034.

People v Escober
G.R. No. L-69564/January 29, 1988/En banc/Automatic review to the SC
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee
Juan Escober y Geralde, Macario Punzalan, Jr., y Guevarra, Richard Doe, Peter Doe and Juan Doe,
accused
Juan Escober y Geralde, accused-appellants
Decision by Fernan, J. Digest by Ces

Short version: Escober and Punzalan were accused and convicted of the crime of robbery with
homicide and sentenced to death. Escober worked as a security guard of an electrical supply
shop. While on duty, Punzalan and the 3 other unidentified men entered the premises. Punzalan
was a look out while the others killed the 2 children of the owners and stole P5,000.00. The SC
acquitted Escober, because all he did was open the gate when the others knocked, which was in
itself not a criminal act. There was no proof that he was aware of their plans to rob the place and
kill the inhabitants. The existence of conspiracy between the accused and the actual killers must be
shown, and the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a
finding of the presence of the conspiracy. Punzalan was not acquitted and his conviction was
affirmed by the SC. Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery are
also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did
not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide.

Facts:
4 of the accused (Richard Doe, Peter Doe, Juan Doe, and Punzalan) knocked at the little door
of the gate of the Bee Seng Electrical Supply, where Escober worked as a security guard.
Escober knew one of them, because he had previously worked as a security guard also in that
same establishment. Thus, he opened the door. Punzalan waited outside while the 3 others
went inside.
Lina Chua (mother of the victims), went outside and saw the accused. She shouted why the
gate was opened, and her a gunshot.
A shot had been fired in the direction of Escober but we was not shot.
Vicente Chua (father of the victims) was inside the bathroom when heard the gunshot. He
hurried outside and saw his son Irvin lying on the sofar while his daughter Tiffany was lying
on the floor, both mortally wounded. Beside Tiffany, he saw a scissor blade full of blood. The
items in the office were scattered, and he discovered that the P5,000.00 he kept in one of the
drawers was lost.
The victims were brought to the hospital but were pronounced dead upon arrival.
Punzalan was identified as an accused by Lina Chua, through a police line-up.
Escober and Punzalan were convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide,
and sentenced to death.
o The RTC did not believe any of Escobers defenses. It believed that the shot was fired by
Escober himself avoid suspicion. Also, it did not believe that Escober merely opened the
gate because he was throwing out the garbage.

Issue: Whether Escobers and Punzalans involvement in the conspiracy has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt

Held/Ratio:

1) With regard to Escober: NO. He was acquitted by the SC
a. He only opened the gate when the other accused knocked. That by itself is an innocent
gesture.
b. The worse that could be attributed to him is lack of better judgment or laxity in the
performance of his duties as a security guard.
c. He and one of the other accused were previously co-employees. That makes it less
surprising that Escober would open the gate for him.
d. The gun-firing could not have been a ritual to avoid suspicion. The SC that he would be the
stupidest person alive if he allowed that, since being shot by a gun is too risky.
2) With regard to Punzalan: YES. His conviction was affirmed.
a. His defense was that the 3 other accused fetched him on the premise of merely drinking
beer and then brought him along to the scene of the crime.
b. But this is too incredible because the other accused would not have risked bringing an
eyewitness to the scene of the crime.
c. Also, he fled with the other accused from the scene of the crime and failed to report the
crime to the police.
d. He stayed outside while the rest the others went inside and actually stole the money and
killed the victims.
e. Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery are also
guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they
did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored
to prevent the homicide.
f. This was not proven on the part of Punzalan. Thus, his conviction was affirmed.

Extra: Punzalan contended that he was denied his rights to remain silent and to counsel during
custodial investigation, the preliminary investigation, and trial on the merits.

Held:
1) The police did not take sufficient efforts to truly inform Punzalan of his rights to remain silent
and to counsel during the custodial investigation. Thus, the waiver in Punzalans extrajudicial
statement (which was also taken without counsel) cannot be considered intelligently made.
Thus, it is considered inadmissible in evidence.
2) Punzalan also did not have counsel during this preliminary investigation. Still, such
irregularity should have been raised before the trial court. The absence of a proper PI also
does not impair the validity of the information or the jurisdiction of the court. Such PI could
actually be waived. Still, during trial, Punzalan was properly defended by his counsel de
oficio. Thus, there was no prejudicial error to warrant nullification of the proceedings.