FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 221427, July 30, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALVIN J. LABAGALA AND ROMEO LABAGALA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the June 27, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06040 which affirmed the November 15, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Cabanatuan City, finding appellants Alvin J. Labagala and Romeo Labagala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
The Antecedent Facts
Appellants, together with their co-accused, Pablito Palens a.k.a. "Jun" (Pablito), Salve A. Pascual (Salve) and Michael Doe (Michael), were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide in an Amended Information3 dated December 23, 2002 which reads:
That on or about the 12th day of June, 2002 in Cabanatuan City, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court[,] the above-named accused, armed with a deadly weapon, with intent [to] gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation on the person of one MARIO P. LEGASPI, SR., conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding and abetting with one another[,] did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following: 2 big rings, necklace, watch, cash money and a licensed 9 MM Jericho pistol with Serial No. 95305683[,] more or less in the total amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00), Philippine Currency, owned by and belonging to said Mario Legaspi[,] Sr., to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Mario Legaspi[,] and on the occassion [sic] of the said robbery, the above-named accused[,] with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Mario Legaspi[,] Sr. by hitting him on the head and stabbing him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and the fact that the accused took advantage of superior strenght [sic] and had employed means to weaken the victim's defense and evidence premeditation [sic].
[Appellant] Romeo Labagala was a resident of Homestead II, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. On 5 June 2012, he went to Barangay Dicos, Nueva Ecija to harvest "palay" in the farm of Mario Agulto. He stayed there for almost a month.
He testified that from Cabanatuan City to Talavera, Nueva Ecija, it would take one (1) hour of travel by jeepney, while it would take about three (3) hours of travel from Cabanatuan City to Barangay Dicos, Nueva Ecija.
[Appellant] Alvin Labagala is Romeo Labagala's nephew. He was also a farmer in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. On 12 June 2002, however, he was in Tanza, Navotas helping his friends[,] Lolita Asuncion and Chito Asuncion[,] sell vegetables. He stayed there until the first week of July. Thereafter, he returned to Guimba, Nueva Ecija with the Asuncion spouses to reap vegetables. A week after, they returned to Tanza, Navotas to sell the harvested vegetables. When going to Navotas, they would usually pass by Cabanatuan.17
The [p]rosecution was likewise able to establish conspiracy among [appellants] in the commission of the crime. Jun Alberto stated how the accused confederated and mutually aided one another in the commission of the crime, identifying [appellant] Alvin Labagala as the one who poked and whipped the victim with his gun while his other companions held him. x x x 20
From the circumstances obtaining in this case, it cannot be doubted that the appellants, together with their co-accused who are at large, acted in conspiracy in committing the crime charged. They were together when they entered the compound of [the victim]. Afterwards, they were still together when they divested [the victim] of his jewelry and in dragging the latter inside his house where he was killed, while one of them cornered Jun Alberto and brought him at the backyard, up to the time they fled the scene of the crime. Thus, there can be no other conclusion than they hatched a criminal scheme, synchronized their acts for unity in its execution, and aided each other for its consummation.28
ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
[FISCAL VICENTE B. FRANCISCO:] Q:Now, you mentioned that when accused Salve Pascual entered the yard of [the victim] to buy cigarette[s,] the four (4) accused also entered the yard, what happened after that?A:They poked a gun at [the victim].
Q:Who[,] in particular[,) poked a gun at [the victim]?A:It was Abel who poked a gun at [the victim].
Q:And when you say Abel[,] you are referring to accused Alvin Lagabala [sic], [are you] not?A:Yes, [s]ir.
Q:And what happened after accused Alvin Lagabala [sic] poked a gun [at the victim]?A:After he poked a gun, be whipped [the victim] with his gun and then be took away his jewelries...
Q:And what are those jewelries that accused Alvin Labagala took away from [the victim]?A:Two (2) rings, necklace and one wrist watch.
Q:And after accused Alvin Lagabala [sic] took away the pieces of jewelries from [the victim], what happened after that?A:He dragged the victim inside the house.
Q:And what happened after that[?]A:I heard that there was a commotion, that somebody was moaning.
Q:What about you, what did you do?A:I was cornered by one of their companions and I was brought at the backyard.
Q:And after [the victim] was brought inside the house, what happened after that?A:There was a commotion and they ran away.
Q:After the commotion[,] what happened?A:I went inside the house and saw [the victim] already dead.[35 (Emphasis supplied)
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of [a] robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.43 (Emphasis and italics supplied)
[COURT:] Q:So you said it was this Alvin Labagala who poked a gun on [the victim] and who whipped a gun on him. How about the other companions[,] what were they doing when Alvin Labagala ganged the old man?A:While Alvin Labagala was whipping the old man, they were holding [the latter in place].[45 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018.
** Per January 17, 2018 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
*** Per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Danton Q. Bueser.
2 CA rollo, pp. 34-45; penned by Presiding Judge Angelo C. Perez.
3 Records, p. 29. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 12694.
4 See Order dated July 25, 2008, id. at 73.
5 Referred to as June Alberto in some parts of the records.
6 TSN, April 24, 2009, pp. 10-11 and 12-13.
7 Id. at 6.
8 Id. at 7-8.
9 Id. at 8.
10 Id.at 16.
11 Id. at 9.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 CA rollo, p. 25.
18 Id. at 44-45.
19 Id. at 39.
20 Id. at 42.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 41-42.
23 Id. at 44-45.
24Rollo, p. 12.
25 Id. at 7.
26 Id. at 8.
27 Id. at 11.
28 Id.
29 CA rollo, pp. 27-28.
30 Id. at 28-30.
31 "The word 'homicide' is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide." See People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 427 (2004).
32People v. Madrelejos, G.R. No. 225328, March 21, 2018.
33People v. De Jesus, supra.
34 Id.
35 TSN, April 24, 2009, pp. 8-9.
36Rollo, p. 8.
37People v. Navarro, 357 Phil. 1010, 1030 (1998).
38People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 814 (2009). Italics supplied.
39 See People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562-563 (2008).
40 Id.
41Rollo, p. 11.
42 Supra note 31.
43 Id. at 428.
44 TSN, April 24, 2009, p. 6-9.
45 Id. at 16.
46People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 846-848 (2016).