GR 118140; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118140 February 19, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANTE PIANDIONG Y CALDA, JESUS MORALLOS Y CALDA, ARCHIE BULAN Y AMPULAN, and TWO (2) JOHN DOES, accused.
FACTS
On the evening of February 21, 1994, Percival Catindig, PO1 Gerry Perez, and two female companions boarded a passenger jeepney in Kalookan City. After traveling a short distance, a group of five men, including the three accused-appellants, boarded the same vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the group announced a hold-up. Accused Morallos brandished a hand grenade while accused Bulan and Piandiong, armed with firearms, divested the passengers of their valuables. When PO1 Perez attempted to draw his service firearm, accused Piandiong grabbed him by the neck and shot him in the chest. The robbers then alighted, but Piandiong returned to shoot the already wounded and pleading policeman in the face at close range, resulting in Perez’s death.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
RULING
Yes, the accused-appellants are guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Percival Catindig, to be clear, credible, and consistent. The witnesses positively identified the appellants during a police line-up and in open court, detailing their specific roles in the conspiracy to commit robbery and the subsequent killing. The defense of alibi proffered by the appellants was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated.
The legal logic establishes that all accused acted in concert, constituting conspiracy. Each appellant’s individual actions—announcing the hold-up, brandishing weapons, divesting victims, and preventing escape—demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. The shooting of PO1 Perez by Piandiong was done in furtherance of the robbery, making all conspirators equally liable for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime was aggravated by the circumstance of band, as it was committed by more than three armed malefactors. With this aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the imposition of the supreme penalty of death was proper under the law then in force. The Court found the brutal and merciless nature of the killing, especially the second shot to the face of the helpless victim, indicative of a heinous crime warranting the ultimate penalty.