G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

ARNEL ZAFRA, accused-appellant). In an Information dated April 15, 1988, Arnel

Zafra (Zafra), Evangeline Nunag (Nunag), and Tirso delas Armas (Delas Armas)
were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical
injuries, as follows:

That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1988, in the municipality of Sta.
Maria, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of
gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation of persons, take, rob and
carry away with them cash in the sum of P3,063.35 belonging to one Agueda Santos
and Epifania Santos, to the damage and prejudice of the said owners in the same
amount of P3,063.35; and that by reason or on the occasion of the commission of
the said robbery, the above-named accused, armed with a piece of drift wood and
knife, and with intent to kill the said Agueda and Epifania Santos, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strike with the said
weapons the said Agueda Santos and Epifania Santos, in"icting on the said Agueda
Santos serious physical injuries which directly caused her death and on the said
Epifania Santos less serious physical injuries which require medical attendance
and incapacitated her from performing her customary labor for a period of not
more than thirty (30) days.

Contrary to law. CAIHTE

Immediately after committing the o!ense, Nunag was arrested by local police
o#cers.

When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After trial on
the merits, the Regional Trial Court in its December 29, 1989 Decision found Nunag
guilty of robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries, and sentenced her to
su!er the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 2 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

Subsequently, Nunag $led an Appeal before this Court.

In its April 22, 1991 Decision, this Court a#rmed with modi$cation the
Regional Trial Court Decision, and found Nunag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

On May 22, 1991, this Court's Decision became $nal and executory.

Meanwhile, Delas Armas voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. On

arraignment, he initially pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. However, he later
changed his plea to guilty.

The Regional Trial Court, in its July 13, 1988 Partial Judgment, found Delas
Armas guilty of robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries. However, since
he was 15 years old when he committed the crime, his sentence was suspended and
he was turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for his
rehabilitation.

Zafra, on the other hand, had remained at large since 1988, until he was
arrested in 2006.

On arraignment, Zafra pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the
merits then ensued.

The facts established by the prosecution disclosed that on February 22, 1988,
Nunag, Delas Armas, and Zafra went to the house of spouses Carlos Santos (Carlos)
and Agueda Santos (Agueda) to apply as household helpers.

While there, Epifania Santos (Epifania), the youngest daughter of Carlos and
Agueda, approached the three (3) teenagers and asked them why their eyes were so
red and if they got some sleep last night. When she was ignored, Epifania left and
went back to her room on the second "oor of the house.

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 3 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

Epifania later heard a commotion downstairs. As she opened her door to look
into it, she saw Zafra just outside her room. Alarmed, she tried to close her door, but
Zafra pushed it open causing her to fall. Zafra attempted to stab her with a knife,
which she luckily blocked, su!ering only minor injuries.

In the meantime, Leonides Mateo (Mateo), a house helper of the Santoses,

was working in the laundry room when she heard Agueda scream. Startled, she
looked out the window and saw Nunag on top of a bleeding Agueda. When she tried
to get out of the room, she was met by a knife-wielding Delas Armas, who locked
her in the kitchen.

Upstairs, while Zafra and Epifania struggled, Nunag entered the room and
told Epifania, "I am sorry nasaktan po namin ang lola."

During the altercation, Epifania grabbed and squeezed Zafra's crotch. The
assailant left the room in pain, immediately followed by Nunag, who had already
taken Epifania's wallet.

When Epifania $nally went downstairs, she saw her mother, Agueda, lying on
the "oor and bleeding. She heard her mother utter, "Si Tirso, si Tirso, si Tirso ang
pumasok sa bahay." She helped her mother sit and told her not to move as she
locked the house and went upstairs to cry for help.

When the neighbors arrived, the assailants jumped over the fence at the back
of the house to escape. Meanwhile, Epifania took her mother to the hospital.
Unfortunately, Agueda died $ve (5) days later due to her head wounds.

In its September 29, 2010 Order, the Regional Trial Court noted for the record
that the defense counsel explicitly waived the presentation of defense evidence.
DETACa

In its June 25, 2011 Decision, the Regional Trial Court convicted Zafra of

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 4 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

robbery with homicide and less serious physical injury.

The Regional Trial Court gave full faith and credence to the prosecution
witnesses' testimonies. It found their testimonies to be clear, credible, and
convincing. Moreover, it ruled that the prosecution established through proof
beyond reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy among Nunag, Delas Armas,
and Zafra:

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, this Court $nds ARNEL ZAFRA
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Robbery with Homicide and Less
Serious Physical Injury," as charged herein, and SENTENCES him to su!er the
PENALTY of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is likewise held to be jointly and solidarily
liable with all the other accused Tirso delas Armas and Evangeline Nunag to
indemnify the heirs of the victim Agueda Santos.

a. The amount of Php50,000.00 as compensatory damages;

b. The amount of Php110,573.17 as actual damages;

c. The cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)

Aggrieved, Zafra $led an Appeal before the Court of Appeals.

In his Accused-Appellant's Brief, Zafra argued that the Regional Trial Court
erred in convicting him of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and
less serious physical injuries.

Zafra contended that although he participated in the robbery, he was upstairs

when Nunag attacked Agueda. He maintained that since he took no part in injuring
Agueda, he should only be convicted of robbery.

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 5 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

In its September 30, 2015 Decision, the Court of Appeals a#rmed with
modi$cations the Regional Trial Court June 25, 2011 Decision. It ruled that Zafra
should only be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It
noted that the crime of less serious physical injuries should be "merged in the
composite, integrated whole of robbery with homicide."

The Court of Appeals modi$ed the award of damages, as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.

The Decision dated June 25, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Malolos is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Arnel Zafra is found
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced to
su!er the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He and his co-accused Tirso delas Armas
and Evangeline Nunag are ordered to jointly and severally pay the heirs of Agueda
Santos the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity;
One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) as actual damages; Seventy Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) as exemplary damages. All the amounts of damages awarded are
subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to be reckoned
from the date of $nality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)

On October 29, 2015, accused-appellant, through counsel, $led a Notice of

Appeal before this Court.

On September 7, 2016, this Court required the parties to $le their respective
supplemental briefs. However, both accused-appellant and plainti!-appellee,
through the O#ce of the Solicitor General, manifested that they would no longer $le
their own supplemental briefs. Accused-appellant manifested that he would adopt
all the arguments he raised in his Appellant's Brief. aDSIHc

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 6 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of
Appeals correctly convicted accused-appellant Arnel Zafra of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.

This Court a#rms his conviction with some modi$cations.

In People v. Ordona, this Court held that "the determination of the credibility
of witnesses is a function best left to the trial courts. Generally, their $ndings and
conclusions on this matter are given great respect and weight." Without proof that
the trial court disregarded or misinterpreted facts of substantial signi$cance, this
Court would not disturb its assessment of facts and the credibility of the witnesses.

Here, a perusal of the records shows that there is no cogent reason to disturb
the factual $ndings of the Regional Trial Court. Based on the prosecution witnesses'
testimonies, it correctly ruled that Nunag, Delas Armas, and accused-appellant
conspired to rob the Santoses.

Meanwhile, the Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of robbery

with homicide and less serious physical injuries. The Court of Appeals modi$ed
this decision and ruled that he should be convicted instead of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.

The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is de$ned and

penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code:

ARTICLE 294. Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of Persons

Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall su!er:

1. The penalty of reclusi n perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 7 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

To sustain a conviction for this special complex crime, the following

elements must $rst be established: "(a) the taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property belongs to another;
(c) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery, homicide was committed." The prosecution must prove with
certainty that the main purpose of the assailant is to steal, and that the killing was
merely incidental to the robbery. "The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life, but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery."

Here, it appears that the primary intention of the assailants was to steal from
the Santoses, and the killing was inadvertent. That Nunag even apologized to
Epifania for hurting Agueda shows that they never intended to kill her. Besides,
when accused-appellant left Epifania's room, Nunag immediately followed, taking
with her Epifania's wallet. Immediately after, they left the house.

II

The Revised Penal Code states that "a conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it." Its essence "is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the
physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt."

In establishing conspiracy, direct evidence of the agreement is not necessary.

Its existence may be inferred from "the acts of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a
common purpose to commit the crime." Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is
considered the act of all.

Here, the Regional Trial Court correctly found that Nunag, Delas Armas, and

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 8 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

accused-appellant conspired to rob the Santoses. It was proven that they acted in
unison to commit the crime charged. While Nunag was attacking Agueda, Delas
Armas went to the laundry room to make sure that Mateo would not escape and
seek help outside. Meanwhile, accused-appellant was upstairs assaulting Epifania.

Although it is undisputed that accused-appellant took no part in killing

Agueda, the Court of Appeals correctly convicted him of the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. ETHIDa

In People v. Baron, this Court ruled that when homicide is committed by

reason or on occasion of a robbery, all who participated in the robbery shall be
deemed guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. This is
regardless of whether they actually participated in the killing, unless they prove
that they acted to prevent the killing.

Here, accused-appellant failed to allege, much more prove, that he attempted

to prevent Agueda's killing. Therefore, his nonparticipation in Agueda's killing is
immaterial. With the existence of conspiracy, the acts of his co-conspirators are his
acts just the same.

On the physical injury su!ered by Epifania, the Court of Appeals correctly

ruled that it should already be included in the crime of robbery with homicide. In
People v. Nunag:

Even if less serious physical injuries were really in"icted and proved, there is
no special complex crime as robbery with homicide and less serious physical
injuries. The o!ense is denominated as robbery with homicide regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed. These other circumstances merely
serve as generic aggravating circumstances which can be o!set by other mitigating
circumstances. (Citation omitted)

Finally, in line with current jurisprudence, this Court deems it proper to

https // ur ph/ ur sprudence/peop e v zafra Page 9 of 10

G R No 225784 Peop e vs Zafra 4/5/24 10 26 PM

increase the amount of exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals September

30, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05401 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Arnel Zafra is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code. He is sentenced to su!er the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Accused-appellant is further DIRECTED to pay the heirs of the victim,

Agueda Santos, the amounts of: (1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as
moral damages; (2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity;
(3) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages; and (4) One
Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) as actual damages. He is likewise
DIRECTED to pay Epifania Santos the amounts of: (1) Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages; (2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil
indemnity; and (3) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.

All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum from the $nality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

of 10