People of The Philippines vs. Roger Cando Et Al

People of the Philippines vs. Roger Cando et al.
G.R. No. 128114
October 25, 2000
DOCTRINE: Aggravating Circumstances; treachery and evident premeditation
FACTS:
The appellants Roger Cando and Wilberto Rapcing, are candlemakers at the Rosarian Candle
Factory in Paco, Manila and Arnel Vargas, was a delivery boy in said factory. On May 13, 1995 in the
afternoon, Vargas, Rapcing and Nonoy Sayson were drinking at a canteen infront of the factory. At
around 9:30pm they were joined by Cando but went inside to get his salary. Cando came back angry
because he did not get his salary from the secretary nor was granted a P100.00 loan by the factory’s
caretaker/katiwala, Luis D. Remoriata. At around 11pm the three accused climbed the factory’s fence,
armed with two knives and had slipped inside where they went to Remoriata’s room and Cando struck
him on the head with a lead pipe. The victim, awakened by the assault, was threatened by Cando to give
money to him. Upon replying that he had no money, Cando struck him again.
Cando asked the victim if he recognized him. The victim weakly replied "Yes, You are Roger
(Cando)." Thereafter, Cando repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until he became unconscious. Cando
placed the victim's radio cassette in his bag. He went upstairs to get more items and the keys of the
Cimarron van. The trio drove around until daybreak and upon reaching Hemady Street in Quezon City,
abandoned the van and boarded a jeep going to Taft Avenue and they went their separate ways. At
around 6am the following the Mrs. Norma Chu, the factory owner, discovered Remoriata’s dead body
and called the Brngy. Captain who in turn reported the incident to the police. Mrs. Chu knew Cando and
Vargas’ bad blood between the deceased so upon questioning by NBI agents, Vargas admitted his
participation and confessed the other two as his co-perpetrators.
Mrs. Norma Chu testified that when she discovered the body of the victim, the quarters was in
disarray, and the victim's clothes and radio were missing. Later, her husband and son informed her that
their wallets which they placed on top of the TV in the sala upstairs, and two other wristwatches were
missing. She also identified the van which was recovered from Hemady St. in Quezon City as the one
belonging to the factory. Medical findings also showed that Remoriata’s cause of death were “blunt
head injuries.”
On December 27, 1996, the trial court rendered its decision, convicting the three (3) appellants
of Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery,
and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of death. Appellants were acquitted of the charge of
carnapping.
Appellant Cando appealed not guilty and denied any participation and that he was home
in Libis while the crime occurred, claiming only Vargas and Rapcing knew of the incident. Appellant
Vargas, for his part, admitted participation in the killing, but claimed that he was forced by Cando at
knife point to participate. He further claimed that it was only Cando who killed the victim by hitting him
with an iron bar. Rapcing on the other hand, also denied knowledge and participation in the killing since
he was stone drunk and did not show any guilt since he never went into hiding after the incident.
The three accused at present prays for the reduction of their sentence from death to reclusion
perpetua, contending that the prosecution fails to prove evident premeditation, as there was no time
for cool reflection since their minds were hazy with the influence of liquor. Appellants further dispute
the existence of treachery since the killing of Remoriata was merely "on the spur of the moment."
ISSUES:
1. WON there was treachery and evident premeditation in the crime committed.
2. WON the elements of robbery with homicide were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
1. YES to Treachery. No to evident premeditation.
The testimonies of the accused as to the events of how the victim was attacked is proven to be of
treachery, since the victim was asleep at the time of the attack, as well as the continuous strikes of
Cando with the lead pipe which renders the deceased to be incapable of defending himself completely.
While evident premeditation can be considered in robbery with homicide, it should be proven that there
is premeditation to kill besides stealing. The prosecution clearly proved the intention to rob and to
disable the victim, but not the intention to kill him. As Vargas testified, the victim was still alive when
they left him rolling on the floor.
On the other hand, The Court finds that the alternative circumstance of intoxication, however, should be
considered as mitigating, it having been sufficiently shown that (1) at the time of the commission of the
criminal act, they have taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur their reason and deprive them
of certain degree of control, and (b) that such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to
commit the felony.
2. YES. As to the crime committed, the prosecution amply established the following elements of
robbery with homicide: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence
or intimidation against a person, (b) the property taken belongs to another, (c) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, in its generic sense, is committed. What is essential in
robbery with homicide is that there be a "direct relation, and intimate connection between
robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether
both crimes be committed at the same time.
While Cando was bashing the head of the victim, and placing the personal items in his bag, nary a peep
could be heard from Vargas and Rapcing. Their act of simply watching Cando shows their moral assent
and complete acquiescence to the commission of the crime.
Rapcing’s non-flight is ruled by the Court as not necessarily a presentation of innocence.
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for
robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Thus, The Court rules that there being one
mitigating circumstance of intoxication, and one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty to
be imposed is reclusion perpetua.
NOTES:
REQUISITES FOR TREACHERY:
1. The employment of means of execution gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate
2. That said means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
REQUISITES FOR EVIDENT PREMEDITATION:
1. Time when the offenders decided to commit the crime;

2. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon
the consequences of their act and allow their conscience to overcome the resolution of their will
Evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property, but it may be considered in robbery with
homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides stealing.

People of The Philippines vs. Roger Cando Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines vs. Roger Cando Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines vs. Roger Cando Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Philippines vs. Roger Cando et al.

G.R. No. 128114

October 25, 2000

DOCTRINE: Aggravating Circumstances; treachery and evident premeditation

1. YES to Treachery. No to evident premeditation.

Rapcing’s non-flight is ruled by the Court as not necessarily a presentation of innocence.

REQUISITES FOR TREACHERY:

REQUISITES FOR EVIDENT PREMEDITATION:

1. Time when the offenders decided to commit the crime;

You might also like