Crim 2; Crimes Against Property; Robbery in band

People v. Apduhan, Jr.

24 SCRA 798
August 30, 1968
Automatic Review from CFI judgment
Castro, J.

Facts:
Accused Apduhan together with his co-accused pled guilty to a second amended information charging them with
robbery and homicide, aggravated by dwelling, nighttime, and the use of superior strength.
Second amended information: Apduhan, his two co-accused, and 5 other persons, armed with different unlicensed
firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, entered the dwelling of the Miano family, attacking, hacking, and
shooting Geronimo Miano and a Norberto Aton, as a result of which, the two died. The group also took cash
amounting to P322.
The attorney of Apduhans co-accused (Atty. Tirol) informed the trial court that he was appearing as counsel de oficio
for Apduhan, and was appointed by the TC as the same.
Atty. Tirol manifested that Apduhan wished to change his plea to guilty. The trial judge repeatedly informed Apduhan
as to the severity and consequences of pleading guilty (among others, the imposition of the capital penalty upon
conviction) yet Apduhan persisted, only requesting that the death penalty not be imposed.
Apduhan eventually desisted, but again insisted on pleading guilty. After a 5-minute recess, Atty. Tirol informed the TC
that Apduhan insisted on entering a plea of guilty.
When the TC reviewed the proceedings, it found that Apduhans plea was ambiguous, and reopened the case.
Apduhan categorically pleaded guilty.
TC rendered judgment finding Apduhan guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the
RPC, in relation to Art. 296; Apduhan was sentenced to the death penalty.

Issue(s): Whether
1) the use of unlicensed firearm as a circumstance modifying criminal liability should be appreciated; and if so, what kind
of circumstance would it be?
2) the three mitigating circumstances offered by the defense (plea of guilty and intoxication) should be considered,
against the three aggravating circumstances offered by the prosecution.
3) Apduhans penalty should be commuted by the President.

Decision: MODIFIED Reclusion perpetua was imposed due to a failure to secure the required number of votes for the
imposition of the death penalty.

Ratio Decidendi:
1) Whether the use of unlicensed firearm as a circumstance modifying criminal liability should be appreciated; and if
so, what kind of circumstance would it be?
Trial Court
Concurs with the Provincial
Fiscal that in robbery with
homicide committed by a
band, the use of unlicensed
firearm is a special
aggravating circumstance
pursuant to RPC 296
Solicitor General agrees,
adding that the penalty for
robbery under the
circumstances mentioned in
Par. 1, RPC 294, and RPC
296 is the maximum of
reclusion perpetua to death,
or death, and that this is
mandatory.
Accused Supreme Court
If ever appreciated, it is merely a Both accused and TCs contentions are untenable.
generic aggravating factor RPC 296 is only applicable to RPC 295s provision on robbery in band.
which may be offset by mitigating RPC 295 is explicitly limited in scope to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, of
circumstances, such that the Art. 294. Therefore, even though the use of unlicensed firearm is a
penalty imposed should be special aggravating circumstance under RPC 296, it cannot be
reclusion perpetua. appreciated as such in relation to robbery with homicide, which is
described and penalized under Par. 1, RPC 294
RPC 295 provides that if any of the classes of robbery described in
subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, of RPC 294 is committed by a band, the
offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper
penalty.
RPC 296 defines the term band, and, among others, states that the
used of unlicensed firearms in the commission of the offense, the
penalty imposed upon all the malefactors is the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law. The offense = robbery
committed by a band; all the malefactors = members of the band; the
corresponding penalty provided by law relates to the offenses of
robbery described by RPC 294, subdivisions 3, 4, and 5.
RPC 296 amplifies and modifies the provision (RPC 295 in relation to
RPC 294, subdivisions 3, 4, and 5) on robbery in band.
In order for the special aggravating circumstance of use of
unlicensed firearm to be appreciated in justifying the imposition of the
proper penalty, the offense charged should be robbery committed by a
band as contemplated by RPC 295.

2) Whether the mitigating circumstances offered by the defense (plea of guilty and intoxication) should be
considered, against the three aggravating circumstances offered by the prosecution: NO.
Accused: YES.
Apduhan pled guilty and was intoxicated.
3) Whether Apduhans penalty should be commuted by the President: NO.
TC/Solicitor General: YES.
The guilty plea was spontaneous and
insistent.
The use of firearm could be to counteract the
resistance of the deceased.
The history of RA 12, which modified Arts. 295 and 296 of the RPC
showed that the use of unlicensed firearm was to be a special
aggravating circumstance only in cases of robbery in band, said in
passing in the case of People v. Bersamin. However, RA 373 excluded
subdivisions 1 and 2 of Art. 294 from the coverage of RPC 295.
Because RPC 296 is corollary to RPC 295, the diminution of 295s
scope correspondingly reduces 296s extent of applicability.
SC: NO.
The appreciation of the plea of guilt, under RPC 13(7), is beyond controversion.
There is no evidence on record to support the Defenses claim that it should be mitigating.
Apparently, the Defense mistakenly thought that the Defense no longer had the burden to
establish the state of intoxication as the prosecution already admitted that it was mitigating
due to the lack of strong evidence to overthrow accuseds claim of being a non-habitual
drinker.
Under the environmental circumstances, the Defense was not relieved of the burden of
proving the defendants actual state of intoxication. Doing so would open the avenue for
collusion between defense and prosecution to unduly and unjustly minimize the penalty
imposable.
For intoxication to be mitigating, it must be proven that it is not habitual or intentional (not
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.) Once satisfactorily established, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be neither habitual nor intentional.
Even though an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it constitutes the admission of all the
material facts alleged in the information, including all aggravating circumstances recited
therein.
There are three aggravating circumstances in the instant case: band, dwelling, and nighttime.
The fourth, abuse of superior strength, was withdrawn by the prosecution on the ground that it
was absorbed by the element of cuadrilla.
The withdrawal was ill-advised as band and abuse of superior strength are different:
Band Abuse of Superior
Strength
Elements: Elements:
1) At least 4 malefactors; 1) Collective strength;
2) All the malefactors are 2) Use of said strength to
armed. overpower relatively
weaker victims.
What are taken into account
are the relative physical
strengths.
Even if the withdrawal were valid, there are still three aggravating circumstances which do not
need to be proved because the accused has supplied the requisite proof by virtue of his plea
of guilt.
Dwelling: aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons (like the offense at
bar). Robbery could be committed without the need to transgress the sanctity of a home.
Nighttime: aggravating when it is purposely and deliberately sought to facilitate the
commission of the crime, or to prevent recognition, or to insure unmolested escape. Apduhan
et al. waited until it was dark before they came out of their hiding place to consummate their
designs.
SC: NO.
The plea was far from spontaneous and insistent. His initial plea was not guilty yet
changed it but persistently asking for life imprisonment instead of death. He finally decided
to just plead guilty only after much equivocation. His plea was seen by the TC as
ambiguous which was why it reopened the case.
Even if his plea was spontaneous and insistent, the attendant aggravating
circumstances patently reveal his criminal perversity.
This is mere conjecture, according to the TC judge himself.
Employing a firearm to subdue the lawful resistance of an innocent person is a criminal act
by any standard.
- Jose Aniceto David Dealino