|
Petitioner, -versus- PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 161970 Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x -
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
- - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Manila, Branch 30 convicted the accused-herein petitioner Dundee Viernes y
Asio of violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 532 (the
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974).[1] On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by Decision[2] of
On November 15, 1992, at
around 7:00 in the evening, while Josefina dela Cruz (Josefina) and her husband
Ronaldo Lopango (Lopango) were on board a passenger jeepney along 1st
Avenue, R. Papa St.,
About three hours and twenty
five minutes after the incident or at around
x x x
x
03. T: Bakit ka
naririto ngayon sa aming tanggapan at nagpapaimbistiga?
S: Tungkol
po sa naganp (sic) na hold-up sa sinasakyan namin ng asawa kong si RONALDO
LOPANGO na pampasaherong jeep, na ikinamatay niya.
04. T: Anong
oras, petsa at lugar ba nangyari itong insidenteng sinasabi mo?
S: Pagitan
po ng alas-6:30 at alas-7:00 ng gabi, ngayong, Nobyembre 15, 1992 duon po sa Avenida malapit sa kanto ng Sta. Catalina,
05. T: Bukod sa inyo ng asawa mo, ilan pa’ng pasahero ng jeep na
sinasakyan ninyo?
S: Bukod po doon sa apat (4) na
hold-uppers ay punuan ang jeep na
sinasakyan naming, mga sampu (10) ang sakay.
06. T: Saan
kayo patungo?
S: Pauwi na po kami ng Oroquieta, Sta. Cruz, Maynila kaya biyaheng Recto ang sinakyan namin.
07. T: Magkano
ang particular na na-hold-up sa inyo?
S: Wala
pong naholdap sa amin dahil lumaban nga ang asawa ko.
x x x x [7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Three
days later or on P3,000 cash “inserted”
therein.[8]
On
That on or about November 15, 1992, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together
with three others whose true names, real identities and present whereabouts are
still unknown and helping one another with intent to gain and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by then and there pointing a knife
(beinte nueve) to one Josefina dela Cruz and grabbing her plastic bag
containing P3,000.00 along R. Papa St., Tondo, this City, a street/s used
by persons or vehicles for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation
of goods, articles or property or both, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away a plastic bag containing
P3,000.00 belonging to Josefina dela Cruz against her will, to the damage and
prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid amount of P3,000.00, Philippine
Currency.[9] (Underscoring supplied)
When arraigned, the accused
pleaded not guilty.
Testifying as the lone
witness for the prosecution, Josefina described how the robbery and the
stabbing of her husband took place. And
she narrated that on the night of the incident, by-standers apprehended petitioner
whom she recognized as one of the malefactors since the jeepney was lighted[10] and from whom
she recovered her belongings except the P3,000 cash.[11]
On cross-examination, Josefina
admitted that she did not know what transpired after she fell off the jeepney,[12] and that
when she executed a sworn statement before the
On the other hand, petitioner, proffering alibi, gave the
following testimony: At about
Petitioner further
narrated that after two days of detention, a woman who turned out to be Josefina
arrived at his place of detention and on seeing him, she told the police that
he was not the culprit but the police went on to maul him, and continued to detain
him for nine days;[16] and the case filed against him, together with
a certain Edward Paler y Villanueva and two others for attempted robbery with
homicide before the Caloocan RTC had already been dismissed by Branch 125
thereof.[17]
On cross-examination, petitioner
denied having been mobbed by bystanders[18] and
investigated at the police station.[19]
Petitioner submitted a certification from the Records
Management and Archive Office of Manila stating that his mother, Elisa Asio,
was indeed born on
Corroborating petitioner’s
testimony, his sister Elizabeth Mones testified as follows: Petitioner was asked to fetch their cousin at
Blumentritt for their mother’s birthday at around P2,000
for the transfer of petitioner to the City Jail,[26] prohibited
subjecting petitioner to medical examination.[27]
On cross-examination, she
admitted that she did not file any complaint against the police even if her
brother was tortured by the police. [28]
By decision of
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of P.D. 532, and there
being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and TEN (10) MONTHS of Reclusion
Temporal and to indemnify private complainant Josefina dela Cruz the sum of
P3,000.00 with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until
fully paid and to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.”[29]
As stated early on, the crime
for which petitioner was convicted by the trial court was modified on appeal by
the Court of Appeals to simple robbery. The
decretal text of the appellate court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.[30]
Hence,
the present appeal.
Petitioner
argues that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.[31] He invites attention to the failure of the
prosecution to show that the illumination of the jeepney which allegedly bore
Josefina and her husband was adequate enough to enable one to identify him with
certainty as in fact Josefina was patently hesitant to identify him as one of
the malefactors, as discerned from the fact that the case filed against him for
attempted robbery with homicide before the RTC of Caloocan was dismissed for
lack of interest to prosecute.[32] He likewise invites attention to the failure
of the prosecution to present any of the police officers who apprehended and
investigated him.[33]
Petitioner
further draws attention to inconsistencies which to him taint Josefina’s credibility,
to wit: In her affidavit executed before
the P3,000 on the occasion thereof.[34]
Petitioner
in fact charges Josefina to have even conspired with the police officers in
torturing him so as to force him to admit his participation in the crime.[35]
After
a considered review of the records of the case, this Court finds that the guilt
of petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On
top of the inconsistencies attention to which petitioner has drawn, Josefina, in
her sworn statement given before the
06. T: Maaari
bang sabihin mo sa akin kung ano ang mga nahold up sa iyo?
S: Yung
pong aming mga damit na kung saan nakalagay sa loob ang aming pera na
nagkakahalaga ng P3,000.00.
07. T: Ito
ba namang mga damit ninyo at yung pera na nakalagay doon ay nabawi mo?
S: Hindi
na po.[36] (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
At the witness stand, however,
Josefina declared that the things petitioner took from her were returned to her
“one by one.”
Q How do
you know that the accused has a companion who announced that there was a
hold-up?
A Because
I can recognize and the things the accused were able to get were returned to
us one by one, sir. [37] (Emphasis supplied)
In
her sworn statement before the
x x x
x
08. T: Isalaysay
mo nga ang mga pangyayaring may kinalaman
dito sa insidenteng sinasabi mo?
S : x x x Ang ginawa
naman ng asawa ko na nasa dulong upuan ay lumaban at pinagsisipa ang hold-upper sa estribo
pero pinagsasaksak siya at hindi niya naagaw ang patalim nuong mama. Iyong tatlong kasama nuong hold-upper na nakasabit ay naglabas din ng kutsilio at abala duon sa ibang
pasahero na pulos babae, pagkahulog nuong nasa estribo
ay sumabit kaming mag-asawa para bumaba pero tuloy-tuloy ang takbo ng jeep
dahil natutukan din ang driver. Nuong
mahulog ang mister ko ay nakabitaw
na rin ako sa jeep kaya pulos gasgas
din ako. Ang mister ko pa ang nagpapara
ng tricycle na naghatid sa amin sa
x x x x[38] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
At
the witness stand, however, Josefina declared that petitioner “pushed” her off
the jeepney.
Q Under
what circumstances did you come to know a person by the name of Dundee Viernes?
A I
saw him carrying my things, sir.
Q How did
[sic] the accused able to carry your
things?
A We fell
from the jeep because Dundee Viernes pushed us, he carried our things
and the hold-up continued inside the jeepney, sir.[39] (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
In
crimes of robbery, the offender must be proven to have unlawfully taken
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or
intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.[40]
While
the general rule is that contradictions and discrepancies between the testimony
of a witness and his sworn statement do not necessarily discredit him since ex
parte statements are generally incomplete, the rule is not without
exception as, e.g., when the omission in the sworn statement refers to a very
important detail of the incident which the one relating the incident as an
eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention, or when the
narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in
court.[41]
Where
a trial court overlooks certain facts of consequence or circumstances of
significance which may affect the result of the case, its assessment of the
credibility of a witness may be set aside.[42]
Josefina’s
assertion that the taking of her bag “slipped from [her] mind because of [her]
husband”[43] taxes
credulity as the hold-up occurred only three hours earlier. To forget to mention the loss of the bag
maybe excusable, but to categorically state that nothing was taken from them when
she was asked, thus:
x x x
x
07. T: Magkano ang particular na na-hold-up sa inyo?
S: Wala
pong naholdap sa amin dahil lumaban nga ang asawa ko.
x x x
x,[44] (Underscoring supplied)
infirms Josefina’s overall
credibility.[45]
While
the rule is settled that the conviction of an accused may be based on the
testimony of one witness alone, provided it is positive and credible, testimonies
being weighed, not numbered,[46]
Josefina’s uncorroborated testimony is, as shown above, tainted with
inconsistencies on material points to thus lead this Court to discredit it and
uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, accused-petitioner Dundee
Viernes y Asio is, on reasonable doubt, ACQUITTED
of the charge of violation of P.D. No. 532.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 39-42.
[2]
[3] TSN,
[4] Ibid.
Vide also TSN,
[5] Supra note 3 at 6.
[6] Records, p. 5.
[7] Exhibit “1,” records, p. 27.
[8] Records, p. 3.
[9] Information, records, p. 1.
[10] Supra note 3 at 18.
[11]
[12] TSN,
[13]
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] TSN,
[19]
[20] Supra note 14 at 8.
[21] TSN,
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Supra.
[28] TSN,
[29] Rollo, pp. 41-42
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] Vide Records, p. 3.
[37] Supra note 3 at 10.
[38] Vide
Exhibit “1.”
[39] Supra note 3 at 6-7.
[40] Vide Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 2(e) of P.D. No. 532 also defines Highway Robbery/Brigandage as the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway .
[41] People v. Español, G.R. No. 105676,
[42] People v. Alvarado, supra at
469; People v. Gornes, G.R. No.
104869,
[43] TSN,
[44] Exhibit “1,” Records, p. 27.
[45] People
v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 95902,
[46] People v. Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998, 284 SCRA 79, 89; People v. Rayray G.R. No. 90628, February 1, 1995, 241 SCRA 1, 6.