People vs. Bazar

When more than three armed malefactors commit robbery as a band, all members present at the scene are presumed to be conspirators and co-principals in any assault or homicide committed by the band during the robbery, unless the accused can demonstrate that they attempted to prevent the commission of such violence. This presumption applies even if the homicide was not part of the original conspiracy to rob, provided the violence occurred in the course of the robbery and the accused remained present without attempting to stop the assault.

• On August 21, 1974, nine persons—Ciriaco Bazar, Lito Hermoso, Toting Nazon, Salvador Humolod, Aniceto Tagbacaula, Romulo Angcap, Lopito Collantes, Marcial Rible, and Alexander Tagbacaula—attended a dance at Barrio Hinocutan, Tangub City.
• After the dance ended at approximately 2:00 AM on August 22, 1974, the group proceeded to the house of Cristituto Florida at Barrio Caniangan with the common purpose of robbing him, having heard that Florida had just sold a pig.
• Ciriaco Bazar and Lito Hermoso acted as leaders of the group, and all members agreed to divide the loot equally.
• The group was armed as follows: Ciriaco Bazar carried a hunting knife and a revolver (belonging to Lito Hermoso), Lito Hermoso carried a hunting knife, and the others were armed with stones and pieces of wood.
• Ciriaco Bazar and Lito Hermoso entered the area under Florida's house and pulled a sow with four piglets to a spot approximately 40 meters away where their companions stood waiting.
• The squealing of the pig roused the household, prompting Cristituto Florida to come down from his house, followed by his 20-year-old son Modesto Florida.
• Upon seeing that his father was surrounded by several armed men, Modesto turned back and hid behind bushes to observe.
• Ciriaco Bazar pointed his revolver at Cristituto and announced: "Noy, it is not your life that we are interested, it is your money." Lito Hermoso added: "This is robbery, do not shout."
• Toting Nazon held Cristituto's left hand while Lito Hermoso held his right hand, but Cristituto managed to free his left hand and stabbed Hermoso on the breast with his scythe.
• Aniceto Tagbacaula struck Cristituto on the left leg with a piece of wood. Toting Nazon stabbed Cristituto twice with a hunting knife, and Lito Hermoso stabbed him five times with his knife.
• Lopito Collantes and Alexander Tagbacaula squeezed the back of Cristituto's neck to strangle him.
• While the assault was occurring, Romulo Angcap and Marcial Rible held the squealing pig by its tether.
• Cristituto Florida fell to the ground dead, having sustained eleven injuries including five stab wounds, four incise wounds, one contusion, and one abrasion.
• Modesto Florida and his mother Honorata Florida reported the incident to the police, identifying the nine perpetrators. Various accused were arrested at different times and locations, while Toting Nazon was never apprehended.

• The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty based on the "unbelievable, concocted and fabricated" testimonies of state witness Salvador Humolod and Modesto Florida, son of the deceased, specifically alleging that their testimonies contradicted each other regarding the distance of Humolod from the house when the killing occurred (Humolod claimed 8 meters while Modesto claimed 37 meters).
• The trial court erred in finding that the accused conspired to commit the crime, contending that the uncorroborated testimony of Salvador Humolod was insufficient to prove conspiracy.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Salvador Humolod and Modesto Florida despite alleged contradictions regarding distances.
  • Whether conspiracy existed among the accused to commit the crime of robbery with homicide, specifically whether the appellants were liable for the homicide committed by their co-conspirators during the attempted robbery.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The alleged contradiction between Humolod's testimony (that he was 8 meters from the house when he threw stones) and Modesto's testimony (that Humolod was 37 meters from the house when the attack occurred) is more apparent than real. Humolod testified regarding his distance from the killing spot (9 meters) while Modesto spoke of Humolod's distance from the house. These different reference points explain the discrepancy. Complete uniformity in details would suggest fabrication, whereas slight contradictions strengthen the sincerity and spontaneity of testimony.
  • Conspiracy to commit robbery was sufficiently proven by the testimony of Salvador Humolod, who testified that the group agreed to rob Cristituto Florida because he had sold a pig that day, that Ciriaco Bazar and Lito Hermoso were the leaders, and that they agreed to divide the loot equally among themselves.
  • While there was no evidence of a prior conspiracy to kill the victim, Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code governs the liability of members of a band. When robbery is committed by a band (more than three armed malefactors), all members present are presumed to be co-principals in any assaults committed by the band unless they prove they attempted to prevent the assault.
  • The appellants, Marcial Rible and Aniceto Tagbacaula, were present during the commission of the robbery and the homicide. Rible and Angcap held the pig during the killing, while Tagbacaula struck the victim's leg with wood. There was no evidence showing that either appellant attempted to prevent the killing of Cristituto Florida.
  • Consequently, both appellants are equally guilty of the complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide under the principle that when robbery is committed by a band, all participants are principals in the resulting violence unless they actively endeavor to prevent it.

