People v. De Jesus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco, a policeman, worked part-time delivering money for a money changer. He was known to carry a significant amount of cash daily. Appellant Eduardo de Jesus, along with Dante Manansala and Crispin Del Rosario (appellant's brother-in-law), planned to rob Ybasco. They agreed to waylay Ybasco on March 7, 1994. On the day of the incident, they took a Toyota Corolla car provided by Christopher Nash. The appellant was armed with a caliber .45 handgun. They conducted surveillance at the Ayala Center, Makati City. At around 6:30 p.m., Ybasco emerged with a plastic bag. Manansala and the appellant confronted Ybasco, identified themselves as having a warrant of arrest, handcuffed him, and dragged him into the car. During the struggle for the bag, a security guard, Roberto Acosta, intervened. Del Rosario, acting as lookout, grappled with Acosta for his gun and shot him in the mouth. Ybasco and Acosta were taken into the car, which sped off. Ybasco's bag contained only ₱5,000, enraging Manansala. Ybasco was taken to a sugar farm in Cabuyao, Laguna, where the appellant shot him on the head while he was still handcuffed. The appellant, Manansala, and Del Rosario then proceeded to Calamba, Laguna, where Del Rosario alighted. The police investigated the abduction of Ybasco and the killing of Acosta. Witnesses provided descriptions and identified the getaway car. The body of Ybasco was found the next morning, still handcuffed. Investigations led to the identification of the car's owners and its turnover to the police. Del Rosario and Manansala were arrested. Manansala executed an extrajudicial confession implicating the appellant. The appellant remained at large until his arrest on November 20, 1994. Dela Rapa identified Del Rosario as Acosta's assailant. An autopsy confirmed Ybasco's death was due to a gunshot wound to the head. An Information was filed charging Del Rosario and Manansala with robbery with homicide, with conspiracy alleged among them, Nash, and an alias "Ton Ton." Del Rosario pleaded guilty and was convicted. The Information was amended to include the appellant and Nash. Nash was later excluded. Manansala died during detention. The appellant was arrested and arraigned, pleading not guilty. Del Rosario testified against the appellant. The appellant admitted Fajardo's and Mendoza's sworn statements but waived cross-examination. The appellant denied involvement, claiming he was driving his tricycle. He presented an alibi corroborated by a witness. He also claimed Del Rosario harbored a grudge against him and had written letters apologizing for implicating him. Silvina Lumba corroborated the appellant's alibi. Rosario Dizon Lopez testified about delivering letters for Del Rosario to the appellant. Jennifer Obina, the appellant's live-in partner, testified about his work and the police raid on their house. The trial court convicted the appellant of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 64, convicted the appellant Eduardo de Jesus y Enrile of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty. This decision is under automatic review by the Supreme Court. The trial court relied on the testimonies of Dela Rapa and Del Rosario, corroborated by other evidence. The Petition: The appellant assails the trial court's decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that the evidence is insufficient, that Del Rosario's judicial confession is inadmissible against him, that Manansala's confession is hearsay, that no conspiracy was proven, that his alibi was disregarded, that treachery was improperly appreciated, and that no robbery actually took place.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the judicial confession of Crispin Del Rosario is admissible against the appellant. Whether the extrajudicial confession of Dante Manansala is admissible against the appellant. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established among the accused. Whether the appellant's defense of alibi and denial should have prevailed. Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery was attendant. Whether the crime of robbery with homicide was committed despite the alleged lack of actual robbery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The appellant Eduardo de Jesus was found guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. The Court ordered the appellant to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco and Roberto Acosta, and to return the amount of ₱5,030.00 to the heirs of Ybasco.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide: The Court found that the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, Del Rosario, and Manansala conspired to rob Ybasco. The Court held that in robbery with homicide, all principals in the robbery are liable for the single and indivisible felony, even if they did not directly participate in the killing. The appellant's participation in the abduction and the subsequent killing of Ybasco, as testified by Del Rosario and corroborated by other evidence, established his liability as a principal by direct participation. On the admissibility of Crispin Del Rosario's judicial confession against the appellant: The Court ruled that while a judicial confession is generally admissible only against the confessant, it can be admitted against co-conspirators if conspiracy is proven. The Court found that conspiracy was established through the acts of the appellant, Del Rosario, and Manansala, which indicated a joint purpose and concurrence of sentiments. Therefore, Del Rosario's testimony, detailing the planning and execution of the crime, was admissible against the appellant. On the admissibility of Dante Manansala's extrajudicial confession: The Court noted that Manansala died before he could testify and be cross-examined. However, the Court relied on other evidence, particularly Del Rosario's testimony and the physical evidence, to establish the appellant's guilt, rendering the admissibility of Manansala's confession less critical to the conviction. On whether conspiracy was sufficiently established: The Court found that conspiracy was proven by direct and circumstantial evidence. The specific tasks assigned to each conspirator, their coordinated actions before, during, and after the commission of the crime, and their common criminal objective demonstrated a clear conspiracy. The Court emphasized that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. On the appellant's defense of alibi and denial: The Court found the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi to be weak and unavailing, especially in light of the positive identification by Del Rosario and the corroborating evidence. The Court also considered the appellant's flight after learning he was wanted by the police as an indication of guilt, weakening his claim of innocence. On the aggravating circumstance of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of treachery. Ybasco was handcuffed when he was shot, rendering him defenseless. This mode of attack, ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the perpetrators, constituted treachery. The Court also noted the use of a vehicle, but found it not alleged in the Information, thus not considered as an aggravating circumstance. On whether the crime of robbery with homicide was committed: The Court rejected the appellant's contention that no robbery took place. The Court held that in robbery with homicide, it is immaterial whether the property stolen was actually recovered or its value. The intent to rob, coupled with the commission of homicide on the occasion thereof, is sufficient. The Court found that the taking of ₱5,000 from Ybasco, even if less than anticipated, constituted robbery, and the subsequent homicide was committed on the occasion of this robbery.
Main Doctrine
In robbery with homicide, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears they endeavored to prevent the same. Conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide makes all conspirators principals of such crime.