People vs. Comiling

Robbery with homicide is committed whenever homicide is committed during or because of robbery, regardless of whether the killing precedes or follows the taking, and all who take part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals in the special complex crime. Conspiracy was established through joint planning, leadership, and inducement, making physical presence at the exact taking or shooting unnecessary for the mastermind's liability.

Ysiong Chua owned Masterline Grocery at Bonifacio Street corner Quezon Boulevard in Tayug, Pangasinan. Appellant Emilio Comiling was a major in the Philippine Army who allegedly led a group that included appellant Geraldo Galingan alias "Bong" and others. Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death.

Ysiong Chua owned Masterline Grocery at the corner of Quezon Boulevard and Bonifacio Street in Tayug, Pangasinan, assisted by helper Mario. At sundown on September 2, 1995, as they were about to close, someone knocked to buy cigarettes. When Mario opened the door, three masked armed men barged in and announced a hold-up. One shoved Ysiong toward the recesses of the store, threatened to kill him unless he surrendered his earnings, struck his thumb with a gun butt when he said he had only a small amount, and kicked him to the floor. While prostrate, Ysiong saw the intruders ransacking his desk drawers; after recovering, he ran through the adjacent Good Taste Bakery to the Tayug Police Station farther west along Quezon Boulevard.

SPO1 Rolando Torio, PO3 Erwil Pastor and SPO4 Emilio Nagui rushed to the scene. SPO1 Torio encountered barangay councilman Sonny Rimas and Jessie Batalla at the grocery entrance and, while standing outside, heard three gunshots from inside directed toward Bonifacio Street. Pastor, then on the street, ran and hid behind a concrete marker, then moved westward as if returning to headquarters, but was shot in the face. He was rushed to Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital and died on September 6, 1995. Ysiong later found P81,000 cash and three Chinese gold necklaces worth P26,000 missing. The robbers, cornered by responding policemen, fled through Good Taste Bakery, where owner Mrs. Conching Co was also shot and wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance.

On September 26, 1995, Naty Panimbaan, troubled by conscience, revealed her knowledge to police. According to her testimony, she was present at four planning meetings: on June 30, 1995 at Zariza Inn in Tayug attended by Comiling, Galingan, Salagubang, Calderon, Clotario, Mendoza, Paul and Rey; in July 1995 at the house of Lani Galingan in Tayug; and twice in August 1995, the last in late August after she began lodging at Lani's house from August 21, 1995. Comiling and Galingan presided, gave instructions, and provided firearms and explosives. On September 2, 1995, the group gathered at Lani's house, received final instructions and firearms from Comiling and Galingan, and left around 4:00 p.m. for Masterline in an owner-type stainless jeep and tricycles while Naty stayed behind. Around 8:00 p.m. she rejoined them at the house of a person named Joe, where Galingan blamed a companion for shooting the policeman; the group planned escape to Manila, gave her and Lani $50 fare, and on September 3, 1995 they proceeded with Galingan to Comiling's house in Parañaque before Comiling had the two women stay in Makati and paid their room rental.

All accused denied culpability and claimed to be elsewhere on September 2, 1995. Galingan claimed he was at his uncle's house in Novaliches, Metro Manila because his wife was arriving from Hong Kong on September 4, 1995, denied Naty was his lover, and attacked her as a paid sex partner, woman of ill-repute, and drug user motivated by a scorned relationship. Defense witnesses likewise sought to impugn Panimbaan's credibility. The trial court credited Panimbaan as detailed, consistent, straightforward and credible, corroborated by Rimas and the dying declaration, and rejected denial and alibi.

• Timing of Homicide: Comiling argued that the killing of PO3 Pastor happened after the robbery, hence the homicide could not have been a necessary means of committing robbery nor could the robbery be said to have produced another offense.
• Credibility - Polluted Source: Comiling argued that Naty Panimbaan was a polluted source as one of the conspirators and that her testimony should not sustain conviction.
• Res Inter Alios Acta: Comiling argued that Naty's testimony implicating him was inadmissible under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court because conspiracy was shown only by her own admission without independent evidence.
• Non-Participation and Absence: Comiling argued that he could not be liable for robbery because he was not physically present at Masterline Grocery and had no ostensible participation therein.
• Alibi: Galingan argued that he was in his uncle's house in Novaliches, Metro Manila when the incident happened, having gone to Manila because his wife was scheduled to arrive from Hong Kong on September 4, 1995.
• Credibility - Character and Motive: Galingan argued that Naty was not his lover but a woman of ill-repute he paid P700 per sexual encounter and a drug user, whose credibility was tainted and who implicated him only to make him leave his wife.

