People of the Philippines vs. Gaga Latam, et al.

There is no crime of "robbery with homicide committed by a band"; where robbery with homicide is attended by band, the offense is still denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and the element of band is appreciated only as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.

Fortunato Delos Reyes and his wife Thelma resided in Purok Roxas 1, Lamsugod, Surallah, South Cotabato, together with their sons Nestor and Reggie. On the evening of February 8, 1998, at around 6:45 p.m., Gaga Latam, Saligo Kuyan, Ngano Sugan, Nga Ben Latam and one alias Francing, all armed with guns, entered the Delos Reyes residence and declared a hold-up, while Kamison Akoy and Cosme Latam stayed outside and acted as lookouts.

Once inside, the armed men ordered Fortunato, Thelma and Nestor to drop to the floor and inquired where the money and other valuables were hidden. They then took cash amounting to ₱10,000.00, personal belongings worth ₱5,000.00, and an air gun valued at ₱2,800.00. Ngano thereafter brought Nestor outside the house and shot him.

Reggie, another son of Fortunato and Thelma, ran toward his parents' house upon hearing the gunshot. On arriving, Kamison and Cosme pointed a knife and a gun at him, respectively, and told him not to enter the house. Reggie then heard Nestor shout that he had been hit. Thereafter, all seven armed men left together. Reggie rushed Nestor to the hospital, but the latter died due to multiple gunshot wounds.

The prosecution charged the appellants and their companions with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Gaga, Saligo and Kamison all pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, while Ngano, Nga Ben and alias Francing remained at large; Cosme died on July 23, 2000 while under detention. The lower courts found that Fortunato and Thelma positively identified the appellants as among the persons who robbed their house, Fortunato having in fact seen Ngano shoot Nestor, and that Reggie corroborated their testimonies on material points. The appellants' defense of denial was disregarded for lack of corroboration, and their alibi was rejected because they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission.

• Guilt for Robbery with Homicide: Whether the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established among the appellants and their companions in the commission of the crime.
• Denial and Alibi: Whether the appellants' defenses of denial and alibi warrant their acquittal.
• Designation of the Offense: Whether the crime committed should be denominated as robbery with homicide committed by a band.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed upon the appellants.
• Civil Liability: Whether the awards of damages in favor of the victim's heirs were proper.

• Guilt for Robbery with Homicide: Yes. All the elements of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code were established, the taking of personal property by violence or intimidation against persons having been attended by homicide on the occasion of the robbery.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was inferred from the appellants' and their companions' acts before, during and after the commission of the crime, which indicated a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.
• Denial and Alibi: No. Denial is self-serving negative evidence that cannot prevail over positive and straightforward identification, and alibi failed because the defense did not show that it was physically impossible for the appellants to be at the crime scene.
• Designation of the Offense: No. There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band; the offense remains robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, with band appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
• Penalty: Yes. Although the aggravating circumstance of band would have warranted death under Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, leaving reclusion perpetua as the correct penalty.
• Civil Liability: Partly. The awards were modified to conform to prevailing jurisprudence: ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the proven burial expenses of a lesser amount, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

• Guilt for Robbery with Homicide: Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. The prosecution must prove (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) intent to gain; (3) the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) the commission of homicide, in its generic sense, on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Conviction requires certitude that the robbery was the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and that the killing was merely incidental to it; the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, although the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. The appellants' and their companions' actions left no doubt that their overriding intention was to rob Fortunato's house: the armed men entered the residence and ordered its occupants to drop to the ground, asked for the location of the money and other valuables, and took cash of ₱10,000.00, personal belongings worth ₱5,000.00, and an air gun valued at ₱2,800.00. These facts were established and undisputed.

• Conspiracy: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. No agreement for an appreciable period prior to the offense is required; it suffices that at the time of its commission the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Here, Gaga, Saligo, Ngano, Nga Ben and alias Francing entered the house while Kamison and Cosme acted as lookouts; while the companions were robbing the house, Ngano brought Nestor outside and shot him; and when Reggie rushed to the scene, Kamison and Cosme prevented him from entering by pointing a knife and a gun at him, after which all seven armed men fled together. These circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted in concert to attain a common purpose, and the evidence showed that none of them sought to avert the killing of Nestor. Because only Ngano shot Nestor, the lower courts correctly held the appellants liable for robbery with homicide, since whenever homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are likewise guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all, and the precise extent or modality of each participant's participation becomes secondary, all conspirators being principals.

• Denial and Alibi: Denial is a negative, self-serving evidence that cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward identification made by Fortunato, Thelma and Reggie. Alibi is generally viewed with suspicion because of its inherent weakness and unreliability, and in this case the defense failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the appellants were so far away from the scene of the crime that it was physically impossible for them to have been there at the time of its commission.

