G.R. No. L-27758 - People vs. Nabual

On or about January 7, 1967, in the Municipality of Calbiga, Province of Samar, the accused allegedly committed robbery with homicide.
The offense occurred in the dwelling of Carlota P. Ocenada, where the accused forcibly entered her house at nighttime.
The accused, in concert with one Cresencio Mabute (who was still at large), were armed with guns and a knife.
Their intent was to kill and to gain by means of force, violence, and intimidation.

Upon entering the house, the accused pointed their guns at Carlota P. Ocenada and demanded money.
Under the fear of being killed, Carlota handed over cash amounting to P135, which was stored in the accused’s trunk.
The accused then forcibly opened a suitcase to seize an additional P400, making the total sum stolen P535.
During the commission of the robbery, the accused assaulted and stabbed Pablo Ocenada (husband of the victim) multiple times, resulting in his death.

Nighttime commission of the crime.
The crime was committed in a dwelling, with the offended party not having provoked the act.
Reiteration (habituality), given their previous conviction for murder in 1962, which involved imprisonment.
Evident premeditation, as the accused planned not only to steal but also to kill.
Abuse of superior strength by taking advantage of being armed and working as a group.

During arraignment, counsel de oficio informed the Court of the intention to plead guilty.
The trial judge, after propounding a series of questions regarding their plea and the consequences thereof, received affirmative answers from all three accused.
The accused admitted, with responses such as “Yes, sir” and “I pleaded guilty because I have done it,” that they understood the implications of a guilty plea.
The Court proceeded to arraign them, with an interpreter certifying their comprehension of the charges and the proceedings.

The trial court found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide and recognized the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and (in part) reiteration.
Accordingly, the accused were sentenced to death, with additional penalties including the joint and several indemnification of the heirs of Pablo Ocenada and the payment of the stolen amount.
During the pendency of the appeal, Demetrio Nabual died on December 24, 1968, after sustaining injuries during an escape attempt from the New Bilibid Prisons.
By resolution dated February 21, 1969, the case against Demetrio was dismissed, limiting the review to defendants Luis Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha.
The counsel for the remaining defendants argued that certain aggravating circumstances (reiteration, nighttime, and evident premeditation) were either improperly considered or should have been offset by the mitigating plea of guilty.

Whether the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty is sufficient to offset the aggravating circumstances present in the commission of robbery with homicide.

To what extent can a plea of guilty reduce the gravity of the multiple aggravating circumstances attached to the offense?
Whether the accused’s plea was motivated by remorse or by the prospect of reducing a potentially harsher penalty.

Whether the evidence supports the establishment of the aggravating circumstances of reiteration, nighttime, and evident premeditation.

The role of prior convictions in establishing habituality or reiteration as an aggravating factor.
Whether the nighttime setting played a deliberate role in facilitating the commission of the crime.
The significance of planning (evident premeditation) as an aggravating circumstance, particularly in a crime committed with homicide.

Whether the extreme penalty (death) imposed on defendants Luis Nabual and Elpidio Bachicha was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appropriateness of imposing the death penalty in light of the multiple aggravating circumstances.
Whether the mitigating effect of the plea of guilty was overestimated by the lower court.