THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HERMINIO BARUT, ALEJO RAMISCAL AND ERNESTO QUEBRAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Herminio Barut (Barot), Alejo Ramiscal and Ernesto Quebral
appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela,
convicting them of robbery with homicide, sentencing each of them to reclusion
perpetua and ordering them to pay solidarily the heirs of Evaristo
Tuvera (Tobera) an indemnity of P12,000. 
The trial court also ordered the return to Francisco Lazaro of the
articles taken from him which were recovered near the scene of the robbery
after the accused had fled (Criminal Case No. IV-202-74).

According to the prosecution, shortly after sundown, on June 15, 1969, while Marcelino Grospe
was pasturing his carabao in his farm at Sitio Basilio, Barrio San Jose, Roxas,
Isabela (p. 4, Record), he saw Herminio Barut, Alejo Ramiscal, Ernesto Quebral,
Juan Agustin and Castor Acson, persons known to him, going towards the hut or camarin
of Francisco Lazaro, an octogenarian. 
Acson was armed with a carbine. 
Sensing that the group had evil intentions, Grospe rode on his carabao,
crossed the Siffu River
and informed his neighbors that Lazaro was in trouble.

Acson held up Lazaro and at gunpoint got his money amounting to
twenty-three pesos.  Acson’s companions
went up the hut, ransacked it and took his carpentry tools worth one hundred
pesos and parts of a carbine.  These
articles were later recovered and presented as evidence (Exh. B to F).

Grospe and his neighbors, Lorenzo Soriano, Saturnino Sales,
Maximo Saludares, Alejandro Tuvera and Evaristo Tuvera, armed with guns and
bolos, constituted themselves as a rescue party and repaired to the vicinity of
Lazaro’s hut.  They deployed behind the
banana plants.  There was a brief
exchange of fire between the two groups. 
Acson was killed while in Grospe’s group Evaristo Tuvera was the lone
fatality.  The malefactors fled from the
scene of the fight.  Alejandro Tuvera saw
them running away (54 tsn June 28,
1974).

Evaristo sustained an entrance gunshot wound in the chest.  The bullet penetrated his heart and right
lung and exited in the right scapular region or shoulder blade (Exh. A).

The incident was investigated by the Constabulary.  The affidavits of Grospe, Lazaro, Alejandro
Tuvera (son of Evaristo) and Lorenzo Soriano were taken and sworn to before the
municipal judge of Roxas on June 23,
1969.  On the basis of those
affidavits, a complaint for robbery in band with homicide was filed against
Barut, Ramiscal, Quebral and Agustin in the municipal court of Roxas by a
Constabulary investigator on July 7,
1969.

At the preliminary examination on July 16 and 17, 1969, the
municipal judge interrogated Lazaro, Grospe, Soriano, Consolacion Cabutaje, the
widow of the deceased Evaristo Tuvera, and Doctor Luis R. Tamayo who conducted
the autopsy on the body of the deceased Evaristo Tuvera.

However, the warrant of arrest dated July 17, 1969 was served
upon Barut, Quebral and Ramiscal a few years later or only on December 30,
1972, August 27, 1973 and December 31, 1973, respectively (p. 3, CFI Record).

The municipal judge conducted the second stage of the preliminary
investigation and took Quebral’s statement on December 10, 1973. 
He took the statements of Barut and Ramiscal on December 31, 1973.

The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance only on January 9, 1974.  The fiscal filed against the same accused an information
for robbery in band with homicide dated February
19, 1974.  As already stated,
the trial court convicted them (except Agustin who is at large in Mindoro)
of robbery with homicide.

Appellants Barut, Ramiscal and Quebral contend that the trial court’s
decision does not state the ultimate facts on which the judgment of conviction
was based.  That contention is devoid of
merit.  After meticulously summarizing
the evidence of the prosecution and the defense, the trial court synthesized
its findings and concisely narrated how the robbery with homicide was
perpetrated by the accused.  Then, it
rationalized its conclusion that the robo con homicidio was not
committed by a band.  It justified its
view that the alibis interposed by the accused are not worthy of credence.

