People v. Labuguen

The exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear under Article 12(6) of the Revised Penal Code cannot be availed of where the accused was an active participant in the crime, acted on his own free will, and had opportunity to escape but failed to do so.

Spouses Manuel and Nenita Padre resided with their daughters Rhoda and Rachel in Villaruz, Delfin Albano, Isabela, where they operated a store. Labuguen was the Padre family's longtime neighbor and former worker, Macalinao was one of their helpers, and Zuñiga was a longtime customer. The accused were charged together with Rodrigo Macalinao, who remained at large, and two unidentified John Doe and Peter Doe conspirators, for the robbery of P500,000.00 from the Padre family and the killing of Manuel, Nenita, and Rhoda, with serious injuries inflicted on Rachel.

On the evening of January 3, 2002, while spouses Manuel and Nenita Padre and their daughters Rhoda and Rachel were having dinner at their home in Villaruz, Delfin Albano, Isabela, five armed men suddenly barged in, one carrying a firearm and another wearing a bonnet with holes showing only the eyes. Labuguen entered first and pulled Rachel into the comfort room, together with her mother Nenita and sister Rhoda, who were respectively pulled by Macalinao and an unidentified man. Manuel was brought to the store by another unidentified man. Nenita was then taken to the Padre store while Rhoda and Rachel were left in the comfort room.

A few minutes later, Labuguen brought Rachel out of the comfort room, and she saw Zuñiga standing by the door of the store and Macalinao standing guard at the comfort room door holding a gun. Upon reaching the dining area, Labuguen stabbed Rachel with a small knife on the left breast, and Macalinao hit her on the forehead with the butt of a gun, causing her to fall. Labuguen then strangled her; unable to remove his hands from her neck, she played dead. As soon as Labuguen stood up and left with the other perpetrators, she ran to their neighbor Patricio Respicio, who, together with Kagawad Alex Rodriguez, brought her to the hospital. There she learned that her parents and sister had died that night. Dr. Gambalan treated her serious injury on the left chest and less serious wounds on the head and abrasions on the neck.

Meanwhile, after Manuel closed the store and returned to the house, Zuñiga, upon the instruction of Joel Albano, hit Manuel hard on the forehead, causing him to fall. Eric Madday, one of the five men and a former worker of Manuel Padre, boxed Nenita on the abdomen, and when Zuñiga saw the chopping knife, he stabbed her in the back. Rudy Macalinao shot Rhoda when she tried to run away. Believing all members of the Padre family were dead, the group proceeded to Albano's house, where Zuñiga learned they had obtained money from the Padre family and saw Albano give a bundle of money to Rudy Macalinao. Zuñiga left Delfin Albano on January 7, 2002 and went into hiding in Gerona, Tarlac.

Police investigators, upon learning of the incident from Kagawad Rodriguez, went to the hospital on January 4, 2002 and interviewed Rachel, who identified two of the perpetrators — Labuguen, the Padre family's longtime neighbor and former worker, and Macalinao, also one of the victims' helpers. At that time, she purposely withheld the name of Zuñiga, a longtime customer of the Padre family, hoping he would reveal his companions. She later revealed Zuñiga's identity to Fiscal Dalpig and Fiscal Torio. Labuguen was apprehended on January 4, 2002; the blood-stained jacket he wore during custodial investigation tested positive for human blood group A. Zuñiga was arrested in Gerona, Tarlac in 2006. The bodies of Manuel, Nenita, and Rhoda were recovered at the crime scene — Manuel near the store, Nenita inside the store, and Rhoda inside the house. Rachel was released from the hospital on January 12, 2002.

• Exempting Circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear: Zuñiga argued that he was compelled or forced at gunpoint by Joel Albano to join in robbing the Padre house, and that if he resisted, something bad would happen to him and his family, thus warranting the exempting circumstance of irresistible force and/or uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
• Credibility of Identification: Appellants argued that Rachel's identification of the perpetrators should not be given credence because she did not immediately disclose their identities when she sought help from their neighbor, and only revealed them upon police investigation at the hospital; considering she was suffering from a fatal wound and supposedly aware of her impending death, she should have immediately disclosed the names of her assailants.
• Absence of Conspiracy: Appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of conspiracy among the perpetrators.

• Active Participation Negating Fear: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that Zuñiga had every opportunity to escape while the group was passing through cornfields on their way to the Padre house but did not avail of it, and that he actively participated in the commission of the crime, including delivering the fatal blow to Manuel's head and stabbing Nenita in the back without any prodding or compulsion from his companions.

• Exempting Circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear: Whether Zuñiga can avail of the exempting circumstance of irresistible force and/or uncontrollable fear under Article 12(6) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Credibility of Identification: Whether Rachel's identification of the perpetrators should be given credence despite her delayed disclosure of their identities.
• Conspiracy: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among the perpetrators.
• Proper Designation of the Offense: Whether the crime should be designated as Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide or simply Robbery with Homicide.

