People v. Bazar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nine individuals, including the accused-appellants, attended a dance. After the dance, they proceeded to the house of Cristituto Florida with the intent to rob him, having heard he had just sold a pig. The group, armed with knives, a revolver, stones, and a piece of wood, agreed to divide the loot equally. Ciriaco Bazar and Lito Hermoso initiated the robbery by pulling a sow and its piglets from Florida's house. The commotion roused Cristituto Florida and his son, Modesto Florida. Ciriaco Bazar announced it was a robbery and they were after his money, not his life. Cristituto Florida struggled and stabbed Lito Hermoso with his scythe. In retaliation, Aniceto Tagbacaula struck Cristituto with a piece of wood, Hermoso stabbed him multiple times, Toting Nazon also stabbed him, and Lopito Collantes and Alexander Tagbacaula squeezed his neck. Modesto Florida witnessed his father's death. Romulo Angcap and Marcial Rible held the pig during the incident. Procedural History: The accused were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental of Attempted Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Six accused appealed, but four later withdrew their appeals, leaving only Marcial Rible and Aniceto Tagbacaula to prosecute the case. The Petition: The remaining appellants contended that the trial court erred in finding them guilty based on the testimonies of state witnesses Salvador Humolod and Modesto Florida, and in finding that they conspired to commit the crime.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credit to the testimonies of state witnesses Salvador Humolod and Modesto Florida despite alleged contradictions. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused conspired to commit the crime.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged contradictions in witness testimonies: The Court found no inconsistency between the testimonies of Salvador Humolod and Modesto Florida. Humolod testified on his distance from Cristituto when the latter was attacked, while Modesto spoke of Humolod's distance from the house when his father was attacked. The Court noted that slight contradictions can strengthen the sincerity of testimonies, as complete uniformity might indicate untruthfulness. The distances testified to by Humolod (8-9 meters from the killing site) and Modesto (37 meters from the house) were reconciled by considering they referred to different points of reference and different stages of the incident. The Court cited several cases to support the principle that minor discrepancies do not necessarily impair credibility. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of conspiracy based on the testimony of Salvador Humolod. Humolod testified that all members of the group agreed to proceed to Cristituto Florida's house to rob him because he had sold a pig. They also agreed to divide the loot equally. The recognized leaders, Ciriaco Bazar and Lito Hermoso, initially conceived the plan, and the group concurred as they neared the house. The Court emphasized that conspiracy exists when concerted action results from a common object and purpose, even if individual acts appear isolated. The evidence showed a common design to commit robbery, with the accused acting together and cooperating pursuant to this common design. The Court also invoked Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines a "band" and presumes conspiracy among its members in robbery cases. Since the robbery was committed by more than three armed individuals, it was deemed committed by a band, making all members principals in the assaults unless they proved an attempt to prevent the same. The appellants, Marcial Rible and Aniceto Tagbacaula, failed to show any attempt to prevent the killing, thus making them equally guilty of homicide.
Main Doctrine
When robbery is committed by a band, all members present are presumed conspirators and principals in any assault committed by the band, unless they prove they attempted to prevent the assault. All who take part as principals in the commission of robbery are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent the homicide.