G.R. No. L-27999 EN BANC & G.R. Nos. L-27999-L-28000 November 23, 1971
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MIGUEL CAMPOMANIS ET AL., defendants, PELICOLO TULBA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Defendants-appellants, including Pelicolo Tulba, were charged with two counts of robbery with homicide for the killings of spouses Dionisio Tracarol and Maxima Baroro. The prosecution evidence established that the group, with the intent to rob, went to the victims’ house. Dionisio was attacked first in the yard, struck with a coconut stem and then stabbed. Hearing the commotion, Maxima was subsequently killed inside the dwelling. Various personal effects were scattered, and a trunk was found pried open some distance away. The defendants were arrested while attempting to flee by boat. Co-accused Lumaghan and Magaso executed extrajudicial confessions detailing the plan to rob and the subsequent killings, though appellant Tulba refused to give a statement.
The trial court convicted all defendants as principals for two separate crimes of robbery with homicide, sentencing each to life imprisonment for each count. Tulba appealed, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court due to the penalty imposed.

ISSUE

Whether the acts constitute two separate crimes of robbery with homicide or a single complex crime of robbery with homicide plus a separate homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It ruled that only one complex crime of robbery with homicide was committed, pertaining to the killing of Dionisio Tracarol. The legal logic is grounded on the doctrine of absorption in complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The original criminal design was to commit robbery. The homicide of Dionisio was perpetrated on the occasion and by reason of the robbery, making it a single, indivisible complex crime. The killing of Maxima Baroro, however, constituted a separate crime of simple homicide. Her death was not necessary to carry out the robbery; it was a distinct and subsequent act triggered when she was alerted by her husband’s screams. Thus, the criminal liability is for one robbery with homicide and one homicide.
Consequently, for the complex crime of robbery with homicide (of Dionisio), the penalty is life imprisonment, the offense having been committed in a dwelling, at nighttime, and by a band. For the separate homicide of Maxima, the penalty is an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Appellant Tulba’s civil liability was increased to P12,000 for each death, totaling P24,000. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.