The Supreme Court, in People vs. Domacyong, affirmed that in cases of robbery with homicide, all individuals involved in the robbery are held equally responsible, regardless of whether they directly participated in the killing. The only exception to this rule arises when an accused actively tried to prevent the unlawful killing during the commission of the crime. This decision reinforces the principle that all participants in a robbery share responsibility for any resulting deaths, ensuring accountability and justice for the victims and their families.

Victoria Supermart Hold-up: Can Accomplices Be Guilty of Homicide Without Direct Involvement?

In May 1993, Victoria Supermart in Baguio City was the scene of a brazen robbery. A group of armed men, including Esteban Domacyong and Richard Paleyan, stormed the supermarket, stealing approximately P140,000. The chaos escalated as the robbers engaged in a shootout with responding law enforcement agents, tragically resulting in the deaths of Police Inspector Nestor Visitacion and Cesar Reyes, along with injuries to civilians. Domacyong and Paleyan, along with several others, were charged with robbery with homicide and illegal possession of firearms. The central legal question revolved around whether all participants in the robbery could be held liable for homicide, even if they did not directly commit the killings.

The prosecution presented compelling evidence, including eyewitness accounts identifying Domacyong and Paleyan as active participants in the robbery. Witnesses testified that Domacyong was seen carrying a bag toward the store owner’s office, while Paleyan fired his gun inside the supermarket. Further investigation revealed that Domacyong and accused Bolinget tested positive for nitrates on their hands, indicating they had recently fired a weapon. Though Paleyan’s test results were negative, the trial court found both appellants guilty of robbery with homicide, leading to their appeal based on the argument that their direct involvement in the deaths was not conclusively proven. They argued that since there was no evidence to show they caused the death, it cannot be considered robbery with homicide.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the principle of collective responsibility in robbery with homicide cases. Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that if homicide occurs “by reason or on occasion of such robbery,” all those involved in the robbery are culpable as principals. This doctrine is deeply rooted in Philippine jurisprudence, holding that all participants are guilty, even if they did not directly take part in the homicide, unless they actively tried to prevent the killing. The court emphasized that direct evidence linking the appellants to the specific act of killing was not essential.

The circumstantial evidence presented strongly suggested their participation and culpability. Witness accounts placed them at the scene, armed, and actively involved in the robbery. The presence of nitrates on Domacyong’s hands further linked him to the use of a firearm during the incident. Even though Paleyan’s hands did not test positive for nitrates, his active participation in the robbery made him equally liable for the resulting homicides. The Supreme Court reiterated that it is the result of the robbery (homicide) that is essential, not the specific circumstances or persons involved in the killing.

Regarding the charge of illegal possession of firearms, the Court noted that Republic Act No. 8294 clarifies that the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of another crime, such as robbery with homicide, is considered an aggravating circumstance rather than a separate offense. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellants’ conviction for illegal possession of firearms, as the use of unlicensed firearms already aggravated the robbery with homicide charge. The court also adjusted the civil liabilities imposed by the trial court, specifying the amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages to be paid to the heirs of the victims. Additionally, the heirs of Nestor Visitacion were awarded compensation for the loss of his income.

Ultimately, this case serves as a powerful reminder that participating in a robbery carries significant legal consequences. When a death occurs during a robbery, all those involved bear the burden of responsibility, ensuring that justice is served for the victims and their families. This ruling strengthens the principle that every participant is fully accountable for their actions, even if they did not directly inflict the fatal blow.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether all participants in a robbery could be found guilty of robbery with homicide even if they did not directly participate in the killing. The Supreme Court affirmed that all participants are responsible unless they tried to prevent the unlawful killing.
What is the legal basis for the court’s decision?	The decision is based on Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which states that all those involved in a robbery are guilty as principals in the complex crime of robbery with homicide if a death occurs during the robbery. This principle applies regardless of direct participation in the killing.
What is required to be liable for robbery with homicide?	The prosecution must prove (1) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain (animo lucrandi); and (4) homicide was committed during the robbery.
What was the significance of the forensic evidence in this case?	The forensic evidence, particularly the presence of nitrates on Domacyong’s hands, strengthened the prosecution’s case by indicating he had recently fired a gun, linking him to the violence during the robbery. It helped prove direct involvement in the crime.
What does ‘animo lucrandi’ mean in the context of robbery?	“Animo lucrandi” refers to the intent to gain or profit from the taking of personal property belonging to another. This is a required element to establish a crime like robbery or theft.
Were the accused also charged with illegal possession of firearms?	Yes, initially they were charged. However, the Supreme Court set aside this conviction, ruling that the use of an unlicensed firearm during another crime is an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense.
What is the penalty for robbery with homicide?	Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) to death. The court here sentenced reclusion perpetua due to the specific circumstances of the case and relevant laws at the time.
What kind of damages were awarded to the victims’ families?	The court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages to the heirs of the deceased victims, including compensation for funeral expenses and loss of income. It shows how the court sees proper restitution of damages.
What is the impact of RA 8294 on charges of illegal possession of firearms?	RA 8294 clarifies that the use of an unlicensed firearm in committing another crime is an aggravating circumstance, rather than a separate offense of illegal possession. So, if a gun is used during the offense, it won’t result in a separate case, rather an addition to what had already been done.

In conclusion, People vs. Domacyong clarifies the extensive reach of culpability in robbery with homicide cases. Every person involved in the robbery becomes accountable for the resulting deaths. It’s an important principle to bear in mind.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GEORGE “JORGE” BOLINGET Y BAGTAN, ET AL., G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003