People vs.

Lagmay
G.R. No. 67973
Plaintiff: The People of the Philippines
Defendants: Conrado Lagmay, Fernando Baetong, Francisco Padullana
Ponente: Guiterrez, J.

Oct. 29, 1992

ART. 294: ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE/INTIMIDATION AGAINST PERSONS

Facts: (medyo weird ang pagkakasulat ng ponencia sorry)
-

July 20, 1980Quezon City: at around 11:30 pm, the three accused rode in the passenger jeepney
driven by one Victoriano Madrigal at Blumentritt Street, Manila, bound for Novaliches.
When said jeep was near 11th avenue A. Bonifacio Street, the accused brought out their unlicensed
firearm and bladed weapons and told the passengers it was a hold-up.
Aboard the said jeep was one Casiano Pedrano, a member of the Manila Police Department.
When he resisted the hold-up, the accused Baetiong stabbed him in the chest while Lagmay shot
him in the right and left thighs. His service gun, wallet and shoulder bag were all acquired by the
accused, along with other items looted from the passengers. He was, however, brought and
treated promptly at the MCU-FDT Medical Foundation Hospital, incurring an hospital bill of
P36, 000.00.
Aside from Pedrano, a certain Adela Alfonso was also a passenger of the same jeepney with her
sister Lydia, cousin Maria Rosal de Jesus, and Restituto Rivera. As the jeepney traveled along,
she noticed the man beside her was always pressing his body towards her.
When they declared hold-up, one of the accused hit Rivera with a gun in the mouth while
Lagmay slapped her. They then took her casio calculator and bag. Padollana collected the
jewelries from the passengers.
When Alfonso resisted, Lagmay stood up and boxed Alfonso, by reason of which she fell out of
the jeep and dislocated her shoulder. It was promptly treated at the National Orthopedic Center.
The following morning, she gave her written testament as to the events that transpired.
The side of the accused:
o Lagmay: said that the only passenger he knew in the jeepney was Baetiong, who
suddenly stabbed a man for reasons he did not know. He jumped out of the vehicle but
was consequently arrested by a security guard. He was then blamed later by Baetiong for
shooting the said man (that Baetiong stabbed) in his right foot. He said he did not know
Padullana.
o Padullana: said he was just a provinciano who recently learned how to commute in
Manila. Aboard the said jeep, he saw two men quarreling with each other. He was later
threatened by Baetiong (pointed a blade to his side) to go with him to a house of a
friend/relative in Tondo. In that house, baetiong ate and slept but Padullano did not. He
did not leave because he did not know the way from there to Caloocan. Police came and
arrested both him and Baetiong despite the insistence of the former that he was not part of
the crime. He then alleged that the police forced him to sign a statement of his
confession.
Trial Court: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide, and sentenced
the accused to reclusion perpetua.
o Francisco Baetion, however, managed to escape prison.

Issues/Held:

WoN there was conspiracy among the three accusedYES

-

Conspiracy is established by evidence of unity of purpose at the time of the commission of the
offense and unity in its execution. In the performance of the acts necessary to achieve their goal,
there was such closeness and coordination that would indicate a common purpose or design.
The conspiracy among the accused in the case at bar is clear based on their own actuations. It
doesnt matter whether or not there was proof that they knew each other (except Baetiong and
Lagmay, according to their stories).
Clearly proven by the SolGens description of how the crime was committed: when Pedrano and
Alfonso resisted, both the accused Lagmay and Baetiong took turns beating the shit up of the two
just for them to desist. Padullana, meanwhile, was collecting the jewelries of the passengers.

WoN accused Padullana is innocent based on the witnesses testament of his lack of participationNO
-

The Court notes and views with disfavor the manner by which desired portions of the testimonies
were lifted and the more important ones left out just to come up with this argument of the
defense.
Both Alfonso and Pedrano at first answered in the negative as to the participation of Padullana,
but after further questioning, later on attested to the presence of the Padullana. They were then
able to positively identify Padullana as one of the men responsible for the robbery.
Plus, Padullanas story is replete with questions: for example, if he was really just forced by the
Baetiong to accompany him to his house, why could he not devise a plan to escape?

WoN the confessions taken without assistance of the counsel would be enough to overturn conviction
NO
-

SC agrees with the accused that their confession without the assistance of the counsel shouldnt
have been considered by the trial court.
However, the confessions are not necessary to support the judgment of conviction. The two
victims were able to positively point out their identities. This holds more water than the negative
testimonies of the accused.

WoN the crime imputed upon the accused is the correct oneNO
-

TC convicted them of robbery with frustrated homicide, applying sec. 2, Art. 294 of the RPC. SC:
There is no such crime as robbery with frustrated homicide.
Sec.4, Art. 294 is the more proper crime for the accused, where in the course of the robbery, the
offender shall have inflicted serious physical injuries defined in par.3 & 4 of Art. 263 of the RPC.
The court also notes that crime was committed under two circumstances mentioned in Art. 295:
o By attacking a moving motor vehicle such that the passengers were taken by surprise
o Committed on a street along the regular route taken by the passenger jeep with the use of
a firearm.
Accordingly, the maximum period should be given.

Decision Affirmed with Modification