GR L 37255; (October, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37255 October 23, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR ASIBAR Y BALUYOT and JULIO MANZANO Y ROLDAN, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Accused Victor Asibar and Julio Manzano were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged they conspired to rob and kill Cesar Malabanan in an uninhabited place in Occidental Mindoro, taking cash, firearms, and jewelry. Both were alleged to be recidivists. Asibar pleaded guilty, while Manzano pleaded not guilty. The trial court, despite Asibar’s plea, conducted a trial on the merits. It found both guilty, sentencing Asibar to death and Manzano to life imprisonment, considering aggravating circumstances including recidivism, treachery, and commission in an uninhabited place, with Asibar’s plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances against appellant Victor Asibar, particularly recidivism and uninhabited place, in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed on Asibar to reclusion perpetua. On the issue of recidivism, the Court held it was erroneously appreciated. For recidivism to apply, both the prior and subsequent offenses must be embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Asibar’s prior conviction was for Homicide under Title VIII (Crimes Against Persons), while Robbery with Homicide is under Title X (Crimes Against Property). Thus, this legal requisite was not met. However, the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place was properly considered. Evidence established the crime scene had no houses, with the nearest approximately one kilometer away, fitting the legal definition of a despoblado where help is difficult and escape easy. Treachery was correctly treated as a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying one, for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Consequently, with two valid aggravating circumstances (treachery and uninhabited place) and one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty), the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Nonetheless, for lack of the necessary votes to impose death, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.