People vs. Pujinio

A plea of guilty admits all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information, so an accused who pleaded guilty to robbery with homicide cannot later rely on a statement not considered in his case to claim that another fired the fatal shot and that he should be liable only for robbery. One who participates in robbery in connection with which homicide is committed is equally guilty as principal of robbery with homicide unless clear evidence shows he tried to prevent the homicide.

At about 10:00 p.m. on February 18, 1963, in San Fernando, Cebu, Aquilino Sebial was shot inside his house. The information dated March 14, 1963 charged Epifanio Pujinio and Eladio Pacquiao, together with Sofonias Balbuena who was still at large, with robbery with homicide. It alleged that the accused conspired, armed with a firearm and a scythe, with their faces half-covered, entered Sebial’s dwelling through the kitchen, shot Sebial, pointed their firearm at the occupants, demanded money and valuables, ransacked the house, and took a transistor radio worth P180 and cash of P100, for a total of P280. The information further alleged that on the occasion of the robbery, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, superior number and strength, and use of firearm, they attacked and shot Sebial while he was asleep, inflicting a semicircular abdominal wound and wounds on his right forearm and arm, which caused his death shortly thereafter. It alleged the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, superior number and strength, commission in the dwelling of the offended party, disguise, and recidivism with respect to Pujinio, who had been previously convicted by final judgment of murder in Crim. Case No. V-6110 on February 27, 1960 and escaped from the Davao Penal Colony while serving sentence on December 31, 1962.

On May 17, 1963, both defendants pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. At the hearing on May 30, 1963, their counsel de parte stated in open court that Pujinio was willing to withdraw his not guilty plea and plead guilty, provided the court would allow him to prove the mitigating circumstances of extreme poverty and lack of instruction. The court allowed him to withdraw his previous plea and, after arraignment anew, Pujinio pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death for robbery with homicide, with six aggravating circumstances and one mitigating circumstance.

Eladio Pacquiao was tried and, after trial, was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional to ten years of prision mayor, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P100 jointly and severally with his co-defendant, and to pay one-third of the costs.

Before the decision against Pujinio became final and executory, Atty. I. V. Binamira appeared for him and filed two motions for reconsideration, both denied by the lower court. In his brief, Pujinio claimed that the lower court erred in imposing the capital punishment despite his affidavit showing that he was not the one who fired the fatal shot that killed the victim but Sofonias Balbuena. This contention rested exclusively on Pujinio’s sworn statement, Exhibit C, made before Sgt. Alfoja of the Cebu P.C. Command. Exhibit C had been presented as part of the testimony of Sgt. Alfoja and of the Justice of the Peace of San Fernando, Cebu, against Eladio Pacquiao to prove the latter’s participation in the conspiracy, at a stage when the case had already been submitted as far as Pujinio was concerned. The information was read to Pujinio twice before he entered his plea.

In refusing to appreciate lack of instruction and extreme poverty, the lower court found that Pujinio had studied up to sixth grade; that this was more than sufficient schooling to apprise him of what is right and wrong; that his mother owned real properties; that he could have gainfully occupied himself by working on those properties; that he had been employed by Caltex in 1960 but lost the job when he committed his first murder; and that he had impoverished himself and lost his gainful occupation by committing crimes, not because he was driven to commit crimes by want and poverty.

• Fatal Shot: Pujinio argued that the lower court erred in imposing the capital punishment despite his affidavit showing that he was not the one who fired the fatal shot that killed Aquilino Sebial but Sofonias Balbuena.
• Guilt Only for Robbery: Pujinio argued that although he entered a plea of guilty, he explained to the court that Balbuena killed Sebial, and therefore he should be found guilty only of robbery.

• Consideration of Exhibit C: Whether Pujinio’s sworn statement, Exhibit C, can support his claim that Balbuena fired the fatal shot when it was presented as evidence against co-accused Pacquiao after Pujinio’s case had been submitted.
• Effect of Plea of Guilty: Whether Pujinio’s plea of guilty admitted all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information.
• Liability for Robbery with Homicide: Whether a participant in robbery with homicide is equally guilty as principal of robbery with homicide absent clear evidence that he tried to prevent the homicide.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether lack of instruction and extreme poverty should be appreciated as mitigating circumstances in Pujinio’s favor.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed given six aggravating circumstances and one mitigating circumstance.

• Consideration of Exhibit C: No. Exhibit C was presented as evidence against Pacquiao after Pujinio’s case had already been submitted, so it could not be considered in Pujinio’s case.
• Effect of Plea of Guilty: Yes. A plea of guilty admits all facts and circumstances alleged in the information, which was read to Pujinio twice before he pleaded.
• Liability for Robbery with Homicide: Yes. One who participated in robbery in connection with which homicide was committed is equally guilty as principal of robbery with homicide unless clear evidence shows he tried to prevent the homicide.
• Mitigating Circumstances: No. Lack of instruction and extreme poverty were not appreciated because Pujinio studied to sixth grade and was not driven by want and poverty.
• Penalty: Yes. With six aggravating circumstances, nighttime being absorbed in treachery, and only one mitigating circumstance, the penalty provided by law was imposed in its maximum degree — death.