• Designation of the Offense: The lower courts' finding that the appellants were guilty of robbery with homicide committed by a band was an erroneous denomination of the crime committed, as there is no such crime. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense is still denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and the element of band is appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.

• Penalty: Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of commission by a band, the proper imposable penalty would have been death, conformably with Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. In view, however, of the enactment on June 24, 2006 of Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines, the lower courts correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Civil Liability: Moral damages of ₱75,000.00 were awarded to the victim's heirs to conform with recent jurisprudence, and temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 were awarded in lieu of the proven burial expenses of a lesser amount. The existence of one aggravating circumstance also merited the grant of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, for which ₱30,000.00 was awarded pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.

• Robbery with homicide — elements and nature — Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime committed when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. Its elements are: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) intent to gain; (3) the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) the commission of homicide, as used in its generic sense, on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Conviction requires certitude that the robbery was the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and that the killing was merely incidental to the robbery; the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, although the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. The Court applied this test to the appellants' concerted acts of entering the house, demanding the location of valuables, and taking cash and personal property, which established robbery as the overriding intention.

• Conspiracy — definition and proof by inference — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. It is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence of the offense; it is sufficient that at the time of its commission, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution. The Court found conspiracy from the division of roles between the armed men who entered the house and the lookouts who remained outside and later barred Reggie from entering, followed by the common flight of all seven.

• Liability of all principals in the robbery for the incidental homicide — Whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are also held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all; the precise extent or modality of participation of each conspirator becomes secondary, since all conspirators are principals. The Court applied this doctrine to hold the appellants liable notwithstanding that only Ngano shot Nestor, no evidence having shown that any of them sought to avert the killing.

• Band as an ordinary aggravating circumstance, not a distinct offense — There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band. Where robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense is still denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and the element of band is appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. The Court corrected the lower courts' denomination of the offense accordingly.

• Prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty — Republic Act No. 9346, enacted on June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. Although the aggravating circumstance of band would otherwise have warranted the death penalty under Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the prohibition reduced the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua, which the lower courts correctly imposed.

• Civil liability in robbery with homicide — Moral damages of ₱75,000.00 may be awarded to the victim's heirs in conformity with recent jurisprudence, and temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 may be awarded in lieu of proven burial expenses of a lesser amount. The existence of one aggravating circumstance also merits the grant of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, fixed at ₱30,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.

• "There is robbery with homicide when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the affirmance of the conviction, framing the special complex crime that the appellants were found to have committed.
• "Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing." — This is the controlling formulation that justified holding all the appellants liable notwithstanding that only Ngano shot Nestor.
• "For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence of the offense; it is sufficient that at the time of its commission, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution." — This passage defines the evidentiary threshold for conspiracy and is the canonical statement relied upon to sustain the finding of concerted action among the appellants and their companions.
• "This is an erroneous denomination of the crime committed, as there is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance." — This is the Court's principal correction of the lower courts' ruling and the most frequently cited holding of the decision.

• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, 575 SCRA 412, 436 — Cited as authority for the elements of robbery with homicide and for the rule that the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, although the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
• People vs. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA 603, 631 — Cited as authority for the rule that all who took part as principals in the robbery are also guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless they sought to prevent the killing.
• People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 619, 642 — Cited for the definition of conspiracy and the rule that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime; also cited on the weakness of alibi.
• People vs. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010 — Cited for the rule that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all, rendering the precise extent or modality of each participant's participation secondary.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 120642, July 2, 1999, 309 SCRA 622, 637 — Cited as authority for treating band as an ordinary aggravating circumstance rather than as a distinct offense or a qualifying circumstance.
• People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 185209, June 28, 2010 — Cited as the basis for the awards of moral damages and exemplary damages conformably with recent jurisprudence.
• People vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009, 591 SCRA 178, 203 — Cited as authority for the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for burial expenses of a lesser amount.
• People vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 117802, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 95, 113 — Cited in support of the rejection of the defense of alibi.
• People vs. Villanueva, Jr., G.R. No. 187152, July 22, 2009, 593 SCRA 523, 548 — Cited in connection with the award of moral damages to the victim's heirs.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons and imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. The Court applied this provision as the correct designation of the offense and as the source of the imposable penalty.
• Article 63, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Governs the imposition of the penalty when an aggravating circumstance attends the commission of the offense. The Court held that, absent Republic Act No. 9346, the presence of the aggravating circumstance of band would have warranted the death penalty under this provision.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Enacted on June 24, 2006, it prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. The Court applied it to reduce the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua, which the lower courts had correctly imposed.
• Article 2230, New Civil Code — Provides for the award of exemplary damages in criminal offenses when an aggravating circumstance attends the commission of the crime. The Court applied it to justify the award of ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of the victim's heirs.

• Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (Chairperson)
• Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
• Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
• Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno