CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

Case No. 61 : People v. Apduhan

L-19491, 30 August 1968

TOPIC : Dwelling
Gonzales, Angelica Amor T.

FACTS:
● On Aug. 12, 1961, accused Apduhan together with his co-accused Rodulfo Huiso and
Felipe Quimson pled not guilty to a second amended information charging them with
robbery and homicide, aggravated by dwelling, nighttime, and the use of superior
strength.
● 2nd Amended Information states: That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about
7:00 PM, Apduhan, his two co-accused, and 5 other persons (whose true names are
not yet known), all of them armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and
other deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent
of gain, enter, by means of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses Honorato
Miano and Antonia Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their children, the
spouses Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda de Miano; and, once inside the said
dwelling house, attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another person by the
name of Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said dwelling house, thereby
inflicting upon the said two (2) persons physical injuries which caused their death; The
group also took cash amounting to P322 belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo
Miano.
● Atty. Tirol (the atty. of Apduhan’s co-accused) informed the trial court that he was
appearing as counsel de oficio for Apduhan, and was appointed by the trial court as
the same.
● Apduhan changed his plea to guilty. The judge repeatedly informed him 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 court that Apduhan insisted on entering a plea of guilty.
● Court found that Apduhan’s plea was ambiguous, and reopened the case. Apduhan
categorically pleaded guilty.

RTC RULING: CFI of Bohol: 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.

CA RULING: N/A (CFI ruling is for SC’s automatic review)

ISSUE:
● WON the mitigating circumstances offered by the defense (plea of guilty and
intoxication) should be considered against the 3 aggravating circumstances.

PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME): APOLONIO

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES APDUHAN, JR. alias “JUNIOR”, ET AL.,
CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

SC RULING: No. Dwelling is 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.

This Court in People v. Pinca), citing People v. Valdez, ruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling
and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being robbery
with violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with homicide) the authors
thereof could have committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their
victim." Cuello Calon opines that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater
perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm (Cited in Aquino, supra).

(Baka lang matanong):

There are 3 aggravating circumstances in the case: dwelling, band, and nighttime. The 4th, abuse
of superior strength, was withdrawn by the prosecution on the ground that it was absorbed by the
element of cuadrilla - band.
 The withdrawal was ill-advised as band and abuse of superior strength are different: Band
Abuse of Superior Strength.
* Elements of Band:
1. At least 4 malefactors
2) All the malefactors are armed.
* Elements of Superior Strength:
1) Collective strength
2) Use of said strength to overpower relatively weaker victims. What are taken into
account are the relative physical strengths.
 Even if the withdrawal were valid, there are still 3 aggravating circumstances which do not
need to be proved because the accused has supplied the requisite proof by virtue of his
plea of guilt.

 Nighttime is 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.

Ruling on the 2 mitigating circumstances of the defense:

 The appreciation of the plea of guilt, under RPC 13(7), is “beyond controversion.” 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.
 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 accused’s claim of being a non-habitual drinker.
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.

ADDITIONAL NOTES
● The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of
persons. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be
committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Dwelling is
inherent only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than in the house of
another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited house.