People v. Atencio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 7, 1961, Ricardo Atencio, Domingo Atencio, and Silvestre Colisao, along with Bonifacio Gremio, allegedly conspired to rob Gerardo Rapsing. They entered Rapsing's house, stole various items valued at P394.80, and killed Gerardo Rapsing, his house boy Sebastian, and helper Daniel Rosita while they were asleep. The crime was committed in the dwelling of the victims during nighttime. Procedural History: The accused were charged with "Robbery in Band with Triple Homicide." Bonifacio Gremio was discharged to be a state witness. Ricardo Atencio gave extrajudicial confessions, initially implicating his companions and later claiming sole responsibility, which he later repudiated, alleging maltreatment. Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao presented alibis. The Court of First Instance of Samar found Ricardo Atencio, Domingo Atencio, and Silvestre Colisao guilty of robbery with triple homicide, sentencing them to death. The Petition: The case was on automatic review. The accused, through their counsels, contested the findings of conspiracy, guilt, the presence of aggravating circumstances, and the imposition of the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether there was conspiracy among the three accused to commit the crime. Whether Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao were guilty of robbery with triple homicide. Whether the commission of the offense was attended by the aggravating circumstances of band, evident premeditation, dwelling, nocturnity, and treachery. Whether the penalty of death was correctly imposed on all three accused.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ricardo Atencio for robbery with triple homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, nighttime, and dwelling. The penalty of death was affirmed for Ricardo Atencio. For Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao, the penalty was reduced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) due to lack of necessary votes for the death penalty. All three were ordered to pay jointly and severally the value of the stolen goods and to indemnify the heirs of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy: The Court found that the testimony of the discharged witness Bonifacio Gremio, placing Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao in the company of Ricardo Atencio when the plan to rob Gerardo Rapsing was revealed, was admissible evidence against them. The Court clarified that the rule regarding the testimony of a co-conspirator applies to extrajudicial acts or declarations, not to testimony given on the stand where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine. Bonifacio Gremio's testimony, as an eye-witness identifying them in connection with the incident, withstood cross-examination and was corroborated by Ricardo Atencio's admissions and the recovery of stolen articles. The Court held that the conspiracy, at least to commit robbery, was sufficiently shown. On the guilt of Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao: The Court held that when homicide takes place as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all participants in the robbery are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent the killing. Since conspiracy was established, the act of one was deemed the act of all. The Court noted that well-armed men proceeding to a house with intent to rob are presumed to be bent on using their weapons to eliminate opposition. Therefore, Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao were liable for the complex crime of robbery with homicide. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court sustained the contention that the circumstance of "band" could not be appreciated as Bonifacio Gremio was unarmed, thus not constituting a band as defined by law. The Court also ruled that evident premeditation could not be appreciated as it is inherent in robbery, and would only be aggravating in robbery with homicide if there was a plan not only to rob but also to kill. Treachery was appreciated, as the victims were attacked while asleep or just awakened, rendering them unable to offer resistance. Nocturnity was also appreciated as the offenders purposely sought nighttime to commit the crime. Dwelling was also appreciated, as the crime could not have been performed without violating the abode of the victim. On the penalty: The Court affirmed the death penalty for Ricardo Atencio, whose guilt was clearly established through confessions and corroborating evidence. However, for Domingo Atencio and Silvestre Colisao, due to a divergence in votes, the death penalty was reduced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua). The Court reiterated that the appropriate penalty for robbery with homicide attended by aggravating circumstances, without mitigating circumstances, is death.
Main Doctrine
When homicide takes place as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all of those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty as principals of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof that they had endeavored to prevent the killing. When a conspiracy is established, the act of one becomes the act of all.