- Petitioner
- People
- Respondent
- Amit
- Citation
- G.R. No. L-29066
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- March 25, 1970
Whether the death penalty imposed should be reduced to reclusion perpetua due to mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty, voluntary surrender, and…
Summary
Marcelo Amit was charged with rape with homicide and pleaded guilty. Despite his guilty plea, the trial court required additional evidence and imposed the death penalty. On automatic review, the Supreme Court En Banc considered whether mitigating circumstances warranted penalty reduction. While recognizing plea of guilty and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances, the Court rejected the claim of lack of intention to commit grave wrong, finding that appellant's acts of boxing and choking the victim were reasonably sufficient to cause death. The Court affirmed the death penalty as an indivisible penalty that must be imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances, particularly given the presence of aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength. The civil indemnity was increased from P6,000 to P12,000. The case demonstrates the application of penalty rules for complex crimes and the limits of mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases.
Focus of dispute
Whether the death penalty imposed should be reduced to reclusion perpetua due to mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty, voluntary surrender, and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
Legal facts
Marcelo Amit, 32 years old, was charged with rape with homicide of Rufina Arellano, who was 25 years his senior (57 years old). Amit pleaded guilty to the complex crime. During the commission of the crime, the victim resisted by biting and scratching the appellant. To subdue her, Amit boxed her and held her neck, pressing it down while she was lying on her back and he was on top of her. The victim died as a result. The crime was committed with aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength.
Judgement and reasoning
Supreme Court En Banc: Affirmed the death penalty. Recognized mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender but rejected lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Found that appellant's acts (boxing victim and choking her by pressing her neck down) were reasonably sufficient to produce death. Applied that death penalty as indivisible penalty must be imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances, especially with aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength present. Increased civil indemnity from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.
Trial court: Sentenced appellant to suffer the supreme penalty of death with prescribed accessories, ordered to indemnify heirs of deceased Rufina Arellano P6,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. Required additional evidence due to gravity of offense despite guilty plea.