People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Maranion y Hasan

Conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the accused’s conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime; once conspiracy is proved, the act of one conspirator is the act of all, making each liable as a principal in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, regardless of actual participation in the killing.

On July 27, 1980, at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Margarita See Chi was at the Santolan Variety Mart in Santolan, Pasig, Metro Manila, together with her husband William See Chi, the store owner, their two children, and two housemaids, Criselda Oca and Susana Tonido. Accused Rolando Maranion, carrying a shoulder bag, arrived at the store and ordered a piece of bread and a bottle of soft drink, which he consumed slowly, eliciting suspicion that he was waiting for a companion. He refused to enter the store. A few minutes later, Maranion’s companion, Patrolman Antonio Benito, arrived, entered the store, and announced a hold-up. At that moment, Maranion helped Benito close the door of the store. Benito poked his gun at Margarita and dragged her to the room inside the store where the two housemaids were; when the door was opened, Margarita was pushed inside and, together with the two maids, ordered to lie flat facing the floor, and the door was closed. Moments later, successive gunshots were heard. After waiting for a while, Margarita crawled out and saw the lifeless body of her husband William bathed in his own blood. The cash in the amount of P6,000.00 in the victim’s wallet was gone, the store was widely open, and another victim, Sotero de la Cruz, a regular customer, was sprawled on the ground outside the store. The police later took Margarita’s statement and took pictures of the store premises and one of the victims.

Susana Tonido, a housemaid of the spouses William and Margarita See Chi, corroborated Margarita’s testimony as to the identity and presence of Rolando Maranion before and during the robbery. She declared that she was about to close the store that night when Maranion arrived and ordered some snacks, and that he was still at the store counter when the robbery was in progress. Ramona de la Cruz Guiang testified that on July 27, 1980, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, she and her husband accompanied their preacher in taking a ride; on their way home, they met her father, Sotero de la Cruz, on his way to Santolan Variety Mart to have his money changed. The place was then properly lighted. She saw her father reach the store; minutes later, she heard successive gunshots coming from the direction of the store. She saw two men running away from the store and heading for the main road towards a taxi parked at a gasoline station about 15 to 20 meters away. The tall man was carrying a gun while his companion, whom she later identified as Rolando Maranion, was carrying something she was not sure of. The taxi at the gasoline station drove towards the two men, and after they boarded, it immediately sped away. She identified the taxi driver as Arsenio Ragudo, whom she saw twice, once when going to the main road and then upon returning home.

Sgt. Antonio Sityar of the Pasig Police testified that he was assigned by his Station Commander on August 9, 1980 to take the extrajudicial confession of Rolando Maranion. He advised Maranion of his constitutional rights. In the course of the investigation, Maranion identified his co-accused Pat. Antonio Benito from the file of photographs of the police. Ester de la Cruz, widow of Sotero de la Cruz, declared that prior to her husband’s death, the latter had been earning about P1,500.00 per month accepting typing jobs, and that she spent P15,000.00 as burial expenses for her deceased husband. Dr. Bienvenido Munoz, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, testified that on July 28, 1980, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of William See Chi and prepared the autopsy report; the cause of death was gunshot wounds at the back of the deceased, and the wounds were inflicted by two guns of similar caliber, as both had the same measurements.

