FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - JUAN CABBAB, JR., Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 173479 Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, *SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Before
the Court on automatic review is the decision[1]
dated February 22, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00968 which affirmed, with modification, an
earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued, Abra, Branch 2,
in Criminal Case No. 687, finding appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr., guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Pursuant
to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo[2] which modified the provisions of the
Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this
Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
this case was earlier[3] referred
to the CA, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01978, for appropriate action and disposition.
The Case
In
the court of origin, appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr., along with his cousin-in-law
Segundino Calpito, was charged with the crimes of Double Murder and Attempted
Murder with Robbery in an Information[4] alleging,
as follows:
That on or about April 22, 1988, in Sitio Kayawkaw, Barangay Kimmalasag, Municipality of San Isidro, Province of Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with the intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, while armed with a firearm (not-recover), conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shot from ambush WINNER AGBULOS and EDDIE QUINDASAN, consequently inflicting thereby multiple gunshot wounds on the different parts of their bodies, killing Winner Agbulos on the spot and causing the death of Eddie Quindasan shortly thereafter, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, shot William Belmes, said accused having commenced the execution of Murder by overt acts but were unable to perform all the acts of execution, which would have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence thereof, due to alertness of victim William Belmes to roll and poor marksmanship of the accused thus prevented his death, then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously, with the intent of gain, take, steal and carry away the money of Winner Agbulos in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00), Philippine currency..
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstance of: (1) uninhabited place.
On
arraignment, appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and accused Segundino Calpito separately
entered their pleas of “Not Guilty” to the crimes charged. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued, in the course of which the prosecution presented the oral
testimonies of M/Sgt. Godofredo Tubadeza, a police investigator at Camp
Villamor, Bangued, Abra; PO William Belmes, a member of the Integrated National
Police at the Villaviciosa Police Station; Vidal Agbulos, father of the victim
Winner Agbulos; Dra. Leona Garcia-Berońa, medico-legal officer who conducted an
autopsy on the body of Winner Agbulos; and Dr. Godofreco Gasa, a physician at the
For
its part, the defense presented the appellant himself; accused Segundino
Calpito; and George de Lara, a Forensic Chemist of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI).
The Evidence
The
People’s version of the incident is succinctly summarized by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) in its Appellee’s Brief,[5] to
wit:
In the morning of
Only
Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan played “pepito” with the group of
accused-appellant. Winner Agbulos played the dealer/banker in the game while
accused-appellant and Segundino Calpito acted as players therein. Around
While
walking on their way home from Sitio Turod, PO William Belmes, who was behind
Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan picking-up guava fruits from a tree, saw
accused-appellant, accused Segundino Calpito and a companion running up a hill.
Suddenly, he heard gunshots and saw Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, who
were then walking ahead of the group, hit by the gunfire.
By
instant, PO William Belmes dove into a canal to save himself from the
continuous gunfire of accused-appellant. PO William Belmes ran towards Vidal
Agbulos and Felipe Abad, who were walking behind the group, and informed the
two that Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan were ambushed by accused-appellant
and Segundino Calpito. The three (3)
proceeded to the crime scene where they saw the dead body of Winner Agbulos
together with Eddie Quindasan whom they mistook for dead. The three sought help
from the police authorities of Pilar, Abra and returned to the scene of the
crime where they found Eddie Quindasan who was still alive and who narrated
that it was Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino Calpito who ambused them and took
the money, estimated at P12,000.00, of Winner Agbulos which he won in the card game. Eddie Quindasan was brought to the
Postmortem examination of Winner Agbulos showed that the cause of his death was “cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds.” On the other hand, Eddie Quindasan’s cause of death was “cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock due to multiple gunshot wounds.”
For
the defense, appellant himself took the witness stand claiming that in the
morning of
Appellant’s
co-accused Calpito denied having committed the crimes charged. He testified
that at around
George
de Lara, Forensic Chemist of the NBI, testified that he conducted an
examination on the paraffin cast taken from appellant to determine the presence
of gunpowder residue or nitrates on appellant’s hands. The results of the said
examination showed that appellant was negative of nitrates. He opined that
certain factors may affect the result of the test such as perspiration, wind
velocity, humidity or the type of gun used. He also theorized that a paraffin
test would yield a negative result if fertilizers or cosmetics are applied to
the hands before the cast is taken.
The Trial Court’s
Decision
In
a decision[6]
dated
WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Juan Cabbab, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder with robbery or better put, robbery with double homicide and attempted murder as defined in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 294 of the same Code or robbery with double homicide defined and penalized under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6 of the Same Code with aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place with no mitigating circumstances and sentences him with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the killing of Winner Agbulos and for robbing the said victim after killing him and for the killing of Eddie Quindasan. The court likewise finds the accused Juan Cabbab, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the attempted murder defined and penalized in Art. 48 in relation to Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code. These offenses attended by the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place with no mitigating circumstances and sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as maximum.
