People vs. Regato

A killing done by reason or on the occasion of a robbery constitutes the complex crime of robbery with homicide even if the killing follows the taking of the money, and the culprits' intent is judged by their action, conduct, and external acts rather than by their protestations.

Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda, together with Rito Ramirez, were charged with robbery with homicide for the death of Victor Flores before the then Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV, in Criminal Case No. 12. Ramirez remained at large, and only Regato and Salceda stood trial. The conviction carried the capital penalty, which under the law then in force was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Victor Flores and his wife Felicisima maintained a small sari-sari store inside their house at sitio Macaranas, Barrio Capierawa, Palo, Leyte, where they lived with their children, among them the twelve-year-old Godofredo and Florencio. At about nine o'clock in the evening of November 22, 1969, three persons called at the house and asked whether they could buy cigarettes. Felicisima stood up, lighted a small kerosene lamp, opened the door, and extended the lamp outside to recognize the callers. She saw Miguel Regato at the porch and Jose Salceda. As she kept the light trained on them, Regato approached her and struck the hand holding the lamp, causing it to fall; he then pointed a gun at her. Felicisima moved backwards toward the kitchen, jumped out of the house, and ran to the house of a neighbor, Filomeno Pilmaco, to whom she reported that three persons had gone up their house and pointed a gun at her. She asked for help and was told to stay in the house while Pilmaco and his companions rushed to the poblacion of Palo to inform the police. After Pilmaco and his companions had left, Felicisima heard a gun explosion from the direction of their house.

Meanwhile, Godofredo, who had been sleeping in the sala, was awakened by the voice of the robbers asking the occupants to come down. He noticed that his mother was no longer in the house but saw his father, Victor Flores, being dragged down the stairway by Rito Ramirez and Miguel Regato. He also saw Jose Salceda take hold of his brother Florencio at the stairs and bring him inside the house. Salceda then lighted the lamp that was on the floor of the sala and brought Florencio into the bedroom where Godofredo was hiding. Ramirez and Regato, in turn, brought Victor Flores inside the sala. Regato struck Victor with the butt of his gun and demanded, "Where is your money? Where is your money?" When Victor answered that they had none, Ramirez boxed him at the mouth, breaking one of his teeth. The three did not notice Godofredo in his hiding place by the door of the bedroom, and he saw everything that transpired inside the house because of the lighted lamp about a meter away.

While Victor Flores was being maltreated by Ramirez and Regato to force him to reveal where their money was, Salceda ransacked a trunk inside the bedroom and found a small box containing P870.00. Salceda took the money, put out the light, and went to the kitchen. Ramirez then asked Salceda whether he had been able to find the money, and upon being told that he had, Ramirez rebuked Victor: "You old man you are telling a lie. You said you have no money." Victor retorted, "You robbers." With this remark, Rito Ramirez shot Victor Flores, after which the three rushed out of the house and fled.

After some minutes, Felicisima returned to the house and found her husband bleeding. Things inside the bedroom were scattered, their trunk was opened, and the money kept inside it was gone. With the help of a nephew, she brought Victor to the poblacion of Palo; on the way, they were met by a police patrol which proceeded to the scene of the robbery. The party reached the municipal building of Palo, Leyte at about midnight of November 22, 1969, and a few minutes thereafter Victor gave a written statement marked as Exhibit "C." The following morning he was admitted at the Leyte Provincial Hospital but, due to severe hemorrhage secondary to a gunshot wound, he died the same day. Felicisima was formally investigated by the police and gave her affidavit, marked as Exhibit "F." On November 26, 1969, Jose Salceda was brought to the police department as a suspect and was identified by Felicisima; Regato was likewise apprehended, and a case for robbery with homicide was filed against the three — Regato, Salceda, and Rito Ramirez — although only Regato and Salceda were tried because Ramirez remained at large.

The defense was denial and alibi. Regato claimed that on the night of November 22, 1969 he was in Barrio Gacao, Palo, Leyte attending novena prayers for his late father-in-law, Andres Dotado, and that among those present were Teodora Espina, Alberto Maraño, Rosario Regato, and Nemesis Fuentes, who corroborated his testimony; the prayers began at seven o'clock and ended at about eight, supper was served until about nine, and the group indulged in tuba drinking until past eleven o'clock, after which he and his family went to sleep. Salceda testified that in the morning of November 22, 1969 he was in Barrio Gacao, Palo to transport palay harvested from the ricefield of Solomon Castañares; the harvest was finished at four o'clock in the afternoon and the group left the ricefield an hour later for the house of Castañares, where he was asked to cook supper, and after eating, the five of them indulged in a tuba drinking spree until about two o'clock the following morning. Both appellants denied participation in the acts charged in the information. The trial court found that the killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, that the culprits had sought the hiding mantle of the night to facilitate its commission, and that the appellants had been positively identified by Felicisima Flores and Godofredo Flores.

