G.R. No. L-49831. June 27, 1990.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA, ALFREDO ENDENCIO Y SALVADOR and REYNALDO RUGA Y RESURRECCION, defendants. ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case involves the robbery and killing of an elderly couple, Don Julio and Doña Juliana Gonzaga, and their housemaid, Andres Larion, inside their Forbes Park residence. Their daughter, Rogelia Gonzaga, was also seriously injured. The stolen items were minimal: a wristwatch and a transistor radio. Accused Ernesto Ga, Alfredo Endencio, and Reynaldo Ruga were convicted by the trial court of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and initially sentenced to death. Following the 1987 Constitution ’s prohibition of the death penalty, the Supreme Court en banc directed the reduction of such penalties to reclusion perpetua. Endencio and Ruga subsequently manifested their acceptance of this reduced sentence, leaving only Ga’s appeal active. Ga did not contest the factual findings but questioned the trial court’s appreciation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The trial court found that the three accused meticulously planned the robbery. They purchased weapons, proceeded to the victims’ house, and initially socialized with the household staff. After subduing the staff, they forced their way into the main residence. Inside, they mercilessly stabbed the elderly Gonzaga couple and the maid. Rogelia Gonzaga was also attacked but survived to call for help. The accused then fled, discarding their weapons.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, and dwelling, and whether it erroneously excluded the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and minority.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances. Evident premeditation was present due to the detailed planning session, weapon purchase, and deliberate execution of the crime over several hours. Treachery attended the killings of the elderly couple and the maid, as the attacks were sudden and violent, ensuring they could not defend themselves. Dwelling was also properly considered, as the crime was committed in the victims’ home without provocation.
Regarding mitigating circumstances, the Court found none. Voluntary surrender was not present, as Ga was arrested by authorities; merely not resisting arrest does not constitute surrender. Minority was also correctly disregarded. While Ga claimed to be a minor, he failed to present conclusive evidence like a birth certificate. His own sworn statement and the information listed him as of legal age, creating a presumption of majority he did not rebut. With three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the rules for indivisible penalties, the greater penalty of death would normally be imposed. However, due to the constitutional prohibition, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment against appellant Ernesto Ga, as modified.