G.R. No. L-6989. November 29, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AGAPITO LINGAD Y SANTOS, LEOCADIO CARREON Y CELSO, AMADO MAMUCOD Y CORTES AND CONRADO GRAHAM Y ALEGRIA, DEFENDANTS AND…
LABRADOR, J.:
in the store of Vicente Go at Sulucan Street, Sampaloc, Manila, in order to
purchase coca cola and cigarettes. Soon after they had gone away one of them
appeared again with, two others. Two went directly to the counter fating the
Sulucan Street, while the third went to the alley beside the store, where the
store owner Vicente Go was standing, waiting for a garbage truck. There were two
attendants in the store at the time, namely, Carlos Go and Amparo Go, son and
daughter, respectively, of the owner. One of those that appeared before the
counter had a .45 caliber automatic pistol, which he directed at the two
occupants; the.third at the alley also had a .45-caliber pistol. As he pointed
his pistol at the two. storekeepers, the gunwielder also went over the counter
and opened the drawer thereof and took all the money therein and put it on the
counter before his companion, who immediately grabbed it. At the same moment,
the Chinaman in the alley was pushed and shot. The bullet entered the victim’s
back coming out of the front chest. The three robbers thereupon immediately ran
away to a taxi which had parked far.away ahead of the store.
The Police learned that the taxi used by the robbers was a Villacorta taxicab
bearing number 6 and that the driver who drove the car on the occasion of the
robbery was Amado Mamucod. He was investigated by the police and he took no time
in admitting having driven the car and in identifying the ones who had used the
taxi on the night in question. With this, information, the police proceeded to
investigate the persons pointed out and secured confessions from the driver
Amado Mamucod, Leocadio Carreon, Conrado Graham and Agapito Lingad, all accused
in the case. Upon securing the above confessions, the Fiscal filed the
information for robbery with homicide against them and against Estanislao Real
who is still at large. The accused were informed of the charge and tried aild
found guilty of the, crime of robbery with homicide, and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusidn perpetua to indemnify the heirs of Vicente. Go in the sum
of P10,000 and the sum of P110, the value of the stolen money, and each to pay
one-fourth of the costs.
The keepers of the store on the night in question namely, Carlos Go and
Amparo Go, identified the accused appellant Leocadio Carreon as the person who
first came with another to purchase coca cola and cigarettes, and as the one who
later came together with accused-appellants Conrado Graham and Agapito Lingad.
They also identified him as the one who pointed the automatic pistol at them,
opened the drawer of the counter, and took out the money therein. The
accused-appellant Conrado Graham was pointed out as the companion of Leocadio
Carreon and who was the one who took away the money. They further testified that
the money amounted to around P110.
They also pointed out to the accused Agapito Lingad as the one who pointed
his automatic pistol at their father Vicente Go and later fired at the latter
killing him. Together with the above testimonies, the prosecution also
introduced the confession of the four accused, which the police testified to as
having been executed by the latter freely and voluntarily.
The accused denied having participated in the commission of the crime and
alleged the defense of alibi, They further claimed that their confessions were
secured from them by force, the police delivering blows at their bodies before
they agreed to make the declarations. The trial court, however, refused to
believe these exculpatory statements in the face of the positive. identification
of them by Carlos Go and Amparo Go, the facility with which alibis are
fabricated, and the improbability of their claim that their confessions have
been secured by violence We have carefully read the evidence and we find that
the findings of the trial court are amply supported thereby. It may be added
that the details given by each of the accused in his confession, as to the part
played by each and every one of them from the time the crime was decided upon to
its final consummation, fit into those given by the others so well as to refute
or negate the probability of their having been forced upon the
accused-appellants.
But while we are satisfied that the accused-appellants Leocadio Carreon and
Conrado Graham were the ones who entered the store and grabbed the money from
the drawer of the counter therein at the point of a gun, as testified to by
Carlos Go and Amparo Go and disclosed in the confessions of the
accused-appellants, we are not convinced that it was Agapito Lingad who had
assaulted the deceased Vicente Go and fired the shot which killed him. Under the
circumstances in which the assault was commited, with the victim in the alley,
south of the store at a time when it was raining and therefore dark, and with
pistol directed against the witnesses by the other two robbers, it was difficult
for the former (witnesses) to have been able to recognize the person who made
the assault and fired the gun. The assailant was not face to face with them, as
he was facing towards their right side; he was not a person familiar to the
witnesses, and perhaps their interest could not have been concentrated in him
because they were eagerly and fearfully watching the movements of the other two
robbers, Besides these circumstances we have facts contained in the confessions
of the appellants Estanislao Real, not Agapito Lingad assaulted the deceased.
