THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CONRADO EVANGELISTA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. CONRADO EVANGELISTA AND ALEJANDRO SALAZAR, APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila finding Conrado Evangelista and Alejandro Salazar guilty of the
crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, section 1,
of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 18), and
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with all the accessory penalties thereof; to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased Patrolman Jose R. Antonio in the
sum of P2,000, complainant Uy Sang in the sum of P3,000, and
complainant Braulio Bulaong in the sum of P1,000; and to pay their
proportionate part of the costs.

On the night of February 14, 1947, Conrado Evangelista, Ruperto
Roque, Lazaro Manlulu, Alejandro Salazar and Bino “Doe” agreed to rob
on the following morning any Chinese store which they might find open.
At about four o’clock of the following morning, February 15, 1947, as
they walked down Quiricada street, they saw that the store of Uy Sang
at No. 1601 corner of Oroquieta and Quiricada streets, had just opened
and Uy Sang was alone inside counting pieces of bread. Whereupon, the
five armed men entered the store brandishing their firearms and ordered
Uy Sang to stay quiet. Ruperto Roque was left outside as the look-out.
After ransacking the sleeping quarters of Uy Sang, the armed men took
P1,000. from a wardrobe which they forced open and P2,000 which they
found inside a pillow. Then they went up to the second floor of the
house where they were met by Braulio Bolaong, landlord of Uy Sang, whom
they threatened with their revolvers and from whom they took a diamond
ring valued at P1,000.

At this moment, Patrolman Jose R. Antonio arrived at the store. An
exchange of shots ensued and the policeman fell dead while one of the
armed men, Ruperto Roque, was wounded in the abdomen. When a. squad of
detectives arrived to investigate, they found the lifeless body of
Patrolman Antonio on the floor of the store. Upon being informed that
the armed men had fled towards Palomar Extension, the detectives gave
chase. There they came upon a shack where they found Ruperto Roque
badly wounded and they arrested Conrado Evangelista whom they saw
leaving the premises.

Conrado Evangelista was brought to the police station where, upon
investigation, he gave a signed statement; (Exhibit F). Ruperto Roque,
who was brought to the North General Hospital for medical care and
confined therein, gave a signed statement on February 19, 1947 (Exhibit
G) and died three days later, on February 22. Alejandro Salazar, who
was able to escape on the day of the crime, was arrested by the
Military Police in Angeles, Pampanga, on May 5, 1947, and was turned
over to the Manila Police to whom he also gave a signed statement
(Exhibit E). Lazaro Manlulu and Bino “Doe” who also escaped after the
robbery, are still at large.

These facts are fully supported by evidence and are not in dispute
in this appeal. The question at bar, as conceded by both parties, is
the criminal responsibility of appellants. Appellants allege that there
was conspiracy only to commit robbery, not homicide, hence they must be
held responsible only for the robbery. Appellee contends that
appellants land their co-defendants conspired together in the
perpetration of the robbery in question, and that on the occasion
thereof, Patrolman Jose R. Antonio was shot dead, hence, appellants are
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.

In accordance with the provisions of law pertinent to this case
(Articles 294 to 296 of the Revised Penal Code) and established
jurisprudence, when an armed band commits robbery and on the occasion
of such robbery a homicide is committed, the crime is robbery with homicide.
And the second paragraph of Article 296 provides that “Any member of a
band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall
be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band,
unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.”

In the instant case, the conspiracy to commit robbery in band, and
the occurrence of a homicide on the occasion of such robbery have been
proven and even admitted, although there is no showing that appellants
and their companions recognized Patrolman Antonio as a policeman when
he arrived at the scene of the robbery. However, the evidence clearly
shows, over the mere denial of their counsel, that appellants were
present when the homicide occurred. On the other hand, there is nothing
in the records which tend to show that the appellants attempted to
prevent the homicide. This Court, therefore, finds appellants guilty of
the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, section I, of the
Revised Penal Code. The aggravating circumstances of “nighttime” and
“dwelling” have also been proven, and there being no mitigating
circumstances to offset the same, the penalty specified by law must be
imposed in its maximum which, in this case, would be death. However,
since the required number of votes for the imposition of the death
penalty cannot be had, the penalty of reclusion perpetua must be
applied.

For all the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is hereby
modified to the extent that the indemnity to the heirs of Patrolman
Jose R. Antonio should be raised to P6,000, and affirmed in all other
respects. It is so ordered.

Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Paras, Feria and Torres, JJ., no part.