GR L 37483; (June, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37483 June 24, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO OQUIÑO, ROMULO LAGARIO alias “Rogelio Lagario”, and ARNIDO CALOSOR, accused, ROMULO LAGARIO alias “Rogelio Lagario”, appellant.
FACTS
The case involves the automatic review of a death sentence imposed on appellant Romulo Lagario for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The incident occurred on the evening of October 10, 1971, in Tacloban City. The prosecution evidence, primarily from eyewitness Marina Uy, established that she and the victim, Aniceto Parades, were accosted inside a park shelter by three armed men: Lagario, Antonio Oquiño, and Arnido Calosor. Oquiño initially held Uy, while Lagario and Calosor took Parades aside. After Uy broke free, she witnessed Oquiño holding the victim’s shirt while Lagario stabbed him in the chest and Calosor stabbed him in the back. The assailants then took the victim’s “Rado” wristwatch. Parades died from his wounds. The watch was later recovered from a third party to whom Lagario had given it for sale. Of the three accused, Oquiño died pending trial, Calosor remained at large, and only Lagario was tried.
ISSUE
The core issue for review is whether the guilt of appellant Romulo Lagario for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper given the attendant circumstances.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty. The legal logic rests on the conclusive establishment of all elements of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution convincingly proved that the taking of the wristwatch (robbery) and the killing of Parades (homicide) were accomplished on the same occasion by the same actors, constituting a single special complex crime. The Court found the eyewitness account of Marina Uy credible, consistent, and corroborated by physical evidence and the recovery of the stolen watch. Lagario’s denial and alibi were deemed weak and unsubstantiated.
Regarding the penalty, the Court affirmed the presence of three aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstance to offset them. First, abuse of superior strength was present as three armed men assaulted an unarmed victim. Second, recidivism was properly proven through certified copies of final judgments for previous theft convictions. Third, habitual delinquency was duly established based on the same prior convictions. The Court agreed with the trial court that the circumstance of nighttime was not proven to have been deliberately sought. Consequently, under the applicable law, the presence of these aggravating circumstances warranted the imposition of the supreme penalty of death. The civil indemnity was also sustained.