All these create a reasonable doubt in an impartial mind as to the correctness
of the identification made by the two witnesses for the prosecution. We are,
therefore, unable to agree with the finding of the trial court that it was
Agapito Lingad who assaulted Vicente Go and fired the shot that killed him.
The above circumstances do not, however affect the responsibility of the
accused Agapito Lingad. The confession submitted by the prosecution prove that
on the evening in question, before 9:00 o’clock, Estanislao Real and Agapito
Lingad had been conversing about perpetrating a hold-up and that upon hearing
the same Conrado Graham offered to join them; that thereupon it was agreed that
Graham contact Leocadio Carreon, who was going to get a taxi for them; that that
evening, Leocadio Carreon saw the taxi driven by the accused Amado Mamucod on
Tayabas and Ipil streets, where Conrado Graham came down with Agapito Lingad and
Estanislao Real, and that all four embarked in the taxi driven by the said Amado
Mamucod; that they went around in the taxi, passing in front of Aviles chapel,
thru San Rafael Street, Governor Forbes Street and later Sulucan Street, where
they saw the store in question; that as two persons were then in the store, they
let the time pass by for said two persons to go away by going around and then
coming back to the store; that the second time that they passed the store the
two persons in the store had already gone away, and so they parked the taxi
around two posts (electric) from the store to prevent suspicion; that Leocadio
Carreon and another first came to the store to buy cigarettes and coca cola, to
determine where the storekeepers kept the money; and that three of them
went.back, namely, Leocadio Carreon, Conrado Graham and a third, who is either
Estanislao Real or Agapito Lingad. Under these circumstances, it is evident that
all the three accused namely, Agapito Lingad, Leocadio Carreon and Conrado
Graham, irrespective of their respective participations in the hold-up, are
guilty of the offense committed; it is immaterial which of the two, Lingad or
Real, shot the deceased Vicente Go, because the conspiracy is conclusively,
shown by their common concurrence and their coordinate acts. All of the accused,
whether they have actually participated in the killing or not, are guilty of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide.
In this connection, our attention has been called to the case of People vs.
Basisten, 47 Phil. 493, wherein this Court has held that where only one of the
defendants committed the homicide at the time of commission of the robbery, said
homicide not having beenthe subject of the conspiracy, nor the others having had
any intervention therein, only the one who actually committed it may be held
responsible for the complex crime of robbery, with homicide, the others being
responsible only for the robbery in band. This decision seems to be at variance
with the first case on the point, decided in this jurisdiction, which is that of
U. S. vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil. 1, wherein this Court stated:
“* * * The Supreme Court of Spain, interpreting the provisions of the Penal
Code touching the complex crime of robo con homicidio, has frequently decided
that, where the complex crime has been committed, all those who took part as
principals in the commission of the robbery are guilty as principals in the
commission of the crime of robo con homicidio, unless it appears that they
endeavored to ‘prevent the unlawful killing. (Decisions of the supreme court of
Spain, April 30 and February 23, 1872, and June 19, 1890. See also Viada, Vol.
S, pp. 347, 354, and 356.)”
The above decision was followed by us in the case of People vs. De la Cruz,
et al., G. R. No. L-4532, promulgated on May 26, 1952, in which we said:
” ‘Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion
of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the
robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery
with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless
it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.’ (People vs.
Bautista, 49 Phil., 389, 396, citing U.S. vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil.,
1.)”
These two rulings are in accord with the decisions of the supreme court of
Spain of February 23, 1872 and January 18, 1898. In the first, it was held:
“* * *—El Tribunal Supremo ha declarado qne siendo ambos procesados autofes
del robo, lo son igualmente del homecidio que ocurrio en el mismo acto, al
tiempo de ser perseguidos por el interfecto; porque este ultimo delito esta de
tal manera enlazado con el de robo, que a no haber mediado este, ni los robados
hubieran pedido auxilio, ni al prestarselo el tercero hubiese sido muerto como
lo fue; y que por consiguiente, habiendo tomado parte directa en la ejecucion
del robo ambos procesados, son autores uno y otro, segun el articulo 13 del
Codigo Penal, y por lo mismo responsables los dos de todas las consecuencias de
su accion. (S. de 30 de abril de 1872, Gaceta de 1. de julio.)”“El propio Tribunal Supremo ha resuelto: ‘que si resulta probado la
delincuencia del procesado en el hecho generador, que es el robo, con ocasion
del que se cometio un homicidio, basta esto, en conformidad a lo dispuesto en el
numero 1 del articulo 516, para considerarle tambien responsable del homicidio;
resolution cuya justicia evidencia auri mas el parrafo segundo del 518, en el
que se declara que los malhechores presentes a la ejecucion de un robo en
despoblado y en cuadrilla son autores de cualquiera de los atentados que esta
cometa si no constare que procuraron impedirlos (S. de 23 de febrero de 1872,
Gaceta de 11 de mayo.)” (Viada, Codigo Penal Comentado, Volumen 6, paginas
126-127,)
In the second decision, it was also.held:
“* * *.—El Tribunal Supremo ha resuelto la afirmativa; ‘Considerando tocante
al recurso de Eusebio Perez, que, habiendose cometido el homicidio de Julian Mas
con motivo u ocasion del robo realizado en su casa, .todos los procesados,
autores de este, cuyo caracter 1 no niega al recurrente su defensa, son
responsables de todas sus Gonsecuencias, y por lo tantodel homicidio, que la ley
pena eomo una mera resultancia del robo, sean o no todos los procesados
ejecutores de aquel, y aun cuando no lo fuese ninguno directamente, segun asi
desprende del texto del numero 1, articulo 5l6 del Codigo Penal, y lo tiene
declarado tambien este Tribunal Supremo en repetidas decisiones, etc’ (S. de 18
enero de 1898, Gaceta de 11 de febrero.)” (Viada, supra, paginas
128-129.)
In accordance with the above authorities, we.hold that as Agapito Lingad was
in conspiracy with his other co-accused, he is also guilty as principal of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, whether he was the person who fired the
shot that, killed Vicente Go or not; and all the accused are also guilty of said
complex crime irrespective of the fact that two of them had limited themselves
to the actual act of robbery, and even if the third actually stayed inside the
taxicab without having actually participated in the act of robbery or in the act
of homicide.
One further point needs consideration, and that is the criminal
responsibility of the accused-appellant Amado Mamucod,who droved taxicab in
which the other accused-appellants rode. From the confessions of the
accused-appellants, we find that the conspiracy to make a hold-up or to commit
the crime of robbery was decided upon between Agapito Lingad, Estanislao Real,
Conrado Graham and Leocadio Carreon; that Leocadio Carreon was asked to look for
a taxi in.which they could ride to look for a victim; that Leocadio Carreon saw
the taxicab driven by appellant Mamueod and that he rode in it and, thereafter,
the other three accused-appellants also rode in it. Under these circumstances,
it cannot be said that Amado Mamucod actually took part in the conspiracy to
commit the crime of robbery. However, he was aware thereof, as he admitted that
he knew tliat his co-accused were going to make a hold-up. The taxi driver by
him was necessary to the commission of the crime because it was through its use
that they could find a store that could be the object of their criminal, design.
As Mamucod did not take part in the original conspiracy to commit the crime of
robbery, but only furnished the means through which the robbery could be
perpetrated, with knowledge of the said criminal design, he. is not guilty as
principal of the crime of robbery with homicide, but is an accomplice therein
(Article 18, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Ubiña, et al., 97 Phil.,
515.)
For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed as to the accused-appellants Agapito Lingad, Leocadio Carreon and
Conrado Graham, but modified as to the accused-appellant Amado Mamucod, who is
hereby found guilty as an accomplice in the crime of robbery with homicide, and
sentenced to a minimum of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor and a
maximum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. In all
other respects, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista. Angelo,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.