G.R. No. L-51257, June 25, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO NISMAL Y EUPALAO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo Nismal, a security guard at Republic Bank, pleaded guilty to an information charging him with robbery with homicide. The information alleged that on December 15, 1975, in Quezon City, he employed violence and intimidation against bank manager-cashier Jose Teehankee, Jr., took P65,000.00, and stabbed Teehankee multiple times, causing his death. Despite his guilty plea, the trial court, following the directive in cases involving capital offenses, proceeded to receive evidence from the prosecution, which presented ten witnesses. The defense cross-examined these witnesses but subsequently opted not to present any evidence for the accused.
On automatic review, the appellant, through counsel, raised two primary arguments. First, he contended that his plea of guilty was improvident and should not have been accepted. Second, he argued that based on his extrajudicial confession, the facts constituted two separate crimes of theft and homicide, not the single complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. His confession contained a narrative that he killed Teehankee after being insulted when money was thrown at him, and only thereafter did he take the bank’s money.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the plea of guilty was improvident and invalid, and (2) whether the appellant should be convicted of two separate crimes or the complex crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. On the first issue, the Court held that the claim of an improvident plea had no basis. The legal significance of the manner of the plea is lost when, as in this case, the trial court does not rely solely on the plea for conviction but instead conducts a full-blown trial and bases its judgment on the evidence adduced. Here, the prosecution presented substantial evidence, and the defense had the opportunity but failed to rebut it. Thus, the conviction was properly predicated on the evidence, not the plea.
On the second issue, the Court rejected the appellant’s theory of two separate crimes. It found his version in his confession—that the killing arose from a sudden insult and the taking occurred afterward—to be unbelievable and a mere concoction to extenuate his liability. The evidence conclusively established a single criminal impulse. The appellant, as a security guard, had cased the bank, brought a concealed kitchen knife, and waited for the manager to be alone after hours. These acts demonstrated a preconceived plan to rob the bank and kill its manager to facilitate the robbery and avoid detection. The killing was intrinsically linked to the robbery, making it a single complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The Court found the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances: disregard of respect due to rank (abuse of confidence), obvious ungratefulness, and evident premeditation. Offsetting these was only the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. With aggravating circumstances outweighing the mitigating one, the imposition of the death penalty was affirmed.