EN BANC

G.R. No. L-51797 May 16, 1983

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

vs.
JOSE VERDAD alias ALFREDO VERDAD, defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Liberato Bruto for defendant-appellant.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Mandatory review of the death penalty imposed by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
Branch II, on the accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad, for the crime of Robbery with
Homicide.

The Amended Information charged the accused as follows:

That on or about the 7th day of July, 1979, in Cabanatuan City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, armed
with a bolo, with intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation of person,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, steal and carry away
from the residence of Tomas Ramos the following, to wit:

1. Stereo Casette - P1,000.00

2. Cash money amounting to P30.00

3. Assorted jewelries valued at P6,000.00

belonging to Maria Rowena Ramos and Tomas Ramos and, as a further result
thereof said accused by reason of or on the occasion of said rsobbery, with intent to
kill, assaulted and used violence upon the person of the same Maria Rowena
Ramos, that is by hacking her thru the use of a bolo, inflicting upon the latter serious
physical injuries particularly on the head which directly caused the latter's death.

The crime was committed with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of
abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, evident premeditation, taking
advantage of and with use of superior strength and with the use of a motor vehicle
and nighttime.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The accused pleaded guilty upon arraignment notwithstanding clarification by the Court of the gravity
of the crime and the effects of conviction. Mindful of the doctrines of this Tribunal, however, warning
against the entry of improvident pleas of guilty, the Trial Court resolved to take additional evidence
as to the guilt of the accused and practically conducted a full-dress trial. Before and after trial, the
lower Court gave the accused the chance to withdraw his plea of guilty but the accused remained
adamant.  1

We adopt the counterstatement of facts contained in the People's Brief, which we find sufficiently
substantiated by the evidence on record.

Appellant Jose Verdad was employed as houseboy in the residence of Tomas

Ramos in Cabanatuan City since February 26, 1979. Because appellant enjoyed the
trust and confidence of Tomas Ramos and his family, appellant was allowed to sleep
in the sala and to stay alone in the house when the whole family was away. He was
also entrusted with the keys to the house.

At 2:00 p.m. of July 6, 1979, Tomas Ramos and his wife, Zenaida, motored to
Manila, leaving behind their three children, Raymond, Lourdes and Rowena, with
appellant. (Rowena was a 14-year old girl, the eldest of the threee). The couple
returned to Cabanatuan at about 12:30 a.m. of July 7, and found their children
already asleep. Half an hour later, the couple retired to their bedroom.

At about 2:00 a.m., appellant sensing that the couple were already sound asleep,
picked up an 18-inch bolo in the kitchen and knocked on the door of Rowena's room.
Rowena woke up and asked for the caller's Identity. After appellant had Identified
himself, Rowena opened the door and asked what it was that appellant wanted.
Appellant told her that she was being called by her mother. Not believing him,
Rowena started to close the door. However, appellant pushed his way in and started
attacking Rowena. Rowena sustained three wounds on the head and one on the
forearm. Appellant then entered the master's bedroom which was unlocked, took
P30.00, a college ring, and a portable stereo casette. Appellant returned to Rowena's
bedroom and took her watch and necklace. Appellant then unlocked the door of the
garage, opened the gate, and Pushed out the car. Afterwards, he drove off, but
rammed the car aganst a concrete flower pot near the national highway. Appellant
abandoned the car and boarded a bus bound for Manila.

At around 6:30 a.m. of that day, Tomas Ramos found Rowena dying and the loss of
his stereo casette and jewelry. He took his daughter to the hospital and reported the
incident to the police. Rowena died on July 15, 1979, but before her death, she was
able to tell her mother how she was attacked by appellant.

Appellant was apprehended in Pasay City on August 7, 1979 and was immediately
taken to Cabanatuan for investigation. There he readily confessed to his guilt in an
affidavit (Exh. T). He was later charged of robbery with homicide to which he pleaded
guilty (tsn., pp. 6-46, Aug. 27, 1979). 
2

In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "T"), the accused, 21 years of age, single, also declared that
he had intended to abuse Rowena.

