People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An elderly owner sold a parcel of land and kept the proceeds while temporarily staying at a relative's house in Bacarra. News of the owner\'s possession of money reached a group of persons who, according to the record, agreed to commit a nighttime intrusion at the house for the purpose of obtaining the money. During the incident in question one of the group fired a firearm through the door causing a mortal wound to the owner, who later died. Several members of the group were later apprehended; written statements by some of them admitted participation in the planned intrusion and identified the group\'s arrangements and members. Procedural History: All six were initially charged in the Justice of the Peace Court. In the Court of First Instance two of the six were excluded from the information to be used as government witnesses although only one actually testified for the prosecution. Trial proceeded against three accused (including appellants Marcos and Tumamao) who were convicted by the trial court of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, with aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling, and each was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs. One appellant withdrew his appeal by this Court\'s resolution dated 1950-03-14; the present appeal was prosecuted by Marcos and Tumamao. The Petition: Appellants sought reversal of their convictions, principally contending that their inculpatory written statements were obtained by force or intimidation and hence involuntary, and that they could not be held criminally liable for the homicide because they did not personally commit the killing.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of the appellants are admissible despite claims of torture. Whether the appellants can be held liable for the Homicide committed by Osias de la Cruz during the attempted robbery despite their claim of non-participation in the shooting.
Ruling
The Supreme Court, En Banc, affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The convictions of appellants Manuel Marcos and Carmelo Tumamao for attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code were affirmed. Each appellant\'s sentence of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, together with the order to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs pro rata.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confessions were voluntary and admissible. The claim of torture was not supported by the record, as the appellants failed to file any administrative or criminal complaints against their alleged torturers. Crucially, the Court noted that the appellants confirmed their statements before the Justice of the Peace during a public preliminary investigation where no coercion existed. The confessions were also replete with specific details that only willing declarants could supply. Furthermore, the Justice of the Peace testified that he explained the contents of the affidavits to the appellants and they assured him the contents were true, even making corrections in one instance. Therefore, the trial court did not err in accepting these affidavits as evidence of their participation in the crime. On Issue 2: The Court held that the appellants are liable for the complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide under the doctrine of conspiracy. It is a settled rule in Philippine Jurisprudence that where there is an agreement to commit robbery, all conspirators are liable for any crime committed during the execution or attempted execution of the plan. Applying People vs. Morados, the Court emphasized that since the appellants were part of the group that approached the house with the intent to rob, they are responsible for the killing of Juan Cadiz because it was committed by reason of the attempted robbery. Their presence on the 'batalan' (back porch) while Osias forced the door proved their active participation. Their claim of attempting to dissuade Osias was found to be a 'lie' given the testimony of state witness Cadelinia, who stated the criminal purpose was revealed to everyone beforehand. Consequently, the act of Osias de la Cruz in shooting the victim is legally considered the act of all the conspirators.
Main Doctrine
Where there is agreement and conspiracy to commit robbery, all conspirators are liable for any crime committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit the robbery; affidavits and admissions sworn before a justice of the peace and substantially corroborated at preliminary investigation may be admitted and relied upon.