People vs. Arizobal

In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, treachery cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the offense is primarily classified as a crime against property. Furthermore, the aggravating circumstance of band requires proof that more than three armed malefactors acted together, and nighttime requires a showing that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the crime.

On March 24, 1994, armed men entered the houses of Laurencio Gimenez and his son Jimmy Gimenez in Tuybo, Cataingan, Masbate. The intruders ransacked the homes, stole cash, bound the victims, and led Laurencio and Jimmy away. Shortly after, gunshots were heard, and both victims were found dead from multiple gunshot wounds.

• The Intrusion: Clementina Gimenez testified that three armed men entered their house; she recognized Arizobal and Lignes, while the third wore a mask. Arizobal and Lignes ransacked the cabinet and stole P8,000.
• The Abduction and Killing: The intruders ordered Laurencio to accompany them to Jimmy's house. Erlinda Gimenez testified that five men entered their home, tied Jimmy and Francisco, stole P1,000, and demanded P100,000. Three masked men dragged Jimmy and Laurencio outside, after which gunshots rang out. Both victims died from gunshot wounds.
• The Defense: Lignes interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a neighbor's house blessing serving as a cook. His witness corroborated this, testifying that the blessing was 1.5 hours away by foot from the crime scene.
• Trial Court Findings: The trial court rejected Lignes's alibi, gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses' positive identification, and found both accused guilty. It appreciated the aggravating circumstances of band, treachery, nighttime, and dwelling.

• The People maintained that the positive identification by prosecution witnesses established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution argued that the accused acted in conspiracy, making them collectively liable for the killings even if they did not personally shoot the victims.

• Lignes argued that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent and conflicting testimonies regarding the number of times he was seen at the flea market, the number of masked robbers, and the identification of the actual killers.
• Lignes asserted the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a house blessing at the time of the incident and that he was not identified by Erlinda Gimenez as a suspect.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses despite alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies.
  • Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, band, nighttime, and dwelling were properly appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies pertained to minor details and did not impair their credibility. The positive identification of the accused as perpetrators prevailed over the defense of alibi, which is inherently weak and crumbles without proof of physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene.
  • The Court ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide because the crime is primarily against property, not persons.
  • The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of band was not proven because the prosecution established that only three of the five perpetrators were armed; the law requires that more than three armed malefactors act together.
  • The Court ruled that nighttime was not properly appreciated because the crime scenes were illuminated by kerosene lamps and moonlight, and there was no evidence the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness.
  • The Court ruled that dwelling was correctly appreciated because robbery with homicide can be committed without transgressing the victim's domicile, and the offenders demonstrated disregard for the inviolability of the victims' abodes.

• Treachery in Robbery with Homicide — Treachery cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide because the special complex crime is primarily classified as a crime against property, with homicide being merely incidental. The Court applied this to reverse the trial court's appreciation of treachery.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Band — Band requires that more than three armed malefactors act together in the commission of the robbery. The Court held this was not present because the evidence showed only three of the five perpetrators were armed.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Nighttime (Nocturnidad) — Nighttime is not aggravating merely because the crime occurred at night. It must be shown that the offenders deliberately sought or took advantage of the darkness to commit the offense. The Court held this was absent because the locus criminis was well-lit.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling — Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without violating the sanctity of the victim's domicile. The Court applied this to uphold the trial court's finding because the offenders forced their way into the victims' homes.
• Delito Continuado — A continuous crime arises from a single criminal impulse and intent, producing a unity of purpose and of right violated. The Court applied this to hold that the ransacking of two houses and the killing of two victims constituted a single count of robbery with homicide.

• "This special complex crime is primarily classified in this jurisdiction as a crime against property, and not against persons, homicide being merely an incident of robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals. As such, treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code."
• "robbery in 'band' means 'more than three armed malefactors united in the commission of robbery.' Nowhere in the records can we gather that more than three (3) of the robbers were armed."
• "To be properly so considered, it must be shown that nocturnidad was deliberately and intentionally sought by accused-appellants to help them realize their evil intentions."

• People v. Bariquit — Followed. Established the doctrine that treachery cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.
• People v. Pareja — Followed. Held that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without transgressing the victim's domicile.
• People v. Pallarco — Followed. Clarified that nighttime is not aggravating if the place was adequately lighted.

• Art. 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The Court applied this to convict the accused.
• Art. 63(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance with no mitigating circumstance, the higher penalty shall be imposed. The Court applied this to impose the death penalty.
• Art. 14, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates aggravating circumstances. The Court interpreted the application of dwelling, treachery, band, and nighttime under this article.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ.