SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 133650.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMIL MATIC y BACTAD and NORBERTO SOTELO y SORIANO, accused.
RAMIL MATIC y
BACTAD, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DE LEON, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 160,
The Information reads:
That on or about the 12th day of October, 1994, in the Municipality
of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together with one Norberto Sotelo y Soriano who is still at large and two (2) unidentified male
persons whose true identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and
mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, rob and divest one Rolando Villamin
y Mutas of his cash money amounting to P50.00,
to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforecited
amount of P50.00; and that by reason and on the occasion of the robbery,
Norberto Sotelo y Soriano,
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
stab said Rolando Villamin y Mutas
on his chest, thereby inflicting upon him a stab wound which directly caused
his death.[2]
When arraigned on
On
On
The version of the prosecution:
Jimmy Escala, 20 years old, a tricycle
driver and a resident of Camachile, Magpayo, Pinagbuhatan, P50.00) from Villamin, then the appellant stabbed Villamin
on the chest with a fan knife while his three (3) companions were holding the
latter. At that time, Escala was only one armslength
away from the appellant and the victim. Escala was able to recognize the appellant because the
light of his tricycle was directed at the assailants for a few seconds, and he
knew the appellant who was a friend of his brother. After Escala saw
the stabbing incident, he drove away because he was scared. He reported the incident to the barangay captain, and identified appellant Ramil Matic when he was arrested
by PO1 Ricardo delos
PO1 Ricardo delos Santos, an investigator
of the Station Investigation Unit of Pasig Police
Station, testified that in the evening of October 12, 1996, Senior Inspector
Felix Balita ordered him to accompany Barangay Chairman Rodrigo Anito,
Jimmy Escala, and other security men of Barangay Pinagbuhatan since Jimmy
Escala who had witnessed a crime reported that the
suspect was at Imelda Park in Pasig, Metro
Manila. Upon arriving at Imelda Park, Escala pointed at the appellant who was then lying on an
improvised vegetable stall inside the park.
Then PO1 delos
Dr. Emmanuel L. Aranas, PNP
medico-legal officer, testified that he conducted the autopsy of the victim,
Rolando Villamin, and prepared the Medico-Legal
Report.[11] The victim sustained three (3) abrasions on
the head, and one stab wound at the right side of the chest, which was caused
by a sharp, blunt, pointed instrument.
The cause of death was the stab wound on the chest.[12]
On the other hand, appellant Ramil Matic, 23 years old, married, construction worker and a
resident of 116 Tipas, Taguig,
Metro Manila, denied that he killed Rolando Villamin. He testified that in the early morning of
On
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the court finds accused RAMIL MATIC y BACTAD GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, punishable under Art. 294 par. (1) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences said accused to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 and an additional amount of P50.00 representing the amount forcibly taken from the victim by accused, moral damages of P50,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Appellant ascribes to the trial court the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY OF JIMMY ESCALA IS TAINTED WITH DOUBTS AND CONTRADICTIONS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE.[15]
Appellant assails the credibility of prosecution witness Jimmy Escala because the material portions of his testimony are
allegedly inconsistent with his sworn statement, thus: (1) Escala
stated in his sworn statement that it was Norberto S. Sotelo
who stabbed Rolando Villamin, but he testified on
direct-examination that it was appellant who stabbed Villamin;
(2) Escala stated in his sworn statement that
appellant took the victim’s money after he was stabbed, but he testified on
direct-examination that it was the appellant’s companion who took the victim’s
money before he was stabbed; (3) Escala stated in his
sworn statement that he did not know how much money was taken from the victim,
but he testified that the victim was robbed of Fifty Pesos (P50.00); (4)
Escala also stated in his sworn statement that while
passing through Market Avenue on board his tricycle, he saw a parked tricycle
and also the victim being stabbed by four (4) men, but he testified that before
the stabbing incident, he was driving his tricycle and following the tricycle
being driven by Villamin when the latter was held-up
by four (4) men; (5) Escala stated in his sworn
statement that after the assailants ran away, he approached the victim whom he
recognized to be his neighbor so he rushed him to the hospital, but the victim
died on the way; however, Escala testified that after
he saw the stabbing incident, he drove away because he was scared. Appellant contends that the said
inconsistencies cast serious doubt that he committed the crime charged, and
hence prays for his acquittal.
