GR 25975 77; (January, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-25975-77 January 22, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLONIO ADRIANO Y SANGUESA, MARIO SAN DIEGO Y RONQUILLO, LEONARDO BERNARDO Y GONZALES (at large), MARIANO DOMINGO Y LUMAGUE, PEDRO BERNARDO Y GONZALES, and GERVACIO SANTOS Y CAHATOL (deceased), defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The case involves the robbery of the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) office in Manila on August 25, 1963, which resulted in the deaths of two security guards. The principal accused—Apolonio Adriano, Mario San Diego, Mariano Domingo, and Leonardo Bernardo—were former or current RCA employees who meticulously planned the heist to steal nearly half a million pesos in undeposited collections. Their plan involved using forged documents to enter the compound, employing an acetylene torch to open safes, and utilizing multiple vehicles, including jeeps and a Buick convertible for lookouts and getaway. The robbery was executed as planned, but during its commission, or on the occasion thereof, the security guards Francisco Timbreza and Jose de la Cruz were killed.
The appellants were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The trial court imposed the death penalty on the four principal accused. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. One accused, Gervacio Santos, had died pending appeal, leading to the dismissal of the case against him.
ISSUE
The central issue for review is whether all the accused who conspired to commit the robbery are also liable for the homicides that occurred on the occasion thereof, constituting the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court, per curiam, affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court held that when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who conspired in the robbery are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, provided the homicide was a direct consequence of the robbery. The legal logic is rooted in the doctrine of conspiracy and the nature of the special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Once a conspiracy to commit robbery is established, the act of one conspirator in killing a person on the occasion of the robbery is considered the act of all, making each co-conspirator equally liable for the complex crime.
The Court found the conspiracy among the appellants to be clearly proven through their detailed planning meetings, procurement of equipment, and coordinated execution of the robbery. The killings of the guards were a direct and foreseeable result of the violent robbery, committed to overcome resistance and ensure the crime’s success. Therefore, the appellants were correctly found guilty of robbery with homicide. However, the Court modified the death sentences to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) due to the absence of the necessary votes for the imposition of the death penalty. The Court also affirmed the convictions for the other accused as principals and accessories, as appropriate, and ordered indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the deceased victims.