People vs. Abes

In robbery with homicide, all who take part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the special complex crime even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide; conspiracy may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the felony. The death penalty cannot be imposed where the aggravating circumstance of band was not alleged in the Information.

The appellants were long-time residents of General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite, and had previously been employed in various capacities by the GMA Water District. The victims, Antonio and Catalina Calaycay, were also residents of GMA and owned a grocery and a retail store. Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime punishable under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Antonio and Catalina Calaycay owned and operated a grocery store at the public market of GMA, Cavite, and also had a retail store at their residence at Block 3, Lot 35, Teacher’s Village, GMA, which Antonio directly managed. On Sunday, March 20, 1994, at around 7:30 p.m., the spouses were on their way home from their grocery store in the market aboard their jeep driven by Antonio.

When they reached home and were about to park, Catalina noticed Antonio Abes, Raul Ybañez, Saldo Ybañez, and Roberto Bonto standing in front of their house, while Simeon Silvano, Jr., and Ricarte Bumagat were at the corner of the street near their house. The faces of the Ybañez brothers, Bumagat, Abes, and Bonto were familiar to Catalina because they were frequent customers of their store, and she knew Silvano, Jr., because he was a former member of the GMA police force. Before the spouses could disembark, Abes and Raul Ybañez approached Catalina, while Saldo Ybañez and Bonto approached Antonio; all were carrying short firearms. Abes announced a hold-up and warned Catalina not to move, and he grabbed her bag containing the P90,000.00 sales for the day, her wallet with P1,000.00, her ATM card, a check booklet, and her driver’s license.

Catalina resisted and tried to hold on to her bag; Raul Ybañez pistol-whipped her, and Abes fired at her three times at close range but only succeeded in grazing her. Antonio tried to come to her assistance, but Saldo Ybañez stabbed him thrice and Bonto shot him three times. After Abes grabbed Catalina’s bag, he passed it to Silvano, Jr., who told his companions, “Hali kayo bilis, sunod kayo sa akin, doon tayo sa likod dadaan” (come quick, follow me, and let’s pass at the back). The incident was witnessed by prosecution witnesses Salvador Arcenal and Catalino Mutya, Jr.

Antonio was first brought by Catalina and responding neighbors to the Medicare Community Hospital in GMA, where he was pronounced dead on arrival; Catalina then brought him to De La Salle University Medical Center in Dasmariñas, Cavite, where efforts to revive him failed. The NBI autopsy showed that Antonio died of “Wounds, gunshot and stab, multiple,” and Catalina was treated for hematoma and contusions of the right shoulder. Catalina reported the incident to the NBI, and an NBI team composed of some twenty agents and operatives accompanied her to GMA, where all the appellants were apprehended.

At trial, the appellants interposed denial and alibi. Abes testified that he was at his house in Area D, Lot 2, Block 22, Barangay Malia, GMA, conversing with his neighbor Godofredo Inciong and never left; Inciong and Abes’s daughter Laarni corroborated him. Bonto declared that he was at his house at Lot 39, Block 17, Poblacion H, GMA, attending to relatives, neighbors, and friends who came for the interment of his daughter Ma. Lourdes Bonto-Egante, who died on March 14, 1994 and was buried on March 20, 1994; he presented neighbor Herminio Vival, a written statement of at least fifteen neighbors, and a barangay certification of good moral character. Bumagat testified that he was at his house in Lot 37, Block 3, Area D, GMA, with his wife and children cooking supper, corroborated by Mrs. Virginia Gabriel, a close friend who claimed she was at the Bumagat residence from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. conversing with the Bumagats. Silvano, Jr., and Saldo Ybañez testified that they attended the burial of Bonto’s daughter at the GMA cemetery on March 20, 1994, then went to the house of Reynaldo Silvano, Simeon’s brother, for Reynaldo’s birthday party, arriving around 6:40 p.m. and staying until 7:40 p.m.; they were witnessed by Zenaida Brion, David Sebastian, and Mrs. Caridad Silvano. Saldo further testified that at the time of the incident he was already home from the party, while Raul Ybañez stated that he was at the house of his neighbor Divina Inciong in Barangay Elises, GMA, watching TV with his common-law wife Josephine and their child, and later went home to sleep; Divina Inciong corroborated him. The defense also presented Susan Purihin, who testified that she saw the incident and that no one among the appellants had a hand in it; according to her, the culprits were one “Erning Taga” and his companions.

The RTC disbelieved the defense and found the prosecution’s version credible. It found that the robbery took place at very close range in front of the Calaycay store, whose immediate frontage was lighted by a fluorescent lamp, as well as by the headlights of the Calaycays’ jeep and the lights of passing vehicles, and that Catalina was thus afforded the opportunity to look fully at the faces of the persons who robbed her and fired at her and of their companions who shot and stabbed her husband. The evidence also showed the appellants’ respective distances from the crime scene: Abes’s house was about two kilometers away, Bonto’s about seven hundred meters away, Bumagat’s about four kilometers away, Silvano’s about two kilometers away or fifteen to twenty minutes by jeepney, Raul Ybañez was at a neighbor’s house in Barangay Elises, and Saldo Ybañez lived just across Silvano, Jr.; the house of Reynaldo Silvano where Silvano, Jr., and Saldo allegedly attended the birthday party was roughly one kilometer away from Silvano, Jr.’s residence.

