G.R. No. 220761. October 03, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDDIE OLAZO, MIGUEL CORDIS, CHARITO FERNANDEZ AND ROGELIO LASCONIA, ACCUSED, CHARITO FERNANDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The case stemmed from the robbery and killing of Erlinda Vallecera on August 8, 2004, in Abuyog, Leyte. The plan to rob the Vallecera spouses was hatched in two meetings during July and August 2004 by a group including accused-appellant Charito Fernandez, Rogelio Lasconia, Miguel Corbis, and others. The conspirators enlisted Dionesia Lasconia, a househelp of the victims, to facilitate entry by leaving a gate open. On the night of the crime, Dionesia allowed masked accomplices Rogelio Lasconia, Rommel Escobio, and Eddie Fernandez into the house. They accosted Erlinda, hogtied her husband Nicanor, and forced Erlinda to open a vault from which they stole over PHP 100,000 in cash and jewelry. Thereafter, Escobio and Lasconia killed Erlinda by slashing her throat and stabbing her.
Charito Fernandez was charged with Robbery with Homicide under an Information alleging conspiracy. During trial, co-accused Rommel Escobio pleaded guilty, Joseph Oronos was discharged as a state witness, and Dionesia Lasconia was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. The Regional Trial Court convicted Charito, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting Charito’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Charito Fernandez conspired to commit Robbery with Homicide, thereby incurring criminal liability for the killing perpetrated by his co-accused during the robbery.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that conspiracy was sufficiently established. Charito’s presence and participation in the two planning meetings demonstrated a unity of purpose and a community of intent to commit the robbery. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential; it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, evidencing a joint purpose and design.
The Court ruled that by participating in the planning, Charito rendered moral and material aid to the execution of the crime. His act of attending the meetings and agreeing to the plan constituted inducement and facilitation, making him a conspirator. Consequently, under the principle of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Charito is equally liable for the homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery, as the killing was a logical and foreseeable consequence of their violent criminal design. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld as proper under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Court also modified the damages awarded to the heirs of the victim, ordering Charito to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages, all with legal interest.