G.R. No. 134373.

February 28, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CASTANITO GANO Y SAGUYONG a.k.a JERRY PEREZ, ALLAN PEREZ, ALLAN SAGUYONG
and JERRY GANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The gruesome killings of a former employee of the spouses Ponciano and Anicia Salen,
Castanrino Gano butchered the couple including their daughter Conchita Marbella using
a bolo. The lone witness to the incident was Conchita's four-year-old daughter Angelica,
who testified that Gano also stole her Mickey Mouse watch from their cabinet at the time
of the crime.

A member of the victim's family informed the suspect's identification to Garcia. This led
him and his companions to travel to the domestic airport in order to maybe apprehend
the suspect.

At the airport, the group coordinated with the Philippine Airlines (PAL) ticketing office to
verify whether a certain passenger using the name Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Gano or
Jerry Perez or several other known aliases of the suspect was booked on a flight for
Agusan del Sur. They also decided to leave for the North Harbor which was also a
possible escape route of the accused. Along the way, a lucky break came when the
PAL ticketing office called them and confirmed the presence of one Jerry Perez on
board the plane bound for Butuan City.

In an effort to leave, Gano took to the air and flew to Butuan City, where he was
apprehended by the local police when they discovered various goods they believed to
have been taken away from the victims' home. These include two (2) wristwatches, one
of which is a Mickey Mouse watch, and some cash.

During the trial, the accused, as being the only witness for himself, admitted the killing
but denied he robbed the victims. The Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal convicted him of
robbery with homicide and sentenced him to suffer death. Hence this automatic review.

ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of robbery with homicide.
2. Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the two (2) killings as
aggravating circumstances and the voluntary confession as a mitigating
circumstance.
3. Whether or not the multiplicity of homicides could be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance.

RULING
 1. YES. Castanito Gano is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery. The only witness unbiased and innocent account of the incident on December
30, 1994, proved that the defendant not only savagely murdered the victims but also
stole their personal property, including her Mickey Mouse watch, for financial gain.
Items such as cash, wallet, Citizen watch and bracelets recovered from the accused,
have not been established to be the fruits of the crime since the ownership of the same
or the fact that they were stolen by him has not been satisfactorily established. Despite
this, the accusation of robbery must stand because it was sufficiently proven that the
accused stole Angelica's Mickey Mouse watch

2. Yes. The trial court erred in appreciating the two (2) killings as aggravating
circumstances and the voluntary confession as a mitigating circumstance.

With respect to the mitigating circumstance, the trial court considered the admission by
the accused of the killings as a mitigating circumstance, presumably referring to
voluntary confession as provided under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code,
notwithstanding his denial of the charge of robbery. In effect, therefore, the accused
was merely confessing to the crime of homicide but not to robbery with homicide, a
considerably graver offense. The court held that for voluntary confession to be
appreciated as an extenuating circumstance, the same must not only be made
unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e., robbery with
homicide in the present case, and not to either robbery or homicide only. Hence, if the
voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating.

With respect to the aggravating circumstance, the court applied the principle laid down
in People v. Regala. Therefore, the aggravating circumstances of 2 killings can’t be
appreciated.

3. No. The multiplicity of homicides could not be appreciated as an aggravating

circumstance. It was held in some cases that the additional rapes/homicides committed
on the occasion of robbery would not increase the penalty, while in other cases it ruled
that the multiplicity of rapes/ homicides committed could be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance. But in People v. Regala, the Court spoke with finality on the
matter - “It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as
opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating
circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous
circumstances.” It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple
homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an “anomalous situation” where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the
same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the
legislature. This is due to the fact that penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by
the statute. With this, the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling of the trial court,
should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, Art. 63 of The Revised
Penal Code dictates that the lesser penalty, or only reclusion perpetua, be imposed. We
affirm the award of P50,000.00 or a total of P150,000.00 for the three (3) homicides as
death indemnity. In consonance with Art. 2219, par. (1), in relation to Art. 2206, of the
Civil Code, an award of P50,000.00 to the legal heirs of each of the three (3) victims for
moral damages would be reasonable.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, finding
accused CASTANITO GANO Y SAGUYONG, a.k.a Jerry Perez, Allan Perez, Allan
Saguyong and Jerry Gano guilty of Robbery with Homicide is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the penalty therefor is lowered to reclusion perpetua, and the
FURTHER MODIFICATION that the accused is ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, or P100,000.00 to the legal heirs
of each of the three (3) victims Conchita Marbella, Ponciano Salen and Anicia Salen, or
a total of P300,000.00.