People vs. Apduhan, Jr.

The special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm provided in Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to the robbery in band contemplated in Article 295, which in turn is limited to the offenses described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294; it cannot be appreciated against an accused charged with robbery with homicide under Article 294(1), even if the crime was committed by a band with unlicensed firearms. Consequently, the death penalty is not automatically mandated by Article 296 in such a case.

On 23 May 1961, in Mabini, Bohol, Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., together with Rodulfo Huiso, Felipe Quimson, and five other individuals, allegedly entered the dwelling of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia Miano, and of Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda de Miano. Armed with unlicensed firearms and deadly weapons, the group attacked Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton, causing their deaths, and took cash of ₱322. An information was filed charging robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms under Article 296 and the generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and abuse of superior strength.

• Nature: Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. was charged under a second amended information alleging that on 23 May 1961, at about 7:00 p.m. in Mabini, Bohol, he, together with two named co-accused and five others still at large, all armed with unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, conspired to enter the dwelling house of the Miano family, attacked and killed Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton, and took ₱322 belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo Miano. The information cited Article 294(1) in relation to Article 296, and alleged aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and abuse of superior strength.
• Arraignment and plea dynamics: On 2 August 1961, Apduhan initially pleaded not guilty. Shortly thereafter, his counsel de oficio manifested that Apduhan wished to plead guilty. The trial judge repeatedly admonished Apduhan about the severity of the offense and the prospect of the death penalty. Apduhan initially insisted on pleading guilty on the condition that he be sentenced to life imprisonment, then momentarily reverted to not guilty, and finally, after a recess, declared he would “just” enter a plea of guilty. Because the plea appeared ambiguous, the case was reopened on 30 August 1961, where Apduhan unequivocally admitted the crime charged.
• Mitigating and aggravating circumstances: The defense proffered three mitigating circumstances: plea of guilty, intoxication, and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. When the prosecution withdrew the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the defense correspondingly withdrew lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The prosecution did not concede actual intoxication; it merely admitted that it had no evidence to rebut a claim of non-habituality. No independent evidence of intoxication was presented by the defense.
• Trial court judgment: The Court of First Instance appreciated the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm under Article 296, along with the generic aggravating circumstances of band, dwelling, and nighttime. It treated the plea of guilty as mitigating but found intoxication unsubstantiated. The court imposed the death penalty and ordered Apduhan to indemnify the heirs of Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton in the amount of ₱6,000 each.

• Applicability of Article 296: Whether the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm under Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code applies to robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).

• Applicability of Article 296: Article 296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Article 295, which explicitly limits its application to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294. Article 295, as amended by Republic Act No. 373, does not encompass subdivisions 1 and 2 of Article 294. Because Article 296 is a corollary of Article 295, its special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be appreciated in a prosecution for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1). The phrase “the offense” in Article 296 refers to robbery committed by a band under Article 295; “all the malefactors” refers to the members of that band; and “the corresponding penalty provided by law” relates to the penalties for robberies under subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294. Accordingly, the trial court erred in treating the use of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance that compelled the death penalty.

Nonetheless, the Court found that three aggravating circumstances — band, dwelling, and nighttime — were properly established by the plea of guilty, while only one mitigating circumstance — plea of guilty — was present. Intoxication was not proved and therefore could not mitigate the penalty. The aggravating circumstances would have warranted the imposition of death. However, because the required number of votes for the death penalty was not obtained, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

• Scope of Article 295 — band as qualifying only for subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 — Under Article 295, when the offenses described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 are committed by a band, the penalty imposed must be in its maximum period. Thus, the circumstance of “band” is qualifying only in those specific classes of robbery. In robbery with homicide under Article 294(1), band is not qualifying; it is merely a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Corollary relationship of Articles 295 and 296 — special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm limited to robbery in band under Article 295 — Article 296 is a corollary and complement of Article 295. The definition of a band, the rule on the special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm, and the provisions on the liability of band members are all referable only to the crime of robbery in band covered by Article 295. Consequently, the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm can be appreciated only when the offense charged is one of the robberies enumerated in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294, committed by a band; it is inapplicable to robbery with homicide under Article 294(1), regardless of whether the offense was perpetrated by a band with unlicensed firearms.
• Effect of an unqualified plea of guilty — An unqualified plea of guilty constitutes a judicial admission of all the material facts recited in the information, including the aggravating circumstances alleged. The prosecution need not adduce further proof of those aggravating circumstances.
• Intoxication as a mitigating circumstance — burden and standard of proof — Under Article 15, intoxication is mitigating only when it is proved that the offender committed the felony in a state of intoxication and that the intoxication was not habitual or intentional. The accused bears the burden of establishing the fact of intoxication by satisfactory evidence; an uncorroborated, self-serving assertion is insufficient.

• “After a perceptive analysis of the provisions of art. 296, we reach the considered opinion that the said article is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to the immediately antecedent provision of art. 295 on robbery in band, as the latter article, in turn, is explicitly limited in scope to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294. Consequently, although the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance under art. 296, as amended by Rep. Act 12, it cannot be appreciated as such in relation to robbery with homicide, described and penalized under paragraph 1 of art. 294.” — The ratio decidendi on the non-applicability of Article 296 to robbery with homicide.
• “Hence, with the present wording of art. 295 there is no crime as ‘robbery with homicide in band.’ If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as ‘robbery with homicide’ under art. 294(1), but the element of band, as stated above, would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.”
• “While an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it at the same time constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances therein recited.”

• People vs. Bersamin, 88 Phil. 292 — Recognized as having declared that the use of an unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance applicable only in cases of robbery in band. However, its implicit suggestion that the special aggravating circumstance could apply to robbery with homicide if committed by a band was superseded by Republic Act No. 373, which removed subdivisions 1 and 2 of Article 294 from the coverage of Article 295.
• People vs. Casunuran, L-7654, 16 August 1956, and People vs. Leyesa, L-7842, 30 August 1956 — Cited for the rule that in robbery with homicide, cuadrilla (band) operates as a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14, not a qualifying circumstance.
• People vs. Valdez, 64 Phil. 860, and People vs. Pinca, L-16595, 28 February 1962 — Cited for the principle that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against persons because the crime can be committed without violating the sanctity of the victim’s home.
• People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93, and People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568 —Cited for the requirement that intoxication, to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, must be proven by satisfactory evidence.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
• Article 295, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 12 and 373) — When the robberies described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 are committed by a band, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. The provision does not extend to robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).
• Article 296, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 12) — Defines a band (more than three armed malefactors), prescribes that the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the offense aggravates the penalty to the maximum of the corresponding penalty, and governs the liability of band members. This article is corollary to Article 295 and applies only to the offenses covered by that article.
• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Sets the rules on alternative circumstances; intoxication is mitigating when not habitual or intentional, but must be proved by the accused.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — Plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance.

Chief Justice Concepcion, and Justices Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando.