Case Analysis of People vs Escober

G.R. No. L-69564 January 29, 1988

I. Identify the parties
The accused-appellants in this case are Juan Escober, Macario Punzalan Jr.,
Peter Doe, Richard Doe and Juan Doe, who were charged with the crime of Robbery
with Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The aggrieved parties
in the case are the spouses Vicente and Lina Chua. Their two minor children, Irvin
and Tiffany, were killed on the occasion of the robbery.
Escober was then a Security guard at Bee Seng Electrical Supply at Joyce St.
Grace Village, Balintawak, Quezon City,owned by the spouses Chua. Also, one of the
alleged co-conspirators is Amadeo Abuyen alias Roberto Alorte who was formerly a
co-security guard of appellant Juan Escober at the same corporation.
Abuyen together with respondent Punzalan went to the above said company.
Escober recognized Abuyen so he let him get inside the compound. After several
minutes, gunshots were heard. Thereafter, Abuyen and Punzalan fled, followed by
Escober.The spouses Chua were surprised to see that their two children were
stabbed which caused their deaths and several items were missing. Hence, the
conviction of the accused-appellants.
II. Prior Proceedings
These consolidated cases originated from the decision rendered by Judge
Oscar Leviste in Criminal Case No. Q-22896 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch XCVII, on January 10, 1984, finding the accused-appellants Juan
Escober and Macario Punzalan, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide. A motion for reconsideration was filed but it was denied on
November 21, 1984. Hence, this petition and the automatic review.

III. Theories of the Parties

In this petition, the People claimed that the actions of Escober are indicators
that he has the prior knowledge of the plot of Abuyen and Punzalan, and that
Escober is a principal by indispensable cooperation since he was the one who
opened the gate for Abuyen.
Escober asserts that he was under an irresistible force when Abuyen pointed
a gun. Because of this, Escober was not able to prevent the crime. When Abuyen
and company were about to escape, he fired shots and even told Mrs. Chua that he
was not hit. It is his contention that his acts are indications of his innocence and
that he has no prior knowledge of the crime.
Punzalan claims that during his custodial investigation, he was forced to
make statements and answer questions of the investigators without his full
understanding of his constitutional rights and assistance of a counsel during
custodial investigation. Likewise, he asserts that he has no knowledge about the evil
plan of Abuyen.
IV. Objectives of the Parties
Accused-appellants Juan Escober and Macario Punzalan, Jr. seek the reversal
of their conviction and pray to be acquitted from the crime of robbery with homicide
allegedly commited. The People prays the affirmation of the conviction of Escober
as a principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of robbery with homicide.
V. Key Facts
The Court held that Escobers act of opening the gate of the compound is an
innocent getsure and not a crime at all. On one hand, the People posits that the act
of opening the gate of Escober to Abuyen upen seeing him in the eyehole after the
latter knocked once indicates the formers guilt and prior knowledge of the crime to
be committed. Also, the gun shot was just a staged one just to avoid suspicion and
the phrase uttered was just a deviation of what really happened and is part of the

criminal plan. On the other hand, Escober contends that his act of opening the gate
upon seeing Abuyen was just a friendly gesture which is common in treating a friend
and that his act of chasing the perpetrators indicates that he is not a co- conspirator
in the crime committed.

VI. Issues
The issue here is whether or not there exists a conspiracy among the
accused-appellants in committing the crime of robbery with homicide. Is there proof
beyond reasonable doubt that Escober is a co-conspirator in the case at bar?
VII. Holdings and Findings
The Supreme Court held that the act of opening a gate upon hearing a knock
is by itself an innocent gesture. The act of opening the gate by Escober at the knock
of the Abuyen would not constitute sufficient and convincing proof that Escober had
prior knowledge of the crime. The Court also held that the theory ofgun firing
incident as a mere ritual in avoidance of suspicion is holding waters. To allow
Escober to be shot by a gun is too risky as a ritual for he might get killed. Escobers
utterance that he was not hit does not prove either that he was a co-conspirator. It
was but natural that he would want to inform and assure his superior who is
presumed to be concerned with his safety and well- being.
In the case of Punzalan, the Court held that he knew of the plan to commit
the crime and that it is incredible that his companions would fetch him on the
pretext of drinking spree and just bring him along to the scene of the crime, thereby
risking another eyewitness to the perpetration thereof.
The Court through Justin Fernan established the fact 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
endeavored to prevent homicide.
VIII. Ratio Decidendi
The Court anchored its decision on the principle of justice and fairness. It held
that the fact that the accused was at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission is not, by itself, sufficient to establish his criminal liability. To hold the
accused guilty as co-principal in the crime charged, the existence of conspiracy
between the accused and the actual killers, must be shown, and the same degree of
proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of the
presence of the conspiracy, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Convictions can never rest on
mere suspicions, however, grave and serious.
IX. Disposition
The decision dated January 10, 1984 in Criminal Case No. Q-22896 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City was set aside. Accused-appellant Juan Escober
was acquitted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and his immediate release
from confinement is ordered, unless detained for some other crimes. Accusedappellant Macario Punzalan, Jr.was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal in the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victims in
the amount of P60,000,00.