GR L 32623; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32623 June 29, 1972
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., defendants. ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Enrique Fernandez, along with three others, was charged with Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and Multiple Homicide. The information alleged that on January 4, 1970, in Pagadian City, the accused conspired to rob Sebastian Espelita, Sr. of P350.00. In the course thereof, they attacked the Espelita family with hunting knives, inflicting fatal wounds on Sebastian Espelita, Sr., Dolores Espelita, George Espelita, and Alejandra Espelita, and inflicting wounds on Sebastian Espelita, Jr. that constituted frustrated homicide.
Upon arraignment, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, Fernandez pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court, appreciating the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance, found him guilty under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the presence of the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and the absence of a properly established aggravating circumstance to offset it.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the penalty. The legal logic centered on the proper application of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The plea of guilty was correctly appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. The information alleged the crime was committed “in the darkness of the night,” but the Court held that for nocturnity to be considered aggravating under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code, it must be shown to have been deliberately sought to facilitate the crime or ensure impunity. A bare allegation, without evidence that it was purposely availed of, is insufficient.
Thus, only the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty was present, with no valid aggravating circumstance to offset it. Under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death) and only a mitigating circumstance is present, the lesser penalty must be imposed. Consequently, the death penalty was improper. The Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua and affirmed the rest of the judgment.