People v. Armada, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Jorge Espero, Angelino Lorca, Jr., Salvador Armada, Jr., and Arnulfo Cabareño. Cabareño was at large. Jorge Espero pleaded guilty and claimed sole commission of the crime, and was convicted. Angelino Lorca, Jr. was discharged as a state witness. Salvador Armada, Jr. was the remaining accused. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, sentenced Salvador Armada, Jr. to reclusion perpetua, to pay civil indemnity of P30,000.00 and costs. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in discharging Angelino Lorca as a state witness. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the witnesses for the prosecution. Whether the alibi of the appellant is credible. Whether conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant is liable for robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification, ordering the appellant to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P4,000.00 stolen from the deceased, the sum of P16,070.00 representing funeral expenses, and increasing the civil indemnity from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, unless already paid by Jorge Espero, with whom Salvador Armada, Jr. is solidarily liable.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the trial court erred in discharging Angelino Lorca as a state witness: The discharge of an accused to become a state witness is left to the sound discretion of the court. Even if the discharged witness lacks some qualifications, their testimony will not be discarded solely for that reason. The court may err in discharging an accused, but such error is not reversible as it does not affect the competency and quality of the testimony. Lorca's testimony was correctly taken into account as there was no impediment to its admission, and he was extensively cross-examined by the defense. Even if his testimony were inadmissible, the eyewitness testimony of Librando remained. On whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the witnesses for the prosecution: The conclusions of the trial judge regarding witness credibility are given great respect and consideration, especially when supported by other evidence. The trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are natural and can even enhance credibility, indicating honest and unrehearsed responses, especially when the witnesses have no motive to lie. The prosecution established the appellant's presence and participation through eyewitnesses. On whether the alibi of the appellant is credible: The alibi of the appellant is not believable and is unavailing against positive identification by credible witnesses. It was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, as the distance between the farm and the institute was only 3 kilometers. Furthermore, regular classes at the institute started five days after the killing, as affirmed by the head of the Vocational Department. On whether conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt: The evidence showed that the appellant, along with his co-accused, had a previous agreement to rob the victim. They proceeded to the victim's farm to carry out their plan. The appellant watched as Espero killed the victim and thereafter robbed him. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. The concerted acts of the group clearly signify a conspiracy. On whether the appellant is liable for robbery with homicide: Conspiracy having been established, all conspirators are liable as co-principals, and the act of one is the act of all. Armada cannot extricate himself from the killing that took place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. To be absolved, he should have performed an overt act to stop or prevent the commission of the felony, which he did not do. The phrases "on the occasion" and "by reason of robbery" in Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code refer to homicide committed in the course of robbery, regardless of the robber's intention to kill. The result characterizes the crime, not the specific circumstances of intervention.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy having been established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation in the crime. In contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all. Armada cannot extricate himself from the killing of Lozarita which took place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. To free himself from criminal liability, he should show that he performed some overt act to stop or prevent the commission of the second or related felony. There is no evidence of such action.