People Vs Agan

9. PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MCMERVON DELICA AGAN* a.k.a.
"Butchoy"
and "Sadisto"
G.R. No. 243984
February 1, 2021
Facts: Agan with aliases "Butchoy" and "Sadisto" was charged with the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Agan allegedly
stole an amount of P20, 000 and had inflicted a stab wounds to a certain Maricar and her mother
in-law, Erlinda which directly caused their deaths.
The RTC convicted Agan of the offense charged. The RTC ruled that the circumstantial
evidence presented by the prosecution proved each and every element of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide and the guilt of Agan beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC stated that the
prosecution submitted the testimonies of three witnesses who saw Agan at the scene of the crime
at the same approximate time before, during, and after the commission of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide. The distinct and closely related accounts of the witnesses showed that Agan
forcibly opened the door of the store where the victims were staying, ransacked the store for cash
hidden inside, stabbed the helpless unarmed victims, and immediately fled the scene. The RTC
added that although Mandreza was not present when the crime occurred, the P20,000.00 cash
was duly proved to have been kept inside the store, as relayed to him by his wife, for the use of
their daughter Maricar for purchases in the store.
On Appeal, the CA affirmed with modifications the RTC’s decision. The CA declared
that Reyes' account in positively identifying Agan as the person he had seen tinkering with the
door and picking the lock is considered as an overt act indicative of Agan's criminal intent to rob
the store. Otherwise, Agan could have just simply knocked on the door or call Mendoza's
account that he heard screams from the store and saw Agan running out, which was the same as
witness Manibale's account who saw Agan running from the store, would signify Agan's
presence at the store to be an indication of the commission of the offense coupled with his
unexplained act of fleeing from the situs instead of reporting the incident to the police
authorities. The CA stated that Agan's acts were a display of evasive, odd, and suspicious
behavior. The fair and legitimate deduction was that Agan was in a rush to get home to clean up
and get rid of any trace of evidence of the crime he had committed. Further, the CA took notice
that Agan no longer proffered any defense, save for his mere denial of the crime, contravening
the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of a wrongdoing which was to express his
innocence at the first opportune time and defend his honor.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue: Whether Agan be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
based on circumstantial evidence.
Held: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property. The four elements in
order to be convicted of Robbery with Homicide are:
(1) The taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation
against the person;
(2) The property taken belongs to another;
(3) The taking is characterized by intent to gam or animus lucrandi; and
(4) On the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof the crime of homicide was
committed.
A conviction for Robbery with Homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main
purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The
intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. The killing, however, may occur before,
during, or after the robbery.
In the present case, there were no eyewitnesses to the actual taking of Mandreza's
personal property consisting of P20, 000.00 in cash. However, the prosecution was able to
establish Agan's guilt through circumstantial evidence.
Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided that the
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. In this
case, we agree with the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the circumstantial evidence proven by
the prosecution sufficiently established that Agan committed the offense charged.
The prosecution demonstrated that: (1) Agan was the houseboy or "bantay" of Maricar at
the store; (2) Maricar and Erlinda were at the store on the evening of November 24, 2008; (3)
Agan was the last person seen at the store immediately prior to the incident; ( 4) Agan was seen
picking the door lock ("parang may s inusundof' and "may kinukutkot siya sa lock ng tindahan");
(5) the victims, who were stabbed, were seen struggling to get out of the store and moments later,
Agan was seen departing from the same store; ( 6) Agan ran away from the store; (7) upon being
confronted by Manibale, Agan was evasive and exhibited odd behavior; (8) Agan hurriedly went
inside his house; and (9) Agan came out of the house again with a shirt hanging from his
shoulder. The testimony of the three witnesses, who saw Agan at the scene of the crime at the
approximate time of the commission of the offense, sufficiently proved and supported the
conviction.
Truly, all the elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide were
present:
First, Mandreza testified that after learning about the incident, he immediately
went and inspected the store and found that the cash in the amount of P20,000.00 was
found to be missing from the cash register. Agan took the cash and on the occasion of the
robbery, used violence by stabbing Maricar and Erlinda.
Second, the said cash, which was reserved to be used for purchases for the store,
belonged to Mandreza.
Third, Agan's acts of tinkering the store's door and picking the lock, ransacking
the place to look for the cash hidden inside, running away from the scene and changing
his clothes immediately thereafter showed his intent to gain. The substantial amount of
money impelled Agan to take another's property without the latter's consent.
Last, Maricar and Erlinda, who were stabbed by reason of the robbery, met
theiruntimely demise.

People Vs Agan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Agan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Agan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9. PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MCMERVON DELICA AGAN* a.k.a.

You might also like