The defense gave an entirely different version. Maranion testified that on July 27, 1980, at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon in Barangay Sta. Lucia, Pasig, Metro Manila, Pat. Antonio Benito arrived requesting him for company to arrest a Chinese drug pusher. He accompanied Benito, and the two boarded a jeep en route to Rosario Bridge. They alighted from the jeep and took a taxi to Cogeo, Antipolo, where Benito alighted and asked him to wait as he was to look for somebody. Benito returned after a few minutes and asked the taxi driver to proceed to Daang Bakal, Marikina; upon reaching the place, Benito again alighted and told Maranion to wait. While waiting for Benito for about three hours, Maranion took a snack with the taxi driver, whom he came to know as Arsenio Ragudo. Benito finally returned holding a bag with shoes in it and told them that they would go to Pasig. They proceeded to Santolan, Pasig, and upon reaching a certain portion, Benito asked the driver to park at a gasoline station. Benito alighted and asked Maranion to go to Santolan Variety Mart and take a snack. Maranion went to the store and ordered a soft drink and a piece of bread. While taking his snack, Benito arrived holding a gun, grabbing the housemaid Criselda and bringing her inside the store. Maranion said he was tongue-tied when he heard Benito announce the hold-up and saw Benito poke his gun at the housemaids and at Margarita, whom Benito dragged to the room where the housemaids were. William See Chi suddenly approached Benito and hit him with his crutches, William being an amputee. When Benito fell down, he shot William twice. Benito then poked his gun at Maranion, and because of nervousness, Maranion bumped an old man behind him who was put off balance. When Maranion tried to help the old man get up, he heard another gunshot and discovered that he was bleeding, prompting him to flee and run towards the waiting taxi at the gasoline station. He told the driver to go, but the taxi could not leave because there were vehicles blocking the way. Benito suddenly appeared, poked his gun at Maranion, boarded the taxi, and told them to follow instructions. The taxi proceeded to Crossing, where Benito instructed Maranion to get another taxi so they could go to a hospital to have his wound treated. Boarding another taxi, they proceeded to Rotonda, Pasig, where they alighted at a nearby gas station, only to find out that Benito would not allow him to go to a hospital for fear of being investigated, at the same time warning Maranion not to report to the police what happened, lest he would be killed. Maranion just went home.

Accused Arsenio Ragudo, for the most part, corroborated Maranion’s testimony. He declared that while waiting for Maranion and Benito, which took a long time, he decided to look for a barangay or police officer to accompany him in looking for the two, as the reading in his taxi meter had already registered a big amount of P20.00. He heard successive gunshots coming from the direction of the place where Maranion and Benito proceeded. Maranion went back to the taxi bleeding and asked him to rush to a hospital, but they were not able to leave immediately because people were blocking the way. When Benito came back, he poked his gun at Maranion and instructed that they proceed to Pasig. After unloading the two at Rotonda, Pasig and without being paid a single centavo, Ragudo went to his operator and asked the latter to accompany him to the police station to report the incident.

The trial court found that Maranion and Benito were together before, during, and after the commission of the crime; that Maranion closed the door of the store immediately after Benito announced the hold-up and remained at the store counter during the robbery; that he fled with Benito in Ragudo’s taxi; and that he did not report the incident to the authorities for thirteen days until Benito visited him again. The trial court also found that Maranion’s claim that he was merely asked to assist in arresting a drug pusher was negated by his own testimony.

• Conspiracy Not Established: Appellant contended that the prosecution evidence establishing conspiracy was insufficient and did not warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Lack of Knowledge and Participation: Appellant claimed he had no knowledge of the plan of his co-accused Pat. Benito to commit the robbery and did not participate in the killings; he insisted that he had been misled by Benito into accompanying the latter supposedly to arrest a Chinese drug pusher.
• Surprise and Coercion: Appellant maintained that from the time he was fetched from his house by Benito until they reached Santolan, Pasig, after several hours together, he had been completely unaware of Benito’s motive and plan to commit the offense; he was taken by surprise when Benito announced the hold-up, claimed he was bleeding when he tried to help a fallen old man, and asserted that he was tricked, threatened, and coerced by Benito, who individually and solely committed the offense.

• Conspiracy: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy between appellant Maranion and Pat. Antonio Benito in the commission of the robbery and killings.
• Guilt as Principal: Whether appellant’s guilt as principal by direct participation in robbery with homicide was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Nature of the Crime: Whether the killings of William See Chi and Sotero de la Cruz should be treated as double homicide or merged in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Civil Indemnity: Whether the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the two victims should be increased to P50,000.00 for each victim.

• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by circumstantial evidence and by appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the crime; direct proof of agreement is not required.
• Guilt as Principal: Yes. As a co-conspirator, appellant is liable as principal for robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code; the act of one is the act of all, and actual participation in the killing is immaterial.
• Nature of the Crime: Robbery with homicide. The killings committed on the occasion of the robbery are merged in the special complex crime; the number of persons killed does not increase the penalty under Article 294, paragraph (1).
• Civil Indemnity: P50,000.00 for each victim. The award was increased from P30,000.00 per victim in line with the policy adopted by the Court En Banc on August 30, 1990.

• Conspiracy: The Court found conspiracy from proven facts. Maranion and Benito were together before, during, and after the commission of the crime. Although Maranion claimed he was merely asked by Benito to assist in arresting an alleged drug pusher, no showing was made that Benito gave him instructions on how the drug pusher would be arrested or other pertinent details of the arrest; law enforcement operations normally require a plan or strategy carefully delineated, especially when civilians are involved. The trial court found that the pretension of a supposed arrest was negated by Maranion’s own testimony. For being together for a considerable period before the crime, Maranion and Benito must have laid the blueprint for the execution of the robbery. Certain acts of Maranion during the progress of the robbery manifested a common evil design and objective: immediately after Benito announced the hold-up, Maranion closed the door of the store; he was still seen at the store counter during the progress of the robbery. While outside the store pretending to have his snacks, he saw to it that the coast was clear for a hold-up, and when Benito arrived announcing the hold-up, Maranion closed the door presumably to prevent those inside from shouting for help and those outside from witnessing the hold-up, thus enhancing the successful execution of the scheme. Maranion had the opportunity to break away from Benito if he did not know what was to happen: he was free when Benito was busy herding the housemaids and Mrs. See Chi into a room; he could have run away when William See Chi hit Benito with his crutches; he could have gone home or to the nearest police precinct when he ran away from the scene. He did not. Instead, he was seen together with Benito heading towards a taxi driven by Ragudo, which started its engine and fled. For thirteen days, before Benito paid him another visit, Maranion did not report the incident to the authorities. His conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime did not sit well with his posture of innocence and disclosed a common understanding with Benito. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential; it is sufficient that the conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy has been established. The very existence of conspiracy is a matter of inference, as a rule, deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose common between them. The existence of the agreement, or joint assent of the minds, need not be proved directly. No conclusion could be drawn from Maranion’s acts except that, from his conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime, he was a confederate in the commission of the crime of robbery and at the very least approved of Benito’s act of firing upon the victims to forestall any opposition to the successful execution of the offense.
• Guilt as Principal: A person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where between them there has been conspiracy or unity and intention in the commission of the offense charged. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment that not all the accused took part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime; each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Maranion never fired a gun, he would still be principally liable as a co-conspirator in the killing of William See Chi and Sotero de la Cruz, for while only Benito might have inflicted the fatal blows or wounds, Maranion must be held liable for the killings under the principle that the act of a conspirator is the act of all co-conspirators. The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy. The evidence on record is bereft of any showing that Maranion tried to prevent the killing of the victims; what is shown instead is that he merely stood watching and doing nothing when Benito shot the victims on the occasion of the robbery.
• Nature of the Crime: The crime committed is robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. Where the killing of the victims is directly linked to the robbery and unquestionably happened during and on the occasion of the robbery, the crime committed is robbery with homicide. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into consideration. All those who took part in the commission of the robbery as principals are also adjudged as principals in the special complex crime of robo con homicidio, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that any or some of them endeavored to prevent the homicide. It is the nature of the crime of robbery with homicide that the homicides, irrespective of their number, committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery, are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. It is error to treat the deaths of the victims as double or multiple homicide, for in this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Civil Indemnity: The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the two victims. The amount of civil indemnity awarded was increased to P50,000.00 for each of the two victims, William See Chi and Sotero de la Cruz, in line with the policy adopted by the Court En Banc on August 30, 1990.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. It need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential; it is sufficient that the conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. The very existence of conspiracy is a matter of inference, as a rule, deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose common between them. The existence of the agreement, or joint assent of the minds, need not be proved directly. In this case, conspiracy was inferred from Maranion’s conduct before, during, and after the robbery, including closing the store door after the hold-up was announced, remaining at the counter, fleeing with Benito, and failing to report the incident for thirteen days.
• Act of One Is the Act of All in Conspiracy — When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment that not all the accused took part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime; each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance of the conspiracy. The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy. Thus, even assuming Maranion never fired a gun, he remained principally liable as a co-conspirator for the killings.
• Robbery with Homicide as a Special Complex Crime — Robbery with homicide is defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. Where the killing of the victims is directly linked to the robbery and unquestionably happened during and on the occasion of the robbery, the crime committed is robbery with homicide. All those who took part in the commission of the robbery as principals are also adjudged as principals in the special complex crime of robo con homicidio, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that any or some of them endeavored to prevent the homicide. The homicides, irrespective of their number, committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery, are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide; the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Civil Indemnity for Homicide Victims — The civil indemnity for each victim of homicide was increased to P50,000.00 in line with the policy adopted by the Court En Banc on August 30, 1990. In this case, the award of P30,000.00 for each of the two victims was increased to P50,000.00 for each.