He is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victims P50,000.00 for each of them plus P20,000.00 also for each of them as actual expenses and finally, the amount of P100,000.00 also for each of them as moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs of this suit.
Accused Segundino Calpito is acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
The
records of the case were then transmitted to this Court on automatic review. As
stated at the onset hereof, the Court, in its Resolution[7] of
In a decision
dated
From
the CA, the case was then elevated to this Court for automatic review. In its
Resolution[9] of
In
a Manifestation dated
Appellant,
on the other hand, filed on
THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE VERSION IS MORE CREDIBLE AND
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
Insisting
that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
appellant pleads for acquittal. He avers that the witnesses for the prosecution
failed to positively identify him as the perpetrator of the crime as they did
not actually see him shoot the victims. Appellant also relies on the results of
the paraffin test showing that he was negative of gunpowder nitrates.
The
appeal must fail.
Appellant’s
contention that the witnesses for the prosecution failed to identify him as the
perpetrator of the crime is belied by the testimony of PO William Belmes, who was
with the victims when the incident happened. We quote from the transcripts of
the stenographic notes:
William Belmes on Re-direct Examination
FISCAL
Q. Mr. Witness, when you gave your
statement on
ATTY. YANURIA:
Your Honor, it is misleading, we object, in so far as the shooting of Eddie Quindasan and Winner Agbulos was not seen. He only saw the persons who were firing at him namely: Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito.
COURT:
In his testimony before the court he testified before the court that he saw Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito shot at Eddie Quindasan and Winner Agbulos. Reform the question.
FISCAL
Q. However, you saw these two (2) accused, Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito shoot at you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell the court if how far were these two (2) accused when they were firing at you?
A. Eight (8) meters, sir.
Q. And therefore what time is it when they were firing at you?
A. If I’m not mistaken it was
xxx xxx xxx
William Belmes on cross-examination
ATTY. YANURIA:
Q. In other words, it was you being shot out by Segundino Calpito and Juan Cabbab but you did not see them shoot at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan?
A. I saw Juan Cabbab and Segundino fire at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan (the witness using the word “banat”) and when they already fell down, they continued firing attempt and in my case I rolled and they also fired at me.[11]
The
above testimony adequately showed that Belmes was able to look at and see appellant
at the time he perpetrated the crime. To our mind, Belmes could not have made a
mistake with respect to appellant’s identity, what with the fact that just a
few hours before the incident, it was even appellant himself who invited Belmes
and his group to play poker. For sure, Belmes had a face-to-face encounter with
appellant before the assault and thus would be able to unmistakably recognize
him especially because at the time of the attack, Belmes was just eight (8)
meters away from appellant and conditions of visibility were very good at the
time of the incident as it was only around
Belmes’
testimony was corroborated by that of Vidal Agbulos who was also with
the group when the robbery and shooting took place. Again, we quote from the transcripts
of stenographic notes:
Vidal Agbulos on direct examination
FISCAL
Q. What did you do next when Felipe Abad informed you again that your son was already killed and Eddie Quindasan was injured?
A. Even if he told me about that I just went ahead.
Q. What happened next when he told you that?
A. When I went ahead I saw Juan Cabbab took the wallet from my son.
COURT:
Q. At that time, Winner Agbulos was already prostrate on the ground?
A. Yes, sir, my son was lying on the ground
facing down.[13]
Clearly,
then, Vidal Agbulos positively identified appellant as the person who robbed
his son, Winner, of his winnings. Just like Belmes, Agbulos could also not have
been mistaken as to appellant’s identity considering that it was appellant who
personally approached Agbulos’ group and invited them to play poker just a few
hours prior to the commission of the crime. Further, Agbulos testified that he was
familiar with appellant as he would often see him in a cockpit in
To
be sure, the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe at first
hand the demeanor of witnesses Belmes and Agbulos and asses whether they are
telling the truth or not, gave full faith and credence to their testimonies.
Finding no facts and circumstances of weight and substance that would otherwise
warrant a different conclusion, the Court accords the highest respect to the
trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of these witnesses.
Appellant
likewise capitalizes on the results of the paraffin test showing that both his
hands yielded no trace of gunpowder residue. Unfortunately for appellant, the
results of the paraffin test would not exculpate him. The negative findings of
said test do not conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm at
the time the crime was committed. This Court has observed that it is quite
possible for a person to discharge a firearm and yet exhibit no trace of
nitrates: when, e.g., the assailant
fired the weapon while wearing gloves or where the assailant thoroughly washes
his hands thereafter.[14]
As George de Lara of the NBI stated in his testimony before the trial court, if
a person applies cosmetics on his hands before the cast is taken, gunpowder
residue would not be found in that person’s hands. He also testified that certain
factors could contribute to the negative result of a paraffin test such as
perspiration, humidity or the type of firearm used. In fine, a finding that the
paraffin test on the person of the appellant yielded negative results is not
conclusive evidence to show that he indeed had not fired a gun.
