People vs. Lanseta

For conviction of robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proven as conclusively as any other essential element; where the original criminal design did not comprehend robbery and the taking of the victim's gun followed the killing as an afterthought or incident, the complex crime is not established. Treachery is absent where the victim was able to defend himself, and cruelty is not established by the mere number of wounds.

Rolando Lanseta, who used the name Rolando Javier y Primera, was charged with robbery with homicide for the death of Pat. Quiterio Surilla, a member of the Manila Police Department. The Amended Information also named Romulo Malundas, Jose Pilapil, and Eulogio Lanseta as accessories after the fact. The prosecution alleged that the killing was committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, and the Information invoked the victim's status as a policeman acting in the performance of his official duties.

At about 3:00 o'clock in the early morning of January 11, 1969, Rolando Javier y Primera, whose real name is Rolando Lanseta, arrived at the "karinderia" owned and operated by Asuncion Tura at the Soriano Market, Paco, Manila, and ordered food. Asuncion's sister, Rosalia Tura, served him. Many other customers were eating there. After appellant finished eating and while he remained seated, Asuncion noticed a man, later identified as Pat. Quiterio Surilla, approach appellant and introduce himself as a detective. Appellant stood up when accosted, and he and the detective walked away from the store.

When the two had walked about ten meters away, Asuncion heard two shots and somebody shouting for help. She turned and saw appellant sitting astride the detective and stabbing him many times while the detective lay flat on his stomach. After delivering many stab blows, appellant went toward the toilet, holding a gun in his left hand and a hunting knife in his right hand. Asuncion did not see appellant again. She identified appellant in court and said she had known him for two years because he frequented the Soriano market and was her customer; it was the first time she saw the victim.

Dr. Luis Larion of the Medical Examiner's Office, Manila Police Department, conducted a post mortem examination on January 11, 1969. He found 27 wounds on the victim's body; the fatal wounds were Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the deepest measuring about 10 cms. deep and possibly caused by a sharp-edged pointed instrument of approximately the same length. Wound No. 26 was a gunshot wound "thru and thru upper inner, left thigh ... and exited at ...inner lower left thigh"; the cause of death was "profuse hemorrhage and shock due to multiple (23) stab wounds and a gunshot wound, penetrating chest, abdomen and neck and piercing right lung, diaphragm, trachea, liver, ascending colon, right kidney, right common carotid artery and left subclavian artery." Dr. Larion testified that the probable position of the assailant in relation to the victim was facing the victim a little bit on the victim's right side; he said the wounds could have been inflicted while the victim was standing or lying down, and that if the assailant was riding on the victim's back, he could have inflicted majority of the wounds if he was on the back. Washington Bacud, ballistics expert, testified that the revolver of the deceased contained six bullets, one in each of the six chambers, and that only one bullet was fired.

Patrolman Ramon P. Padre of the Homicide Division, Manila Police Department, investigated the case and identified the Statement, Exhibit "B", given by appellant during the investigation on January 12, 1969, which he claimed appellant signed voluntarily. In that statement, appellant narrated that he did not know the victim was a policeman; that the victim suddenly called him "isa ka pa"; that he got a knife and stabbed the victim; that the victim drew a gun and they grappled for it; that the gun fired and hit appellant's thigh; that they wrestled and the victim fell under him and he stabbed the victim; and that he then took the gun and left. He also said that Jose, Juanito, Boy Lungkot, Entoy, Willy, and Romulo helped him, brought him to the Paco station, and left him there, after which he got a taxi to Makati and slept until his father surrendered him. Patrolman Jacinto Ty testified that when he interviewed accused Eulogio Lanseta at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of January 16, 1969, Eulogio said he was willing to tell where appellant had hidden the deceased's firearm. With permission from the Chief Security Officer, Patrolman Ty took Eulogio out of the City Jail and proceeded to Makati, where he recovered the firearm, Exhibit "H", under a pigpen in an alley at No. 5371 Curie St., Makati, Rizal, as pointed out by Eulogio; Eulogio said appellant had told him the firearm could be found there. It is a fact that appellant was surrendered to the NBI by his father and his brother Eulogio Lanseta in the early evening of January 11, 1969.

