THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROLLY FLORA y CANDELARIA, MAURITO FLORA y
LIM, RAMON FLORA y LIM, AND EREBERTO FLORA y LIM, Appellants. |
|
G. R. No. 181594 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August
28, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
On appeal[1]
is the
Appellants Rolly Flora y Candelaria (Rolly), Maurito Flora y
Lim (Maurito), Ramon Flora y Lim (Ramon) and Ereberto Flora y Lim
(Ereberto) hope for the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision finding them
“guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 x x x”[4]
and sentencing them to suffer the “penalty of reclusion perpetua x x x.”[5]
On
26 July 1999, appellants Rolly, Maurito, “Peter” and “John,” all surnamed Flora,
were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 26, in an
Information,[6]
the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about the 25th
day of July, 1999 at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon at San Vicente,
Canaman, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
while armed with bolos and knives, forcibly barged inside the house occupied by
spouses Luisito and Nenita Esperida and while thereat, with intent of (sic)
gain, by means of violence and intimidation and against the consent of the
owners, take and carry away One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) belonging to
said spouses, to the damage and prejudice of said owners in the said total sum;
that on the occasion of said Robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to
take, steal and carry away the money above mentioned, herein accused, in
pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with evident premeditation, taking advantage of their superior
number and strength, with intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon said LUISITO ESPERIDA, by stabbing said victim and after
he (victim) was already wounded continued hacking and stabbing him and thus,
inflicting upon the victim Luisito Esperida serious and mortal injuries which
were the direct and proximate causes of his death thereafter, to the damage and
prejudice of the heir of the victim.
The
case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-7596.
In an
Amended Information dated
Upon
arraignment, appellants Rolly, Maurito, Ramon and Ereberto, all with assistance
of counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged. During pre-trial,
the identities of appellants Rolly and Ereberto were admitted by both parties. Thereafter, trial ensued, with the prosecution
presenting eight witnesses, namely (1) Nenita
Esperida,[7]
(2) Jason Vargas,[8] (3)
Novie Vargas,[9]
(4) Simeon Buesa,[10]
(5) Domingo Pesico,[11]
(6) Joseph Alto,[12] (7)
Police Officer 3 (PO3) Ernesto Molina,[13]
and (8) Dr. Rhodora Roa-Perez[14]
to establish appellants’ culpability beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.
We cull the following facts from the
records of the case:
From
the testimonies of the witnesses of plaintiff People of the Philippines
(People), the following series of events came to light: Nenita Esperida (Nenita), wife of the victim, Luisito Esperida, recounted
that on 25 July 1999, at around 4:30 in the afternoon in San Vicente, Canaman,
Camarines Sur, while she was inside their house together with her children and
tending their sari-sari store,
appellants Rolly, Maurito, Ramon and Ereberto barged into their dwelling place
demanding money; that Rolly attempted to hack her in order to force her to give
him P1,000.00; that Maurito punched her and demanded more money from
her; that when she could not do so, Ramon grabbed her daughter and threatened
to hack the latter if she did not produce more money; that it was at that time
when her husband Luisito, the victim, arrived and witnessed his family being
threatened; that without any warning, Rolly lunged at the victim and stabbed
the latter on the left portion of his abdomen; that her husband Luisito was
still able to shout, “You have no shame, you robbers,” before he ran out of the
house; that Maurito and Rolly chased her husband, while Ereberto
and Ramon stayed behind and turned the house upside down looking for money;
that appellants were her neighbors, the latter's house being only 10 meters
away; and that they always bought something from her store.
Jason
Vargas (Jason), nephew of the victim, lives 10 meters away, more or less, from
the house of the latter. He narrated
that he knew the four appellants; that on the day of the incident subject of
the case at bar, he was inside his house with his wife Novie and their two
children; that he heard the victim shout, “You shameless people, you robbers”;
that he went out of their back door to see what was going on; that he saw his
uncle come out of his house holding his left side, with Rolly
and Maurito not far behind wielding knives and bolos; that he let the victim
enter his house to seek refuge and tried to keep the assailants at bay by
closing the door, but before he could do so, Maurito hacked
him on his right forearm with the bolo; that although he was able to close and
lock the door, Maurito entered the house from the
window and attempted to stab him; that he and Maurito grappled for the knife, and
Rolly attempted to stab him but he used Maurito as shield; that Rolly
then turned to the victim and hacked the latter on the side of his neck; the
latter, however, was still able to escape from the house through its back door;
and that Ramon and Ereberto, who stood guard outside the front window of the
house, went after the victim; and finally, that he escaped and ran to the next
village to seek the assistance of authorities.
Novie Vargas (Novie),
the wife of Jason, corroborated the testimony of the latter, adding that she
knew the appellants since they lived near each other. She testified that she and her two children
escaped from their house as Jason was closing the front door and preventing Maurito from entering.
The events that transpired after the
victim had left Jason’s house were supplied by the rest of the witnesses of
plaintiff. One such eyewitness is Simeon
Buesa (Simeon), team leader of the barangay (brgy.) tanods
of Brgy. San Vicente, who testified that he
knew the appellants and the victim, all of whom were his neighbors; that around
4:00 p.m. of the day in question, he was at the rice field in front of the
victim’s house gathering “palay” seedlings; that later on, about two meters away from
where he stood, he saw the appellants by the roadside, encircling the victim;
that he then saw Rolly stab the victim in the right
abdominal area with a knife, about a foot in length. Said witness added that he ran to get help,
but when he saw Rolly and Ereberto take off in the other direction,
he changed direction and ran after Rolly. He averred that he eventually got near Rolly
and embraced him, bloodied shirt and all, in an attempt to subdue and apprehend
him until another brgy.
tanod, one
Joseph Alto, provided assistance. He and
Alto brought their captive to Brgy. Capt. Sto. Tomas and, eventually, to the
Canaman police station.
Domingo Pesico
(Domingo), likewise a neighbor of the victim and the appellants, narrated that
at 9:00 a.m. of the day of the incident in question, he shared a bottle of gin
with all the appellants, after which, all four went to the house of one Emerson
San Carlos and repaired the roof of the latter’s house; that at around 4:00
o’clock in the afternoon, he heard a commotion outside his house; that when he
went to the door of his house to see what it was about, he saw all four appellants
brandishing knives and bolos, encircling the victim; that he was just three
arms-length away from the appellants and the victim; that Ramon shouted to him
to stay inside his house if he did not want to get hurt; that he saw Maurito
kick the victim at the back causing the latter to fall in the creek/canal; that
after he heard Maurito order the rest of the appellants to leave the area, as
he would be the one to take care of everything, he saw the said appellant throw
away his bolo in the direction of the creek/canal; that it was at that time
that he (Domingo) decided to go to the victim with the intention of helping him;
that although Maurito appeared to be helping him lift the body of the victim by
pulling at the latter’s left forearm, he noticed that appellant was also
stepping on the former’s shoulder with his right foot; thus, he rebuked Maurito
and told the latter to stop “helping out”; that he then summoned the victim’s
wife Nenita and asked her for something with which to
bind the victim’s abdomen, as the latter’s intestines were already spilling
out. After bandaging the victims gaping
abdominal wound, Simeon Buesa and Eutiquio Buesa arrived and helped him
(Domingo) carry the victim all the way to the RJ Village, where they were met
by Jason Vargas who arrived in an ambulance.
Joseph Alto (Joseph) is a brgy. tanod
of the place where the subject incident took place. He confirmed the testimony of Simon Buesa that he was the one who helped the latter apprehend
Rolly; that Rolly had on a bloodied t-shirt; that he and Buesa
brought the appellant to the Brgy. Captain after which they called the police; and that when the
police came, Rolly was brought to the police station.
The last witness for the prosecution
was Dr. Rhodora Roa-Perez (Dr. Roa-Perez),
Municipal Health Officer of Canaman, Camarines Sur,
testified that she conducted an examination of the victim’s cadaver and
prepared the Medico Legal Findings which contained the autopsy report where it
is stated that the victim died of internal hemorrhage secondary to multiple
stab wounds caused by a sharp bladed instrument.
For its
part, the defense presented an entirely different scenario. Maurito admitted that he was indeed at the
crime scene, but claimed that he was not the perpetrator thereof, stating that
on the day of the incident, he was awakened by a loud commotion coming from
outside his house; that when he went out to see who it was, he saw the victim in
the creek trying to lift himself onto its bank; that the victim was crying out
for help, saying he was injured; that, together with Domingo Pesico, he brought the victim all the way to the RJ Village
where they were met by Jason Vargas and an ambulance; that upon PO3 Molina’s
invitation, he voluntarily proceeded to the police station. Maurito
further testified that the other appellants were not present at the time of the
incident.
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Convicting the accused Rolly Flora y
Candelaria, Maurito Flora y Lim, Ramon Flora y Lim and Ereberto Flora y Lim
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659 and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua;
2. To jointly and severally indemnify the
heirs of Luisito Esperida the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
for the death of Luisito Esperida, funeral and burial expenses in the amount of
P22,701.00 and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
3. To pay the costs without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.[19]
x x x x
x x x x
Accused
Maurito Flora denied any participation or involvement in the offense charged
against him. He claimed that his only participation, if any, was to help
retrieve the body of the victim from the creek and to carry him to the waiting
ambulance x x x Accused merely denied these allegations without presenting any
clear and convincing evidence to support such denials x x x.[20]
The RTC also clarified that the crime committed was
robbery with homicide, reasoning that:
In the instant case, the
testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses Nenita Esperida, and the spouses Jason
and Novie Vargas show that the killing of the deceased took place
simultaneously with robbery. The deceased witnessed that after Nenita handed
the amount of One Thousand Pesos demanded by the accused Rolly Flora while
Maurito Flora was asking for more amount and their other co-accused Ramon and
Ereberto were ransacking the house for more valuables to steal causing him to
get mad and shouted, “You shameless people, you robbers”, (sic) of which Rolly
Flora rushed and attacked the victim. These simultaneous events show accused
intention to both rob and kill the victim and these matters were unrebutted.[21]
In
the end, it concluded that:
As the evidence stand, the
prosecution in the perception of the court, and to any unprejudiced observer
has by clear, strong and convincing evidence, effectively pierced the
constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused Rolly Flora
after he admitted having stabbed and killed Luisito Esperida in self-defense
which he miserably failed to prove. The court therefore finds the accused Rolly
Flora, Maurito Flora, Ramon Flora and Ereberto Flora
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. There being
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code dictates that the lesser penalty, or only reclusion perpetua, be
imposed x x x.[22]
Aggrieved, appellants filed a Notice of Appeal[23] in
due time, and the case was elevated to this Court.
In
view of the penalty imposed by the RTC, and conformably with People v. Mateo,[24]
in a Resolution dated
With
modification, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of appellants in a
Decision dated P50,000.00 representing civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of
the victim and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, the appellate court
awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and P1,000.00
as reparation for the stolen amount. With respect to the actual damages of P22,701.00, however, the latter was reduced to P16,892.00,
because only said amount was supported by the “best obtainable receipts for the
expenses during the wake of the victim x x x as attached to the summary of
expenses.”[26]
The fallo
of the Court of Appeals decision provides:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Decision dated 02 May 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Naga
City, Branch 26 in Crim. Case No. 99-7596
finding appellants Rolly Flora y Candelaria, Maurito Flora y Lim, Ramon Flora y
Lim and Ereberto Flora y Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentencing each of them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that in addition to the amounts of
Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and Php50,000.00 as moral damages which they
should jointly and severally pay the heirs of the victim Luisito Esperida, they
are further ordered to jointly and severally pay the heirs of the victim the
reduced amount of Php16,892.00 as actual damages, Php25,000.00 as temperate
damages, and Php1,000.00 as reparation for the stolen amount.[27]
Appellants judiciously filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals,
which, in a Resolution dated
I.
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE
IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT ROLLY FLORA; and
II.
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS MAURITO, RAMON AND ERIBERTO
FLORA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE.[28]
It is
essentially the contention of appellants that the trial and the appellate
courts erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged despite their claim of a justifying circumstance, i.e., self-defense. They maintain that the prosecution witnesses
failed to prove that the victim did not attack Rolly Flora or that he (victim)
was not utterly defenseless when he was stabbed. Particularly, they argue that:
When
Rolly was pushed and fell to the ground and the deceased attempted to stab him,
x x x, there already exist (sic) an imminent danger
to his life. With the existence of the
threat to his life, the act of Rolly in twisting the right hand of Esperida and
which caused the knife to hit the latter’s stomach appear reasonable (sic)
necessary under the circumstances. Thus,
it was just but natural that to the mind of Rolly Flora, his life was in peril
and that should he decide not to do something to repel the imminent attack, he
will be the one harmed.
