G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015 - AURORA ENGSON FRANSDILLA, Petitioner, v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015

AURORA ENGSON FRANSDILLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons was committed when the accused,
who held firearms, entered the residential house of the victims and inflicted injury
upon the victims in the process of committing the robbery. Hence, the penalty is that
imposed for the robbery in an inhabited house, the more serious crime. All the
accused are liable because the act of one is the act of all.cha

The Case

Aurora Engson Fransdilla (Fransdilla), the lone appellant, seeks to reverse the
decision promulgated on February 28, 2011,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed her conviction and that of her co-accused for robbery on the basis of
conspiracy, with modifications as to the penalty imposed, under the decision rendered
on September 15, 1999 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 99, in Quezon City2

As factual background, the CA adopted the summary rendered by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) in its appellee's brief, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On February 20, 1991 between 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, at private
complainants' residence at No. 24, Mabait St., Teachers Village, Quezon City, private
complainant Lalaine Yreverre saw appellant Aurora Engson in front of their gate. Upon
noticing Aurora, Lalaine went to the gate and asked Aurora what is their purpose, as
there were four (4) of them. Aurora then inquired about Cynthia Yreverre, Lalaine's
sister. The latter replied that Cynthia was in the Japanese Embassy and asked Aurora
if there was any other person whom she wanted to talk to. It was then that Aurora
told Lalaine that she was from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA).
It was upon said pretension that Lalaine offered herself to instead talk to her and
allowed her to enter their house. When they were already having a conversation,
Aurora asked Lalaine if she could use the telephone, which the latter acceded to and
handed her a cordless telephone. Lalaine noticed that Aurora seemed to keep on
dialing the telephone and even said that the person she was calling did not know how
to use the telephone. But still, Aurora kept on dialing the telephone.

Thereafter, appellant Aurora asked for a cigarette. After Lalaine gave Aurora the
cigarette, the four (4) other men outside the gate, who were with Aurora, suddenly
came inside the house. The four (4) men stood behind Aurora who was still dialing
the telephone. When Aurora told that she could not contact the person she was
calling, she asked Lalaine if she could use the comfort room, which the latter again
permitted. Aurora stood up, put down the telephone, got her bag and went to the
comfort room. When Aurora came back, she sat down again but in crossed-legs as
she said she was having a menstrual period. Upon saying that, Lalaine's attention
was focused on her. At this juncture, accused Edgardo Cacal poked a gun at Lalaine's
neck and announced that it was a hold-up. While appellant Edgardo Cacal was poking
a gun at Lalaine's neck, accused Danilo Cuanang and the two (2) other men
proceeded to the kitchen. In the kitchen, Danilo and his two (2) other companions
herded their maids, private complainant's niece and cousin inside the bodega.

Accused Cacal who was still poking the gun at Lalaine's neck, thereafter, pulled
Lalaine's hair and dragged her upstairs and brought her inside Cynthia's room. The
gun still being poked at Lalaine, Cacal looked around the room and when he spotted
upon the vault he dropped Lalaine, opened the door and called for his companions to
come along. Accused Cuanang came up and the two (Cacal and Cuanang) carried the
vault and brought it downstairs. But before they went downstairs, they threatened
Lalaine not to follow them and to just stay in the room, but Lalaine opened the door
and followed them.

When Lalaine was halfway downstairs, accused Cacal turned his back and saw her.
Accused Cacal then brought her inside her room. Inside the room, Cacal pushed her
towards her bed and she fell. Cacal told her to just stay, and then he searched the
room. Lalaine managed to stand up but Cacal slapped her. While sitting, accused
Cuanang came and tied her arms at her back. While she was being tied, appellant
Aurora Fransdilla peeped inside the room. It was also at the time that accused Cacal
and Cuanang searched the entire room and took all the jewelries and things they
saw.

When Cuanang and Cacal left the room, Lalaine followed them. While in the middle
downstairs, she saw Cacal, Cuanang and their two other companions tucking their
guns around their waists. Appellants and their co-accused then left the house on
board two (2) cars that were waiting for them just outside the house, and one of
which, a black Colt Mirage, was driven by accused Manuel Silao, together with
appellant Edgardo Silao who was seated at the front passenger seat.

At this point, Lalaine shouted for help, thereafter, a relative came by to help and
untied her. Lalaine then called her sister Cynthia and related the incident. Cynthia
reported the incident to the police authorities. Not too long thereafter, the police
investigated the incident.

