People of the Philippines vs. Roger Cando y Pagdanganan, et al.

In robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance rather than a qualifying circumstance, and evident premeditation is not appreciated absent proof of a preconceived plan to kill apart from the robbery; where one mitigating circumstance of intoxication offsets one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Cando and Rapcing, aged 40 and 28, were candlemakers at the Rosarian Candle Factory in Paco, Manila; Vargas, aged 20, was a delivery boy; Luis D. Remoriata was the factory caretaker. The prosecution charged them with robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code and, in a related case, with carnapping. Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659.

In the afternoon of May 13, 1995, Vargas, Rapcing, and one Nonoy Sayson were having a drinking session at a canteen in front of the Rosarian Candle Factory in Paco, Manila. At around 9:30 P.M., Cando joined the group. Upon Vargas's prompting, Cando went to the factory to get his salary. He returned angry because he was unable to get his salary from the secretary or a loan of P100.00 from the caretaker, Luis D. Remoriata. Apparently Cando already had previous misunderstandings with the caretaker, so this time he threatened to kill him. The group continued their drinking session.

At around 11:00 P.M., Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando, armed with two knives and carrying a shoulder bag, climbed the fence of the factory. They walked on the galvanized iron roof toward the other building and slipped one by one through a narrow window at the side of the building. The trio proceeded to the victim's room, which was lighted by a fluorescent lamp. Cando picked a piece of lead pipe and told Vargas to pull open the door where the victim's mosquito net was attached. When Vargas pulled open the door, the mosquito net snapped and Cando struck the victim on the head with the lead pipe. The victim awakened and Cando demanded money from him. When the victim replied that he had no money, Cando struck him again with the lead pipe. Blood oozed from the victim's head. Cando asked the victim if he recognized him. The victim weakly replied, "Yes, You are Roger (Cando)." Thereafter, Cando repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until he became unconscious. Cando placed the victim's radio cassette in his bag. He went upstairs to get more items and the keys of the Cimarron van. Thereafter, the trio went downstairs to where the van was parked. Vargas, the only one who knew how to drive, sat on the driver's seat. Cando and Rapcing opened the gate, then pushed the van outside. Once they were out of hearing range, Vargas gunned the motor and the two clambered into the van. Cando sat on the passenger side while Rapcing sat at the back. Cando prevailed upon the group to proceed to Quiapo to visit his girlfriend, but they could not locate her so they just drove around until daybreak. When they reached Hemady Street in Quezon City, they abandoned the van. The trio boarded a jeep going to Taft Avenue and went their separate ways.

It was then already early morning of May 14, 1995. At around 6:00 A.M., Mrs. Norma Chu, the factory owner, discovered the dead body of Luis Remoriata. The factory van was also missing. A hysterical Mrs. Chu called the Barangay Captain, who in turn reported the incident to the police. Upon investigation, the police found a bakawan firewood stained with blood some ten meters away from the victim's body. The police also called a funeral parlor to get the body of the victim. In the meantime, the van was discovered by Barangay Kagawad Mejia, who called up the telephone number posted at the side of the van. The owner, Mrs. Chu, arrived with three NBI Agents who took pictures of the van and lifted fingerprints from it.

The very next day, May 15, 1995, Mrs. Chu lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation. Based on her complaint, the NBI dispatched a team of agents to the crime scene. The NBI recovered a bloodstained steel pipe behind the door of the room. Upon learning from Mrs. Chu that appellants Cando and Vargas had previous skirmishes with the victim, on May 16, 1995, the NBI agents picked up Vargas from the factory and brought him to their office for questioning. Vargas readily admitted his participation and pinpointed appellants Cando and Rapcing as his co-perpetrators. He likewise executed an extrajudicial admission and waiver of his rights under Articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Acting on the lead, the NBI agents picked appellant Cando at his house in Libis St., Caloocan City. Appellant Cando invoked his right to remain silent. He executed a waiver of rights under Articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Thereafter, appellant Rapcing was also arrested at his house in Cristobal St., Looban, Paco, Manila. Rapcing admitted complicity in the crime, and executed an extrajudicial admission corroborating the story of Vargas. He also executed a waiver of his rights under Articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code. During custodial investigation, the three were assisted by Atty. Isidro T. Gamutan, a lawyer who happened to be at the NBI because he was following up a case. On May 17, 1995, appellant Vargas executed a second extrajudicial admission stating that Cando gave him the bag containing the stolen items for safekeeping and that he brought the bag to his sister-in-law's house in Kahilum, San Andres Bukid, Manila. He accompanied the NBI agents to the house and gave them the bag which bore Cando's name.

On May 23, 1995, appellants were charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. At trial, the prosecution presented Mrs. Norma Chu, NBI Agents Serafin Gil, Mario Garcia, Gregorio Tomagan, NBI Photographer Cecilio Datinguinoo, NBI Fingerprint Examiner Elter Yano, Dr. Manuel Lagonera, Atty. Isidro Gamutan, and Barangay Kagawad Alejandro Mejia. Mrs. Chu testified that when she discovered the body of the victim, the quarters were in disarray, and the victim's clothes and radio were missing; later, her husband and son informed her that their wallets and two other wristwatches were missing. Elter Yano testified that he lifted six fingerprints from the Cimarron van; "Q-1" from the air freshener matched Vargas's left index fingerprint, and "Q-2" from the victim's stereo cassette matched Cando's right ring fingerprint. Dr. Lagonera testified that the cause of death was "blunt head injuries" and described multiple lacerations and internal findings. Atty. Gamutan testified that he explained the accused's rights and assisted them in executing their extrajudicial statements. For the defense, Cando denied any participation in the killing, claimed he reported for work from 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. on May 13 and slept at home until around 11:00 A.M. the following day, denied joining the drinking session, but identified as his the bag containing the stolen items and admitted that he and the other two appellants offered to pay damages to the victim's widow. Vargas admitted participation in the killing but claimed he was forced by Cando at knife point, that it was only Cando who killed the victim by hitting him with an iron bar, and that he agreed to drive the Cimarron because he wanted to practice driving. Rapcing recanted his extrajudicial admission, denied any knowledge or participation since he was stone drunk, claimed he just slept inside a Tamaraw pick-up parked outside the factory, and argued that his failure to go into hiding after the incident showed innocence. The trial court convicted all three appellants of robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, sentenced them to death, and acquitted them of carnapping.

• Evident Premeditation: Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation because there was no time for cool reflection since their minds were hazy with the influence of liquor.
• Treachery: Appellants disputed the existence of treachery, contending that the killing of Remoriata was merely "on the spur of the moment."
• Penalty: Appellants prayed for the reduction of the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua.

• Evident Premeditation: The Solicitor General contended that evident premeditation clearly attended the commission of the crime but that said aggravating circumstance, being inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide, should not be appreciated separately.
• Treachery: The Solicitor General argued that treachery qualified the killing since the victim was sleeping at the time he was attacked.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The Solicitor General additionally contended that the generic aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling should be appreciated.

• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the commission of robbery with homicide.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense.
• Elements of Robbery with Homicide: Whether all the elements of robbery with homicide were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Compulsion of Irresistible Force: Whether appellant Vargas's claim that he was forced at knife point to participate exempted him from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Non-flight: Whether appellant Rapcing's failure to go into hiding after the incident established his innocence.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty should be reduced from death to reclusion perpetua.

• Treachery: Yes. The sleeping victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, but in robbery with homicide treachery is only a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying circumstance.
• Evident Premeditation: No. The prosecution failed to prove a preconceived plan to kill apart from the robbery; evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property and cannot be appreciated absent proof of intent to kill.
• Elements of Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The prosecution established the taking of personal property by violence or intimidation, property belonging to another, intent to gain, and homicide on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery; the killing need not occur after the taking.
• Compulsion of Irresistible Force: No. Vargas had opportunities to prevent the killing and to escape but remained with his co-conspirators and drove the getaway vehicle; compulsion must leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense.
• Non-flight: No. Non-flight is not necessarily an indicium of innocence.
• Penalty: Reclusion perpetua. With one mitigating circumstance of intoxication and one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua.

• Treachery: The Court defined treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of crimes against persons that tend directly and specially to insure the crime's execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. The requisites are: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that the means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted. The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance by the offended party. The killing of the sleeping victim was attended by treachery because he was in no position to flee or defend himself. However, treachery should not qualify the offense to murder in robbery with homicide; the correct rule is that when treachery obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance, because robbery with homicide is a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code.
• Evident Premeditation: For evident premeditation to exist, the prosecution must prove with clear and convincing evidence: (1) the time when the offenders decided to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act and allow their conscience to overcome the resolution of their will. Evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property, but it may be considered in robbery with homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides stealing. The prosecution clearly proved the intention to rob and to disable the victim, but not the intention to kill him. Vargas testified that the victim was still alive when they left him rolling on the floor. Thus, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to establish that the accused killed the victim pursuant to a preconceived plan.
• Elements of Robbery with Homicide: The prosecution amply established the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, in its generic sense, is committed. It matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties; what is essential is that there be a direct relation and 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. Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. While Cando was bashing the victim's head and placing personal items in his bag, Vargas and Rapcing did nothing; their act of simply watching Cando showed their moral assent and complete acquiescence to the commission of the crime.
• Compulsion of Irresistible Force: Vargas invoked the exempting circumstance of compulsion of an irresistible force under Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense. Vargas had several opportunities to prevent the killing and to escape, but he chose to remain with his co-conspirators, and even willingly drove the get-away vehicle.
• Non-flight: The fact that Rapcing did not go into hiding after the alleged incident does not make him an innocent man. Flight is an indicium of guilt, but non-flight is not necessarily an indicium of innocence.
• Penalty: Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. There being one mitigating circumstance of intoxication and one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. The existence of one aggravating circumstance merits the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. The personal properties in custodia legis were ordered returned to the offended parties.