As
to the reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression,
there is at least a reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must be given the
accused, and that the self-defense is complete x x x.[29]
They argue
further that the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution were
mottled with inconsistencies and discrepancies that made them insufficient to
establish appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the perpetrators of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In their Brief, they question
the reliability of prosecution witnesses: (1) Simeon Buesa, because he was not
able to witness the actual stabbing of the victim; (2) Jason Vargas, when he
claimed that only Ereberto and Ramon were the ones who ran after the victim, as
Maurito was being detained by him (Jason), contrary
to Buesa’s statement that Maurito was present when the victim was stabbed by
his co-appellant Rolly; and (3) Dr. Rhodora Roa-Perez, though she averred that “it
was possible that the wounds sustained by the victim could have been inflicted
by more than one instrument,” but she contradicted her own conclusion when she
likewise stated that it was possible that the first and second wound were
caused by only one instrument although the strength used was different.[30]
In view of the foregoing, they construe
that:
The
fact that the people who were supposedly present at the scene of the crime
could not agree as to the simple details relating to the incident on the night
in question inevitably casts doubt on their credibility.[31]
Anent the
assigned error respecting the supposed innocence of appellants Ramon, Maurito
and Ereberto, they insist that:
The
admission by accused-appellant Rolly Flora should
prevail over the testimony of the prosecution witnesses considering that the
said admission is more credible and consistent with human nature.[32]
considering
that:
No
one in his right mind would readily admit to a criminal act and exculpate his
co-perpetrators with such serious repercussions to the former, if all of them
had really participated in the commission of the crime. If all of the appellants
indeed participated in the killing of Esperida, as alleged by the prosecution
witnesses, the natural reaction of the one who confessed to the crime would be
to reveal his co-perpetrators.[33]
All told, appellants,
thus, assert that the significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the
witnesses of the prosecution showing them to be the perpetrators of the crime
charged are tantamount to reasonable doubt respecting their legal culpability thereto.
And there being reasonable doubt, their constitutionally
guaranteed right to be presumed innocent was not overcome.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the People of the Philippines, on the other
hand, asserts that the alleged conflicting points in the testimony of the
witnesses of the prosecution are but trivial in nature and do not depart from
the fact that appellants were positively identified as the authors of the crime
charged. In defense of Simeon Buesa’s testimony, the OSG points out that
“[a]ppellants failed to adduce any proof of malice or ill-motive on the part of
Simeon to pinpoint and falsely implicate them as the assailants of the victim.”[34]
With respect to Jason Vargas, it
rationalized that “[t]he purpose of Jason in testifying at (sic) this case
cannot be doubted. It is natural for him to seek the vindication of his right
and those of this (sic) family as they were aggrieved by the appellants. It is not in accord with human experience that
he who was a victim would impute such a grievous act on somebody other than the
real culprits.”[35]
The OSG then reminds that:
Finely embedded in our jurisprudence is
the rule that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and
without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eye-witnesses testifying
in the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by
clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving
of weight in law.[36]
The justifying circumstance of self-defense raised by appellants
is lightly brushed aside by the OSG reasoning that:
In the case at bar five (5) prosecution eyewitnesses
in the persons of Nenita Esperida, spouses Jason and Novie Vargas, Simeon Buesa
and Domingo Pesico testified in a straightforward, clear and categorical manner
that Luisito was unarmed and utterly defenseless when he was simultaneously
assaulted by the appellants and fatally stabbed by Rolly, thereby showing that
the victim could not have been the unlawful aggressor immediately prior to the
concerted attack and fatal stabbing x x x.[37]
The OSG then concludes that:
All these, plus the lack
of any corroborating testimony on the part of any independent witness for the
defense duly supported with the evidence on record or physical evidence, weaken
appellant Rolly’s claim of self-defense.[38]
Considering the preceding
arguments and counter-arguments, the threshold issue in this case, therefore,
is whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of defendents-appellants
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide on
the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses.
The appeal has no merit. This Court is convinced that appellants are
all equally guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
In criminal law, it is settled
that when the killing is admitted and self-defense is invoked, the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused to show that the result (killing) was legally
justified. Otherwise stated, the accused
assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing
evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed
the victim.[39]
In the case at bar, having owned up to
the killing of the victim, the accused should be able to prove the elements of
self-defense in order to avail himself of this
justifying circumstance; and he must discharge this burden by clear and
convincing evidence.
For self-defense to be
appreciated, it is required that there be: (1) an unlawful aggression by the
victim injured or killed by the accused; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. And all the foregoing conditions must concur.[40]
Herein, the
RTC and the Court of Appeals were both correct when they held that the
justifying circumstance of self-defense was baselessly invoked by appellant
Rolly. The latter failed to
discharge the burden of proving this justifiable circumstance. His claim that the victim initiated the fracas
with his unlawful act of trying to stab the former is specious at best. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual,
sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person – a
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.[41] But
whether or not Rolly, indeed, acted in self-defense is a question of fact;[42] the well-entrenched rule
is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility
of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on
appeal, by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive
effect, by the Court; and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate
from the said findings.[43]
The RTC gave no credence and
probative value to the evidence proffered by appellants to prove that Rolly
acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victim; and that the rest (Ramon,
Maurito and Ereberto) had no actual participation in said act. All of them failed to establish that the RTC
and Court of Appeals misconstrued or ignored facts and circumstances of
substance which, if considered, would have warranted a reversal of the guilty
verdict of the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court.
Contrary to the claim of appellants,
the prosecution witnesses clearly and positively established the factual
backdrop leading to the stabbing of the victim. That there existed no unlawful aggression is
evident from the facts of the case – the victim, after arriving at his
residence, was caught unaware of the crime being committed inside his house and,
after sustaining a stab wound on his abdomen, ran away from appellants. Luisito Esperida was never an aggressor; from the time he was
attacked inside his residence until he ended up at the creek, he was a victim. There can be
no self-defense unless the accused proves unlawful aggression. Considering that
the element of unlawful aggression is absent, there is no use discussing
whether or not the other elements – the reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the unlawful aggression and the lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending him – have been adequately
proved.
Accordingly, having set aside the claim of
self-defense, we now come to the crime alleged to have been committed by appellants,
that is, the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, reads:
ART.
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
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.
x x x x.
To warrant the conviction of appellants
for said charge, the prosecution was burdened to prove the confluence of the
following essential elements:
(a) the taking of personal property with the
use of violence or intimidation against a person;
(b)
the property thus taken belongs to another;
(c)
the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
(d)
on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the
crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.[44]
In this case, the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that appellants conspired and confabulated with each other in
robbing the victim and his wife, Nenita Esperida, of money, at least; and in
killing the victim, in the face of the clear and positive identification of appellants
as the perpetrators.
Maurito and Ramon’s defense of alibi and
denial, like Rolly’s justification of self-defense, are
unavailing and worthless. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses,[45]
and it is not at all persuasive in the instant case when pitted against the
positive and convincing identification by all the witnesses of the prosecution.[46] Here,
the defense of alibi and denial, i.e.,
Maurito’s plea that he was asleep from the time prior to seeing the victim struggling at
the creek; and Ramon’s argument that he was at Bagumbayan Norte, Naga City, to
buy nails, do not evince credible exculpation. We quote with approval the
appellate court’s pronouncement rejecting Maurito and Ramon’s excuses, viz:
The time-tested rule is
that alibi cannot prevail over the positive assertions of prosecution
witnesses, more so in this case where appellant failed to prove that he was at
another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene (citation omitted). for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove
not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed
but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the alleged
crime. 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. Furthermore,
appellant’s denial fails in the light of the positive identification and
declarations of the prosecution witnesses. The positive identification of an
accused by eyewitnesses prevails over the defenses of denial of alibi and
denial. Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on
account of the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his
defense. Being evidence that is negative in nature and self-serving, they
cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
who testify on clear and positive evidence (citation omitted).[47]
It is noted that Rolly and Maurito
acknowledged being at the crime scene.[48] They
have not shown the impossibility of their committing the bestial deed although they
were allegedly in another place at some point, given the distance of their
supposed whereabouts from the scene of the crime. Equally unimpressed with the
alibi and denial of appellants, the trial court held that:
Again, the accused
miserably failed to discharge this burden. On the witness stand, Ramon Flora
testified that his house is merely 25 meters away from Esperida’s residence
(tsn,
In the case at bar, we are satisfied that the
witnesses of the prosecution, eyewitnesses to the events that transpired on the
fateful day, have positively identified appellants as the malefactors. We do
not believe that they could have fabricated their charges and testimonies by
weaving or inventing a tale purely out of mere imagination. Though not one of
them was able to witness the entire event – from the time appellants barged
into the house of the victim, until the latter ended up at the creek with a
gaping wound in his abdomen – but each of them positively narrated that he/she
witnessed appellants attacking and/or pursuing the victim; and, when put
together, each testimony interlocked with the others like pieces of a puzzle to
form one whole picture. Taken seriatim,
but evaluated as one, the testimonies would rival a celluloid version, had one
been actually recorded. Neither do we think that their testimonies were
anything but spontaneous and brought forth only from what they saw the victim
actually endured from the hands of appellants. Like the trial court and the appellate
court, this Court finds no reason to be suspicious of the testimonies of the
witnesses of the prosecution. The testimonies, appreciated in whole, are more
than candid and definitive enough to sustain conviction of the appellants.
