Title
People vs. Tamang
Case
G.R. No. 99868
Decision Date
Aug 19, 1994
Accused conspired in robbery and rape; Tamang appealed, claiming no role in rape. Court upheld conspiracy, affirming his conviction for robbery with rape.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 99868)

Charges and Context of the Case

The accused were charged with the crime of robbery with rape, as stipulated under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The information indicated that on December 14, 1986, the group carried out a robbery armed with firearms and forcibly took money and items belonging to the victims, while also committing the act of rape against Elisa Austria during this crime.

Procedural History and Initial Rulings

Upon arraignment, Ariel Limbauan pled guilty to the charges, while the other accused, including Tamang, entered a not guilty plea. Following the trial, the court convicted Limbauan and Tamang, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and civil indemnity, while the other accused received varying prison terms. Tamang alone appealed the decision, contesting his conviction of the complex crime of robbery in band with rape.

Appellant's Claims and Argument

Leonor Tamang contended that his actions during the incident, particularly leading Elisa Austria downstairs, did not imply involvement in the conspiracy behind the rape. He argued that he intended for her to join others and did not directly hand her over to Limbauan for the purposes of rape. The central argument was that he did not conspire with Limbauan to commit the act of rape.

Evaluation of Evidence

The court evaluated eyewitness testimony, particularly from the victim Elisa Austria, who testified about the force used against her and identified Tamang's role in bringing her downstairs before handing her over to Limbauan, who subsequently raped her. This critical account defined Tamang's participation, contradicting his claim of innocence concerning the conspiracy.

Conspiracy and Legal Interpretation

A conspiracy can be established through the actions of the parties involved, evidencing a common understanding to commit a crime. In this case, the court found substantial evidence of an agreement between Tamang and Limbauan, induced by the testimonies that showed Tamang’s actions were not merely about leading Austria downstairs but were part of a collusive act to facilitate the crime.

Affirmation of the Trial Court's Judgment

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, establishi

...continue reading

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