G.R. No. L-30518 November 7, 1979
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO RABUYA Y GALLETO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the hijacking of a Philippine Airlines plane on November 6, 1968, by a band of armed men, including appellant Mario Rabuya. The group, pursuant to a conspiracy, robbed the passengers of cash and jewelry valued at over P123,000. During the robbery, passenger Vitaliano Pagaran was killed, and NBI agent Florencio Villarin sustained serious physical injuries. An amended information charged the accused with robbery with homicide and serious physical injuries, with aggravating circumstances of nighttime, use of a motor vehicle, and commission by a band. Several co-accused were at large, acquitted, or discharged as a state witness, leaving Rabuya as the subject of this automatic review of a death sentence.
During trial, while the state witness was under cross-examination, Rabuya manifested his desire to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. The trial court, through an interpreter, inquired if he understood the consequences, including the potential for a death sentence. Rabuya responded by asking for mercy and a life sentence, citing his lack of a prior criminal record. The court treated this as a conditional plea, proceeded to receive evidence to establish the precise degree of his culpability, and thereafter rendered a judgment of conviction, imposing the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on appellant Mario Rabuya despite his plea of guilty and his request for leniency.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty. The Court held that a plea of guilty, when conditional upon a specific penalty, is tantamount to a plea of not guilty. The trial court correctly disregarded the conditional nature of Rabuya’s plea and proceeded to receive evidence. The evidence, including the testimony of the discharged state witness, conclusively established Rabuya’s direct participation in the conspiracy to hijack the plane and commit robbery. He was identified as the one who shot both Pagaran and Villarin. The aggravating circumstances alleged—nighttime, use of a motor vehicle, and commission by a band—were all proven. The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments that his lack of resistance during arrest and absence of a prior criminal record constituted analogous mitigating circumstances. These are not recognized by the Revised Penal Code. Voluntary surrender requires presenting oneself before arrest, not merely a lack of resistance. The absence of a prior record, while perhaps indicative of character, cannot offset the proven aggravating circumstances. With no mitigating circumstances to counter the three aggravating ones, the imposition of the death penalty for the complex crime of robbery with homicide was mandatory under the law.