Anda di halaman 1dari 4

People vs.

Comiling
G.R. No. 140405 | March 4, 2004
J. Corona

Topic: Crimes Against Property – Robbery with Homicide

Petitioners: People of the Philippines


Respondents: Major Emilio Comiling, Gil Salagubang (acquitted), Mario Clotario
(acquitted), Geraldo Galingan, Eddie Calderon (at large), Balot Cabotaje
(at large) and Ricky Mendoza (at large)

FACTS:

Sept. 2, 1995 At sundown, Masterline Grocerystore, located at Bonifacio St., Tayug,


Pangasinan, was forcibly robbed by three masked, armed men while its
owner, Ysiong Chua, and helper, Mario, were inside the store. The three
men carried firearms & hand grenades and they took P 81,000 in cash as
well as 3 pieces of Chinese gold necklaces (worth P 26,000 in total). On
their way out, one of the armed robbers shot responding policeman PO3
Erwil Pastor in the face causing his eventual death. In order to escape the
other responding policemen, the robbers ran to the adjacent store – Good
Taste Bakery – where they also shot and mortally wounded the bakery’s
owner, Mrs. Conching Co.

Sept. 26, 1995 Naty Panimbaan, one of the conspirators who planned the robbery, decided
to reveal to police authorities what she knew about the case. She introduced
herself as the “girlfriend” of Geraldo Galingan, (the one who shot PO3
Pastor) and as someone who was present to all of the four meetings headed
by Major Emilio Comiling in order to prepare for the robbery.

During the pendency of the case, it must be noted that all of the accused
(Comiling, Galingan, Mendoza, Salagubang, and Clotario) were in the
custody of the police except for Eddie Calderon and Balot Cabotaje who
remained at large

March 28, 1997 Mendoza escaped from his detention cell and was thus tried in absentia.

Sept. 1, 1999 Despite the robbers’ efforts to impugn Naty’s credibility, the RTC found
Mendoza, Galingan, and Comiling guilty of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide (RPC 294) with the penalty of death + damages to
Chua and Pastor’s heirs.

Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeals:


-Comiling claims that the conviction of robbery with homicide because of
PO3 Pastor’s death was improper since the supposed killing of PO3 Pastor
occurred after the robbery took place, hence such could not be considered
as a necessary means of committing robbery
-Comiling further asserts that he cannot be held liable for robbery as he was
not physically present at the Masterline Grocery during the incident
-Galingan impugns Naty’s credibility by claiming that:
-she was a woman of ill-repute whom he paid P700 every time they
had sex
-she was motivated by ill-will when she implicated Galingan
because he refused to leave his wife for Naty.
-she was a drug user
-since Naty’s testimony showed that she was also a conspirator to
the crime, the existence of conspiracy must be shown by evidence
other than Natys admission (res inter alios acta rule under Sec. 30,
Rule 130, ROC)
-Galingan was at his Uncle’s House in Nocaliches, Metro Manila when the
incident happened

ISSUES:

W/N the conviction of Robbery with Homicide (RPC 294) was proper despite Comiling’s initial
contention

W/N Comiling is liable for the felony even if he was not physically present during its commission

W/N Naty was a credible witness

W/N Galingan’s alibi is meritorious

W/N the RTC’s imposition of the death penalty was proper

RATIO & HOLDING:

1. YES. Since robbery with homicide is a special complex crime, it is enough that in order to
sustain a conviction for this crime, the killing, which is designated as homicide, has a direct
relation to the robbery, regardless of whether the latter takes place before or after the killing
or even if the death occurred by accident.

2. YES. Comiling was a Principal By Inducement as the leader of the group. He planned
everything as early as June 1995. He was the one who assigned the specific roles of each
men in the crime. After the robbery, Comiling was the one who secured the money and
stolen jewelry for safekeeping.

Moreover, the existence of conspiracy cannot be doubted. The rule is, whenever homicide
is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who take part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide
3. YES. These attacks on Naty’s character and reputation are too flimsy and irrelevant to
deserve serious consideration. Galingans testimony and evidence concerning Natys
character was based solely on his own self-serving claim / private opinion, and did not at
all reflect the general reputation by which Naty was held by the community. Further,
Moreover, Galingan failed to substantiate his claim that Naty was driven by ill will or false
motive in testifying against him.

Naty Panimbaan was examined three times not only under the close scrutiny of two defense
counsels but also, under the abrasive tirades of the trial judge who called her a whore. Yet,
despite the trial courts apparent misgivings about her character, it still gave full credence
to her testimony.

4. NO. It must be noted that it was PO3 Pastor himself who positively identified Galingan as
the one who shot him. Under Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, the declaration
of a dying person with the consciousness of impending death may be received in any case
wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of such death. There are four requisites which must concur in order that a
dying declaration may be admissible: (1) it must concern the crime and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) at the time it was made, the declarant was under
the consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant was competent as a witness;
and (4) the declaration is offered in any criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in
which the declarant was the victim

Galingan cannot claim that he was in Novaliches when the incident happened because he
failed to prove such claim through a positive declaration from an independent witness

5. NO. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated the aggravating
circumstances of band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise against the appellants.
However, these circumstances were not specifically alleged in the information as required
under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hence, inasmuch
as no aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be deemed to have attended the
commission of the offense, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on
them.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellants Emilio Comiling, Geraldo Galingan and accused Ricky Mendoza are hereby found
guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

They are also ordered to return to Ysiong Chua his lost valuables, and if this cannot be done, to
pay him in solidum its value of P26,000 as reparation, plus P81,000 which was the amount of the
cash stolen, as actual damages, and to pay the heirs of PO3 Erwil Pastor P50,000 as civil indemnity
and P25,000 as temperate damages.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai