G.R. No. L-26789; April 25, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DICTO ARPA and MAALUM ARPA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Dicto Arpa and Maalum Arpa boarded the motor banca “MAMI I” in Davao City bound for Talicud Island. When the banca was in the middle of the sea and developed engine trouble, the accused conspired to steal it. Dicto Arpa fired his .22 caliber revolver to scare the passengers, hitting one passenger in the right shoulder. This caused all passengers to jump into the sea, resulting in the drowning deaths of Alfonso Villegas, Bernardo Villegas, and Lourdes Villegas. The accused were charged with Robbery with Triple Homicide. Initially, they offered to plead guilty only to killing one person, but the prosecution did not agree. The following day, both accused pleaded guilty to the information as read. The trial court credited them with the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty but rejected lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. It found two aggravating circumstances: commission in an uninhabited place (the middle of the sea) and commission on the occasion of a misfortune (the engine trouble). Offsetting the single mitigating circumstance with one aggravating circumstance, the court imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

1. Whether the crime committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
2. Whether the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and commission on the occasion of a misfortune were correctly appreciated.
3. Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong should be considered.
4. Whether the imposition of the death penalty was correct.

RULING

1. Yes. The crime is Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The deaths resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as the passengers jumped into the sea and drowned due to the accused’s acts of intimidation and violence to carry out the robbery. It is immaterial if the original criminal design did not clearly comprehend homicide; it is enough that homicide resulted from or on the occasion of the robbery.
2. The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was correctly appreciated. The crime was committed in the middle of the sea, an isolated place where victims could not easily receive help, and the accused sought this isolation to commit the crime without interference. However, the aggravating circumstance of commission on the occasion of a misfortune was incorrectly appreciated. The engine trouble was a mere happenstance and not a calamity or misfortune of the nature contemplated by law (e.g., conflagration, shipwreck) that tends to create a community-wide disaster or profound disturbance.
3. No. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was correctly rejected. The act of firing a revolver point-blank at a victim is fatal and demonstrates an intent to commit a grave wrong.
4. No. The death penalty was incorrectly imposed. With the rejection of one aggravating circumstance (misfortune), only the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place remains. This single aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of a crime punishable by two indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death), the lesser penalty shall be applied. Therefore, the penalty imposed is modified to reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the indemnity for each deceased to P12,000.00.