Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Palijon
Case
G.R. No. 123545
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2000
Three individuals conspired to rob elderly balikbayans, resulting in the husband's death. Two pleaded guilty to homicide, while others were convicted of robbery with homicide after trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169576)

Factual Background

On August 27, 1993, at approximately 2:00 A.M., Rodelo Palijon, Carlos Decena, and Jim Mercene conspired to rob the residence of elderly spouses Gonzalo and Mellorequina Reyes in San Pablo City. The plan involved subterfuge and violence; Decena gained entry by forcibly removing glass panes from the jalousy windows. Once inside, he and Mercene awaited Mrs. Reyes, who unknowingly confronted them while going to the bathroom. Decena physically assaulted her, rendering her unconscious, and subsequently attacked Mr. Reyes with a steel stool, leading to his death from injuries sustained during the assault. The robbers fled with cash and jewelry valued at P117,000.

Charges and Initial Proceedings

An Information was filed against the accused, including Palijon, Pria, Decena, and Mercene, for robbery with homicide in violation of the Revised Penal Code. The accused were arraigned on November 9, 1993, each pleading not guilty. During trial, Decena and Mercene changed their plea to guilty for the lesser charge of homicide; they were subsequently sentenced to imprisonment with restitution to the victim's heirs.

Trial and Evidence Presented

The prosecution's case focused significantly on the testimony of Jim Mercene, who identified Palijon and Pria as co-conspirators, asserting that the robbery was premeditated and executed by the group, including Pria's knowledge of the victims' wealth as balikbayans. The trial court evaluated witness testimony and physical evidence, including stolen property recovered post-crime, which linked the accused to the act.

Defenses Raised

Palijon asserted a defense of denial and alibi, claiming to have been in Pila, Laguna during the incident. He argued police misconduct occurred during his arrest. Pria denied participating in any planning, stating she was unaware of the robbery until the aftermath was underway, and highlighted her familial connection to the victims as mitigating factors.

Due Process and Preliminary Investigation Claims

Pria claimed her right to due process was violated due to the lack of a preliminary investigation prior to her arraignment. However, the court upheld that she had waived this right by participating actively in the trial following her arraignment without contesting the procedural aspects of her arrest.

Legal Findings on Conspiracy and Guilt

The appellate court examined the conspiracy argument and established that acts of individual conspirators could collectively implicate all members. It reiterated the importance of proving robbery elements, including asportation and intention to gain. The court evaluated tes

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.