People vs. Lago

When conspiracy is proven in a case of robbery with homicide, all those who participated in the robbery will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if not all of them actually took part in the homicide perpetrated by just one of them on the occasion or as a consequence of the asportation, unless it appears that those who did not participate in the killing endeavored to prevent it.

Appellant Reyderick Lago was a student at Jose Fabella Memorial School and a classmate of Cozette Aragon, whose uncle Benjamin Raymundo was the victim of the robbery and homicide charged in this case. The prosecution charged appellant and four others under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, alleging that the group conspired to rob Raymundo and that, on the occasion of the robbery, one of the conspirators stabbed and killed him. The case turns on whether appellant's participation in the robbery conspiracy, without direct participation in the killing, suffices to make him liable for the composite offense.

On July 23, 1991, appellant Reyderick Lago met with his co-accused — Cozette Aragon, Jayson Diadid, Rainier Lisbog, and Dennis Sison — to discuss Aragon's plan to rob his uncle, Benjamin Raymundo. Appellant initially claimed he had merely accompanied Aragon, who was going to his uncle's house to get a project and collect an unpaid salary. He later admitted, however, that he had conspired to rob but not to kill the victim. Except for Sison, who did not appear at the agreed meeting place, all four conspirators met on the morning of July 24, 1991, near the Jose Fabella Memorial School and proceeded together to the victim's house at the back of Don Bosco on Kalentong Street in Mandaluyong.

Upon reaching the house, Aragon pried open a jalousie window using a veinte-nueve balisong and unlocked the door. Aragon, Diadid, and appellant entered the house, while Lisbog remained outside as a lookout. Inside, appellant sat on the sofa and waited while Aragon and Diadid proceeded to the victim's bedroom. Diadid took a wallet and three packs of cigarettes from atop a refrigerator and handed them to appellant. Aragon and Diadid then entered Benjamin Raymundo's room, where Diadid repeatedly stabbed the sleeping victim. Appellant, hearing groaning from the bedroom, became apprehensive, sensed that his companions were stabbing the victim, and immediately left the premises without verifying what was happening or attempting to prevent the killing.

The victim sustained twenty-one stab wounds — seven in front and fourteen at the back — affecting vital organs including the right lung, the liver, and the pancreas. Dr. Alberto Reyes, the NBI medico-legal officer who performed the autopsy, gave the immediate cause of death as severe hemorrhage resulting from the stab wounds. The group took the victim's wallet and cash, wristwatch, and several pieces of jewelry amounting to ₱67,000.00. After fleeing the scene, appellant hid for two years — first at his grandmother's house and later at his mother's — until a barangay official apprehended him on January 6, 1994 and brought him to the Mandaluyong jail.

Cozette Aragon, one of appellant's co-accused, testified for the prosecution. He recounted that Jayson Diadid had been introduced to him by Dennis Sison because Diadid could execute whatever needed to be done in the planned robbery. During the planning stage, Diadid asked Aragon whether he wanted his uncle killed; Aragon replied in the negative, stating he merely wanted to rob his uncle. Two neighbors also testified for the prosecution: Rosana Capacillo saw a man later identified as Rainier Lisbog come out of the victim's house that morning, and Ramon Bernardo, a refrigeration technician who had come to collect a gasket, encountered both Lisbog and Diadid near the compound before learning later that Raymundo had been robbed and killed. The RTC found appellant a co-conspirator, satisfied that the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt had been met.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Appellant contended that the lower court erred in convicting him of robbery with homicide because the prosecution failed to prove the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
• No Conspiracy to Kill: Appellant admitted in his Brief that he "conspired with his co-accused to commit robbery" but maintained there was "no concurrence of sentiment and no positive proof or evidence that he joined his co-accused in the commission of the crime of homicide," arguing he did not participate in or intend the killing.
• Mere Presence: Appellant's initial defense was that he had only accompanied Aragon to the latter's uncle's house to get a project and collect an unpaid salary, implying he had no criminal intent and was merely present without participation in any felonious act.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Conspiracy: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, notwithstanding his claim that he conspired only to rob and not to kill.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Conspiracy: Yes. The appeal was denied, the RTC conviction being affirmed. Conspiracy having been proven, the act of one conspirator is the act of all; appellant's participation in the robbery and failure to prevent the homicide rendered him liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established through appellant's own admission that he conspired to rob, his presence at the planning meeting on July 23, 1991, and his active participation in the robbery's execution — he entered the victim's house, received stolen items handed to him by Diadid, and waited inside while the robbery and killing unfolded. Under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to execute it; proof need not be direct but may be inferred from conduct evincing a joint purpose and concerted action. The established doctrine provides that when a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all who took part as principals in the robbery are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually participate in the killing, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the homicide. Appellant did nothing to prevent the killing; upon hearing the victim's groaning, he left the scene and hid for two years instead of reporting the crime. All four elements of robbery with homicide were satisfied: (1) taking of personal property with violence against a person; (2) the property belonged to another; (3) the taking was with animo lucrandi; and (4) homicide was committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. The twenty-one stab wounds belied any claim that there was no intent to kill, and the questions of why Aragon brought co-assailants to his uncle's house, why he brought a balisong, and why he did not prevent Diadid from stabbing further implied that the common objective exceeded mere robbery. Appellant's liability for the full special complex crime was therefore sustained.

• Conspiracy (Article 8, Revised Penal Code) — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The elements are: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence; it may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding, from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated, or from acts evincing a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. In this case, conspiracy was deduced from appellant's attendance at the planning meeting, his admission that he conspired to rob, and his active participation in the robbery's execution.

• Act of One is the Act of All — When conspiracy is proven, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. Each conspirator is liable for the acts of the others done in furtherance of the common design. The Court applied this principle to hold appellant liable for the homicide committed by Diadid, even though appellant did not personally stab the victim.

• Liability in Robbery with Homicide — Whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that those who did not participate endeavored to prevent the killing. Appellant's failure to take any step to prevent the stabbing, his flight from the scene, and his two-year concealment negated any claim of exemption from liability for the homicide.

• Elements of Robbery with Homicide — The special complex crime of robbery with homicide has four elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed. All four elements were found present in this case.

• "When conspiracy is proven in a case of robbery with homicide, all those who participated in the robbery will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if not all of them actually took part in the homicide perpetrated by just one of them on the occasion or as a consequence of the asportation." — This is the opening statement of the decision and articulates the controlling doctrine: the ratio decidendi that ties conspiracy to liability for the composite offense, framing the entire analysis that follows.

• "As aforesaid, whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the asportation will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the killing." — This passage states the exception to joint liability — the duty to endeavor to prevent the killing — and its absence in appellant's conduct (flight and concealment) sealed his conviction.

• "Time and time again, this Court has ruled that when conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all." — The canonical formulation of the conspiracy doctrine as applied in Philippine criminal law, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence to establish collective liability among co-conspirators.

• People vs. Fegidero, G.R. No. 113446, August 4, 2000 — Cited for the proposition that conspiracy may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding, without need of direct evidence or an explicit agreement.
• People vs. Francisco, G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000 — Cited alongside Fegidero for the same principle on inferential proof of conspiracy.
• Froilan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115221, March 17, 2000 — Cited for the doctrine that the act of one conspirator is the act of all, and that in robbery with homicide all participants in the robbery are liable for the homicide unless they endeavored to prevent it.
• People vs. Panganiban, 241 SCRA 91, February 6, 1995 — Cited for the same principle on collective liability in conspiracy.
• People vs. Hernandez, 182 SCRA 794, February 27, 1990 — Cited for the same principle on collective liability in conspiracy.
• People vs. Pedroso, G.R. No. 125128, July 19, 2000 — Cited for the rule that all who took part in the robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide even if they did not all participate in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it.
• People vs. Nang, 289 SCRA 16, April 15, 1998 — Cited alongside Pedroso for the same rule on liability in robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Doca, G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000 — Cited for the four elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67, August 11, 1997 — Cited alongside Doca for the elements of robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207, September 14, 1995 — Cited alongside Doca and Salazar for the elements of robbery with homicide.

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code (Conspiracy) — Defines conspiracy as existing when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Applied to establish that appellant and his co-accused had agreed to rob the victim and decided to execute the felony, making each liable for the acts of the others.
• Article 294, paragraph (1), Revised Penal Code (Robbery with Homicide) — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua for robbery with homicide, defined as robbery committed with violence against a person where, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed. Applied as the charging provision and basis for the penalty imposed.

Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concurred.