People vs. Escote, Jr. and Acuyan

Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed treacherously, notwithstanding that robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property; however, it cannot be appreciated if not alleged in the Information.

On September 28, 1996, at past midnight, a Five Star Bus was bound for Bolinao, Pangasinan. Escote and Acuyan boarded in Balintawak. Along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, they announced a holdup, fired guns, and divested passengers of valuables. They encountered SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., demanded his ID and wallet, took his service gun, and shot him multiple times despite his pleas for mercy. They then ordered the driver to continue and alighted in Mexico, Pampanga.

• The Holdup: Escote and Acuyan boarded the bus, announced a holdup, fired guns upward, and robbed passengers of money and valuables.
• The Killing: The accused disarmed SPO1 Manio, told him he would be killed with his own gun, and shot him multiple times despite his pleas for mercy.
• Post-Incident: The driver and conductor reported the incident to the police. An autopsy confirmed the victim died of multiple gunshot wounds.
• Arrest: Escote was arrested at a checkpoint in Tarlac a month later, possessing the victim's expired police ID, and confessed to the crime. Acuyan was arrested in Northern Samar.
• Trial: Escote escaped during trial but was re-arrested. Acuyan interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a town fiesta in Samar.

• Identification: Petitioners argued that the prosecution witnesses were petrified during the robbery and could not have positively identified them, and that the absence of a police line-up rendered identification unreliable.
• Right to Cross-Examine: Petitioners contended that they were deprived of their right to fully cross-examine the bus driver, Rodolfo Cacatian, because he failed to appear for the continuation of his cross-examination.
• Reasonable Doubt: Petitioners maintained that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Identification: Respondent countered that the witnesses had a good look at the accused before, during, and after the 25-minute heist, as the bus lights were on and the accused were in close proximity to the witnesses.
• Right to Cross-Examine: Respondent argued that the right to cross-examine was impliedly waived when petitioners' counsel failed to appear for the scheduled cross-examination and failed to move for the recall of the witness.
• Guilt: Respondent asserted that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, bolstered by Escote's possession of the victim's identification card.

• Identification: Whether the prosecution witnesses were able to positively identify the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
• Right to Cross-Examination: Whether accused-appellants were deprived of their right to cross-examine a prosecution witness.
• Treachery in Robbery with Homicide: Whether treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Appreciation of Treachery: Whether treachery can be appreciated against the accused-appellants in this case.

• Identification: Positive identification was established. Witnesses had a face-to-face encounter with the robbers during the 25-minute robbery with the bus lights on. Lack of a police line-up does not invalidate identification if the identification was not suggested or instigated by the police.
• Right to Cross-Examination: The right was impliedly waived. Counsel failed to appear for the scheduled cross-examination and failed to move for the recall of the witness. The burden to recall a witness for cross-examination lies with the party wishing to exercise the right; silence or failure to assert it on time amounts to renunciation.
• Treachery in Robbery with Homicide: Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. Although robbery with homicide is a crime against property, when it is coupled with crimes against persons, the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide to apply treachery. This aligns with Spanish Supreme Court rulings and commentators (Cuello Calon, Viada).
• Appreciation of Treachery: Treachery cannot be appreciated against the accused-appellants because it was not alleged in the Information as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which was applied retroactively as it is favorable to the accused.

• Implied Waiver of Right to Cross-Examine — The right to cross-examine is a personal right that may be waived expressly or impliedly. Implied waiver occurs when a party is given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine a witness but fails to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone. The task of recalling a witness for cross-examination is imposed on the party who wishes to exercise the right; silence or failure to assert it on time amounts to renunciation.
• Treachery as a Generic Aggravating Circumstance in Robbery with Homicide — Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed treacherously. The classification of robbery with homicide as a crime against property is irrelevant because when robbery is coupled with crimes against persons, it not only attacks property but also offends the persons. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of homicide, not the constituent crime of robbery.
• Allegation of Aggravating Circumstances — Under Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specified in the information. Even if proven, an aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated if not alleged, and this rule applies retroactively if favorable to the accused.

• "Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed treacherously."
• "What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine."
• "In the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property."

• People v. Barut, 89 SCRA 14 (1979) — Followed. Held that robbery with homicide exists even if the death supervenes by mere accident, provided it is by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
• People v. Mangulabnan, 99 Phil 992 (1956) — Followed. Cited the Spanish Supreme Court ruling that in robbery with homicide, it is enough that homicide results by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
• People v. Bariquit, 341 SCRA 600 (2000) — Distinguished/Overruled in part. Held treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons; the Court opted not to apply this ruling to robbery with homicide.
• People v. Timple, 237 SCRA 52 (1994) — Overruled in part. Held treachery cannot be appreciated in robbery with homicide because it is a crime against property.
• People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2000) — Followed. Held that the retroactive application of Section 8, Rule 110 should not impair the right to exemplary damages.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death. Applied as the crime committed by the accused.
• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia). Applied to determine if treachery could aggravate the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Article 62, paragraph 1 & 4, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules on the effect of aggravating circumstances. Paragraph 1 states aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime or constituting a crime specially punishable by law shall not be taken into account to increase the penalty. Paragraph 4 states circumstances consisting in the material execution of the act shall serve to aggravate the liability of those who had knowledge of them.
• Article 63, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules for application of penalties when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties. Applied to determine that reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty absent any aggravating circumstance.
• Section 1(f), Rule 115, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Grants the accused the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Applied to determine if the right was waived.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires the information to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Applied retroactively to preclude the appreciation of treachery not alleged in the Information.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna, JJ.

• Vitug, J. — Treachery should not be appreciated in robbery with homicide because it is a special complex crime against property. In special complex crimes, a circumstance that aggravates the penalty should be germane to both constituent offenses. Appreciating treachery only for the homicide treats it like an ordinary complex crime under Article 48. The term "homicide" in Art. 294 is used in a generic sense; if treachery qualifies it to murder, two separate crimes result, taking it outside Art. 294. Joined by Ynares-Santiago and Sandoval-Gutierrez.