In People v. Castanito Gano, the Supreme Court clarified the application of aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide cases involving multiple victims. The Court affirmed Gano’s conviction for robbery with homicide, stemming from the deaths of three individuals during the robbery. However, the Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court, reducing it from death to reclusion perpetua, as it held that the multiple killings could not be appreciated as separate aggravating circumstances to increase the penalty. This decision emphasizes that while the crime of robbery with homicide is severe, the penalty must be based on existing laws and not on an interpretation that expands the list of aggravating circumstances. This ruling impacts how similar cases are judged, ensuring penalties align strictly with the Revised Penal Code and upholding a more consistent application of justice.

The Butcher of Rizal: Does Each Life Taken Add to the Punishment for Robbery?

The case revolves around the brutal murders of Ponciano Salen, Anicia Salen, and Conchita Marbella, who were mercilessly killed during a robbery committed by Castanito Gano. The central legal question is whether the fact that Gano killed three people during the robbery constitutes separate aggravating circumstances that would justify the imposition of the death penalty.

The prosecution presented a compelling case, primarily relying on the testimony of Angelica Marbella, a young eyewitness who identified Gano as the perpetrator. Angelica recounted how Gano not only killed her mother and grandparents but also stole money and personal belongings, including her Mickey Mouse watch. The accused’s attempt to evade capture by fleeing to Butuan further strengthened the prosecution’s case. When apprehended, the police recovered several items from Gano, some of which were linked to the victims.

However, the defense argued that Gano should only be convicted of homicide, denying the robbery aspect of the crime. The defense pointed to Gano’s testimony, where he claimed that the only items recovered from him were his salary and gambling winnings. Despite this denial, the trial court convicted Gano of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of “admitting the crime” and two aggravating circumstances based on the number of victims killed. This led to the appeal that reached the Supreme Court.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Gano’s guilt, finding Angelica’s testimony credible. The Court acknowledged that the taking of Angelica’s Mickey Mouse watch established the element of robbery beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court delved into the complexities of aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide cases, particularly when multiple victims are involved. This is where the Supreme Court parted ways with the trial court’s decision.

The Supreme Court referenced its previous rulings, most notably People v. Regala, which established that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive. According to the Supreme Court, it is not up to the Court to increase the penalty of crimes with legislations that they did not enact.

It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.

Furthermore, the Court examined the possibility of considering dwelling as a generic aggravating circumstance but found that the amended provisions of Secs. 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure required that aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information or complaint. Because the Information in this case did not allege dwelling, it could not be appreciated. Also, the Court said that the mitigating circumstance of admitting the crime cannot be applied to the accused since he only admitted the killings and not the robbery. This means that a valid voluntary confession must include the admission of the offense charged, which in this case, is robbery with homicide. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances were present.

Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, which dictates that the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua be imposed when neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances are present, the Court modified the trial court’s decision. It affirmed the award of P50,000.00 for each homicide as death indemnity. The Court further increased the damages awarded, including P50,000.00 in moral damages to the legal heirs of each victim, recognizing the emotional distress and suffering caused by the crime.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the killing of three people during a robbery could be considered as separate aggravating circumstances to increase the penalty for robbery with homicide.
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the multiple killings?	The Supreme Court ruled that the multiple killings could not be appreciated as separate aggravating circumstances because the list of aggravating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code is exclusive.
What is the penalty for robbery with homicide?	Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death.
What mitigating circumstances did the trial court consider?	The trial court considered the admission by the accused of the killings as a mitigating circumstance.
Did the Supreme Court agree with the trial court’s assessment of mitigating circumstances?	No, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that for a voluntary confession to be appreciated, the accused must admit to the offense charged (robbery with homicide), not just one aspect of it (homicide).
What were the damages awarded to the victims’ heirs?	The accused was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, totaling P100,000.00, to the legal heirs of each of the three victims, for a total of P300,000.00.
What is the significance of People v. Regala in this case?	People v. Regala established the principle that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive.
What did the court say about dwelling as an aggravating circumstance?	The court stated that dwelling was not alleged in the information; therefore, dwelling cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance based on Secs. 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Castanito Gano serves as a clear reminder of the importance of adhering strictly to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, especially when determining the appropriate penalty in criminal cases. This case reinforces that aggravating circumstances must be explicitly defined in law and alleged in the criminal complaint to be considered. This helps ensure fairness and consistency in the application of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Castanito Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001