G.R. No. L-54901 - People vs. Abueg

On November 1, 1973, in Rosario, Cavite, the accused—Ricardo Abueg and Deogracias San Pedro—were charged with robbery with homicide.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with a “chaco” (a deadly weapon) and a piece of wood, entered the residence of the Marayas uninvited during All Saint’s Day festivities.
Upon entry, they allegedly assaulted the occupants, destroyed a wooden cabinet (aparador), and stole clothes totaling P393.00, resulting in the death of Marciana Maraya.
The events leading to the crime included:

The accused initially entering the house and asking if they could partake in eating “kalamay” (rice cake).
A sudden attack where Abueg struck Norberto Alcaraz on the head with a “chaco,” causing bleeding.
A subsequent return to the house, during which Abueg used a piece of wood to spear the closed door, striking and fatally wounding Marciana Maraya, who was purportedly standing behind the door.
The destruction of the cabinet inside the residence, with San Pedro accused of taking some of the clothes.

Witness testimonies by members of the Maraya family, including Norberto Alcaraz, described the assault, identification of the weapons (pieces of wood and the “chaco”), and the sequence of events.
Medical evidence included a postmortem examination by Dr. Nieto Salvador that revealed fractured ribs, a completely fractured sternum, and extensive heart contusion, with the cause of death attributed to “shock and traumatic.”
Physical evidence gathered at the crime scene comprised two pieces of wood and the remnants of the “chaco.”
The police investigation led by Pat. Wilfredo Perrera and subsequent identification of the accused further corroborated the factual matrix of the case.
The version of the incident submitted by the accused differed in several respects, contending that:

Abueg initially went out to fetch San Pedro and later returned with a piece of wood.
The act of ramming the door was aimed at vengeance rather than premeditated robbery.
There was no prior agreement or conspiracy to commit robbery, alleging that the theft of clothes was an incidental occurrence.

In Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-Cavite, the trial court found both accused guilty of robbery with homicide under Article 293, in relation to Section 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
The conviction was based on evidence showing that:

The accused had acted together in a manner that indicated a common design (conspiracy) to commit robbery even as homicide resulted incidentally.
The destruction of property and the subsequent theft were part of the criminal act.

The trial court sentenced both accused to death, imposed restitution (P393.00 plus an indemnity to the heirs of the victim initially set at P10,000.00 and later increased), and ordered exemplary moral damages of P5,000.00.
Considering the accused were 19 years old at the time of the commission, pursuant to Section 192 of Presidential Decree No. 603, the death sentence was suspended, with confinement ordered at the Camp Sampaguita Youth Center, New Bilibid Prison.
Post-conviction developments included:

Ricardo Abueg’s escape from the Youth Rehabilitation Center on June 4, 1977, his recapture, and subsequent return to the commission court.
Deogracias San Pedro’s return without a pronounced judgment after it was shown that he had not participated in the escape.

The trial court erred in convicting him of robbery with homicide, asserting that there was no valid proof of a conspiracy.
Alternatively, if the crime committed was solely homicide, he should be convicted only for that, as he maintained that the killing of Marciana Maraya was accidental.

A lack of intent to commit such a grave wrongdoing.
A mental defect, as evidenced by a psychological report indicating an IQ in the “mentally defective” range.

However, the evidence, including his capable and detailed recollection during trial testimony and independent psychiatric assessments declaring him within normal limits, countered the claim of mental defect.
The accused’s acts, including returning to the scene armed with a piece of wood and engaging in the destruction of property for the purpose of theft, were held to indicate a common design and actual conspiracy, regardless of any inadvertent result.

Whether the prosecution sufficiently established a conspiracy between the accused to commit robbery, notwithstanding the absence of any prior agreement.

The validity of inferring conspiracy from synchronized acts and actions at the scene.

Whether the accused’s participation in the sequence of events should give rise to a conviction for robbery with homicide, or if it should be limited to homicide only.

Examination of the element of intent, specifically if the killing of Marciana Maraya was accidental versus deliberate or an inexcusable consequence of the robbery.

Whether the mitigating circumstances claimed by the accused—lack of intent to commit a grave wrong and a purported mental defect—should lead to a reduction of criminal liability.

Assessment of the credibility of the mental defect claim in the light of post-crime psychological assessments.

Whether the trial court committed an error by not acquitting the accused on the ground of absence of conspiracy and intentional design to kill.