The trial court’s decision conforms with
the require­ment that the judgment should contain clearly and distinctly a
statement of the facts proven or admitted by the accused and upon which it is
based (Sec. 2, Rule 120, Rules of Court; Sec. 12, Art. VIII,
1935 Constitution; Sec. 9, Art. X, 1973 Consti­tution).

The appellants argue that the case should have been investigated
by the police and not by the Constabulary soldiers.  That is a baseless or flimsy argument.  The term “peace officer” in section
2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which enumerates the persons who are
competent to file a criminal complaint, includes members of the
Constabulary.  They are directly charged
with the preservation of peace, law and order. 
It is their duty to investigate crimes and bring criminal offenders to
justice.  (See secs. 825, 826, 831 and
848, Revised Administrative Code.) Generally, they are more competent and
experienced than policemen to investigate crimes.

Appellants’ other assignments of error, which deal with the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses, do not merit any serious
consideration.  Appellants’ arguments as
to the discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence are fully answered in the
prosecution’s brief.

Appellants’ uncorroborated alibis have no exculpatory value.  When the robbery with homicide was committed,
appellant Barut was allegedly in Barrio Malbog, Tagkawayan, Quezon
Province where he was working on a
farm owned by his uncle; appellant Quebral was at Barrio Baua, Gonzaga, Cagayan,
while appellant Ramiscal was at Barrio Salindingan, Ilagan, Isabela.  The three appellants allegedly stayed in
those places for four years.

The three appellants are admittedly close friends (15-16 tsn September 25, 1974).  Together with Acson and Agustin, they were
all residents of Barrio Masigun, Roxas. 
The probability is that immediately after the occurrence of the incident
in question they fled from Barrio Masigun and stayed for more than three years
in those aforementioned places as fugitives from justice in order to avoid
arrest and prosecution.  They then
utilized their stay in those places as the basis of their alibis.

As has been repeatedly observed in cases of similar nature,
appellants’ alibis cannot destroy the positive identification made by the
prosecution witness, Marcelino Grospe, who is acquainted with the appellants
and who had no motive for fabricating evidence against them.

The robbery was proven beyond reasonable doubt.  After the exchange of fire between the rescue
party and the five malefactors, the latter in their excitement and confusion
left the objects of the robbery at the scene of the encounter.  Those articles were recovered and presented
as evidence in court (Exh. B to F).

Although the killing of Evaristo Tuvera was perpetrated after the
consummation of the robbery and after the robbers had left the victim’s house,
the homicide is still integrated with the robbery or is regarded as having been
committed “by reason or on the occasion” thereof, as contemplated in
article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

In the controlling Spanish version of article 294, it is provided
that there is robbery with homicide “cuando con motivo o con ocasion del
robo resultare homicidio”. “Basta que entre aquel y este exista una relacion meramente ocasional.  No se requiere que el homicidio se cometa
coma medio de ejecucion del robo, ni que el culpable tenga intencion de matar,
el delito existe segun constante jurisprudencia, aun cuando no concurra animo
homicida, incluso si la muerte sobreviniere por mero accidente, siempre que el
homicidio se produzca con motivo o con ocasion del robo, siendo indiferente que
la muerte sea anterior, coetanea o posterior a este” (2 Cuello Calon,
Derecho Penal, 1975 14th Ed. p. 872).

There is robo con homicidio even if the victim killed was
an innocent bystander and not the person robbed.  The law does not require that the victim of
the robbery be also the victim of the homicide (People vs. Moro Disimban, 88
Phil. 120; People vs. Salamuddin No. 1, 52 Phil. 670; People vs. Gardon, 104
Phil. 371).

In the instant case, the robbery spawned a fight between the
robbers and the neighbors of Lazaro, the robbery victim.  The killing of Evaristo Tuvera resulted from
that fight.  Hence, it was connected with
the robbery.

The three appellants, together with Agustin and Acson, were
co-conspirators.  They are all
responsible for the homicide.  There
being no modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
imposed by the trial court is in conformity with articles 63(2) and 294(1) of
the Revised Penal Code.  Band is not
aggravating because it was not proven that four of the five malefactors were
armed.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed with the
slight modification that the appellants should pay solida­rily to Francisco
Lazaro the sum of twenty-three pesos (P23) which was taken from him by one of
the robbers.  Costs
against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
and Abad Santos, JJ.,
concur.