2 People vs. Comiling

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs.
MAJOR EMILIO COMILING, GIL

SALAGUBANG (acquitted), MARIO CLOTARIO (acquitted), GERALDO GALINGAN,
EDDIE CALDERON (at large), BALOT CABOTAJE (at large) and RICKY MENDOZA
(at large), accused. MAJOR EMILIO COMILING and GERALDO GALINGAN,
appellants.
G.R. No. 140405. March 4, 2004.
Principles/Doctrines: 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. For as long as the killing occurs during or because of the heist, even if the killing is
merely accidental, robbery with homicide is committed.
FACTS: At sundown of September 2, 1995, 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.
On 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. On March 28 1997, Mendoza
escaped from his detention cell and was thus tried in absentia.
RTC Ruling: The RTC found Mendoza, Galingan, and Comiling guilty of the special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide (Art 294) with the penalty of death. They were also held liable to pay
damages to Chua and Pastor’s heirs.
Both Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeals. Comiling was claiming 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. On the other hand, Galingan impugns Naty’s credibility by claiming that she
was a woman of ill-repute whom he paid P700 every time they had sex, that she was motivated
by ill-will when she implicated Galingan because he refused to leave his wife for Naty. And that
she was a drug user.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the conviction of Robbery with Homicide (RPC 294) was proper despite
Comiling’s initial contention.
2. Whether or not Comiling is liable for the felony even if he was not physically present
during its commission.
3. Whether or not Naty was a credible witness despite attacks on her character and
credibility.
4. Whether or not the RTC’s imposition of the death penalty was proper.
HELD:
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. For as long as the killing occurs during or because of the
heist, even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with homicide is committed.
2. Yes. Although Comiling was never tagged as one of the three robbers who entered the
store of Ysiong Chua nor the one who mauled the victim or who shot PO3 Erwil Pastor to death,
his participation was his leadership in the conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide and his
inducement to his cohorts to perpetrate the same. As held in People vs. Assad, one who plans
the commission of a crime is a principal by inducement.
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.
Moreover, Naty’s tenacious insistence on the minute details of what happened
suggested nothing else except that she was telling the truth. We do not doubt her credibility.
The time-tested rule is that, between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the
mere denials of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve more credence and are entitled
to greater evidentiary value.
Appellant Comiling likewise contends that Naty’s testimony was inadmissible against
him to prove conspiracy because of the res inter alios acta rule under Section 30, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court which provides:
Admission by conspirator.—The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy

and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
This rule prescribes that any declaration made by a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy is admissible against him alone but not against his co-conspirators unless the
conspiracy is first shown by other independent evidence. According to Comiling, Naty’s
testimony showed that she was also a conspirator, thus, the existence of conspiracy must be
shown by evidence other than Naty’s admission. As there was no independent proof of
conspiracy except the testimony of Naty, the latter’s testimony concerning appellant’s
participation in the conspiracy was inadmissible against him. This contention is misplaced.
4. No. While we are convinced that appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
robbery with homicide, we cannot impose the penalty of death on them. Under Article 294 (1)
of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of robbery carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances
of band, evident premeditation, craft and disguise against 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.

2 People vs. Comiling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 People vs. Comiling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 People vs. Comiling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs.

MAJOR EMILIO COMILING, GIL

G.R. No. 140405. March 4, 2004.

Principles/Doctrines: Robbery with homicide is a “special complex crime.” It is enough that in

FACTS: At sundown of September 2, 1995, Masterline Grocerystore, located at Bonifacio St.,

Comiling was a Principal By Inducement as the leader of the group. He planned

Admission by conspirator.—The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy

You might also like