People vs. Bazar

Where robbery is committed by a band (more than three armed malefactors), all members of the band who are present at the scene are presumed to be co-principals in any assault or homicide committed by the band, unless the accused proves that he attempted to prevent the assault.

N/A (Case arose from a specific robbery attempt on a rural pig seller in Tangub City, Misamis Occidental).

• Filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Occidental (now RTC)
• CFI Decision: Convicted all six accused of Attempted Robbery with Homicide; sentenced each to reclusion perpetua and joint indemnity of P12,000
• Appeal to SC: During pendency, accused Ciriaco Bazar, Alexander Tagbacaula, Romulo Angcap, and Lopito Collantes withdrew their appeals
• Remaining Appellants: Marcial Rible and Aniceto Tagbacaula prosecuted the appeal to the SC

• On August 22, 1974, nine men (including the six accused) attended a dance in Barrio Hinocutan, Tangub City
• Group agreed to rob Cristituto Florida, having heard he sold a pig that day; leaders identified as Ciriaco Bazar and Lito Hermoso
• Group armed with hunting knives, a revolver, stones, and pieces of wood proceeded to victim's house in Barrio Caniangan
• Bazar and Hermoso pulled a sow with four piglets from under the house, causing it to squeal
• Victim Cristituto Florida and his son Modesto came down; Modesto hid upon seeing armed men surrounding his father
• Bazar pointed a revolver at the victim, announcing: "Noy, it is not your life that we are interested, it is your money"
• Hermoso held the victim's right hand; Toting Nazon held the left hand
• Victim freed his left hand and stabbed Hermoso with a scythe
• Aniceto Tagbacaula struck the victim's left leg with a piece of wood
• Hermoso stabbed the victim five times; Nazon stabbed twice; Lopito Collantes and Alexander Tagbacaula squeezed the victim's neck
• Romulo Angcap and Marcial Rible stood by, holding the pig by its tether during the assault
• Victim died from eleven injuries (five stab wounds, four incise wounds, one contusion, one abrasion)
• Accused arrested; four withdrew appeals during SC proceedings

• The trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of state witness Salvador Humolod and Modesto Florida, claiming they were "unbelievable, concocted and fabricated" due to contradictions regarding distances (Humolod claimed 8 meters from house; Modesto claimed Humolod was 37 meters away)
• The trial court erred in finding conspiracy existed among the accused, arguing Humolod's testimony was uncorroborated and insufficient to prove conspiracy

• (As analyzed by the SC) The alleged contradictions were illusory; the witnesses referred to different distance measurements (from the house vs. from the attack site)
• Conspiracy to rob was established by direct testimony showing agreement to commit the robbery and divide the loot
• Under Article 296, RPC, all members of a robbery band are liable for homicide committed during the robbery unless they prove they attempted to prevent it

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in crediting the prosecution witnesses' testimonies despite alleged contradictions in distance estimates
  • Whether there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy among the accused
  • Whether the appellants are criminally liable for the homicide of Cristituto Florida despite not personally stabbing the victim

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • No error in crediting witness testimonies. The SC found no material inconsistency; Humolod testified regarding his distance from the attack site (9 meters), while Modesto referred to Humolod's distance from the house (37 meters). Complete uniformity would suggest rehearsed fabrication.
  • Conspiracy to rob was proven. Salvador Humolod's testimony established a common design to rob the victim and an agreement to divide the proceeds equally among the nine participants.
  • Appellants are liable for the homicide. The robbery was committed by a band (nine armed malefactors). Under Article 296, RPC, all members present are presumed co-principals in any assault committed by the band unless they prove they attempted to prevent the assault. Appellants Rible and Tagbacaula offered no evidence of attempting to prevent the killing; Rible held the pig, and Tagbacaula struck the victim's leg. Thus, they are equally guilty of the complex crime.

• Conspiracy (Concerted Action) — Defined as collective acts resulting from associated action where individually inconclusive circumstances, when linked, reveal a common criminal object. The SC cited Wharton's Criminal Evidence: circumstances that are "inconclusive" when separate may show "apparently isolated acts springing from a common object" when viewed collectively.
• Robbery by a Band (Article 296, RPC) —
• Definition: Robbery committed by more than three armed malefactors
• Presumption of Liability: Creates a conclusive presumption that all members present are co-principals in any assault committed by the band
• Exception/Requisites for Exemption: An accused must prove: (1) he was a member of the band; (2) he was present at the robbery; and (3) he attempted to prevent the assault. Absent proof of the third element, all are principals in any resulting homicide.
• Robbery with Homicide (Complex Crime) — When a band commits robbery and homicide ensues, all participants are guilty of the complex crime unless they specifically endeavored to prevent the killing (citing U.S. v. Macaladlad).

• "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 no 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."

• People v. Egas, Manalo, Villamil, Canoy, Pacabes — Cited for the rule that slight contradictions in witness testimony strengthen credibility by indicating spontaneity and lack of fabrication
• People v. Nierra, Serrano, Dacanay — Cited to distinguish between extrajudicial confessions of conspirators (which require independent proof of conspiracy first) and testimony given in open court subject to cross-examination, which is admissible to prove conspiracy without corroboration
• U.S. v. Macaladlad; People v. Patricio; People v. Carunungan — Cited for the principle that all principals in a robbery are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide committed by the band unless they prove they attempted to prevent the homicide

• Article 296, Revised Penal Code — Definition of robbery by a band; penalty; and presumption of liability for assaults committed by the band unless the accused attempted to prevent the same (as amended by Republic Act No. 12 regarding unlicensed firearms)
• Articles 294 and 248, Revised Penal Code — Cited in the information for Robbery with Homicide and Murder

N/A (Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred without separate opinions)