G.R. No. L-51257 - People vs. Nismal y Eupalao

The accused, Romeo Nismal y Eupalao, a security guard of the Republic Bank located at the UP Compound, Diliman, Quezon City, was charged with robbery with homicide.
On or about December 15, 1975, during nighttime, he allegedly facilitated the commission of a crime by entering the bank premises with premeditated intent.
The crime involved approaching Mr. Jose Teehankee, Jr., the bank’s manager-cashier, and, by means of violence and intimidation, using a kitchen knife, inflicting several stab wounds that resulted in the death of the victim.
The accused’s actions were compounded by his status as a security guard, thereby betraying the trust reposed in him and aggravating the circumstances of the offense.

The prosecution presented testimony from no less than ten witnesses, all of whom were cross-examined by defense counsel.
The evidence included the accused’s written confession (referred to as Exhibit “C”) and his admissions to an NBI polygraph examiner (Exhibit “D”), despite some inconsistencies between these accounts.
The discrepancies in the statements were highlighted but did not detract from the overall credibility of the evidence, which was corroborated by physical evidence such as the arrangement of stolen money and the noted brutality of the stabbing.

The accused was found to have brought a concealed kitchen knife, unusual for a security guard, indicating forethought and a planned action rather than an impulsive assault.
Testimonies and additional evidence (including a telephone call from a relative of the victim) pointed to the fact that the accused was inside the bank not for duty purposes but with the specific intent to rob and kill.
His actions in the bank, such as saving the “loot” (the neatly arranged bundles of money) and evidence gathered from his sister’s residence, further support the presence of premeditation and the subsequent execution of a well-planned crime.

At arraignment and with the assistance of counsel, the accused pleaded guilty to the information charging him with robbery with homicide.
He later argued that his plea of guilty was improvident and that he should have been convicted for two separate offenses—homicide and theft—instead of a single complex offense.
The defense contended that the discrepancies between his confession and his polygraph admission should have been given weight in his defense, suggesting a different narrative of events.
Despite these arguments, the trial court’s conviction rested not solely on the plea but on the collective weight of the testimonial and physical evidence presented.

Whether the accused’s plea, made with the help of counsel, was improvident in the context of a capital case.
The significance of discrepancies between the accused’s written confession and his polygraph admission.

Whether the appropriate charge should be that of a single complex offense of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, or if the separate acts should be classified as distinct crimes (theft and homicide).
If the accused’s version of events provided sufficient grounds to separate the crime into two offenses instead of one.

Whether the evidence, including the testimonies of multiple witnesses, physical evidence, and the admissions by the accused, established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The role of the accused’s absence of evidence in his defense and its impact on the overall credibility of his statements.

Whether the aggravating circumstances, such as the betrayal of duty as a security guard and the premeditated nature of the crime, justify the imposition of the death penalty.
The mitigating effect of the plea of guilty in offsetting these aggravating factors.