People vs. Barut

In robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the homicide need not be committed as a means of executing the robbery nor be directed at the person robbed; it suffices that the killing occurs "by reason or on the occasion" of the robbery, including where the victim is an innocent bystander killed in a confrontation spawned by the robbery.

The accused — Herminio Barut, Alejo Ramiscal, Ernesto Quebral, Juan Agustin, and Castor Acson — were all residents of Barrio Masigun, Roxas, Isabela, and close friends. The robbery victim, Francisco Lazaro, was an octogenarian living in a hut or camarin at Sitio Basilio, Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. The case was investigated by the Philippine Constabulary, whose investigator filed the criminal complaint in the municipal court of Roxas.

On June 15, 1969, shortly after sundown, Marcelino Grospe was pasturing his carabao on his farm at Sitio Basilio, Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela, when he saw Herminio Barut, Alejo Ramiscal, Ernesto Quebral, Juan Agustin, and Castor Acson — all persons known to him — heading toward the hut of Francisco Lazaro, an octogenarian. Acson was armed with a carbine. Sensing the group had evil intentions, Grospe rode his carabao across the Siffu River and alerted his neighbors that Lazaro was in trouble.

Acson held up Lazaro at gunpoint and took P23 from him. Acson's companions went up the hut, ransacked it, and took carpentry tools worth P100 and parts of a carbine. Grospe and his neighbors — Lorenzo Soriano, Saturnino Sales, Maxims Saludares, Alejandro Tuvera, and Evaristo Tuvera — armed with guns and bolos, formed a rescue party and proceeded to the vicinity of Lazaro's hut, deploying behind banana plants. A brief exchange of fire ensued between the two groups. Acson was killed, while in Grospe's group Evaristo Tuvera was the lone fatality. The malefactors fled the scene; Alejandro Tuvera saw them running away. Evaristo sustained an entrance gunshot wound in the chest; the bullet penetrated his heart and right lung and exited at the right scapular region. The articles taken from Lazaro were recovered near the scene of the robbery after the accused had fled and were presented as evidence.

The incident was investigated by the Constabulary. Affidavits of Grospe, Lazaro, Alejandro Tuvera, and Soriano were sworn to before the municipal judge of Roxas on June 23, 1969. A complaint for robbery in band with homicide was filed on July 7, 1969. Warrants of arrest were served on the accused only years later — on Barut on December 30, 1972, on Quebral on August 27, 1973, and on Ramiscal on December 31, 1973. The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance on January 9, 1974, and the fiscal filed an information for robbery in band with homicide on February 10, 1974.

At trial, the accused interposed alibis. Barut claimed he was in Barrio Malbog, Tagkawayan, Quezon Province, working on a farm owned by his uncle; Quebral claimed he was at Barrio Baua, Gonzaga, Cagayan; and Ramiscal claimed he was at Barrio Salindingan, Ilagan, Isabela. Each claimed to have stayed in those places for four years. The trial court found the alibis unworthy of credence and convicted the three accused of robbery with homicide, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay solidarily the heirs of Evaristo Tuvera P12,000. Agustin remained at large in Mindoro.

• Sufficiency of the Decision: Appellants contended that the trial court's decision did not state the ultimate facts on which the judgment of conviction was based.
• Authority to Investigate: Appellants argued that the case should have been investigated by the police and not by Constabulary soldiers.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellants raised assignments of error dealing with the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence.
• Alibi: Appellants maintained that they were in different locations — Barut in Tagkawayan, Quezon; Quebral in Gonzaga, Cagayan; and Ramiscal in Ilagan, Isabela — at the time of the incident, and had stayed in those places for four years.

• Sufficiency of the Judgment: Whether the trial court's decision sufficiently stated the ultimate facts on which the conviction was based.
• Authority to Investigate: Whether the Constabulary was competent to investigate the crime and file the criminal complaint.
• Credibility and Discrepancies: Whether the prosecution witnesses' testimony was credible and the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence warranted acquittal.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: Whether the appellants' alibis could overcome the positive identification by the prosecution eyewitness.
• Robbery with Homicide: Whether the killing of Evaristo Tuvera was committed "by reason or on the occasion" of the robbery so as to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Band as Aggravating Circumstance: Whether band should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

• Sufficiency of the Judgment: Yes. The trial court's decision conformed with the requirement under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court and the constitutional provisions that a judgment must contain a statement of the facts proven or admitted.
• Authority to Investigate: No merit. The term "peace officer" in Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court includes members of the Constabulary, who are directly charged with the preservation of peace, law, and order.
• Credibility and Discrepancies: No merit. The arguments on discrepancies were fully answered, and the prosecution witness Marcelino Grospe positively identified the appellants, being acquainted with them and having no motive to fabricate evidence.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: No. The uncorroborated alibis had no exculpatory value and could not destroy the positive identification made by Grospe.
• Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The killing of Evaristo Tuvera, though perpetrated after the consummation of the robbery and during a confrontation with a rescue party, was integrated with the robbery as having been committed "by reason or on the occasion" thereof under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Band as Aggravating Circumstance: No. Band was not aggravating because it was not proven that four of the five malefactors were armed.

• Sufficiency of the Judgment: The trial court meticulously summarized the evidence of both the prosecution and the defense, synthesized its findings, concisely narrated how the robbery with homicide was perpetrated, and stated its conclusion that the crime was not committed by a band. This satisfied the requirement under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court and the corresponding provisions of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions that a judgment must contain a distinct statement of the facts proven or admitted.

• Authority to Investigate: The term "peace officer" in Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which enumerates persons competent to file a criminal complaint, includes members of the Constabulary. They are directly charged with the preservation of peace, law, and order, and it is their duty to investigate crimes and bring criminal offenders to justice, as provided in Sections 825, 826, 831, and 848 of the Revised Administrative Code. The argument that only police should have investigated was baseless.

• Credibility and Discrepancies: The assignments of error on credibility did not merit serious consideration. The arguments regarding discrepancies were fully answered in the prosecution's brief. The key eyewitness, Marcelino Grospe, was acquainted with the appellants and had no motive for fabricating evidence against them, rendering his positive identification reliable.

• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: The three appellants are admittedly close friends and, together with Acson and Agustin, were all residents of Barrio Masigun, Roxas. The probability is that immediately after the incident they fled and stayed for more than three years in their claimed locations as fugitives from justice to avoid arrest and prosecution, then utilized their stay as the basis for alibis. As repeatedly observed, alibis cannot destroy positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The alibis were uncorroborated and thus had no exculpatory value.

• Robbery with Homicide: Although the killing of Evaristo Tuvera was perpetrated after the consummation of the robbery and after the robbers had left the victim's house, the homicide is still integrated with the robbery. Under the controlling Spanish version of Article 294, robbery with homicide exists "cuando con motivo o con ocassion del robo resultare homicidio." It is not required that the homicide be committed as a means of executing the robbery, nor that the culprit have intent to kill; the crime exists even when the death occurs by mere accident, provided it is produced "by reason or on the occasion" of the robbery, and it is indifferent whether the death is anterior, contemporaneous, or posterior to the robbery. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery also be the victim of the homicide. Here, the robbery spawned a fight between the robbers and the neighbors of Lazaro, and the killing of Evaristo Tuvera resulted from that fight, establishing the requisite connection.

• Band as Aggravating Circumstance: The three appellants, together with Agustin and Acson, were co-conspirators and are all responsible for the homicide. There being no modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was in conformity with Articles 63(2) and 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Band was not aggravating because it was not proven that four of the five malefactors were armed.

• Robbery with Homicide (Robo con Homicidio) — Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide exists when, by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, homicide results. The homicide need not be committed as a means of executing the robbery, nor must the culprit have intent to kill. The crime exists even when the death occurs by mere accident, provided it is produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is indifferent whether the death is anterior, contemporaneous, or posterior to the robbery. The victim of the homicide need not be the person robbed; even an innocent bystander killed on the occasion of the robbery suffices. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the killing of Evaristo Tuvera — a member of a rescue party, not the robbery victim — during a gunfight spawned by the robbery was sufficiently connected to constitute robbery with homicide.

• Alibi Cannot Overcome Positive Identification — An uncorroborated alibi has no exculpatory value when there is positive identification by a credible witness who is acquainted with the accused and has no motive to fabricate evidence. The Court found that the appellants likely fled after the incident and used their places of refuge as the basis for alibis, which could not prevail over Grospe's positive identification.

• Constabulary as Peace Officers — Members of the Philippine Constabulary are "peace officers" within the meaning of Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court and are competent to file criminal complaints and investigate crimes, being directly charged with the preservation of peace, law, and order under the Revised Administrative Code.

• "Although the killing of Evaristo Tuvera was perpetrated after the consummation of the robbery and after the robbers had left the victim's house, the homicide is still integrated with the robbery or is regarded as having been committed 'by reason or on the occasion' thereof, as contemplated in article 294(i) of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the element of connection between the robbery and the homicide, establishing that temporal sequence does not sever the link.

• "There is robo con homicidio even if the victim killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be also the victim of the homicide." — This defines the scope of Article 294(1), clarifying that the identity of the homicide victim is immaterial so long as the killing occurs by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.

• "As has been repeatedly observed in cases of similar nature, appellants' alibis cannot destroy the positive Identification made by the prosecution witness, Marcelino Grospe, who is acquainted with the appellants and who had no motive for fabricating evidence against them." — This states the standard for weighing alibi against positive identification, a recurring doctrinal formulation in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• People vs. Disimban, 88 Phil. 120 — Cited as authority for the proposition that robbery with homicide exists even if the victim killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed.
• People vs. Salamuddin No. 1, 52 Phil. 670 — Cited for the same proposition regarding the identity of the homicide victim in robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Gardon, 104 Phil. 371 — Cited for the same proposition that the law does not require the victim of the robbery to also be the victim of the homicide.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Applied to convict the appellants, the killing of Evaristo Tuvera being committed on the occasion of the robbery.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of indivisible penalties; applied to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua in the absence of modifying circumstances.
• Section 2, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Requires that a judgment contain a distinct statement of the facts proven or admitted; the trial court's decision was found to conform with this requirement.
• Section 2, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Enumerates persons competent to file criminal complaints, including "peace officers"; construed to include Constabulary members.
• Sections 825, 826, 831, and 848, Revised Administrative Code — Cited in support of the Constabulary's duty to investigate crimes and bring offenders to justice as peace officers.
• Section 12, Article VIII, 1935 Constitution; Section 9, Article X, 1973 Constitution — Constitutional provisions requiring that judgments state the facts proven or admitted; cited to confirm the trial court's compliance.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, and Abad Santos, JJ., concurred.