G.R. No. L-35781 January 28, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. A SET KINDO, BENITO YEO and LUMIHAY SULO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, A Set Kindo, Benito Yeo, and Lumihay Sulo, were convicted of robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries. The prosecution evidence established that on June 13, 1969, the victims, Ortillo Tanan and his wife Fructuosa, along with companions, were walking home from a market. They were pelted with stones from bushes, causing Fructuosa to fall. Immediately thereafter, the three accused emerged armed with knives. Kindo and Yeo held Fructuosa at knifepoint and demanded money, taking P6.00 from her. Simultaneously, Sulo pursued Ortillo Tanan and stabbed him, causing fatal injuries. Fructuosa also sustained slight physical injuries from the stoning. The accused fled together after the incident.
The appellants denied the robbery and conspiracy. Lumihay Sulo claimed he stabbed Ortillo Tanan in self-defense during an altercation, while Kindo and Yeo disclaimed any participation in the stabbing or robbery, presenting an alternative narrative of a chance encounter and a fight. The trial court rejected these defenses, finding the prosecution’s eyewitness accounts credible and establishing a conspiracy among the accused.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide based on a finding of conspiracy.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of conspiracy, which is pivotal in establishing collective criminal liability. The Court emphasized that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of a prior agreement but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicating a common purpose and unity of action. The sequence of events—the coordinated stoning to disorient the victims, the immediate and simultaneous appearance of all three armed appellants, the分工 where two accosted the wife for money while the third pursued and killed the husband to prevent resistance, and their joint flight—irrefutably demonstrates concerted action towards the unlawful objective of robbery. The claim of self-defense by Sulo was correctly rejected, as he failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, and his narrative was inconsistent with the credible and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, as conspirators, each appellant is liable for all acts executed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the homicide and physical injuries that resulted from the robbery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded indemnities were thus sustained.