• Identification and Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellants questioned Catalina Calaycay’s identification of the malefactors because inadequate lighting at the locus criminis made positive identification impossible or, at best, unreliable, and argued that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Bonto and Abes argued that the RTC erred in disregarding their defense; Bumagat argued that the prosecution’s evidence against him was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and the Ybañez brothers argued that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: Bumagat argued that he was not positively identified at the crime scene and therefore could not be deemed a conspirator; Raul Ybañez argued that his act of clubbing Catalina with his firearm showed only an intent to take part in the robbery, not assent to the killing of Antonio, so only the actual killers should be liable.
• Penalty — Band Not Alleged: Bonto argued that the death penalty was improper because the aggravating circumstance of band was not alleged in the Information.

• Identification: The OSG countered that Catalina clearly saw the perpetrators by the light of a fluorescent lamp in front of the Calaycay residence, that the defense failed to controvert that the jeep’s headlights were on, and that the headlights of passing vehicles added illumination, making Catalina’s identification credible.
• Penalty — Band Not Alleged: The Solicitor General agreed that aggravating circumstances not alleged in the charge sheet could not be appreciated to raise the imposable penalty to death.

• Identification and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of the appellants as the culprits and the elements of robbery with homicide to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: Whether the RTC correctly found conspiracy and held Bumagat and Raul Ybañez liable as co-conspirators in robbery with homicide.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty may be imposed on the appellants despite the aggravating circumstance of band not being alleged in the Information.
• Damages: Whether the damages awarded by the RTC should be modified.

• Identification and Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The prosecution established the elements of robbery with homicide, and Catalina’s positive identification, based on familiarity and sufficient illumination, prevailed over the appellants’ weak alibi and denial.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was proved by the appellants’ coordinated acts before, during, and after the robbery; Bumagat and Raul Ybañez were liable as co-conspirators, and the act of one was the act of all.
• Penalty: No. The death penalty could not be imposed because band was not alleged in the Information; absent an aggravating circumstance, the penalty was reclusion perpetua.
• Damages: Modified. Actual damages were reduced to P131,000.00, and temperate damages of P25,000.00 were awarded, while the other damages were sustained.

• Identification and Sufficiency of Evidence: The SC applied the elements of robbery with homicide: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide was committed. It found all elements established: the appellants took Catalina’s bag containing P90,000.00 and other valuables through force and intimidation, the property belonged to the Calaycays, the taking was with animus lucrandi, and Antonio was killed on the occasion of the robbery. On identification, Catalina knew the appellants before the incident: the Ybañez brothers, Bumagat, Abes, and Bonto were frequent customers of their store, and Silvano, Jr., was a former GMA police officer. The parties were long-time residents of the same municipality, and familiarity with faces is the best way to identify a person. The robbery occurred at close range in front of the Calaycay store, lighted by a fluorescent lamp, the headlights of the Calaycays’ jeep, and lights of passing vehicles; these were sufficient illumination. Catalina had no improper motive to falsely accuse the appellants, so her positive declarations under oath deserved full faith and credence. Positive identification, categorical and consistent and without ill motive, prevailed over the appellants’ alibi and denial. The alibis were weak because the appellants failed to prove physical impossibility of being at the crime scene: Abes’s house was two kilometers away, Bonto’s seven hundred meters away, Bumagat’s four kilometers away, Silvano’s two kilometers away or fifteen to twenty minutes by jeepney, Raul Ybañez was at a neighbor’s house in Barangay Elises, and Saldo Ybañez lived just across Silvano, Jr.; the birthday party house was roughly one kilometer from Silvano, Jr.’s residence.
• Conspiracy: The SC defined conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code as when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proved separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the offense, but because of its secrecy and concealment it need not be proved by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony showing a common purpose and design. Conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill the common unlawful design, so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were connected and cooperative. In such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all. The SC found these circumstances: Catalina saw Abes, Bonto, and the Ybañez brothers standing in front of the Calaycay store as she and Antonio arrived; Silvano, Jr., and Bumagat stood at the street corner; all six were armed with short firearms; Abes and Raul Ybañez approached Catalina’s side while Bonto and Saldo Ybañez went to Antonio’s side; Abes declared the hold-up and grabbed Catalina’s bag; when Catalina resisted, Abes fired at her and Raul Ybañez struck her with his handgun; when Antonio tried to help, Bonto shot him and Saldo Ybañez stabbed him several times; Silvano, Jr., and Bumagat acted as look-outs; and after the robbery, Silvano, Jr., told Abes to hurry and follow him, and all the appellants left together. Bumagat and Raul Ybañez were not merely present; Raul cooperated in the robbery, and Bumagat acted as a look-out and facilitated the getaway. Their flight together with the others proved conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. In robbery with homicide, all who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the special complex crime even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. No showing existed that Raul Ybañez or Bumagat tried to prevent the fatal stabbing and shooting of Antonio.
• Penalty: The SC applied Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death. Under Article 63, paragraph 2, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. The RTC imposed death, but the aggravating circumstance of band was not alleged in the Information. The SC held that aggravating circumstances not alleged in the charge sheet could not be appreciated to raise the imposable penalty to death. The Solicitor General agreed. Thus, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Damages: The SC held that civil indemnity of P50,000.00 must be awarded to the heirs of Antonio Calaycay for his death without need of further evidence or proof of damages. For actual damages, the injured party must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable, usually official or valid receipts. The RTC awarded P320,300.00, but only the P40,000.00 funeral service expense was supported by a receipt. The SC reduced actual damages to P131,000.00, consisting of P91,000.00 cash lost during the robbery and P40,000.00 for funeral services. It also awarded P25,000.00 as temperate damages because some pecuniary loss was incurred but the amount could not be proved with certainty, such as for medical services and the wake; People vs. Solamillo affirmed the P25,000.00 temperate damages computed in People vs. Abrazaldo as half the indemnity ex delicto. The SC sustained the P240,000.00 award for loss of earning capacity based on the RTC’s computation, the P50,000.00 exemplary damages to stress deterrence against the use of firearms, particularly unlicensed ones, and the award of attorney’s fees.

