People v. Barut
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Shortly after sundown on June 15, 1969, Marcelino Grospe saw Herminio Barut, Alejo Ramiscal, Ernesto Quebral, Juan Agustin, and Castor Acson (armed with a carbine) going towards the hut of Francisco Lazaro. Acson held up Lazaro at gunpoint and took P23. The companions ransacked the hut and took carpentry tools worth P100 and parts of a carbine. Grospe informed his neighbors, forming a rescue party. During an exchange of fire between the rescue party and the malefactors, Acson was killed, and Evaristo Tuvera was also killed. The malefactors fled, leaving the stolen articles near the scene. Procedural History: Affidavits were taken, and a complaint for robbery in band with homicide was filed. After preliminary investigation and issuance of warrants, the accused (Barut, Quebral, and Ramiscal) were arrested years later. An information for robbery in band with homicide was filed. The Court of First Instance of Isabela convicted Barut, Ramiscal, and Quebral of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay indemnity. Agustin remained at large. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court's decision sufficiently states the ultimate facts upon which the judgment of conviction was based. Whether the investigation conducted by the Constabulary was proper. Whether the alibis interposed by the appellants are credible and sufficient to overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witness. Whether the killing of Evaristo Tuvera is integrated with the robbery, thus constituting robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment with a modification regarding the indemnity to be paid to Francisco Lazaro. The appellants were found guilty of robbery with homicide.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the trial court's decision: The contention that the trial court's decision does not state the ultimate facts is devoid of merit. The decision meticulously summarized the evidence, narrated how the robbery with homicide was perpetrated, and provided its ratio for concluding that the crime was not committed by a band and that the alibis were not credible. This conforms to the requirement that a judgment must contain a distinct statement of the facts proven or admitted by the accused upon which it is based, as mandated by Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court and the Constitution. On the propriety of the Constabulary investigation: The argument that the case should have been investigated by the police and not by Constabulary soldiers is baseless. The term "peace officer" in Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court includes members of the Constabulary, who are charged with the preservation of peace and order and are competent to investigate crimes. In fact, they are generally considered more competent and experienced than policemen in investigating crimes, as per the Revised Administrative Code. On the credibility of alibis versus positive identification: The uncorroborated alibis of the appellants have no exculpatory value. The appellants claimed to be in different barrios during the commission of the crime, but these claims were made years after the incident and were likely fabricated to serve as bases for their alibis. The Court found that the appellants, being close friends and residents of the same barrio as the other malefactors, likely fled and stayed in those places as fugitives from justice. Their alibis cannot overcome the positive identification made by Marcelino Grospe, who was acquainted with the appellants and had no motive to fabricate evidence against them. On the integration of homicide with robbery: The killing of Evaristo Tuvera is integrated with the robbery or committed "by reason or on the occasion" thereof, as contemplated in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Spanish version of the article states "cuando con motivo o con ocassion del robo resultare homicidio." This jurisprudence holds that a mere occasional relation between the homicide and the robbery is sufficient; it is not required that the homicide be committed as a means to execute the robbery, nor that the perpetrator intended to kill. The crime exists even if the killing is by accident, as long as it occurs with motive or occasion of the robbery. Furthermore, the law does not require that the victim of the robbery be the same person as the victim of the homicide; an innocent bystander killed during the commission of the robbery suffices. In this case, the robbery spawned a fight between the robbers and Lazaro's neighbors, and Evaristo Tuvera's death resulted from this fight, thus connecting it to the robbery.
Main Doctrine
The killing of Evaristo Tuvera, which resulted from a fight between the robbers and the neighbors of the robbery victim, is considered to have been committed 'by reason or on the occasion' of the robbery, thus constituting robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, even if the homicide occurred after the consummation of the robbery and the robbers had left the victim's house. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be also the victim of the homicide.