Case Digest: People vs Lingad

G.R. No. L-6989 November 29, 1955

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AGAPITO LINGAD Y SANTOS, LEOCADIO CARREON Y CELSO, AMADO
MAMUCOD Y CORTES and CONRADO GRAHAM Y ALEGRIA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:

Evening of July 18, 1952 in Sulucan Street, Sampaloc Manila, two persons purchased drinks and
cigarettes at the store of Vicente Go and went away. After a while, one of them returned with two
others and two of them entered and one stayed outside, where Vicente Go was standing waiting for a
garbage truck. The two persons who entered pointed a gun towards the attendants of the store, which
were son and daughter of the owner, and demanded all of their cash. The same guy went over the
counter and grabbed all of the money. While all of this was happening, the owner was outside with the
third guy beside the owner, who also happens to have a pistol. After grabbing all of the money, the
assailants made a hasty retreat outside the store. The owner, who was still outside, was pushed and
shot. The bullet entered behind and exited out the front chest. After the incident, the three robbers
immediately ran to a taxi parked far away ahead of the store.

The Police learned the taxi used was a Villacorta taxicab number 6, through that, the police soon
knew who the driver was; Amado Mamucod. He was then investigated by the police. After admitting
and identifying the ones who used the taxi, the police investigated further the persons involved by the
confession of Mamucod, tracked and apprehended Leocadio Carroen, Conrado Graham, and Agapito
Lingad. The Fiscal filed the information for robbery with homicaide against them and Estanislao Real,
who is still at large. The accused were charged and tried and found guilty of the crime of robbery with
homicide. They are to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to indemnify the heirs of Vicente Go in a
sum of P10,000 and P110 (the value of the stolen money), and each to pay one-month of the costs.

Carlos and Amparo Go, (son and daughter of the deceased) identified Carreon as the person
who came first with another to purchase, and returned after with Graham and Lingad to do the crime.
They recognized Carreon as the one who pointed the pistol at them and stole the money from them.
With him, Graham was the one he was with and together went away with the money (P110). They also
pointed out Lingad as the one outside and killing their father Vicente Go. From the testimonies, the
prosecution also introduced the confessions of the four accused, which the police testified to as having
been executed by the latter freely and voluntarily.

The accused denied having participated in the commission of the crime and alleged the defense
of alibi. They claimed that their confessions were secured from them by force. The trial court refused to
believe these statements in the face of the positive identification of them by Carlos Go and Amparo Go,
the facility with which alibis are fabricated, and the improbability of their claim that their confessions
have been secured by violence. The trial court has carefully read the evidence and that the findings of
the trial court are supported thereby.

While it was certain that Carreon and Graham were the ones who Pointed, entered and grabbed
the money, it was not clear who shot and killed Vicente Go, as it was dark and raining, and the shooting
happened outside the sight of Carlo and Amparo Go. Because the victim was in a dark and raining alley,
south of the store, and two pistols were used, it was difficult to the witnesses what actually happened.
These would create a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the identification. The Court is unable to
agree with the finding of the trial court’s decision that it was Agapito Lingad who killed Vicente Go.

The prosecution submitted a confession. It says that, before 9:00 o'clock, Estanislao Real and
Agapito Lingad had been perpetrating a hold-up and the same Conrado Graham offered to join them;
that thereupon it was agreed that Graham contact Leocadio Carreon, who was going to get a taxi for
them; that evening, Carreon saw the taxi Driven by the accused Amado Mamucod on Tayabas and Ipil
streets, where Conrado Graham came down with Agapito Lingad and Estanislao Real, and that all four
embarked in the taxi driven by the said Amado Mamucod; that they went around in the taxi to Sulucan
Street; that as two persons were then in the store, they let the time pass by and waited the two persons
to go away by going around and then coming back to the store; that the second time that they passed
the store the two persons in the store had already gone away, and so they parked the taxi around two
posts (electric) from the store to prevent suspicion; that Leocadio Carreon and another first came to the
store to buy cigarettes and coca cola, to determine where the storekeepers kept the money; and that
three of them went back, namely, Leocadio Carreon, Conrado Graham and a third, who is either
Estanislao Real or Agapito Lingad. Under these circumstances, it is evident that all the three accused,
namely, Agapito Lingad, Leocadio Carreon and Conrado Graham, irrespective of their respective
participations in the hold-up, are guilty of the offense committed; it is immaterial which of the two,
Lingad or Real, shot the deceased Vicente Go, because the conspiracy is conclusively shown by their
common concurrence and their coordinate acts.

ISSUES: Whether or not Lingad or Real is guilty of homicide

Whether or not Lingad be convicted of the crime robbery with homicide with only a
preponderance of evidence

(actually hindi ko makita kung ano ung actual issue e, best to read the full case sorry)

HELD

All of the accused, whether they have actually participated in the killing or not, are still guilty of
the complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery will also be held guilty as principals
in the 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 the homicide

For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed as to the
accused-appellants Agapito Lingad, Leocadio Carreon and Conrado Graham, but modified as to the
accused-appellant Amado Mamucod, who is hereby found guilty as an accomplice in the crime of
robbery with homicide.

Conspiracy – The act of one, is the act of all the others.