Appellant admitted he was the accused and that although his real name is Rolando Lanseta, he gave the name Rolando Javier y Primera to the police to avoid discovery by his family. His version was that at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning he was at the Soriano Market to buy fruits to sell in Makati, Rizal. The deceased, who was not in uniform and did not introduce himself as a detective, placed his left arm on appellant's shoulders while appellant was standing and asked if he was the escapee that Mr. Reyes was telling him about; Mr. Reyes was a collector in the Soriano Market whose son had previously been involved in a quarrel with appellant and was killed by appellant in self-defense, and appellant claimed he had been acquitted but did not know whether Mr. Reyes knew of the acquittal on January 11, 1969. Appellant answered "no"; the deceased then squeezed his neck and searched his body but found no weapon or firearm. The deceased pointed his gun at appellant, and when appellant parried it, the gun fired and hit appellant's left thigh; appellant heard only one gunshot. He pushed the deceased away and extricated himself, walked a few steps, then fell; while crawling away, a certain Juanito helped him. He denied sitting astride the deceased while the latter was lying on his stomach and denied stabbing him several times. He repudiated Exhibit "B", saying he gave it only so the policemen would stop maltreating him.

Eulogio Lanseta, appellant's brother and co-accused, admitted having been confined in the city jail but denied accompanying police officers to No. 5371 Curie Street, Palanan, Makati, to recover the victim's firearm. He said that on January 15, 1969, he was taken out of the city jail and brought to Curie Street, and when they arrived two policemen who had gone ahead came out and said "This is the gun," but the gun was not shown to him. The trial court gave credence to Asuncion Tura's identification and to appellant's extrajudicial statement, observing that the statement contained details only appellant could have supplied; it also found that the firearm belonged to the deceased and that the gun fired during the grapple, hitting appellant's left thigh.

• Identity of the Assailant: Appellant argued that he was not the person who inflicted the 27 wounds; many people were around and near the victim, so it was probable that others inflicted the wounds.
• Credibility of Asuncion Tura: Appellant assailed Asuncion Tura's credibility, arguing that she was moved by a sudden imagination resulting from the commotion and that her testimony of two gunshots was belied by the five bullets still inside the chamber of the recovered firearm.
• Absence of Weapon and Disability: Appellant argued that no knife or firearm was found on his person when he was searched, and that after being hit on the left thigh by the victim's revolver he was already disabled to walk.
• Location of Wounds: Appellant argued that most of the wounds were in front of the victim's body, whereas Asuncion Tura said appellant delivered many stab blows while the victim was prostrate face down; Dr. Larion testified that the probable position of the assailant was in front of the victim.
• Number of Gunshots: Appellant argued that while Asuncion Tura heard two gunshots, the ballistics expert testified that the revolver contained six bullets, one in each chamber, and only one bullet was fired.
• Treachery and Disregard of Rank: Appellant assigned as error the trial court's finding of treachery and disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank.
• Repudiation of Extrajudicial Statement: Appellant repudiated Exhibit "B", maintaining that he gave it only so the policemen would stop maltreating him.

• Identity and Credibility: Whether the prosecution established appellant's identity as the assailant and Asuncion Tura's testimony was credible despite the alleged inconsistencies.
• Robbery with Homicide: Whether appellant can be convicted of robbery with homicide where the taking of the victim's gun was not shown to have been the original criminal design.
• Homicide or Murder: Whether appellant is guilty of simple homicide or murder, considering his denials and the evidence on the wounds and gunshots.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing.
• Cruelty: Whether cruelty attended the killing based on the number of wounds.
• Disregard of Rank and Direct Assault: Whether the aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank was present, and whether direct assault should be complexed with homicide.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was proper or whether appellant should receive the penalty for homicide with voluntary surrender.

