People Vs Corbes
People Vs Corbes
113470
(Conspiracy, Revised Penal Code)
FACTS:
At about nine o'clock in the morning of 17 November 1990 six (6) armed men entered the premises of the
Caloocan Consortium Corporation at No. 305 Cordero Street, Caloocan City, and took away from the
establishment P169,000.00 in cash and P4,500.00 from Mateo Figuracion, an employee therein. They
also took with them the .38 calibre revolver of security guard Timoteo Palicpic whom they shot to death.
The malefactors then ran towards 8th Avenue where Daniel Corbes and Manuel Vergel had parked their
getaway vehicle, a blue passenger jeep. They then sped away.
The six others remained at large while Vergel and Corbes were found guilty as principals by conspiracy of
the crime of robbery with homicide. On appeal, they alleged that they did not participate in the killing of
Timoteo Palicpic because they were not present when the crime of robbery and homicide was committed,
they merely served as lookouts and driver of a get away vehicle.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Corbes and Vergel were principals by conspiracy of the crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING:
NO, Corbes and Vergel were not principals by conspiracy of the crime of robbery with homicide.
Where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to
whether accused acted as principal or accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of
liability, that of a mere accomplice… only because their role in the commission of the crime was not
indispensable.
In this case, we reduce appellants' liability to the crime of robbery only. It was not established by
the evidence that the other accused, who are at large, had agreed to kill if necessary to carry out
successfully the plan to rob. On the contrary, the records show that one of the robbers berated the
gunman for having shot the security guard. Therefore, what appellants may be said to have joined was
merely the criminal design to rob, which makes them accomplices. Their complicity must accordingly be
limited to the robbery, not to the killing of Timoteo Palicpic. Waiting only at the parked jeep at 8th Avenue
could not have given them the opportunity to prevent the killing, as is required of one seeking relief from
liability for assaults committed during the robbery.
NOTE:
The Court had occasion to rule that the jeep driver, who was unaware of the killing perpetrated
inside the building as he stayed always near his jeep, could not be deemed a co-conspirator in the killing
of the guards, as the killing was not part of the original plan but arose only during the exigency of the
moment.