• Robbery with Homicide — A special complex crime primarily against property, not persons; elements are (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi; and (d) homicide is committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery. The SC applied it because the appellants took Catalina’s bag through force and intimidation and killed Antonio on the occasion of the robbery.
• Conspiracy — When two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it; it must be proved separately with the same quantum as the offense but may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the felony showing common purpose and design. The SC inferred conspiracy from the appellants’ armed positioning, coordinated attack, look-out roles, and collective flight.
• Act of One Is the Act of All — Once conspiracy is proved, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all, and each is equally guilty of the crime committed. The SC applied this to hold Bumagat and Raul Ybañez liable as co-conspirators in robbery with homicide.
• Liability of Principals in Robbery with Homicide — All who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the special complex crime even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. The SC found no showing that Raul Ybañez or Bumagat tried to prevent Antonio’s killing.
• Positive Identification and Alibi — Positive identification, categorical and consistent and without ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial; alibi must prove not only that the accused was elsewhere but also that he could not have been physically present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. The SC rejected the alibis because the appellants’ houses were within reach of the crime scene.
• Aggravating Circumstances Must Be Alleged — An aggravating circumstance not alleged in the Information cannot be appreciated to raise the imposable penalty to death. The SC reduced the death penalty because band was not alleged.
• Actual and Temperate Damages — Actual damages require competent proof and the best evidence, usually receipts; temperate damages are awarded when some pecuniary loss was incurred but the amount cannot be proved with certainty. The SC reduced actual damages and awarded temperate damages.
• Automatic Review in Death Penalty Cases — The SC’s power to review a death penalty cannot be waived by the accused or by the court, and Section 8, Rule 124 does not apply where the death penalty has been imposed. The SC proceeded to review the judgment despite counsel’s failure to file an appellant’s brief for Silvano, Jr.

• "In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons, the prosecution is tasked to establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed." — This defines the elements of robbery with homicide and anchors the conviction.
• "There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it." — This is the statutory definition of conspiracy applied to the appellants.
• "As a rule, whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence 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 the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." — This states the liability of all principals in the robbery for the resulting homicide.
• "Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lower penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed." — This supports the reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

• US vs. Laguna, 17 Phil. 533 (1910) — Controlling precedent for the rule that the SC’s power to review a death penalty cannot be waived by the accused or by the court; cited to justify proceeding despite the missing appellant’s brief.
• People vs. Esparas, 329 Phil. 339, 350 (1996) — Followed for the rule that Section 8, Rule 124 does not apply where the death penalty has been imposed.
• People vs. Rios, 389 Phil. 338, 347 (2000) — Cited for the principle that familiarity with physical features, especially the face, is the best way to identify a person.
• People vs. Arca, G.R. No. 135857, June 18, 2003 — Cited for the rule that positive declarations under oath deserve full faith and credence where there is no showing of improper motive.
• People vs. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877, August 19, 2003 — Cited for the rule that positive identification prevails over alibi and denial that are not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
• People vs. Colonia, G.R. No. 138541, June 12, 2003 — Cited for the requirement that alibi must prove physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene.
• People vs. Solamillo, G.R. No. 123161, June 18, 2003 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide and for the P25,000.00 temperate damages in a robbery with homicide case.
• People vs. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003 — Cited for the proof required for actual damages and for the computation of temperate damages at half the indemnity ex delicto.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Punishes robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death; applied to determine the base penalty for the crime.
• Article 63, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Requires the lower penalty when there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstance; applied to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy; applied to find that the appellants agreed to and decided to commit the robbery.
• Section 8, Rule 124, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Allows dismissal of an appeal for failure to file a brief; the SC noted it has no application where the death penalty has been imposed.
• Section 1, Rule 125, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides uniform procedure in the SC and CA; mentioned in relation to the non-application of Section 8, Rule 124.