• Identity and Credibility: Yes. Asuncion Tura, who had known appellant for two years as a regular customer, positively identified him as the person astride the victim and stabbing him; her minor inconsistency on the number of gunshots did not destroy credibility.
• Robbery with Homicide: No. The robbery itself was not conclusively proven; the taking of the gun followed the killing as an afterthought or incident, and the original criminal design did not comprehend robbery.
• Homicide or Murder: Simple homicide. The evidence established the killing but did not prove any qualifying circumstance; appellant's denials and defense contentions did not overcome the prosecution evidence.
• Treachery: No. The victim was able to pull out his gun and defend himself, so the means employed were not without risk to appellant.
• Cruelty: No. The mere infliction of multiple successive wounds, without proof of deliberate prolongation of suffering, does not establish cruelty.
• Disregard of Rank and Direct Assault: No. The circumstance is inherent in direct assault; although direct assault should have been complexed with homicide, it was not expressly charged and the Information failed to allege that appellant knew the victim's position of authority.
• Penalty: The death penalty is improper. Appellant is liable for simple homicide with voluntary surrender, without aggravating circumstance; the SC imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Identity and Credibility: The SC upheld Asuncion Tura's identification. She knew appellant for two years as a regular customer, so she could not have been mistaken as to his identity as the one astride the victim's back repeatedly dealing stab blows. No improper motive was shown. Her account as to the number of gunshots was a minor matter not sufficient to denote deliberate falsehood. The SC also held that testimonies of witnesses are worthy of full faith and credit absent improper motives, and that the proximity of the protagonists during the scuffle made it not remote that the same bullet caused gunshot wounds on both individuals.
• Robbery with Homicide: The SC ruled that robbery with homicide requires the robbery itself to be proven as conclusively as any other essential element. Although Asuncion Tura testified that appellant carried away the gun, the circumstances and other evidence failed to show that he took it with intent of gain. His original criminal design did not comprehend robbery; the alleged robbery merely followed the killing as an afterthought or incident. The homicide was not committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Citing People vs. Pacala, U.S. vs. Baguiao, U.S. vs. Alasa-as, People vs. Elizaga, U.S. vs. Villorente, and People vs. Manuel, the SC held that intent to rob must be proven and that the actor's intention supplies the connection between homicide and robbery necessary to constitute the complex offense. Since robbery was not convincingly and conclusively proven, appellant could not be found guilty thereof as a second offense.
• Homicide or Murder: The defense's attempt at exculpation was far from convincing. The SC accepted that appellant must have picked up a knife while walking, which is not uncommon in a market place; that the firearm belonged to the deceased and fired when they grappled, hitting appellant's left thigh; and that appellant was not disabled after being hit. Dr. Larion's testimony did not rule out the possibility of inflicting the wounds in the position described by Asuncion Tura; at least four wounds could have been inflicted while the deceased was lying flat on his stomach. The extrajudicial statement contained details only appellant could have supplied. Thus the killing was established, but no qualifying circumstance raised it to murder.
• Treachery: The SC ruled out treachery. Although appellant suddenly and unexpectedly stabbed the deceased, treachery does not connote surprise alone; the victim must have no opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault. Here the deceased was able to pull out his gun and defend himself, though ultimately bested. The means employed were not without risk to appellant. Citing Ramos vs. People, suddenness alone does not conclusively show treachery; the victim must be completely deprived of a chance to prepare for a fight or retreat.
• Cruelty: The SC found the trial court erred in appreciating cruelty based on 27 wounds. Cruelty requires the culprit to enjoy and delight in making the victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary moral and physical pain. The mere infliction of various successive wounds to cause death, with no appreciable time intervening to show a desire to prolong suffering, is not sufficient. Citing People vs. Dayug and Bannaisan, the SC held that the mere number of grave wounds rarely proves deliberate and inhuman intention to increase suffering; the object may have been to make assurance doubly sure and make recovery impossible.
• Disregard of Rank and Direct Assault: The SC found the circumstance of disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank under Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code, not present. The act of attacking the victim, an agent of a person in authority while in performance of official duty, is constitutive of Direct Assault or atentado under Article 148, Revised Penal Code, which is characterized by the spirit of aggression directed against authorities or their agents; hence disregard of rank may be considered inherent. Citing People vs. Catacutan, People vs. Lojo, Jr., People vs. Hernandez, and People vs. Bangug, the SC noted that this circumstance was not considered aggravating when the accused was found guilty of homicide and assault upon an agent of authority. While Direct Assault should have been complexed with Homicide, it was not expressly charged, and the Information did not allege an essential element: that the accused had knowledge of or knew the position of authority held by the person attacked. Citing People vs. CFI of Quezon, Br. V, the SC held that the Information did not allege that appellant knew or must have known that the victim was a policeman, although the evidence showed he became aware because the victim introduced himself as a detective. Thus no conviction for direct assault.
• Penalty: The SC concluded appellant should be convicted of simple homicide attended by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months, is imposable. The SC imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, plus P12,000 indemnity and costs.

• Robbery with homicide — conclusive proof of robbery — For conviction, the robbery itself must be proven as conclusively as any other essential element, and intent to gain must be proven. Applied: the taking of the gun after the killing was an afterthought or incident; no intent of gain was shown; the complex crime was not established.
• Intent of the actor in complex crime — The actor's intention supplies the connection between homicide and robbery necessary to constitute the complex offense; if the original design comprehends robbery, the timing of the homicide is immaterial, but if robbery follows the homicide as an afterthought, the acts are separate offenses. Applied: appellant's original criminal design did not comprehend robbery.
• Treachery — Treachery requires means, methods, or forms that tend directly and specially to insure execution without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make; suddenness alone is not enough, and the victim must have no opportunity to defend himself or retreat. Applied: the victim pulled out his gun and defended himself; no treachery.
• Cruelty — Cruelty requires the culprit to enjoy and delight in making the victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary moral and physical pain; the mere number of wounds is not sufficient. Applied: the 27 wounds did not prove cruelty.
• Disregard of respect due to rank inherent in direct assault — When the act constitutes direct assault under Article 148, Revised Penal Code, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due to rank under Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code is inherent and cannot be separately appreciated. Applied: the circumstance was not present.
• Direct assault — knowledge of authority — An essential element of direct assault is that the accused had knowledge of the position of authority held by the person attacked; if not alleged in the Information, conviction for the complex crime of homicide with direct assault cannot be had. Applied: the Information was deficient; no conviction for direct assault.
• Credibility of witnesses — Testimony is worthy of full faith and credit absent improper motive; minor inconsistencies on collateral matters do not destroy credibility. Applied: Asuncion Tura's minor inconsistency on the number of gunshots did not affect her identification of appellant.

• "It is well-settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of a crime." — This establishes the standard for robbery with homicide and supports the SC's ruling that the robbery was not proven.
• "It is the intention of the actor which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex offense; and if that intention comprehends the robbery, it is immaterial that the homicide may immediately precede instead of follow the robbery in point of time." — This distinguishes a true complex crime from separate offenses where robbery is only an afterthought.
• "There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — This defines treachery and supports the SC's finding that it was absent because the victim defended himself.
• "There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary moral-and physical pain in the consunmation of the criminal act which he intends to commit." — This defines cruelty and supports the SC's ruling that the number of wounds alone did not establish it.

• People vs. Pacala, 58 SCRA 370 (1974) — Relied on for the rule that robbery with homicide requires the robbery itself to be conclusively proven.
• U.S. vs. Baguiao, 4 Phil. 110 (1905) — Relied on for the requirement that intent to rob must be proven.
• People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333 (1923) — Relied on for the rule that the actor's intention supplies the connection between homicide and robbery in the complex crime.
• Ramos vs. People, 20 SCRA 1109 (1967) — Relied on for the rule that suddenness of attack alone does not conclusively show treachery; the victim must be deprived of a chance to prepare or retreat.
• People vs. Dayug and Bannaisan, 49 Phil. 423 (1926) — Relied on for the rule that the mere number of grave wounds does not establish cruelty.
• People vs. Catacutan, 64 Phil. 107 (1937) — Relied on for the rule that disregard of respect due to rank is not appreciated when the act is constitutive of direct assault complexed with homicide.
• People vs. CFI of Quezon, Br. V, 68 SCRA 305 (1975) — Relied on for the rule that knowledge of the victim's position of authority is an essential element of direct assault and must be alleged.

• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery; the SC applied it and found treachery absent because the victim was able to defend himself.
• Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of rank; the SC found it not present because it is inherent in direct assault.
• Article 148, Revised Penal Code — Direct Assault or atentado; the SC held the act was constitutive of direct assault, but it could not be complexed with homicide because it was not expressly charged and the Information failed to allege knowledge of authority.

• Justice Aquino (Concurring) — Concurred in the result and in the conviction for homicide, but opined that the imposable penalty should be twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum; he also believed the accused should be convicted of theft of the revolver included in the robbery charge.
• Justice Barredo (Concurring and Dissenting) — Concurred in the homicide conviction but held that disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of rank should be considered a generic aggravating circumstance although not alleged in the Information; if alleged, the crime would have been characterized as assault. He shared Justice Aquino's penalty and believed appellant should be prosecuted separately for theft, not armed robbery, for taking and hiding the gun, which indicated intent of gain.

• Justice Makasiar (Dissenting) — Appellant should be convicted not only of homicide but also of robbery, which was proven beyond reasonable doubt; after overpowering the victim, appellant stabbed him and took his gun, hid it in a pigpen, and did not surrender it, showing intent to gain. The assault on the police officer who identified himself aggravates the crime, but does not complex it as direct assault because the Information did not allege knowledge; voluntary surrender neutralizes the aggravating circumstance; the penalty for homicide should be reclusion temporal in its medium period and another penalty for armed robbery.
• Justice Barredo (Concurring and Dissenting) — Concurred in the homicide conviction but dissented on the treatment of disregard of rank, which he would appreciate as a generic aggravating circumstance despite not being alleged; he shared Justice Aquino's penalty and believed appellant should be prosecuted separately for theft, not armed robbery, for taking and hiding the gun, which indicated intent of gain.