People vs. Esplanada

G.R. No. 49831 (June 27, 1990)

Esplanada and accomplices convicted for robbery-murder; sentenced to reclusion perpetua by SC.

Facts:

This case revolves around the brutal killing of an elderly couple, Don Julio and Dona Juliana Gonzaga, and their housemate, Andres Larion, during a robbery at their residence in Forbes Park, Makati. The accused, Ernesto Ga y Esplanada, Alfredo Endencio y Salvador, and Reynaldo Ruga y Resurreccion, conspired to rob the Gonzaga household, intending to hogtie the occupants and kill anyone who resisted.

On July 29, 1977, the accused met to plan the robbery, purchasing weapons (a kitchen knife and a dagger) and consuming alcohol before proceeding to the Gonzaga residence. They initially invited some individuals to drink with them in the servants' quarters, but when their plan was set in motion, they attacked the victims. The accused stabbed the Gonzagas and Larion, resulting in the deaths of the elderly couple and serious injury to Rogelia Gonzaga, who managed to call for help despite her wounds.

The prosecution charged the accused with robbery with triple homicide and frustrated homicide. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty, and the trial court found them guilty, imposing the death penalty thrice for each accused. The case was subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court for mandatory review.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating certain aggravating circumstances against the accused.
  2. Whether the trial court failed to consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused.
  3. Whether the imposition of the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Arguments:

For the Accused (Appellant Ga):

  • The appellant contended that the trial court improperly considered the commission of a crime by a band as an aggravating circumstance, arguing that a "band" requires at least four armed individuals, while there were only three accused.
  • He argued against the consideration of insult or disregard for the victims' ages, asserting that there was no evidence of intent to offend.
  • The appellant claimed that nighttime should not be considered an aggravating circumstance as it was not deliberately sought to facilitate the crime.
  • He contested the inclusion of intoxication as an aggravating circumstance, asserting that there was no proof of his state of intoxication during the commission of the crime.
  • The appellant also argued that recidivism and habitual delinquency should not be considered aggravating circumstances due to insufficient evidence.
  • He asserted that his plea of guilty should be recognized as a mitigating circumstance and that his minority (being just short of 17 years old at the time of the crime) should also be considered.

For the Prosecution:

  • The prosecution maintained that the aggravating circumstances were properly appreciated, including the commission of a crime by a band, given the nature of the crime and the actions of the accused.
  • They argued that the disregard for the victims' ages was evident in the brutal manner of the attack.
  • The prosecution contended that the nighttime setting was deliberately chosen to facilitate the robbery.
  • They supported the inclusion of intoxication as an aggravating factor, as the accused had consumed alcohol to embolden themselves for the crime.
  • The prosecution also pointed out that the plea of guilty constituted an admission of the material facts, including the aggravating circumstances.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found merit in some of the appellant's arguments. It ruled that the trial court erred in considering the commission of a crime by a band as an aggravating circumstance since there were only three perpetrators. The Court also agreed that the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard for the victims' ages was not applicable, as the crime was primarily against property, not persons.

However, the Court upheld the consideration of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, noting that the accused took advantage of the cover of darkness to execute their plan. The Court also found that intoxication was aggravating, as the accused intentionally consumed alcohol to embolden themselves for the robbery.

The Court acknowledged the appellant's plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance but found that his minority could not be considered due to the evidence presented regarding his age. The Court ultimately decided to reduce the death penalty to reclusion perpetua, affirming the conviction but modifying the nature of the offense to robbery with homicide, as the law does not recognize a separate crime of robbery with triple homicide.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The definition of a "band" in the context of aggravating circumstances requires at least four armed individuals.
  • The aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard for the respect due to the victims is not applicable in crimes primarily against property.
  • The plea of guilty serves as an admission of the material facts alleged in the information, including aggravating circumstances.
  • The Court clarified that the crime of robbery with homicide encompasses the acts of homicide committed during the robbery, and multiple homicides do not constitute separate charges.