PEOPLE vs.

AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN alias GUINITA September 28, 1956 (EN BANC)

FELIX, J.

At 11p.m. November 5, 1953, the reports of gunfire awakened the spouses Vicente Pacson and Cipriana Tadeo, the 4 minor children and Ciprianas mother, Monica del Mundo, in their house at barrio Tikiw, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. Someone broke into the kitchen wall at the back of the house and then broke into the living room. Intruder with a hunting knife was recognized by Cipriana Tadeo to be Agustin Mangulabnan. Agustin then opened the balcony door to allow entry of 2 unidentified persons. Agustin snatched from Cipriana Tadeo: necklace (P50) and P50 (bills) and P20 (silver coins). Two others took from Monica del Mundo: P200 in cash and in gold necklace (P200). They demanded a diamond ring from her but she did not give so he struck her twice on the face with the butt of his gun. Monica del Mundo warded off the blow with her right arm when one of the men tried to strike one of the kids. Then, one fired his gun at the ceiling. Finally, all left. Cipriano found her husband dead lying on the floor upstairs. Autopsy: 4 gunshot wounds (front of the head-cause of death, left arm, left forearm, right clavicle) CFI: guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify Monica del Mundo in the sum of P400; Cipriana Tadeo in the sum of P132; P6,000 to the heirs of Vicente Pacson, and to pay the costs. Defendant Dionisio Sarmiento was acquitted while the information as against the other Defendants who continued to be at large was dismissed for lack of evidence, with the proportionate part of the costs de officio. Agustin Mangulabnan moved for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, but the motion was denied for lack of merit. The lower court did neither err in rejecting Exhibit 1 for the defense. This is an affidavit purportedly executed by Sgt. Adan Fernando of the Philippine Constabulary. The latter part is hearsay and, anyway, it is of no moment in the case at bar, because 2 of the 3 persons who entered the dwelling of the spouses Pacson were unidentified. There is no denial that the crime of robbery with homicide was committed by Appellants own admission (Exhibit A and B) and the testimony of Cipriana Tadeo. No doubt in appellants participation and the joint entry and exit showed conspiracy. It may be argued that the killing of Vicente Pacson undertaken by one of the 2 unidentified persons who climbed up a table and fired at the ceiling, was an unpremeditated act that surged on the spur of the amount and possibly without any idea that Vicente Pacson was hiding therein, and that the English version of Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the special, single and indivisible crime of robbery with homicide only punished any persons guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, but this English version of the Code is a poor translation of the prevailing Spanish text. In order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide would result by reason of on the occasion of the robbery. The commission of the offense was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, abuse of superior strength and with the aid of armed men.

PEOPLE vs. RICARDO NAPALIT y PARAL February 4, 2003 CARPIO-MORALES EN BANC On April 3, 1996, in Manila, six armed men barged into Tondo General Hospital and announced a hold-up. Four entered the cashiers office and ordered the cashier to open the vault and they took P1,300,000.00. Two entered the emergency room and disarmed the two guards. From the guards, they took 3 .38 caliber pistols. The four armed men who emptied the vault then rushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomez twice at the back who had by then collapsed on the ground.11 Two of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Numeriano Castor which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front of the hospital at San Rafael Street. One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, after forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled with his companion. Vehicle was found abandoned by 6pm. The guards identified the accused from a police line up. On June 8, 1996, security guard Gomez who sustained four gunshot wounds14 expired. Alibi: at Balic-balic looking for an apartment. Trial court: robbery with homicide in the first case and carnapping in the second aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated crime group. penalty of death by lethal injection and to pay the costs. Actual and moral damages to wife of slain guard of P118,000.00 and P300,000.00. Loss life of the victim in the sum of P50,000.00. R.A. 6539, or carnapping, and sentences him to suffer imprisonment of 25 years and to pay the costs. From the foregoing testimonies, it is clear that Santos and Saclolo saw accused-appellant at close range as he stood before them at the time of the taking of their firearms. It bears noting that the incident occurred in broad daylight. There is no evidence to show that Santos and Saclolo were so petrified with fear as to result in subnormal sensory functions on their part.27 Whenever homicide is 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 in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.31 As correctly pointed out by the trial court, the united, concerted and coordinated contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant and his companions in marauding the hospital, neutralizing its security guards and robbing it of P1,010,274.90 unerringly indicate a wellplanned robbery operation and a conspiracy among them.33 That accused-appellant did not shoot Gomez is immaterial. The law of course exculpates a person who takes part in the robbery from the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and punishes him only for simple robbery when there is proof that he tried to prevent the homicide. No such proof, however, was offered. It is clear that accused-appellant took no part in seizing the vehicle. Well-settled is the rule that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts

done outside their contemplation or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime.