People vs Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo

Facts

- Robbery with homicide. Victims were employees at a gasoline station: Eduardo

Zulueta, Fortunato Lacambra, Hulieta Amistoso, and Edralin Macahis. Macahis
was the security guard, shot dead.

- A vehicle went to the gasoline station and after being attended, the occupants
therein alighted and announced a hold-up. Lacambra was ordered to lie down,
Zulueta was led to the car wash station at gunpoint and robbed, and four other
members of the goup went to the cashier’s office. The same four shot Macahis
and took his service frearm. After hearing successive gunshots, Zulueta saw the
accused leave the place. They boarded the same vehicle and proceeded
towards San Mateo, Rizal. The following day, Zulueta identified appellant de leon
as one of the robbers who poked a gun at him.

- Appellant claimed that was at his aunt’s place on the day of the crime, and that
he hitched a ride with one Christian Gersalia, who was a relative. When he was
supposed to alight, however, he was disallowed. He fell asleep and the next thing
he knew, he had woken up in the gasoline station and his companions were
staging a hold-up. He claimed to have never left the vehicle.

- The trial court imposed four death penalties for four counts of robbery with
homicide.

ISSUES:

1. WON there was proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

2. WON conspiracy should be appreciated.

3. WON the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm has been
properly alleged and should be appreciated.

RULINGS:

- In robbery with homicide, the srcinal intent is to commit robbery, which should
precede the homicide. The homicide may occur before, during, or after the
robbery. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless
imprudence or simple negligence. That the death should supervene by accident
is immaterial, or that the homicide victim is other than the robbery victim, or that
other crimes are committed by reason or on occasion of the crime. Once
 homicide is committed by or on occasion of the robbery, the felony becomes
robbery with homicide.

- When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those

who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals
of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, although they did not
actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the same.

- If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of

the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All
those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of
such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins
a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can
no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.

- The prosecution was able to prove an implied conspiracy. It is done when two or
more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of thesame unlawful
object, each doing a part such that their combined acts are connected and
cooperative and indicate a closeness of personal association and a concurrence
of sentiment. Such conspiracy may be inferred through no actual meeting
amongst them to concert is proved.