G.R. No. 29896 | People of the Philippine Islands vs. Salamuddin No. 1, et al. | January 24, 1929 | Romualdez, J.

FACTS:
The defendants-appellants (Salamuddin No. 1, Pangilan, Lajim, Imadi, and Igasan) were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Jolo for the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The trial court sentenced Pangilan, Imadi, and Igasan to twenty years of *cadena temporal*, and Salamuddin No. 1 and Lajim to life imprisonment. All were held jointly and severally liable to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Kalon, and the robbery victim, Tan Chin Chuan. On appeal, the counsel for the appellants limited his arguments to Salamuddin No. 1, Pangilan, and Imadi, contending that they should only be liable for robbery and not homicide because their conspiracy was limited to robbery, and these three appellants did not personally attack the deceased.

ISSUE

Whether appellants Salamuddin No. 1, Pangilan, and Imadi are liable for the homicide committed during the robbery, even if they did not personally attack the victim, given that the killing was done to secure the fruits of the robbery and repel an aggression that threatened its success.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding all appellants liable for robbery with homicide. The Court distinguished the present case from *People vs. Basisten* (47 Phil. 493), cited by the appellants. In *Basisten*, the homicide was committed by one conspirator without the knowledge of the others and was not necessary for the execution of the robbery. In contrast, here, the deceased Kalon attacked the robbers as they were fleeing with the stolen goods. The killing was committed by some of the conspirators to repel this attack, defend their possession of the stolen property, and ensure the success of the robbery. This act was deemed integral to the accomplishment of their common criminal purpose. Applying the established doctrine of conspiracy, each conspirator is responsible for all acts committed by others in furtherance of their common design. The crime was properly classified under Article 502 in relation to Article 503(1) of the Penal Code. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity, and band were present, while the extenuating circumstance of minority was considered for Pangilan and Igasan. The Court found no error in the trial court’s judgment.