GR 108789; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Abe Rosario, Erwin Rivera and Melchor Balanay, accused. Abe Rosario and Erwin Rivera, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused Abe Rosario, Erwin Rivera, and Melchor Balanay were charged with Attempted Robbery with Homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of July 13, 1990, the three accused, armed with firearms and wearing bonnets, went to the house of Crispin Diza in Vintar, Ilocos Norte. They demanded money from the occupants. When told there was no money, Rivera ordered Crispin to come out. Crispin, his wife Edna, and their son Sherwin complied and sat on a porch bed. Rivera fired a warning shot, after which Rosario immediately shot Crispin in the face, killing him. Rosario and Rivera then entered and ransacked the house before fleeing upon Balanay’s warning.
The trial court convicted Rosario and Rivera of Attempted Robbery with Homicide, qualifying the killing to murder due to treachery, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. It convicted Balanay only of Attempted Robtery. Only Rosario and Rivera appealed.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the appellants’ guilt for the complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The testimonies of eyewitnesses Edna and Sherwin Diza were found credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the appellants’ identities and criminal acts. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), as the attack on the unarmed and compliant victim was sudden and deliberate, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. The complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide exists when the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, regardless of whether the killing was intended. The demand for money and the subsequent shooting when the demand was unmet inextricably linked the homicide to the robbery attempt. All conspirators are liable for the complex crime; thus, the Court noted that the trial court erred in not convicting Balanay of the same complex crime, but this point was moot as he did not appeal. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded indemnities were affirmed.