragraph 1)." — States the ratio for reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Corpuz, et al., 1 SCRA 33; People vs. Boyles, 11 SCRA 88; People vs. Condemena, et al., 23 SCRA 970; People vs. Apduhan, et al., 24 SCRA 798; People vs. Villas, 27 SCRA 947; People vs. Flores, 40 SCRA 230 — Cited collectively for the rule that nocturnity must have been sought or taken advantage of to improve the chances of success in the commission of the crime or to provide impunity for the offenders.

• Article 294, subparagraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and Multiple Homicide and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The Court used this provision to determine the applicable penalty.
• Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code — Defines nighttime as an aggravating circumstance when it may facilitate the commission of the offense. The Court applied this provision to reject the bare allegation of darkness as an aggravating circumstance.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. The Court applied this provision to impose reclusion perpetua instead of death.

Concepcion, C.J.; Reyes, J.B.L.; Zaldivar; Castro; Fernando; Teehankee; Barredo; Makasiar; and Antonio, JJ.