G.R. No. L-21965 August 30, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO S. GERVACIO, ET AL., defendants. SIMPLICIO S. GERVACIO and ATANACIO MOCORRO Y PEÑAFLOR, defendants-reviewees.

FACTS

On September 2, 1963, four decomposed bodies with severe head wounds were discovered inside a closed house on Palale Street, Quezon City. The victims were Dr. Vicente K. Obando, his wife Esperanza Umali Obando, his mother-in-law Candida Umali, and an old maid, Maria Magpantay. The crime scene suggested careful planning, as the house was neatly closed, lights were left on, and no weapons or fingerprints were found. Investigation revealed that aside from the victims, the household included a houseboy, Simplicio Gervacio, and a nine-year-old foster child, Luzviminda Simon Obando, who was spared. Luzviminda’s subsequent rescue in Leyte led to the arrest of Atanacio Mocorro and the surrender of Simplicio Gervacio, who both confessed and re-enacted their participation. Anita Achuela, Gervacio’s sweetheart, was also arrested as an accessory. The accused were charged with Robbery with Quadruple Homicide. Gervacio pleaded guilty, while Mocorro and Achuela pleaded not guilty. After trial, Achuela was acquitted, but Gervacio and Mocorro were found guilty and sentenced to death. The case is under automatic review due to the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the death penalty imposed on Simplicio Gervacio and Atanacio Mocorro for the crime of Robbery with Quadruple Homicide is proper, considering the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty imposed by the trial court. For Simplicio Gervacio, the Court considered the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, disregard of age and sex, dwelling, abuse of superior strength, and craft. However, it ruled that disregard of age and sex and abuse of superior strength are absorbed in treachery. It also found that the aggravating circumstance of craft was not sufficiently proven. Thus, three aggravating circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation, and dwelling) remained. The Court rejected Gervacio’s claim of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, finding it was not spontaneous but due to a belief that escape was impossible. Even if credited with two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender), they would not offset the three aggravating circumstances, justifying the death penalty under Article 294(1) in relation to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. For Atanacio Mocorro, the Court considered the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, disregard of age and sex, dwelling, and abuse of superior strength, with the latter two absorbed in treachery, leaving three aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstances to offset them. The Court noted the youth of the accused (18 and 19) but held they were no longer entitled to privileged mitigating circumstances due to age. Therefore, the death penalty was sustained.