G.R. No. 134373 - People vs. Gano y Saguyong

Case Summary (G.R. No. 134373)

Factual Background

On 27 December 1994, Alberto Marbella left his wife Conchita Marbella and his daughter Angelica staying with Conchita’s parents, Ponciano Salen and Anicia Salen, in Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal, before boarding a bus bound for Polangui, Albay. Three days later, Alberto learned through a long-distance telephone call from his sister, Araceli Marbella, that his wife and parents-in-law had been brutally murdered. He returned to Manila on 1 January 1995 and, upon advice from police officials, proceeded to the police and funeral arrangements.

From the information gathered after returning, Alberto learned that the accused, then a former employee of Alberto’s father-in-law’s bakery, was tagged as the culprit. Alberto also discovered that items were missing from the family’s household, including approximately P30,000.00 representing revolving capital for a sari-sari store, two gold bracelets valued at about P2,000.00, and two wristwatches belonging to Conchita. He identified items later recovered from the accused upon apprehension, including a Mickey Mouse watch marked Exh. “A”, a Citizen gold watch marked Exh. “B”, Conchita’s leather wallet marked Exh. “C”, and an enveloped cash amounting to P1,590.00 marked Exh. “D.”

The police response began when Senior Inspector Ernesto Garcia received a report around 7:00 o’clock in the morning of 31 December 1994 about a “massacre” at the Salen residence. The investigation at the crime scene revealed the bodies of the three victims. Ponciano Salen was found on the ground floor, Anicia Salen inside a room on the second floor, and Conchita Marbella outside another room on the same floor. The police learned early about the suspected identity of the culprit, prompting a pursuit operation.

Arrest and Recovery of Alleged Stolen Items

Because the police suspected the accused was fleeing, the team proceeded to the airport to verify and locate a passenger using the suspect’s aliases, including Castanito Gano, Allan Gano, Jerry Perez, and other names. After PAL ticketing verification, the police learned of the presence of Jerry Perez on a flight bound for Butuan City. The team traveled from Manila to Cebu and then to Butuan, where they were informed that the suspect had already been arrested.

At the Western Police District in Butuan City, the arresting officer, SPO2 Domingo Martin Lucero, informed Senior Inspector Garcia that items were found in the accused’s possession, consisting of two wristwatches and some cash. The police also testified that the accused, on the trip back toward Manila, allegedly confessed to his responsibility for the triple killing and the robbery. The accused later disputed the voluntariness and circumstances of surrender and recovery of the items.

The prosecution also presented testimony linking aliases to the accused. Marlyn Candido, a live-in partner of the accused, affirmed her affidavit and identified him using multiple aliases, including Jerry Perez, Allan Perez, Allan Saguyong, and Jerry Gano.

Prosecution Evidence at Trial

The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Angelica Marbella, the only living witness to the killings. She was four years old at the time of her testimony. Angelica categorically identified the accused, known to her as Allan, as the person who killed her mother and grandparents. She also testified that the accused stole money from the drawer of her mother and took her Mickey Mouse watch and other valuables. She identified the accused’s bloodstained garments presented in evidence and stated that the bloodstains came from her mother.

On cross-examination, Angelica reiterated her certainty that the accused was the author of the killings and that she saw the incident. Although she mentioned that the accused struck her relatives with a piece of wood and identified a bolo as the weapon used, the essential point of her testimony remained consistent: she directly witnessed both the killings and the taking of her mother’s money and her personal watch.

The prosecution witnesses also described the condition of the victim’s cabinet. SPO2 Richard Salvador testified on recovery of the stolen items from the person of the accused after his apprehension. He explained that the cabinet where the stolen wristwatches, jewelry, wallet, and cash were allegedly kept showed signs of having been forcibly opened, and he learned that the stolen goods were taken from the cabinet.

Two additional elements of prosecution evidence were highlighted: first, testimony that the accused admitted the killings before members of the press and police officers upon arrival at the San Mateo Police Station; and second, testimony that, upon arrest, the accused allegedly admitted responsibility when invited to an airport manager’s office and asked to open his bag. Under this account, items were discovered among the clothes, including a white envelope containing cash in different denominations, a leather wallet with a specified brand name, a plastic purse containing a Citizen watch, and the accused being found wearing a Mickey Mouse wristwatch.

