CASE DIGEST : People of the Philippines v. Juan Cabbab, Jr. G.R. No. 173479, July 12, 2007 First Division — Garcia, J.

 

FACTS

Juan Cabbab, Jr., together with his cousin-in-law Segundino Calpito, was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra with Double Murder and Attempted Murder with Robbery. The Information alleged that on April 22, 1988, in Sitio Kayawkaw, Barangay Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra, the accused, armed with a firearm and acting in conspiracy, shot Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, causing their deaths. They also allegedly shot William Belmes, who survived, and took ₱12,000 belonging to Winner Agbulos. 

The victims had gone to the area for a fiesta celebration. After learning that the celebration had already ended, they decided to return home to Villaviciosa, Abra. Since it was already lunchtime, they stopped at Sitio Turod, Barangay Kimmalasag, to eat. After lunch, while they were on their way home, they encountered Cabbab. The prosecution's evidence established that the victims were subsequently attacked and shot. Winner Agbulos was killed immediately, while Eddie Quindasan died shortly thereafter. William Belmes was also shot but survived because he was able to roll away and the assailants' shots did not fatally hit him.

Cabbab was identified as one of the assailants. The prosecution presented evidence concerning his participation in the shooting and robbery. Cabbab, on the other hand, denied the accusations and claimed that he was not responsible for the crimes. The case proceeded to trial, after which the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review. Pursuant to People v. Mateo, the case was first referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, with modification. Cabbab then appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the evidence and the proper classification of the offenses committed.

ISSUE

The first issue was whether Cabbab was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The Court had to determine whether the prosecution sufficiently established his participation in the shooting of the victims and the taking of Winner Agbulos' money.

The second issue was whether the killing of Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, together with the taking of Winner's money, constituted robbery with homicide, and whether the shooting of William Belmes constituted attempted murder. The Court had to determine the proper characterization of the offenses based on the evidence presented during trial.

HELD

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction, with the modifications stated in its decision. The Court sustained Cabbab's criminal liability for robbery with homicide and attempted murder. The Court found that the prosecution had established his participation in the crimes beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court explained that in robbery with homicide, the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The homicide is the principal offense, while the robbery is absorbed in it. It is immaterial whether the intent to rob preceded or followed the killing, provided that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Thus, when the killing and taking of property are sufficiently connected with each other, the resulting offense is robbery with homicide rather than separate offenses of homicide and robbery.

The Court likewise sustained the finding of attempted murder with respect to William Belmes. The prosecution established that the assailants shot at Belmes with intent to kill, but he survived because he was able to roll away and the shots failed to produce his death. The execution of the intended killing therefore did not reach the stage of consummation because of circumstances independent of the offenders' will.

The Court ultimately held Cabbab criminally liable for robbery with homicide and attempted murder based on the evidence establishing his participation in the attack. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction, subject to the modifications contained in the dispositive portion of the decision.