People vs. De la Torre

Separate killings effected by distinct discharges of firearms constitute two separate murders, not a single complex crime, even when committed on the same occasion and alleged in one information. A plea of guilty was also confirmed to admit the aggravating circumstances alleged, leaving only the plea in mitigation and rendering the death penalty mandatory where multiple aggravating circumstances remained.

Alexander Tilos, Sosing Gallego alias Ruam Fuentes, Jose de la Torre alias Blackie alias Jose Diaz, Saling Magbanua, three John Does, and Pantaleon Ares were charged with double murder for the deaths of spouses Francisco Calidquid and Felicidad Gomela. The Amended Information alleged that on March 29, 1960, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in Manlabay, Municipality of Dumingag, Province of Zamboanga del Sur, the principal accused, armed with .45 caliber pistol and .30 caliber carbine rifles and acting with intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, conspiracy and confederation, attacked and shot the spouses in their house and inflicted mortal gunshot wounds causing instantaneous deaths. Pantaleon Ares was charged as accomplice, his participation deduced from contemporaneous acts evidencing actual participation in the criminal design.

When the case was set for arraignment, the prosecuting attorney moved for the discharge of Alexander Tilos for lack of evidence, which was granted, while Jose de la Torre and Pantaleon Ares, the others being still at large, appeared assisted by counsel de officio. The trial court apprised them of the consequences of a plea, the seriousness of the charge, and the heavy penalty imposable, and both declared in open court that they understood its full import and were ready to plead guilty. Upon arraignment, De la Torre and Ares each freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty as principal and accomplice, respectively.

The record included the accuseds' sworn confessions attached to the chief of police's initial complaint and autopsy reports showing Felicidad Gumila Calidquid died of severe hemorrhage secondary to a gunshot wound entering her right cheek near the mouth and proceeding downward without exit, and Francisco Calidquid died from cerebral hemorrhage caused by a gunshot wound in the right temple near the right eyebrow. The corpses were found in different rooms of the house. On that basis the trial court convicted De la Torre of the complex crime of double murder with the four aggravating circumstances averred and the mitigation of spontaneous plea of guilty, imposing death, and convicted Ares with three aggravating circumstances mitigated by voluntary surrender and plea, imposing reclusion perpetua, which Ares did not appeal. Both were ordered to pay jointly and severally P6,000.00 to the heirs of each deceased.

• Effect of Guilty Plea: Whether the plea of guilty admits the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information and leaves death mandatory where four aggravating circumstances are offset by only the plea.
• Complex Crime vs. Separate Murders: Whether the killing of husband and wife constitutes one complex crime of double murder or two separate and distinct murders.
• Civil Indemnity: Whether the indemnity of P6,000.00 to the heirs of each victim should be maintained.

• Effect of Guilty Plea: Yes. The plea imports admission of the alleged aggravating circumstances, so with four aggravating circumstances and only the plea in mitigation, the death penalty becomes mandatory.
• Complex Crime vs. Separate Murders: Two separate murders were committed, not one complex crime, there being no showing of a single discharge killing both victims.
• Civil Indemnity: No. The indemnity was increased to P12,000.00 to the heirs of each victim.

• Effect of Guilty Plea: A plea of guilty was applied as admitting the presence of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, pursuant to settled rule. With dwelling, nighttime, superior arms and strength, and recidivism alleged against De la Torre and only spontaneous plea of guilty in mitigation, the penalty was necessarily elevated to the maximum, making death mandatory.
• Complex Crime vs. Separate Murders: Separate discharges were established by the differing wounds — husband shot in the temple and wife in the jaw — and by the finding of the corpses in different rooms of the house. Absent proof that both were slaughtered by a single discharge, each killing was treated as the result of a distinct act, requiring separate punishment for two murders rather than punishment for one complex crime.
• Civil Indemnity: The lower court's award of P6,000.00 for each set of heirs was increased to P12,000.00, consistent with the authorities cited for the prevailing indemnity, in addition to one-half of the costs against De la Torre.

• Plea of guilty as admission of aggravating circumstances — A voluntary plea of guilty imports an admission of the presence of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information. Applied here, De la Torre's plea admitted dwelling, nighttime, superior arms and strength, and recidivism, leaving only the plea itself as mitigation.
• Single act as requisite of complex crime; separate discharges as separate murders — Killings caused by separate and distinct discharges of firearms constitute separate and distinct murders, not one complex crime. Applied here, the different entrance wounds and recovery of the bodies in different rooms negated a single discharge and required a death sentence for each murder, as in People vs. Layos, People vs. Alisub, People vs. Buyco, People vs. Macaso, and People vs. Mortero.
• Civil indemnity for each death — Each victim's heirs are entitled to a separate civil indemnity. Applied here, the award was raised from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 to the heirs of each of the two victims, as in People vs. Pantoja, People vs. Gutierrez, People vs. Buenbrazo, and People vs. Lumantas.

• "it is a well-established rule that a plea of guilty imports an admission of the presence of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information." — States the controlling effect of De la Torre's guilty plea, establishing the four aggravating circumstances and making death mandatory against a single mitigating circumstance.
• "There is no showing that both were slaughtered by a single discharge of firearms." — States the factual predicate for rejecting the complex-crime theory and imposing separate penalties for each killing.
• "WHEREFORE, the decision under review must be, and hereby is, modified in that the accused is sentenced to death for each murder committed." — States the operative modification converting one death sentence for complex double murder into two death sentences for two murders.

• People vs. Egido, 90 Phil. 763; People vs. Llagas, L-5015, 31 May 1957; People vs. Floresca, L-8614, 31 May 1956 — Cited as controlling authority that a plea of guilty admits the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.
• People vs. Layos, 60 Phil. 224; People vs. Alisub, 69 Phil. 362; People vs. Buyco, 80 Phil. 58; People vs. Macaso, 86 Phil. 272; People vs. Mortero, L-10948, 20 May 1960 — Cited as controlling authority that killings by separate acts constitute separate murders rather than one complex crime.
• People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, 11 Oct. 1968; People vs. Gutierrez, L-25372, 29 Nov. 1968; People vs. Buenbrazo, L-27852, 29 Nov. 1968; People vs. Lumantas, L-28355, 17 July 1969 — Cited as authority for increasing civil indemnity to P12,000.00 to the heirs of each victim.

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