338 Phil. 219
PUNO, J.:
"That on or about the 30th day of October, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with another person whose true name and identity have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one FERDINAND FURIGAY y PUA in the following manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned, accused pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to kill entered the office of Ferdinand Furigay y Pua located at Roosevelt Rice Center at No. 223-E Roosevelt Avenue, Barangay San Antonio, this City, and once inside, armed with handguns, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of Ferdinand Furigay y Pua by shooting him on the neck, causing injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, and thereafter, took, robbed and carried away the latter's one (1) 9mm automatic pistol with Serial No. 008670 worth P42,000.00 and the store days (sic) earnings amounting to P25,000.00 all in the total amount of P67,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the total amount of P72,000.00, Philippine Currency."Evidence for the prosecution established that on October 30, 1992, at about 6:00 p.m., while Ferdinand Furigay was in his office at 223-E Roosevelt Ave., Brgy. San Antonio, Q.C., and his employees, Melchor Bacani and Conrado Caliguiran, were in front of the establishment,[3] accused-appellants together with two (2) John Does came.[4] Accused Diaz asked Caliguiran where his boss was. After Caliguiran replied that his boss was inside the office, Diaz entered the establishment and went to Furigay's office. Accused Luto, Angquilo and the two (2) John Does posted themselves outside the establishment.[5]
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Manuel Diaz y Tulipas, Eddie Luto y Saniana, and Arnald Angquilo y Calderon all guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide charged herein, defined and punished in Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as principals in the commission thereof and, accordingly, they are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ferdinand Furigay in the sum of P112,118.28 as actual damages and in the further sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity; and, to pay the costs proportionately, without prejudice to the application of Republic Act No. 6127. The return to their lawful owner/s of the subject items of property marked in evidence as Exhibits E thru G, inclusive, is hereby ordered subject to applicable licensing and clearance requirements."In their brief,[33] accused-appellants assigned the following errors:
Q Now, on such date (October 30, 1992) and time (6:00 p.m.), Mr. Witness, was there any untoward incident that happened? A Yes, sir. Q What was this untoward incident (sic) happened, Mr. Witness? A While I was washing the car, I noticed a person enter, sir. Q Where did this person enter, Mr. Witness? A Inside the store, sir. Q Is this person whom you said on such date and time, if he is present in court, can you identify him? (sic) A Yes, sir. Q Will you please look around in (sic) this courtroom and inform this Honorable Court if this person whom you said you saw entered (sic) the store of Ferdinand Furigay is inside this courtroom, Mr. Witness? A That person is here, sir. Q Can you please point out (sic) to this person, Mr. Witness? A (witness went down the stand and approached the first row and pointed to the person of accused Manuel Diaz) Q Now, Mr. Witness, what happened after this person whom you identify (sic) as Manuel Diaz entered the store of Ferdinand Furigay? A After a short while, I heard a shot, sir. Q From where did you heard (sic) this shot, Mr. Witness? A Inside the office of my employer, sir. Q And what happened after you heard a shot from the office of your employer, Mr. Witness? A I stopped cleaning the car and I was about to enter the office, sir. Q And were you able to enter the office, Mr. Witness? A No more, sir. Q :Why, (sic) were you not able to enter the office of your employer, Mr. Witness? A Because when I was about to enter the office I met that person (witness pointing to the accused Manuel Diaz) and he poked a gun at me and I was not able to enter the office anymore, sir. Q Now, what happened after that, after he poked his gun at you, Mr. Witness? A They run (sic) away, sir. Q Now, Mr. Witness, you said that after Manuel Diaz poke (sic) a gun at you they fled away. To whom are you referring, Mr. Witness, when you use (sic) the word "they"? A The three of them, sir. (witness pointing to the three accused Manuel Diaz, Eddie Luto, and Arnald Angquilo)"
style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[34] CROSS-EXAMINATION Q Mr. Witness, at 6:00 o'clock in the evening of October 30, 1992, you said you were cleaning the car of Ferdinand Furigay. Is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And for that reason your attention was focused on cleaning the said car. Is that correct? A No, sir. Q Aside from cleaning or washing the car of Ferdinand Furigay, what else were you doing? A Nothing more, sir. Q You mention (sic) the office of Ferdinand Furigay. Where is it located inside the store? A Near the door, sir. Q And his office (sic) seen from the outside when the store is opened? A Yes, sir. Q Aside from the three accused you identified a while ago, were there other persons inside the store at that time? A No other, sir. Q Mr. Witness, you mean to say that Mr. Ferdinand Furigay, himself, is acting as a cashier on (sic) that store? A Yes, sir. Q Was any one of the three accused wearing dark eye glasses? A Yes, sir. Q Who? A Him, sir. (witness pointing to the person of accused Manuel Diaz) Q Did Ferdinand Furigay have any companion in his house? A No one sir, he was alone at that time." [35]CONRADO CALIGUIRANDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q On the same date (October 30, 1992) and time (6:00 p.m.), what were you doing in that store (Roosevelt Rice Center)? A I was just sitted (sic) there, guarding, sir. Q And did you notice if there was any unusual incident (sic) happened during that time? A Yes, sir. Q What was that? A There was a man who asked me where my boss was. Q And what did you answer him? A I said that my boss was inside the office. Q Did this person has (sic) any companion? A Yes, sir. Q How many? A Five (5), sir. Q Can you tell me their location at that time? A They were outside the store, one went inside the office in the store and the last one stayed beside me by the door of the store, sir. Q This person who entered the office, can you point it (sic) out if he is inside the courtroom? A Yes, sir. (witness pointing to the person of accused Manuel Diaz) Q You said that this person whom you identify (sic) as Manuel Diaz had other companions, are they also present in the courtroom? A Yes, sir Q Can you point them out one by one? A Yes, sir. (witness first pointed to the person of accused Eddie Luto, and then pointed to the person of accused Arnald Angquilo) Q You said there were five (5) companions, are the other two companions inside the courtroom? A No, sir. Q After the accused Manuel Diaz entered the room of your boss, what happened next? A After a while, I heard a shot coming from the inside of the office, sir. Q What did you do when you heard a shot? A I hid myself a little behind the door, sir. Q When you already hid, what happened next? A My companion Melchor Bacani entered the store and I went inside with him. Q What happened when you followed Melchor Bacani in going inside the office? A I saw Manuel Diaz holding a gun upraised in his left hand and he had another gun tucked in his right waist, sir. Q Aside from seeing Manuel Diaz holding a gun in his hand and another tucked in his waist, what happened after that? A They already ran away, sir."
style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[36]
"Q: Mr. Witness, you identified the three accused in this case. My question is, was anyone of them wearing a (sic) dark eyeglasses when you saw them?In light of the positive identification by witnesses who have no motive to falsely testify, accused-appellants' alibis and denials are worthless.[38]
"A: One of them (sic) wearing a (sic) colored eyeglasses but you can see thru the lenses, they were not really dark glasses." [37]
"x x x as Manuel entered the establishment as well as office of Ferdinand, Eddie and Arnald stood guard beside the establishment's door, apparently to ensure for Manuel all the freedom he needed to execute the job, and as soon as it appeared that Manuel was finished with the job inside, the trio (not to mention their other cohorts) together and as one fled from the crime scene."[43]It is settled that to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime.[44] One who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetrator is criminally responsible to the same extent as the latter.[45] Luto and Angquillo were not innocent bystanders when the crime at bar was committed. They were there on purpose. They stood as guards while Diaz robbed and shot the victim.