In relation thereto, Lalaine executed her sworn statement on February 20, 1991
(Exhibit "J"). After said investigation, Lalaine underwent medical examination at the
East Avenue Medical Center as her hands were bruised when she was tied by her
hands and her face being slapped by one of the accused. A medical certificate was
issued in relation thereto (Exhibit "N").

Thereafter, Lalaine went to Camp Karingal at Sikatuna, Quezon City where there were
at least fifteen (15) person(s) presented before her in the police line-up, but she was
not able to identify any of the accused among said line-up.

After which, she went to the Station Investigation Division (SID) Station 4, Quezon
City where she was shown about fifty (50) pictures in order for her to identify the
robbers, but she was not able to identify any of them.

Since she failed to identify any of the malefactors, she proceeded to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Manila. She was referred to a cartographer for the
sketch of herein appellants and their co-accused as the malefactors in robbing their
house (Exhibits "B", "C" and "D").

Thereafter, Lalaine proceeded to the Western Police District, Manila. There, she went
to the rogues gallery where a picture of about (5) persons were shown to her. After
carefully examining the pictures, Lalaine was able to pinpoint the picture of accused
Danilo Cuanang as one of the robbers. She was also able to identify Manuel "Sonny"
Silao in a group picture where she identified accused Cuanang (Exhibits "E" and "F")
It was also in said rogues gallery that they were able to get accused Cuanang's
address at Iriga, Cubao, Quezon City.

Lalaine, together with her police officers companions, proceeded to Cuanang's

indicated address. Upon arrival thereat, they inquired from the security guard of the
townhouse if Danilo Cuanang was residing there, which the latter confirmed.

On the following day Lalaine and her police companions went back to Cuanang's
house. Lalaine knocked at the door and accused Cuanang himself opened the door.
When Lalaine confronted him and told him that he was one of those who entered
their house, the latter did not answer. Lalaine asked Cuanang if he could come with
them at the PNP-SID, Station 4, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City and the latter
acceded.

On their way to the police station, Lalaine inquired on Cuanang about their lady
companion (herein appellant Fransdilla), but the latter just bowed his head. When
Lalaine threatened him that if he would not tell the whereabouts of their lady
companion (herein appellant Aurora) he would be answerable for all the things stolen,
the latter replied that they had no share in the stolen items. Lalaine then asked the
name of their lady companion and the latter said that her name was Jessica Engson
(also known as Aurora Engson Fransdilla) and she was living in Antipolo Street,
Sampaloc, Manila. Cuanang also volunteered himself to accompany them to Aurora's
house provided that they should not hurt him. Agreeing thereto, the group of Lalaine,
accompanied by Cuanang, proceeded to Aurora's house at the given address. Upon
arrival thereat, Lalaine inquired from a child if Aurora was awake, and upon asking,
she saw appellant Aurora who was trembling at that time. Lalaine noticed that Aurora
was nervous and even told her that Lalaine was able to remember her face. Appellant
even voluntarily told Lalaine that she would tell her the whole truth. She (Aurora)
told that she was instructed by her companions Edgar (Silao), Sonny (Manuel Silao)
and Danilo Cacal. Lalaine even confronted her when she implicated her cousins
(Sonny and Edgar).

Upon reaching PNP Station 4, SID, Kamuning, Quezon City, Lalaine and her police
companions rested for a while before they proceeded to 921 Adelina St., Sampaloc,
Manila, where accused Manuel "Sonny" Silao lived. Upon reaching the said address,
Lalaine knocked at the gate, and a maid opened the same and allowed them to enter
the house. In the house, Lalaine asked the maid where Sonny's room was and the
latter said it was on the third floor. When Lalaine and her police companions were
going upstairs, they passed by the second floor and saw accused Cacal sitting on a
folding bed. She then told her police companions that that man (Cacal) was among
those who entered and robbed their house, Cacal just remained silent. Thereafter,
the group proceeded to the third floor of the house, knocked at the door and it was
Manuel's (a.k.a. Sonny) wife who opened it. At this point, Manuel (a.k.a. Sonny) was
lying on the bed and holding his gun, thus, Pat. Randy Quitoriano immediately
handcuffed him. Lalaine's group invited Manuel and Danilo to go with them at the
police station; both acceded.

On March 21, 1991, Lalaine went back to the PNP Station 4, SID, Kamuning, Quezon
City, where she was informed that they (Rod Fortaleza's group) were able to recover
some money (dollar bills) from appellant Edgardo Silao. When these dollar bills were
shown to her, she recognized that these were the same dollar bills withdrawn by her
sister Cynthia from the RCBC Bank as the bills bear red markings (Exhibits "M" to "M-
5".3
Fransdilla and her co-accused were eventually charged with robbery under the
following information, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or about the 20th day of February, 1991, in Quezon City Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, and by means of violence and
intimidation upon person rob the residence of CYNTHIA YREVERRE Y PANGANIBAN
located at No. 24-B Mabait St., Teacher's Village, Quezon City, this City, by
pretending to be from PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AGENCY (POEA) and
once inside took, rob, and carried away the following items therefrom, to
wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
nine (9) pieces of expensive jewelry .... P1 .5 M
$30,000.00 (U.S. Dollars equivalent to ... 900,000.00
belonging to CYNTHIA YREVERRE Y PANGANIBAN.
two (2) pairs of gold earings P 10,000.00
one (1) gold necklace with pendant 180,000.00
one (1) Louie Viton Brown Leather (sic)... 11,000.00
one (1) Gucci Ladies watch 13,000.00
two (2) gold earrings w/diamond pendant... 80,000.00
CASH MONEY 7,000.00
belonging to LALAINE YREVERRE Y Panganiban, all in the total amount of
PhP2,701,000.00, Philippines Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party in the aforementioned sum and in such other amounts as maybe
awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4
At the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1. The identity of all the accused as indicated in the information.

2. The accused Manuel Silao and Edgar Silao are brothers and first cousins
of private complainant Cynthia Yreverre and prosecution witness
Lalaine Yreverre.

3. The accused Manuel Silao had entered the house of complainant on

several occasions to visit relatives.

4. The accused Edgardo Cacal is the driver of Manuel Silao and knows
Manuel's brother accused Edgar Silao.

5. The accused Manuel Silao has a pending criminal case for illegal
possession of firearms before the RTC, Manila.

6. The accused Manuel Silao is the owner of one Cal. 9mm Springfield
bearing Serial No. 64624 with one magazine containing eight (8)
ammunitions, although only 4 were delivered to the Court.

7. The accused were all investigated in connection with the instant case,
without the assistance of counsel.

8. The person depicted in the picture marked as Exhibit "E" is accused

Manuel Silao while the one in the photograph marked as Exhibit "D" is
accused Danilo Cuanang.

9. On February 20, 1991, Edgar Silao was in Quezon City.5

The prosecution presented complainants Lalaine Yreverre and Cynthia Yreverre, NBI
Illustrator Amando Mendoza, SPO2 Randolf Quitoriano, RCBC Manager Ma. Teresa
Jamir, Joel Yreverre and Dr. Richard Pascual as its witnesses during the trial on the
merits. On its part, the defense relied on Celia Syquian, Edgardo Y. Silao, Dominador
Pilar, Lourdes Samson Lopez, and Danilo Cuanang as witnesses.

As stated, the RTC convicted Fransdilla and her co-accused of robbery, decreeing in
its decision of September 15, 1999, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused AURORA ENGSON
FRANSDILLA, EDGARDO CACAL Y SANCHEZ, DANILO CUANANG Y VALDEZ, MANUEL
SILAO Y YREVERRE and EDGARDO SILAO Y YREVERRE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of Robbery punished under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code
and in the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences said accused to
imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS
and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of reclusión temporal as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17)
YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS oí reclusión
temporal as maximum. Said accused are likewise ordered to indemnify the herein
private complainants the amount of TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND,
the value of the property taken less the amount recovered, and to pay the amount
of PhP200,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.6
As to Fransdilla, the RTC ruled that several facts and circumstances either proved by
the Prosecution or admitted by the Defense established her having conspired with
her co-accused in committing the offense charged.7

Decision of the CA

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of all of the accused, but modified the
penalty imposed by the RTC, as follows:8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 15, 1999 of the trial court is affirmed
subject to the modification that accused-appellants and accused are sentenced to an
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusión temporal, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.
Rejecting the claim of insufficiency of the proof of conspiracy raised by Fransdilla, the
CA observed that the clear and categorical testimony of Lalaine positively showed
that Fransdilla's acts demonstrated her common design with the other accused to
commit the robbery,9 stressing that "it is a common design which is the essence of
conspiracy, though the conspirators may act separately and on different manner but
always leading to the same unlawful result." It adverted to Fransdilla's various acts
as evincing her role in the concerted resolve to commit the robbery, such as
introducing herself to Lalaine as a representative of the POEA in order to gain access
into the house; trying to distract Lalaine by using the telephone, asking for a
cigarette, going to the bathroom, and pretending that she was then having her
menstrual period in order to have her cohorts enter the house; and peeping inside
the bedroom when her co-accused were tying Lalaine up to enable themselves to
search for and take away jewelry and other valuables inside the latter's bedroom
without hindrance.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Issue

The accused still insists on her innocence, protesting that the CA erred in affirming
the conviction despite the failure to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as a
co-conspirator in robbery.10

Ruling of the Court

The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the CA.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1.
Conspiracy of Fransdilla with
her co-accused was established
beyond reasonable doubt

It bears stressing that Fransdilla opted not to present evidence in her defense during
the trial. On appeal, the core of her contentions in the CA was that the Prosecution
did not establish her having conspired with the other accused in committing the
robbery. She reiterates such contentions here, stating that the State's formal offer
of evidence did not include any reference to any evidence specifically incriminating
her.

The Court rejects Fransdilla's contentions.

Our review of the records of the trial reveals that contrary to Fransdilla's contentions,
the State competently and credibly established her active participation in the
execution of the robbery through Lalaine's testimony detailing her specific acts, as
follows:

Q - Miss Yrreverre, do you recall if there was any unusual incident that happened on
that particular date and time on February 20, 1991 between 3:00 o'clock to 4:00
o'clock in the afternoon?
A - Yes, sir.

Q - What was it?

A- On February 20, 1991, between 3:00 to 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon while I was
resting at our sala I saw them and I met them at the gate and I asked the lady
because there were four of them I asked the lady to come in.

Q - How did the lady come in?

A - When I saw the lady I asked the lady what is her purpose and she said I am from
the POEA and she is looking for my sister Cynthia Yrreverre, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - When she inquired about my sister I told her that my sister Cynthia Yrreverre is
in Japan embassy and she said if there is any other person she could talked to.

Q - What was your answer?

A - When she said that she is from POEA I recommended myself to her and I said
you can talk to me and I allowed her to enter our house, sir.

Q - After you allowed that lady who represented herself to you that she is from the
POEA to enter, what happened next?
A - I let her enter our house and I inquired and asked from her who are the persons
she know in POEA, sir.

Q - And what happened next after that?

A - She mentioned a name whom according to her from the POEA but I do not
remember anymore, sir.

Q - What happened next after that?

A - While we were chatting or conversing for a while she asked if she can use our
telephone, sir.

Q - And what was your answer to that?

A - I said yes and I handed to her the cordless telephone, sir.

Q - What happened after you gave the telephone to the lady who represented herself
that she is from the POEA?
A - After I gave the cordless telephone she keep on dialing, dialing and dialing and
according to her she constantly dialing the number and she even remarked: "the
person she is calling does not know how to use the telephone"...

Q - What happened after that remarks?

A - She still kept on dialing and she remarked that she did not know how to use the
phone...

Q - What happened after that?

A - After that, she asked for a cigarette sir.

Q - Did you give to the lady who represented herself that she is from the POEA a
cigarette?
A - Yes, sir.

Q - What happened next after that? A - After I gave the cigarette the four (4) men
entered suddenly and came in our house.

Q - Where did they come from?

A - I do not know, sir.

Q - From what direction of the house they came from Miss Witness, do you know?
A - They came from the outside of the gate, sir, and suddenly entered our house, sir.

Q - When for the first time did you see that lady who represented herself that she is
from the POEA and the four (4) men burged (sic) in your house?
A- Last February 20, 1991 only, sir.

x x x x

ATTYl COPE:
Q - Miss Yrreverre, would you look around the courtroom and pinpoint if that lady
who represented herself from the POEA is here present?
A - Witness is pointing to a lady wearing black and when asked by the interpreter she
answered to the name of Aurora Engson Fransdilla.

x x x x

Q - Miss Yrreverre, what happened after four (4) men suddenly entered your
residence on that particular date and time you mentioned earlier?
A - As I was looking on the lady dialing, kept on dialing the number in the telephone
I saw the four (4) men standing behind the lady, sir.

Q - And when you saw the lady, you are referring to Aurora Engson Fransdilla?
A - Yes, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - When we were in the sala we were talking Aurora Engson Fransdilla remarked
she can not really contact the number as it was busy, sir.

Q - What happened next after that?

A - And Aurora Engson Fransdilla after which asked if she can use the comfort room
to which I agreed, sir.

Q - What happened next?

A - She stood up and put down the cordless telephone and took her bag because she
wanted to get a napkin as she said she still has to call up before going to the comfort
room, sir.
Q - What happened next?
A - After which she sat down again and crossed legs and remarked that she had a
monthly period so my attention was focused on her, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - While my attention was with Aurora Engson Fransdilla, Cacal approached me and
poked the gun on my neck, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - And he announced hold-up.

Q - Who announced that hold-up?

A - Cacal, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - While Cacal poked a gun at my neck Cuanang and the two other men went to the
kitchen to which I could see very well in my position from where I stood, sir.

COURT:
Q - How many men went to the kitchen?
A- The three (3) others went to the kitchen, sir.

ATTY. COPE:
Q - What happened next?
A - While Cacal was poking the gun at my neck, I saw Cuanang and the two (2) men
herded our maids my one cousin and my niece, sir in the bodega, sir.

Q - What happened next?

A - And our maids and my niece and my cousin were locked inside the bodega, sir.

Q - Where is this bodega located Miss Witness?

A - In our kitchen, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A — While Cacal who was still poking the gun at my neck held and pulled the tail of
my hair and dragged me upstairs and brought me upstairs to the room of my sister
Cynthia Irreverre, sir

Q - What happened next?

A - While I was at the room of my sister Cynthia and while the gun was still poked at
my neck and still held by Cacal he looked around the room, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A — While I was looking around the room he saw the vault of my sister Cynthia
Yrreverre, sir.

Q - What happened next then?

A- Suddenly he dropped me and opened the door and shouted that one (1) of your
should come up.

Q - What happened after that?

A- While they carried the vault of my sister downstairs Cuanang came up and
Cuanang carried the vault with Cacal and before they went down they told me, Cacal
told me that you should not follow us. You should stay here.

x x x x

ATTY. COPE:
Q - Miss Yrreverre, will you please describe the vault which Cuanang and Cacal got
from the room of your sister Cynthia Yrreverre?
A - Witness is demonstrating the size of the vault it is a small one it is as small
television.

ATTY. VALDEZ:
Can we measure that Your Honor.

COURT:
You agree on the size.

WITNESS:
A- Witness is pointing half of the area of the table which is more or less 1 1/2 x 1 1/2
cubic feet.

ATTY. COPE:
Q - After Cuanang and Cacal brought out the vault from the room and you were told
by Cacal to stay from the room and not to get out, what did you do?
A - When the two (2) got out I just stay and they simultaneously closed the door, sir.

Q - What happened next then?

A — When they closed the door I got the courage to open the door and followed
them, sir.

Q - What happened then?

A - I went down the stairs when I was at the middle of the stairs Cacal turned his
back and he saw me and came after me and brought me up to my room, sir.

Q - How far was your room to the room of your sister Cynthia Yrreverre?
A - Just near sir, the dividing portion for the room of my niece is so near.

Q - What happened after Cacal brought you to your room?

A - While I was in my room he pushed me towards my bed, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - So when he pushed me and I was felt on my back he said to me just stay right
there and he searched my room (naghalughog), sir.

x x x x

ATTY. COPE:
Q - How did you fall Miss Witness?
A - When he pushed me I felt at my back sir and Cacal searched my room, sir.

Q - What happened after that?

A - While Cacal was searching (naghahalughog) I stood up when Cacal saw me stood
up he slapped me, sir.

Q - What happened when you were slapped by Cacal?

A - He said (putang ina mo matigas ang ulo mo) son of a bitch you are hard headed.

Q - And what happened after that?

A — While I was sitting Cuanang came inside my room and he tied my hands at my
back, sir

Q - What happened after that?

A - While I was being tied by Cuanang at my back Aurora Engson Fransdilla peeped
inside my room, sir.

Q - Is that Aurora Engson Fransdilla the lady who represented to you from the POEA?
A - Yes, sir.

Q - What happened after that while you were hogtied by Cuanang and Aurora
Fransdilla peeped into your room?
A - While my hands was (sic) tied, that was the time Cacal and Cuanang took my
jewelries, sir.

COURT:
Q - Where did she get those pieces of jewelry?
A - In my room at the headboard of my bed, sir.

ATTY. COPE:
Q - What else if there were any taken by Cacal and Cuanang?
A - Many sir.

