095. People v.

Regato (buy cigareet then kill)

G.R. No. L-36750/ January 31, 1984/En Banc/ Auto Review of Death
Sentence
Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda – appellants
People of the Philippines – appellee
Decision by J. Relova, Digest by Arnel
Topic: Intent to Commit so Grave a Wrong

SHORT VERSION: On November 1969, at past 9 in the evening, Jose

Salceda, Rito Ramirez and Miguel Regato pretended to buy cigarettes
from Felicisima Flores.

When she opened the door, they pointed a gun at her. She was able to
escape to her neighbor’s house but her husband, Victor was soon shot
by the robbers who ransacked their house. This was witnessed by her
sons. Regato et al. appeals that there was no intent to commit so
grave a wrong, but the SC held that “the intention must be judged by
the action, conduct and external acts of the accused”. Judgment was
affirmed except for the penalty which was reduced to reclusion
perpetua due to lack of affirmative votes.

Facts: At about 9PM on November 22, 1969, Felicisima Flores opened

the door of her small sari-sari store because three persons asking if
they could buy cigarettes.

When she recognized the face of the accused with the help of her
kerosene lamp, Regato struck her hand (causing the lamp to fall) and
pointed a gun on her. She jumped from the kitchen window and ran
towards her neighbor’s house. After her neighbor, Pilmaco, had left
for the poblacion, Felicisima heard and gun explosion from the
direction of their house.

In the meantime, Godofredo, the 12-year old son of Felicisima, who

was sleeping in the sala, was able to hide near the door unnoticed
when the robbers dragged his father Victor and brother Florencio
from their room upstairs by Rito Ramirez and Miguel Regato. The
father denied having any money in the house, so Ramirez boxed him in
the mouth. Salceda then ransacked the house and found Php870.00
inside a small box in the trunk inside the bedroom. Victor shouted at
them as “robbers”. Ramirez shot him, and the three fled thereafter.

Felicisima went back to the house and found his husband bleeding.
They rushed him to the hospital. The following morning, Victor Flores
was admitted at the Leyte Provincial Hospital but due to severe
hemorrhage, secondary to gunshot wound, he died the same day.

DEFENSE: Denial and Alibi. Regato claimed he was in his house praying
the novena for his late father-in-law, along with other people at
that time. Salceda was drinking tuba until morning.

ISSUE/HELD: WON Regato and Salcedo are guilty of robbery with

homicide? YES.

RATIO:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
(1) when it denied Salceda's
motion for new trial and did not
acquit him of the crime charged;
(2) in convicting Regato
robbery with homicide and
with simple robbery;
(3) in not considering in their
favor the mitigating instance of
lack of intent to commit so grave
a wrong as that committed
Basis of the motion for new trial
is the affidavit of appellant
Miguel Regato that his two
companions in the commission of
the crime were Loreto Ramirez and
Ernesto Mutsamuel (not Jose
Salceda). The defense did not use
this forgotten evidence until
after their conviction by the
trial court. This evidence failed
to convince the Court.
of It is true that the shooting of
not Victor Flores took place after
the money had been taken and it
was only when Flores called them
"robbers" that Ramirez shot him.
As aptly stated by the lower
court, "it is clear that the
killing was done by reason or on
the occasion of the robbery, so
that the accused are guilty of
the complex crime of robbery with
homicide."
The intention must be judged by
the action, conduct and external
acts of the accused. What men do
is the best index of their
intention. In the case at bar,
the aforesaid mitigating instance
cannot be appreciated consider
that the acts employed by the
accused were reasonably
 sufficient to produce the result
that they actually made — the
death of the victim
(4) in consider the aggravating The crime was committed after
circumstance of nocturnity 9PM. Also, craft involves
against them; and (5) in failing intellectual trickery or cunning
to consider that the aggravating on the part of the accused. In
circumstance of craft is absorbed order to enter the house of
by the aggravating circumstance Flores, shouted from the outside
of nocturnity that they wanted to buy
cigarettes ..and as held in
People vs. Napili, gaining
entrance by pretending to buy
cigarettes or drink water
constitutes craft.

DISPOSITIVE: The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, except as to the

penalty because of lack of necessary votes, the death penalty cannot
be imposed, therefore it is modified to reclusion perpetua.