GR 125784; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125784 ; November 19, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DINDO VALLEJO Y MASOLA, DARWIN LLARENAS Y OCENAR, ROMEO TIPASI Y QUIRAN & ARNOLD CAMO Y ACOI, appellants.
FACTS
On April 3, 1994, appellants conspired to rob Bell All Sales Corporation in Manila. Appellant Dindo Vallejo, a former employee, gained entry by using the intercom to be buzzed in. He then opened the main gate, allowing his co-appellants and other armed companions to enter. Appellants Romeo Tipasi and Arnold Camo held driver Armando Opeña at gunpoint. Vallejo and appellant Darwin Llarenas proceeded to the office of the General Manager, Santos Delos Santos Chua. During the robbery, a commotion ensued, and Chua was shot. The assailants carried the wounded Chua to a warehouse, where Llarenas shot him again at close range. The group fled, taking cash and personal belongings, including the victim’s Omega watch, wallet, and gold pen.
The appellants were arrested without warrants the following day. During the arrests, police recovered the victim’s personal items from appellants Llarenas and Tipasi. The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses, including Opeña and the victim’s wife, Rita Delos Santos, who positively identified all appellants and specifically identified Llarenas as the one who fatally shot her husband. The appellants were charged with robbery with homicide.
ISSUE
Whether the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
Yes, the appellants are guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The prosecution successfully established all elements of robbery with homicide through credible and consistent eyewitness testimonies. The witnesses positively identified the appellants, detailing their individual participation in the conspiracy. Vallejo facilitated entry, Tipasi and Camo provided armed intimidation, and Llarenas directly perpetrated the killing. The recovery of the victim’s stolen properties from the appellants further corroborated their participation in the robbery.
The legal logic hinges on the nature of the crime as a special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, where the homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Proof of conspiracy dispenses with the need to pinpoint who delivered the fatal blow, as all conspirators are equally liable for the consequences. The Court found the warrantless arrests lawful as they were effected within a hot pursuit period. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 , which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and the value of stolen property to the victim’s heirs.