• Exempting Circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear: No. The exempting circumstance was unavailable, Zuñiga having been an active participant who acted on his own free will and had opportunity to escape but did not, with no genuine, imminent, or reasonable threat to his life and family established.
• Credibility of Identification: Yes. Rachel's delayed disclosure was adequately explained by her distrust after the harrowing experience and her hope that Zuñiga would reveal his companions, rendering her identification credible.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established, the malefactors having acted in concert — meeting at a designated place, proceeding together to the victims' house wearing bonnets and masks while armed, and reconvening at Albano's house to divide the loot.
• Proper Designation of the Offense: The crime is properly designated as Robbery with Homicide alone. There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide; the term "homicide" in Article 294 is used in its generic sense, encompassing all acts resulting in death, with injuries short of death integrated therein.

• Exempting Circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear: To avail of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear, the evidence must establish three requisites: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. A threat of future injury is insufficient, and the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape. As found by both the RTC and the CA, the malefactors had a well-hatched plan to commit robbery with homicide, and Zuñiga was not only well-aware of every detail but actively participated in its commission. There was no genuine, imminent, or reasonable threat to his life and family. He had every opportunity to escape while passing through the cornfields on the way to the Padre house but did not. He did not perform any overt act to dissociate himself from the conspiracy. While he refused to kill Rachel, he nonetheless delivered the fatal blow to Manuel's head and stabbed Nenita in the back using a chopping knife without any prodding or compulsion from his companions.

• Credibility of Identification: Rachel explained that she did not immediately reveal the identities of the assailants because she did not know whom to trust after the harrowing experience. She also averred that she was hoping to solicit the help of Zuñiga in divulging the names of his accomplices. These explanations sufficiently justified the delay in disclosure and did not impair the credibility of her identification.

• Conspiracy: The malefactors acted in concert to achieve their common purpose of robbing the victims. They met at the designated place, went together to the victims' house wearing bonnets and masks while armed with a gun, and after the commission of the crime, met again at Albano's house and divided the loot among themselves. These coordinated acts demonstrated a common design and purpose.

• Proper Designation of the Offense: Pursuant to People vs. Tidong, there is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. The offense should be designated as robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed. The term "homicide" in paragraph 1 of Article 294 is used in its generic sense, encompassing any act that results in death. Any other act producing injuries short of death is integrated in the "homicide" committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery, provided the homicide is consummated. All elements of Robbery with Homicide were proved: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide was committed. The death penalty would have been imposed given the presence of a band and use of an unlicensed firearm, but for the proscription in Republic Act No. 9346; accordingly, reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was correctly imposed.

• Exempting Circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear (Article 12(6), Revised Penal Code) — The exempting circumstance requires: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. A threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape. The Court applied this doctrine to reject Zuñiga's claim, finding that he was an active participant who acted on his own free will, had opportunity to escape through cornfields, and delivered fatal blows without compulsion from companions.

• Elements of Robbery with Homicide (Article 294[1], Revised Penal Code) — The prosecution must prove: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery.

• No Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide — The offense should be designated as robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed. The term "homicide" in Article 294 is used in its generic sense, encompassing any act that results in death. Injuries short of death are integrated in the "homicide" committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery, assuming the homicide is consummated. If no death supervenes, the accused is liable for separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide or murder, or for a complex crime under Article 48 if the latter offenses were necessary means for the commission of the robbery.

• "To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. A threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the elements of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear, which the Court applied to reject Zuñiga's defense.

• "Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery." — This passage defines the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide in its essential terms, establishing the relationship between the robbery and the killing required for conviction.

• "There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and double frustrated homicide. The offense should have been designated as robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Tidong, articulates the rule that all homicides and injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery are integrated into the single special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, precluding a separate designation for frustrated homicide.

• People vs. Baron, 635 Phil. 608 (2010) — Cited as the source of the elements of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear and the elements of Robbery with Homicide. Followed as controlling precedent.
• People vs. Tidong, 296-A Phil. 323 (1993) — Cited for the doctrine that there is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide, and that the offense should be designated as robbery with homicide alone. Followed as controlling precedent.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited as the basis for the modification of damages awards, including the increase of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each per victim, and the imposition of 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment. Followed as controlling precedent.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The Court applied this provision to convict the appellants, finding all four elements present: taking of personal property, intent to gain, violence against persons, and homicide committed on occasion of the robbery.
• Article 12(6), Revised Penal Code — Provides the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. The Court applied this provision to reject Zuñiga's defense, finding that the requisites were not satisfied.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Governs complex crimes. The Court cited this provision in the context of People vs. Tidong to explain that if no death supervenes, the accused may be held liable for a complex crime of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide under Article 48 if the latter offenses were necessary means for the commission of the robbery.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Proscribes the imposition of the death penalty. The Court applied this provision to reduce what would otherwise have been the death penalty (given the presence of a band and use of an unlicensed firearm) to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred.