FACTS:

On January 7, 2000, a robbery with homicide incident occurred at Energex Gasoline Station, San Mateo, Rizal. The accused, together with several other unidentified individuals, arrived at the station in a Tamaraw FX and declared a hold-up. Some of the robbers directed the employees to lie down and proceeded to rob the cashier's office, taking cash and shooting a security guard. They also robbed the gasoline boy of his wallet and a pawnshop ticket. The injured security guard later died. The accused was identified by one of the victims and claimed that he was merely a passenger in the vehicle driven by another person during the robbery. The accused, along with others, was charged with multiple counts of robbery with homicide in four separate cases.

The accused, Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo, was charged and convicted of robbery with homicide. He appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, invoking the repealed provision of the Interim Rules of Criminal Procedure that allows direct appeals to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as the Interim Rules now require appeals to the Court of Appeals for cases with said penalties, only allowing appeals to the Supreme Court if the penalty imposed is different.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused-appellant can be considered a co-conspirator in the commission of the crime charged.

2. Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing four death penalties when the crime charged was produced by a single act that should be meted with a single penalty.

3. Whether the crime committed is robbery with homicide.

4. Whether the appellant was a co-conspirator in the commission of the crime.

5. Whether there was conspiracy in the commission of the robbery;

6. Whether the witnesses' testimonies are credible;

7. Whether the appellant's denial of participation in the robbery is valid;

8. Whether the appellant should be found guilty of one count of robbery with homicide.

9. Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance or a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

10. Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm was proven by the prosecution.

11. Whether or not the appellant committed the crime of murder.

12. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

13. Whether or not the appellant is liable to pay temperate damages to the heirs of the victim.

RULING:

1. The trial court did not gravely err in finding the accused-appellant a co-conspirator in the commission of the crime charged. The prosecution was able to establish the elements of robbery with homicide, including the accused-appellant's participation in the crime.

2. The trial court did not err in imposing four death penalties. Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the crime of robbery is accompanied by homicide. The number of penalties corresponds to the number of homicides committed in relation to the robbery.

3. The crime committed is robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. 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. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.

4. The prosecution was able to prove the presence of an implied conspiracy. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. The witnesses were able to narrate in a convincing manner, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the robbery and positively identified appellant as one of the robbers.

5. Yes, there was conspiracy in the commission of the robbery. The appellant's presence during the commission of the crime, as testified by himself, establishes that he was part of the conspiracy. The act of one conspirator is deemed the act of all, and the precise extent of each conspirator's participation is secondary.

6. Yes, the credibility of the witnesses must not be disturbed as the trial court's findings on credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect.

7. No, the appellant's denial of participation in the robbery is not valid. Mere presence during the commission of the crime does not exculpate him. He must have performed an overt act to dissociate himself from the conspiracy, which he failed to do.

8. Yes, the appellant should be found guilty of one count of robbery with homicide. There was a series of acts borne from one criminal resolution, which constitutes a continuing crime with only one penalty to be imposed.

9. The use of an unlicensed firearm should be considered as a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The court held that with the passage of Republic Act No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a special aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance. The court clarified that special aggravating circumstances arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree.

10. The use of an unlicensed firearm was not proven by the prosecution. Although jurisprudence dictates that the existence of the firearm can be established by mere testimony, the fact that the accused was not a licensed firearm holder must still be established. In this case, the prosecution failed to present written or testimonial evidence to prove that the accused did not have a license to carry or own a firearm. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated.

11. The appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

12. The appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as it was not proven that the appellant was inspired by any of the reasons provided by law for such circumstance.

13. The appellant is liable to pay temperate damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P25,000.00, in addition to the other civil indemnities and damages awarded by the Regional Trial Court.

PRINCIPLES:

• In robbery with homicide, the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during, or after the robbery. The result obtained, without reference to the circumstances, causes, or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, has to be taken into consideration.

• Homicide committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery is considered robbery with homicide, regardless of the manner or intent of the killing and regardless of the relationship between the victim of robbery and the victim of homicide.

• Intent to rob may be inferred from the violent unlawful taking of personal property.

• Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the 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, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent the killing.

• Those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, even if not all of them profited from the robbery.

• In a conspiracy, each conspirator need not participate in every detail of the execution, nor know the exact part performed by the others. Each conspirator may be assigned separate tasks that may appear unrelated, but collectively contribute to their common criminal objective.

• Trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied important facts or circumstances.

• Denial and alibi are viewed with disfavor as they are easily concocted by an accused to suit his defense. They cannot attain more credibility than the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses.

• In a robbery with homicide case, a continuing offense is considered a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution. Only one penalty shall be imposed.

• The use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder. It is a generic aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty to its maximum period but cannot increase it to the next higher degree. It must be alleged and proven during trial to be appreciated. It may be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

• Generic aggravating circumstances can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance, while special aggravating circumstances cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

• The use of an unlicensed firearm is considered a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

• The existence of a firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.

• In the absence of actual damages proven by receipts, temperate damages may be awarded as a substitute for the actual damages of a lesser amount, provided that actual damages amount to less than the temperate damages awarded.

• The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction for murder.

• In order for voluntary surrender to be considered a mitigating circumstance, it must be proven that the surrender was spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or desires to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incident to his search and capture.

• Temperate damages may be awarded in the absence of actual damages proved in court, provided that it is proven that the victim suffered some pecuniary loss.