People vs. Roque

A warrantless arrest cannot be challenged after a plea of not guilty is entered without a prior motion to quash, as any irregularity is cured by voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. An in-court identification is not rendered inadmissible by a prior uncounseled custodial line-up if the accused fails to object on that ground at trial. In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, all principals in the robbery are liable for the homicide committed on the occasion thereof, even without direct participation in the killing, unless an effort to prevent it is clearly shown.

On August 18, 1987, Eduardo Macam, a nephew of Benito Macam, arrived at the Macam residence in Quezon City accompanied by four other men. After being offered lunch, the group announced a hold-up, ransacked the house, and stole cash, jewelry, appliances, and a vehicle. During the robbery, Leticia Macam was stabbed to death; Benito Macam, Salvacion Enrera, and Nilo Alcantara sustained serious stab wounds. The perpetrators fled, and the surviving victims were hospitalized. The following day, several suspects, including the appellants Danilo and Ernesto Roque, were apprehended and subjected to a police line-up at the hospital where the wounded victims identified them.

• The Robbery and Homicide: On August 18, 1987, Eduardo Macam, a nephew of Benito Macam, arrived at the Macam residence at No. 43-A Fema Road, Quezon City, together with Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan, Jr., Danilo Roque, and Ernesto Roque. Eduardo entered the house and spoke to Benito, who instructed the maid, Salvacion Enrera, to invite the companions waiting in a tricycle inside for lunch. Salvacion identified the men who entered as Cedro, Cawilan, and Danilo Roque; Ernesto Roque remained outside in the tricycle. After eating, Eduardo suddenly grabbed Benito’s clutch bag, pulled out a firearm, and announced a hold-up. The intruders ransacked the house, tied up Leticia Macam, Nilo Alcantara, Salvacion Enrera, and the children, and took them upstairs. Leticia, Benito, Nilo, and Salvacion were later brought to another room where Leticia was killed and the others were stabbed. Nilo Alcantara testified that while being led downstairs by Cedro, he saw Danilo Roque holding Leticia inside the comfort room and heard Danilo say, “pare doon mo na upakan yan.” After a loud scream from Leticia, Nilo was stabbed by Cedro. Salvacion Enrera testified that she was stabbed by Danilo Roque after hearing the scream. A list of stolen items was presented, totalling P536,700.00, including jewelry, cash, a Toyota Crown car, appliances, and firearms.

• Apprehension and Identification: On August 19, 1987, Danilo and Ernesto Roque were detained by security guards at the factory of Eduardo Macam’s father. They were later turned over to the Quezon City Police and investigated. At the police station, they refused to admit participation. They were then brought to the Quezon City General Hospital where the wounded victims were confined. There, appellants were handcuffed and bore facial contusions; they were placed in a line-up together with plainclothes policemen. The police first spoke with the victims before the victims pointed to all the accused as the perpetrators.

• Defense Version: Danilo Roque testified that he was a tricycle driver hired that morning by three strangers—later identified as Macam, Cawilan, and Cedro—to take them to Fema Road for P50.00, receiving only a calling card. After Eduardo entered the house, the maid invited them inside to eat. Danilo claimed he washed the dishes and swept the floor after the meal when Cawilan suddenly drew a gun, announced a hold-up, and ordered him to comply. He assisted in gathering the stolen items out of fear. Upon hearing Eduardo say, “Kailangan patayin ang mga taong yan dahil kilala ako ng mga yan,” he escaped and went home without reporting the incident. He denied Ernesto was present, stating Ernesto had just arrived from the province on August 19. Danilo and Ernesto were apprehended when they went to collect the fare at Eduardo’s father’s factory.

• Violation of Constitutional Rights during Arrest and Identification: Appellants contended that their warrantless arrest and the uncounseled police line-up identification violated Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. They argued that the line-up, conducted while they were handcuffed, visibly injured, and after police had spoken to the victims, was impermissibly suggestive and rendered all subsequent identifications inadmissible.

• Insufficient Proof of Conspiracy: Appellants maintained that conspiracy was not established by positive and conclusive evidence. Danilo Roque asserted he was an unwitting tricycle driver forced under threat to assist in the robbery and that he fled before the killing. Ernesto Roque’s presence at the scene was denied entirely.

• Mischaracterization of the Crime: Appellants argued that the acts constituted separate crimes of robbery and homicide, not the single complex crime of robbery with homicide.

• Validity of Arrest and In-Court Identification: Whether the warrantless arrest and the uncounseled custodial line-up identification barred the admissibility of the in-court identification and mandated the acquittal of appellants.

• Conspiracy and Proof of Guilt: Whether the prosecution proved conspiracy and the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

• Nature of the Offense: Whether the crime properly qualifies as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Validity of Arrest and In-Court Identification: The warrantless arrest issue was waived. Appellants raised it for the first time on appeal after having pleaded not guilty and participating in the trial without filing a motion to quash. Their voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction cured any attendant irregularity. As to the line-up, the prosecution never adduced evidence of the uncounseled hospital identification; thus, the exclusionary rule against uncounseled custodial identifications had no application. Appellants also failed to object at trial that the in-court identifications were tainted by the prior illegal line-up. In the absence of such an objection, the prosecution was not required to prove that the in-court identifications had an independent source.

• Conspiracy and Proof of Guilt: Conspiracy was inferred from the accused’s coordinated conduct before, during, and after the crime. Danilo Roque agreed to drive three strangers to a location outside his regular route for a mere calling card, remained inside the house to eat and do chores instead of leaving, and personally gathered stolen articles. His claim of compelled participation was contradicted by his failure to report the crime or to show any sign of having been a victim of intimidation. Salvacion Enrera positively identified Danilo as the person who stabbed her; Nilo Alcantara saw him holding Leticia in the comfort room shortly before the killing. Ernesto Roque, who did not testify, was shown to have remained outside as a look-out, making him a direct co-conspirator whose liability attached to all acts done in furtherance of the common design. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevailed over Danilo’s bare denial.

• Nature of the Offense: The crime is properly the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Under settled rule, whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all principals in the robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide even if they did not personally participate in the killing, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent it. The evidence disclosed no such effort.

• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest: An accused who fails to file a motion to quash the information on the ground of illegal arrest before entering a plea waives the objection; the defect is cured by voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction.

• Custodial Identification and Critical Stage Doctrine: A police line-up conducted after the commencement of custodial investigation is a critical stage to which the constitutional right to counsel attaches. An uncounseled identification obtained during such a line-up is inadmissible. However, if the in-court identification is not objected to as the fruit of an illegal line-up, the prosecution need not establish an independent source.

• Proof of Conspiracy through Conduct: Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. An individual who acts as a look-out is a direct co-conspirator.

• Collective Liability in Robbery with Homicide: All those who take part as principals in the robbery are guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, regardless of their personal participation in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they attempted to prevent the homicide.

• Solidary Civil Indemnity: Under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, principals in a crime are severally (in solidum) liable for civil indemnity. An order requiring each accused to pay a separate sum is erroneous.

• “After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible.”

• “Appellants are estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. This issue is being raised for the first time by appellants before this Court. They have not moved for the quashing of the information before the trial court on this ground. Thus, any irregularity attendant to their arrest was cured when they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial.”

• “Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence or on occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.”

• “The presence of conspiracy between appellants and the other accused can be shown through their conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime.”

• Gamboa v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 — Applied for the rule that the right to counsel attaches upon the start of custodial investigation, making a police line-up a critical stage.
• People v. Rabang, 187 SCRA 682 — Followed for the doctrine that an illegal arrest is waived by failure to move to quash and by pleading not guilty.
• People v. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519 — Cited for the principle that it is contrary to ordinary human experience for criminals to allow an unwilling, innocent witness to observe their crime and then let him go free.
• U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 — Relied upon to hold a police line-up as a critical stage of the proceedings.
• People v. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173; People v. Bautista, 49 Phil. 389; U.S. v. Macalalad, 9 Phil. 1 — Affirmed as the settled rule on collective liability for robbery with homicide.
• People v. Hasiron, 214 SCRA 586 — Applied to correct the trial court’s award to make civil indemnity solidary.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Applied to sustain the conviction of appellants.
• Article 110, Revised Penal Code — Governs the solidary liability of principals for civil indemnity. Applied to modify the award so that indemnity is joint and several rather than imposed individually.
• Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Invoked by appellants for the right to counsel during custodial investigation; the Court found the provision not violated because the line-up identification was not offered in evidence and the in-court identification was unobjected to.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Kapunan, JJ.