PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERIBERTO YABUT Y PALINGO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Three persons were originally
charged with the crime of robbery with multiple homicide and serious physical
injuries in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.^[1] Renato Teodoro was acquitted for lack of
evidence.^[2] Angeles San Antonio and Eriberto Yabut were
convicted as charged.^[3] Both questioned their conviction, but San
Antonio eventually withdrew his appeal.^[4] Eriberto Yabut thus remains the lone
appellant in this case.

Judge Alfredo C. Flores found that on October 31, 1982, at about
10 o’clock in the evening, Angeles San Antonio, a member of the Teresa Rizal
Police Station, and Eriberto Yabut, a meat dealer, arrived at the residence of
Gen. Amado Santiago, at Valle Verde, Pasig, Metro Manila, and pretended to be
looking for Renato Teodoro, the family driver. Thelma Cruz, the general’s sister-in-law, said Teodoro was not
there. San Antonio then asked for
coffee, which was served by two maids, Joaquina Ege and Lydia Catarig, upon
Thelma’s instruction.^[5]

To their surprise, the maids saw guns pointed at them, a .45
caliber pistol by San Antonio and an armalite by Yabut. The intruders announced a robbery, eliciting
cries of alarm from the two
maids as they were forced into the library. Thelma, who heard the maids shouting, rushed to the room of Santiago
upstairs. Meantime, the other persons
in the house, namely, the spouses Dario and Rosario Enero, who were then visiting, and Alfredo Bultron,
the house caretaker, were rounded up to join the two maids. When Santiago came down, San Antonio also
took him to the library, where his hands were tied by Bultron upon Yabut’s
orders.^[6]

San Antonio then
ransacked the rooms upstairs while Yabut stood guard in the library. Thelma had hidden under a sofa, but was
asked to come out by Santiago upon prodding from San Antonio and Yabut. The two got from her the amount of P800.00,
the cash sale of Santiago’s store for that day. They also took several pieces of jewelry with a total cost of
P545,000.00 as itemized in the information.^[7]

The two men had started
to leave when San Antonio, as if by afterthought, grabbed Yabut’s armalite and
fired at their captives in cold blood. Joaquina Ege, Lydia Catarig, the spouses Rosario, and Dario Enero died
on the spot. Santiago and Alfredo
Bultron suffered physical injuries.^[8]

San Antonio was arrested
the next day by the Pasig police.^[9] Yabut was voluntarily surrendered by his
mother.^[10] The loot, together with the armalite and the
.45 caliber pistol, was recovered in San Antonio’s house.^[11] A paraffin test conducted on San Antonio
found him to be positive of gun powder residue.^[12] A similar test on Yabut yielded negative
results.^[13]

At the trial, both San
Antonio and Yabut admitted their participation in the crime charged. Yabut, however, offered to enter a plea of
guilty only to the lesser offense of simple robbery, saying he had no part in the killings.^[14] San
Antonio tried to exculpate himself with the explanation that at the time of the
commission of the offense, he was under the influence of drugs.^[15]

The trial court rejected these manifestations and found both
accused equally guilty as charged. The
dispositive portion of the decision read as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing accused Angeles
San Antonio and Eriberto Yabut to a penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify jointly and solidarily the heirs of the victims, Joaquina Egre, Lydia
Catarig, Dario Enero and Rosario Enero, in the sum of P30,000.00 each; the sum
of P15,000.00 to Alfredo Bultron; the sum of P200,000.00 to Gen. Amado Santiago
and the further sum of P545,000.00 by way of damages to the spouses Amado and
Eleanor Santiago. With costs.

The bail bond filed by accused Renato Teodoro is hereby cancelled.

SO ORDERED.

In this appeal, Yabut
contends that the trial court erred in finding the existence of conspiracy
between him and San Antonio; in not holding him guilty only of robbery; and
in considering nighttime and the killings and serious physical injuries as
aggravating circumstances.^[16]

Yabut’s conviction will
be sustained.

The well-settled doctrine is that conspiracy need not be proved
by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime; only rarely would
such a prior agreement be demonstrable since in the nature of things criminal
undertakings are only rarely documented by agreements in writing.^[17]
Thus, conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during
and after the commission of the crime, showing that the several accused had
acted in concert or in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or
design.^[18]

In the case at bar, the
evidence shows that Yabut and San Antonio were together when they borrowed the
car they used to get the armalite in Yabut’s house.^[19] San Antonio admitted they brought the
armalite to Santiago’s residence with robbery aforethought.^[20] Both San Antonio and Yabut, brandishing
their weapons, herded the occupants of the house into the library.^[21] Yabut ordered Bultron to tie the hands of
Santiago.^[22] While San Antonio was ransacking the rooms,
Yabut stood guard with his armalite, ready to react to any resistance on
discovery.^[23] All these acts showed unity of purpose
between Yabut and San Antonio in the execution of the robbery and the killings
and physical injuries that followed.

Where conspiracy is
shown, the acts of one conspirator and the precise extent or modality of
participation of each of the conspirators in the crime become secondary.^[24] The act of one conspirator is the act of the
other conspirators, and each of them is equally guilty of the crime committed.^[25] Hence, Yabut, as a conspirator, cannot be
held guilty only of the lesser offense of robbery but must also answer for the
shooting of the captives.

The Court also applies
the accepted principle that whenever homicide has been committed as a
consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special
crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the
homicide.^[26] The single exception to the rule is when it
is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing.^[27] But there is no such showing here. On
the contrary, Yabut actually threatened the lives of the captives, saying he
would make “dominoes” out of them, by which he meant he would mow
them down one after the other.^[28]

The plea for the exoneration
of San Antonio on the ground that he acted under the influence of drugs has
become irrelevant with the withdrawal of his appeal. It is unacceptable in any case. As for the aggravating circumstance of
night-time, there is no showing that it was purposely sought or taken advantage
of to facilitate the commission of the offense or for the purpose of
impunity. At any rate, this
circumstance cannot affect the penalty prescribed for the offense, for reasons
to be given presently.

The designation of the
offense is erroneous. The information
should have charged the appellant simply with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. We have consistently held that the number of
the homicides or injuries committed should not change that designation although
they could have been considered aggravating circumstances before the
modification of the penalty for this offense.^[29] The term “homicide” as used in the
said provision is to be understood in its generic sense and includes murder and
physical injuries committed during the robbery, which are merged in the crime
of robbery with homicide.

As we held in People v.
Maranion:^[30]

x x x it is the nature of the crime of robbery with homicide that
the homicides, irrespective of their number, committed on the occasion of or by
reason of the robbery, are merged in the composite crime of “robbery with
homicide.” It is error, therefore, to treat the death of the victims as
“double or multiple homicide,” for in this special complex crime, the
number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty
prescribed in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

Robbery with homicide is
now punishable with the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua because of the prohibition of the death
penalty.^[31] Under the first paragraph of Article 63 of
the Revised Penal Code, “In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the court
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.” This is the reason for not
appreciating time and the shooting of the victims for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.

A witness for the prosecution, Lt. Florencio Reyes, testified
that the entire loot, including the jewelry taken, was recovered.^[32]
There was therefore no justification for the award of P545,000.00, representing
the amount stolen, as actual damage. No
evidence having been presented regarding the actual damages sustained by Bultron
and Santiago as a result of their respective injuries, the award therefor
cannot be allowed either. As we held in
People v. Degoma,^[33] courts cannot simply assume that damages were
sustained by the injured party nor can they rely on speculation or guesswork in
determining the fact and amount of damages.

The Court notes with distress that the crime was committed by
still another policeman, who by his own admission was under the influence of drugs. This is a dismaying commentary on the image
of our men in uniform, to whom the people used to look up as their shield and
weapon against the lawless elements. Now many policemen have themselves joined the lawless elements and have
become the predators rather than the protectors of the public. It is time to launder the soiled and
disheveled khaki and bring back to it the cleanness and the starch that
inspired so much respect and confidence before in the men who wore it.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED,
but with these modifications: The civil
indemnity for the death of Joaquina Egre, Lydia Catarig, Dario Enero and
Rosario Enero, is increased to P50,000.00 for each victim. The award of P545,000.00 as actual damages
to the spouses for the things stolen from them is deleted. The award of the amount of P15,000.00 to
Bultron and the additional award of P200,000.00 to Santiago for their injuries
is also disallowed, no evidence having been presented to support them. Costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on official
leave.

^[1]
Information, rollo, p. 8.

^[2]
Decision of Regional Trial Court,
Branch 167, Pasig, Metro Manila, penned
by Judge Alfredo C. Flores, rollo, p. 14.

^[3]
Ibid., pp. 14-15.

^[4]
Resolution dated January 15, 1992; rollo, p. 91.

^[5]
TSN, April 23, 1984, pp. 44-57.

^[6]
TSN, July 18, 1984, pp. 13-22.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 8.

^[8]
TSN, July 18, 1984, pp. 28-29.

^[9]
TSN, February 7, 1984, p. 3.

^[10]
Ibid.

^[11]
TSN, February 7, 1984, pp. 5-6.

^[12]
Exhibit 1-Yabut, Records, p. 737

^[13]
Ibid.

^[14]
February 5, 1984, pp. 3-4.

^[15]
TSN, September 10, 1985, pp. 11-21.

^[16]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 7.

^[17]
Angelo v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 402.

^[18]
Ibid.

^[19]
TSN, September 10, 1985, pp. 64-67.

^[20]
Ibid., pp.
36-38.

^[21]
TSN, July 18, 1984, pp. 18-21.

^[22]
Ibid., p. 22.

^[23]
TSN, April 23, 1984, pp. 70-71.

^[24]
People v. Degoma, 209 SCRA 266.

^[25]
People v. Nunag, 196 SCRA 206.

^[26]
Ibid.

^[27]
People v. de los
Reyes, 215 SCRA 63.

^[28]
TSN, April 23, 1984, p. 71.

^[29]
People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546; People v. Maranion, 199 SCRA
421; People v. Nunag, 196 SCRA 206; People v. Ampo-an, 187 SCRA
173.

^[30]
199 SCRA 421.

^[31]
People v. Dapitan, 197 SCRA 378;
Constitution, Article III, Sec. 19(1).

^[32]
TSN, February 7, 1984, pp. 5-6.

^[33]
209 SCRA 266.