GR L 23019; (March, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23019 March 28, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ILDEFONSO (BONGCOLO) GENOGUIN, SERGIO AGANG and GORGONIO AGANG, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of January 20, 1960, appellants Ildefonso Genoguin, Sergio Agang, and Gorgonio Agang entered the yard of Prudencio Tizon. Sergio Agang and Ildefonso Genoguin climbed into the house, while Gorgonio Agang remained below as a lookout. Inside, Sergio Agang attacked Prudencio Tizon with a bolo, inflicting multiple serious wounds, while Genoguin fired a gun but missed. The appellants then proceeded to rob the house, taking cash and a transistor radio. During the commotion, Filomena Tizon, Prudencio’s daughter, was heard shouting “Bongcolo.” Gorgonio Agang, from the yard, ordered Genoguin to shoot her. Genoguin fired, hitting Filomena, and Sergio Agang also stabbed her. Filomena died from her wounds, and Prudencio sustained serious physical injuries requiring prolonged hospitalization.
The defense of the appellants was alibi. They claimed they were elsewhere during the incident. The trial court, however, found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Domingo de la Peña and Cesar Dapiton to be credible and consistent. Furthermore, the ante-mortem statement of the dying victim, Filomena Tizon, positively identified “Bongkolo” (Genoguin) as her assailant. The court rejected the alibi due to the positive identification and the physical possibility of the appellants’ presence at the crime scene.
ISSUE
Whether the appellants are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries.
RULING
Yes, the appellants are guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of conspiracy among the appellants. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, indicating a common purpose and concerted action. Here, the acts of the three appellants were clearly connected and cooperative: two entered the house to assault the victims and steal, while the third stood guard and later instigated the killing of Filomena Tizon. As conspirators, each is liable for all acts executed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The killing of Filomena Tizon and the infliction of serious physical injuries upon Prudencio Tizon are deemed constituent acts of the single, indivisible crime of robbery with homicide. The homicide and injuries were perpetrated to remove opposition to the robbery or to suppress evidence thereof, thus merging into the composite whole. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances modifying the liability, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the trial court’s judgment by increasing the civil indemnity for the death of Filomena Tizon from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The appealed decision was affirmed in all other respects.