People vs. De Leon

A series of acts of robbery committed against several victims within a single establishment, all arising from one criminal resolution to rob that establishment, constitutes a continuing crime of robbery with homicide, punishable by a single penalty. The special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, requires proof not only that a firearm was used but also that the accused lacked a license to possess or carry it; mere testimonial evidence that a firearm was present is insufficient.

In the early morning of January 7, 2000, employees of the Energex Gasoline Station in Barangay Guinayan, San Mateo, Rizal, were on duty. A mint green-colored Tamaraw FX arrived. After being serviced, the driver claimed the engine would not start. When two gasoline boys went to push the vehicle, the six male passengers — including appellant — alighted, announced a hold-up, and at gunpoint took cash, personal valuables, and the security guard’s service firearm. The security guard was shot and later died.

• Prosecution’s Version: At around 2:00 a.m. on January 7, 2000, gasoline boys Eduardo Zulueta and Fortunato Lacambra III, cashier Julieta Amistoso, and security guard Edralin Macahis — all employees of Energex Gasoline Station — were on duty. A Tamaraw FX carrying six to seven persons arrived. Zulueta filled the vehicle with ₱50.00 worth of diesel. When the driver stated the engine would not start, Zulueta and Lacambra positioned themselves at the rear to push. At that moment, the six passengers except the driver alighted, announced a hold-up, and brandished a shotgun and a .38 caliber pistol. Lacambra was ordered to lie down, while Zulueta was taken to the Car Wash section. Appellant poked a gun at Zulueta, took his wallet containing a pawnshop ticket and ₱50.00, while another robber struck Zulueta on the nape with a gun. Four other robbers went to the cashier’s office, took ₱3,000.00, and shot Macahis in the stomach; they also took his service firearm. After successive gunshots, the robbers reboarded the Tamarax FX and fled toward San Mateo. Macahis later died of the gunshot wound. Zulueta identified appellant the following day as the robber who had guarded and robbed him; Lacambra also positively identified appellant in court.

• Defense’s Version: Appellant testified that from January 4 to 6, 2000, he stayed at his aunt’s house in Binangonan, Rizal. On the evening of January 6, he went to Antipolo with his cousin Catherine Homo. While waiting at a terminal, a Tamarax FX driven by a relative, Christian Gersalia, passed; Catherine asked Gersalia to give appellant a ride. Inside the FX were other passengers who, upon reaching Masinag where appellant was supposed to alight, did not allow him to leave and instead asked him to join them. Appellant fell asleep and awoke to find the group conducting a hold-up at a gasoline station. He remained inside the vehicle, frozen with fear. After gunshots, the vehicle sped toward Marikina, pursued by policemen who fired at them. The vehicle crashed into a wall; the passengers fled, and appellant was left behind and arrested.

• Informations: Four Informations for Robbery with Homicide were filed against appellant and several co-accused, alleging conspiracy, use of unlicensed firearms, and aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, disguise, nighttime, and use of a motor vehicle.

• Conspiracy: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant conspired in the commission of robbery with homicide.

• Continuing Offense: Whether the taking of property from several victims and the killing constituted separate crimes or a single continuing offense of robbery with homicide.

• Aggravating Circumstance: Whether the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm was sufficiently established to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

• Conspiracy: Implied conspiracy was established by the coordinated acts of the malefactors. The prosecution showed that two or more persons aimed their acts toward the same unlawful object, each performing a part so that their combined acts — though apparently independent — were connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment. Appellant’s role — poking a gun at Zulueta, taking his wallet, and guarding him while others looted the cashier’s office and shot the security guard — demonstrated his participation in a common criminal design. A conspirator need not participate in every detail of the execution; once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. Appellant’s defense of denial and mere inaction was rejected, as no overt act to dissociate himself from the conspiracy was proved.

• Continuing Offense: The series of acts constituted a single continuing crime of robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one indivisible felony. The intent to rob the Energex gasoline station encompassed the taking of money and valuables from the employees working therein; these acts were not entirely distinct and unconnected, but formed component parts of a general plan to despoil persons within the establishment. This was borne from one criminal resolution and operated as a continuous, uninterrupted force. Thus, only one penalty should be imposed, consistent with the ruling in People v. De la Cruz.

• Aggravating Circumstance: The special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm under Section 1, third paragraph, of P.D. No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294 was not appreciated. Although jurisprudence permits the existence of a firearm to be established by testimony without presenting the firearm itself, the prosecution must still prove that the appellant lacked a license to own or carry the firearm. Here, the prosecution presented no written or testimonial evidence that appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. Without such proof, the special aggravating circumstance could not be used to increase the penalty. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Robbery with Homicide — The crime requires the confluence of: (1) taking of personal property with violence or intimidation; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed. Homicide is used in its generic sense and includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. All principals in the robbery are liable for the homicide even if they did not personally take part in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. The prosecution need not prove the exact value of the property taken. The homicide may occur before, during, or after the robbery, as long as a nexus exists.

• Implied Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons aim their acts toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, are connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment. No direct proof of an actual meeting to concert means is required. Each conspirator need not participate in every detail of execution; separate tasks may be assigned that collectively achieve the common criminal objective.

• Continuing Offense — A continuing crime consists of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution. Although multiple acts may be performed, only one crime is committed and only one penalty shall be imposed. Robberies committed in different places belonging to or involving different persons, if not absolutely unconnected but forming component parts of a general plan to despoil all within a certain area, are treated as a single offense.

• Special Aggravating Circumstance of Use of Unlicensed Firearm — Under P.D. No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder is a special aggravating circumstance, not merely a generic one. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance, a special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. To be appreciated, the prosecution must prove both the use of the firearm and the fact that the accused did not have a license; testimonial evidence of the firearm alone is insufficient if no proof of non-licensure is presented.

• Temperate Damages — Where actual damages for funeral or other expenses cannot be proved by receipts, temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 may be awarded. Even when actual damages are proved but amount to less than ₱25,000.00, the award of temperate damages in that sum is justified in lieu of the lesser actual damages.

• “If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. That would be termed an implied conspiracy.” — Articulates the standard for implied conspiracy, central to the finding of guilt.

• “A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.” — Defines the concept of a continuing offense and encapsulates the reason for reducing the multiple convictions to one.

• “The prosecution failed to present written or testimonial evidence to prove that appellant did not have a license to carry or own a firearm, hence, the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated.” — States the crucial evidentiary gap that reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

• People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 384 — Enumerated the elements of robbery with homicide and the principle that all felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of robbery are integrated into a single indivisible felony; followed.

• People v. Palaganas, G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 533 — Distinguished generic from special aggravating circumstances and held that the use of an unlicensed firearm under R.A. No. 8294 is a special aggravating circumstance; relied upon to categorize the present aggravating circumstance.

• People v. De la Cruz, No. L-1745, May 23, 1950 (unpublished, 88 Phil. 784) — Established that robberies committed in several houses belonging to different persons, when not absolutely unconnected, are component parts of a general plan and constitute a single continuing offense; applied to treat the multiple acts as one crime.

• People v. Werba, 431 SCRA 482 (2004) — Instructs that once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and a conspirator must perform an overt act to dissociate himself to avoid liability; cited to reject appellant’s defense of inaction.

• People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 174775, October 11, 2007, 535 SCRA 656 — Affirmed that the existence of a firearm can be proved by testimony but the accused’s lack of license must still be shown; followed to find insufficient proof of the aggravating circumstance.

• People v. Villanueva, 456 Phil. 14 (2003) — Modified the doctrine in People v. Abrazaldo, allowing an award of ₱25,000.00 temperate damages even when actual damages proved are less than that amount; applied to modify the damages.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 7659) — Defines robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, penalizing robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death; the basis for the penalty imposed.

• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes that when a penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance; applied to impose reclusion perpetua.

• Section 1, third paragraph, P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 — Provides that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered an aggravating circumstance; interpreted as a special aggravating circumstance requiring proof of lack of license.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; resulted in the commutation of the death sentence to reclusion perpetua.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO (Chairperson), MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO, PRESBITERIO J. VELASCO, JR., ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA