People

v. Penillos (1992) | G. R. No. L-65673 | January 30, 1992 | Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Accused: ABELARDO PENILLOS, et al (others remained at large)
VicAm: APRONIANO LLADONES
SUMMARY: On the evening of July 31, 1981, the vicAm and his spouse were awakened when 4
men entered into their house with intent to gain. With the vicAms refusal to give up their
belongings, the 4 men carried him outside and stabbed him mulAple Ames. The spouse of the
vicAm idenAed one of the suspects. He was charged with the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. The trial court convicted the accused with the penalty of reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment which was later on corrected by the appellate court, staOng that reclusion
perpetua is technically dierent from life imprisonment.
Topic: Art.27-29: DuraAon of PenalAes
Lesson: Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years aRer which the
convict becomes eligible for pardon, it also carries with it accessory penalOes, namely:
perpetual special disqualicaOon, etc. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" which, for one
thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have
any denite extent or duraOon.
FACTS:

Se\ng:
o

On the evening of July 31, 1981

in SiOo Naontogan, Bariis, Legazpi City

Aproniano Lladones (vicAm) and spouse Epifania Lopez were awakened as four
(4) persons suddenly entered their house.

The intruders demanded money from the couple and when Aproniano Lladones
refused to accede he was carried outside his dwelling by the four suspects and
was later on found hogAed and lifeless suering from mulAple stab wounds.

His wife, Epifania LIadones Lopez was also hacked with a bolo by one of the
trespassers as she tried to follow to nd out where her husband was being
taken.

The suspects were able to take P1,000

The following morning Abelardo Penillos was apprehended and a_er giving an
extra-judicial confession, the present complaint was led against him and his coconspirators, Mariano Marao, Romeo Nuyda and Jose Nuyda. The last three
defendants remained at-large hence Abelardo Penillos was aorded a separate
trial.

TRIAL COURT
According to the witness of the prosecuOon:
o Epifania Lopez Lladones narrated that on the night in quesAon while she and
her husband were asleep inside their house they were awakened by the entry of
four persons who demanded money from them; that one of the intruders even
sat on the belly of her husband who was caught sAll lying down and at that
moment she was able to recognize one of them as Abelardo Penillos (accusedappellant) because of the illuminaAon coming from a kerosene lamp in the
kitchen adjoining the sala; that Abelardo Penillos was one of the four persons
who brought her husband outside the house and as she tried to follow she was
hacked by one of them whose idenAty she cannot tell; that she suered a hack
wound and later on she came to know that her husband, hogAed, was found
dead from stab wounds; that she crawled in the dark to the house of her
neighbor Celerino Nudo who reported the incident to the barangay captain who
in turn lost no Ame in noAfying the police authoriAes; that recollecAng the
robbery she discovered the loss of P1,000.00 kept in a bamboo basket and
during the Ame she was conned at the hospital she recognized Abelardo
Penillos as one of the perpetrators when brought to her for confrontaAon.
o Celerino Nudo also tesAfying recalls that in the evening of July 31, 1981 Epifania
Lopez then seriously injured from a hack wound arrived at his house to seek his
help regarding an incident in their house; that she menAoned a certain Billy
Penillos as one of the men who forcibly entered their dwelling while they were
asleep; that he at once reported the maeer to the barangay captain and rushed
Epifania Lladones to the hospital.
The defense also gave their version of the event that the trial court did not appreciate.
o Defense of alibi:
Penillos tesAed that on July 31, 1981, he was in the house of his
grandmother at Barangay Esperanza, PuAao, Sorsogon, in the morning
unAl six o'clock in the evening; that he le_ Barangay Esperanza
therea_er riding on a carabao sledge loaded with coconuts and arrived
at Barangay Imalnod, Legaspi City, a distance of about 4 kilometers at
past eight o'clock in the evening; that he proceeded to the house of his
father-in-law where he spent the night because he was already Ared;
that he was able to surmise the Ame of his arrival because he overheard
from the radio that the drama serial Zimatar had just been concluded.
RTC decision: *This is relevant lesson in the syllabus
o All the foregoing and EVIDENCE considered, and nding the guilt of the defendant
beyond reasonable doubt, Abelardo "Billy" Penillos @ Guillermo Penillos is sentenced to
suer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment and to indemnify the
heirs of Aproniano Lladones in the amount of P20,000; further, defendant to pay
Epifania Lopez Lladones the amount of P1,000.00, cash stolen, in both instances without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
o Credit the defendant the full Ame of any prevenAve imprisonment in the service of his
sentence in accordance with law.

ACCUSED APPEALED
ISSUES + RULING

WON the witness and authoriOes erred in the process of idenOfying the accused? NO!
IdenAcaAon by the witness through the aid of only a kerosene lamp is sucient
o Defense contends that the witness is not credible in her idenAcaAon given that she
only had a kerosene lamp in her aid
Lining up process to idenAfy suspects not required
o People vs. Espiritu - court ruled that there is no law requiring a police line-up as
essenAal to a proper idenAcaAon. Clearly then, this argument must also fail.
WON the failure to uphold the accuseds consOtuOonal right to counsel deems the
extrajudicial confession inadmissible? YES!
Inadmissible since no waiver was done in the presence of a counsel. SecAon 12,
ArAcle III of the 1987 ConsAtuAon has gone further to protect, promote and
enhance the right to counsel of any person under invesAgaAon by expressly
providing that such is a right "to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice" and that it "cannot be waived except in wriAng and in
the presence of counsel."
In view of the tesOmonies given credence by the court, the court arms the convicOon
despite the inadmissibility of the extra-judicial confession of the accused.
WON Reclusion Perpetua is dierent from Life Imprisonment? YES!
o PLEASE READ ITEMS 3-4 in the DisposiOve porOon

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS: *PLEASE READ THROUGH numbers 3-4.

THIS IS THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE LESSON
1. ModicaAon of the crime charged - COURT modied the designaAon of the oense the
appellant was convicted for. The informaAon should have charged the appellant simply
with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under ArOcle 294 of the
Revised Penal Code. This Court has consistently held that this oense is denominated as
such regardless of the number of the homicides or injuries commieed. These other
circumstances merely serve as generic aggravaAng circumstances which can be oset by
other miAgaAng circumstances. There is no crime of robbery with homicide and
frustrated homicide or robbery with homicide and aeempted homicide. The term
"homicide" in paragraph 1, ArAcle 294 of the Revised Penal Code is to be understood in
its generic sense; it includes murder and slight physical injuries commieed during the
robbery which crimes are merged in the crime of robbery with homicide.
2. Dwelling - The trial court, however, should have taken into consideraOon the
aggravaOng circumstance of dwelling. Dwelling is aggravaAng in robbery with homicide
because this type of robbery could be commieed without the necessity of transgressing
the sancAty of the home. It is indisputably clear from the pleadings and the decision of
the trial court that although the homicide was commieed outside the house of the
deceased, the principal oense of robbery was perpetrated inside; the killing thus
occurred as a result of the iniAal evil design to steal.
3. The penalty for robbery with homicide and physical injuries dened under ArAcle 294 of
the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the presence of the
aggravaAng circumstance of dwelling, the greater penalty, which is death, shall be

applied. However, in view of the aboliAon of the death penalty, the appellant is enAtled
to the reduced penalty of reclusion perpetua.
4. As noted from the disposiAve porAon of the challenged decision, the trial court imposed
the penalty of "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment." Evidently, it considered the
laeer as the English translaAon of the former, which is not the case. Both are dierent
and disOnct penalOes. In the recent case of People vs. Baguio, this Court held:
o

The Code does not prescribe the penalty of "life imprisonment" for any of the felonies
therein dened, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious oenses penalized not by
the Revised Penal Code but by special laws. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment

for at least thirty (30) years aRer which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, it
also carries with it accessory penalOes, namely: perpetual special disqualicaOon,
etc. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" which, for one thing, does not carry
with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have any
denite extent or duraOon.
As early as 1948, in People vs. Mobe, reiterated in People vs.
Pilones, and in the concurring opinion of JusAce Ramon Aquino in People vs. Sumadic, this Court
already made it clear that reclusion perpetua is not the same as imprisonment for life or life
imprisonment. Every judge should take note of the disAncAon and this Court expects, that,
henceforth, no trial judge should mistake one for the other.