Too,
appellant has not shown any evidence of improper motive on the part of
prosecution witnesses Belmes and Agbulos that would have driven them to falsely
testify against him. In fact, appellant himself declared that he did not know
of any reason why Belmes and Agbulos would implicate him in the crime. Where
there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated
by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness
stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.[15]
Interjected as a defense is alibi, appellant claiming that he went to Palao, Baddek, Bangued, Abra to visit his friends in the morning of April 22, 1988 and returned home only at around 5:30 p.m. For alibi to prosper, however, the hornbook rule requires a showing that the accused was at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[16] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.[17]
Here,
the evidence shows that Palao, Baddek, Bangued, Abra where appellant allegedly
visited his friends was only 30 minutes drive from Barangay Kimmalasag,
The
weakness of appellant’s alibi is heavily underscored by the fact that appellant
was positively identified by witnesses Belmes and Agbulos who were with the
victims at the time of the incident. For sure, appellant’s positive identification
as the perpetrator of the crime renders his defense of alibi unworthy of
credit.[18]
The
crime committed by appellant was correctly characterized by the appellate court
as Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) which reads:
Art. 294. Robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties.— Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against any person shall suffer:
1. 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.
To
warrant conviction for the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution is
burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.[19]
In Robbery with Homicide, so long as
the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or
after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere
accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery,
or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide.[20]
Here,
the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant, having
lost to Winner Agbulos in the game of poker, intended to divest Agbulos of his
winnings amounting to P20,000.00. In pursuit of his plan to rob Agbulos
of his winnings, appellant shot and killed him as well as his companion, Eddie
Quindasan.
The
prescribed penalty for Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the RPC, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law), is reclusion perpetua to death. In the application of a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, like that for Robbery with Homicide,
Article 63 of the RPC provides that “when in the commission of the deed there
is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
applied.” In this case, the aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the
commission of the crime, as appellant’s attack on the victims who were then
unsuspectingly walking on their way home was sudden and done without any provocation,
thus giving them no real chance to defend themselves.
However,
considering that the crime was committed in 1988 or prior to the effectivity of
R.A. No. 7659,[21] the
trial court and the CA correctly imposed upon appellant the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The
Court feels, however, that the two courts below erred in convicting appellant
of the separate crime of attempted murder for the shooting of PO William
Belmes. Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion
of the robbery, as in this case, is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide
which is a special complex crime that remains fundamentally the same regardless
of the number of homicides or injuries committed in connection with the
robbery.[22]
We
now come to the award of damages.
Conformably
with existing jurisprudence, the heirs of Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan
are each entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,[23]
to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[24]
and to exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00.[25]
With
respect to actual damages, Winner’s father, Vidal Agbulos, testified that he
spent a total of P50,000.00 as burial expenses but he failed to present
receipts therefor. In People v. Abrazaldo,[26]
we laid down the doctrine that where the
amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be determined because of
the absence of receipts to prove them, temperate damages may be awarded in the
amount of P25,000.00. Thus, in
lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00
must be awarded to the heirs of Winner because although the exact amount was
not proved with certainty, it was reasonable to expect that they incurred
expenses for the coffin and burial of the victim. We, however, cannot grant the
same to the heirs of Eddie Quindasan for their failure to testify on the
matter. Finally, appellant is obliged to return to the heirs of Winner Agbulos
the amount of P20,000.00 he had taken from Winner.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated
1.
Appellant
Juan Cabbab, Jr. is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
2.
Appellant
is hereby ordered to return to the heirs of Winner Agbulos the amount of P20,000.00
representing the amount stolen from him. He is likewise ordered to indemnify the
heirs of Winner Agbulos the following: (a) P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as
moral damages, (c) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (c) P25,000.00
as temperate damages.
3.
Appellant
is further ordered to pay the heirs of Eddie Quindasan P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity, another P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages.
4.
For
reasons herein stated, appellant is ACQUITTED
of the separate crime of attempted murder against the person of PO William
Belmes.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
(On leave)
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* On leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, with Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-24.
[2] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[3] In our Resolution of
[4] CA Rollo, p. 12.
[5] CA Rollo, pp. 134-154.
[6] CA Rollo, pp. 27-34.
[7] CA Rollo, p. 131.
[8] Supra note 3.
[9] Rollo, p. 29.
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] People
v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756,
[13] TSN,
[14] People
v. Oliano, G.R. No. 119013,
[15] People
v. Benito, G.R. No. 128072,
[16] People
v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599,
[17] People
v. Lopez, G.R. No. 149808,
[18] People
v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 103611,
[19] People
v. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230,
[20] People
v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815,
[21] Approved on
[22] People
v. Cabilto, G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80,
[23] People
v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756,
[24] People
v. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230,
[25] People
v. Werba, G.R. No. 144599,
[26] G.R. No. 124392,