• Denial of Motion for New Trial / Acquittal of Salceda: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in denying Salceda's motion for new trial and in not acquitting him of the crime charged, the motion having been grounded on Regato's affidavit that his two companions in the commission of the crime were Loreto Ramirez and Ernesto Mutsamuel, and not Jose Salceda.
• Nature of the Crime: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in convicting Regato of robbery with homicide rather than of simple robbery.
• Mitigating Circumstance — Lack of Intent: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in not considering in their favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Nocturnity: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity against them.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Craft: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in failing to consider that the aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

• Denial of Motion for New Trial / Acquittal of Salceda: Whether the trial court erred in denying Salceda's motion for new trial and in not acquitting him on the basis of Regato's affidavit identifying other persons as his companions.
• Nature of the Crime: Whether Regato should have been convicted of simple robbery only, rather than of robbery with homicide.
• Mitigating Circumstance — Lack of Intent: Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated in the appellants' favor.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Nocturnity: Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was properly considered against the appellants.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Craft: Whether the aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among the appellants and Rito Ramirez in the commission of the crime was established.
• Alibi: Whether the defense of alibi could overcome the positive identification made by the prosecution eyewitnesses.

• Denial of Motion for New Trial / Acquittal of Salceda: No. The affidavit of a convicted co-accused is forgotten evidence, not newly discovered, having been in existence and available to the defense from arraignment until judgment, and it is unbelievable and belied by the positive declarations of the eyewitnesses.
• Nature of the Crime: No. The killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, so the complex crime of robbery with homicide was committed notwithstanding that the shooting followed the taking of the money.
• Mitigating Circumstance — Lack of Intent: No. Intention is judged by the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused, and the acts employed were reasonably sufficient to produce the result actually produced — the death of the victim.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Nocturnity: Yes. The crime was committed past nine o'clock in the evening, the culprits having sought the hiding mantle of the night in order to facilitate its commission.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Craft: No. Craft was established and not absorbed, the appellants having gained entrance to the house by pretending to buy cigarettes, which constitutes craft.
• Conspiracy: Yes. The acts of the appellants and Ramirez, collectively and individually executed, demonstrated a common design towards the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose and objective.
• Alibi: No. Alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime, and the evidence failed to overcome the positive identification by the prosecution eyewitnesses.

• Denial of Motion for New Trial / Acquittal of Salceda: The basis of the motion for new trial was Regato's affidavit stating that his two companions in the commission of the crime were Loreto Ramirez and Ernesto Mutsamuel, not Jose Salceda. The affidavit of a convicted co-accused is forgotten evidence and not newly discovered evidence. Regato and Salceda were duly represented by counsel from arraignment until the promulgation of judgment, and all the while the proffered evidence was already in existence and available to the defense; only after their conviction would Regato seek to free Salceda. In any event, Regato's statement in the affidavit is highly unbelievable and bears no earmark of sincerity, and it is belied by the positive declarations of the eyewitnesses to the crime.

• Nature of the Crime: The appellants, together with Ramirez, arrived together at the house of Victor Flores and pretended to buy cigarettes. When Felicisima Flores opened the door, they went inside the house and demanded that Victor Flores bring out their money. When he refused, Regato maltreated him while Salceda went inside the bedroom and ransacked the trunk where the money was kept; Ramirez then inquired whether Salceda had found the money, and the latter answered in the affirmative. Although the shooting of Victor Flores took place after the money had been taken and only when Flores called them "robbers," the killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, so that the accused are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy among the appellants and Ramirez is evident upon the facts as proven, their acts collectively and individually executed having demonstrated the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose and objective. The shooting and death of Victor Flores bear a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, which occurred during and on the occasion of the robbery; whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, there is no doubt that the complex crime of robbery with homicide has been committed.

• Mitigating Circumstance — Lack of Intent: Intention is a mental process and an internal state of mind. It must be judged by the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused, for what men do is the best index of their intention. In the case at bar, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated because the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they actually produced — the death of the victim.

