People vs. Dillatan, Sr.

(2018)

Plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Accused-appellants: RICHARD DILLATAN, SR. Y PAT AND DONATO GARCIA Y DUAZO

Ponente: Peralta (Third Division)

Topic: Criminal Law, Remedial Law

SUMMARY: Accused-appellants were found guilty of robbery with homicide, for taking P70,000 and
shooting at the victims, leading to injuries on the Spouses Acob and the death of their son. The SC
affirmed their conviction.

DOCTRINE: Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on
occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove
the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation
against persons; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to
gain; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic
sense, was committed. A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and
objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must
precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.

---

Common human experience tells us that when extraordinary circumstances take place, it is natural for
persons to remember many of the important details. This Court has held that the most natural reaction
of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the features and faces of their assailants and observe
the manner in which the crime is committed. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements
thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness' memory. Thus, if
family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved one usually strive to remember the faces of
the assailants, this Court sees no reason how both parents, who witnessed the violence inflicted, not
only upon themselves, but especially upon their son, who eventually died by reason thereof, could
have done any less.

---

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during,
and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to, and are indicative of, a joint purpose,
concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution.

Moreover, it is settled that when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single
and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing,
unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.

---
“Homicide," in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, is understood in its generic sense
and forms part of the essential element of robbery, which is the use of violence or the use of force
upon anything. Stated differently, all the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the
robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.

FACTS: Private complainants, the spouses Henry and Violeta Acob (Spouses Acob), were owners of
a market stall at the public market of Sta. Rosa, Aurora, Isabela. Around 6 o'clock in the evening of
February 7, 2010, the Spouses Acob, together with their son, Homer, closed their stall and proceeded
home by riding together on their motorcycle. Homer was the driver, Violeta sat at the middle, while
Henry sat behind her. They were approaching the entrance to their barangay around 6:30 p.m. when
they noticed two persons, whom they later identified as herein accused-appellants, near a motorcycle.
When they passed, accused-appellants rode the motorcycle and tailed them. Accused- appellants
eventually caught up with them, whereupon, accused Dillatan forced them to stop and immediately
declared a holdup. Violeta embraced Homer, while Dillatan grabbed her belt bag which contained
P70,000.00 cash. Thereafter, Dillatan uttered, "barilin mo na." Garcia then fired at the victims hitting,
first, the left hand of Violeta. The bullet went through the left hand of Violeta and pierced Homer's chest
causing the latter to fall down together with the motorcycle. Henry, on the other hand, was able to get
off the motorcycle and tried to escape but Garcia also fired at him thereby hitting his right knee.
Accused-appellants, thereafter, fled through their motorcycle. Several people then came to the aid of
the private complainants and brought them to the hospital where Homer later expired by reason of his
gunshot wound. Violeta and Henry were treated for their wounds. Accused-appellants were
apprehended by police authorities later at night where they were subsequently identified by Violeta at
the police station as the ones who grabbed her belt bag and shot them. A criminal complaint was
subsequently filed against accused-appellants.
 Accused-appellants were charged of robbery with homicide. RTC convicted them of the crime charged.
CA affirmed.

ISSUES:

 WoN the prosecution established the identity of the assailants

o YES. It must be stressed that Henry and Violeta were seated together atop their motorcycle when
Dillatan grabbed her bag and Garcia fired at them. In fact, Violeta was embracing her son, Homer,
when a single bullet struck them. Both accused-appellants, at that time, were both less than a
meter away from the victims. Hence, despite the swiftness of the assault upon them, Henry and
Violeta could not have mistaken the identity of accused- appellants as the persons responsible
for the attack.
o Moreover, Violeta's testimony disproves the poor illumination claim of accused-appellants when
she testified that "it was still bright" at the time of the commission of the crime. It is settled that
when the conditions of visibility are favorable, as in this case, the eyewitness identification of
accused-appellants as the malefactors and the specific acts constituting the crime should be
accepted. Add the fact that Violeta and Henry had an unhindered view of the faces of accused-
appellants during the whole time that the crime was being committed. Thus, accused-appellants'
attack on the positive identification by Violeta and Henry must, therefore, fail.
 WoN accused-appellants acted in conspiracy with one another
o YES. In the present case, the coordinated acts and movements of accused-appellants before,
during and after the commission of the crime point to no other conclusion than that they have
acted in conspiracy with each other.

NOTES: In the present case where, aside from the killing of Homer, the Spouses Acob, on the occasion of the
same robbery, also sustained injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime committed is still robbery with
homicide as the injuries sustained by the Spouses Acob are subsumed under the generic term "homicide" and,
thus, become part and parcel of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Nonetheless, it is also settled that in robbery with homicide, the victims who sustained injuries, but were not
killed, shall also be indemnified. Hence, the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by these victims must
still be determined for the purpose of awarding civil indemnity and damages.

In the instant case, while it was alleged in the Information that Henry, who was shot on his right knee, and Violeta,
who's left hand was hit by the same bullet that killed Homer, could have died from their injuries were it not for
the timely and able medical assistance rendered to them, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to
prove such allegation. Thus, their injuries are not considered fatal and, as such, the Spouses Acob are each
entitled only to be indemnified amounts which are equivalent to those awarded in an attempted stage.

Also, this Court has held in the controlling case of People v. Juguetathat in special complex crimes like robbery
with homicide where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages,
and exemplary damages are now uniformly pegged at P75,000.00. The award of temperate damages is also
increased to P50,000.00.

Accused-appellants, RICHARD DILLATAN, SR. Y PAT AND DONATO GARCIA Y DUAZO, are found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide,