THIRD
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-appellee, - versus
- TEODULO VILLANUEVA, JR., Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187152 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: July 22, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the Decision[1]
dated 30 September 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02540,
entitled People of the Philippines v. Teodulo
Villanueva, Jr. y Declaro, affirming the Decision[2]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 159, in Criminal Case No. 124834-H (I.S. No. TGG
02-13384), finding accused-appellant Teodulo Villanueva, Jr. y Declaro guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
In
an Amended Information[3] filed
with Branch 159 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, appellant Teodulo
Villanueva, Jr. y Declaro, accused Joel “Alog” Reyes alias “Puppet,” Russel San
Marcos Pasangco alias “Ortego,” and Kokak San Marcos Pasangco were charged with
Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Section 5(A
and J) of Republic Act No. 8369.
The
Information charging accused-appellant reads:
AMENDED INFORMATION
That on or about the 6th day of December 2002 in the Municipality of XXX, XXX, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with one John Doe @ “Abet” whose true name, identity and present whereabout [sic] is still unknown, after effecting an unlawful entry into the dwelling of one AAA,[4] with the use of deadly bladed weapons, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and divest the following items to wit:
Four (4) Gold Necklaces
Three (3) Women’s Gold Necklaces
Three (3) Men’s Gold Bracelets
Three (3) Assorted Gold Rings
all valued at Php 82,000.00, all belonging to said AAA and one (1) 5210 cellphone worth Php 8,000.00 belonging to one BBB, all in the total amount of Php 90,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the owners thereof in the aforementioned amount of Php 90,000.00;
That by reason and on the occasion of the Robbery, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with each other, with intent to kill and with the use of said deadly weapons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with said deadly weapons CCC, eleven (11) years of age, BBB, sixteen (16) years of age, and DDD, fifteen (15) years of age, all minors at the time of the commission of the offense, hitting them on the different parts of their bodies, thereby inflicting upon the victim CCC mortal stab wounds which directly caused his death; and serious physical injuries to victims BBB and DDD, thus, the accused performed all the acts of execution which would have caused their deaths as a consequence, but did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, due to the timely able medical assistance rendered to said BBB and DDD, which prevented their death, the said crimes having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and superior strength, aggravated by the circumstances of unlawful entry and dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of the victims and their heirs;
That, further, by reason or on the occasion of the said Robbery, the above-named accused Joel Alog Reyes @ Puppet, in the presence and in conspiracy with his co-accused and of one another by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs and intent to cause or gratify his sexual desire, abuse, humiliate and degrade BBB, sixteen (16) years of age, a minor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit lascivious conduct, a form of sexual abuse, upon said BBB, by then and there, trying to remove her underwear, against her will and consent, thus constituting child abuse, which acts debase, degrade or demean her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, thus aggravating further the crime of robbery with homicide.[5]
At
the arraignment on P50,000.00) Pesos arising from the death of
the victim, DDD.
The
trial court issued a warrant of arrest against Kokak San Marcos and John Doe
alias “Abet,” and ordering the revival of the case against them upon arrest.
Russel San Marcos Pasangco alias “Ortego,” detained in the Bureau of
Corrections in Muntinlupa since
Pre-trial conference was held and
terminated on
(a) Whether or not the accused Teodulo Villanueva, Jr. in conspiracy with the accused Joel Alog [Reyes], who had been previously convicted, committed the acts constituting robbery with homicide in relation to Section 5 (a & j) of Republic Act No. 8369; and
(b) Whether or not the private complainant is entitled to damages.[7]
After
pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. The
prosecution presented the following witnesses: BBB (17 years old), DDD (16
years old), Dr. Roberto Garcia (62 years old), Police Officer 2 Ehron Balauat
(32 years old), Dr. Paul Ed dela Cruz Ortiz (35 years old, Medico-Legal
Officer), and AAA (45 years old, mother of the victims). The Office of the Solicitor General summarized
the version of the prosecution as follows:
Between
the hours of P90,000.00. A few
minutes thereafter, BBB, who was sleeping in the living room with her brother CCC,
was awakened when she felt a pillow pressed upon her face. Afterwards, somebody pulled down her shorts. BBB resisted. She was then stabbed at the back three times. BBB forced herself to stand up and saw Joel in
front of her. BBB also saw
accused-appellant standing near their dining table. BBB shouted. Thereafter, BBB saw accused-appellant holding
his brother CCC.[9] Upon hearing his sister’s cries for help, DDD
went out of his room to see what was happening. He saw CCC lying down bleeding with stab
wounds. BBB then ran to DDD’s room and
opened the room’s window and shouted for help. Meanwhile, DDD, who ran to the living room,
was also stabbed by Joel Alog Reyes.[10] BBB’s cries for help were heard by her Uncle
Boy, who immediately went to their house. Her grandmother and mother also arrived a
little later. CCC was initially brought
to the
Both
BBB and DDD were given medical assistance by Dr. Roberto Garcia, who found that
BBB suffered four stab wounds: first, at the left side at her back; second, at
the right side at her back; third, at her elbow; and fourth, at her left
forearm. According to Dr. Garcia,
without the timely medical attention, the wounds would have caused her to bleed
profusely leading to her death.[11] With respect to DDD, Dr. Garcia found that he
suffered two stab wounds: first, at the left side of his back; second, at his
left thigh. Without timely medical
attention, the same would have resulted in DDD’s death due to bleeding.
Accused-appellant Teodulo Villanueva,
Jr. denied the accusations against him, with the defense presenting him (24
years old), his co-accused Joel Alog Reyes, and Omar Villanueva (32 years old)
as witnesses.
The defense witnesses narrated their
version in this manner:
On 6 December 2002, around 7:30
o’clock in the morning, accused-appellant Teodulo Villanueva was at home
sleeping when all of a sudden, his brother woke him up to tell him that their barangay officials wanted to see him. Accused-appellant was then invited to the barangay hall to answer some questions
regarding the stabbing incident that occurred that morning. By
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused Teodulo Villanueva, Jr.
y Declaro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide
and the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to further indemnify the heirs of CCC the amount of P75,000 as civil
indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary
damages. He is further ordered to return to AAA the items he and his co-accused
had stolen from her or in restitution, to pay the amount of P90,000
representing the total value of the stolen items as charged in the information.
Let a warrant of arrest against Kokak San Marcos and John Doe alias “Abet” be issued. The case against them is hereby ARCHIVED to be revived upon their arrest. Upon the other hand, considering that Russel San Marcos Pasangco alias “Ortego” was already detained in the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City since June 28, 2003 as per certification issued by Juanito S. Leopando, PHD, Penal Superintendent IV dated January 17, 2006 the case against him is hereby REVIVED and ordered to re-raffle pursuant to A.M. No. 02-11-17-SC.[14]
Accused-appellant
filed a Notice of Appeal. In his appeal to the Court of Appeals,
accused-appellant questioned the RTC conviction, claiming that the prosecution
failed to establish his guilt as a conspirator beyond reasonable doubt. The defense argues that the inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the victims BBB and of her brother DDD cast serious doubt on
the credibility of their identification of accused-appellant.
On
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.[15]
In his
brief, accused-appellant ascribes to the trial court the lone error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN PRONOUNCING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT AS A CONSPIRATOR BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The petition fails.
Accused-appellant is charged with
Robbery with Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code:
Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. the penalty of, from reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed;
Our criminal justice system takes the
stand that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to discharge that burden, the
accused need not present any evidence. From
the foregoing, the prosecution must be able to establish the essential elements
of robbery with homicide, to wit: (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 by animo
lucrandi; and (d) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.[16]
The evidence on record shows that on P82,000.00; one Nokia 5210 cellphone worth P8,000.00,
totaling P90,000.00.
The accounts of the witnesses
indicate that the accused went to the victims’ residence with robbery in mind. The robbery took place between
Accused-appellant raises the defense
of alibi and maintains the absence of conspiracy. He denies being at the scene of the crime and
asserts that he was sleeping at home at the time the crime happened. He further claims that presence at the crime
scene is, per se, not a sufficient
indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common
design.
For alibi to prosper, it must
strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at
the time the crime was committed.[17] In this case, the alibi of accused-appellant
is not airtight. The distance between the
house of accused-appellant and the house of the victims, where the crime
occurred, can be negotiated in a few minutes’ walk. Moreover, the crime happened between
Accused-appellant attempts to impugn
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by accusing them of
inconsistencies in their testimonies in court vis-a-vis their statements in the affidavits. Casting doubt on the credibility of the
witnesses, the defense alleges that the affidavits of the prosecution’s two
primary witnesses, BBB and DDD, point to the presence of only one assailant,
who was already positively identified by BBB as Joel Alog Reyes.
According to the defense, the court
testimonies of BBB and DDD are inconsistent with their affidavits. In narrating
the events, BBB testified:
Q Now, when you saw Joel Alog Reyes alias Puppet inside the Sala, what did you do, if you did anything?
A I shouted.
Q Aside from Joel Alog Reyes and your brother, was there any other person inside the Sala other than them?
A There was.
Q And what was he doing at that time?
A That person was standing near the dining table.
Q Was that the first time you saw that person you saw standing near the dining table?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q If you see him again, will you be able to identify him?
A Yes, ma’am.
Court Interpreter –
Witness pointing to a man on the right side of the courtroom, seated on the middle of the two other persons wearing yellow t-shirt with marking Levis Jeans, who answered by the name of Teodulo Villanueva.
Pros. Sagun -
Q What else did Joel Alog do with you, if he did anything?
A No more because when I shouted, my brother RJ came out of his room.
Q By the way, who stabbed you at the back?
A It was Puppet, ma’am.
Q And while you were being stabbed by Puppet, what was Teodulo Villanueva doing at that time?
A I do not know what was he doing because there was a pillow covered on my face. When I stood up, that is the only time I saw him.
Q And at that time you were not yet stabbed when you stood up and the pillow was removed from your face?
A I was already.
Court –
The pillow was already on your face, when you were stabbed?
A Even before I was stabbed, the pillow was already on my face.
Pros. Sagun –
Q You said that you shouted and your brother came into the Sala, right?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q What happened after that?
A I ran to the room.
Pros. Sagun –
Q And what did you do inside the room?
A I opened the window and begun shouting?
Q And after that, after you shouted, what happened?
A I saw my uncles coming to our house.
Q And can you tell us the name of your uncle who went to your house?
A Tito Boy and Mac-Mac, the spouse of my cousin.
Court –
What happened as you have said earlier your brother came out, what happened?
A He was also stabbed by Puppet.
Pros. Sagun –
Q And this Puppet is one of the accused here?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q After he was stabbed, what happened next?
A I did not know what happened anymore because I was already inside the room.
Q And you said that this Teodulo Villanueva was also at the place or at the room where you were stabbed, right?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q What was he doing when your brother was stabbed by Joel Reyes?
A He was holding one of my brothers.
Q What is the name of your brother?
A
Q And this brother of yours held by Teodulo Villanueva is the one at the time with you before your other brother came into the room, right?
A No, ma’am, I was with him in the Sala.
Q And who was sleeping with you, right?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q And what happened to
A I do not know what happened.
Q Because you were already at that time entered the room and shouted for help?
A Yes, ma’am.[18]
Atty. Lim –
From the time the pillow was removed on your face, how long did it take you to get inside the room of your younger brother DDD? How long or how fast?
A A minute.
Q So, it took about one minute from the time you woke up knowing that there was somebody putting pillow or put a pillow on your face up to the time you enter the room and locked it, it took you about two minutes, more or less?
A Siguro po.
Q What do you mean by “siguro”?
A Hindi ko naman po nao-orasan yun.
Q But it could be approximately correct looking back?
A Yes, sir.
Q You lock the door and DDD and Jordan were left inside the sala?
A Yes, sir.
Q From the time you locked the door, you do not know what is happening?
A Yes, sir.
Q You don’t know what happened to DDD and CCC?
A Yes, sir.
Atty. Lim –
Q You did not even see that they were stabbed, you only know that they were stabbed when you came out of the room and persons arriving thereat, is that correct?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Could you please tell us, from the time you entered the room at about approximately what time did the first person to help you arrive in the house?
A I do not know, sir.
Q Who was the first person who arrived to give you help?
A I do not know, sir, who arrived first.
Q How long did you stay in the room before going out of the room?
A About two minutes, sir.
Q What happened when you went out after two minutes?
A I saw DDD, my tita and Mac-Mac.
Q A while ago you were asked by the Honorable Prosecutor regarding the fact of stabbing of DDD, your younger brother, you said that prior to your entering the room you said you saw Joel Alog stabbing him, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
Atty. Lim –
Q But that is not correct, isn’t it, because also upon my questioning, you said that you never saw the stabbing of DDD by Joel Alog, isn’t it?[19]
Atty. Lim –
I think there was a hanging question, Your Honor.
Q “Q – A while ago you were asked by the Honorable Prosecutor regarding the fact of stabbing of DDD, your younger brother, you said that prior to your entering the room you said you saw Joel Along stabbing him, isn’t it? Your answer was, “Yes, sir.” “My question is but that is not correct, isn’t it, because also upon my questioning, you said that you never saw the stabbing of DDD by Joel Alog, isn’t it?
A No, sir.
Q You also stated that you saw accused Teodulo Villanueva near the table merely standing there during the direct-examination, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
Q But the truth of the matter Miss Witness is, it is also not the truth because Teodulo Villanueva was never in the place or was never in that house of yours where the incident allegedly happened on December 2002, isn’t it?
Prosec. Yson -
Already answered, Your Honor.
Court:
Already answered.
Atty. Lim -
I am confronting her with her testimony. To test her accuracy, Your Honor.
Court:
Already answered. She said that she was.
Atty. Lim -
That was on the direct-examination, Your Honor.
Prosec. Yson -
She answered again, yes.
Atty. Lim -
I never heard her answer.
Prosec. Yson -
It is on the record, she said yes.
A She was there, sir.
Atty. Lim –
Q Do you know that if you tell a lie and you are caught lying you could be prosecuted?
Court:
That was not necessary. She knows.
Atty. Lim –
I am trying to find out conclusively whether she knows.
Court:
There is no basis for such manifestation.
Atty. Lim –
Your Honor, my client’s life at least forty years will be wasted. I do not see any reason why I could not ask that.
Court:
Because there is no basis for making such a statement. She has been answering all the questions. Answer the question.
A Yes, sir.[20]
BBB’s statement in her affidavit states:
Tanong: May iba ka pa bang taong nakita sa loob ng bahay ninyo na hindi nakatira sa inyo ng mangyari ang nasabi mong insidente?
Sagot: Wala na po.[21]
The Court is aware of the general
rule that if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony
of a witness, the latter should be given more weight since affidavits being
taken ex parte are usually incomplete
and inaccurate. The Court likewise
subscribes to the doctrine that where the discrepancies are irreconcilable and
unexplained and they dwell on material points, such inconsistencies necessarily
discredit the veracity of the witness’ claim.[22] Indeed, the certainty as to the presence of the
accused in the crime scene and eyewitness identification are not just trivial
matters but constitute vital evidence, which in most cases are determinative of
the success or failure of the prosecution. The inconsistency concerned cannot simply be
brushed aside. Although the general rule
is that contradictions between a witness’s statements in an affidavit and his
testimony do not necessarily discredit him.
Where the purported inconsistency concerns points of importance, the
same cannot simply be ascribed to failure to remember, for which reason the
witness’s credibility becomes suspect.[23]
Corollary to this point, where any
inconsistency has been sufficiently explained and stands the rigorous tests of
direct and cross-examination, such will not discredit the credibility of the
witness, as in this case. Judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much
more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements. When asked why she said “wala na po” to the question propounded above, BBB explained that
she was in a confused state of mind at the time her affidavit was taken, and
that she was worried about the condition of her two brothers who were stabbed. It is also clear that her statement was taken
right after the incident, when she was undergoing treatment for her stabbing.
The alleged inconsistencies between the
statements of DDD in his affidavit and those in court, however, are more
imagined than real. In its maneuvering to engender doubt as to
accused-appellant’s presence at the crime scene, the defense harps on the fact
that the witness never indicated in his affidavit that there were other male
persons involved in the crime, as may be gleaned from the following:
Q You never
mentioned to the police investigator investigating the case and taking your
statement that there were many other male persons who participated in this
crime, isn’t it?
A Hindi po kasi gulong-gulo po ang isip ko
noong panahon iyon.[24]
This statement is in no way
inconsistent with DDD’s testimony in identifying accused-appellant as one of
the perpetrators of the crime; such statement does not exclude him as an
assailant. Moreover, the failure to
include him as a suspect in the affidavit was explained in the witness’ answer
to the query, saying that he was in a confused state of mind at that time. The alleged inconsistency, if at all, does not
detract from his credibility. That DDD
saw accused-appellant at the crime scene is clear.
Even if the testimony of BBB linking
accused-appellant to the crime were to be disregarded, the testimony of a
single witness, such as DDD, if found convincing and trustworthy by the trial
court, is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On this point, we see no reason to deviate
from the trial court’s observation that his testimony bore the attributes of
truth and was delivered in a candid and straightforward manner, thus:
Q You
mentioned Mr. Witness that there were male persons who suddenly left after you
were stabbed by alias Puppet. Please look around the courtroom and tell us if
you can recall any of those male persons whom you saw inside your house that
morning and who left after you were stabbed by alias Puppet?
A There is,
ma’am.
Q How many are
they in the courtroom whom you can recognize?
A Only one,
ma’am.
Q Can you
please point to that person?
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to a person on the edge of the bench at the right side of this courtroom wearing yellow t-shirt, blue denim pants and black slippers who answered by the name of Villanueva, Teodulo.
Prosec. Paulino:
Let it be placed on record that the witness has identified in open court accused Teodulo Villanueva.
Q You said Mr. Witness that you recognized Teodulo Villanueva as one of the male persons whom you see inside your house that morning. Where was he when you saw him?
A I saw him in the living room or sala, ma’am.
Q Doing what
Mr. Witness?
A I cannot
recall, ma’am.
Q Can you
please describe to us Mr. Witness the condition or the appearance of your
living room that morning when you went out of the room, if you can recall?
A It was in
disarray, ma’am.
Q And then you
mentioned to me your siblings CCC, EEE and BBB. When you went out of your room,
if you can recall, what was their condition and their appearance at that time
Mr. Witness?
A When I went
out of the room, as I have said, I saw CCC bloodied; my Ate BBB went inside my
room; and Ate EEE was upstairs.
Q How did you
know then Mr. Witness that Ate EEE was upstairs at that time?
A Because she
sleeps upstairs, ma’am.
Q After these
male persons left the house Mr. Witness, what happened?
A My uncle
arrived.[25]
.
Finally, findings of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage
of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. And when his findings have been affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this
Court.[26] Significantly, accused-appellant has not
imputed any ill motive to the prosecution witnesses for testifying against him.
Absent any evidence to show a doubtful
reason or an improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify against
the accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, the said testimony is
trustworthy and should be accorded full faith and credit.
In sum, the defense of alibi must
fail, especially in light of the fact that two of the prosecution witnesses, BBB
and DDD, positively identified accused-appellant as one of the malefactors of
the crime. Positive identification,
where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the
part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and
denial. These defenses, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving
evidence undeserving of weight in law.[27]
As to accused-appellant’s allegation
that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, we find otherwise. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of
the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime suggesting
concerted action and unity of purpose among them. For this purpose, overt acts of the accused
may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or
implement the conspiracy.
Indeed, jurisprudence dictates that
mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not,
by itself, sufficient to establish conspiracy at the time of its commission,
but it is enough that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective.[28] Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind as
it involves the meeting of the minds and intent of the malefactors. The existence of the assent of minds of the
co-conspirators may be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which,
taken together, indicate that they are parts of the complete plan to commit the
crime.
Accused-appellant’s presence inside
the house of the victims does not appear to be a coincidence nor seems to be an
innocent act. Being a stranger, he had
no business in the house of the victims. To recall, one of the victims, BBB, testified
to seeing him holding her younger brother before he was stabbed by co-accused
Joel Alog Reyes. The other eyewitness, DDD,
saw accused-appellant in the sala while everything was in disarray. The next instant, accused-appellant was no
longer in the premises. In fact, even accused-appellant’s
behavior during and after the incident could hardly be described as innocent.
