People v. Constantino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of May 15, 1988, five armed men robbed the residence of Hichiro Kubota and Elizabeth Hammond, resulting in the deaths of Hichiro Kubota and their maid, Hazel Arjona, due to stab wounds. Another maid, Marilyn Juguilon, survived a stab wound. Jewelry and cash were stolen. Accused-appellant Enrique Constantino, a former driver for Kubota and Hammond, was identified by prosecution eyewitnesses as one of the perpetrators. Procedural History: In an amended information, Enrique Constantino, Juan Salvatierra, Agustin Trinidad, Willie Trinidad, and Alvin Santos were charged with Robbery in Band with Rape and Double Homicide and Attempted Homicide. Only Constantino, Salvatierra, and Agustin Trinidad were apprehended and tried. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati convicted Juan Salvatierra and Enrique Constantino of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Agustin Trinidad was acquitted. The Petition: Accused-appellant Enrique Constantino appealed his conviction, arguing that he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear (duress) due to coercion by his co-accused and that the trial court erred in its findings on witness credibility.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellant Enrique Constantino acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear (duress). Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the conspiracy among the accused was sufficiently established. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide, and if so, whether treachery, evident premeditation, or abuse of superior strength were present and how they affect the offense and penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Enrique Constantino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the corresponding civil liabilities. The Court found his defense of duress to be incredible and unsubstantiated, and upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Court also affirmed the existence of conspiracy and the commission of robbery with homicide, considering treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defense of duress: The Court held that the defense of duress requires a showing of real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's own life or limb, not mere speculation. The compulsion must be such that it leaves no opportunity for escape or self-defense. Appellant's account of coercion was found to be inherently incredible and contradicted by his own testimony and the circumstances. He had opportunities to escape or resist, particularly since only Salvatierra was consistently shown to be armed and threatening. His claim of fear was deemed a self-serving denial, lacking clear and convincing evidence. The Court emphasized that the act done under duress must be truly against the will, following the principle "Actus me invito factus non est meus actus." On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court found the categorical and positive testimonies of the surviving victims, Elizabeth Hammond and Diosa Hammond, to be more worthy of acceptance than the appellant's self-serving denial. These witnesses unequivocally identified appellant and detailed his active participation in the crime. The Court noted the absence of proof that these witnesses were motivated by ill will or improper motives, thus upholding the presumption that they testified truthfully. The appellant's attempts to discredit Elizabeth Hammond's actions after the incident were deemed natural responses under fear and did not negate her positive identification of him. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicating a joint purpose and concerted action. All five accused arrived at the victims' residence together, with some acting as lookouts while others entered the house. Appellant's act of misrepresenting their purpose to Elizabeth Hammond demonstrated a duplicitous plan from the outset. As conspiracy was proven, all conspirators were held liable as co-principals for the crime committed, regardless of their individual participation, based on the principle that the act of one is the act of all. On the crime committed and attendant circumstances: The Court affirmed that the offense committed was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, punishable under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. It reiterated that when homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, all principals in the conspiracy are guilty of robbery with homicide, even if they did not directly participate in the killing, unless they attempted to prevent it. The Court found that appellant's statement to his co-conspirators to "finish them off" clearly indicated his complicity. Treachery was found to have attended the killings, as the victims were hog-tied when stabbed, but evident premeditation could not be deduced from the evidence. Treachery was considered a generic aggravating circumstance, not qualifying the offense to murder, as robbery with homicide is a composite crime with its own penalty. The Court clarified that the crime of robbery with homicide is not multiplied by the number of victims killed; multiple killings are treated as an aggravating circumstance. The presence of a band or rape, if proven, would also be considered aggravating circumstances under the law at the time of the commission of the crime.
Main Doctrine
The defense of duress requires a showing of real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's own life or limb, and not mere speculation or imagination. The compulsion must be such that it leaves no opportunity for escape or self-defense. Furthermore, in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, all principals in the conspiracy are liable for the crime, even if they did not directly participate in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. Treachery, when present in robbery with homicide, is considered a generic aggravating circumstance.