People vs. Ga

Robbery with homicide is a single composite crime regardless of the number of persons killed or injured on the occasion of the robbery; the term "homicide" in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is understood in its generic sense, encompassing all homicides — and even slight physical injuries — committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, which are merged into one offense.

The accused — Ernesto Ga, Alfredo Endencio, and Reynaldo Ruga — were charged with robbing the Gonzaga family residence in Forbes Park, Makati, resulting in the deaths of Juliana Gonzaga, Julio Gonzaga, and Andres Laxion, and serious injury to Rogelia Gonzaga. The case reached the Supreme Court on mandatory review of a death penalty judgment rendered by the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Pasig. Following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, pending death penalty cases were remanded to the respective divisions. Co-accused Endencio and Ruga manifested acceptance of reclusion perpetua and were remanded to the trial court for execution of judgment, leaving only Ga's appeal for adjudication.

Ernesto Ga, Alfredo Endencio, and Reynaldo Ruga planned and executed a robbery of the Gonzaga family residence in Forbes Park, Makati. On the morning of July 29, 1977, the three met at Ruga's residence in Project 7, Quezon City, and agreed to rob the Gonzaga home. They borrowed a travelling bag, proceeded to Cubao where Ga withdrew P55.00 from the Savings Bank of Manila, and purchased a kitchen knife and a dagger. The three then went to the Ocean Theater, where they finalized their plan to hogtie all occupants and kill anyone who resisted.

That evening, the three accused bought a bottle of White Castle whiskey, boarded a taxi, and proceeded to the Gonzaga residence, where they invited houseboy Bonifacio Marteja, Andres Laxion, and Francisco Melorin to a drinking spree in the servants' quarters. Ruga brought out another bottle of gin, and they continued drinking until midnight. When Laxion became unruly and boisterous, Endencio kicked Ga's feet as a signal; the two simultaneously stood up, and Endencio pulled out the kitchen knife and announced "hold-up ito." Endencio hogtied Laxion, Marteja, and Melorin. Fearing that Laxion's noise would alert neighbors, they gagged him; Endencio kicked him, and when Ga saw blood coming from Laxion's mouth, Ga stabbed him in the stomach with the dagger, inflicting a mortal wound.

Endencio obtained a key from Marteja and entered the main residence through the back door. The three accused, bringing the hogtied Marteja, entered the room of Ester Gonzaga but did not harm her upon seeing she was a cripple. They proceeded to the master's bedroom, leaving Ruga to guard Ester. Endencio found Dona Juliana Gonzaga awake and stabbed her mercilessly with the kitchen knife. Don Julio Gonzaga, awakened by the violence, stood up but was met by Ga and told to calm down. When Rogelia Gonzaga rushed toward her parents' room shouting, Ga stabbed Don Julio with the dagger. Endencio and Ga then met Rogelia at the door and stabbed her on the face and several parts of her body. Despite her wounds, Rogelia managed to call the Forbes Park security guards, who summoned a Makati Medical Center ambulance. The accused discarded their weapons near the concrete wall of the residence and fled through Tamarind Road, spending the night unnoticed at the ground floor of a neighboring residence before escaping at dawn. The items taken were a wristwatch worth P100.00 and a transistor radio worth P60.00 belonging to Marteja.

An Information was filed on August 3, 1977, charging all three accused with Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, alleging the aggravating circumstances of nighttime deliberately sought and conspiracy. Upon arraignment, all three, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty. Evidence was thereafter presented to determine the degree of culpability. The defense submitted Ga's birth certificate and baptismal certificate to show he was one day short of his 17th birthday at the time of the offense, but the trial court found these documents full of erasures and alterations. Instead, the court relied on Ga's SSS Identification card, driver's license, and Medicare Identification card, all showing a birth date of August 1, 1956, making him 20 years, 11 months, and 29 days old at the time of the crime. The trial court appreciated against all accused the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, insult or disregard of respect due to the victims on account of age, nighttime, commission by a band, intoxication, habitual delinquency, and recidivism, and sentenced each to death thrice.

