case digest, mark labad

G.R. No. 140405             March 4, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. MAJOR EMILIO COMILING et. al.

FACTS:

On September 2, 1995, Ysiong Chua, the owner of Masterline Grocery and his helper Mario were about to close the store when someone knocked on the door to buy some cigarettes. As soon as Mario opened the door, three masked, armed men suddenly barged into the store and announced a hold-up. Ysiong darted to the adjacent Good Taste Bakery and out to the Tayug Police Station to report the incident.

SPO1 Rolando Torio, PO3 Erwil Pastor and SPO4 Emilio Nagui of the Tayug Police Station rushed to the crime scene. While SPO1 Torio was standing outside the store's door, he heard three gunshots coming from inside the store, all directed towards Bonifacio Street. PO3 Pastor was then on the street while Nagui was some 50 meters away. PO3 Pastor ran and hid behind a concrete marker, then moved westward as if to return to the police headquarters. Unfortunately, in his attempt to flee, PO3 Pastor was shot in the face. He was rushed to the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital. On September 6, 1995, PO3 Pastor died from the injury he suffered.

Meanwhile, Ysiong discovered that he lost three gold necklaces worth P26,000 and cash amounting to P81,000.

On September 26, 1995, bothered by her conscience, prosecution witness Naty Panimbaan decided to reveal to police authorities what she knew about the case. During the trial, she testified that she was present in all the four meetings in which the plan to rob the Masterline Grocery was hatched.

On the other hand, all the accused denied culpability for the felony. Each of them claimed to be somewhere else at the time the crime happened on September 2, 1995. The witnesses for the defense also tried to impugn the credibility of the lead witness for the prosecution, Naty Panimbaan.

On September 1, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision, convicting MAJ. EMILIO COMILING, GERALDO GALINGAN alias "BongandRICKY MENDOZA,

Appellants Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeal briefs.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court is correct in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING:

Appellant Comiling, assails his conviction by asserting that the killing of PO3 Erwil Pastor happened after the robbery took place, hence the "homicide" could not have been a necessary means of committing the robbery. Neither could it be said that the robbery produced another offense.

The argument is specious. As correctly stressed by the Solicitor General, robbery with homicide is a "special complex crime." It is enough that in order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the killing, which is designated as "homicide," has a direct relation to the robbery, regardless of whether the latter takes place before or after the killing. For as long as the killing occurs during or because of the heist, even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with homicide is committed.

Appellant Comiling likewise contends that Naty's testimony was inadmissible against him to prove conspiracy because of the res inter alios acta rule under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

This rule prescribes that any declaration made by a conspirator relating to the conspiracy is admissible against him alone but not against his co-conspirators unless the conspiracy is first shown by other independent evidence.

According to Comiling, Naty's testimony showed that she was also a conspirator, thus, the existence of conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than Naty's admission. As there was no independent proof of conspiracy except the testimony of Naty, the latter's testimony concerning appellant's participation in the conspiracy was inadmissible against him. This contention is misplaced. The res inter alios acta rule refers only to extrajudicial declarations or admissions and not to testimony given on the witness stand where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.⁸ In the present case, Naty's admission implicating appellant Comiling was made in open court and therefore may be taken in evidence against him.

            While we are convinced that appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, we cannot impose the penalty of death on them. Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code,²⁴ the crime of robbery carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise against appellants. However, these circumstances were not specifically alleged in the information as required under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hence, inasmuch as no aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be deemed to have attended the commission of the offense, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Emilio Comiling, Geraldo Galingan and accused Ricky Mendoza are hereby found guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.