THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. CONRADO LAGMAY Y GARCES ALIAS “JOJO GARCES”, FERNANDO BAETIONG Y CAMPOPOS, AND FRANCISCO O. PADULLANA, ACCUSED, CONRADO LAGMAY Y GA…

A review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch LXXXIV is sought by appellants Conrado Lagmay y Garces alias Jojo
Garces and Francisco O. Padullana, who are among the three accused convicted of
the crime of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The other accused, Fernando Baetiong y Campopos escaped from prison
after the prosecution had rested its case and remains at large.

The three accused were initially charged in two separate
informations, namely: in Criminal Case
No. Q-15192 for Robbery with the Use of Force and Violence against Persons, and
Criminal Case No. Q-15193 for Robbery and Frustrated Homicide. The two cases were jointly tried by the same
court. In Criminal Case No. Q-15192,
all three accused were acquitted.

The information in Criminal Case No. Q-15193 alleged:

“That on or about the 20th day of July, 1980, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with,
and mutually helping one another, with intent of gain, with the use of force,
violence and intimidation against persons, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, rob the following offended parties of their
personal properties, to wit:

1. Adela Alfonso y Marquez:

One Lady’s wrist watch

with calculator
valued

at
……………………..……………P385.00

Ace Shoulder bag, valued

at………………………………….. 40.00

P425.00

2. Maria L. Jesus:

One college ring valued

at………………………………… P500.00

One gold ring with stone valued

at……………………………….… P250.00

One lady’s Citizen watch

valued
at………………………… P600.00

P1350.00

3. Edgar Fulleros:

One Seiko chronograph

valued at………………………… P600.00

4. Victoriano Madrigal:

Cash money representing

his earnings as driver of

the jeepney robbed

(in different

denominations)…….…………… P180.00

5. Pat. Casiano Pedrana (should be Pedrano)

Cash money in different

Denominations…………………… P 14.00

One pistol, caliber

.45 colt, SN No.

1638482 with seven

rounds of
ammunition Undetermined

amount

in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, pursuant to their
conspiracy, rode in a passenger jeepney driven by the offended party Victoriano
Madrigal at Blumentritt Street, Manila bound for Novaliches, and when said
passenger jeepney was near 11th Avenue, A. Bonifacio Street, this City, said
accused brought out their unlicensed firearm and bladed weapons and told the
passengers that it was a hold-up and threatened said passengers with death if
they resisted or cried for help and thereafter with intent of gain, take, rob
and carry away the personal properties of the offended parties mentioned above
and when Pat. Casiano Pedrano resisted, said accused with intent to kill, stab
(sic) him on different parts of his body and fired at him with their firearm
thereby inflicting upon Pat. Casiano Pedrano serious and mortal wounds which
could have produced his death were it not for the timely intervention of
medical science to the damage and prejudice of offended parties in the
aforesaid sum indicated above and in such other amount as may be awarded to
them under the provisions of the Civil Code.” (Rollo, pp. 6-7)

After trial, the court rendered a conviction, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“In Criminal Case No. Q-15193, the Court finds the accused
Conrado Lagmay y Garces, Fernando Baetiong y Campopos and Francisco O.
Padollana (should be Padullana) GUILTY as principals and beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide under Section 2, Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code with the attending aggravating circumstance of
use of an unlicensed firearm and no attending mitigating circumstance and
hereby sentences all three of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion
perpetua) together with all the accessories attendant thereto. Since the articles subject of the offense
appear to have been recovered, no civil indemnity is imposed for the value
thereof. However, they are sentenced to
indemnify jointly and severally Pat. Casiano Pedrano in the amount of
P36,000.00. Also, they are sentenced to
pay jointly the costs of the proceedings.” (Rollo, p. 10)

The evidence on which the conviction was
based is summarized in the decision as follows:

“In Criminal Case No. Q-15193, the case for the prosecution was
testified to by two of the passengers; Pat. Casiano Pedrano and Adela Alfonso.

“Pat. Casiano Pedrano is a member of the Manila Police
Department. On July 20, 1980, at 11:30
o’clock p.m., he was aboard a passenger jeepney bound for Novaliches, Quezon
City and was seated in the back at the right side. A hold-up was staged by three (3) persons whom he indentified as
the accused herein. The accused Baetiong
stabbed him in the chest while the accused Lagmay shot him on the right and
left thighs with a .22 caliber revolver. His service gun (Exh. “D”), his wallet (Exh. “E”), his badge (Exhs.
“E-1”), his cash money consisting of 2 5-peso bills (Exhs. “F” & “F-1”) and
2 2-peso bills (Exhs. “F-2” & “F-4”), and his shoulder bag (Exh. “G”) were
taken from him by the robbers. He was
then dropped on the highway. He was
brought to and treated at the MCU-FDT Medical Foundation Hospital (Exh. “A”)
and incurred an expense of about P36,000.00.

“Adela Alfonso was a passenger of that same jeepney with her
sister Lydia, cousin Maria Rosal de Jesus, and Restituto Rivera. As the jeepney traveled along, the man
beside her was always pressing his body towards hers. Along A. Bonifacio St. near 11th Avenue in Quezon City, a
passenger whom she identified as the accused Lagmay drew a gun and
announced: ‘This is a hold-up.’ There
were three (3) robbers. Baetiong hit
Rivera with a gun in the mouth while Lagmay slapped her. They took from her Casio calculator watch
worth P385.00 and her bag worth P50.00. It was accused Lagmay who got the things from her. The accused Padollana was the one who took
and collected the jewelries of the other passengers. Lagmay stood up and boxed her and by reason of the force of the
blow, she fell from the jeepney. She
suffered a dislocation in the right shoulder and was treated at the National
Orthopedic Hospital (Exh. “C”). She was
investigated by the police on the following morning and she gave a written
statement (Exh. “B”).

“In addition to the foregoing, the prosecution presented the
extrajudicial admissions of the accused Lagmay (Exhs. “H” & “H-1”) and of
accused Padollana (Exhs. “I” & “I-1”)” (Rollo, pp. 7-8)

The accused interposed their respective defenses denying their
alleged participation in the hold-up.

Conrado Lagmay alleged that on July 20, 1980 at about 11:00 in
the evening in Blumentritt Street, he was alone as he boarded a jeepney bound
for Novaliches. Of all the passengers
inside that jeepney, only Francisco Baetiong was known to him. He did not reach his destination because of
a trouble that occurred while the vehicle was running in which Fernando
Baetiong stabbed another male passenger for reasons he did not know. He jumped out from the back exit of the
vehicle after that stabbing incident but was arrested by a security guard. He however admitted having blood on his
clothes which he explained to have been due to injury on his forearm caused by
his jumping out and rolling on the ground. (TSN, April 19, 1983, pp. 7-8) He said that there was one female
passenger who fell from the jeep but that he did not come to her aid. He also said that he did not confront his
co-accused Baetiong who insisted that it was he (Conrado Lagmay) who shot and
wounded the latter on his right foot. (Ibid, p. 9) The accused likewise said that he did not know nor did he
see Padullana.

Meanwhile, Francisco Padullana narrated that he is a provinciano
who came from Tacloban, Leyte eleven (11) days before the alleged incident took
place, to look for a job in Manila. He
said that after being taught by his aunt on how to commute from his cousin’s
place in Tondo to Blumentritt, and from Blumentritt to his aunt’s house in
Caloocan, he took a jeepney alone on the night of June 20, 1980 from
Blumentritt but failed to arrive at his destination. While the jeepney was running, he saw two men quarrelling with
each other. He was later threatened by
one of the men (referring to Fernando Baetiong) who pointed a bladed instrument
at his (Padullana’s) side, to go with him by a taxicab to a house of a friend
or relative in Tondo. In that house,
Baetiong ate and slept but Padullana did not. He did not leave that house because he did not know the way from there
to his aunt’s place in Caloocan.

According to him, police officers arrested him and Fernando
Baetiong in that house after some hours and held them for questioning. He said that despite his insistence that he
was not involved in the hold-up, the police even mauled him and forced him to
sign a statement. (TSN, May 24, 1983,
pp. 7-13) Padullana said that he did not know his co-accused Conrado Lagmay
(Ibid, 1983, p. 4)

Finding the denials of the accused to be weak and not credible
the trial court convicted all three of them.

Only the accused Lagmay and Padullana appealed the decision to
this Court and assigned the following errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTS IN THIS
INSTANT CASE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CONSTITUTTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANTS TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL DURING CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN VIOLATED.

III

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ADMITTING IN
EVIDENCE THE EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF THE ACCUSED WHICH WERE EXTRACTED
THROUGH FORCE, DURESS, THREATS AND INTIMIDATION.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF APPELLANTS
HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 1 in Rollo, p. 25)

It is argued that there can be no conspiracy among the three
accused in the present case because there was no proof that all three of them
were known to each other and that there was no sufficient proof of a
preconceived agreement to commit the robbery.

The accused-appellants Lagmay and Padullana testified that they
do not know each other and that they did not see each other inside the
jeepney. They likewise admit that both
of them knew Fernando Baetiong. Padullana, however, makes the qualification that he knew Baetiong only
because he was threatened by the latter to go to a house in Tondo.

We emphasize that conspiracy which determines criminal
culpability need not entail a close personal association or at least an
acquaintance between or among the participants to a crime. Moreover, evidence of a previous agreement
or plan to commit a crime is not essential to establish conspiracy. (People v. Maranion, 199 SCRA 421 [1991];
People v. Dionisio, 200 SCRA 207 [1991]) Conspiracy is established by evidence
of unity of purpose at the time of the commission of the offense and unity in
its execution. (People v. Bravante, 150
SCRA 569 [1987]; People v. Cantuba, 183 SCRA 289 [1990]) What is important is
that in the performance of the specific acts necessary to achieve their goal, there
was “such closeness and coordination that would indicate a common purpose or
design.” (People v. Petenia, 143 SCRA 361 [1986]; People v. Francisco, 182 SCRA
305 [1990])

In the present case, conspiracy was established by conclusive
evidence. It was shown to exist as
clearly as the commission of the crime itself. (De la Concepcion v. People, 173 SCRA 253 [1989]) There is evidence of
participatory acts of each of the three accused. Contrary to what the counsel for the accused-appellants suggests,
the Court finds that Padullana is not spared a finding of conspiracy since the
evidence positively manifests the same intent on his part to take things
against the will of the complainants and other passengers. The accused-appellant Padullana was found to
have cooperated and given material aid in the consummation of the crime.

The Solicitor General aptly describes the manner in which the
crime was committed.

“a. As soon as
accused Baetiong announced that they were staging a hold-up in the passenger
jeepney on July 20, 1980, both he (referring to Baetiong) and accused-appellant
Lagmay took turns in hitting victims Casiano Pedrano and Adela Alfonso who
resisted in handing their valuables to the former (TSN, July 13, 1981, p. 2;
TSN, August 26, 1981, p. 6). Once certain
that the other jeepney passengers would provide no resistance for fear of their
life and limb, accused-appellant Padollana took the jewelries of passengers
Marylou de Jesus and Restituto Rivera (TSN, August 26, 1981, p. 7). His acts, if nothing else, indicate criminal
intent to deprive others of their property in accordance with a common plan as
agreed upon with his co-accused Baetiong and Lagmay.” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 15)

The above observations are based on the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.

The appellant’s counsel, however, asks us to believe that the
prosecution witnesses testified on the lack of participation of
accused-appellant Padullana. There is
no basis for this opinion. The Court
notes and views with disfavor the manner by which desired portions of the
testimonies were lifted and the more important ones left out just to convince
us that the prosecution in fact proved the innocence of Padullana. The witnesses Adela Alfonso and Pat. Casiano
Pedrano who were victims of the crime at first answered in the negative in their
respective direct examinations regarding the participation of Padullana, but
after further questioning and more lucid recollection of events as the
inquiries progressed, they answered differently and particularly attested to
Padullana’s presence and act of collecting the items with intent to rob the
passengers.

The testimony of each of the prosecution witnesses is shown to be
characterized by candor that normally accompanies an unrehearsed and honest
delivery of facts personally and vividly known to a witness. Minor discrepancies caused by the needed
deeper reflection do not affect the veracity of a testimony for as long as the
fact of participation was duly established. The credibility of the witnesses are even reinforced. (People v. Lucille Sendon, G.R. No.
95903-05, June 8, 1992; People v. Bautista 147 SCRA 500 [1987]; People v.
Alfredo Hoble y Leonardo, G.R. No. 96091, July 22, 1992)

The pertinent portion of the testimony of Adela Alfonso, the
victim who was slapped by accused-appellant Lagmay and who fell from the
jeepney, is as follows:

x x x                                 x
x x                                        x
x x

Q.   Now you said there were three persons
involved in the robbery hold-up. You
mentioned Fernando Baetiong, you identified Conrado Lagmay as the person who
took your calculator, watch and shoulder bag. Now could you recognize that 3rd person if you see him again?

A.
   Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to Francisco Padollana)

Q.   What did Francisco Padollana do?

A.
   He did not do anything.

Q.
  What was he doing all the while from the
start that this Lagmay drew his gun, slapped and got your calculator and
shoulder bag?

