People v Escober d. He could not have fired the gun to avoid suspicion.
Proposal and Conspiracy | G.R. No. L-69564 |
January 29, 1988 | Fernan, J. | By Agustin A.
SUMMARY: Escober and Punzalan were convicted of robbery with homicide
and were sentenced to death. E worked as a security guard of an electrical
supply shop. While on duty, Punzalan, their lookout, and the 3 other
unidentified men appeared, who then killed the 2 children of the owners and
stole P5,000.00. The SC acquitted Escober, since he only opened the gate
when the others knocked, which was a criminal act per se. No proof showed
that he was aware of the others’ plans. 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. In case of a homicide resulting from or during
a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the act of robbery are
also guilty as principals, although they did not actually take part in the
homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the
homicide.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. 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 as a former co-worker.
So he opened the door.
2. Punzalan waited outside while the 3 others entered.
3. Lina Chua (mother of the victims), went outside and saw
the accused. She shouted why the gate was opened, and
heard a gunshot.
4. A shot had been fired in the direction of Escober but we
was not shot.
5. Vicente Chua (father of victims) was inside the bathroom
when heard the gunshot. He hurried outside and saw his
son Irvin lying wounded on the sofa, while his daughter
Tiffany was lying on the floor beside bloodied scissors.
6. The items in the office were scattered, and he discovered
that the P5,000.00 he kept in one of the drawers was
lost. (**OK so nagkatime pa sya tingnan yung drawer
niya specifically?? Judging).
7. Victims pronounced dead upon arrival at hospital.
8. POLICE: 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.
9. RTC: did not believe any of Escober’s defenses., saying
the shot far fired by himself to avoid suspicion. Neither
did RTC believe that Escober merely opened the gate
because he was throwing out the garbage.
ISSUE(S): Whether Escober’s and Punzalan’s involvement in
the conspiracy has been proven beyond reasonable doubt
RATIO:
1. Escober: NO.
a. He only opened the gate when the other accused
knocked, which is not a criminal act per se.
b. His act could be attributed to lack of better
judgment.
c. Expected that Escober would open the gate, since he
was acquainted with one of the parties.
He would be the stupidest person alive if he did so,
since being shot by a gun is too risky.
e. No conspiracy proven.1
f. ACQUITTED.
2. Punzalan: YES.
a. Defense 1: 3 other accused invited him to for beer
and then brought him along to the scene of the
crime.
i. Unbelievable: others would not bring a
possible witness (or IMO whistleblower)
ii. He also fled with the others from the crime
scene, then failed to report the crime to the
police.
iii. He stayed outside while the others committed
the crime.
b. Defense 2: He was denied his rights to remain silent
and to counsel during investigations and trial on the
merits.
i. 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 Punzalan’s
extrajudicial statement (which was also taken
without counsel) cannot be considered
intelligently made. Thus, it is considered
inadmissible in evidence.
ii. 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.
c. 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.
i. This was not proven on the part of Punzalan.
ii. CONVICTED.
RULING: RTC decision SET ASIDE. Escober ACQUITTED.
Punzalan GUILTY guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a
principal in the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
1“A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It
must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the
crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not
make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship” (REYES p.
134).
Art. 8 RPC. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.