People vs Pagal

Concepcion, Jr. J.
L-32040 – October 25, 1977

This case is about a review on the death penalty imposed by the trial court on Pagal and
Torcelino for robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of Nocturnity, Evident
Premeditation, and Disregard of the respect due to offended party and the mitigating circumstance of
their plea of guilty. Accused argued that the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, and
passion or obfuscation were present. SC found that only the mitigating circumstance of their plea of
guilty, and that only the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

 According to RTC information: December 26, 1969 – Accused Pedro Pagal y Marcelino and Jose
Torcelino y Torazo stole P 1, 281.00 from Gau Guan whom they killed by stabbing him with an
ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on different parts on the body (Deceased was killed
only because he refused to open the “kaha de yero”(safe)).
o The following aggravating circumstances were cited: (1) nocturnity (night time
purposely sought); (2) evident premeditation; (3) in disregard of the respect due the
offended party; (4) with abuse of confidence, the accused being then employees of the
offended party
 Accused pleaded guilty provided that they be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstances of
(1) sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended and (2) having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.
 Accused presented evidence and rested their case
 The Trial court a quo rendered its decision
o Accused found guilty of crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced to DEATH
 Aggravating circumstances: Nocturnity, Evident premeditation, Disregard of
respect due to offended party
 Mitigating circumstances: Plea of guilty
 Case is before SC for mandatory review on account of the death penalty imposed
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
 W/N the trial court erred in convicting Accused Pagal of the crime robbery with homicide
instead of being liable only for his individual acts (claims that there is no proof that he and
Torcelino conspired to commit the crime): NO
 ^Not appreciated by the Court because of the confession of guilt
 Pleading guilty to the charge includes admitting all the facts alleged in the
information (Not only the commission of crime but the circumstances
surrounding it)
 W/N trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation,
and passion or obfuscation: NO
o Court finds discusses as follows:
  (1) since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the
appellants arose from the same incident (alleged maltreatment by the
deceased), the two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered
separate/distinct circumstances and thus only treated as one;
 (2) passion or obfuscation cannot be considered mitigating in a crime that is
planned and calmly meditated before its execution;
 (3) maltreatment claimed to have been performed by the deceased occurred
much earlier than the date of the crime and thus provocation, which must be
sufficient and immediately preceding the act in order to be mitigating, cannot
be claimed.
 W/N trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime/nocturnity,
evident premeditation, and disregard of respect due to offended party: YES
o Court finds that the trial court correctly considered nocturnity because it was
deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the crime
o The trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of Evident
Premeditation.
 While evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery;
 In the crime of robbery with homicide, evident premeditation will only be
aggravating if it is proved that the plan was not only to rob, but also to kill.
o The trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of disregard of
respect due to offended party
 Disregard of the respect due to offended party on account of his rank, age, or
sex may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor
 Not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property
 Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property because
homicide is a mere incident of the robbery (robbery is main purpose)
 Thus only the aggravating circumstance of nighttime/nocturnity is present. Robbery with
homicide is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Since the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity is offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

HELD:
 Judgement of the trial court is modified, and the appellants Pedro Pagal y Marcelino and Jose
Torcelino y Torazo are hereby sentenced to suffer each the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In
all other respects the judgement of the trial court is affirmed.