People vs.

Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino

G.R. No. L-32040 October 25, 1977

FACTS:
Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, with four
(4) generic aggravating circumstances of (1) nighttime purposely sought to better accomplish their
criminal design; (2) evident premeditation; (3) in disregard of the respect due the offended party; and
(4) with abuse of confidence, the accused being then employees of the offended party.
They stole the amount of P1,281.00 and killed Gau Guan, their then employer, by stabbing him
with an ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe. During the arraignment, the counsel for the accused
informed the court of their intention to plead guilty, provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove
the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim immediately preceding
the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.
The judge asked if that is truly what the accused wanted to do, and the accused agreed. The accused
were arraigned and both pleaded guilty. The accused were then allowed to present their evidence,
which were claims of maltreatment/ill-treatment by the deceased. After they rested their case, the
prosecution presented the statements of the accused and other pertinent documents. After considering
the aggravating circumstances, and accepting only the mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty, the
court rendered its decision finding both accused GUILTY, and sentenced to death. The case was elevated
to the Supreme Court for mandatory review on account of the death penalty imposed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of
sufficient provocation, and passion or obfuscation as claimed via evidence by the accused.

HELD: No. The trial court found the appellants’ contention devoid of merit. First, mitigating
circumstances presented can only be counted as one, because they arose from the same incident.
Second, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned
and calmly meditated before its execution. Third, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to
have committed against them occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime.
Provocation, in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately preceding the
act. When the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, he is deemed to have admitted all the material facts
alleged in the information. A plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain
a conviction even for a capital offense without the introduction of further evidence. After reviewing the
case, the court held that there was only one generic aggravating circumstance, instead of four (4), and
this was then offset by the only accepted mitigating circumstance of the guilty plea. Through this, the
appellants were each imposed upon with the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.