• Consideration of Exhibit C: Pujinio’s contention rested exclusively on Exhibit C, his sworn statement before Sgt. Alfoja of the Cebu P.C. Command. That statement had been presented as part of the testimony of Sgt. Alfoja and of the Justice of the Peace of San Fernando, Cebu, against Eladio Pacquiao to prove the latter’s participation in the conspiracy. At that stage, the case had already been submitted as far as Pujinio was concerned. Exhibit C therefore could not be considered in connection with Pujinio’s case.

• Effect of Plea of Guilty: With his plea of guilty, Pujinio was deemed to have admitted all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information. The information was in fact read to him twice before he entered his plea. His later claim that Balbuena fired the fatal shot could not overcome the admission made through his plea.

• Liability for Robbery with Homicide: Even assuming that Pujinio testified that Balbuena fired the fatal shot, that would not justify a finding that Pujinio was guilty only of robbery. The SC held that one who participated in the commission of robbery in connection with which homicide was committed is equally guilty as principal of the crime of robbery with homicide unless there is clear evidence that he tried to prevent the commission of the homicide. The SC cited People vs. Morados, 70 Phil. 558, and People vs. Carunungan, et al., G.R. No. L-13283, September 30, 1960. No such clear evidence was shown.

• Mitigating Circumstances: The SC agreed with the lower court that lack of instruction and extreme poverty could not be considered in Pujinio’s favor. Pujinio admitted that he had studied up to sixth grade, which was more than sufficient schooling to apprise him of what is right and wrong. On poverty, his mother owned real properties, and he could have gainfully occupied himself by working on them. He had also been employed by Caltex in 1960 but lost that employment when he committed his first murder. He had impoverished himself and lost his gainful occupation by committing crimes; he was not driven to commit crimes by want and poverty.

• Penalty: The information charged Pujinio with robbery with homicide with seven aggravating circumstances: evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, superior number and strength, commission of the offense in the dwelling of the victim, use of disguise, and recidivism. The lower court considered in his favor only the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and refused to consider lack of instruction and extreme poverty. The SC held that the offense was committed with six aggravating circumstances — nighttime being absorbed in treachery — and with only one mitigating circumstance to offset them. The penalty provided by law should therefore be imposed in its maximum degree — death.

• Plea of guilty admits all facts alleged in the information — A plea of guilty admits all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information. The SC applied this to Pujinio, whose information was read to him twice before he pleaded, so he could not later rely on Exhibit C to claim that Balbuena fired the fatal shot.
• Liability of participants in robbery with homicide — One who participates in robbery in connection with which homicide is committed is equally guilty as principal of robbery with homicide unless clear evidence shows that he tried to prevent the homicide. The SC applied this even assuming Pujinio did not fire the fatal shot.
• Lack of instruction and extreme poverty as mitigating circumstances — These are not appreciated where the accused studied to sixth grade and was not driven by want and poverty. Pujinio’s mother owned real properties, and he had prior employment, so the SC agreed that these circumstances could not mitigate his liability.
• Nighttime absorbed in treachery — Nighttime is absorbed in treachery. The SC counted six aggravating circumstances despite seven being alleged because nighttime was absorbed in treachery.
• Maximum penalty with aggravating and mitigating circumstances — With six aggravating circumstances and only one mitigating circumstance, the penalty provided by law is imposed in its maximum degree. The SC applied this to impose death.

• “Moreover, it is obvious that, with his plea of guilty, Pujinio was deemed to have admitted all the facts and circumstances alleged in the information which, as a matter of fact, was read to him twice before he entered his plea.” — This passage establishes the effect of Pujinio’s plea of guilty and forecloses his later claim that another fired the fatal shot.
• “Moreover, even assuming that Pujinio testified to that effect, it would not justify a finding that he was guilty only of robbery, for it is settled that one who participated in the commission of the crime of robbery in connection with which homicide was also committed — as in this case — will be equally guilty as principal of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is clear evidence that he tried to prevent the commission of the latter offense (People vs. Morados, 70 Phil., 558; People vs. Carunungan, et al., G.R. No. L-13283, September 30, 1960).” — This is the SC’s canonical statement of the liability of a participant in robbery with homicide.
• “The offense having been committed with six aggravating circumstances — that of nighttime being absorbed in treachery — and with only one mitigating circumstance to offset them, the penalty provided by law should be imposed in its maximum degree — Death.” — This passage explains why the death penalty was imposed despite the mitigating plea of guilty.

• People vs. Morados, 70 Phil. 558 — Followed as controlling precedent for the rule that one who participates in robbery with homicide is equally guilty as principal unless clear evidence shows he tried to prevent the homicide.
• People vs. Carunungan, et al., G.R. No. L-13283, September 30, 1960 — Followed as controlling precedent for the same rule on liability for robbery with homicide.