Accused’s Defense

The accused testified as his only witness. He denied robbery. He asserted that at the Butuan airport he was arrested and searched without a warrant and that the search yielded nothing except a wad of bank notes that he claimed was the remainder of his cash after buying his plane ticket. He said his remaining money was from his salary and winnings from jueteng. He further claimed that at the Manila terminal he responded to questions publicly about the charges without a lawyer assisting him.

He denied that he robbed the victims of their valuables. He also insisted that he saw the alleged stolen items for the first time only during trial. According to him, the drawers or lockers were still intact and in good condition when he left the Salen residence. He expressed remorse for killing the victims. In his language at trial, his statements suggested emotional regret and confusion rather than an admission of participation in the robbery.

On sur-rebuttal, the accused attempted to undermine the prosecution’s narrative of voluntariness and the discovery of stolen property in his bag, clarifying that the contents were taken by apprehending officers and that he was not sure whether any alleged stolen items were found in his bag. He maintained that when officers searched his body, nothing was found.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated: (a) a mitigating circumstance based on the accused’s admission of the killings; and (b) two aggravating circumstances based on the number of victims killed. The trial court also ordered indemnification and payment of costs.

On review, the Court focused on whether the trial court properly appreciated the second and third homicides as aggravating circumstances in the context of robbery with homicide, and whether the accused’s statements could qualify as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession.

The Parties’ Contentions on Review

The accused challenged his conviction for Robbery with Homicide. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove that he committed the element of robbery, and that, even if homicide was established, conviction should have been only for homicide. He relied on his own testimony that only his remaining salary and jueteng winnings were recovered from him, and that he saw the alleged stolen valuables only during trial. He also argued that the prosecution’s claim that he voluntarily surrendered the stolen items was inconsistent with normal human behavior.

The prosecution maintained that the evidence proved both killing and taking. The Court examined in detail the testimony of Angelica, the recovery of the items from the accused, and the circumstances surrounding the arrest and alleged admissions.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court sustained the finding that the accused committed the killings. It credited the testimony of Angelica as the only living eyewitness of the incident and found her identification direct and unequivocal. She had testified not only that the accused slaughtered her mother and grandparents but also that he took her mother’s money from the drawer and took her Mickey Mouse watch.

The Court nevertheless treated the proof of the other recovered items with care. It held that, except for the Mickey Mouse watch, the other items recovered from the accused, such as cash, the wallet, the Citizen watch, and bracelets, had not been established to be fruits of the crime, because ownership and the fact of theft by the accused were not satisfactorily proved. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the taking of Angelica’s Mickey Mouse watch was sufficiently established, and thus the element of robbery was sufficiently proven.

Having found that the accused killed three persons on the occasion of robbery, the Court addressed the doctrinal dispute on whether multiplicity of killings should be treated as aggravating circumstances to warrant death. The Court recognized that earlier jurisprudence had taken different approaches. It then invoked People v. Regala, holding that there is no law providing that additional rapes or homicides on the occasion of robbery should be considered as aggravating circumstances. The Court explained that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 is exclusive, and there is no analogous statutory language comparable to the situation of mitigating circumstances where a specific paragraph on analogous circumstances exists. The Court also stated that the remedy lay with the legislature, not the courts. Applying People v. Regala, the Court held that only one qualifying homicide sufficed, and therefore the two other killings should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances, despite the case’s “singular” brutality.

The Court also

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 134373)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines appealed automatically a Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal Decision that convicted Castanito Gano y Saguyong of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty.
The RTC also ordered the accused to indemnify the heirs of each of the three victims in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay costs.
Upon arraignment, the accused made a qualified admission by admitting the killings but denying the charge of robbery.
Despite the qualification, the RTC proceeded because the charge was a complex crime with a single penalty under Art. 294 of The Revised Penal Code.
In the Court’s automatic review, the accused rejected the conviction and insisted that the prosecution failed to prove robbery, so that he should be convicted only of homicide.
The appellate review resulted in modification of the penalty and modification of the civil awards.

