People vs. Domacyong

When an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of robbery with homicide, the illegal possession of firearms is absorbed as an aggravating circumstance and cannot be prosecuted as a separate offense under R.A. 8294.

On May 28, 1993, an armed robbery occurred at Victoria's Supermart along Session Road in Baguio City, resulting in the death of two CIS agents—Cesar Reyes and Nestor Visitacion—and injuries to a bystander, Domingo Santiago. Appellants Esteban Domacyong and Richard Paleyan, together with seven other accused, were charged with the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code and separately with illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294. The legal framework governing the relationship between illegal possession of firearms and other crimes committed with unlicensed firearms was altered by R.A. 8294, approved on June 6, 1997, which provides that use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder shall be considered an aggravating circumstance rather than a separate offense.

On May 28, 1993, at about 11:00 in the morning, a group of armed men barged into Victoria's Supermart along Session Road in Baguio City and announced a hold-up. Among them were appellants Esteban Domacyong and Richard Paleyan, as well as accused Jorge Bolinget and several others who remained at large. Security guard Nelson Nialla, who was on duty at the time, testified that Bolinget slipped behind cashier Gemma Gabuat, poked a gun at her right side, ordered her to open the cash register, and scooped all the money. Paleyan pointed his gun at Nialla, ordered him to squat, fired at the display, and then took money from the cash registers. Domacyong entered the office of store owner Tony Ang and, at gunpoint, announced a hold-up, ordering Ang not to look up and to hand over the money. The total amount taken was approximately ₱140,000.00.

While the robbery was ongoing, Nialla noticed a man in civilian clothes outside the supermarket peeping inside and drawing something from his front waistline. As the malefactors exited the building, Nialla heard a gunshot and saw the man in civilian clothes fall to the ground. He also saw a man being lifted into a taxi. He later learned that two CIS members—Cesar Reyes and Nestor Visitacion—died as a result of the robbery. Bystander Domingo Santiago, who was in front of McDonald's, was hit on the left leg by a bullet fired from the gun of one of the robbers, whom he identified as Domacyong; the bullet, intended for a policeman, ricocheted and struck him.

Police officers responded to the robbery in progress. Chief Inspector Avelino Edralin and SPO1 Juanito Kimay encountered Domacyong running with a gun at Kisad Road and arrested him, confiscating a .45 caliber pistol without a magazine but with one live bullet in the chamber. SPO1 Soria and SPO1 Leyba arrested Bolinget at Burnham Lake Drive, confiscating a .38 caliber revolver and some money. SPO2 Rey Ekid arrested Paleyan at the Athletic Bowl after he and others scaled the walls; Paleyan threw a .45 caliber firearm to the ground during his arrest. Inspector Oasan recovered the firearms and returned ₱16,460.50 to Ang. Records from the Firearms and Explosives Office of Camp Crame confirmed that Domacyong, Paleyan, and Bolinget were not licensed or registered firearm holders. NBI forensic chemist Maria Carina Madrigal-Javier conducted paraffin tests revealing the presence of nitrates on the hands of Bolinget and Domacyong, but none on Paleyan's hands.

Dr. Jose Bugayong, Jr. examined Cesar Reyes at St. Louis University Hospital and found two gunshot wounds with trajectories "more or less horizontal"; Reyes died after twenty hours due to massive bleeding. Dr. Tedler Depaynos examined Nestor Visitacion and found a fatal gunshot wound that damaged vital organs; Visitacion died after three days. The accused waived presentation of evidence and submitted the case for decision. The trial court convicted Domacyong and Paleyan of both robbery with homicide and illegal possession of firearms, acquitting co-accused Rey Buyagan and Francis Kilongan for insufficiency of evidence.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery with Homicide: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of robbery with homicide without stating the facts and the law on which it was based, and that there was no clear and convincing evidence to show that they were responsible for the death of the two persons during the robbery.
• Failure to Prove Homicide: Appellants argued that there was no proof presented by the prosecution on the manner surrounding the death of, and the identity of, the person(s) who shot the victims during the robbery, submitting that the crime of homicide not having been proven, it cannot be complexed with robbery.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery with Homicide: Whether appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of robbery with homicide despite the lack of direct evidence on how the homicides were committed.
• Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms: Whether appellants could be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearms under R.A. 8294 when the unlicensed firearms were used in the commission of robbery with homicide.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of death was imposable given that R.A. 7659 was approved after the commission of the crime.
• Civil Liabilities: Whether the trial court's award of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages, and loss of earning capacity was proper.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The conviction was affirmed, as circumstantial evidence sufficiently established appellants' participation in the robbery and the resulting homicides, applying the doctrine that all who took part in the robbery are liable as principals for robbery with homicide unless they endeavored to prevent the killing.
• Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms: No. The separate conviction was set aside, R.A. 8294 providing that use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of any crime constitutes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense.
• Proper Penalty: No, death was not imposable. R.A. 7659 was approved only on December 13, 1993, after the crime was committed on May 28, 1993; being disadvantageous to the accused, it cannot be given retroactive effect. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
• Civil Liabilities: The awards were modified. Civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 and moral damages of ₱50,000.00 were awarded for each victim, exemplary damages of ₱25,000.00 each for the aggravating circumstance, actual damages were adjusted, and loss of earning capacity of ₱1,191,900.00 was awarded for Visitacion.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery with Homicide: The elements of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. All elements were satisfied. The lack of direct evidence on how the homicides were committed was immaterial, as the circumstantial evidence left scant doubt. Nialla saw Reyes, a CIS agent, outside the supermarket during the robbery, heard a gunshot as the malefactors exited, and saw Reyes fall. Appellants were arrested with guns immediately after the robbery. Paraffin tests confirmed nitrates on the hands of Domacyong and Bolinget. Santiago identified Domacyong as the person who fired the gun that struck him. Medical testimony confirmed that both victims died of gunshot wounds with horizontal trajectories, consistent with a shootout. Under settled doctrine, when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing. Paleyan's negative paraffin test did not exculpate him, as he participated in the robbery where two persons were killed and another was wounded, and there was no proof he tried to prevent the killing. It is enough that death results by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, without reference to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening.

• Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms: R.A. 8294 provides that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance." The Court has consistently ruled that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. In People vs. Ladjaalam, the Court held that the plain language of R.A. 8294 demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused, and penal laws are construed liberally in their favor. Since appellants committed robbery with homicide with the use of unlicensed firearms, the use of unlicensed firearms merely aggravates the crime of robbery with homicide and does not constitute a separate crime. The separate convictions for illegal possession of firearms were therefore set aside.

• Proper Penalty: Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. With the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms, the penalty of death would ordinarily be imposable. However, R.A. 7659 (the Death Penalty Law) was approved only on December 13, 1993, while the crime was committed on May 28, 1993. Because the death penalty is disadvantageous to the accused, the law cannot be given retroactive effect. The proper penalty is therefore reclusion perpetua.

• Civil Liabilities: The heirs of each victim are entitled to civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 without need for proof other than that death occurred as a result of the crime, and moral damages of ₱50,000.00. Pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages of ₱25,000.00 were awarded for each victim in view of the aggravating circumstance. For Reyes, actual damages of ₱49,879.00 were awarded, comprising ₱32,579.00 in funeral expenses and ₱17,300.00 in hospitalization expenses, both admitted by the defense. For Visitacion, actual damages of ₱88,096.65 were awarded based on stipulation, and loss of earning capacity of ₱1,191,900.00 was computed using the formula: life expectancy (2/3 × (80 − 36) = 29 years) multiplied by net annual income (₱82,200.00 − ₱41,100.00 = ₱41,100.00). The award of actual expenses to Domingo Santiago was denied for lack of proof.

• Robbery with Homicide — Liability of All Participants — When homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the homicide. The exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing. The Court applied this doctrine to hold both appellants liable, including Paleyan whose paraffin test was negative, because he participated in the robbery and did not attempt to prevent the killings.

• Absorption Doctrine under R.A. 8294 — If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. If the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance. The Court applied this to set aside the separate convictions for illegal possession of firearms, holding that the use of unlicensed firearms merely aggravated the robbery with homicide.

• Prospectivity of Penal Laws Disadvantageous to the Accused — A penal law that is disadvantageous to the accused cannot be given retroactive effect. Because R.A. 7659 ( reimposing the death penalty) was approved on December 13, 1993, after the crime was committed on May 28, 1993, the death penalty could not be imposed; reclusion perpetua was the proper penalty.

• Loss of Earning Capacity — Loss of earning capacity is computed using the formula: Life Expectancy [2/3 × (80 − age at death)] × [Gross Annual Income − Living Expenses], where living expenses, in the absence of proof, are presumed to be half the gross annual income. The Court applied this to award ₱1,191,900.00 to the heirs of Visitacion, who was 36 years old with a monthly salary of ₱6,850.00.

• "A simple reading thereof (R.A. No. 8294) shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the 'other crime' is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense." — This passage, quoting People vs. Ladjaalam, articulates the absorption doctrine under R.A. 8294 and forms the ratio decidendi for setting aside the separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms.

• "Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the doctrine that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually take part in the homicide. The exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the doctrine on collective liability in robbery with homicide, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "it is enough that death results by reason or on the occasion of the robbery inasmuch as it is only the result obtained that is necessary, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening in the commission of the crime." — This passage defines the scope of the felony result rule in robbery with homicide, emphasizing that the result—death—is sufficient regardless of the manner or agency of the killing.

• People vs. Ladjaalam, 340 SCRA 617 (2000) — Controlling precedent on the absorption doctrine under R.A. 8294; the Court quoted it directly for the proposition that use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of any crime cannot constitute a separate offense of illegal possession of firearms.
• People vs. Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003 — Cited for the consistent ruling that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms.
• People vs. Napalit, G.R. Nos. 142919 and 143876, February 4, 2003 — Cited for the doctrine that all participants in a robbery are liable as principals for robbery with homicide unless they endeavored to prevent the killing.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 148730, June 26, 2003 — Cited for the elements of the crime of robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003 — Cited for the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code and for the computation of loss of earning capacity.
• People vs. Cabical, G.R. No. 148519, May 29, 2003 — Cited for the proposition that actual damages cannot be awarded without proof, applied to deny Domingo Santiago's claim for actual expenses.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines the penalty for robbery with violence or intimidation when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery; imposes reclusion perpetua to death. The Court applied this provision to convict appellants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• Section 1, paragraph 2, Republic Act 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. The Court applied this provision to hold that illegal possession of firearms is absorbed as an aggravating circumstance in the robbery with homicide and cannot be a separate offense.
• Republic Act No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) — Approved December 13, 1993, reimposing the death penalty. The Court held it could not be applied retroactively because the crime was committed on May 28, 1993, and the law was disadvantageous to the accused.
• Article 2230, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The Court applied this to award ₱25,000.00 in exemplary damages to the heirs of each victim due to the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms.

Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concurred.