People v. Empacis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Crisologo Empacis, along with four others, was indicted for robbery with homicide. The indictment alleged that on September 16, 1986, at around 9:00 PM, in Barangay Kanguha, Municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu, the accused, armed with carbines and bladed weapons, conspired, confederated, and with evident premeditation and intent to kill, treacherously attacked Fidel Saromines, stabbing him multiple times, resulting in his death. Subsequently, in pursuance of their conspiracy, the accused, by means of violence and with intent to gain, took P12,000.00 from Fidel Saromines. The crime was alleged to have been committed by a band. Procedural History: All accused except Romualdo Langomez (who disappeared) were apprehended. During the trial, Carlito Antiga died. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City convicted Crisologo Empacis of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua (due to the abolition of the death penalty) and ordering him to pay P30,000.00 as death indemnity. Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga were acquitted. The trial court found the crime to be attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, craft or fraud, and superior strength. The Petition: Crisologo Empacis appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecution's evidence did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of Crisologo Empacis for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether conspiracy was sufficiently established. Whether the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, craft or fraud, and superior strength were correctly appreciated. Whether the award for death indemnity was proper. Whether the restitution of stolen property was properly ordered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modifications. The conviction of Crisologo Empacis for robbery with homicide was upheld. The death indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, and the accused was ordered to make restitution of the P12,000.00 stolen amount.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Crisologo Empacis and conspiracy: The Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated Empacis' guilt. The testimony of the victim's widow and son, corroborated by the post-mortem report and even partially by Empacis' own testimony, established his direct participation. The Court found conspiracy adequately proven by the concerted acts of Empacis and Romualdo Langomez, who came to the victim's store as customers, demanded money, struggled with the victim, and fled together after the stabbing. Their actions clearly indicated an agreement to rob and kill Fidel Saromines, acting in concert to achieve their common objective. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court agreed that the aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated. Craft or fraud was present as Empacis and Langomez pretended to be bona fide customers to gain entry and perpetrate the crime. Nighttime was also properly appreciated as it facilitated the commission of the crime by precluding the presence of other customers and aid to the victim. Superior strength was considered because Empacis joined in stabbing the victim, and they took advantage of their combined strength and weapons to overcome the unarmed victim. The commission of the crime in the dwelling of the offended party, without provocation, was also correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. On the award for death indemnity: Pursuant to prevailing case law, the death indemnity was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. On the restitution of stolen property: The Court noted that the trial court omitted to order the restitution of the P12,000.00 stolen money, which is a legal requirement, and thus ordered the accused to make restitution jointly and severally.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Crisologo Empacis for robbery with homicide, holding that conspiracy was adequately proven by the concerted acts of the accused. The Court also upheld the appreciation of aggravating circumstances, including dwelling, nighttime, craft or fraud, and superior strength, and increased the death indemnity while ordering restitution of the stolen money.