The appellant’s contention is devoid of merit. We agree with the Solicitor General that the
divergence of Escala’s testimony from his sworn
statement did not impair his credibility.
The infirmity of affidavits as a species of evidence is a common
occurrence in judicial experience.[16] Being ex parte,
they are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, but these factors
do not denigrate the credibility of witnesses.[17] As such, affidavits are generally considered
to be inferior to testimony given in the court.[18]
Moreover, as the Solicitor General noted, the appellant did not
present evidence disputing Jimmy Escala’s presence at
the crime scene. Escala,
who was just an armslength away from the victim,
Rolando Villamin, at the time of the incident,
positively identified the appellant as one of the assailants and confirmed the
fact of robbery and the stabbing incident in both his sworn statement and
testimony in court. Assuming, arguendo, that it was not Ramil
Matic who stabbed the victim, it has been held that
whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion
of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be
held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide,
even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears
that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the homicide.[19]
We agree with the trial court that conspiracy was proven and
evident in the commission of the crime. A
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[20] Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on
direct evidence because it may be inferred from the parties’ conduct indicating
a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of a
crime.[21] The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode
or manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the
acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted
action and community of interest.[22] In the instant case, appellant and his three
(3) companions stopped and held up the victim, Rolando Villamin,
while he was driving his tricycle, and took his money. Then appellant stabbed the victim on the
chest with a fan knife while his companions were holding the victim, thus
showing concerted action and common design or understanding among themselves to
commit the crime charged. Where
conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.[23] All the conspirators are liable as
co-principals.[24]
Appellant also argues that assuming that he was with the group
that stabbed the victim, still, the crime committed was not robbery with
homicide but only homicide because the taking of the victim’s money was not
proven, by convincing evidence considering that prosecution witness Escala’s testimony contradicted his sworn statement; and
that the testimony of Escala that he saw something
was taken from the victim was doubtful since he admitted that it was very dark
and that he was able to recognize the appellant only because the light of the
tricycle happened to be directed at the appellant for a few seconds. In addition, Escala
alleged in his sworn statement that the victim was stabbed before the taking of
money which is contrary to ordinary human experience wherein the killing or
stabbing usually comes only after the victim shall have refused to part with
his valuables. Finally, Fifty Pesos (P50.00)
was a small amount to be the motive for appellant to rob the victim.
We disagree. The elements
of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are the following: (a)
the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation
against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is
characterized with animo lucrandi, and (d) by reason of the robbery or on the
occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.[25] The phrase “by reason” covers homicide
committed before or after the taking of personal property of another, as long
as the motive of the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to
deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished
by eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or in killing a person after the
robbery to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of the stolen
property.[26] The testimony of prosecution witness Jimmy Escala who was only an armslength
away from the victim, Rolando Villamin, at the time
of the incident, established the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, thus:
Q: When the accused Ramil Matic stabbed Rolando Villamin (sic) what did the other three do?
A: The three were holding him, sir.
Q: You mentioned about a hold up earlier, why do you say that it was a hold up?
A: They were able to take the money.
Q: Who in particular took the money?
A: His companion, sir.
Q: And how much money was taken from the victim?
A: P50.00, sir.
xxx xx xxx
Q: Now, which happened first, the stabbing or the taking of the P50.00 money?
A: The getting of the
money.[27]
The above testimony of Escala shows that the motive of the appellant was
robbery. The trial court also observed
that the victim initially resisted the taking of his money as evidenced by the
three (3) abrasions he sustained on the head, particularly on the nose, upper
lip and frontal region.[28] Apparently, the culprits held the arms of
the victim to be able to take his money, then he was stabbed on the chest to
forestall any further resistance.[29] Moreover, since Escala
was following behind the victim’s tricycle, and he was only an armslength away from the victim when the incident happened,
the light of his tricycle which was directed at what lay in front of him made
it possible for him to see the robbery and stabbing incident. Escala testified
that he recognized the appellant as one of the assailants because the light of
his tricycle was focused on them for a few seconds. Besides, in robbery with
homicide, it does not matter whether the victim was killed prior to or after
the taking of his personal property.
What is essential is that there be a direct relation and intimate
connection between the robbery and the killing, whether or not both crimes were
committed at the same time.[30] The fact that only Fifty Pesos (P50.00) was
taken from the victim only shows that robbers are usually uncertain of the
amount they could get from the victim before the robbery, but it does not
negate the commission of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide for
the reason that the essential elements of the crime are present in this case,
namely: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the
taking is characterized with animo lucrandi, and (d) by reason of the robbery or on the
occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.[31]
The defense put up by the appellant is alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the
accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the
commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be
physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis
at the time of the commission of the crime.[32] In the instant case, appellant was within
the vicinity of the locus criminis when the
crime was committed. Although he claimed that he was at his employer’s stall
waiting for the delivery of goods when the incident took place, he did not
present his employer to corroborate his statement. Alibi is a weak defense and becomes even weaker
by reason of the failure of the defense to present any corroboration.[33] More importantly, the defense of denial and
alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witness
Jimmy Escala that it was appellant Ramil Matic who stabbed the
victim.[34]
Hence, the trial court correctly found appellant Ramil Matic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Under Article 294, paragraph I of the Revised Penal Code, “[a]ny person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.”
The trial court correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua, absent any aggravating circumstance in
the commission of the crime.[35] It also correctly awarded to the heirs of
the victim civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00),
an additional amount of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) representing the amount
taken from the victim, and moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00). The civil indemnity for the victim’s death is
automatically granted without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime,[36] and the award of moral damages needs no
proof since the conviction of the appellant for the crime charged is sufficient
to justify the award of the same.[37] However, the trial court incorrectly awarded
exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that
in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Absent any aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the crime charged, the award of exemplary
damages in this case should be deleted.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 107080-H
finding appellant Ramil Matic
y Bactad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of
the victim, Rolando Villamin, civil indemnity in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos ((P50,000.00), actual damages in the
amount of Fifty Pesos (P50.00), and moral damages in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification
that the award of exemplary damages is deleted.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and
Buena, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Judge
Mariano M. Umali, Rollo,
pp. 13-23.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Records, p. 35.
[4] TSN,
[5] Records, pp. 59-60.
[6] Records, pp. 72, 75.
[7] Exhibits “B” to
“B-3”, Records, pp. 128-129.
[8] TSN,
[9] Exhibits “A” to
“A-1”, Records, p. 127.
[10] TSN,
[11] Exhibits “D” to
“D-1”, Records, p. 131.
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] Rollo,
p. 23.
[15] Rollo,
p. 34.
[16] People v. Lenantud,
et al., G.R. No. 128629, February 22, 2001; citing People v. Mores, 311 SCRA 342,
350 (1999).
[17]
[18]
[19] People v. Lago,
G.R. No. 121272,
[20] Article 8, paragraph
2, Revised Penal Code.
[21] Supra, People
v. Lago.
[22] Id.; citing People v. Fegidero,
G.R. No. 113446, August 4, 2000; People
v. Francisco, G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000.
[23] People v. Pablo, et al., G.R.
Nos. 120394-97,
[24]
[25] Supra, People
v. Lago; People v. Zinampan,
et al., G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000; People v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67,
85 (1997); People v. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207,
219 (1995).
[26] People v. Torres, et al., G.R.
No. 130661,
[27] TSN,
[28] Exhibits “D” to
“D-1”, Records, p. 131,; Rollo, p. 21.
[29] Rollo,
p. 21.
[30] Supra, People
v. Torres; citing People v.
Cando, G.R. No. 128114,
[31] Supra, People
v. Lago; People v. Zinampan,
et al., G.R. No. 126781; September 13, 2000; People v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67,
85 (1997); People v. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207,
219 (1995).
[32] People v. Francisco, G.R. Nos.
134566-67,
[33] People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No.
131036,
[34] Supra, People
v. Francisco.
[35] Article 63(2), The
Revised Penal Code.
[36] People v. Cortez, et al., G.R.
No. 131924,
[37] People v. Clarino,
G.R. No. 134634,