G.R. Nos. L-32202-04 July 25, 1984
The People of the Philippines vs. Onting Biruar, et al., with Abraham Lim, Ceferino Caturan, Romualdo Raboy, and Saturnino Galliano as defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of July 2, 1966, in Sitio Suapit, Mati, Davao, a group of armed men perpetrated a series of crimes. The incident began at the house of Gorgonio Mosende, where appellants Romualdo Raboy and Edgardo Señeres, armed with pistols, demanded a firearm. Intimidated, Mosende’s wife surrendered a shotgun, and the appellants ransacked the aparador, taking cash. Shortly after, gunshots erupted from the nearby house of George Kalitas. The armed group, which included appellants Abraham Lim, Ceferino Caturan, Raboy, and Saturnino Galliano, fired upon the Kalitas residence. They broke down the door, and during the ensuing confrontation, the paraplegic George Kalitas fired back, hitting one assailant before being fatally shot himself. The robbers then looted a trunk containing a large sum of money. To cover their crime, appellant Galliano poured kerosene on the house and set it ablaze, resulting in the complete destruction of the property and causing physical injuries to other occupants, including a child and a maid.
The accused were charged with Robbery in Band (for the Mosende robbery), Arson, and Robbery with Homicide and Physical Injuries (for the Kalitas incident). The Court of First Instance of Davao convicted them, imposing penalties including the death penalty for Robbery with Homicide. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review, with appellants challenging the trial court’s findings.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of the appellants for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and the crime of Arson was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the child eyewitness Jessie Renopal and other victims, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the appellants’ participation in a conspiracy. The sequence of events—the initial robbery at Mosende’s house immediately followed by the armed attack, robbery, killing, and burning of the Kalitas house—demonstrated a single, continuous criminal design executed by the band. The homicide and physical injuries were direct results of the robbery, properly constituting the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The act of setting the house on fire to conceal the robbery constituted the separate crime of Arson. The Court applied the ruling in People vs. Apduhan, holding that when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery, all those who conspired to commit the robbery are liable for the homicide, regardless of who inflicted the fatal wound. However, for Robbery with Homicide, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua due to the lack of sufficient votes for imposition of the capital punishment. The indemnity for the death of George Kalitas was increased to P30,000.00. The appealed decision was thus modified accordingly.