G.R. No. 187733 - People vs. Teofilo Buyagan

The appellant, Teofilo aReya Buyagan, was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The appellee was the People of the Philippines.
The case arose from an incident involving the robbery of WT Construction Supply store and the subsequent killing of two victims, Jun Calixto (a security guard) and Police Officer 2 (PO2) Arsenio Osorio.

John Doe, an accomplice, robbed the WT Construction Supply store.
Jun Calixto grappled with John Doe attempting to stop him.
Eyewitnesses Cristina Calixto and Melvyn Pastor testified seeing the appellant shoot Jun Calixto in the head while they were grappling.
Other eyewitnesses (Allan Santiago, Joel Caldito, Jeanie Tugad, Carlos Maniago, and Orlando Viray) testified seeing the appellant shoot PO2 Osorio while the latter was pursuing him.
The gun recovered from the appellant tested positive for gunpowder nitrates.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Baguio City, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death.
RTC ordered payment of civil indemnity, actual damages, moral damages, and unearned income to the heirs of both victims.

The CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
The CA found that the appellant acted in concert with John Doe in committing the robbery and homicide to facilitate the escape.
The CA found the eyewitness testimonies credible and disregarded the appellant's denial.

The Supreme Court was asked to review the CA decision on appeal.
The Court considered issues on sufficiency of evidence, conspiracy, penalty, and civil liabilities.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the special complex crime of robbery with homicide involving the appellant.
Whether there was conspiracy between the appellant and John Doe in committing the crimes.
Whether the penalty of death imposed on the appellant was proper and lawful.
Whether the awarded civil indemnities, actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and loss of earning capacity were proper and supported by evidence.