PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO, APPELLANT.

People versus De Leon

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in People versus De Leon, a prosecution for robbery with homicide arising from a hold-up at a gasoline station in San Mateo, Rizal in the early hours of January 7, 2000. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, are the appellee; Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo is the appellant, convicted by the trial court and, on intermediate review, by the Court of Appeals. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a compact illustration of the elements of robbery with homicide and of the reach of conspiracy, and it shows how the Court treats the killing of a person on the occasion of a robbery as integrated into one indivisible felony — and how the penalty is adjusted after the abolition of the death penalty.

Procedural History

Four separate Informations for robbery with homicide were filed against the appellant and several co-accused, some of whom remained at large. On arraignment, with the assistance of counsel de parte, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty on all the charges. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, rendered its Decision on December 20, 2001, convicting the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in all four cases and imposing the penalty of death in each, taking into account the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance, and awarding compensatory damages, death indemnity, and moral damages.

The cases were elevated to the Supreme Court, but in conformity with the Court's ruling in the Mateo case, which allowed an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the Court transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals. On June 29, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide of only one count, and, given the passage of Republic Act Number 9346, reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, the penalty imposed being reclusion perpetua.

Facts

In the early morning of January 7, 2000, around two o'clock, employees of Energex Gasoline Station in Barangay Guinayan, San Mateo, Rizal were on duty: Eduardo Zulueta and Fortunato Lacambra III, gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, the cashier; and Edralin Macahis, the security guard. A mint green Tamaraw FX arrived for service. Zulueta attended to it, took the key from the driver, filled the tank with fifty pesos worth of diesel, and returned the key. The driver then said the engine would not start, and Zulueta offered to push the vehicle.

While Zulueta and Lacambra positioned themselves at the back of the vehicle, six male passengers alighted and announced a hold-up, armed with a shotgun and a thirty-eight caliber pistol. Lacambra was ordered to lie down; Zulueta was directed toward the car wash section, with guns poked at them. The appellant, who guarded Zulueta, poked a gun at him and took his wallet containing a pawnshop ticket and fifty pesos, while a companion hit Zulueta on the nape with a gun. Four members of the group went to the cashier's office and took three thousand pesos; those same four shot Edralin Macahis in the stomach and took his service firearm. After the gunshots, the robbers boarded the vehicle and fled. Macahis was brought to the hospital but died of the gunshot wound. The following day, Zulueta identified the appellant as one of the robbers who poked a gun at him.

The appellant's defense was alibi and denial. He claimed he had been helping his aunt at her canteen in Binangonan, Rizal, and that on the evening of January 6 he was allowed to hitch a ride on the Tamaraw FX of a certain Christian Gersalia. He said he fell asleep, woke to find the others conducting a hold-up, and stayed in the vehicle out of fear; after the gunshots the group fled toward Marikina, were chased by policemen, and the vehicle hit a wall, leaving him behind to be arrested.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was a co-conspirator in the commission of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not, assuming the appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide, the trial court erred in imposing four death penalties despite the crime being produced by one single act, which should be meted with a single penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or any person shall suffer: 1. 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.

This is the provision under which the appellant was charged and convicted, and it fixes the penalty for robbery with homicide.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the crime of robbery with homicide was indeed committed, and that the appellant's claim that conspiracy was not proved had no merit. The Court laid down the elements of the crime, quoting its earlier disquisition in People versus De Jesus:

For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.

The Court explained that in robbery with homicide the original criminal design is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, and that the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. It stressed that once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, all the felonies committed by reason of or on that occasion are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, and that the word homicide is used in its generic sense. On conspiracy, the Court held that where two or more persons aim by their acts toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, are in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved — an implied conspiracy. The Court also held that 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, and that 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.

On the second issue, the Court of Appeals had already modified the judgment, finding the appellant guilty of robbery with homicide of only one count, and, given the passage of Republic Act Number 9346, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal on that footing, the penalty imposed being reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, robbery with homicide requires the confluence of four elements: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; the property taken belongs to another; the taking is with animo lucrandi, that is, intent to gain; and by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. Second, the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life, and once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, all the felonies committed by reason of or on that occasion are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. Third, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are 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. Fourth, conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the malefactors, and 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. Fifth, the penalty for robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death, subject to the adjustment brought about by Republic Act Number 9346.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for robbery with homicide of one count and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the modifications made by the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

Memorize this line: once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all the felonies committed on that occasion are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, and every conspirator is a principal. Examiners use this case to test the elements of robbery with homicide, the reach of implied conspiracy, and the effect of Republic Act Number 9346 on the penalty.