People v. Macabales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 13, 1990, Marine Captain Miguel Katigbak and his sister Eva were waiting for a ride in Makati. A passenger jeepney approached, and Jaime Macabales grabbed Eva's handbag. As Eva held on, the strap snapped, and the bag fell. The jeepney stopped, and its occupants, including accused-appellants, alighted and accosted Miguel and Eva. Miguel, skilled in martial arts, fought back but was eventually held by two assailants while Macabales stabbed him repeatedly. The group fled in the jeepney. Miguel died from his stab wounds. During a chase by police, Macabales was apprehended, and a fan knife, sticky with blood, was recovered from him. Macabales admitted owning the knife. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 56, found accused-appellants Jaime Macabales, Abner Caratao, Romano Reyes, Marcelino Tuliao, and Renato Magora guilty of attempted robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The sentence for Richard De Luna, a minor, was suspended. Appellants seasonably appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the decision of the RTC, raising issues concerning conspiracy, the applicable law (Revised Penal Code vs. P.D. No. 532), and the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants. Whether the trial court erred in applying Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code instead of P.D. No. 532. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Appellants Abner Caratao, Romano Reyes, Marcelino Tuliao, and Renato Magora were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted robbery with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case was remanded to the trial court for appropriate action concerning Richard De Luna.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy: The Court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that there was conspiracy among the appellants. Eva Katigbak's testimony was found to be straightforward and sincere, positively identifying all the accused. The concerted action in attacking Miguel, including two holding his arms while others surrounded him, indicated a common purpose and coordinated action. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement; it can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing they acted in unison with a common purpose. The individual acts, when massed together, clearly manifested that they were acting in concert, helping one another kill Miguel, and leaving together after accomplishing their deed. On the issue of the applicable law: The Court held that the trial court was correct in convicting the appellants of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, despite the Information charging them under P.D. No. 532 (Highway Robbery). The Court cited Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which allow conviction for an offense proved if it is included in the offense charged, or for the offense charged if it is included in the offense proved. The elements of Robbery with Homicide under Article 297 (attempted or frustrated robbery and homicide committed) are among the elements of Highway Robbery with Homicide under P.D. No. 532 and were duly proved. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in interpreting an information, the description of the offense controls, not the designation. The allegations in the Information supported liability for the special complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297, as the homicide committed during a robbery attempt was proved, along with the use of a motor vehicle. On the issue of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's appreciation of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance. Miguel was rendered helpless when his arms were held by two attackers before he was stabbed by Macabales, with their companions surrounding them. The Court reiterated its ruling in People v. Salvatierra that when treachery obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance. While treachery could not qualify the homicide to murder, it served to determine the penalty to be imposed.
Main Doctrine
When homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals by indispensable cooperation, even if they did not actually participate in the homicide, unless they attempted to prevent the killing. The act of one is the act of all in conspiracy.