G.R. No.

179943               June 26, 2009 toward San Mateo, Rizal.14 When the robbers left, Eduardo
Zulueta stood up and found Julieta Amistoso, who told him
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, that the robbers took her bag and jewelry. He also saw that
vs. Edralin Macahis had a gunshot wound in the stomach. He
MARLON ALBERT DE LEON y HOMO, Appellant. immediately hailed a vehicle which transported the injured
Edralin Macahis to the hospital.15 Later on, Edralin Macahis
DECISION died at the hospital due to the gunshot wound.16

PERALTA, J.: The following day, Eduardo Zulueta identified appellant as

one of the robbers who poked a gun at him.17
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA), affirming with modification the Decision2 of the However, according to appellant, from January 4 to 6, 2000,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal, he stayed at the house of his Tita Emma at Pantok,
finding appellant Marlon Lambert De Leon y Homo guilty Binangonan, Rizal, helping the latter in her canteen. On the
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with evening of January 6, at approximately 9 o'clock, appellant
homicide. asked permission from his Tita Emma to go to Antipolo.
Catherine Homo, appellant's cousin and the latter's younger
brother, accompanied appellant to the terminal. While waiting
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows: for a ride, the vehicle, a Tamaraw FX, of a certain Christian
Gersalia, a relative of appellant and Catherine Homo, passed
According to the prosecution, in the early morning, around 2 by. Catherine Homo asked Christian Gersalia if he would
o'clock of January 7, 2000, Eduardo Zulueta and Fortunato allow appellant to hitch a ride on his vehicle. Christian
Lacambra III, both gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, cashier; Gersalia agreed. Aside from Christian Gersalia, there were
and Edralin Macahis, security guard; all employees of Energex other passengers in the said vehicle.18
Gasoline Station, located at Barangay Guinayan, San Mateo,
Rizal, were on duty when a mint green-colored Tamaraw FX When the vehicle reached Masinag, where appellant was
arrived for service at the said gasoline station.3 supposed to alight, he was not allowed to do so; instead, he
was asked by the other passengers to join them in their
Eduardo Zulueta was the one who attended to the said vehicle. destination. While on the road, appellant fell asleep. When he
He went to the driver’s side in order to take the key of the woke up, they were in a gasoline station. He then saw
vehicle from the driver so that he could open the gas tank. He Christian Gersalia and the other passengers conducting a hold-
saw through the lowered window shield that there were about up. He never left the vehicle and was not able to do anything
six to seven persons aboard the vehicle. He proceeded to fill because he was overwhelmed with fear. After he heard the
up ₱50.00 worth of diesel in the gas tank. After doing this, he gunshots, Christian Gersalia and the other passengers went to
returned the key to the driver. While returning the key, the the vehicle and proceeded towards Marikina. On their way,
driver told him that the engine of the vehicle would not they were followed by policemen who fired at them. The other
start.4 Eduardo Zulueta offered to give the vehicle a push. passengers fired back at the policemen. It was then that the
While Eduardo Zulueta and fellow gasoline boy Fortunato vehicle hit a wall prompting the other passengers to scamper
Lacambra III were positioned at the back of the vehicle, ready in different directions leaving him behind. When the
to push the same, the six male passengers of the same vehicle, policemen arrived, he was immediately arrested.19
except the driver, alighted and announced a hold-up. They
were armed with a shotgun and .38 caliber pistol.5 As a result of the above incident, four Informations for
Robbery with Homicide were filed against appellant, Rudy
Fortunato Lacambra III was ordered to lie down,6 while Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan
Eduardo Zulueta was directed to go near the Car Wash Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, an alias "Rey," an alias
Section.7 At that instance, guns were poked at them.8 "Jonard," an alias "Precie," and an alias "Renato," which read
as:
Appellant, who guarded Eduardo Zulueta, poked a gun at the
latter and took the latter's wallet containing a pawnshop ticket Criminal Case No. 4747
and ₱50.00, while the companion of the former, hit the latter
on his nape with a gun.9 That on or about the 7th day of January 2000, in the
Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines,
Meanwhile, four members of the group went to the cashier's and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
office and took the money worth ₱3,000.00.10 Those four named accused, conspiring and confederating together with
robbers were also the ones who shot Edralin Macahis in the Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
stomach.11 Thereafter, the same robbers took Edralin Macahis' Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias
service firearm.12 "Jonard," Alias " Precie" and Alias "Renato" whose true
names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown
After he heard successive gunshots, Eduardo Zulueta saw and still at-large, and conspiring and mutually helping and
appellant and his companions immediately leave the assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed firearms
place.13 The robbers boarded the same vehicle and proceeded and acting as a band, with intent of gain with aggravating
circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and kill, conspiring and confederating together with Rudy
using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan
nighttime, and by means of motor vehicle and by means of Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard,"
force, violence and intimidation, employed upon ENERGEX Alias "Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true names,
GASOLINE STATION, owned by Regino C. Natividad, and identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still
represented by Macario C. Natividad, did then and there at-large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and carry away feloniously attack, assault and shoot one EDRALIN
its cash earnings worth ₱3,000.00, to the damage and MACAHIS, a Security Guard of Energex Gasoline Station,
prejudice of said Energex Gasoline Station in the aforesaid thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on his trunk which
amount of ₱3,000.00 and on the occasion of the said robbery, directly caused his death.
the above-named accused, while armed with unlicensed
firearms with intent to kill, conspiring and confederating Contrary to law.
together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon
Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias Criminal Case No. 4749
"Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias "Renato,"
whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still
unknown and still at-large, did then and there willfully, That on or about the 7th day of January 2000, in the
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
EDRALIN MACAHIS, a Security Guard of Energex Gasoline within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
Station, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on his named accused, conspiring and confederating together with
trunk which directly caused his death. Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias
"Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true
Contrary to law. names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown
and still at-large, and conspiring and mutually helping and
Criminal Case No. 4748 assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed firearms
and acting as a band, with intent of gain, with aggravating
That on or about the 7th day of January 2000 in the circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and
Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- nighttime, and by means of a motor vehicle and by means of
named accused, conspiring and confederating , together with force, violence and intimidation, employed upon EDRALIN
Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, MACAHIS, a Security Guard of Energex Gasoline Station, did
Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal,
"Jonard," Alias " Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true and carry away his service firearm .12 gauge shotgun with
names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown serial number 13265 valued at ₱12,000.00 owned by Alert and
and still at-large and conspiring and mutually helping and Quick (A-Q) Security Services Incorporated represented by its
assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed firearms General Manager Alberto T. Quintos to the damage and
and acting as a band, with intent of gain, with aggravating prejudice of said Alert and Quick (A-Q) Security Services
circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and Incorporated in the aforesaid amount of ₱12,000.00 and on the
using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of occasion of the said robbery the above-named accused, while
nighttime, and by means of a motor vehicle and by means of armed with unlicensed firearms, with intent to kill conspiring
force, violence and intimidation, employed upon the person of and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian
JULIETA A. AMISTOSO, the Cashier of Energex Gasoline Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy
Station, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Servantes, Alias "Rey", Alias "Jonard", Alias " Precie" and
feloniously rob, steal and carry away the following, to wit: Alias "Renato", whose true names, identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large, did then and
a) One (1) ladies ring with sapphire stone valued at there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
₱1,500.00 shoot one EDRALIN MACAHIS, thereby inflicting upon him
gunshot wound on his trunk which directly caused his death.
b) One (1) Omac ladies wristwatch valued at
₱2,000.00 Contrary to law.

c) Guess black bag valued at ₱500.00 Criminal Case No. 4750

d) Leather wallet valued at ₱150.00 That on or about the 7th day of January 2000, in the
Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines,
e) White T-Shirt valued at ₱175.00 and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring and confederating together with
Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
to her damage and prejudice in the total amount of ₱4,325.00 Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias
and on the occasion of the said robbery, the above-named "Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true
accused while armed with unlicensed firearms with intent to names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown
and still at-large and conspiring and mutually helping and reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed firearms Homicide, as defined and penalized under No. 1 of
and acting as a band, with intent of gain, with aggravating Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and Sec. 9 of R.A. 7659, in relation to Sec. 1 of P.D.
using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of 1866, as further amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294,
nighttime, and by means of a motor vehicle and by means of having acted in conspiracy with other malefactors
force, violence and intimidation, employed upon the person of who have, to date, remained at-large, and sentencing
EDUARDO ZULUETA, a gasoline boy of Energex Gasoline the said Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo to the
Station, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and penalty of Death, taking into consideration the use of
feloniously rob, steal and carry away the following to wit: an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime
as an aggravating circumstance; to pay Energex
a) Pawnshop Ticket from M. Lhuiller Pawnshop for Gasoline Station owned by Regino Natividad and
one (1) black Citizen men's watch (automatic) valued represented by Macario C. Natividad the amount of
at ₱2,000.00 ₱3,000.00 as compensatory damages and to pay the
costs;
b) Cash money worth ₱50.00
2. In Crim. Case No. 4748, finding accused Marlon
to his damage and prejudice in the total amount of Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond reasonable
₱2,050.00 and on the occasion of the said robbery, doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as
the above-named accused, while armed with defined and penalized under No. 1 of Art. 294 of the
unlicensed firearms with intent to kill, conspiring and Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A.
confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian 7659, in relation to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further
Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date,
"Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true names, remained at-large, and sentencing the said Marlon
identities and present whereabouts are still unknown Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death,
and still at-large, did then and there willfully, taking into consideration the use of an unlicensed
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot firearm in the commission of the crime as an
one EDRALIN MACAHIS, a Security Guard of aggravating circumstance, and to pay the costs;
Energex Gasoline Station, thereby inflicting upon
him gunshot wound on his trunk which directly 3. In Crim. Case No. 4749, finding accused Marlon
caused his death. Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond reasonable
ground of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as
Contrary to law. defined and penalized under No. 1 of Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A.
7659, in relation to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further
Upon arraignment on March 23, 2000, appellant, with the amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
assistance of counsel de parte, entered a plea of not guilty on conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date,
all the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. remained at-large, and sentencing the said Marlon
Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death,
The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: Macario C. taking into consideration the use of an unlicensed
Natividad,20 then officer-in-charge of Energex Gasoline firearm in the commission of the crime as an
Station where the incident took place; Edito Macahis,21 a aggravating circumstance; to indemnify the heirs of
cousin of the deceased security guard Edralin Macahis; Edralin Macahis in the amount of ₱50,000.00 as
Fortunato Lacambra III,22 a gasoline boy of the same gas death indemnity; to pay ₱12,000.00 as compensatory
station; Eduardo Zulueta,23 also a gasoline boy of the same gas damages for the stolen service firearm if restitution is
station, and Alberto Quintos,24 general manager of Alert and no longer possible and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages,
Quick Security Services, Inc., where the deceased security and to pay the costs;
guard was employed.
4. In Crim. Case No. 4750, finding accused Marlon
The defense, on the other hand, presented two witnesses, Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond reasonable
namely: Catherine Homo,25 a cousin of appellant and the doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as
appellant26 himself. defined and penalized under No. 1 of Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A
On December 20, 2001, the RTC rendered its 7659, in relation to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further
Decision27 convicting appellant beyond reasonable doubt of all amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
the charges against him, the dispositive portion of which conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date,
reads: remained at-large, and sentencing the said Marlon
Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death,
1. In Criminal Case No. 4747, finding accused taking into consideration the use of an unlicensed
Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond firearm in the commission of the crime as an
aggravating circumstance and to pay Eduardo no longer file a supplemental brief, considering that appellant
Zulueta, victim of the robbery, in the amount of has not raised any new issue that would require the filing of a
₱2,050.00 as compensatory damages for the stolen supplemental brief.
properties if restitution is no longer possible and to
pay the costs. Appellant filed a Manifestation32 on February 22, 2008 stating
that he re-pleads and adopts his Appellant's Brief and Reply
As against accused Rudy Gersalia and Christian Gersalia, who Brief as Supplemental Brief.
have, to date, remained at-large, let a warrant of arrest be
issued against them and let these cases be, in the meantime, Appellant, in his Brief,33 assigned the following errors:
sent to the archives without prejudice to their reinstatement
upon apprehension of the said accused. I

As against accused Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias "Precie FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT A CO-
and Alias "Renato," whose true names, identities and present CONSPIRATOR IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
whereabouts are still unknown and are still at-large, let these CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF
cases be, in the meantime, sent to the archives without THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE SAME
prejudice to their reinstatement upon the identification and AND GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
apprehension of the said accused.
II
SO ORDERED.
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ACCUSED-
The cases were appealed to this Court, however, on APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF ROBBERY WITH
September, 21, 2004,28 in conformity with the Decision dated HOMICIDE, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
July 7, 2004 in G.R. Nos. 147678-87 entitled The People of ERRED IN IMPOSING FOUR (4) DEATH
the Philippines v. Efren Mateo y Garcia, modifying the PENALTIES DESPITE THAT THE CRIME
pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal CHARGED WAS PRODUCED BY ONE SINGLE
Procedure, more particularly Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 125 ACT WHICH SHOULD BE METED WITH A
and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals SINGLE PENALTY.
from the RTCs to this Court in cases where the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as
well as the Resolution of this Court, en banc dated September The OSG, in its Appellee's Brief,34 insisted that all the
19, 1995, in "Internal Rules of the Supreme Court" in cases elements of the crime and the appellant's participation in the
similarly involving the death penalty, pursuant to the Court's crime had been established.
power to promulgate rules of procedure in all courts under
Article VII, Section 5 of the Constitution, and allowing an Appellant, in his Reply Brief,35 argued that the penalty should
intermediate review by the CA before such cases are elevated not be death, but only reclusion perpetua, because the
to this Court. This Court transferred the cases to the CA for aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm,
appropriate action and disposition. although alleged in the Information, was not alleged with
specificity.
The CA, on June 29, 2007,29 affirmed with modification, the
Decision of the RTC, with the dispositive portion reading: Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
MODIFICATION. Accused Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo is persons – Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the
hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of use of violence against or any person shall suffer:
Robbery with Homicide of only one count.
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason
Given the passage of Republic Act 9346 which took effect on or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall
24 June 2006, the penalty imposed upon Marlon de Leon y have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been
Homo is hereby reduced or commuted to reclusion perpetua. accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

SO ORDERED. In People v. De Jesus,36 this Court had exhaustively discussed

the crime of robbery with homicide, thus:
On December 10, 2007, this Court accepted the appeal,30 the
penalty imposed being reclusion perpetua. For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the
prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on February 8, following elements:
2008, filed its Manifestation and Motion In Lieu of the
Supplemental Brief31 dated February 4, 2008 stating that it will (1) the taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons; commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such
crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery.
(2) the property taken belongs to another; One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal
designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the
(3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and conspiracy once it has materialized.44

(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the
thereof, homicide is committed.37 occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed (a) to
facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to
preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to
malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as
the occasion or by reason of the robbery. 38 The intent to there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the
commit robbery must precede the taking of human life.39 The latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs
homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It of the robbery.
is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as
to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening
in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into From the above disquisition, the testimonies of the witnesses,
consideration.40 There is no such felony of robbery with and pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the crime
homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. of robbery with homicide was indeed committed. There was
The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery with no mistaking from the actions of all the accused that their
homicide, must be consummated. main intention was to rob the gasoline station and that on
occasion of such robbery, a homicide was committed. The
question now is whether there was conspiracy in the
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere commission of the crime. According to appellant, the
accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the prosecution failed to prove that he was a co-conspirator.
victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed, or However, this Court finds no merit to appellant's argument.
that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or
usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the
occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently
or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason indicating a closeness of personal association and a
of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word though no actual meeting among them to concert means is
"homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, proved. That would be termed an implied conspiracy.45 The
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. prosecution was able to prove the presence of an implied
conspiracy. The witnesses were able to narrate in a convincing
manner, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the
Intent to rob is an internal act, but may be inferred from proof robbery and positively identified appellant as one of the
of violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact robbers. Witness Eduardo Zulueta testified that appellant was
of asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, one of the robbers who poked a gun at him, thus:
conviction of the accused is justified even if the property
subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the
property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and Q. Were you able to identify those two armed male
destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. 41 The persons who poked their guns at you?
prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the
property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the A: Yes, sir.
robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim
is of no moment, because the motive for robbery can exist Q: Kindly look around inside this courtroom and
regardless of the exact amount or value involved.42 inform the Hon. Court whether those two (2) persons
who poked their guns at you were (sic) present now?
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery A: Only one, sir, and there he is.
would also be held liable as principals of the single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, although they did (At this juncture, witness pointing to a certain person
not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears who answered by the name of MARLON ALBERT
that they endeavored to prevent the same.43 DE LEON when asked.)

If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after Q: This Marlon De Leon was he the one who guarded
the commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery you in the carwash or not?
and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to
A: Yes, sir. criminal objective.48 Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one
is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality
Q: Now, what happened to you at the carwash where of participation of each of them becomes secondary,49 since all
this Marlon De Leon was guarding you? the conspirators are principals.

A: His gun was poked at me, sir. As to the credibility of the witnesses, the RTC's findings must
not be disturbed. The well-settled rule in this jurisdiction is
Q: What else transpired, Mr. Witness, or what else that the trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses are
happened to you aside from that? entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be
disturbed on appeal without any clear showing that it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
A: He hit me with his gun on my nape, sir. circumstances of weight or substance which could affect the
result of the case.50
Q: What else, Mr. Witness?
For his defense, appellant merely denied participating in the
A: He got my wallet from my pocket, sir. robbery. However, his presence during the commission of the
crime was well-established as appellant himself testified as to
Q: Who hit you with a gun? the matter. Granting that he was merely present during the
robbery, his inaction does not exculpate him. To exempt
A: His other companion, sir.46 himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have
performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the
conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission
Appellant was also identified by witness Fortunato
thereof.51 Appellant offered no evidence that he performed an
Lacambra III, thus:
overt act neither to escape from the company of the robbers
nor to prevent the robbery from taking place. His denial,
Q: What about that person who ordered Zulueta to go therefore, is of no value. Courts generally view the defenses of
to the carwash section and hit him, was he also denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with
armed? which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense. As
both evidence are negative and self-serving, they cannot attain
A: Yes, sir. more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the
Q: What kind of firearm was he carrying then? various aspects of the crime committed.52

A: Also .38 caliber, sir. Consequently, the CA was correct in ruling that appellant was
guilty only of one count of robbery with homicide. In the
Q: Were you able to identify or recognize that person crime of robbery with homicide, there are series of acts, borne
who approached and ordered Zulueta to go to the from one criminal resolution, which is to rob. As decided 53 by
carwash section? the Court of Appeals:

A: Yes, sir. A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a

single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from
one criminal resolution.54 Although there is a series of acts,
Q: If that person is inside the courtroom, will you be
there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty
able to identify him?
shall be imposed.55

A: Yes, sir.
In the case before Us, [appellant] and his companions intended
only to rob one place; and that is the Energex gasoline station.
Q: Kindly point to him? That they did; and in the process, also took away by force the
money and valuables of the employees working in said
A: That man, sir. (Witness pointed to a person who gasoline station. Clearly inferred from these circumstances are
answered by the name of Marlon Albert de Leon).47 the series of acts which were borne from one criminal
resolution. A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act
Therefore, it can be inferred from the role appellant played in or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated
the commission of the robbery, that a conspiracy existed and by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may
he was part of it. To be a conspirator, one need not participate occupy.56 This can be said of the case at hand.
in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in
every act or need not even know the exact part to be Akin to the extant case is that of People v. De la
performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Cruz,57 wherein the robbery that took place in several houses
Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks belonging to different persons, when not absolutely
which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, unconnected, was held not to be taken as separate and distinct
constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common offenses. They formed instead, component parts of the general
plan to despoil all those within the vicinity. In this case, the Presidential Decree No. 1866,66 as amended by Republic Act
Solicitor General argued that the [appellant] had committed No. 8294,67 which is a special law. Its pertinent provision
eight different robberies, because the evidence shows distinct states:
and different acts of spoilation in different houses, with
several victimized persons.58 The Highest Tribunal, however, If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
ruled that the perpetrated acts were not entirely distinct and unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
unconnected from one another.59 Thus, the single offense or considered as an aggravating circumstance.
crime.
In interpreting the same provision, the trial court reasoned that
Now, this Court comes to the penalty imposed by the CA. The such provision is "silent as to whether it is generic or
decision60 merely states that, in view of the enactment of R.A. qualifying."68 Thus, it ruled that "when the law is silent, the
9346, the sentence of Death Penalty, imposed upon appellant, same must be interpreted in favor of the accused."69 Since a
is automatically commuted to reclusion perpetua, but is silent generic aggravating circumstance is more favorable to
as to how it had arrived into such a conclusion.1avvphi1 petitioner compared to a qualifying aggravating circumstance,
as the latter changes the nature of the crime and increase the
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by penalty thereof by degrees, the trial court proceeded to declare
R.A. No. 7659, robbery with homicide is punishable that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be
by reclusion perpetua to death, which are both indivisible considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.70 This
penalties. Article 63 of the same Code provides that, in all interpretation is erroneous, since we already held in several
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two cases that with the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on 6
indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be applied when June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or
the commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating
circumstance.61 It must be remembered that the Informations circumstance and not a generic aggravating
filed with the RTC alleged the aggravating circumstance of the circumstance.71 Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant
use of unlicensed firearm. Pursuant to the third paragraph of case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm
such use of an unlicensed firearm is a special and not a generic by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and
aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not
committed. As explained by this Court in Palaganas v. merely a generic aggravating circumstance.
People:62
In another case,72 this Court ruled that, the existence of the
Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally firearm can be established by testimony, even without the
apply to all crimes such as those mentioned in Article 14, presentation of the firearm.73 In the said case, it was
paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 20, of the established that Elmer and Marcelina Hidalgo died of, and
Revised Penal Code. It has the effect of increasing the penalty Pedro Hidalgo sustained, gunshot wounds. The ballistic
for the crime to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the examination of the slugs recovered from the place of the
same to the next higher degree. It must always be alleged and incident showed that they were fired from a .30 carbine rifle
charged in the information, and must be proven during the trial and a .38 caliber firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively
in order to be appreciated.63 Moreover, it can be offset by an identified appellant therein as one of those who were holding a
ordinary mitigating circumstance. long firearm. It was also established that the same appellant
was not a licensed firearm holder. Hence, this Court ruled that
On the other hand, special aggravating circumstances are those the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the use of
which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.
the offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot
increase the penalty to the next higher degree. Examples are After a careful study of the records of the present case, this
quasi-recidivism under Article 160 and complex crimes under Court found that the use of unlicensed firearm was not duly
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It does not change the proven by the prosecution. Although jurisprudence dictates
character of the offense charged.64 It must always be alleged that the existence of the firearm can be established by mere
and charged in the information, and must be proven during the testimony, the fact that appellant was not a licensed firearm
trial in order to be appreciated. 65 Moreover, it cannot be offset holder must still be established. The prosecution failed to
by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. present written or testimonial evidence to prove that appellant
did not have a license to carry or own a firearm, hence, the use
It is clear from the foregoing that the meaning and effect of of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance cannot
generic and special aggravating circumstances are exactly the be appreciated.
same except that in case of generic aggravating, the same
CAN be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance Finally, it is worth noting that the RTC ordered appellant to
whereas in the case of special aggravating circumstance, it indemnify the heirs of Edralin Macahis the amount of
CANNOT be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. ₱50,000.00 as death indemnity, ₱12,000.00 as compensatory
damages for the stolen service firearm if restitution is no
Aside from the aggravating circumstances abovementioned, longer possible and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. Actual
there is also an aggravating circumstance provided for under damages were never proven during the trial. Hence, this
Court's rulings74 on temperate damages apply, thus:

In People vs. Abrazaldo,75 we laid down the doctrine that

where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses
cannot be determined because of the absence of receipts to
prove them, temperate damages may be awarded in the
amount of ₱25,00076 This doctrine specifically refers to a
situation where no evidence at all of funeral expenses was
presented in the trial court. However, in instances where actual
expenses amounting to less than ₱25,000 are proved during
the trial, as in the case at bar, we apply the ruling in the more
recent case of People vs. Villanueva77 which modified the
Abrazaldo doctrine. In Villanueva, we held that "when actual
damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less
than ₱25,000, the award of temperate damages for ₱25,000 is
justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount." To
rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the
victim’s heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual
damages of an amount less than ₱25,000 would be in a worse
situation than those who might have presented no receipts at
all but would now be entitled to ₱25,000 temperate damages.78

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 29, 2007 of the

Court of Appeals is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant
Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the
penalty of which, is reclusion perpetua in view of the absence
of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Appellant is
also liable to pay the heirs of the victim, ₱25,000.00 as
temperate damages, in addition to the other civil indemnities
and damages adjudged by the Regional Trial Court, Branch
76, San Mateo, Rizal.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice