Case Summary (G.R. No. 193657)
Parties and Procedural Posture
Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines. Defendant-Appellant: Diego Opero. Opero appealed only the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. The trial court convicted Opero of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death; two co-accused were convicted with lesser penalties and one was acquitted. The Supreme Court, in automatic review of a death sentence, affirmed the conviction and the death penalty, with the single modification that the court acknowledged a mitigating circumstance (lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong) which, however, did not warrant changing the death sentence.
Key Dates and Applicable Constitution
Date of the offense: around 4:00 a.m., April 27, 1978. Trial transcript dates referenced (testimony and evidence) include June 15–16, 1978. Decision date as provided in the record: June 11, 1981. Applicable constitution for the decision: the 1973 Philippine Constitution (decision predates the 1987 Constitution).
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Doctrines
Primary substantive law: Revised Penal Code provisions discussed include Article 4 (par. 1) (regarding criminal liability), Article 13 (par. 3) (mitigating circumstance: not having intended to commit so grave a wrong), and Article 49 (par. 1) (penalty to be imposed when the felony committed is different from that intended). The Court applied established doctrine that when death is directly and intimately connected with a robbery, the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed, irrespective of which act preceded the other.
Facts Found by the Trial Court
Security guards found a small child and entered Room 314, discovering the prostrate body of Liew Soon Ping with hands and feet tied, a towel tied around the mouth, and the room ransacked. The husband later inventoried missing items valued at P30,221. Police investigations led to identification, apprehension, and transfer of suspects (including Opero) from Samar and Leyte. Stolen items were recovered from the suspects. Confessions/statements and reenactments were taken: Lacsinto admitted participation in the robbery and narrated it in detail; Opero gave a supplemental statement admitting the robbery, identifying recovered items, and narrating planning and the roles of co-accused; Milagros Villegas identified stolen clothes given to her by Opero; Asteria Avila declined further statement upon counsel’s advice. A reenactment was conducted with Opero and Lacsinto portraying their roles; photographs were taken.
Forensic Evidence and Cause of Death
Autopsy by Dr. Angelo Singian showed multiple external and internal findings: bands across eyes and mouth (from cloth/towel), contusions and hematomas on lips, chin, cheek and tongue; cord/ligature marks on arms and feet; superficial stab wounds; abdominal distention due to decomposition; and an impacted bolus of white bread (pandesal) 3 x 2.5 cm lodged in the oropharynx. Internal congestion of larynx and trachea was noted. The necropsy concluded the cause of death to be asphyxiation by suffocation due to an impacted bolus in the oropharynx and compression of the neck with a broad clothing around the neck.
Issues Presented on Appeal
Opero raised two principal assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in not considering Article 4, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code in determining his criminal liability (essentially arguing lack of intent to kill so as to reduce liability to robbery only); and (2) the trial court erred in not applying Article 49, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code in imposing the penalty (arguing that the crime actually committed was different from the intended offense, thus invoking the lesser penalty rule).
Court’s Analysis on Liability for Robbery with Homicide
The Court reiterated the settled rule that when there is a direct and intimate connection between a robbery and a subsequent killing—regardless of which act precedes the other—the offender is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The Court rejected Opero’s argument that he merely intended to rob and not to kill, noting that even if the primary intent was to prevent outcry (demonstrated by stuffing a pandesal into the victim’s mouth), such conduct can lead to death and remains connected to the robbery. The fact that the pandesal slid into the oropharynx resulting in asphyxiation—an occurrence the autopsy linked to the victim’s movements—was nonetheless attributable to the acts of the offenders (e.g., hogtying), because but for their restraint of the victim, she could likely have removed the pandesal and avoided death. The Court also noted that even if death were accidental in the strictest sense, it is a settled doctrine that when death supervenes by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, robbery with homicide is the proper characterization.
Court’s Analysis on Article 49(1) and Article 13(3)
The Court explained that Article 49(1) (which prescribes that when the felony committed is different from that intended, the penalty corresponding to the intended offense in its maximum period shall be imposed if the committed felony carries a higher penalty) has been applied only where the different felony befalls a different person than the one intended. In the instant case the intended victim and the one who died were the same person; thus Article 49(1) is inapplicable. The circumstance that Oper
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 193657)
Nature and Posture of the Case
- This is an automatic review of the death sentence imposed on Diego Opero for robbery with homicide by the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila.
- Co-accused Reynaldo Lacsinto and Milagros Villegas were likewise convicted (Villegas as a mere accessory after the fact) but did not appeal their convictions; Asteria Avila was acquitted.
- The appeal, prosecuted by defendant-appellant Diego Opero, presents principally the question of the propriety of imposing the death penalty on him.
- Appellant’s brief advances two assignments of error: (1) that the trial court erred in not considering Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code in determining criminal liability; and (2) that the trial court erred in not considering Article 49, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code in imposing penalty.
Facts: Chronology and Scene
- At about 4:00 a.m. on April 27, 1978, Salvador Oliver, a GSIS security guard assigned to the House International Hotel, Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila, was informed by another guard, Demetrio Barcing, that a little girl about three years old was loitering on the second floor.
- Rafael Ordona, a janitor, told Oliver that the little girl resided in Room 314.
- Oliver telephoned Room 314; when there was no answer, he and Barcing brought the little girl to Room 314 and found the door unlocked; foul odor issued from the room.
- Upon entering, they saw a prostrate dead person on a bed, face down, with both feet tied; a small baby was crying in a crib near the bed.
- Room 314 had been ransacked and personal belongings were thrown about; the hands and feet of the deceased were tied and the body was bloated; a towel was tied around the victim’s mouth.
- Patrolman Fajardo was notified and supervised the taking of photographs of the body and the condition of the room.
Victim Identity and Missing Property
- The dead body was identified as Liew Soon Ping, wife of Dr. Hong, who was then in Cebu.
- Occupants of Room 314 included Dr. Hong, his wife Liew Soon Ping (victim), their three children, and two maids, Mila and Ester.
- Dr. Hong returned from Cebu when informed and made an inventory of missing personal effects valued at P30,221.00 (Exhs. "R" and "R-1").
Police Investigation and Identification of Suspects
- Patrolman Fajardo’s preliminary inquiry produced an advance report (Exh. "O") naming suspects Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, Asteria Avila, and a fourth unidentified suspect; these names were furnished by neighbors.
- A follow-up team of Manila policemen (Patrolmen Luis Lim and Servande Malabute) further investigated; a separate police team (Sgt. Yanguiling et al.) was sent to Leyte and Samar to track down suspects.
- Radio messages (Exh. "T-1" and "T") indicated Reynaldo Lacsinto was located in Moriones, Tondo, and that Diego Opero and Asteria Avila were picked up by the Samar P.C., with some missing articles (camera, flashlight, billfold, and other personal belongings) recovered from them.
Statements, Confessions, and Reenactment
- Reynaldo Lacsinto, after being apprised of constitutional rights, gave a statement in the presence of his father admitting participation and narrating the robbery in detail (Exhs. "U" & "U-1").
- The Samar P.C. turned over Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, and Asteria Avila to Sgt. Yanguiling, who brought them to Manila and delivered them to the homicide division along with some stolen articles.
- Statements taken by the Samar P.C. (Exhs. "B", "C", and "D") were turned over to the homicide division.
- Opero gave a supplemental statement at Manila Police Headquarters (Exh. "FF") admitting the robbery, identifying some recovered missing articles, describing planning and naming co-accused as willing participants, and narrating that he and Lacsinto assaulted, tied, stabbed the victim and stuffed her mouth with a piece of pandesal.
- Milagros Villegas, in her statement (Exh. "GG"), identified stolen clothes given her by Opero.
- Asteria Avila told police she was not a party to the crime and, upon advice of counsel, gave no further statement.
- A reenactment of the crime was held at the scene under Opero’s direction, with Lacsinto portraying his part; photographs of the reenactment were taken (pages and exhibits cited in the record).
Forensic Findings: Autopsy and Necropsy
- Dr. Angelo Singian, Chief of the Medico-Legal Division of the Western Police District, autopsied the body, which was identified by the victim’s husband; he issued a death certificate (Exh. "AA") and necropsy report (Exh. "BB").
- External and internal findings included:
- A pale yellowish band across the eyes caused by application of a towel or broad piece of cloth.
- A pale yellowish band across the mouth caused by similar material tied across the mouth.
- C