Well-settled is the legal principle that a
categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of
ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails
over alibi and denial.[50]
The defenses of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration when the
prosecution has strong and convincing evidence identifying appellants as the
perpetrators.
Appellants’ asseveration respecting the supposed
inconsistencies in the testimonies of Simeon Buesa
and Jason Vargas are tenuous. While it is true that there are inconsistencies
in the narration of facts of some of the witnesses for the prosecution, to our
mind, such do not detract from its basic truthfulness or reliability. The
supposed inconsistencies are more apparent than real and refer, at most, only
to insignificant or trivial details and do not impinge on the positive
identification of appellants. The foregoing bear no materiality to the commission
of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide with which appellants
have been charged and of which they have been convicted. As pointed out by the OSG, the seeming
inconsistencies were but minor lapses that could not detract from the value of the
evidence given by a disinterested person and the overwhelming logic that a
person, nay, a victim, would not impute
a grievous act on somebody other than the real perpetrator or culprit.
As to the damages awarded by the Court of
Appeals, however, this Court finds that a modification needs to be made. It is
our obligation to correct said error, albeit not assigned as such, as may be
found in the judgment appealed from, since an appeal in a criminal case throws
the whole case wide open for review.[51]
This Court notes that the RTC awarded the
heirs of the victim actual damages in the amount of P22,701.00. The Court of Appeals modified the amount to P16,892.00
for the reason that only such amount was supported by the “best obtainable
receipts for the expenses during the wake of the victim x x
x.” But considering that the heirs of the victim have
already been awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, we
delete the amount of P16,892.00 representing actual damages. As we have
ruled in People v. Werba,[52]
citing People v. Villanueva,[53]
in instances where actual expenses amounting to less than P25,000.00 are
proved during trial, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is
justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[54]
WHEREFORE, in light of
the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P16,892.00 as actual damages is deleted in
view of the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Appellants Rolly Flora y Candelaria, Maurito
Flora y Lim, Ramon Flora y Lim and Ereberto Flora y Lim
are hereby found GUILTY of
the special complex crime of ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE and are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua and are ordered to pay
the heirs of Luisito Esperida, jointly and severally,
the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P1,000.00 as
reparation for the amount stolen by appellants. Costs de
oficio.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RUBEN T. REYES 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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
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’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Pursuant to Section 13 (c) of Rule
124 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC; in a Resolution
dated 16 November 2007, the Court of Appeals gave due course to the appellants’
Notice of Appeal.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Celia
C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Sixto C.
Marella, Jr., concurring; CA rollo,
pp. 239-280.
[3] Penned by Hon. Filemon B.
Montenegro, Presiding Judge, RTC Naga City, Branch 26; CA rollo, pp. 35-46.
[4] Rollo, p. 42.
[5]
[6] CA rollo, pp.
10-11.
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] CA rollo, p. 46.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[25] CA rollo, pp. 123-124.
[26] Rollo, p. 42.
[27]
[28] CA rollo, p. 74.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] People v. Tagana, 468 Phil. 784, 800-801 (2004).
[40]
[41]
[42] People v. De los
Reyes, G.R. No. 140680,
[43] Rugas v. People, 464 Phil. 493, 504 (2004).
[44] People v. Gamo, 351 Phil. 944, 953-954 (1998).
[45] People
v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76,
[46] People v. Isla, Jr., 432 Phil. 414, 431 (2002).
[47] Rollo, p. 32.
[48] TSN of
[49] CA rollo, p. 43.
[50] People
v. Suarez, supra note 45 at 349.
[51] Ferrer v. People, G.R. No.
143487,
[52] G.R. No. 144599,
[53] 456 Phil. 14, 28-29 (2003).
[54] People v. Werba, supra 52 at 499-500.