A.
   He was the one who got the jewelries
of my companions.

Q.
  Who is that companions (sic) of yours?

A.    (Witness pointing to Marylou de Jesus and
Restituto Rivera)

(TSN,
August 26, 1981, p. 7; Underscoring ours)

Pat. Casiano Pedrano, the victim who was stabbed, shot and
seriously wounded testified:

Q.   How about the accused Francisco Padollana, did you observe if there
was anything in his possession at that time?

A.    There was none.

Q. While this robbery was
going on what was Padollana doing?

A.    (No answer)

COURT:

Do you want to impress to the Honorable Court that all the wound
sustained in your body were inflicted by accused Baetiong?

A.    Yes, sir.

FISCAL:

While
you were being stabbed by Baetiong do you still recall what the other
passengers were doing?

A.    The other passengers cannot move because Padollana has a gun.

(TSN, July 13, 1981, p. 3;
Underscoring ours)

It can be seen that the prosecution witnesses were able to
positively identify Padullana as one of the three men responsible for the
robbery. The mere presence of
accused-appellant Padullana instilled fear among the passengers. Moreover, his act in collecting the personal
belongings against the will of the owners makes him a co-conspirator to the
unlawful taking of property. Hence, the
allegations that he was a provinciano from Leyte who came here several days
before the robbery took place to look for a job, and that he was forcibly asked
by accused Baetiong to go to a house in Tondo are mere denials which do not
overturn the strength of the prosecution evidence.

The Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that
if indeed accused-appellant Padullana was forced against his will by the
accused Baetiong to accompany him to a house in Tondo, why could he not devise
a scheme to escape? (Appellee’s Brief,
p. 16; Rollo, p. 51)

The second and third assigned errors refer to the propriety of
the admission in evidence of the extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits “H” and
“I”; Original Records, pp. 208-211) of the two accused-appellants allegedly
obtained in violation of the constitutional right to remain silent and to
counsel, and by means of mauling and electrocution administered by policemen in
civilian clothes.

We agree with the appellants that the confessions taken without
assistance of counsel should not have been considered by the trial court. However, the confessions are not necessary
to support the judgment of conviction.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses identifying the
accused-appellants and linking them to the successful accomplishment of a
common plan to rob the passengers of their valuables, constitute strong and
convincing evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The negative testimonies of the
accused-appellants denying their participation cannot prevail over the positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. (People v. Joselito Villalobos and Roberto Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526,
May 27, 1992) The prosecution witnesses related their first-hand account of the
specific involvement of the three accused who, armed with a gun and a bladed
knife, were able to overcome the resistance of the passengers to the extent of
inflicting injuries, and successfully stashed away the things belonging to the
victims. Since in a conspiracy, the act
of one is the act of all, every one of the conspirators is equally guilty and
must then suffer the same penalty prescribed by law. This, notwithstanding the different modes of participation of
each one in the crime. (People v.
Quinones, 183 SCRA 747 [1990])

However, the trial court erred in designating the crime committed
as robbery with frustrated homicide, in applying Section 2, Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, and in appreciating the use of an unlicensed firearm as an
aggravating circumstance. There is no
such crime as robbery with frustrated homicide.

Section 2 of Article 294 which penalizes robbery that is
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or on the occasion of or by
reason of which any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness is inflicted, is certainly not applicable to the present
case. The records do not show any of
such circumstances to be present.

Inasmuch as the prosecution did not establish with absolute
certainty the gravity or seriousness of the physical injuries suffered by
Patrolman Pedrano, the Court deems it proper that the accused-appellants be
held liable under Section 4, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code which
states:

“Art. 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:

x x x                          x x x                            x x x

4. The penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium
period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the
robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime, or x x x.

Section 4, Article 294 penalizes robbery, in the course of the
execution of which, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of robbery, serious physical injuries defined in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 263 of the same code.

We note that the offense was committed under at least two (2) of
the circumstances mentioned in Article 295. The robbery was consummated by attacking a moving motor vehicle such
that the passengers thereof were taken by surprise. It was likewise committed along a street on the regular route
taken by the passenger jeepney with the use of a firearm. According to Article 295, the offenders shall
be punished by the maximum period of the prescribed penalty in Section
4, Article 294, or reclusion temporal in its medium period.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED,
with the modification that the accused-appellants Conrado Lagmay y Garces and
Francisco O. Padullana are held guilty of the offense of robbery defined in
Section 4, Article 294, in the course of the execution of which serious
physical injuries enumerated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 263 were
inflicted and the circumstances mentioned in Article 295 were present. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
accused-appellants are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years
and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as
maximum. The accused-appellants shall
likewise be credited in the service of their sentence with the full time of
their preventive imprisonment provided that they previously agreed voluntarily
in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners; however, if they did not so abide, then they shall be credited with
only four-fifths of the time.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, and
Melo, JJ., concur.