• Special Complex Crime: The Solicitor General countered that robbery with homicide is a special complex crime and it suffices that the killing has direct relation to the robbery, regardless of whether it occurs before or after, during or because of the heist, even if accidental.
• Credibility Sustained: The Solicitor General countered that Panimbaan remained credible despite abrasive examination by two defense counsels and the trial judge, her testimony being detailed, consistent, straightforward and credible with no whimsical or capricious assessment by the trial court.
• Corroboration and Identification: Respondent relied on Sonny Rimas's testimony that he heard Comiling planning the robbery at Zariza Inn and positively identified Galingan as the jeep driver at the scene, plus PO3 Pastor's dying declaration naming Galingan and Mendoza's flight as evidence of guilt.

• Nature of Robbery with Homicide: Whether the killing of PO3 Pastor after the taking still constitutes robbery with homicide where not committed as a necessary means thereof.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Whether Naty Panimbaan's testimony, despite being a conspirator and attacks on her character, deserves full credence over denial and alibi.
• Res Inter Alios Acta: Whether Naty's in-court admission implicating Comiling is inadmissible against a co-conspirator absent independent proof of conspiracy under Section 30, Rule 130.
• Liability Without Presence: Whether Comiling, not among those who entered the store or shot the victim, may be held liable as principal.
• Alibi: Whether Galingan's alibi that he was in Novaliches, Metro Manila at the time of the crime exculpates him in light of positive identification.
• Dying Declaration: Whether PO3 Pastor's hospital statement naming Bong Galingan as his shooter is admissible as a dying declaration under Section 37, Rule 130.
• Conspiracy and Penalty: Whether conspiracy attended the offense and whether death may be imposed on the basis of band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise not alleged in the information.

• Nature of Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The killing need only have direct relation to the robbery and occur during or because of the heist, even if accidental or subsequent to the taking.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Yes. Panimbaan's detailed, consistent testimony was properly credited, with positive assertions prevailing over mere denials and personal attacks on chastity or drug use insufficient to impair credibility.
• Res Inter Alios Acta: No bar. The rule applies only to extrajudicial declarations, not to testimony given in open court where the adversely affected party may cross-examine.
• Liability Without Presence: Liable. Leadership in the conspiracy and inducement to commit the felony makes the mastermind a principal by inducement despite absence from the actual taking or shooting.
• Alibi: No. Alibi failed for lack of independent positive proof of presence elsewhere and physical impossibility, and cannot prevail over positive identification by Rimas and the dying declaration.
• Dying Declaration: Yes, admissible. All four requisites under Section 37, Rule 130 concurred, rendering the ante-mortem identification evidence of the highest order.
• Conspiracy and Penalty: Conspiracy established, but death not imposable. All principals in the robbery are liable for the special complex crime, yet aggravating circumstances not specifically alleged in the information cannot be appreciated, leaving reclusion perpetua.

• Nature of Robbery with Homicide: The contention that homicide after completion of robbery negates the complex crime was rejected as specious. Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime; sustenance requires only direct relation between killing and robbery, committed during or because of the heist, regardless of sequence and even if merely accidental.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Deference was accorded to the trial court's calibration of credibility, there being no showing of whimsical or capricious assessment. Panimbaan never wavered on minute details across examinations, from the June 30 Zariza Inn meeting through the July and August meetings at Lani's house to the September 2 departure in one owner-type jeep and tricycles. Between positive assertions and mere denials, the former carry greater evidentiary weight. Attacks based on unchastity or alleged drug use were irrelevant, as credibility impeachment must address general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity in the community, not private opinion; no improper motive to falsely implicate appellants in a capital offense was shown.
• Res Inter Alios Acta: Section 30, Rule 130 renders a conspirator's act or declaration admissible against a co-conspirator only after conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration, but the rule refers solely to extrajudicial admissions. Because Panimbaan's implicating statements were made in open court with opportunity for cross-examination, admission against Comiling was permitted.
• Liability Without Presence: Although Comiling was not tagged as one of the three who entered the store, mauled Ysiong, or shot Pastor, Panimbaan showed he presided with Galingan over all meetings, assigned roles for September 2, persisted in determination from June to September, received the stolen money and jewelry afterward, and directed and paid for the women's hiding in Makati. One who plans and persistently induces commission is a principal by inducement, corroborated by Rimas hearing Comiling say "We will enter the place of Isko."
• Alibi: For alibi to prosper, the accused must show presence elsewhere for such period that physical presence at the locus criminis was impossible. Galingan offered no positive declaration from an independent witness that he was in Novaliches at 6:00-6:30 p.m. on September 2, 1995, Novaliches was only about four hours by land from Tayug, and meeting his wife on September 4 was inconsequential. Positive identification by Rimas of Galingan as driver of the owner-type jeep arriving at Masterline around 6:30 p.m. further defeated the contrived defense.
• Dying Declaration: The four requisites concurred: (1) Pastor's emergency-room statement naming Bong Galingan concerned the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death; (2) consciousness of impending death was shown by "I might die. I might die." at around 7:00 p.m. on September 2, 1995 before SPO1 Hidalgo and SPO4 Nagui, with thumbmark affixed in his own blood; (3) competence as witness was obvious; and (4) the declaration was offered in the robbery-with-homicide prosecution where he was the victim. At the point of death every motive of falsehood is silenced.
• Conspiracy and Penalty: Concerted planning, assignment of posts, provision of firearms, joint departure and regrouping, and division of loot established conspiracy; whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, all principals in the robbery answer for robbery with homicide, including Mendoza as positively identified with flight evidencing guilt. Under Article 294(1) as amended, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, but band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise, not specifically alleged in the information as required by Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, could not be appreciated, so the lower penalty applied with modified civil awards.

• Robbery with homicide as special complex crime — The killing designated as homicide need only have direct relation to the robbery and occur during or because of the heist, whether before or after the taking and even if accidental. Applied to sustain conviction although PO3 Pastor was shot while appellants were escaping with the loot after ransacking the grocery drawers.
• Deference to trial court on credibility — Factual assessment of witnesses is left primarily to the trial judge who observes demeanor, with review limited to grave abuse or whimsical assessment. Applied to uphold crediting of Panimbaan despite the judge's own tirades about her character, her testimony being detailed, consistent and straightforward.
• Positive testimony over denial — Between positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and mere denials of the accused, the former deserve more credence and greater evidentiary value. Applied to prefer Panimbaan's and Rimas's identifications over appellants' claims of being elsewhere.
• Res inter alios acta rule — Under Section 30, Rule 130, a conspirator's extrajudicial act or declaration relating to the conspiracy during its existence is admissible against a co-conspirator only after conspiracy is shown by other independent evidence. Held inapplicable to testimony given on the witness stand where the adverse party may cross-examine, so Panimbaan's open-court implication of Comiling was admissible against him.
• Principal by inducement — One who plans the commission of a crime, himself determined and persistently clinging to that determination, is a principal by inducement. Applied to Comiling who from June to September 1995 presided over meetings, assigned each man's post, supplied firearms, received the loot, and directed concealment.
• Alibi — To prosper, alibi must show presence in another place for such period that physical presence at the crime scene at the time of commission was impossible, clearly established without room for doubt and preferably by independent witnesses. Applied to reject Galingan's Novaliches claim, uncorroborated and only about four hours from Tayug, against positive identification.
• Impeachment by character — Evidence of a witness's character to affect credibility must refer to general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity in the community, not personal opinion on chastity or lifestyle. Applied to disregard claims that Panimbaan was of ill-repute or a drug user based solely on Galingan's self-serving opinion.
• Dying declaration — Under Section 37, Rule 130, a declaration is admissible where (1) it concerns the crime and surrounding circumstances of declarant's death; (2) made under consciousness of impending death; (3) declarant was competent; and (4) offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide where declarant was victim. Applied to admit Pastor's identification of Bong Galingan, deemed evidence of the highest order.
• Conspiracy in robbery with homicide — Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, all who take part as principals in the robbery are held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide. Applied to hold Comiling, Galingan and Mendoza liable in solidum.
• Allegation of aggravating circumstances — Aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to warrant death. Applied to disregard band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise and impose reclusion perpetua absent any properly alleged aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
• Flight as evidence of guilt — Flight from justice evidences guilt. Applied to Mendoza who escaped after arraignment, was tried in absentia, and remains at large.

• "None of their dark attributes dissuades the Court from giving credence to their respective narratives, however." — States the treatment of prosecution witnesses' character flaws, holding that detailed, consistent and straightforward testimony remains credible despite moral attacks.
• "The Court believes Panimbaan's testimony that finally, at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1995 the accused Comiling, Galingan, Calderon, Clotario and Mendoza, together with Rimas, Paul, Rey and Jose left Lani's place, while she stayed behind." — Embodies the core factual finding anchoring conspiracy and departure for Masterline Grocery.
• "We will enter the place of Isko," — Records Comiling's overheard statement as heard by Rimas while serving beer at Zariza Inn, corroborating mastermind liability for planning the robbery of Ysiong Chua's store.
• "I might die. I might die." — Establishes Pastor's consciousness of impending death supporting admission of his ante-mortem identification of his shooter as a dying declaration.

• People vs. Assad, 55 Phil. 697 — Cited as authority that one who plans the commission of a crime is a principal by inducement; applied to Comiling's leadership role.
• People vs. Monteron, 378 SCRA 340 [2002] — Cited with Tecson vs. Sandiganbayan for the rule preferring positive prosecution assertions over mere denials.
• Tecson vs. Sandiganbayan, 318 SCRA 80 [1999] — Cited jointly to support greater evidentiary value of positive testimony.
• People vs. Flores, 195 SCRA 295 [1991] — Cited to confine the res inter alios acta rule to extrajudicial declarations, not in-court testimony subject to cross-examination.
• People vs. Azugue, 268 SCRA 711 [1997] — Cited for the time-and-place requirements of alibi requiring physical impossibility.
• People vs. Sagario, 14 SCRA 468 [1965] — Cited that alibi must be clearly established without room for doubt as to plausibility and verity.
• People vs. De Guzman, 188 SCRA 407 [1990] — Quoted at length for deference to trial court observation of demeanor in resolving factual issues and detecting prevarication.
• People vs. Omar, 327 SCRA 221 [2000] — Cited that witness credibility is left primarily to the trial judge with direct opportunity to observe the witness.
• People vs. Lomerio, 326 SCRA 530 [2000] — Cited with People vs. Merino for giving full faith where no dubious reason or improper motive to testify falsely is shown.
• People vs. Merino, 321 SCRA 199 [1999] — Cited jointly on absence of improper motive sustaining credibility.
• People vs. Montilla, 211 SCRA 119 [1992] — Cited that an ante-mortem statement is evidence of the highest order.
• People vs. Nunag, 196 SCRA 206 [1991] — Cited that all principals in robbery are principals in robbery with homicide when homicide follows as consequence or occasion.
• People vs. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 [2003] — Cited as basis for P50,000 civil indemnity for death per prevailing jurisprudence.
• People vs. Abrazaldo, 397 SCRA 137 [2003] — Cited as basis for P25,000 temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of RA 7659 — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death; applied to convict appellants but impose the lower penalty absent properly alleged aggravating circumstances.
• Article 63, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Invoked by the trial court in imposing death; superseded on review by imposition of reclusion perpetua.
• Section 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Governs admission by conspirator; held to cover only extrajudicial declarations, thus not barring Panimbaan's in-court testimony against Comiling.
• Section 37, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Governs dying declarations; applied to admit Pastor's identification of Bong Galingan after finding all four requisites present.
• Section 11, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Limits character impeachment to general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity; applied to reject personal attacks on Panimbaan's chastity and drug use.
• Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court — States proof beyond reasonable doubt standard; relied upon by trial court and affirmed as met.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires specific allegation of aggravating circumstances in the information; applied to disregard band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur. Puno, J., on leave. Panganiban, J., on official leave.