G.R. No. 192789 - People vs. Sugan

At around 6:45 p.m. on February 8, 1998, a group of armed men – namely, Gaga Latam, Saligo Kuyan, Ngano Sugan, Nga Ben Latam, and one alias Francing – invaded Fortunato Delos Reyes’ residence located in Purok Roxas 1, Lamsugod, Surallah, South Cotabato.
The armed men, all brandishing guns, declared a hold-up upon entering the house and ordered Fortunato, his wife Thelma, and their son Nestor to drop to the floor.
They inquired about the hiding place of money and other valuables, and subsequently confiscated cash amounting to ₱10,000.00, personal belongings valued at ₱5,000.00, and an air gun worth ₱2,800.00.
During the course of the robbery, Ngano Sugan brought the young Nestor outside the residence and shot him, initiating the homicidal element of the crime.
Reggie Delos Reyes, another son of the victim couple, rushed toward the scene upon hearing the sound of gunfire; however, lookouts Kamison Akoy and Cosme Latam, posted outside, prevented him from entering by threatening him with a knife and a gun, respectively.
After the shooting and the subsequent events, all seven armed individuals fled the scene, leaving behind a slain victim who later died at the hospital due to multiple gunshot wounds.

The prosecution charged the accused with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
During the Regional Trial Court (RTC) proceedings in Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato, the appellants (Gaga Latam, Saligo Kuyan, and Kamison Akoy) pleaded not guilty, while Ngano Sugan, Nga Ben Latam, and alias Francing remained at large; Cosme Latam had already died while under detention.
In its decision dated September 25, 2008, the RTC found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for robbery with homicide and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The RTC also ordered the appellants to pay civil indemnities: ₱75,000.00 and ₱24,000.00 for indemnity and burial expenses respectively, as well as ₱17,800.00 representing the value of the stolen items.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision in its entirety, relying heavily on the identification by Fortunato and Thelma Delos Reyes and the corroborative testimony of Reggie Delos Reyes.
The CA rejected the appellants’ defenses, which included the denial of involvement and an alibi, the latter failing to demonstrate physical impossibility of being at the crime scene.
Evidence showed that the appellants and their associates acted in concert, with each playing a role—ranging from active participation in the robbery to acting as lookouts.

The Supreme Court, in its decision on March 23, 2011, denied the appeal of the appellants but modified the denomination of the offense and the quantum of awarded damages.
It clarified that the proper charge is “robbery with homicide” rather than “robbery with homicide committed by a band,” noting that the latter is an erroneous denomination.
The Supreme Court modified the award of damages to the victim’s heirs, granting ₱75,000.00 for moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages (in lieu of lower actual burial expenses), and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the aggravating circumstance involved.
The Court discussed statutory interpretations regarding the elements of robbery with homicide and the legal principle that in cases of conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all.

The elements of robbery with homicide require: (a) the taking of personal property belonging to another, (b) with intent to gain, (c) by use of violence or intimidation, and (d) the commission of homicide on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
The decision elaborates that for a conviction, there must be certitude that the principal intent was robbery, with homicide being merely incidental—even if the killing occurred before, during, or after the robbery.
In evaluating conspiracy, the Court underscored that the act of one conspirator should be imputed to all, highlighting the concept of a joint enterprise with a community of interest.
The Court also considered legislative reforms, specifically Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines, thereby justifying the sentencing of reclusion perpetua despite the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed by a band.

Whether the acts committed by the appellants and their associates amounted to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Whether the overriding intent was to commit robbery, with the homicide being an incidental outcome.

Whether all participants in the conspiracy (regardless of their specific role in the actual killing) should be held liable as principals in the commission of robbery with homicide.
The applicability of the principle that “once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all.”

Whether the appellants’ defenses of denial and alibi have merit in light of the positive identification by the victims and corroborative testimonies.
The sufficiency of the evidence to discredit the alibi and denial defenses.

Whether the lower courts erred in designating the crime as “robbery with homicide committed by a band” rather than the proper term “robbery with homicide.”
The appropriate penalty applicable in view of existing statutory provisions and prohibitions against the death penalty.