GR L 29980; (December, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29980 December 14, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO ANG, MAXIMINIO SUNGCADOS, LEONILO HANGINON, LUIS DE GUZMAN, RICARDO TIBAY and CESAR ORIAS, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On February 18, 1963, at twilight, nine armed men entered the house of Fernando Saraste in Padada, Davao. They robbed the premises, fatally shot Saraste, and raped two young housekeepers, Benigna Zamora and Gloria Nacis. The accused-appellants—Santiago Ang, Maximinio Sungcados, Leonilo Hanginon, Luis de Guzman, Ricardo Tibay, and Cesar Orias—were charged under a consolidated information for Robbery in Band with Homicide and Rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts from the victims and a bystander, Nestor Nuñez, who identified several accused at the scene. The defense consisted mainly of alibis, which the trial court found unpersuasive.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Davao convicted all six accused and imposed the death penalty. The court ordered indemnity for Saraste’s heirs, the rape victims, and restitution for the stolen items. The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for review, given the capital punishment imposed.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of all six accused for the complex crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and found the testimonies of the rape victims, Benigna Zamora and Gloria Nacis, to be credible, consistent, and corroborated by physical evidence and the testimony of Nestor Nuñez. Their positive identification of the appellants, whom they saw clearly during the prolonged ordeal inside the illuminated house, was deemed reliable. The Court rejected the appellants’ alibis for being weak and unsubstantiated, noting they failed to prove the physical impossibility of their presence at the crime scene.
The legal logic centered on the principle of conspiracy. The Court held that all acts done in furtherance of the common criminal design were attributable to each conspirator. The appellants, acting in concert, broke into the house, committed robbery, and during its perpetration, killed Saraste and raped the women. These acts were integral to the execution of their conspiracy to rob. Consequently, each appellant was liable for all consequences of the collective action, including the homicide and rapes, even if they did not personally pull the trigger or commit the sexual assaults. The complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 prescribes the single penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. However, the presence of the aggravating circumstances of band, dwelling, and ignominy justified the trial court’s imposition of the maximum penalty. Nevertheless, for lack of sufficient votes for execution, and in line with prevailing jurisprudence at the time, the Supreme Court modified the death sentence to reclusion perpetua. The awards for civil indemnity were affirmed.