G.R. No. L-49831 June 27, 1990 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA, ALFREDO ENDENCIO Y SALVADOR and REYNALDO RUGA Y RESURRECCION alias REYNALDO BUSTAMANTE Y MUTAS, defendants. ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA,defendant-appellant.

This case involves the dastardly killing of an old couple in Forbes Park and their housemate and serious injury to a daughter in the course of a robbery of a wristwatch worth P100.00 and a transistor radio worth P60.00. It reached this Court on mandatory review of the judgment promulgated on 10 August 1977 by the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, 1 convicting the accused of the crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and imposing the penalties of three death sentences for each of the accused. Accused Alfredo Endencio and Reynaldo Ruga manifested in a letter received by the Court that they were willing to accept the sentence of reclusion perpetua. In a Resolution dated 1 June 1988 the First Division of this Court noted the manifestation of the two accused and remanded the case to the lower court for execution ofjudgment as to them, while the appeal of Ernesto Ga continued. Appellant Ga does not dispute the findings of fact of the trial court. In his appeal, appellant questions only the application of certain aggravating circumstances and the exclusion of some mitigating circumstances by the court a quo. which found the facts attendant to the commission of the crime charged as follows: Upon arraigrunent, the above accused, being duly assisted by counsel de officio, pleaded guilty to the Information. On 10 August 1977 they were found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and sentenced to each suffer the penalty of DEATH THRICE. They were also ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of P200,000.00; to pay moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00; and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, jointly and severally; and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs. Issue: Whether or not the accused ga and endencio, being minors at the time of the commission of the crime, should have been entitled to the benefits under presidential decree no. 603, otherwise known as the child and youth welfare code. Whether or not the trial court erred in sentencing appellants to death.

Ruling: The court held that the purpose of articles 189 and 192 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code is the same as that of article 80 (of the Revised Penal Code) and that is to avoid a situation where juvenile offenders would commingle with ordinary criminals in prison. So, instead of imposing a condemnatory sentence on them, they are confined in a beneficent institution for their care, correction and education (People v. Estefa, 86 Phil. 104, 110). Article 192 should be interpreted in the same manner as article 80. Under the original provisions of Article 80 (before it was amended by Republic Act No. 47 which reduced the age of eighteen years to sixteen years), it was held that if at the time the crime was committed the accused was below eighteen years but at the time of the trial or conviction he was no longer a minor, he is not entitled anymore to a suspended sentence because he is not a juvenile offender but already an adult. The reason for the suspended sentence does not apply to him (People v. Celespara, 82 Phil. 399;People v. Nunez, 85 Phil. 448; People v. Estefa, supra; People v. Lingcuan, 93 Phil. 9; People v. Doria, L-26189 and two other cases, January 31, 1974, 55 SCRA 435, 450; People v. Pedro, L-1 8997, January 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 57, 67). Finally, appellant argues that the lower court erred in sentencing him to death. Under the Revised Penal Code, when by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposable. Based on the foregoing disquisition, it is clear that the imposition of the death penalty is correct there being three aggravating circumstances: abuse of superior strength, nighttime and intoxication, and only one mitigating circumstance; the voluntary plea of guilty. However, consistent with the Constitution and Our ruling in People v. Millora, et al., 44 to the effect that Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution does not declare the abolition of the capital punishment but merely prohibits its imposition, the penalty to be imposed on appellant Ga is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The lower court, however, was in error when it convicted the accused of "the crimes of Robbery with Triple Homicide, and Frustrated Homicide," and in imposing on each of the accused the death penalty three times. We reiterate at this point Our ruling in People v. Cario, that there is no crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The term 'Homicide' in paragraph 1, Art. 294 is to be understood in its generic sense. It includes murder and slight physical injuries committed during the occasion of the robbery wmeh crimes are merged in the crime of robbery with homicide as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Saquing, 30 SCRA 834)." Notwithstanding the fact that three persons were killed and one seriously injured in the commission of the robbery, the charge should have been only for robbery with homicide. 46 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the accused is hereby held guilty of a single offense of robbery with homicide and imposed the corresponding penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity for each of the three victims is reduced to P30,000.00, to be paid to their heirs. No pronouncement as to costs.