097. People v.

Pagal
GR No. L-32040 | October 25, 1977, | En Banc
Concepcion
Digest by PS Magno

Short Version:
Pagal et al pled guilty to the crime of robbery with homicide, on the condition that they be allowed to
explain their mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat. The CFI heard them but
nevertheless convicted them. SC affirmed the conviction. Sufficient provocation or threat is not present in
this case.

Facts:
Pagal and Torcelino were employees of Gau Guan. In 1969, they robbed Guan of his kaha de yero
containing cash amounting to P1,281. They also killed Guan by stabbing him with an icepick and clubbing
him with an iron pipe.

At trial, their counsel informed the court of their intention to plead guilty, on the condition that they be
allowed to prove the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat.

The judge questioned the two on their intention, and after satisfying himself that both accused actually
understood that pleading guilty would be in fact admitting to the crime, the accused were both arraigned.

The mitigating circumstance they tried to pass off as sufficient provocation or threat was the occurrence
that Gau Guan had repeatedly maltreated them.

CFI did not give credence to the allegation. Attendant aggravating circumstances, all of which were
admitted, such as nighttime, evident premeditation, disregard of the respect due the offended party, and
abuse of confidence (both were employees of Guan), the judge sentenced them to death.

Issue and Dispositive:
Should the mitigating circumstance be appreciated? No, sufficient provocation or threat is NOT present.

Ratio:
Re. sufficient provocation or threat:
The alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the (accused) arose from the same
incident the alleged maltreatment or ill treatment of Guan.
This being so, it cannot be considered as two distinct and separate circumstances, but should be
treated only as one.
Further, the circumstance of (sufficient provocation or threat) cannot be mitigating in a crime
which is planned and calmly meditated beforehand.
Lastly, the maltreatment or ill treatment had occurred much earlier than the date of commission
of the crime.
Provocation must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act.

Re. the other aggravating circumstances
Nighttime: present and correctly considered by the CFI
Evidence premeditation: This circumstance will only be considered as aggravating in a complex
crime of robbery with homicide if that plan was to rob AND kill.
o In this case, the original plan was to rob ONLY.
o They killed Guan because he refused and fought.

o Homicide then is only an incident.
Disregard of respect due an offended party: Not present.
o This circumstance cannot be aggravating in a crime against property
o Robbery is chiefly a crime against property, not against persons
o Again, homicide is a mere incident