G.R. No. L-57293 June 21, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JACKARIYA LUNGBOS alias “NASSER”; ROMEO NARIDO y REMIGIO and Two Other JOHN DOES, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo Narido, along with Jackariya Lungbos and two others, was charged with robbery in band with homicide. The amended information alleged that on July 12, 1980, in Zamboanga City, the armed group, conspiring and taking advantage of nighttime, robbed a restaurant and its patrons. During the robbery, they shot and killed Julian Legarde. After initially pleading not guilty and the commencement of trial, Narido escaped from jail. Upon recapture, he moved to change his plea to guilty. The trial court conducted a re-arraignment, ensuring Narido understood the charges and the consequences of his plea through translation into his dialect and thorough explanations from the judge and his counsel. Narido persisted in his guilty plea, expressing remorse. The trial court rendered a partial decision convicting him and imposing the death penalty, prompting this automatic review.
The prosecution evidence established that Narido and his companions entered the Sweet Angel Gardens Restaurant. After a period, Narido shot a customer, while his cohorts, at gunpoint, took cash from the cashier and a wrist watch and wallet from Julian Legarde. Gunfire ensued from the counter, resulting in Legarde’s fatal injury and wounds to two others. The malefactors fled with their loot. The trial court found the aggravating circumstances of band and nocturnity present.

ISSUE

The core issues are whether the trial court erred in: (1) appreciating the aggravating circumstance of band; (2) appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity; and (3) holding Narido bound by his judicial confession of guilt.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. First, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of band was improperly appreciated. For band to be considered, it must be proven that more than three armed malefactors participated in the commission of the offense. The record showed that only three of the four accused (Narido and the two John Does) were established to be armed; there was no evidence that co-accused Lungbos was armed. Consequently, the element of more than three armed participants was not met, and band could not be considered aggravating.
Second, the Court upheld the appreciation of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. The legal logic is that nocturnity may be considered even without direct proof that it was purposely sought if the circumstances show that the accused took advantage of it to facilitate the crime. Here, the malefactors waited in the restaurant for approximately three hours until nighttime deepened before executing the robbery. This deliberate waiting period indicated they exploited the cover of darkness to carry out their plan and ensure their escape, thereby facilitating the crime.
Third, the Court affirmed that Narido was correctly bound by his judicial confession. A plea of guilty, when voluntarily and intelligently made after full explanation of its consequences, constitutes a high quality of evidence of guilt. The records confirmed that Narido’s change of plea occurred after trial had begun, with the prosecution having already presented evidence. The re-arraignment was properly conducted with translation and explanations, and Narido was given full opportunity to present evidence. His plea was therefore admissible and binding.
Finally, regarding the penalty, the Court noted that the imposition of the death penalty was moot due to its abolition under the 1987 Constitution. The Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the civil indemnity, increasing the award for Legarde’s death to P30,000, while upholding the orders for restitution of the stolen properties’