People vs. Palema

In robbery with homicide, the offender’s original criminal design must be the commission of robbery, and the homicide must be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery; all those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals in the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide even if they did not actually take part in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. An arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due process; its absence renders all proceedings against the accused void, and a court without arraignment lacks jurisdiction to acquit.

On the night of November 10, 2007, at the Calamba Town Plaza, several men assaulted Enicasio Depante, forcibly took his Nokia N70 cellular phone, and stabbed him. Enicasio later died from blood loss. Seven persons were charged with robbery with homicide. One accused, Marvin Marqueses, remained at large and was never arraigned. Another accused, Lester Ladra, a minor, changed his plea to guilty, was convicted, and later discharged to his parents’ custody. The four remaining accused—Ronald Palema, Rufel Palmea, Lyndon Saldua, and Virgo Grengia—denied involvement but were convicted after trial. The trial court inexplicably acquitted Marqueses despite his never having been arraigned.

• The Assault: At around 11:00 p.m. on November 10, 2007, Enicasio Depante, his common-law spouse, his son Erickson Depante, and his stepdaughter Jamie Rose Baya were seated on benches at the Calamba Town Plaza. Three men—later identified as Palema, Palmea, and Manzanero—approached Enicasio. Palmea punched Enicasio in an attempt to grab his cellular phone. Palema simultaneously drew a knife and attempted to stab Enicasio in the abdomen. Jamie warded off the first thrust, causing Palema to drop the knife, but Palema retrieved it and stabbed Enicasio in the right thigh, causing him to fall. Grengia and Saldua then arrived and joined in beating Enicasio. Erickson tried to help his father but was stopped by Ladra, who attempted to stab him. Erickson evaded the attack and sought a weapon, but upon returning found his father collapsed. Enicasio was taken to Calamba Medical Center but died from blood loss.

• Ladra’s Testimony: Minor accused Lester Ladra changed his plea to guilty after the prosecution rested. He testified that he was with Palema, Palmea, Saldua, Marqueses, and Manzanero that night. He stated the group was drunk and went to the Plaza to eat gruel. Palema’s girlfriend approached them and complained that a man in a red shirt had acted indecently toward her. Believing that man was Enicasio, the group attacked and mugged him. Ladra said he took Marqueses’ knife and stabbed Enicasio twice. He claimed Grengia was not with them and did not participate in the attack.

• Prosecution’s Evidence of Conspiracy: The prosecution’s evidence showed that accused-appellants came in two groups. The first group—Palema, Palmea, and Manzanero—initiated the attack on Enicasio and took his cellphone. The second group—Grengia and Saldua, along with Ladra—joined the fray when Enicasio fought back. All acted in a coordinated and complementary manner.

• Defense’s Version: Accused-appellants admitted they were at the Plaza during the incident but claimed they were not there as a group, each being with different companions. They maintained that the police mistook them for the actual assailants. They did not present the individuals who were supposedly with them.

• Damages: The family incurred P20,000.00 in medical expenses, although receipts for only P3,751.00 were kept. Funeral expenses of P120,000.00 were supported by a receipt.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses. They pointed to a discrepancy between Jamie’s testimony that her stepfather was stabbed in the right thigh and the post-mortem report indicating the stab wound was on the right buttock. They also questioned Erickson’s ability to observe the incident, alleging he was texting before the crime and thus not fully attentive.

• Lack of Conspiracy: Accused-appellants maintained that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. While they concededly acted simultaneously, they insisted there was no proven community of interest or unity of purpose among them.

• Credibility and Conspiracy: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, adopted their appellate brief and refuted accused-appellants’ claims, arguing that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect and should not be disturbed absent any showing of overlooked material facts. Conspiracy was established by the coordinated and complementary acts of the accused in two waves of assault, and by Ladra’s confession.

• Conviction for Robbery with Homicide: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide despite alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony and the alleged failure to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

• Acquittal of Co-Accused Marqueses: Whether the trial court’s acquittal of Marvin Marqueses was proper, given that Marqueses had never been arraigned.

• Conviction for Robbery with Homicide: The conviction was affirmed. The elements of robbery with homicide were proven beyond reasonable doubt: the taking of personal property (Nokia N70 cellphone) with violence and intimidation, belonging to another (Enicasio), with animo lucrandi, and homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery. The original criminal design was robbery, and the killing was merely incidental. Conspiracy was established by the coordinated and complementary acts of accused-appellants, who arrived in two groups to attack and beat Enicasio. The minor inconsistency between the location of the stab wound as described by a witness and as recorded in the post-mortem report did not undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s positive identification. The trial court’s assessment of credibility was accorded great weight and respect. Accused-appellants’ bare denials and failure to present corroborating witnesses were insufficient to overcome the positive evidence. All those who participated as principals in the robbery were liable as principals in the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide even if they did not personally stab the victim, absent any showing that they endeavored to prevent the killing.

• Acquittal of Co-Accused Marqueses: The acquittal of Marqueses was vacated. The records showed that Marqueses was never arrested, remained at large, and was never arraigned. Arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due process, serving to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation. Its absence rendered all proceedings against Marqueses void, and the trial court had no authority to order his acquittal.

• Robbery with Homicide as a Special Complex Crime — Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide exists when: (1) personal property is taken with violence or intimidation; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animo lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of robbery, homicide is committed. The offender’s original criminal design must be robbery; the killing is merely incidental. The homicide may take place before, during, or after the robbery. All felonies committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery are integrated into one indivisible felony. The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense and includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. All those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals for robbery with homicide even if they did not actually take part in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it.

• Conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It must be proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The coordinated and complementary acts of the accused demonstrating a unity of purpose are sufficient to establish conspiracy. Mere presence during the commission of the crime, without performing an overt act to dissociate or detach from the conspiracy and prevent the felony, does not exculpate an accused.

• Arraignment as an Indispensable Requirement of Due Process — Arraignment is the formal mode of implementing the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Its purpose is to notify the accused of the reason for the indictment, the specific charges, and the possible penalty. It is not an idle ceremony; its absence renders all proceedings against the accused void. A court cannot validly acquit an unarraigned accused.

• Scope of Review on Appeal in Criminal Cases — An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The appellate court has the authority to review matters not specifically assigned as errors if their consideration is necessary to arrive at a just resolution, and may revise the judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of law.

• “In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.” — People v. De Jesus, defining the nature of the special complex crime.

• “To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.” — The RTC ruling quoted with approval, restating the rule that passive presence at the scene is insufficient to escape liability.

• “Arraignment … is not an idle ceremony that can be brushed aside peremptorily, but an indispensable requirement of due process, the absence of which renders the proceedings against the accused void.” — The Court reiterating the fundamental character of arraignment.

• People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405 (2004) — Provided the authoritative and comprehensive statement on the nature, elements, and scope of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Followed and applied.

• People v. Domacyong, 463 Phil. 447 (2003) — Enumerated the four elements of robbery with homicide. Followed.

• People v. Algarme, 598 Phil. 423 (2009) — Clarified that the offender’s original intent must be robbery, and that where robbery follows homicide as an afterthought or minor incident, the crimes should be treated as two separate offenses. Distinguished on the facts.

• Borja v. Mendoza, 168 Phil. 83 (1977) — Stressed that arraignment not only satisfies the due process clause but gives the accused an opportunity to know the precise charge. Followed.

• People v. Verra, 432 Phil. 279 (2002) — Held that just as the accused is entitled to due process, so is the State, and arraignment is vital for both. Followed.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Prescribed the updated amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in cases of robbery with homicide. Applied to modify the award of damages.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons where homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Applied as the principal penal provision.

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy. Applied to sustain the conviction of all accused-appellants who acted in concert.

• Constitution, Bill of Rights (Due Process Clause) — The right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is implemented through arraignment; its violation rendered the Marqueses proceedings void.

J. Caguioa, J. A. Reyes, Jr., J. Hernando, and J. Inting concurred.