• Treachery — Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The requisites are: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that said means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted. The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the offended party. In this case, the killing of the sleeping victim was attended by treachery because he was in no position to flee or defend himself.
• Treachery in Robbery with Homicide — When treachery obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying circumstance. Robbery with homicide is a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. Thus, treachery does not qualify the offense to murder; it only aggravates the penalty.
• Evident Premeditation — For evident premeditation to exist, the prosecution must prove with clear and convincing evidence: (1) the time when the offenders decided to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act and allow their conscience to overcome the resolution of their will. Evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property, but it may be considered in robbery with homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides stealing. It cannot be appreciated where the prosecution fails to establish that the accused killed the victim pursuant to a preconceived plan.
• Robbery with Homicide — The elements are: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, in its generic sense, is committed. It matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties; what is essential is that there be a direct relation and 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. Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
• Compulsion of Irresistible Force — The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense. Vargas had several opportunities to prevent the killing and to escape, but he chose to remain with his co-conspirators and even willingly drove the get-away vehicle; the exempting circumstance was not established.
• Intoxication as a Mitigating Circumstance — The alternative circumstance of intoxication should be considered as mitigating when it is sufficiently shown that (1) at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the accused had taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur their reason and deprive them of a certain degree of control, and (2) such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. The Court credited intoxication as mitigating in this case.
• Non-flight — Flight is an indicium of guilt, but non-flight is not necessarily an indicium of innocence. Rapcing's failure to go into hiding did not make him innocent.
• Exemplary Damages for Aggravating Circumstance — The existence of one aggravating circumstance merits the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. The Court awarded P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.

• "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — This passage states the Court's canonical definition of treachery and anchors the finding that the killing of the sleeping victim was treacherous.
• "The presence of treachery, though, should not result in qualifying the offense to murder, for the correct rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide being a case of a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code." — This is the ratio decidendi on why treachery did not qualify the offense but merely aggravated the penalty.
• "The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." — This passage states the rule on liability of all principals in robbery with homicide and supports the conviction of Vargas and Rapcing despite their claims of non-participation in the killing.
• "Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. There being one mitigating circumstance of intoxication, and one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua." — This passage explains the penalty imposed and the offsetting of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

• People vs. Bautista, 312 SCRA 214 (1999) — Cited for the requisites of treachery: the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and that the means be deliberately and consciously adopted.
• People vs. Academia, Jr., 307 SCRA 229, 234 (1999) — Cited for the essence of treachery as the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the offended party.
• People vs. Adoviso, 309 SCRA 1, 16 (1999); People vs. Quinao, 269 SCRA 495, 511 (1997); People vs. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, 159 (1997) — Cited together to support the finding that the killing of a sleeping victim is attended by treachery because the victim was in no position to flee or defend himself.
• People vs. Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489, 507 (1996); People vs. Timple, 237 SCRA 52, 70 (1994) — Cited for the rule that treachery in robbery with homicide is a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying circumstance.
• People vs. Lopez, 313 SCRA 114, 125 (1999) — Cited for the elements of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Guiapar, 129 SCRA 539, 555 (1984) — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to establish that the accused killed the victim pursuant to a preconceived plan.
• People vs. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Navales, 266 SCRA 569, 594 (1997) — Cited for the rule that there must be a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the killing be prior or subsequent to the robbery or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.
• People vs. Robles, G.R. No. 101335, June 8, 2000 — Cited for the rule that all those who took part as principals in the robbery are also guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent it.
• People vs. Lising, 285 SCRA 595, 643-644 (1998) — Cited for the rule that compulsion of irresistible force must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense.
• People vs. Palma, 308 SCRA 466, 483 (1999) — Cited for the rule that flight is an indicium of guilt, but non-flight is not necessarily an indicium of innocence.
• People vs. Molina, 312 SCRA 130, 136 (1999) — Cited for intoxication as a mitigating circumstance when it blurs reason and deprives the accused of a certain degree of control, and is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659 — Provides that the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death; applied by the Court in imposing reclusion perpetua after offsetting the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
• Article 63, No. 4, Revised Penal Code — Cited for the imposition of the penalty when there is one mitigating and one aggravating circumstance; applied to impose reclusion perpetua.
• Article 15, last paragraph, Revised Penal Code — Provides that intoxication is an alternative circumstance; considered mitigating because the appellants had taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur their reason and deprive them of a certain degree of control, and the intoxication was not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
• Article 12, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Provides the exempting circumstance of compulsion of an irresistible force; Vargas's claim was rejected because the compulsion must leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense, and he had several opportunities to prevent the killing and escape.
• Article 2230, New Civil Code — Provides that exemplary damages may be awarded when one or more aggravating circumstances attend the commission of the crime; applied to award P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.
• Articles 124 and 125, Revised Penal Code — The appellants executed waivers of rights under these articles during custodial investigation; the decision notes these waivers in the narrative of the investigation.
• Article 16, Revised Penal Code — Cited in the decision's footnote for the definition of treachery; the Court applied the definition to the killing of the sleeping victim.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Kapunan, J., is on leave. Vitug, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in the finding of guilt but disagreeing with the treatment of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide; he believed that treachery should be ignored in aggravating the special complex crime because robbery with homicide is an offense against property under Title Ten, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code, and treachery is an aggravating circumstance applicable only to crimes against persons under Title Eight, Book Two of the same Code.