Q - What are those?

A - They took the following: two pairs of gold earrings, one gold necklace with
pendant, one Loui(s) Vuitton brown leather, one Gucci Ladies watch, two gold
earrings with diamond pendant and cash money of SEVEN THOUSAND (P7,000.00)
PESOS.

ATTY. COPE:
Q - This one gold necklace with pendant how much did you buy this?
A- I bought that for PI80,000.00, sir.

COURT:
How many karats this gold necklace?

WITNESS:
That is 18 karats gold, sir.

ATTY. COPE:
Q - Miss Yrreverre, how about the two gold earrings with diamond pendant, how
much did you buy this?
A- I bought that for EIGHTY THOUSAND (P80,000.00) PESOS.

COURT:
Q - Do you know the karats of this diamond? How big is this?
A - It is as big as big mongo, sir.

ATTY. COPE:
Q - This two pairs of gold earrings, how much did you buy this, how much is this?
A-TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS, sir.

Q - What else?
A - One gold necklace with pendant, sir.

Q - How much is this?

A- ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND (PI80,000.00) PESOS, sir.

Q - How about this Louie Vitton brown leather bag, how much did you buy this?
A- I bought that for ELEVEN THOUSAND (PI 1,000.00) PESOS, sir.

Q - This Gucci ladies watch, how much did you buy this?
A-THIRTEEN THOUSAND (P13,000.00) PESOS, sir.

COURT:
What kind of Gucci is this, US Gucci or Hongkong?
WITNESS:
I do not remember anymore, Your Honor.

COURT:
Q - How much did you buy this?
A - I bought that for THIRTEEN THOUSAND (P13,000.00) PESOS, sir.11
The State thus discharged its burden to produce before the trial court sufficient
evidence against all the accused, including Fransdilla, that would warrant a judgment
of conviction. Fransdilla's non-presentation of her defense, despite her being directly
incriminated by Lalaine, denied the Court her explanation for her specific overt acts
of complicity in the robbery and thus rendered the incriminating evidence unrefuted.
By this the Court simply means that Fransdilla did not discharge her burden of
evidence, which is "the duty of a party to start and continue giving evidence at any
stage of the trial until he has established a prima facie case, or the like duty of the
adverse party to meet and overthrow that prima facie case thus established."12

As such, the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof against

Fransdilla.

In the eyes of the law, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.13 For an
accused to be validly held to have conspired with her co-accused in committing the
crime, her overt acts must evince her active part in the execution of the crime agreed
to be committed. The overt acts of each of the conspirators must tend to execute the
offense agreed upon, for the merely passive conspirator cannot be held to be still
part of the conspiracy without such overt acts, unless such conspirator is the
mastermind. Here, Fransdilla was satisfactorily shown not to have been a mere
passive co-conspirator, but an active one who had facilitated the access into the
house by representing herself as an employee of the POEA. In that respect, it is not
always required to establish that two or more persons met and explicitly entered into
the agreement to commit the crime by laying down the details of how their unlawful
scheme or objective would be carried out.14 Conspiracy can also be deduced from the
mode and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or can be inferred from the
acts of the several accused evincing their joint or common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.15 Once conspiracy is established, the act
of each conspirator is the act of all.

In establishing conspiracy, the State could rely on direct as well as circumstantial

evidence. Lalaine's testimony against Fransdilla constituted both kinds of evidence.
Lalaine's direct testimony showed the latter's overt participation in the execution of
the robbery, while the following circumstances indicated the unity of action and
common purpose or design to commit the robbery among Fransdilla and her co-
accused, specifically: (1) Fransdilla and her co-accused went together to the
complainants' house at around 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. of February 20, 1991; (2) she
talked to Joel to solicit information on the whereabouts of Cynthia; (3) upon learning
that Cynthia was not home, she stepped outside the gate and talked to two men
sitting inside a vehicle parked outside the house; (4) she pretended to be an
employee of the POEA in order to gain entry into the house; (5) she performed acts
purposely aimed to distract Lalaine in order to give her cohorts the opportunity to
enter the house and commit the robbery; (5) during the robbery, she was not tied
up like the household members, but moved freely around the house, and at one point
Lalaine spotted her peeping into the bedroom where Lalaine was then being held;
and (7) she and the others fled together in two separate vehicles after the robbery.

