People v. Guiapar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 3, 1969, at approximately 5:00 a.m., in the Municipality of Nuling, Province of Cotabato, three detainees, Karunsiang Guiapar, Sapal Dadas, and Karim Abo, were allowed to leave their cell by the jail guard on duty, Patrolman Demetrio Fernandez, to attend to their personal necessities. As the guard was closing the cell door, Karunsiang Guiapar struck Patrolman Fernandez at the base of his head with a piece of wood. While the guard was falling, Sapal Dadas took the guard's hunting knife and stabbed him in the abdomen. Karim Abo kicked the prostrate policeman. Subsequently, the three escapees took the service revolver and wallet containing P70.00 from Patrolman Fernandez and fled. Patrolman Fernandez sustained fatal injuries and died shortly thereafter. An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Karunsiang Guiapar and Sapal Dadas. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. Sapal Dadas later changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He then testified for the defense, exculpating Karunsiang Guiapar. The prosecution presented eyewitness Kasan Lampak, who testified that Karunsiang Guiapar brought the piece of wood into the cell the night before and that Guiapar had invited him to escape. The defense presented Karunsiang Guiapar himself. The trial court found Karunsiang Guiapar guilty of robbery with homicide, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and craft, sentencing him to death. The Petition: Karunsiang Guiapar appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him based on the testimony of Sapal Dadas, who had previously testified that he committed the offense alone.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant Karunsiang Guiapar despite the testimony of his co-accused, Sapal Dadas, and whether the eyewitness testimony and dying declaration were properly considered. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide, considering the actions of all participants and their intent. Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and craft were correctly appreciated by the trial court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Karunsiang Guiapar for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity for the death of the victim was increased to P30,000.00. The Court found that the aggravating circumstances of craft and evident premeditation were not sufficiently proven, and abuse of superior strength was subsumed in treachery. Treachery was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged error in convicting Karunsiang Guiapar based on Sapal Dadas' testimony and the consideration of evidence: The Court found the assigned error to be without merit. It clarified that Sapal Dadas' testimony, given after he pleaded guilty, was primarily to ascertain his own participation and was insufficient to exonerate a co-accused. The trial court's reiteration of Sapal Dadas' statement that Karim Abo hit the deceased with a piece of wood was merely a restatement of the testimony and not an affirmation of its credibility. Furthermore, any judgment against Karim Abo, who was not a party to the case, would be void. The Court also addressed the defense's attempt to discredit the eyewitness Kasan Lampak, explaining that the prosecution's manifestation regarding witnesses was taken out of context and that Lampak's testimony was consistent with other evidence and the deceased's dying declaration or res gestae. On the guilt of Karunsiang Guiapar for robbery with homicide: The Court found ample evidence to establish Karunsiang Guiapar's guilt. The eyewitness testimony of Kasan Lampak, corroborated by the dying declaration or res gestae of Patrolman Fernandez, detailed the sequence of events: Guiapar striking the guard with a piece of wood, Dadas stabbing him, Abo kicking him, and the subsequent taking of the guard's revolver and wallet. The Court reasoned that the acts of kicking and stabbing, as well as taking the gun and knife, were unnecessary for mere escape and clearly indicated an intent to rob. The resulting death of the guard during the commission of the robbery qualified the offense to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The Court emphasized that all participants in the robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide, even if they did not directly participate in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it, which was not shown in this case. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court conceded that the aggravating circumstance of craft was not proven, as there was no evidence of the assailants gaining the victim's confidence through trickery. Regarding evident premeditation, while there were badges of conspiracy and intent to escape, the Court found no clear evidence of premeditation to kill. The bringing of the wood was explained by the practice of prisoners cooking inside their cells, and the invitation to escape did not necessarily imply an intent to kill. Therefore, evident premeditation was not affirmed. The Court also found that abuse of superior strength was not sufficiently proven, as mere superiority in number does not automatically equate to superiority in strength, and the deceased was armed. The Court noted that any abuse of superior strength would be subsumed in treachery. Treachery, however, was affirmed because the assault was sudden and unexpected, incapacitating the victim and ensuring the accomplishment of the objective without risk to the assailants. The stabbing of the victim as he was falling was considered positive evidence of treachery.
Main Doctrine
In robbery with homicide, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the crime are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. The intent to rob is established by the taking of the victim's gun and wallet, and the homicide resulting from the assault during the robbery elevates the offense to robbery with homicide.