• Aggravating Circumstance — Nocturnity: On the fourth assigned error, the evidence is clear that the crime was committed past nine o'clock in the evening, and the culprits had sought the hiding mantle of the night in order to facilitate its commission.

• Aggravating Circumstance — Craft: Craft involves intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused. The appellants, in order to enter the house of Flores, shouted from the outside that they wanted to buy cigarettes, which induced the inmates to open the door for them. As held in People vs. Napili, 85 Phil. 521, gaining entrance by pretending to buy cigarettes or drink water constitutes craft. Both the fourth and fifth assigned errors were thus found to be without merit, the Court sustaining the appreciation of nighttime and craft on the evidence.

• Conspiracy: By and large, the conspiracy among the appellants and Ramirez in the commission of the crime is evident upon the facts as proven. Their acts, collectively and individually executed, demonstrated the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose and objective.

• Alibi: The appellants' alibi must fall. Regato's submission that he should have been convicted only of simple robbery with homicide is an admission of his presence at the scene of the crime, contrary to his testimony that he was in his house on the evening of November 22, 1969 attending novena prayers for his late father-in-law. To establish an alibi, it is not enough to prove that the appellants were at some other place when the crime was committed; they must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the place of commission at such time. The distance between the place of the commission of the offense and the place where the appellants claimed to be was only one and one-half kilometers, and these places are connected by passable roads that could have facilitated the easy negotiation by the appellants between their respective homes and the scene of the crime. The appellants' evidence on this point is insufficient to overcome the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses, Felicisima Flores and Godofredo Flores.

• Robbery with homicide — The complex crime is committed where the killing is done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, irrespective of whether the killing precedes or follows the taking of the money. The Court applied the rule to the shooting of Victor Flores, which occurred after Salceda had already taken the P870.00 and only when the victim called the malefactors "robbers," holding that the killing bore a direct relation and intimate connection to the robbery committed during and on its occasion.
• Craft — Craft involves intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused. Gaining entrance to a dwelling by pretending to buy cigarettes or to ask for drinking water constitutes craft. The Court applied the doctrine to the appellants' ruse of shouting from outside that they wanted to buy cigarettes, which induced the occupants to open the door, and sustained the finding of craft notwithstanding the appellants' claim that it was absorbed by nocturnity.
• Nocturnity — The aggravating circumstance is appreciated where the culprits sought the hiding mantle of the night in order to facilitate the commission of the crime. The Court found the circumstance present because the offense was committed past nine o'clock in the evening.
• Intent judged by external acts — Intention is a mental process and an internal state of mind; it must be judged by the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused, for what men do is the best index of their intention. Because the acts employed by the appellants were reasonably sufficient to produce the victim's death, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was not appreciated.
• Alibi — To establish alibi, it is not enough to prove that the accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the place of commission at such time. The Court held that the one-and-one-half-kilometer distance over passable roads did not establish physical impossibility and that the alibi could not overcome the positive identification by the eyewitnesses.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists where the acts of the accused, collectively and individually executed, demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose and objective. The concerted acts of the appellants and Ramirez in gaining entry, demanding money, ransacking the trunk, and shooting the victim established the conspiracy.
• Newly discovered evidence — Evidence already in existence and available to the defense from arraignment until the promulgation of judgment is forgotten evidence, not newly discovered, and cannot support a motion for new trial. The Court applied the rule to reject Regato's affidavit naming other companions, noting that the defense had counsel throughout and that the affidavit was highly unbelievable and belied by the eyewitnesses.

• "it is clear that the killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, so that the accused are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide." — Quoted by the Court from the decision of the lower court and adopted as its own ratio, this passage supplies the controlling characterization of the offense notwithstanding that the shooting followed the taking of the money.
• "The intention must be judged by the action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their intention." — This states the canonical formulation of the rule on proof of intent, which the Court used to reject the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
• "Craft involves intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused." — This defines craft as an aggravating circumstance and introduces the Court's application of the doctrine to the appellants' pretense of buying cigarettes in order to gain entrance to the victim's house.
• "For lack of necessary votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed." — This sentence explains the modification of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua and constitutes the sole basis stated in the text for the reduction of the sentence.

• People vs. Napili, 85 Phil. 521 — Cited as authority for the rule that gaining entrance by pretending to buy cigarettes or drink water constitutes craft; the Court applied the ruling to sustain the finding of craft against the appellants.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.