Gertrude Arquillo
People v Escober
Topic: Special Complex Crimes; principals did not endeavor to
prevent homicide
Facts:
 RTC QC found Juan Escober and Macario Punzalan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery
with homicide, sentenced to death. (only 2 of them
were apprehended)
 Consolidated cases: 1. Automatic review of the death
sentence 2. petition for review of RTC decision taken
by Escober
 Joint trial prosecution evidence (italicized, defense):
o Amadeo abuyen alias Roberto Alorte was
formerly a co-security guard of Escober at the
Bee Seng Electrical Supply Inc., a family
corporation owned by couple vicente Chua and
Lina Chua located inside a walled compound
about 50 meters away from the Chua residence.
o Abuyen was replaced by Domingo Rocero for
always being absent and sleeping while on duty
o Rocero left his post at 7:30pm and Escober’s
shift started. Rocero, on his way home saw
Abuyen drinking beer with 3 companions,
including Punzalan. Meanwhile, in the
compound, Vicente went to his office to take a
bath while his son and daughter watch TV
o Abuyen and 3 companions rode a tricycle to Bee
Seng. Abuyen knocked at the little door fo the
gate. Escober peeped thru the hole and opened
the door. Abuyen talked with Escober. One of
his companions aimed a gun and a knife at
Escober and said they would kill him. Then,
Abuyen asked Punzalan to wait outside while
Abuyen and 2 companions went inside. Escober
does not know the real name of Alorte nor does
he know the rest of the conspirators.
o Lina left residence to join husband and 2
children. On her way, she noticed that the
pedestrian gate was wide open and Punzalan
was standing there. She shouted why the gate
was opened but nobody answered. She heard a
shot coming from the direction of the garage
and when she looked thereat, she saw Abuyen
and Escober walking towards the gate.
o Lina rushed back inside the house to contact her
husband through the intercom but it was out of
order. She went outside and met Escober who
said that he was not hit. (Implying that Abuyen
shot at Escober and failed)
o Vicente Chua was inside the bathroom when he
heard the gunshot. He went out and saw his son
Irving (12 stab wounds) lying on the sofa and
his daughter Tiffany (11 stab wounds) lying on
the floor, both mortally wounded. Beside
Tiffany was a scissor blade full of blood. His
office was in disarray and the P5k cash kept in a
drawer was lost.
 RTC decision failed to conform to requirements of Sec
9 Art 10 of the 1973 Const: “Every decision of a court
of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and
Gertrude Arquillo
the law on which it is based”; Case should’ve been
remanded to the court a quo but SC deemed it wise to
render judgement for a speedy disposition of the cases
Ruling:
 Escober acquitted of the crime of robbery with
homicide: Guilt of Escober had not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The act of opening a gate
upon hearing a knock is by itself an innocent
gesture. Even if the version of Punzalan that
Escober opened the gate at the knock of Abuyen
were to be believed, the same would not constitute
sufficient proof that Escober knew of the plan. The
worse that could be attributed to him is lack of
better judgement or laxity in his duties as security
guard. Escober knew Abuyen so it is not surprising
that he opened the door for him.
 Punzalan guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal in the complex crime of robbery with
homicide: Punzalan’s participation was to act as a
look-out. Even if he did not participate in the
killings, he cannot evade responsibility. Rule:
whenever a homicide has been committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the commission
of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide
although they did not actually take part in the
homicide UNLESS IT CLEARLY APPEARED
THAT THEY ENDEAVOURED TO PREVENT
THE HOMICIDE.
Notes:
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES: Article 48 does
not apply when the law provides one single penalty
for special complex crimes:
1. Robbery with Homicide (Art 294(1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art 294 (2))
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art
267 (3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons; Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery
with the use of violence against or intimidation of
any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death,
when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been
committed.
 Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum
period.chanrobles virtual law library