People v. Robante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 23, 1983, at around 8:00 PM, in Balilihan, Bohol, Patricio Layao, 78, blind and unschooled, and his wife Clara, 71, were in their home. Patricio heard his wife cry out and a loud thud from the second floor. He found Clara on the floor, bleeding from a head wound. Patricio identified one of the intruders as "Alex" (Felix Silawan, Jr.) by voice and Clara's utterance. He heard another person present. The intruders forcibly opened a trunk, took P200.00, ransacked the house, and warned Patricio not to report the incident. Clara sustained severe injuries, including a deep lacerated wound on her head, and died shortly thereafter due to "cardio respiratory arrest, intracerebral hemorrhage, bleeding head wound." Procedural History: Felix Silawan, Jr. (17) and Candido Robante (18) were charged with the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. Silawan later changed his plea to guilty, implicating Robante as his co-conspirator, and invoking minority and plea of guilty as mitigating circumstances. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran convicted both accused of robbery with homicide. Robante was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and Silawan to an indeterminate penalty. Robante appealed. The Petition: Accused-appellant Candido Robante appealed his conviction, arguing that the RTC erred in finding conspiracy and in convicting him of robbery with homicide due to insufficient proof and lack of credible identification.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the conspiracy between accused-appellant Robante and Felix Silawan, Jr. to commit robbery with homicide. Whether the prosecution proved the commission of robbery as a principal element of the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the testimony of a co-accused is admissible against another co-accused. Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should have been appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Candido Robante for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court increased the death indemnity from P12,000 to P30,000.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conspiracy between Robante and Silawan: The Court found that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proving conspiracy. Patricio Layao positively identified Felix Silawan, Jr. by voice and Clara's utterance of "Alex." Although Patricio, being blind, could not identify the second person by sight, he could hear and feel his footfalls, confirming the presence of another individual. Furthermore, Silawan, in his testimony, provided a detailed account of the conspiracy, describing how he and Robante planned and executed the robbery and killing. This direct evidence from Silawan dovetailed with Patricio's testimony and the medico-legal findings, establishing the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. On the commission of robbery: The Court rejected the defense's contention that the prosecution failed to prove the element of robbery. Patricio Layao explicitly stated that he and his wife had P200.00 in cash inside the trunk, which was forcibly opened and the money taken. Silawan also admitted to taking the amount. This was further supported by the affidavit of Agustin Layao, the couple's son, who confirmed that only P200.00 remained in the trunk on the day of the incident. The Court emphasized that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery, with the latter being the main purpose. On the admissibility of co-accused testimony: The Court clarified that Section 127 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which requires independent proof of conspiracy before admitting the extrajudicial declaration of a co-conspirator, applies only to extrajudicial acts or declarations, not to testimony given in court. The Court cited People vs. Viscarra, stating that a co-accused is a competent witness for or against any of his co-accused, and the accused has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant in court. Therefore, Silawan's testimony was admissible against Robante. On the aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The Court agreed with the prosecution that dwelling should have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. The Court reasoned that dwelling is not inherent in robbery with homicide, as the crime could have been accomplished without violating the domicile. The offenders deliberately entered the victims' house to commit the crime, taking advantage of the sanctity of the home. This act demonstrated a greater degree of criminality and disrespect for the victims' privacy and security.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of a co-accused, even if extrajudicial, is admissible and can be the basis for conviction if the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant in court. Conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the killing of the victim is considered a mere incident to the robbery if the latter was the main purpose.