People v. Veras, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 16, 1986, at around 10:30 PM to 12:00 midnight, in Sitio Tuboran, Barangay Carpenito, Tagbina, Surigao del Sur, several accused, armed with firearms and knives, conspired and confederated to commit robbery. They unlawfully entered the house of spouses Alberto and Anacorita Saguisa. While inside, they took an air rifle valued at P1,500.00, Alberto Saguisa's wallet containing P1,300.00, two dogs valued at P200.00 each, and a goat valued at P700.00. Thereafter, in pursuance of their conspiracy, with evident premeditation, superior strength, and intent to kill, they treacherously and brutally attacked Alberto Saguisa, inflicting twenty-nine (29) stab wounds which caused his death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Bislig, Surigao del Sur, in Criminal Case No. 299, convicted Silvano Sandig, Jr., Ernesto Veras, Jr., and Artemio Petallo of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. They were ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Silvano Sandig, Jr. appealed the decision. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Silvano Sandig, Jr., alleged that the lower court erred in convicting him and his co-accused of robbery with homicide due to lack of established conspiracy, and contended that he should only be convicted of homicide as he did not participate in the robbery.
Issue(s)
Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established to hold the appellant guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide; and whether the appellant, who allegedly did not participate in the killing, can be held liable for robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed, with modification by increasing the indemnity for the death of Alberto Saguisa to P50,000.00. The accused are also ordered to reimburse the victim's heirs for the value of the dogs (P500), durian fruits (P150), and the air rifle (P650). The liability for civil indemnities is solidary.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy and liability for robbery with homicide: The evidence clearly shows that after robbing the Saguisa spouses, the accused killed Alberto Saguisa to eliminate him as a witness. The killing and the felonious taking of property were not isolated acts but were part of the criminal design of the accused to rob and kill. Since the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery in which the appellant Sandig admittedly participated, he is equally guilty with his co-accused of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In cases of robbery with homicide where conspiracy is present, it is immaterial which of the accused actually committed the stabbing; all are liable as co-conspirators. The act of one co-conspirator is the act of the others, regardless of the precise degree of participation. When conspiracy to commit robbery is conclusively shown by the concerted acts of the accused, and homicide is committed as a consequence thereof, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are also liable as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless they attempted to prevent the killing. The conspiracy was proven by the testimony of Arnulfo Mundas, who stated that before leaving Roxas, they agreed to rob and kill Alberto and his wife. Upon reaching the house, the accused took different positions to ensure the success of their plan, and none of them attempted to prevent the killing. They fled together after the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy can be inferred from acts tending to show a community of design or purpose, where several accused, by their acts, aim at the same object, performing different parts to complete the crime with a view to attaining the same objective, indicating concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Therefore, the question of who actually robbed or killed Saguisa is irrelevant, as all are accountable for the crime of robbery with homicide, with each conspirator being an agent of the others.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime. When conspiracy to commit robbery is conclusively shown by the concerted acts of the accused, and homicide is committed as a consequence thereof, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not directly participate in the homicide, unless they attempted to prevent the killing.