If accused-appellant was not
in conspiracy with the others in committing the robbery with homicide, he would
not have fled the vicinity with the loot and leave the three minors knowing
they were wounded and helpless from the stabbings. In fact, accused-appellant went straight home
without giving any aid to the victims or calling for help for them.
Since conspiracy was established, it
matters not who among the accused actually shot and killed the victim. The concerted manner in which
accused-apellant and his companions perpetrated the crime showed beyond
reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. When a homicide takes place by reason or on
the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually
participated in the killing, unless there is proof that they had endeavored to
prevent the killing.[29] No proof was adduced that accused-appellant
sought to avert the killing. Thus,
regardless of the acts individually performed by accused-appellant and his
co-accused, and applying the basic principle in conspiracy that the “act of one
is the act of all,” accused-appellant is guilty as a co-conspirator. Being co-conspirators, the criminal
liabilities of the accused are one and the same.
The crime committed was Robbery with
Homicide, a single indivisible crime punishable by Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code. Under Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code, when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
of the robbery, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua to death.
Treachery, as correctly found by the
trial court, attended the killing of the victim CCC. Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code
provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that
tend directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Anlayzing the events unfolding that day, the
evidence on record points out that CCC was stabbed on his back and was unable
to defend himself. The presence of alevosia, though, should not result in
qualifying the offense to murder. The
correct rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating
circumstance, robbery with homicide being a composite crime with its own
definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. The generic aggravating circumstance of
treachery attending the killing of the victim qualifies the imposition of the
death penalty on accused-appellant.
However, in the case at bar, the
imposable penalty for accused-appellant is still reclusion perpetua, in view of Republic Act 9346,[30]
enacted on
As to the award of damages, we have
held that if the robbery with homicide is perpetrated with any of the attending
qualifying aggravating circumstances that require the imposition of the death
penalty, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00.[31] The existence of one aggravating circumstance
merits the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[32] Thus, the award of exemplary damages to the
heirs of CCC is proper. Consistent with
recent rulings of this Court, however, the award of exemplary damages is
increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. In line with prevailing jurisprudence and the
testimony of AAA, we modify the award of moral damages and increase the award from
P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Furthermore,
accused-appellant is ordered to return to AAA and BBB the subject items stolen
from them; or, if the return is no longer possible, the total amount of P90,000.00,
which is the equivalent value of all the items taken by accused-appellant and
his co-accused.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED
and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED,
with the following modifications: (1)
the award of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00;
and (2) the award of moral damages is likewise increased from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate 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] Penned
by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Mariflor
Punzalan Castillo and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 2-9.
[2] Records,
pp. 212-227.
[3]
[4] AAA
is the mother of the victims, BBB, CCC, and DDD, who were all minors at the
time of the commission of the crime. In view of the legal mandate on the utmost
confidentiality of proceedings involving violence against women and children
set forth in Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as,
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and Section 40 of
A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as, Rule on Violence Against Women and Their
children effective November 15, 2004, the names of the minor victims should
appear as “AAA,” “BBB,” “CCC,” and so on. Addresses shall appear as “XXX” as in
“No.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] Records,
pp. 212-227.
[14]
[15] CA rollo, p. 107.
[16] People v. Guimba, 441 Phil. 362, 375 (2002).
[17] People v. Pagsanjan, 442 Phil. 667, 686
(2002).
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] Records.
p. 15.
[22] People v. Aniscal, G.R. No. 103395,
[23] People v. Alvarado, 312 Phil. 552, 563
(1995).
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] Salvatierra, Sr. v. People, 416
Phil. 544 (2001).
[27] People v. Arellano, 390 Phil. 273, 286 (2000).
[28] People v.
Dural, G.R. No. 84921,
[29] People v. Reyes, 369 Phil. 61, 80 (1999).
[30] An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the
[31] People v. Sambrano, 446 Phil. 145, 161 (2003).
[32] People v. Cando, 398 Phil. 225, 241 (2000).