• Conspiracy by a Band (Article 296, RPC) — When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by a band. Any member of the band who is present at the commission of the robbery shall be punished as principal of any assaults committed by the band unless it is shown that he attempted to prevent the same. This doctrine creates a legal presumption of conspiracy regarding violence occurring during the robbery, shifting the burden to the accused to prove they attempted to prevent the assault.
• Conspiracy vs. Mere Community of Purpose — Conspiracy exists when the acts committed by the accused, taken collectively, result from concerted and associated action. Although each circumstance considered separately might not show confederation, when linked together, apparently isolated acts may reveal a common object and purpose. This distinguishes mere presence from active conspiracy.
• Admissibility of a Conspirator's Testimony — The rule requiring independent evidence of conspiracy before admitting a conspirator's extrajudicial statements applies only to admissions in extrajudicial confessions or declarations, not to testimony given directly in court where defendants have the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Once conspiracy is established, the acts of one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy bind all others.

• "There is conspiracy when the acts committed by the accused taken collectively, result from concerted and associated action, although if each circumstance is considered separately, it might not show confederation, but when linked together, the circumstances that in themselves are inconclusive, may when taken as a whole, show apparently isolated acts springing from a common object and have in view the promotion of a common purpose."
• "Since the robbery was committed by a band, all the members of the band are presumed to be conspirators or co-principals also in the assaults committed by the band unless he who claims to be a non-conspirator proves that he attempted to prevent the assault."
• "When the commission of the crime of robo con homicidio (Robbery with homicide) has been proven, all those who take part as principals in the commission of the robbery are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent the commission of the homicide."
• "The rule that the statement of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy is not admissible in evidence unless the conspiracy is first shown by other independent evidence, applies only to an admission in an extrajudicial confession or declaration but not to testimony given directly in court where the defendants have the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant."

• People v. Egas, 137 SCRA 188 — Cited for the principle that slight contradictions in witness testimonies strengthen rather than weaken their credibility, as complete uniformity suggests fabrication.
• People v. Manalo, 135 SCRA 84 — Cited to support the view that minor inconsistencies in testimony indicate spontaneity and sincerity.
• People v. Villamil, 135 SCRA 610 — Cited for the proposition that contradictions in details do not necessarily impair the overall credibility of witnesses.
• People v. Canoy, 137 SCRA 365 — Cited to bolster the rule that perfect consistency in testimony is often a mark of untruthfulness.
• People v. Pacabes, 137 SCRA 158 — Cited for the standard that slight variations in witness accounts enhance rather than diminish their reliability.
• U.S. v. Macaladlad, et al., 9 Phil. 1 — Cited as early authority establishing that all participants in robbery are guilty of resulting homicide unless they endeavor to prevent it.
• People v. Patricio, 79 Phil. 227 — Cited for the rule that principals in robbery are liable for complex crime of robbery with homicide unless they actively prevent the killing.
• People v. Carunungan, 109 Phil. 534 — Cited to reinforce the principle that robbery participants are presumed liable for resulting violence.
• People v. Nierra, 95 SCRA 1 — Cited for the distinction between extrajudicial admissions of conspirators and their testimony in open court regarding conspiracy.
• People v. Serrano, 105 Phil. 531 — Cited to support the admissibility of in-court testimony of co-conspirators without prior independent proof of conspiracy.
• People v. Dacanay, 92 Phil. 872 — Cited for the evidentiary rule that direct testimony of conspirators in court is admissible to prove conspiracy despite the hearsay rule's limitation on extrajudicial admissions.

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code (Conspiracy and Proposal to commit felony) — Provides the general definition of conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony and a decision to commit it. This article establishes the foundational concept of criminal conspiracy that the court applied in finding the existence of a common design to rob, which formed the basis for liability under Article 296.
• Article 296, Revised Penal Code (Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof) — Defines robbery by a band and creates the presumption that all members present are principals in any assaults committed during the robbery unless they attempted to prevent the violence. This was the primary statutory basis for holding the appellants liable for the homicide committed by their co-conspirators.
• Article 294, Revised Penal Code (Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons) — Cited in the information as the statutory provision defining the crime of robbery with violence, though the conviction was for the attempted stage thereof.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder) — Cited in the information regarding the killing of Cristituto Florida, though the resulting conviction was for homicide as an element of the complex crime under Article 296.

• Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ. — Concurred in the decision without writing separate opinions.