People v. Tapac
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felipe Mabutas was on his way to Sitio Magdawat to buy abaca and a carabao, carrying P800.00. On June 1, 1963, while helping plant rice, Mabutas arrived at Trinidad Ocenar's house to negotiate the purchase of a carabao. During the negotiation, he revealed he had P200.00 in his wallet. After the negotiation failed, Mabutas sat on the stairs and was approached by Antonio Tapac for a loan, which Mabutas refused. Pastor Tapac, son of Antonio, struck Mabutas from behind with a bolo. This precipitated a general attack by Antonio, Glicerio, and Juanito. Ramon, Jesus Abadiac, and Rodrigo also attacked Mabutas. Mabutas sustained numerous stab wounds, his tongue and jaw were cut, his eyes gouged, and his ear removed. Pastor Tapac then took the deceased's wallet. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Samar found Pastor Tapac guilty of homicide complexed with robbery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. His five co-accused were found guilty of homicide with one mitigating and three aggravating circumstances, and sentenced to indeterminate penalties. The court also ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The six defendants appealed. The Petition: The defendants-appellants assigned several errors, including the lower court's sentencing them to indemnify the heirs for robbery when only Pastor Tapac was found guilty of robbery with homicide, the conviction of Ramon Cabigayan and Rodrigo Tapac for homicide instead of an impossible crime, the consideration of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance, and the imposition of indeterminate penalties.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in sentencing all appellants to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P800.00 when only Pastor Tapac was found guilty of robbery with homicide. Whether Ramon Cabigayan and Rodrigo Tapac were correctly convicted of homicide instead of the offense penalized under Articles 4(2) and 59 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was correctly considered against Glicerio Cabigayan, Antonio Tapac, and Juanito Abegonia. Whether the lower court erred in sentencing the appellants to indeterminate penalties.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower court. It found all appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and cruelty. The mitigating circumstance of intoxication was appreciated to offset one aggravating circumstance. Due to the lack of the required number of votes for the death penalty, all five appellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity was raised to P12,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of indemnity and conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide was established. The evidence showed that upon seeing the money, Antonio and Pastor Tapac's cupidity was seized. When Mabutas refused Antonio's loan request, the group attacked him cruelly and unnecessarily, and Pastor Tapac subsequently robbed the victim. The Court reiterated that for conspiracy to exist, no previous agreement is necessary; it is deemed established if the evidence shows the defendants had the same purpose and joined together in its execution. Therefore, the act of one conspirator is the act of all, making each responsible for the unlawful acts of his co-conspirators, including the robbery. Thus, all appellants are liable for the P800.00 robbery. On the conviction of Ramon Cabigayan and Rodrigo Tapac: The Court found no merit in the argument that Ramon Cabigayan and Rodrigo Tapac should be convicted of an impossible crime. The Court found it extremely doubtful that the witness could have positively known that Mabutas was already dead when these two appellants struck him, especially given the witness's vantage point. Furthermore, the statement of Jesus Abadiac to continue stabbing the victim so he could not go home justified the inference that the victim was still alive when Abadiac arrived. Therefore, the conviction for homicide was affirmed. On the aggravating circumstance of cruelty: The Court found the acts of cruelty unnecessarily perpetrated against the deceased to be beyond question. The extensive and mutilating injuries inflicted, including the cutting of the tongue and jaw, gouging of eyes, and removal of the ear, were not necessary for the commission of the homicide or robbery. These acts characterized vindictiveness and a complete disregard for the victim's suffering, thus constituting the aggravating circumstance of cruelty under Article 14, paragraph 21 of the Revised Penal Code. On the imposition of indeterminate penalties and the overall crime: The Court concluded that all appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, punishable under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and cruelty. While intoxication was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, it was offset by one aggravating circumstance. However, due to the lack of the required number of votes for the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed on all appellants. The indemnity for the heirs was increased to P12,000.00.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide is established if the evidence shows that the defendants had the same purpose and joined together in its execution, making each conspirator responsible for the unlawful acts of his co-conspirators. Cruelty and treachery are aggravating circumstances, while intoxication, if not habitual or intentional, is a mitigating circumstance.