View full case

PEOPLE v. CASTANITO GANO Y SAGUYONG

FACTS:

The case involves the accused, Castanito Gano, who was convicted of robbery with homicide. The three victims were the wife and parents-in-law of Alberto Marbella. Alberto learned about the murders when his sister informed him through a phone call. The victims' bodies were brought to Camp Crame for autopsy. Alberto went to the Santiago Funeral Parlor but was told that the bodies would be at his parents-in-law's residence. Alberto learned that Castanito Gano, a former employee of his father-in-law, was tagged as the suspect. Alberto discovered that several items were missing from their household, which he later identified from the accused upon his apprehension. The police received a report of the "massacre" and proceeded to the crime scene. They were informed of the suspect's identity and coordinated with the PAL ticketing office to verify his presence on a flight. The suspect was confirmed to be on board a flight to Butuan City. The police flew to Cebu and then to Butuan City, where they found and arrested the accused. The police officer who arrested the accused informed them of the items found in his possession, including wristwatches and cash. The accused confessed his responsibility for the killings and robbery during their journey back to Manila. The live-in partner of the accused confirmed her positive identification of the bloodstained garments worn by the accused on the day of the crimes.

The case involves the brutal killing of three individuals, Ponciano Salen, Anicia Salen, and Conchita Marbella. The bodies of the victims were found in their house, with Ponciano's body in the dirty kitchen, Anicia's body in a room on the second floor, and Conchita's body outside another room on the same floor. Eduardo Zulueta identified the accused, Castanito Gano, as the perpetrator. Eduardo learned about the suspect's identity from Angelica, Conchita's daughter, who witnessed the incident. Eduardo also noticed bloodstains on Angelica's dress. Stolen items were later recovered from Castanito, including wristwatches, jewelry, a wallet, and cash. SPO2 Richard Salvador testified to the recovery of the stolen items from the accused. Angelica identified Castanito as the perpetrator of the killings and the thief of her mother's belongings. Castanito, in his testimony, denied the charges and claimed to be unlawfully arrested and searched without a warrant. He also denied robbing the victims and alleged that he saw the stolen items for the first time during the trial.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused should only be convicted of homicide, and not robbery with homicide.

  2. Can the items recovered from the accused be considered as fruits of the crime of robbery?

  3. Can the multiplicity of homicides committed by the accused be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

  4. Can dwelling be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in this case?

  5. Can the admission by the accused of the killings be considered as a mitigating circumstance?

  6. Whether or not the lower court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of the two killings and the voluntary confession as a mitigating circumstance.

  7. What is the appropriate penalty for the crimes committed?

RULING:

  1. The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The testimony of the minor witness, Angelica Marbella, established that the accused not only killed the victims but also took their personal belongings, including the Mickey Mouse watch owned by the witness. The accused's denial of having stolen the items is contrary to the evidence presented and is not credible. Thus, the accused's conviction for robbery with homicide is affirmed.

  2. The charge of robbery is sustained as the accused took the Mickey Mouse watch, which was proven to be the fruit of the crime. However, the other items (cash, wallet, Citizen watch, and bracelets) recovered from the accused have not been established to be fruits of the crime.

  3. The two other killings should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court adheres to the ruling in People v. Regala that there is no law providing that additional killings on the occasion of a robbery should be considered as aggravating circumstances.

  4. Dwelling cannot be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance in this case because the Information did not allege dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. The recent amendment to the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires that the information or complaint must allege both the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

  5. The admission by the accused of the killings cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance because the accused only confessed to the crime of homicide, not robbery with homicide. For voluntary confession to be mitigating, it must be made unconditionally and must admit to the offense charged.

  6. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's appreciation of the two killings as aggravating circumstances and the voluntary confession as a mitigating circumstance.

  7. The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the lower court and ruled that the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court also affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the legal heirs of each of the three victims, for a total of P300,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The testimony of a credible witness, especially a minor, is given full credence by the court.

  • Denying the commission of a crime when there is clear evidence to the contrary is not considered credible.

  • The presence of stolen belongings, especially when taken by the accused, can be used as evidence to establish the crime of robbery.

  • The charge of robbery can be sustained if the accused took an item that was proven to be the fruit of the crime, even if the ownership of other items has not been established (ownership of stolen items must be satisfactorily established) (People v. Gano).

  • The multiplicity of homicides committed on the occasion of a robbery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance unless there is a specific law providing for it (People v. Regala).

  • Dwelling cannot be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance unless it is alleged as an aggravating circumstance in the information or complaint (Secs. 8 and 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure).

  • Voluntary confession can be considered as a mitigating circumstance if it is made unconditionally and admits to the offense charged (People v. Gano).

  • Aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered in determining the appropriate penalty for a crime.

  • Under Article 63 of The Revised Penal Code, when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty should be imposed.

  • In determining the amount of damages to be awarded, Article 2219, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code is applicable. It provides for the award of moral damages to the heirs of the victim in cases of wrongful death.