People vs.
Lago
G.R. No. 121272. June 6, 2001
Facts:
That on or about the 24th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro
Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping [or] aiding each other, with intent to gain, by means of force upon
things, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of
Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa, by then and there removing one blade of the glass
window jalousie near the door, and once inside the house, take, steal and carry away
cash[,] money and jewelries worth P92,000.00 belonging to said Benjamin Raymundo y
Sta. Teresa, to the damage and prejudice of the latter; that on the occasion of the said
robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said cash,
money and jewelries, in pursuance of their conspiracy and to insure the success of their
criminal act, with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
stab said Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa on the vital part of his body, thereby
inflicting upon the latter stab wounds which directly caused his death.
When arraigned on February 23, 1994, appellant pleaded not guilty. After due trial, the
RTC promulgated its assailed Decision.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Reyderick Lago of the crime of
robbery with homicide despite insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution.
Ruling:
The second paragraph of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy, as
follows:
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
The elements of conspiracy are the following:
(1) two or more persons came to an agreement,
(2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and
(3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be
based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties conduct indicating a
common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime.
Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an
explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried
out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was
perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or
common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that when conspiracy is proven, the act of one
is the act of all. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
conspiracy had attended the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. Despite
the protestations of appellant that he did not conspire to rob and kill, but only to rob, the
victim, we hold that appellant is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
The elements of this special complex crime are the following:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against a
person;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense)
is committed.
As aforesaid, whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion
of a robbery, all those who took part in the asportation will be held guilty of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the
homicide, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the
killing.
Appellant, upon hearing the groaning emanating from the bedroom, did not do anything
to check on what was happening. Thinking that his cohorts were stabbing the victim,
appellant simply allowed them to finish their dastardly deed. He hid for two years first in
the house of his grandmother and, later on, in that of his mother. On January 6, 1994, a
barangay official apprehended and brought him to the Mandaluyong jail.
It is therefore clear that appellant did not do anything to prevent his co-conspirators from
stabbing and ultimately killing the victim. When he left the scene of the crime; he could
have gone to the police to report the crime, but he hid and tried to escape the arm of the
law. Because he did not do anything to prevent the homicide, he is therefore equally
guilty of robbery with homicide.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellant.