In its judgment, the lower Court found the accused gulty beyond reasonable doubt, held the
aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and abuse of superior strength proven, and
imposed the capital penalty, thus:

WHEREFORE, by his plea of guilty, the Court finds the accused Jose
Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crane of robbery
with homicide, defined and punished under Article 294, paragraph 1, in relation to
 Article 63, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, with the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary plea of guilty and two aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence
or obvious ungratefulness and abuse of superior strength. One of two aggravating
circumstances being offset by the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty,
one more aggravating circumstance remains, which should be appreciated in
determining the appropriate penalty upon the accused.

Accordingly, it now becomes the painful task of the Court to impose upon the
accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad, as it hereby impoes upon said accused.
the supreme penalty of DEATH, and to sentence him to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Rowena Ramos in the sum of P12,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, but with the accessories of the law, and to pay
the costs. 3

Before us, de-officio counsel's only submission is that the accused cannot be convicted under the
present Information, which charges him with Robbery with Homicide, but that he should be charged
instead under another Information for Attempted Rape with Homicide.

There is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.  4

Applying the criterion to the case at bar, it is a fact that in his extra-judicial confession, the accused
admitted that he had intended to abuse the victim. In open Court, he had also declared that he
entered Rowena's room to frighten her and take advantage of her.  As the crime unfolded, however,
5

the accused did not perform any direct overt act commencing the execution of the crime of rape. We
quote the accused's testimony:

Q. When you were already inside (the room), what did you do?

A. I held her mouth, I covered her mouth.

Q. With your hand?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why? "

A. So that she could not shout.

Q. When you were already covering the mouth of Rowena, what

happened next?

A. She was able to free herself from my hold.

Q. What did you do when Rowena was able to free herself?

A. When she was able to free herself, I happened "to hack her."  6

The foregoing actuations of the accused do not disclose the criminal objective originally intended. If
it were the accused's intent to rape Rowena, there was no overt act showing it like kissing or
embracing her or throwing himself upon her. There was no external act whatsoever in furtherance of
his design. In fact, even Rowena's private nurse in the hospital, Jose Dalusong, Jr., reiterated what
he had stated in his affidavit (Exhibit "S", Folder of Exhibits), and testified:

Q. What else did Rowena Ramos tell her mother?

A She also related when she opened the door, the houseboy Jose
rushed into her bedroom and hacked her head and body with a bolo.

A Were those the only narration made by Rowena Ramos to her

mother?

Q. How about the mother, did not the mother ask any question to
Rowena Ramos?

A. Mrs. Ramos also asked Rowena Ramos if she was kissed.

Q What was the reply of Rowena Ramos if she did reply?

A She answered in the negative side. (T.s.n., September 3, 1979, p.

5).

We find then that the Trial Court had properly characterized the offense as Robbery with Homicide.
That the accused's intent was tempered with a design to abuse the victim did not affect the propriety
of the charge of that indivisible felony. The fact that the accused took cash and valuables valuables
immediately after he had killed the victim clearly proves robbery. It is well settled that when there is a
direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing —whether the latter be
prior or subsequent to the former. or whether both crimes be committed at the same time — it is
unquestionable that they constitute the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. 

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness,   and abuse of

8

superior strength   were properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The accused was treated like a
9

member of the family and was completely trusted. That confidence facilitated the commission of the
offense. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is likewise present. The accused had
abused that superiority which his sex and the weapon he had employed afforded him and from
which the 14-year-old Rowena was unable to defend herself.  10

With the plea of guilty offsetting only one of the aggravating circumstances, there still remains
another aggravating circumstance that calls for the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period,
or death,   as found by the Trial Court. However, for lack of the necessary votes to impose this
11

extreme penalty, the sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, with the modification as to the penalty, which is hereby reduced to reclusion
perpetua the judgment under automatic review is hereby affirmed in all other respects.

Costs against the accused Jose Verdad alias Alfredo Verdad.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Plana, Escolin
Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., is on leave.

Abad Santos, J., I vote for affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.