GR L 31594; (April, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31594. April 29, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO PUNO Y MAÑALAC, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The case involves a robbery inside a passenger jeepney near Manila North Harbor. Appellant Romeo Puno and his companion, Pablo Tenarife (at large), boarded the jeepney. Puno, armed with a dagger, poked it at passenger Magdaleno Enorasa and took his wallet containing thirty pesos. Simultaneously, Tenarife, armed with a gun, announced the holdup, took the wallet and watch of another passenger, Agustin Oyong, and then shot Oyong in the neck, causing his death. Both malefactors then fled the scene. Puno was later identified and apprehended after being accidentally injured by the same jeepney rushing the victim to the hospital.
Puno admitted to robbing Enorasa but denied conspiring with Tenarife for the homicide. He contended he acted under Tenarife’s compulsion. The trial court convicted him of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, Puno argues the absence of conspiracy and, alternatively, that his liability should only be for simple robbery.
ISSUE
Whether appellant Romeo Puno is guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide based on conspiracy.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the established principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found conspiracy was conclusively proven by the appellants’ coordinated acts. Puno and Tenarife planned together, boarded the jeepney together, and simultaneously executed robberies on different victims while both armed with deadly weapons. This demonstrated a community of design and unity of purpose to commit robbery.
Once conspiracy is established, each conspirator is liable for all acts committed in furtherance of the common criminal design. The homicide was indisputably committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Therefore, Puno is equally liable for the killing perpetrated by his co-conspirator, Tenarife, even if he did not personally fire the shot. The rule is that all participants in a robbery are guilty of the resulting complex crime of robbery with homicide unless they endeavored to prevent the killing, which Puno did not. His presence and armed participation emboldened the commission of the crime. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.