PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONALD PALEMA Y VARGAS, RUFEL PALMEA Y BAUTISTA, LYNDON SALDUA Y QUEZON, AND VIRGO GRENGIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Palema

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ronald Palema, Rufel Palmea, Lyndon Saldua, and Virgo Grengia, together with several others, for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide after a man was robbed of his cellular phone and stabbed to death at a town plaza. The case matters for two reasons. First, it restates with precision the elements of robbery with homicide and the rule that the offender's original intent must be robbery, the killing being merely incidental. Second, and more strikingly, it shows that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review, so that the Supreme Court may set aside even an acquittal that the trial court had no authority to render because the accused was never arraigned.

Procedural History

The accused were charged by Information with robbery with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City. On arraignment, several of them, including the four who would later appeal, pleaded not guilty; one accused, Marvin Marqueses, remained at large. After pre-trial, trial on the merits followed. One accused, Lester Ladra, changed his plea to guilty and was convicted in a separate decision, with the service of his sentence suspended under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act; later the trial court dismissed the case against him and discharged him to his parents. Another accused, Edwin Manzanero, died during the pendency of the case, and the case against him was dismissed.

In its decision of April 15, 2013, the Regional Trial Court convicted Ronald Palema, Rufel Palmea, Lyndon Saldua, and Virgo Grengia of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to pay hospital expenses, funeral expenses, and moral damages. In the same decision, the trial court acquitted Marvin Marqueses. The four convicted accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in its decision of May 18, 2016 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The accused then filed a Notice of Appeal, which the Court of Appeals gave due course, and the case reached the Supreme Court, which required the parties to file supplemental briefs; both sides instead adopted the arguments in their briefs before the Court of Appeals.

Facts

At around eleven o'clock in the evening of November 10, 2007, Enicasio Depante was sitting on the benches at the Calamba Town Plaza with his common-law spouse, his son Erickson, and his stepdaughter Jamie Rose. Three men approached him: Ronald Palema, Rufel Palmea, and Edwin Manzanero. Palmea threw a punch at Enicasio in an attempt to grab his phone, while Palema simultaneously pulled out a knife and tried to stab him in the abdomen, but Jamie warded off the blow and Palema dropped his knife. Palema retrieved the knife and stabbed Enicasio on the right thigh, causing him to fall. Then Lyndon Saldua and Virgo Grengia arrived and joined in beating Enicasio.

Erickson tried to help his father but Lester Ladra stopped him and attempted to stab him; Erickson evaded the attack and looked for a weapon, but by the time he reached his father, Enicasio had already collapsed from the stab wounds. Erickson brought him to the hospital, where he died from blood loss. The family testified to medical expenses, of which only a portion was supported by receipts, and to funeral expenses supported by a receipt.

The accused denied the accusations, insisting that although they were at the plaza that night, they were not there as a group but with different people, and that the police mistook them for the attackers. Ladra, however, testified that he was with Palema, Palmea, Saldua, Marqueses, and Manzanero, all of them drunk, when Palema's girlfriend complained that a man in a red shirt had acted indecently toward her; believing the man was Enicasio, the group attacked and mugged him, and Ladra stabbed him twice. Ladra added that Grengia was not with them and did not participate.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused for the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the acquittal of Marvin Marqueses is proper.

Applicable Provisions

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

ARTICLE 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: 1. The penalty of reclusión perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the very provision under which the accused were charged and convicted, and it supplies both the definition of the special complex crime and its penalty.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This governs the second issue on the accused's claim that no conspiracy existed among them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction must stand. To hold a person liable for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must establish four elements beyond reasonable doubt: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; that the property taken belongs to another; that the taking was done with intent to gain, what the law calls animo lucrandi; and that on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. The Court stressed that the offender's original intent must be the commission of robbery, and the killing is merely incidental and subsidiary. Here, the primary objective of the accused was to rob Enicasio, and by reason or on the occasion of that robbery he was stabbed and died. On the credibility of witnesses, the Court held that the trial judge's assessment deserves great weight and respect, absent any showing that material facts were overlooked, and the accused offered no contrary evidence.

On the claim of lack of conspiracy, the Court found that the acts of the accused were coordinated and complementary. They came in two groups: the first attacked Enicasio and took his phone, and the second joined the fray when they saw him fighting back. Their denial and their bare claim that they were with other people, unsupported by the testimony of those persons, could not prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses. A conspirator who wishes to escape liability must perform an overt act to dissociate himself from the conspiracy and prevent the crime; the accused showed no such act.

On the second issue, the Court went beyond the assigned errors because an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. Examining the records, the Court found that Marvin Marqueses was never arraigned: his name does not appear in the Certificate of Arraignment, he was absent at pre-trial, he was never arrested, and the warrant against him was returned unserved. Arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due process, the absence of which renders the proceedings void. Without evidence of arraignment, the trial court had no authority to acquit him, and all proceedings against him before that court are deemed void.

Doctrine

Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime. The offender's original intent must be to commit robbery, and the killing must be merely incidental, although it may occur before, during, or after the robbery; so long as the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the offense is the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. All who take part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of that single felony although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent it. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, an appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case open for review, and arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due process whose absence voids the proceedings against the accused.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed; the conviction of the four accused for robbery with homicide was affirmed with modifications, the acquittal of Marvin Marqueses was vacated, and the accused were ordered to pay the heirs of the victim moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary damages, hospital expenses, and funeral expenses, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until full satisfaction.

Remember This

Memorize the line that in robbery with homicide the original intent must be robbery and the killing is merely incidental, and that an appeal opens the whole case for review. Examiners use this case to test the elements of the special complex crime, the liability of all conspirators for the killing, and the rule that a void arraignment nullifies even a judgment of acquittal.