Key Factual Allegations

The incident involved a family massacre in Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal, where the accused mercilessly hacked three victims and took their personal possessions.
Alberto Marbella last saw his wife Conchita Marbella and his daughter Angelica departing on 27 December 1994 for Polangui, Albay, while they were staying with his parents-in-law Ponciano Salen and Anicia Salen.
On 30 December 1994, Alberto learned through a telephone call from his sister Araceli Marbella that his wife and parents-in-law were brutally murdered.
Alberto returned to Manila on 1 January 1995 and went to the San Mateo Police Station, where authorities informed him that the cadavers had already been brought to Camp Crame for autopsy.
Alberto and Araceli were advised to proceed to the funeral parlor and later learned that the victims’ bodies would be lying in state at the Salens’ residence.
Alberto learned from the investigation that the accused, identified as Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Perez, was tagged as the culprit in the massacre.
Alberto inspected the household drawers and found missing items, including about P30,000.00 in revolving capital for the sari-sari store, two gold bracelets valued at about P2,000.00, and two wristwatches owned by Conchita and Angelica.
Alberto testified that Angelica told him she saw the accused grab money from her mother.
The prosecution traced recovered items to the accused upon his apprehension, including a Mickey Mouse watch (Exh. “A”), a Citizen gold watch (Exh. “B”), Conchita’s leather wallet (Exh. “C”), and an envelope containing peso bills amounting to P1,590.00 (Exh. “D”).
Senior Inspector Ernesto Garcia testified that police received a report of a “massacre” at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning of 31 December 1994 and proceeded to the crime scene.
The police found the bodies: Ponciano Salen on the ground floor, Anicia Salen inside a second-floor room, and Conchita Marbella outside another room on the same floor.
The police investigator then obtained information from a relative identifying the suspect, which prompted pursuit operations toward airports to intercept the accused.
Police coordinated with the Philippine Airlines (PAL) ticketing office to verify whether a passenger using the suspect’s known aliases was booked for a flight to Agusan del Sur.
The police pursued the accused through connecting flights to Butuan City, where they eventually located and detained Castanito Gano.
SPO2 Domingo Martin Lucero, who arrested the accused, testified to the recovery of items from the accused at the airport, consisting of two wristwatches and some cash.
Senior Inspector Garcia testified that on the way back to Manila the accused confessed to the police’s group regarding responsibility for the triple killing and robbery.
Marlyn Candido, the accused’s live-in partner, affirmed her affidavit on the positive identification of the accused’s bloodstained garments and confirmed that the accused used aliases including Jerry Perez, Allan Perez, Allan Saguyong, and Jerry Gano.
Eduardo Zulueta described the initial scene investigation and identified that the bodies were soaked in their own blood.
Angelica Marbella, despite being four years old, testified categorically that the accused perpetrated the killing of her mother and grandparents and stole money and valuables, including her Mickey Mouse watch.
Angelica pointed to the accused as the one who stole money from the drawer of her mother and identified bloodstained garments presented in evidence.
The accused testified as his sole witness and admitted his arrest at the Butuan airport but denied both the search’s legality and the robbery allegations.
The accused claimed that police searched him and found only a wad of bank notes allegedly corresponding to his remaining cash after buying his ticket.
The accused asserted that at the Manila terminal he answered questions without a lawyer assisting him and that he saw the allegedly stolen items for the first time only during trial.
The accused denied forcibly opening any lockers or drawers and claimed the drawers were intact when he left the residence.
In the accused’s statements, he showed remorse for killing but denied robbery and did not admit robbery with homicide as charged.
On rebuttal, SPO Domingo Lucero testified that during detention the accused admitted responsibility for the death of the Salen family and that recovered items were found upon opening the bag when instructed.
On sur-rebuttal, the accused clarified that he did not voluntarily offer the bag contents, and he insisted that the apprehending officers did not find anything on his body.

Prosecution Theory and Evidence

The prosecution anchored liability on Angelica Marbella’s direct testimony that the accused killed her mother and grandparents and stole the money and valuables during the same incident.
The prosecution treated Angelica’s testimony as establishing both the homicides and the taking required for robbery.
The prosecution corroborated identity and the robbery component through police testimony on recovery of items from the accused at the airport.
The police officers testified tha