In light of the foregoing, the CA justly concluded that the State established beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt for of all the accused, including Fransdilla, for the
robbery.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2.
Correction of the Indeterminate Sentence
was necessary to conform to the letter and spirit
the Indeterminate Sentence Law

That the trial judge fixed the indeterminate sentence at "imprisonment of TWELVE
(12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS
of reclusion temporal as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum" was a
patent elementary error. Such fixing contravened the letter and spirit of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, Section 1 of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by
the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view
of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said
Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any
other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As
amended by Act No. 4225)
The CA justifiably deemed it necessary to correct the indeterminate sentence. Under
Section 1, supra, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is a penalty "within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the [Revised Penal] Code for
the offense," and the maximum is "that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code."
Considering that the clear objective of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to have
the convict serve the minimum penalty before becoming eligible for release on parole
pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law,16 both the minimum and the maximum
penalties must be definite, not ranging. This objective cannot be achieved otherwise,
for determining when the convict would be eligible for release on parole would be
nearly impossible if the minimum and the maximum were as indefinite as the RTC
fixed the indeterminate sentence. Indeed, that the sentence is an indeterminate one
relates only to the fact that such imposition would leave the period between the
minimum and the maximum penalties indeterminate "in the sense that he may,
under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from serving said period in whole
or in part."17

3.
Crime committed was the complex crime of
robbery in an inhabited house by armed men
under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code and
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code

Citing Napolis v. Court ofAppeals.,18 the CA ruled that all the accused, including
Fransdilla, were guilty of committing the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited
house under Article 299, Revised Penal Code, and robbery with intimidation or
violence under Article 294, Revised Penal Code. Thus, it held that the penalty for the
complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code was that for the more
serious offense, to be imposed in its maximum period. Taking into consideration that
no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were present, it set the indeterminate
sentence of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

We concur with the CA.

In Napolis v. Court of Appeals, the Court abandoned the doctrine adopted in United
States v. De los Santos19 that when the felonies of robbery in an inhabited house
under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code and robbery with violence against or
intimidation of a person under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code are committed,
the penalty for the latter crime (although the lighter one) should be imposed because
the violence against or intimidation of a person was the "controlling qualification," on
the theory that "robbery which is characterized by violence or intimidation against
the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things,
because where violence or intimidation against the person is present there is greater
disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual." Writing for the
Court, Chief Justice Roberto R. Concepción observed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Upon mature deliberation, We find ourselves unable to share the foregoing view.
Indeed, one who, by breaking a wall, enters, with a deadly weapon, an inhabited
house and steals therefrom valuable effects, without violence against or intimidation
upon persons, is punishable under Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion
temporal. Pursuant to the above view, adhered to in previous decisions, if, aside
from performing said acts, the thief lays hand upon any person, without committing
any of the crimes or inflicting any of the injuries mentioned in subparagraphs (1) to
(4) of Art. 294 of the same Code, the imposable penalty - under paragraph (5)
thereof- shall be much lighter. To our mind, this result and the process of reasoning
that has brought it about, defy logic and reason.

The argument to the effect that the violence against or intimidation of a person
supplies the "controlling qualification," is far from sufficient to justify said result. We
agree with the proposition that robbery with "violence or intimidation against the
person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things,"
but, precisely, for this reason, We cannot accept the conclusion deduced therefrom
in the cases above cited - reduction of the penalty for the latter offense owing to the
concurrence of violation or intimidation which made it a more serious one. It is, to
our mind, more plausible to believe that Art. 294 applies only where robbery with
violence against or intimidation of a person takes place without entering an inhabited
house, under the conditions set forth in Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code.

We deem it more logical and reasonable to hold, as We do, when the elements
of both provisions are present, that the crime is a complex one, calling for the
imposition — as provided in Art. 48 of said Code — of the penalty for the most serious
offense, in its maximum period, which, in the case at bar, is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period. This penalty should, in turn, be imposed in its maximum period -
from nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days to twenty (20) years
of reclusion temporal - owing to the presence of the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime. xxx.20
Napolis v. Court of Appeals is controlling in this case. To start with, the information
fully alleged the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299,
Revised Penal Code, and robbery with intimidation or violence under Article 294,
Revised Penal Code by averring that "the above-named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, and by means of violence and
intimidation upon person rob the residence x x x." And, secondly, the Prosecution
competently proved the commission of the complex crime by showing during the trial
that the accused, after entering the residential house of the complainants at No. 24-
B Mabait St., Teacher's Village, Quezon City, took away valuables, including the vault
containing Cynthia's US dollar currencies, and in the process committed acts of
violence against and intimidation of persons during the robbery by slapping and
threatening Lalaine and tying her up, and herding the other members of the
household inside the bodega of the house.

