People vs. Gano

The multiplicity of homicides committed on the occasion of robbery is not an aggravating circumstance, and a qualified admission of the killings that denies the robbery is not a mitigating voluntary confession; with neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua.

Castanito Gano was a former employee of Alberto Marbella's father-in-law in the latter's bakery, while Alberto's wife Conchita and her parents Ponciano Salen and Anicia Salen were the victims named in the case. The conviction was for robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime carrying a single penalty, and the RTC imposed death, bringing the case to the SC on automatic review.

On 27 December 1994, Alberto Marbella left his wife Conchita and daughter Angelica in Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal, with Conchita's parents Ponciano Salen and Anicia Salen, before boarding a bus for Polangui, Albay. Three days later, on 30 December 1994, Alberto learned from his sister Araceli Marbella through a long-distance telephone call that his wife and parents-in-law had been brutally murdered. He returned to Manila on 1 January 1995 and, accompanied by Araceli, went to the San Mateo Police Station, where Major Santos told him the cadavers had been brought to Camp Crame for autopsy. On advice, they went to the Santiago Funeral Parlor but were informed that the bodies would lie in state at the Salens' residence in Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal. From the police investigator and kibitzers, Alberto learned that Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Perez was tagged as the culprit in the "massacre" of his family. He inspected the drawers where their valuables were kept and found missing (a) about P30,000 in different denominations representing their revolving capital in their sari-sari store; (b) two gold bracelets valued at about P2,000 owned by Conchita and Angelica; and (c) two wristwatches owned by Conchita. According to Alberto, Angelica told him she saw the accused grab the money from her mother. Alberto identified the articles recovered from Gano upon apprehension: a Mickey Mouse watch (Exh. "A"), a Citizen gold watch (Exh. "B"), Conchita's leather wallet (Exh. "C"), and an envelope containing peso bills amounting to P1,590.00 (Exh. "D").

Senior Inspector Ernesto Garcia testified that around 7:00 a.m. on 31 December 1994 his office received a report of a "massacre" at the Salen residence in Gen. Luna St., Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal. He and two other police officers went to the crime scene and found on the ground floor the prostrate body of Ponciano Salen. Before further investigation, a relative of the victim informed him of the suspect's identity, prompting the group to proceed to the domestic airport for a possible arrest. At the airport, they coordinated with the PAL ticketing office to verify whether a passenger using the name Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Gano or Jerry Perez or other aliases was booked on a flight for Agusan del Sur. Because verification took time, they decided to leave for the North Harbor, another possible escape route, while calling PAL every now and then and keeping the San Mateo police updated. PAL later confirmed the presence of one Jerry Perez on board a plane bound for Butuan City. Since there was no direct flight from Manila to Butuan City, Garcia, SPO1 Juanito Justo, and SPO1 Joselito Guillermo boarded a plane for Cebu and then a connecting flight to Butuan City. At the airport, Sgt. Matty informed them that he and his men had already arrested the suspect. Garcia and his companions proceeded to the Western Police District of Butuan City, where they found Castanito Gano detained. SPO2 Domingo Martin Lucero, who actually arrested the accused at the airport, informed Garcia's group about the items found in the accused's possession, consisting of two wristwatches and some cash. At trial, Garcia disclosed that on their way back to Manila the accused confessed to him his responsibility for the triple killing and the robbery.

Marlyn Candido, Gano's live-in partner, affirmed her affidavit regarding her positive identification of the bloodstained garments worn by the accused on 30 December 1994, and confirmed that he used the aliases Jerry Perez, Allan Perez, Allan Saguyong, and Jerry Gano. Eduardo Zulueta, a relative of the victims, testified that he was with the responding policemen at the initial investigation at the crime scene, where they found the mangled bodies of the three victims soaked in their own blood: Ponciano Salen at the dirty kitchen, Anicia Salen inside a room on the second floor, and Conchita Marbella outside the other room on the same floor. Eduardo first learned the suspect's identity when Angelica, Conchita's daughter, told him and the police investigators that Castanito perpetrated the carnage. He recalled that around 8:00 a.m. on 31 December 1994, the day after the incident, he noticed Angelica standing alone on the terrace of their house, wondered why the bakery was not yet open although it was already late, and saw bloodstains on her dress, which she said came from her mother Conchita's body. SPO2 Richard Salvador testified on the recovery of the stolen items from Gano's person when he was apprehended in Butuan City by the team of PO Martin Lucero, which turned them over to SPO1 Juanito Justo. Salvador's investigation at the crime scene showed that the cabinet where the wristwatches, jewelry, wallet, and cash were supposedly kept had signs of having been forcibly opened; he later learned from the victims' relatives that the stolen goods were taken from the cabinet. According to Salvador, Gano admitted the killings before many people, including members of the press and other police officers, when he arrived at the San Mateo Police Station.

Angelica Marbella, four years old and the only living witness to the killing of her mother and grandparents, categorically stated that the accused, known to her as Allan, perpetrated the killings. She pointed to him as the one who stole the money from her mother's drawer, her Mickey Mouse watch, and other valuables; she identified her bloodstained garments and explained that the bloodstains came from her "Mommy." On cross-examination, she reiterated that the accused Allan was the author of the crime and that she was certain because she saw the whole incident. Although she earlier mentioned that the accused struck her relatives with a piece of wood, she readily identified a bolo as the object used in killing her mother and grandparents.

Accused Castanito Gano, testifying as his only witness, narrated that he was arrested at the Butuan airport by a team led by SPO2 Lucero. He claimed that the arresting police officers searched him without a warrant and that the search yielded nothing except a wad of bank notes, which he claimed was his remaining cash after buying his plane ticket and was part of his salary and winnings from jueteng. He recalled that at the Manila Domestic Terminal he was asked questions by several people, including members of the media, regarding the charges against him and answered without a lawyer. He denied robbing the victims and insisted that he saw the alleged stolen items for the first time only during the trial. He belied the prosecution's claim that he forcibly opened the lockers or drawers of the victims; the drawers were still intact and in good condition when he left the Salen residence. He expressed remorse for having killed the victims, saying, "I am sorry now, but at the time I did not know how I felt," and later stated: "Inamin ko yoon pagpatay parang hindi ko ano ang pangyayaring iyon, parang pansandalian na lang, parang wala ako sa sarili ko noon, parang sunod-sunuran na lang ako sa ginawa ko sa mga araw na iyon pero, parang hindi ko matandaan kung ano ang nangyari sa sarili ko noon nagawa ko yoon ganoon."

SPO Domingo Lucero testified on rebuttal that when Col. Maralit informed them of the presence of the suspect using the name Jerry Perez on board one of the planes bound for Butuan, he dispatched a team to Bacasi Butuan airport to arrest the suspect. Coordinating with the PAL manager, who confirmed the information, the arresting officers boarded the plane that had just landed and accosted a passenger who identified himself as Jerry Perez. The group invited the suspect to the office of the Airport Manager. When asked why he was being brought to the office, the suspect replied that he knew the reason for his detention and thereafter admitted that he was responsible for the death of the Salen family. When SPO Lucero asked the suspect to open his bag, he saw among the clothes a white envelope containing cash in different denominations; his search of the suspect's person also yielded a leather wallet with the brand name Grand Royale and a plastic purse containing a Citizen watch, and the suspect was found wearing a Mickey Mouse wristwatch. After making a receipt of the recovered items, SPO Lucero turned them over to Police Inspector Ernesto Garcia of the San Mateo police force. On sur-rebuttal, Gano clarified that, contrary to SPO Lucero's declarations, he did not voluntarily offer the contents of his bag but they were taken by the apprehending officers; he was not sure whether the alleged stolen items were found in his bag, but he was certain that the arresting officers did not find anything when they searched his body. The prosecution charged Gano with robbery with homicide. When arraigned, he made a qualified admission by admitting the killing of the three victims but denying the charge of robbery; because the charge was a complex crime with a single penalty under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, he entered a plea of not guilty with the assistance of counsel. The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of minor Angelica Marbella.

• Robbery Not Proven: Accused-appellant argued that he should be convicted only of homicide, not robbery with homicide, because the prosecution failed to prove that he committed robbery; he testified that the only item recovered from him was the remainder of his salary and his jueteng winnings, and that he saw the alleged stolen valuables for the first time during the trial.
• Voluntary Surrender of Stolen Items Contrary to Human Behavior: Accused-appellant contended that SPO2 Lucero's allegation that he voluntarily surrendered the stolen items is contrary to normal human behavior.

• Robbery with Homicide: Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide where only the taking of Angelica's Mickey Mouse watch was sufficiently proved and the other recovered items were not established as fruits of the crime.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Multiplicity of Homicides: Whether the two additional killings should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling: Whether dwelling may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance where the Information does not allege it.
• Mitigating Circumstance — Voluntary Confession: Whether the accused's admission of the killings but denial of robbery may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty should be death or reclusion perpetua given the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

• Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide because Angelica's testimony sufficiently proved that he took her Mickey Mouse watch on the occasion of the killings; the other recovered items need not be proved as fruits of the crime.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Multiplicity of Homicides: No. The multiplicity of homicides is not an aggravating circumstance; Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive and no law makes additional killings aggravating, following People vs. Regala.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling: No. Dwelling cannot be appreciated because the Information did not allege it, as required by the amended Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, which are favorable to the accused and retroactive.
• Mitigating Circumstance — Voluntary Confession: No. The admission was qualified because he admitted the killings but denied robbery; voluntary confession must be unconditional and admit the offense charged, robbery with homicide.
• Penalty: Reclusion perpetua. With neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code requires the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua for robbery with homicide under Article 294.

