View full case

PEOPLE v. EFREN DEGOMA

FACTS:

Efren Degoma and Marino D. Taborada were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. After trial, they were found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Only Taborada appealed from the judgment of conviction. The trial court summarized the facts as follows: On April 12, 1988, the Tagbilaran Friendly Bazaar was robbed and the security guard, Alexander Parilla, was shot and killed. Taborada was apprehended by the police while grappling with the driver of the store. Taborada then revealed that his co-accused, Degoma, was the other suspect. Taborada presented a different version of the events, claiming that he did not know that Degoma would commit the robbery and kill the security guard. The prosecution argued that there was a conspiracy between Taborada and Degoma, supported by the circumstances that Taborada was penniless and needed money to return to Cebu City, that Taborada and Degoma were seen together before the robbery, and that they entered the store at the same time with Taborada acting as a distraction while Degoma robbed the cashier.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether appellant Taborada acted in conspiracy with his co-accused Degoma in robbing the Tagbilaran Friendly Bazaar.

  2. Whether appellant Taborada can be held accountable for the killing of the security guard despite his lack of prior knowledge that his co-accused would shoot and kill the security guard.

  3. Whether appellant Taborada should be held guilty as an accomplice or as a principal by cooperation in the crime of robbery with homicide.

  4. Whether the participation of the appellant in neutralizing the security guard of the store constitutes robbery as defined by law.

  5. Whether the award of actual damages by the court a quo is supported by competent proof and the best evidence obtainable.

  6. Whether the award of moral damages is adequately explained and supported by the court's decision.

RULING:

  1. Yes, appellant Taborada acted in conspiracy with his co-accused Degoma in robbing the Tagbilaran Friendly Bazaar. The circumstances, including their presence together prior to the robbery, simultaneous entry to the premises, and Taborada's actions of grappling with the security guard while Degoma divested the cashier of money at gunpoint, were sufficient to establish their common design to commit the robbery.

  2. Appellant Taborada cannot exculpate himself from the killing of the security guard by simply disclaiming any knowledge of his co-conspirator's intention to shoot and kill. The law holds all conspirators liable for the acts of each other. The phrase "on the occasion" and "by reason" of the robbery used by the Revised Penal Code refers to a homicide committed in the course of the robbery, regardless of the intentions of the robbers.

  3. Appellant Taborada should be held guilty as a principal by cooperation in the crime of robbery with homicide. While it was Degoma who shot and killed the security guard and physically took the money, Taborada's actions of grappling with the security guard and preventing him from aiding the cashier were material and indispensable for the consummation of the crime. Taborada's participation went beyond that of an accomplice, making him a principal in the crime.

  4. The participation of the appellant in neutralizing the security guard of the store constitutes robbery as it is an integral part of their plan without which the robbery could not have been consummated.

  5. The court a quo's award of actual damages is not sustained by a review of the evidence of record. Only those expenses supported by receipts and genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim can be considered. The gross expenses proved by the immediate heirs of the victim amount to P10,175.85.

  6. The award of moral damages is unexplained and unsupported in the court's decision. The Court reduces the amount of the award to P10,000.00. However, the Court increases the amount of indemnity for the death of the victim to P50,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Where conspiracy is shown, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all the other conspirators.

  • A person who joins a criminal conspiracy is held to have cast his lot with his fellow conspirators and to have taken his chances that things may go awry.

  • To free oneself from criminal liability in a conspiracy, the law requires an overt act on the part of the conspirator to prevent commission of the crime or to abandon or dissociate oneself from the conspiracy.

  • The phrases "on the occasion" and "by reason" of the robbery used in the Revised Penal Code refer to a homicide committed in the course of the robbery, regardless of the robbers' precise intentions.

  • A principal by cooperation is one who cooperates in the execution of the crime by a simultaneous act that is material and indispensable for the consummation of the crime.

  • In a robbery case, the participation of the accused in neutralizing the security guard is an integral part of the plan and renders them liable for robbery.

  • To recover actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, using competent proof and the best evidence obtainable.

  • Courts cannot assume or rely on speculation or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.

  • Moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation, but the court may reduce the amount based on the circumstances.