G.R. No. L-30101 July 16, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANCHO CORACHEA Y RAMOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Juancho Corachea y Ramos, was charged with the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The information alleged that on December 18, 1968, in Batangas, he shot and killed Sia Lak alias Paeng and robbed him of cash and personal effects. Aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and evident premeditation were alleged. Initially pleading not guilty, the accused, after a conference with his counsel, moved to withdraw his plea and instead pleaded guilty to an amended information which deleted the allegation of treachery. The trial court, however, deferred sentencing and required the prosecution to present evidence to prove the alleged aggravating circumstances, given the gravity of the offense and the possibility of the death penalty.
The prosecution presented the accused’s extrajudicial confessions as evidence. These statements revealed that the accused had planned the robbery as early as October 1968, had surveilled the victim on the day of the crime, and followed him onto a bus in the evening where the shooting and robbery occurred. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to prove both aggravating circumstances. It ruled that the planning showed evident premeditation for the robbery, and the manner of the killing—using a .45 caliber pistol at close range on a vital part of the body—demonstrated a premeditated intent to kill. It also held that nocturnity was present as the accused deliberately chose the nighttime to commit the crime. With these two aggravating circumstances against only the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, the court sentenced the accused to death.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and nocturnity to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision, finding that the trial court erred in appreciating both aggravating circumstances. On evident premeditation, the Court held that for this circumstance to aggravate the complex crime of robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove not only a premeditated design to commit robbery but also a deliberate plan to kill the victim. The evidence only established a preconceived plan to rob. The intent to kill arose only at the moment of the robbery when the victim resisted; it was not shown to be the result of cool and deliberate reflection prior to the commission of the crime. Thus, evident premeditation was not proven for the homicide component.
Regarding nocturnity, the Court ruled it was not deliberately sought. The time of the crime was contingent on the victim’s own schedule—finishing collections late and taking a specific bus—factors beyond the accused’s control. Furthermore, the crime was committed inside a bus with other passengers present, so darkness did not facilitate its commission or ensure the accused’s impunity. Consequently, nocturnity could not be considered aggravating. With no aggravating circumstances present and with the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, the penalty was reduced. Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed instead of death. The indemnity to the heirs was affirmed.