• Commission by a Band: Appellant argued that the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime by a band should not have been appreciated because there were only three perpetrators and two weapons, whereas a band requires at least four armed malefactors.
• Insult or Disregard Due to Age: Appellant alleged that no evidence was presented and nothing in the judgment indicated that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the victims.
• Nighttime: Appellant contended that while nighttime may have been the factual setting, it did not appear to have been especially or deliberately sought to facilitate the crime, citing People vs. Apduhan Jr. and People vs. Flores for the proposition that nocturnidad must concur with the intent to capitalize on the darkness.
• Intoxication: Appellant argued that it was not proven the accused were in a state of intoxication at the time the crime was actually committed, citing U.S. vs. Dowdell, and that his ability to give a detailed account of the crime demonstrated he was not intoxicated.
• Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency: Appellant contended these were improperly appreciated because the evidence consisted merely of uncertified, unidentified photocopies of NBI criminal records, with no explanation for the non-production of originals.
• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating: Appellant argued the trial court erred in failing to appreciate his spontaneous plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance.
• Minority: Appellant argued his birth and baptismal certificates showed he was born on August 1, 1960, making him one day short of his 17th birthday, entitling him to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Child and Youth Welfare Code: Appellant argued that as minors at the time of the offense, he and Endencio should have been entitled to the benefits of suspended sentence under Presidential Decree No. 603.
• Death Penalty: Appellant argued the trial court erred in sentencing him to death.

• Insult or Disregard Due to Age: The Solicitor General agreed that this aggravating circumstance should not be appreciated because no evidence showed deliberate intent to offend or insult the victims' age or sex.
• Nighttime: The Solicitor General argued that a plea of guilty constitutes admission of all material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstance of nighttime deliberately sought, and that the facts as found by the trial court showed the accused waited until midnight and used darkness to avoid discovery.
• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating: The Solicitor General recommended that the plea of guilty be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the records showing appellant spontaneously pleaded guilty immediately upon arraignment and before presentation of prosecution evidence.
• Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency: The Solicitor General agreed with appellant that these were improperly appreciated due to insufficient evidence.
• Minority: The Solicitor General pointed out that the birth certificate was discredited by the trial court because it was full of erasures and alterations, and that other competent evidence — the SSS ID, driver's license, and Medicare ID — showed the appellant was born on August 1, 1956.

• Commission by a Band: Whether the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime by a band was properly appreciated against the accused.
• Insult or Disregard Due to Age: Whether the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of respect due to the victims on account of age was properly appreciated.
• Nighttime: Whether the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was properly appreciated given the accused's plea of guilty to an information alleging nighttime as deliberately sought.
• Intoxication: Whether the alternative circumstance of intoxication was properly appreciated as aggravating.
• Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency: Whether recidivism and habitual delinquency were properly appreciated as aggravating circumstances.
• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating: Whether the plea of guilty should have been appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Minority: Whether the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 was established.
• Child and Youth Welfare Code: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefits of a suspended sentence under Presidential Decree No. 603 as a youthful offender.
• Proper Offense and Penalty: Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of "Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide" and imposed the death penalty three times.

• Commission by a Band: No. A band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least four armed malefactors; here there were only three perpetrators with two weapons, so the circumstance was absent.
• Insult or Disregard Due to Age: No. This aggravating circumstance applies only to crimes against persons or honor; robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property, and no evidence showed deliberate intent to insult the victims' age or sex.
• Nighttime: Yes. The unqualified plea of guilty admitted all material facts alleged in the Information, including that nighttime was deliberately sought; the facts also showed the accused waited until midnight and used darkness to avoid discovery and facilitate escape.
• Intoxication: Yes, as aggravating. Intoxication was intentional because it was subsequent to the plan to commit the crime; the accused drank to embolden themselves.
• Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency: No. The evidence consisted of uncertified, unidentified photocopies of NBI records, recidivism was not alleged in the Information, and there was no admission by the accused.
• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating: Yes. The spontaneous plea of guilty immediately upon arraignment and before presentation of prosecution evidence was properly appreciable as a mitigating circumstance.
• Minority: No. The birth certificate was discredited due to erasures and alterations; other competent evidence showed the appellant was born on August 1, 1956, making him over 20 years old at the time of the crime.
• Child and Youth Welfare Code: No. Recourse to a suspended sentence became moot and academic because the appellant was already above 21 years of age.
• Proper Offense and Penalty: No. There is no crime of "Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide"; the proper charge is a single offense of robbery with homicide, with the penalty reduced from death to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the 1987 Constitution.

• Commission by a Band: Under Article 14, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least four malefactors who are all armed. Here, there were only three perpetrators — Ga, Endencio, and Ruga — and only two weapons, a kitchen knife and a dagger. Both the numerical and armament requisites were unmet, so the circumstance was improperly appreciated.

• Insult or Disregard Due to Age: The aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of rank, age, or sex may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor, where the commission of the crime shows some insult or disrespect to rank, age, or sex. It is not proper in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property; the homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose of the criminal. Following People vs. Pagal, reiterated in People vs. Ang and People vs. Nabaluna, this circumstance cannot be appreciated in robbery with homicide. Additionally, no evidence showed deliberate intent to insult or disrespect the victims' age or sex.

