GR 91628; (August, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91628 ; August 22, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MACARIO SANTITO, JR., ALLAN CABALLERO, DIOSCORO CANDIA, BENJAMIN CAPANGPANGAN and WILLIAM NARCISO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of January 20, 1987, Paulino Rosario and his son Emmanuel were at a church plaza in Balamban, Cebu, to retrieve their cattle. The five appellants approached and encircled Paulino. Allan Caballero and Macario Santito, Jr. wrestled with him, while the others attempted to help. Frightened, Emmanuel ran to seek help from his brother-in-law, Jovil Pesquera. Upon their return, they saw appellants around Paulino, who was now lying unconscious. Appellants fled upon their approach. Paulino’s pockets were turned inside out, and the P10,000.00 he was known to be carrying was missing. Paulino later died in the hospital from head injuries caused by a blunt object.
Appellants pleaded not guilty and proffered alibis, each claiming to have been in different locations during the incident. The trial court convicted them of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay restitution, indemnity, and damages.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted appellants of robbery with homicide but found them guilty of homicide. The legal logic is that for the complex crime to exist, the robbery itself must be conclusively proven as the main purpose, and the homicide must be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Here, the evidence for the robbery was circumstantial and insufficient. The only indication was the missing money and turned-out pockets after the assault. The Court ruled this did not conclusively establish that a robbery was the original intent; the taking could have been a mere afterthought to the killing.
Following precedent, such as People vs. Pacala, where the robbery is not conclusively proven, the killing is classified separately as homicide or murder, not as part of the complex crime. The prosecution’s evidence adequately established conspiracy in the killing through the witnesses’ positive identification of appellants’ collective assault under sufficient lighting. However, the robbery component lacked the requisite conclusive proof. Thus, appellants are guilty of homicide, qualified by abuse of superior strength, not robbery with homicide. The case was remanded for determination of the proper penalty for homicide.