G.R. No. L-47500. April 29, 1987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO MARIBUNG and JOEL ALAGIA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, primarily based on the testimony of eyewitness Edgardo Calaoan, alleged that on May 11, 1974, appellants Simplicio Maribung and Joel Alagia invited Vicente Baniel and Calaoan to the Aparri seashore. There, appellants suddenly attacked Baniel, took his wallet and watch, and subsequently buried him alive in a shallow pit, causing his death by asphyxia. The stolen watch was later traced to Maribung, who also executed an extrajudicial confession implicating Alagia. The trial court convicted both appellants of robbery with homicide, aggravated by treachery and the commission of the crime in an uninhabited place, and imposed the death penalty.
Appellants presented a different version. Maribung claimed Baniel invited them to the seashore. An argument ensued over an unpaid balance for a watch, leading Baniel to hit Maribung. After Maribung fell, Baniel fled but was chased by Alagia. Maribung, upon recovering, joined Alagia in boxing Baniel. Believing him dead, they buried him. Maribung took the watch, fearing its loss. Alagia denied any involvement, claiming he was elsewhere.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, and if not, what is the proper crime and corresponding penalties.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for robbery with homicide. The Court found the prosecution evidence insufficient to prove robbery as the main purpose of the killing. The taking of the wallet and watch occurred after the assault had commenced and the victim was already prostrate. This sequence indicates that the taking was merely an afterthought, not the principal objective. Consequently, the complex crime of robbery with homicide does not exist; the killing is homicide separate from the subsequent appropriation of belongings.
Regarding the killing, the Court rejected the claim of incomplete self-defense by Maribung. For self-defense to apply, unlawful aggression must be continuous. The victim’s act of hitting Maribung ceased when Maribung fell and the victim fled. This discontinued aggression does not justify a plea of self-defense. However, the victim’s act of hitting Maribung constituted sufficient provocation, which is a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. This mitigating circumstance applies in favor of Maribung. No such circumstance was appreciated for Alagia.
Thus, the Court found both appellants guilty of simple homicide. Maribung, with the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Alagia was sentenced to 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.