• Robbery with Homicide: The SC gave full credence to Angelica's testimony, finding that in her innocence and guileless narration she showed that the accused not only slaughtered the victims but also took their personal belongings, particularly her Mickey Mouse watch, for no other purpose than gain. The SC held that, with the exception of the Mickey Mouse watch, the other items — cash, wallet, Citizen watch, and bracelets — were not established to be the fruits of the crime because their ownership or the fact that they were stolen by the accused was not satisfactorily established. This notwithstanding, the SC sustained the charge of robbery because the taking of Angelica's Mickey Mouse watch was sufficiently proved.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Multiplicity of Homicides: The SC noted conflicting views on whether additional rapes or homicides committed on the occasion of robbery increase the penalty, but held that People vs. Regala spoke with finality: there is no law providing that additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered an aggravating circumstance; Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates aggravating circumstances exclusively, unlike Article 13 on mitigating circumstances, which has paragraph 10 for analogous circumstances. Although the additional killings may create an anomalous situation, the remedy lies with the legislature, and a penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender. Applying Regala, the SC held that the two other killings should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling: The SC examined the possibility of appreciating dwelling as a generic aggravating circumstance but held that the recent amendment to Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, effective 1 December 2000, requires the information or complaint to allege not only qualifying but also aggravating circumstances; otherwise, they cannot be properly appreciated. Because the rule is favorable to the accused, the SC gave it retroactive application, and since the Information did not allege dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, dwelling could not be appreciated.
• Mitigating Circumstance — Voluntary Confession: The trial court considered the admission by the accused of the killings as a mitigating circumstance, presumably referring to voluntary confession under the Revised Penal Code, notwithstanding his denial of the charge of robbery. The SC held that, in effect, the accused was merely confessing to homicide but not to robbery with homicide, a considerably graver offense. For voluntary confession to be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance, it must not only be made unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged, which in this case was robbery with homicide, and not to either robbery or homicide only; if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating.
• Penalty: Article 294, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code imposes reclusion perpetua to death when the crime of homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery. The trial court erred in appreciating the two killings as aggravating circumstances and the voluntary confession as a mitigating circumstance. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the lesser penalty, or only reclusion perpetua, be imposed. The SC affirmed the award of P50,000.00 for each of the three homicides, or a total of P150,000.00, as death indemnity, and awarded P50,000.00 to the legal heirs of each of the three victims for moral damages under Article 2219, paragraph (1), in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code.

• Multiplicity of Homicides Not an Aggravating Circumstance — Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code exclusively enumerates aggravating circumstances, and no law provides that additional homicides committed on the occasion of robbery should be considered aggravating. The SC applied this by refusing to treat the two additional killings as aggravating circumstances, following People vs. Regala.
• Qualified Admission Is Not Voluntary Confession — For voluntary confession to be mitigating, it must be unconditional and must admit the offense charged; a conditional or qualified confession is not mitigating. The SC applied this by holding that Gano's admission of the killings while denying robbery was only a confession to homicide, not to robbery with homicide, and could not mitigate the latter.
• Aggravating Circumstances Must Be Alleged in the Information — Under the amended Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the complaint or information must allege qualifying and aggravating circumstances; otherwise, they cannot be properly appreciated. The SC applied this by refusing to appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because the Information did not allege it.
• Sufficiency of Proof of Taking in Robbery with Homicide — The charge of robbery is sustained when the taking of at least one personal property on the occasion of homicide is sufficiently proved, even if other recovered items are not established as fruits of the crime. The SC applied this by sustaining the robbery conviction based on the taking of Angelica's Mickey Mouse watch.
• Lesser Penalty When No Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstance — Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty prescribed by law must be imposed. The SC applied this by lowering the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

• "It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances." — The SC adopted this ruling from People vs. Regala to hold that the two additional killings could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• "This notwithstanding, the charge of robbery must be sustained as the taking by the accused of Angelica’s Mickey Mouse watch was sufficiently proved." — The SC sustained the robbery conviction even though the other recovered items were not established as fruits of the crime.
• "But we note that for voluntary confession to be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance, the same must not only be made unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e., robbery with homicide in the present case, and not to either robbery or homicide only. Hence, if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating." — The SC held that Gano's admission of the killings while denying robbery was not a mitigating voluntary confession.
• "Pursuant to the aforequoted amended provisions, the Rules now require that the information or complaint allege not only the qualifying but the aggravating circumstances as well, otherwise, the same cannot be properly appreciated." — The SC used this to reject dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because the Information did not allege it.

• People vs. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000 — Controlling precedent; followed to hold that the multiplicity of homicides is not an aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Fegidero, G.R. No. 113446, August 4, 2000 — Cited in support of the award of moral damages.
• People vs. Renato de Guzman and Marciano Ramos, G.R. No. 118670, February 22, 2000 — Cited in support of the award of moral damages.

• Article 294, paragraph (1), Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery with homicide and imposes reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery; the SC applied it to affirm the conviction but chose the lesser penalty.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of indivisible penalties when there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances; with neither, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates aggravating circumstances exclusively; the SC held that the multiplicity of homicides is not included.
• Article 13, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates mitigating circumstances, with paragraph 10 allowing analogous circumstances; cited in the Regala excerpt to contrast with the exclusivity of Article 14.
• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (as amended, effective December 1, 2000) — Require the information or complaint to state the designation of the offense and specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances; the SC applied them retroactively because they are favorable to the accused, and held that dwelling could not be appreciated because it was not alleged.
• Article 2219, paragraph (1), in relation to Article 2206, Civil Code — Basis for the award of moral damages; the SC awarded P50,000.00 to the legal heirs of each of the three victims.