People vs. Boringot

In a conviction for robbery with homicide, all principals in the robbery are equally liable for the killing committed by a co-conspirator on the occasion thereof, unless they performed an overt act to dissociate themselves from the conspiracy. Furthermore, surviving victims of the robbery who sustained injuries, though not killed, are entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, the amounts of which depend on the severity of their injuries.

On October 19, 2007, in Ceris III, Canlubang, Calamba City, Ronald Catindig, his sister Sheryl Catindig, and their friends were walking home when they were accosted by a group of five men, including accused-appellant Russel Boringot. The assailants, armed with a knife and an improvised gun (sumpak), declared a hold-up and forcibly took the victims' cellular phones. During the robbery, the assailants stabbed several of the victims. Sheryl Catindig sustained fatal stab wounds and died, while Ronald Catindig and others suffered injuries.

• Nature of the Action: Criminal prosecution for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• The Robbery and Attack: On October 19, 2007, between 6:40 and 7:00 PM, Ronald Catindig, his sister Sheryl Catindig, and friends Raymond Hernandez, Christian Catindig, and Joel Tenorio were followed by five men, including accused-appellant Russel Boringot. The assailants, with their faces partially covered, confronted the group. Edmund Gallardo, a co-accused, declared a hold-up while armed with an improvised gun (sumpak). The assailants, including Boringot, used knives to threaten and forcibly take the victims' cellular phones.
• The Stabbing and Death: During the robbery, Boringot stabbed Christian Catindig and Raymond Hernandez. Edmund Gallardo repeatedly stabbed Sheryl Catindig after she surrendered her phone. Sheryl died from hemorrhage secondary to three stab wounds.
• Defense's Version: Boringot interposed an alibi, claiming he was in Barangay Parian, Calamba City, visiting his sister at the time of the incident. Defense witnesses corroborated his presence elsewhere on October 17, 2007, but not definitively on October 19, 2007.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses, who positively identified Boringot as a perpetrator. It found all elements of robbery with homicide present and established conspiracy among the assailants.

• Credibility of Witnesses and Identification: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution witnesses' identification was unreliable due to poor lighting conditions and the assailants' faces being covered.
• Suppression of Evidence: He contended that the prosecution deliberately failed to present other eyewitnesses (Joel Tenorio, Michael Hernandez, Michael Catindig), which constituted a willful suppression of evidence that should be presumed adverse to the prosecution.
• Lack of Conspiracy: Boringot maintained that his mere presence at the scene did not prove conspiracy, and there was no evidence of a prior agreement or community of interest to commit robbery.
• Alibi: He asserted his alibi that he was in a different barangay at the time of the crime, making it physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.

• Positive Identification: The People, through the OSG, countered that the prosecution witnesses positively and categorically identified Boringot as one of the perpetrators. The familiarity of the victims with the assailants (all from the same barangay) and the sufficient illumination from billboards made identification credible.
• Conspiracy Established: Respondent argued that Boringot's active participation—holding up a victim, demanding belongings, and stabbing victims—demonstrated a common purpose and design with his co-accused, proving conspiracy.
• Alibi Unavailing: The prosecution maintained that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. Boringot failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
• No Suppression of Evidence: The OSG argued that the prosecutor has the prerogative to determine which witnesses to present. The testimonies of the omitted witnesses were merely corroborative, and the defense could have called them as its own witnesses.

• Conspiracy and Liability: Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellant guilty of robbery with homicide based on conspiracy.
• Credibility and Identification: Whether the prosecution witnesses' identification of the accused-appellant was credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Damages: Whether the accused-appellant is liable to pay civil indemnity and damages, including to the surviving injured victim.

• Conspiracy and Liability: The conviction was affirmed. Conspiracy was established through the accused-appellant's overt acts before, during, and after the robbery: he was part of the group that followed the victims, held up a victim, demanded belongings, and stabbed victims. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Boringot's failure to dissociate or prevent the homicide made him equally liable for the special complex crime.
• Credibility and Identification: The positive identification by the surviving victims—who were familiar with the accused-appellant and observed him under sufficient light from billboards—was upheld. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility was given great weight. The defense of alibi was rejected because Boringot failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
• Damages: The award of damages was modified. For the death of Sheryl Catindig, her heirs are entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P78,679.00 as actual damages. For the surviving victim Ronald Catindig, who sustained a stab wound but did not die, he is entitled to P141,222.00 as actual damages, plus P25,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, equivalent to damages for an attempted stage, as the prosecution failed to prove his injury was mortal.

• Conspiracy in Robbery with Homicide — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused evincing a common design. Once conspiracy is established, all conspirators are liable as co-principals for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, regardless of who committed the killing, unless they performed an overt act to prevent it.
• Award of Damages to Surviving Injured Victims in Robbery with Homicide — In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, victims who sustained injuries but were not killed are also entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The amounts depend on the severity of the injuries: if the wounds were mortal (could have caused death without timely intervention), damages equivalent to the frustrated stage are awarded; if non-fatal, damages equivalent to the attempted stage are awarded.

• "In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life."
• "Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide unless the conspirator performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevented its commission."
• "In robbery with homicide, the victims who sustained injuries, but were not killed, shall also be indemnified."

• People v. Asierto, G.R. No. 219116, August 26, 2020 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide and the interpretation of "by reason or on occasion of the robbery."
• People v. Roelan, G.R. No. 241322, September 8, 2020 — Followed for principles on conspiracy, credibility of eyewitnesses based on illumination, and the award of damages to surviving injured victims in robbery with homicide.
• People v. Dillatan, Sr., G.R. No. 212191, September 5, 2018 — Applied for the rule that surviving victims of robbery with homicide who sustained injuries are entitled to damages based on the severity of their injuries.
• People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020 — Cited for the definition of conspiracy and the principle that the intent to rob must precede the killing.
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Relied upon for the standard amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages in cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

• Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, specifically reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
• Section 3(e), Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that the willful suppression of evidence that would be adverse if produced gives rise to a presumption that such evidence is unfavorable. The Court held this presumption does not apply when the suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative.

• Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Chairperson)
• Rosmari D. Carandang
• Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Jhosep Y. Lopez