Title
People vs. Labuguen y Francisco
Case
G.R. No. 223103
Decision Date
Feb 24, 2020
Five armed men robbed and killed a family in Isabela in 2002; two perpetrators were convicted of Robbery with Homicide, sentenced to life without parole.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223103)

Key Dates

January 3, 2002 – Commission of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide
April 15, 2011 – RTC Decision convicting appellants
March 25, 2015 – CA Decision affirming with modification
February 24, 2020 – Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Revised Penal Code, Article 294 (robbery with homicide), Article 48 (complex crimes); Republic Act No. 9346 (proscribing death penalty); relevant jurisprudence (People v. Baron, People v. Tidong, People v. Jugueta)

Factual Background

On January 3, 2002 at about 7:30 p.m., five armed men forcibly entered the Padre family residence in Villaruz, Delfin Albano. They threatened Manuel and Nenita Padre and their daughters, Rhoda and Rachelle. Labuguen dragged Rachelle into a comfort room; other assailants separated family members. Labuguen stabbed and attempted to strangle Rachelle, who feigned death and escaped. Meanwhile, Zuniga and others inflicted fatal wounds on Manuel, Nenita, and Rhoda using firearms and bladed weapons. The perpetrators fled with ₱500,000. Rachelle survived due to timely medical treatment; the three others died. Labuguen was arrested January 4, 2002; Zuniga was apprehended in 2006.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela, Branch 22, found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. Each was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay actual and civil indemnity damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified civil indemnities to ₱75,000 per victim. The People appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether appellant Zuniga may invoke the exempting circumstance of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
  2. Whether Rachelle’s identification of the assailants is credible.
  3. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established.
  4. Proper characterization of offenses and appropriate penalties and damages.

Ruling on Exempting Circumstance

The Court held that Zuniga cannot avail of uncontrollable fear. Exempting force requires a real, imminent threat leaving no opportunity to escape. Evidence showed Zuniga was a knowing, active participant in a well-planned crime, had opportunities to flee through cornfields, and performed overt acts of violence without coercion.

Credibility of Identification

Challenges to Rachelle’s testimony were rejected. Her delay in naming assailants was reasonably attributed to trauma and uncertainty about whom to trust. She eventually positively identified Labuguen and Macalinao, and later Zuniga, before fiscal investigators.

Existence of Conspiracy

Conspiracy was established by proof of common design: meeting at a prearranged location, proceeding in concert to the Padre residence masked and armed, committing violence to facilitate robbery, and reuniting afterward to divide the loot. All conspirators acted to achieve their shared criminal objective.

Elements of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide

Robbery with homicide requires (1) taking of another’s property with intent to gain, (2) use of violence or intimidation, and (3) homicide occurring by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. Frustrat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.