GR L 28548; (July, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28548 July 13, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO TOLING alias IKONG, ROGELIO COMETA alias CELIO, CANDELARIO BOLANDO, alias DODO, ROLANDO COMETA alias LANDO, EMILIO TOLING AND HILARIO GAHITO, defendants, ROGELIO COMETA alias CELIO, ROLANDO COMETA alias LANDO, and CANDELARIO BOLANDO alias DODO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, along with others, were charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of February 5, 1966, in Barrio Bagong Gutlang, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, the accused conspired to rob the house of Francisco Lumpayao. Upon being discovered, they fled but shortly thereafter shot and killed Isabelo Caseres, a neighbor who responded to Lumpayao’s calls for help. After the killing, the accused entered Lumpayao’s dwelling and carried away various personal items. The trial court convicted the appellants and imposed the death penalty, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of band, nocturnity, dwelling, and treachery.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review is whether the appellants were correctly convicted of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, despite the killing occurring outside the house being robbed and prior to the actual taking of the property.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The legal logic is that the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code exists when a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The Court held that the spatial and temporal separation between the killing and the actual asportation does not sever the intrinsic connection between the two acts. The evidence showed a unified criminal design to rob Lumpayao. The killing of Caseres, who was responding to the victim’s distress call, was a direct consequence of and a step taken to facilitate the robbery by eliminating a potential obstacle or witness. Therefore, the homicide was committed by reason of the robbery, making the appellants liable for the single, indivisible complex crime. However, the Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, as the death penalty was not constitutionally permissible at the time of the decision. The indemnity was also increased.