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Article 294. 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 reclusión perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the

robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.21

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusión perpetua when
the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when
the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly weapon or
by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death (As
amended by PD No. 767).

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,

any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.

4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the
robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission
of the crime, or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted
upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries
covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.

5. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18).
Paragraph 5, supra, is the relevant provision, under which the penalty is prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period.

On the other hand, Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code

states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to
worship. — Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion
temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:

(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was
committed, by any of the following means:

1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.

2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.

3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.

4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.

Or if —

(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:

1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle;

2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open outside the place
of the robbery.

When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds
250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the
property taken does not exceed 250 pesos.

When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not
exceed 250 pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding
paragraphs, in its minimum period.

If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public

building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree
than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.
Relevant are paragraph (a)4 (because Fransdilla pretended to be from the POEA) and
paragraph (b)2 (because the accused brought the vault down from Cynthia's upstairs
bedroom and forced it open outside the place where the robbery was
committed), supra. The penalty for the crime is reclusion temporal.

Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the complex crime is that
for the more serious felony, which, in this case, was the robbery in an inhabited house
by armed men punishable by reclusion temporal, to be imposed in the maximum
period (i.e., 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years). Hence, the maximum
of the indeterminate sentence of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years
and four months of reclusion temporal, must be corrected to 17 years, four
months and one day of reclusion temporal.

4.
Exemplary damages to be deleted
for lack of legal basis

The CA affirmed the order of the RTC for the accused to return the value of the
articles stolen totaling P2,250,000.00 and to pay to the complainants P200,000.00
as exemplary damages.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code authorizes the grant of exemplary damages as part of
the civil liability in crimes only when one or more aggravating circumstances were
present in the commission of the crime. With the conceded absence of any
aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, therefore, we delete the
P200,000.00 as exemplary damages for lack of legal basis. However, interest of
6% per annum should be imposed on the P2,250,000.00,22 to be reckoned from the
filing of the information until full payment because the value of the stolen articles,
which the information individually averred, could be established with reasonable
certainty.23

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review

on certiorari and AFFIRMS in all respects the conviction of accused AURORA
ENGSON FRANSDILLA for the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by
armed men under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code and robbery with violence
against and intimidation of persons under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code, subject to the following MODIFICATIONS, namely: (1) she shall suffer the
indeterminate sentence of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, four
months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; (2) the award of
P200,000.00 as exemplary damages is deleted for lack of legal basis; and (3) and
the actual damages of P2,250,000.00 shall earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned
from the filing of the information until full payment.

The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, and Estela-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1
Rollo, pp. 128-157; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with
Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios
concurring.

2
Id. at 41 -51; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao.

3
Id. at 130-134.

4
Id. at 135.

5
Id. at 136.

6
Id. at 51.

7
Id. at 50.

8
Supra note 1.

9
Id. at 140.

10
Id. at 14.

11
TSN, September 2, 1991, pp. 8-20.

12
VI Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 Edition, p. 3.

13
Article 8, second paragraph, Revised Penal Code.

14
People v. Pansacala, G.R. No. 194255, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 549, 558-559.

15
People v. Fegidero, G.R. No. 113446, August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 274, 284.

16
Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law ordains, among others, that: "x x x
Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and
it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the
prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by the Board
itself, that such prisoner is fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable
probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law,
and that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board
of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accordance with the rules
and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the release of such prisoner on parole,
upon such terms and conditions as are herein prescribed and as may be prescribed
by the board, x x x."

17
People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 114 (1933).

18
No. L-28865, February 28, 1972, 43 SCRA301.

19
6 Phil. 411, 412 (1906). This doctrine was followed in United States v.
Manansala, 9 Phil. 529 (1908); United States v. Turla, 38 Phil. 346 (1918); People v.
Baluyot, 40 Phil. 89 (1919); Manahan v. People, 73 Phil. 691 (1942); and People v.
Sebastian, 85 Phil. 601, 603 (1950).
20
Supra note 18, at 311-312.

21
This paragraph has since been amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (approved on
December 13, 1993) to add: "or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation or arson."

22
The Civil Code states:

Article 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in
a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court

23
According to Article 2213 of the Civil Code: "Interest cannot be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty."