G.R. No. 118130 September 24, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JURY MAGDAMIT and WILFREDO GERERO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Jury Magdamit and Wilfredo Gerero, along with five others at large, were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The information alleged that on August 21, 1988, in Bulan, Sorsogon, the armed group conspired to rob the premises of Convote Aquatic Development, owned by Taiwanese national Jou Wen Shiong. During the robbery, the victim was chased, hit with a handgun which discharged, and shot in the head, causing his instantaneous death. Items valued at P60,000 were carted away. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Ariel Serrano, positively identified Magdamit and Gerero as among the armed men who perpetrated the robbery and killing.
In their defense, Magdamit claimed his extrajudicial confession was extracted through force and intimidation, while Gerero interposed alibi, testifying he was out fishing at the time of the incident. The trial court convicted both accused, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua due to the constitutional prohibition on the death penalty, despite finding the aggravating circumstance of band.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellants Jury Magdamit and Wilfredo Gerero of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Ariel Serrano to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish appellants’ participation beyond reasonable doubt. His testimony detailed their active involvement in the robbery and the ensuing homicide. The defenses of alleged coercion regarding Magdamit’s confession and Gerero’s alibi were rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak against the positive identification.
The legal logic is grounded in the nature of robbery with homicide as a special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. When a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all conspirators in the robbery are liable for the single indivisible crime, regardless of who inflicted the fatal blow. Participation in the conspiracy to commit robbery renders each co-conspirator equally responsible for the killing, unless it is proven they attempted to prevent it. No such proof existed here. The aggravating circumstance of band was correctly applied, as more than three armed malefactors acted together. Consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.