• Nighttime: An unqualified plea of guilty constitutes not only an admission of guilt but also of all material facts alleged in the Information, including aggravating circumstances therein recited. The Information alleged the crime was committed "at nighttime, a circumstance deliberately sought to insure success in the commission of the crime." Because appellant pleaded guilty and never claimed the plea was improvident, the prosecution was not required to separately prove nighttime. The cases appellant cited — People vs. Apduhan Jr. and People vs. Flores — actually supported this proposition rather than his. People vs. Formentera, where the trial court committed lapses by not requiring proof of aggravating circumstances, was distinguished because here the plea of guilty supplied the requisite proof. Moreover, the facts as found by the trial court established that the accused waited until midnight to execute their plan and took advantage of the cover of darkness to avoid discovery, minimize risk of capture, and facilitate escape.

• Intoxication: Intoxication is mitigating when it affects the mental faculties of the accused, but aggravating when habitual or intentional. Intoxication is intentional when it is subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. Here, the accused planned the robbery first and then went on a drinking spree — first with whiskey, then with gin — with some of their would-be victims. The intoxication was aggravating because it was intentional: the accused drank to embolden themselves in the commission of the offense. Appellant's argument that his detailed account of the crime showed he was not intoxicated actually undermined any claim for intoxication as mitigating, but did not negate its aggravating character as intentional.

• Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency: To appreciate recidivism, it must be alleged in the Information and certified copies of prior sentences must be adduced at trial and admitted as evidence with knowledge of the accused. Even if not alleged, it may be appreciated if proven by competent evidence or admitted by the accused. Here, recidivism was not alleged in the Information, there was no admission by the accused, and the only evidence consisted of uncertified photocopies of NBI criminal records that were neither certified nor identified by a witness, with no explanation for the non-production of originals. The evidence was insufficient.

• Plea of Guilty as Mitigating: Following People vs. Crisostomo, a spontaneous plea of guilty to the crime charged immediately upon arraignment before the competent court and prior to the presentation of prosecution evidence is a mitigating circumstance. The records showed appellant pleaded guilty immediately upon arraignment, satisfying this requirement.

• Minority: The birth certificate and baptismal certificate presented by the defense were discredited by the trial court because they were full of erasures and alterations. The trial court instead relied on the appellant's SSS Identification card, driver's license, and Medicare Identification card, all showing a birth date of August 1, 1956. As proven by this more competent evidence, the appellant was 20 years, 11 months, and 29 days old at the time of the crime, and thus not entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68.

• Child and Youth Welfare Code: The purpose of the suspended sentence provisions under P.D. No. 603 is to avoid commingling juvenile offenders with ordinary criminals in prison. However, if the accused reaches the age of majority during appeal, the entitlement to a suspended sentence becomes moot and academic because the reason for the suspension no longer applies. Since the appellant was already above 21 years of age, recourse to a suspended sentence was unavailable.

• Proper Offense and Penalty: There is no crime of "Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide." The term "homicide" in paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is understood in its generic sense, encompassing murder, homicide, and even slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. All such crimes are merged into the single composite offense of robbery with homicide. Notwithstanding that three persons were killed and one seriously injured, the proper charge is a single offense of robbery with homicide. Under Article 294(1), the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposable. With three aggravating circumstances (abuse of superior strength, nighttime, and intoxication) and one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty), the death penalty would have been correct under Article 63(4). However, pursuant to Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

• Composite Nature of Robbery with Homicide — Robbery with homicide is a single composite crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The term "homicide" is understood in its generic sense, encompassing murder, homicide, and even slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. All killings and injuries committed during the robbery are merged into a single offense; there is no separate crime of "robbery with multiple homicide" or "robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide." The Court applied this by modifying the conviction from "Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide" to a single offense of robbery with homicide.

• Effect of Plea of Guilty on Aggravating Circumstances — An unqualified plea of guilty constitutes not only an admission of guilt but also an admission of all material facts alleged in the Information, including aggravating circumstances therein recited. The prosecution need not separately prove aggravating circumstances admitted by the plea, provided the plea is not challenged as improvident. The Court applied this to uphold the appreciation of nighttime as aggravating, which was alleged in the Information and admitted by the guilty plea.

• Commission by a Band (En Cuadrilla) — Under Article 14, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a band consists of at least four malefactors who are all armed. Both the numerical threshold (at least four) and the armament requirement (all armed) must be satisfied. The Court found this circumstance absent because there were only three perpetrators and two weapons.

• Intoxication as Aggravating Circumstance — Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication is aggravating when habitual or intentional. Intoxication is intentional when it is subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, as when the accused drink to embolden themselves. Intoxication is mitigating only when it affects the mental faculties of the accused. The Court found intoxication aggravating because the accused planned the robbery first and then drank to fortify themselves.

• Proof of Recidivism — To appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the Information and certified copies of prior sentences must be adduced at trial and admitted as evidence with knowledge of the accused. Even if not alleged, it may be appreciated if proven by competent evidence or admitted by the accused. Uncertified and unidentified photocopies of NBI records are insufficient.

• Insult or Disregard Due to Rank, Age, or Sex — Limitation to Crimes Against Persons — This aggravating circumstance may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor, not in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property; the homicide is merely incidental to the robbery.

• Suspended Sentence for Youthful Offenders — Mootness Upon Reaching Majority — If an accused reaches the age of majority during appeal, the entitlement to a suspended sentence under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. No. 603) or Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code becomes moot and academic, as the purpose of separating juvenile offenders from adult criminals no longer applies.

• "There is no crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The term 'Homicide' in paragraph 1, Art. 294 is to be understood in its generic sense. It includes murder and slight physical injuries committed during the occasion of the robbery which crimes are merged in the crime of robbery with homicide as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the composite nature of robbery with homicide, establishing that all killings and injuries on the occasion of a robbery merge into a single offense.

• "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." — This defines the dual effect of a guilty plea: it is simultaneously a mitigating circumstance and an admission of aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information, relieving the prosecution of the burden to prove them.

• "The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken in account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. ... It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. ... Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons." — This passage delineates the scope of the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard, confining it to crimes against persons or honor and excluding its application to robbery with homicide.

• People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570 (1977) — Followed. Established the doctrine that the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of respect due to rank, age, or sex applies only to crimes against persons or honor, not to robbery with homicide, which is primarily a crime against property. Reiterated in People vs. Ang and People vs. Nabaluna.

• People vs. Ang, 139 SCRA 115 (1985) — Followed. Cited for the requirement that recidivism must be alleged in the Information and proven by certified copies of prior sentences, or admitted by the accused; uncertified photocopies of NBI records are insufficient.

• People vs. Apduhan Jr., 24 SCRA 798 (1968) — Followed. Established that an unqualified plea of guilty constitutes admission of all material facts alleged in the Information, including aggravating circumstances, and that the prosecution need not separately prove circumstances so admitted. Also cited for the definition of a band as at least four armed malefactors.

• People vs. Cariño, 165 SCRA 664 (1988) — Followed. Held that there is no crime of "Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide"; the term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is understood in its generic sense, with all killings merged into a single composite offense.

• People vs. Casiguran, 94 SCRA 244 (1979) — Followed. Held that if an accused reaches the age of majority during appeal, the entitlement to a suspended sentence under the Child and Youth Welfare Code becomes moot and academic.

• People vs. Millora, 119 SCRA 417 (1982) — Followed. Held that Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution does not abolish capital punishment but merely prohibits its imposition, warranting reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Crisostomo, 160 SCRA 47 (1988) — Followed. Basis for appreciating a spontaneous plea of guilty immediately upon arraignment and before presentation of prosecution evidence as a mitigating circumstance.

• People vs. Flores, 40 SCRA 230 (1971) — Distinguished. Appellant relied on this case for the proposition that nighttime must be deliberately sought, but the Court found it actually supported the proposition that a guilty plea admits aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information; the case dwelt primarily on whether the accused fully understood the charges before pleading guilty.

• People vs. Formentera, 130 SCRA 114 (1984) — Distinguished. In that case, the trial court committed lapses by not requiring the prosecution to prove aggravating circumstances and merely "gathering" them from the Information. The Court found those facts not obtaining here because the plea of guilty supplied the requisite proof and the plea was not challenged as improvident.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide, imposing reclusion perpetua to death. Applied as the proper offense; the Court clarified that "homicide" is used in its generic sense, encompassing all killings and injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, which merge into a single composite crime.

• Article 14, paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines commission by a band (en cuadrilla) as an aggravating circumstance requiring at least four armed malefactors. Applied to reject the appreciation of this circumstance where only three perpetrators and two weapons were involved.

• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Governs the alternative circumstance of intoxication, which is aggravating when habitual or intentional and mitigating when it affects the mental faculties of the accused. Applied to uphold intoxication as aggravating because the accused drank after planning the crime to embolden themselves.

• Article 63(4), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for imposing the penalty when there are more aggravating than mitigating circumstances, authorizing the maximum period of the penalty. Applied to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty (death), which was then reduced to reclusion perpetua.

• Article 68, Revised Penal Code — Provides the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority for offenders under 18 years of age. Not applied because competent documentary evidence showed the appellant was over 20 years old at the time of the crime.

• Section 19(1), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and mandates that any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Applied to reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

• Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) — Provides for suspended sentences for youthful offenders to avoid commingling with adult criminals. Held inapplicable because the appellant had reached the age of majority during the appeal, rendering recourse to a suspended sentence moot and academic.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.