• "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively" — This passage states the Court’s canonical definition of conspiracy, which anchors the finding that Maranion and Benito acted with a common criminal design.
• "The very existence of conspiracy is a matter of inference, as a rule, deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose common between them." — This passage explains why conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence and supports the inference drawn from Maranion’s acts before, during, and after the robbery.
• "For indeed, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as principals." — This is the ratio for holding Maranion liable as a principal despite the absence of proof that he fired the fatal shots.
• "Finally, it must be stressed at this juncture that it is the nature of the crime of robbery with homicide that the homicides, irrespective of their number, committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery, are merged in the composite crime of "robbery with homicide"." — This passage clarifies that the killing of two victims does not make the offense double homicide and does not increase the penalty under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

• People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 84714, October 5, 1990 — Cited to support the rule that an accused’s conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime discloses a common understanding with his co-accused.
• People vs. Laguardia, 148 SCRA 133 (1987) and People vs. Ancheta, 148 SCRA 178 (1987) — Cited for the definition of conspiracy as an agreement to commit a felony and a decision to commit it.
• People vs. Abueg, 145 SCRA 622 (1986) — Cited for the rule that previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential to establish conspiracy.
• People vs. Taaca, 178 SCRA 56 (1989) — Cited for the rule that the conditions attending the commission of the crime and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose.
• People vs. Saavedra, 149 SCRA 623 (1987) and Ramos vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58876, November 27, 1990 — Cited for the rule that the existence of the agreement, or joint assent of the minds, need not be proved directly.
• People vs. Talla, 181 SCRA 133 (1990) — Cited for the rule that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where there has been conspiracy or unity of intention in the commission of the offense charged.
• People vs. Obando, 182 SCRA 95 (1990) and People vs. Quinones, 183 SCRA 747 (1990) — Cited for the rule that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and each conspirator is responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• People vs. Cantuba, 183 SCRA 289 (1990) and People vs. Cantre, 186 SCRA 76 (1990) — Cited for the rule that the degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy.
• People vs. Nabaluna, 142 SCRA 446 (1986) — Cited for the rule that where the killing is directly linked to the robbery and happens during and on the occasion of the robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Pecato, 151 SCRA 14 (1987) — Cited for the rule that all those who took part in the robbery as principals are also adjudged as principals in the special complex crime of robo con homicidio, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent it.
• People vs. Solis, G.R. Nos. 78732-33, February 14, 1990 and People vs. Quinones, 183 SCRA 747 (1990) — Cited for the rule that in robbery with homicide, the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 and People vs. Jereza, G.R. No. 86230, September 18, 1990 — Cited for the increased civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each victim in line with the policy adopted by the Court En Banc on August 30, 1990.

• Article 294, paragraph (1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide. The Court applied this provision to hold Maranion guilty as principal in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and to affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ruled that the number of homicides is immaterial and does not increase the penalty under this provision.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.