People vs. Beran

All conspirators in a robbery are liable as principals for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, regardless of whether they personally participated in the killing, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent the homicide.

The case arose from a hold-up perpetrated on a Fortune Tobacco Corporation truck traveling along a zigzag road inside the Iwahig Penal Colony in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Four persons were charged: Dante Bartulay and Baltazar Beran as direct participants, Rosalio Laguardia as the alleged mastermind who supplied the motorcycle and firearms, and Raymundo Bartulay, Dante's brother, in whose house the loot was to be divided. Laguardia withdrew his appeal, rendering his life sentence final; Raymundo Bartulay was acquitted for insufficient evidence; and Dante Bartulay remained at large. Only Beran's case reached automatic review before the Supreme Court.

On September 6, 1979, at about 10:30 in the evening, Dante Bartulay and Baltazar Beran signaled to a stop a truck owned by Fortune Tobacco Corporation, then being driven by Miguel Chua on the zigzag road at Kilometer 36 inside the Iwahig Penal Colony at Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Beran approached one side of the truck and pretended to borrow a screwdriver, and while Chua looked for the tool, Bartulay shouted from the other side, "This is a hold-up!" With guns drawn, the two men ordered Chua and his three companions — Benigno Caca, Frank Morante, and Eduardo Aniar — to alight.

Bartulay forced Chua to lie face down on the ground about three meters away from his companions, pointing a gun at Chua's head. On Bartulay's orders, Beran took the wallets and watches of the four victims. When Bartulay asked about the money they were carrying, Chua pointed to its location; Beran retrieved it — amounting to about P100,000.00 — and gave it to Bartulay. Again on Bartulay's orders, Beran herded the three companions inside the truck's panel, where they were locked in. While Beran was still inside the panel with the companions, two gunshots were heard. When Beran got off the truck, he saw Chua still lying on the ground but now bleeding from the head. Beran then drove the truck from the scene while Bartulay followed on a motorcycle. Caca and Morante managed to escape by jumping from the truck through a secret exit and reported the occurrence to law-enforcement authorities, who, returning to the scene the following day, found Chua already dead.

Beran was arrested on September 8, 1979, with P4,500.00 in his possession, and upon questioning pointed to where he had hidden the pistol he had used during the hold-up. Further investigation disclosed that the motorcycle and guns used by Bartulay and Beran were owned by Rosalio Laguardia, whom Beran identified as the mastermind of the crime. The stolen money was supposed to have been divided at the house of Raymundo Bartulay, Dante's brother. Dante Bartulay could not be tried because he was at large. The trial court found Beran guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death, while Laguardia was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, and Raymundo Bartulay was acquitted for insufficient evidence. The trial court concluded that the crime was robbery with homicide and that Beran did not endeavor to prevent the killing of Chua by Bartulay, but it made no specific findings on aggravating circumstances and did not explain why Beran received death while Laguardia received only life imprisonment.

• Liability for Homicide: Beran argued that he should not be held guilty of the homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery because he was not the one who actually killed Chua.
• Impossibility of Prevention: He maintained that he was inside the panel with Chua's companions when Bartulay shot Chua and therefore could not have stopped the shooting.
• Inapplicable Precedent: He suggested that People vs. Veloso, the case cited by the lower court, was not applicable because that case involved robbery with homicide committed by a band, whereas the robbery here was perpetrated by only two persons.
• Aggravating Circumstances: He faulted the trial court for taking against him the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, and use of a motor vehicle without adequate explanation or specific findings.

• Conspiracy: The Solicitor General argued that the judgment should be affirmed because of the proven conspiracy between Beran and the actual killer Bartulay.
• Applicable Provision: The Solicitor General pointed out that while the offense was not covered by Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code (cuadrilla), it still came under Article 294(1), which may impose the death penalty when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery even without a band.

• Liability for Homicide: Whether Beran, who conspired to commit robbery but did not personally kill the victim, can be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, despoblado, and use of a motor vehicle were properly appreciated against Beran.

• Liability for Homicide: Yes. Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable for robbery with homicide when homicide results by reason or on occasion of the robbery, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent the killing — which Beran did not.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Partially. Despoblado and use of a motor vehicle were properly appreciated; nighttime, treachery, and evident premeditation were rejected for lack of evidentiary basis.

• Liability for Homicide: Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. Conspiracy was established through the concerted and coordinated acts of Beran and Bartulay: they together lay in wait for Chua's truck, together pretended to borrow a screwdriver, Bartulay held the victims at gunpoint while Beran divested them of their valuables, Beran retrieved the P100,000.00 on Bartulay's orders, locked the companions in the panel, and drove the stolen truck away while Bartulay followed on a motorcycle. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from acts done in pursuance of a common criminal purpose. Because the conspiracy to rob was conclusively shown and the killing was committed on the occasion of that robbery, Beran is liable for robbery with homicide regardless of whether he personally participated in the killing. His contention that he was inside the panel and could not have prevented the shooting is futile, as the killing was committed on the occasion of the robbery he and Bartulay jointly plotted and executed, and he made no effort to prevent it.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The trial court failed to make specific findings on aggravating circumstances, which was censurable. Nevertheless, despoblado was appreciated because the accused chose an isolated portion of the highway where they could commit the crime without disturbance or discovery and with easy opportunity for escape. Use of motor vehicles was appreciated because the conspirators drove away from the scene to facilitate escape and to prevent the passengers from reporting the offense. Nighttime was rejected because it was not especially sought — Chua's trip schedule, not the culprits' discretion, determined the time of commission. Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and was not separately proved in connection with the killing. Treachery was not established because no witness actually saw the shooting, all being inside the panel when the fatal shots were heard.

• Conspiracy Liability in Robbery with Homicide — When conspiracy to commit robbery is conclusively shown by the concurrent and coordinate acts of the accused, and homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all the accused are guilty of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent the homicide. Applied: Beran was held liable for the killing committed by Bartulay because their conspiracy to rob was established through their coordinated acts and Beran did not endeavor to prevent the homicide.
• Proof of Conspiracy by Circumstantial Evidence — Conspiracies need not be established by direct evidence of the acts charged but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purpose accomplished. The existence of the agreement or joint assent of the minds need not be proved directly; it is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain acts of the accused done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose in common between them.

• "The rule is that where the conspiracy to commit robbery was conclusively shown by the concurrent and coordinate acts of the accused, and homicide was committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all the accused are guilty of robo con homicidio whether or not they actually participated in the killing." — This is the canonical formulation of the conspiracy rule in robbery with homicide cases, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.
• "It is futile therefore for the accused-appellant to argue that he was inside the panel with the companions of Chua when the latter was killed by Bartulay and could not have stopped the shooting. The undisputed fact is that the killing was committed on the occasion of the robbery which Beran and Bartulay plotted and were carrying out together." — This passage applies the conspiracy rule to the facts, rejecting the defense of physical impossibility to prevent the killing as immaterial where the homicide was committed on the occasion of a jointly planned robbery.

• People vs. Puno, 56 SCRA 659 — Followed. The accused and his confederate boarded a jeep and held up its passengers; the confederate killed one passenger after divesting him of valuables, while the accused robbed another passenger but did not participate in the shooting. The accused was nonetheless held guilty of robbery with homicide because the killing was committed in connection with the robbery they conspired to commit.
• People vs. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173 — Followed. Held that all those who took part as principals in robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent it. The accused-appellant had argued this case was inapplicable because it involved a band, but the Court found Article 294(1) applicable regardless.
• People vs. Mangulabnan, 99 Phil. 992 — Followed. Held that to determine the existence of robbery with homicide, it is enough that homicide resulted by reason or on occasion of the robbery, and it is immaterial that death supervened by mere accident, provided the homicide was produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
• People vs. Lingad, 98 Phil. 5 — Cited for the rule that all accused are guilty of robo con homicidio whether or not they actually participated in the killing.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, imposing the death penalty (here reduced to reclusion perpetua) when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of robbery. Applied as the substantive basis for Beran's conviction.
• Article 296, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery by a band (cuadrilla). Distinguished: the Court noted this provision was not applicable because the robbery was perpetrated by only two persons, but Article 294(1) still applied and could impose the same penalty.
• Article 2206, Civil Code — Basis for the award of indemnity for death and compensation for loss of earning capacity, computed at P720,000.00 based on the victim's annual income of P30,000.00 and an estimated 24 remaining years of life.
• Article 2217, Civil Code — Basis for the award of P10,000.00 moral damages.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Basis for the award of P10,000.00 exemplary damages, the crime having been committed with an aggravating circumstance (despoblado).

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ. — all concurred.