Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- RICKY LADIANA y DAVAO, (at- large),
Accused. ANTONIO MANUEL UY, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 174660 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: May 30, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated
July 18, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00110
affirming with modification the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 114, Pasay
City, finding appellant Antonio Manuel Uy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide.
In an Information[3] dated
July 16, 2001, appellant, together with a co-accused merely identified as John
Doe, was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide which reads:
That on or about the 27th day of June
2001, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Antonio Manuel Uy y Suangan and
John Doe, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another, with intent to gain, by means of force and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away the following
jewelry, to wit:
QTY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
3 Star ruby brooch 7 x 9 mm P1,920.00
5 Star ruby pendant plain 8 x 10
mm 825.00
4 Star ruby pendant plain 10 x
14 mm 1,220.00
6 Star ruby pendant w/ zircon 12
x 16 mm 4,170.00
2 Star ruby pendant w/ zircon 10
x 14 mm 1,730.00
4 Star ruby pendant plain
3,020.00
3 Star ruby bracelet 12 x 16 mm
4,500.00
3 Star ruby bracelet w/ zircon 8
x 10 mm 2,025.00
2 Star ruby bracelet w/ zircon 6
x 8 mm 1,050.00
7 Star ruby bracelet plain 8 x
10 mm 4,375.00
2 Star ruby ring w/ zircon
medium stone 1,760.00
2 Star ruby ring w/ zircon 10 x
12 mm 1,510.00
2 Star ruby ring w/ zircon large
stone 2,010.00
1 Star ruby ring plain 10 x 15
mm 905.00
1 Star ruby ring plain 9 x 11 mm 680.00
9 Star ruby ring plain 10 x 14
mm 7,110.00
6 Star ruby ring plain yg
4,350.00
1 Star ruby ring plain wg
685.00
5 Star ruby ring plain 11 x 15
mm 5,200.00
8 Star ruby ring plain 10 x 12
mm 2,320.00
7 Star ruby ring plain 12 x 16
mm
2,800.00
1 Star ruby ring plain 8 x 10 mm
165.00
6 Star ruby pendant small stone 4,140.00
1 Star sapphire earring pierced
10 x 12 mm 830.00
3 Star sapphire brooch 6 x 8 mm 1,965.00
26 Star sapphire tie tack 8 x 10 mm 4,180.00
1 Star sapphire tie tack &
cufflinks set 6 x 8 mm 525.00
1 Star sapphire pendant 12 x 16
mm 390.00
1 Star sapphire earring pierced
6 x 8 mm 165.00
1 Star sapphire earring plain 6
x 8 mm 445.00
1 Star sapphire bracelet
360.00
11 Star sapphire tie pin wg 8 x 10
mm 2,090.00
3 Star sapphire tie tack &
cufflinks set 1,380.00
3 Star sapphire tie tack &
cufflinks set 2,745.00
1 Emerald ring
1,260.00
1 Diamond earring
4,450.00
1 Diamond earring
10,285.00
1 Diamond earring
5,970.00
1 Diamond earring
7,700.00
1 Diamond earring
7,150.00
1 Diamond earring
9,970.00
1 Diamond earring
6,700.00
1 Diamond earring
8,700.00
1 Diamond ring
5,850.00
1 Diamond ring
4,800.00
1 Diamond ring
4,120.00
1 Diamond
ring
4,020.00
1 Diamond
ring
2,820.00
1 Diamond
ring
3,500.00
1 Diamond
ring
6,200.00
1 Diamond
ring
4,250.00
1 Diamond
ring
5,450.00
1 Diamond
ring
5,000.00
1 Diamond
ring
4,120.00
1 Diamond
ring
5,450.00
1 Diamond
ring
5,450.00
1 Diamond
ring
2,950.00
1 Diamond
pendant w/ china jade 31,200.00
2 Italian
gold bangles
3,000.00
2 Italian
gold bangles
2,700.00
1 Italian
gold bangles
1,200.00
1 Italian
gold bangles
1,200.00
1 Italian
gold necklace
4,600.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
5,700.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
7,250.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
6,250.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
3,500.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
3,450.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
3,400.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
2,800.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
5,200.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
3,600.00
1 Italian
gold bracelet
6,850.00
1 Diamond
ring
3,100.00
1 Diamond
ring
3,000.00
1 Gold
pendant w/ topaz & onyx stone 3,400.00
1 Didien
Lamarthe
11,000.00
1 Christian
Dior
12,250.00
P
327,390.00
all belonging to JEEPNEY SHOPPING CENTER,
represented by RICARDO M. SALVADOR and an ARMSCOR .38 caliber revolver with SERIAL
No. 64517 amounting to P9,000.00, more or less, belonging to ENERGETIC
SECURITY AGENCY represented by ROMEO SOLANO, to the damage and prejudice of
Jeepney Shopping Center in the total amount of P327,390.00 and Energetic
Security Agency in the total amount of P9,000.00 more or less; and on
the occasion thereof, accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbed
Gilbert V. Esmaquilan and hit on the head with a 2x2 wood Felix Arañez y Gida and Delfin Biniahan y Cahtong, Security Guard, Janitor and
maintenance of Jeepney Shopping Center(,) respectively, thereby causing their
death; and accused to facilitate their escape thereafter take, steal and drive
away a (sic) one (1) Black Honda Civic with Plate No. WFD-891 registered in the
name of OLIVER GATCHALIAN.
Contrary to law.[4]
During his arraignment on July 24, 2001, appellant, with the
assistance of counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.[5]
The Information was subsequently amended to identify appellant's co-
accused as Ricky Ladiana y Davao (Ricky), without changing the allegations of
the original information.[6] However,
accused Ricky remained at-large.
Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The evidence for the prosecution is aptly summarized by the Solicitor
General in the appellee's brief as follows:
Appellant Antonio Manuel Uy was one of the
maintenance crew of the Jeepney Shopping Center located at No. 1913, Taft
Avenue, Pasay City, owned by Mr. Jerry Limpe.
Appellant used to be a stay-in employee of the
Jeepney Shopping Center. However, appellant could not get along with his
co-employees and usually engaged in quarrels with them. In their letter dated
March 29, 2001 addressed to Michael Limpe, the son of Jerry Limpe, the
co-employees of appellant requested that he be ordered to leave the employees’
quarters. Resultantly, appellant was ordered by Michael Limpe to leave the
quarters and transfer to another place.
Appellant was forced to rent a house in Sandejas St., Pasay City.
When
appellant was removed from the employees’ quarters, Cecilio Aranez, also a
member of the maintenance crew of the Jeepney Shopping Center, heard appellant
made a threat, saying “Balang araw
makagaganti ako.”
Sometime in the first week of June 2001, the
co-employees of appellant, including Neptali Tamayo, had a drinking spree at
Juz Café along Taft Avenue, Pasay City. The drinking session lasted until 3:00
o’clock in the morning of the following day. On their way home, the group
noticed two persons outside the guardhouse of the Jeepney Shopping Center
peeping inside. One of these persons was appellant. When the group approached
them, they hid themselves inside the guardhouse. Later on, appellant came out
from where he hid himself and uttered a joke. Thereafter, appellant and his
companion left.
Around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of June 26,
2001, appellant, through a text message, informed Roger Tan, the Supervisor of
the Maintenance Department of the Jeepney Shopping Center, that he (appellant)
was not feeling well and would not be able to report for work.
Around 11:00 o’clock in the evening, Joel Adol,
the security guard of Chang Juat Ltd. Company located at No. 1906, Taft Avenue,
Pasay City, saw appellant with a companion standing at the gate of the Jeepney
Shopping Center. The security guard had a clear and unobstructed view of the
Jeepney Shopping Center as Chang Juat Ltd. Company was just adjacent to it and
the Jeepney Shopping Center was brightly lighted. Joel Adol recognized
appellant because he used to see him cleaning the premises of the Jeepney
Shopping Center and directing traffic in the area. Joel Adol observed that
appellant and his companion were looking at his post and were peeping inside the
Jeepney Shopping Center. When Joel Adol
went inside the building of Chang Juat Ltd. Company around 12:00 o’clock in the
evening, he noticed that appellant and his companion were still at the gate of
the Jeepney Shopping Center.
Around 5:30 in the morning of June 27, 2001,
Carpio Bahatan, a stay-in employee of the Jeepney Shopping Center, discovered
the lifeless bodies of Felix Aranez and Delfin Biniahan at the second floor and
third floor, respectively, of the main building of the Jeepney Shopping Center.
Another stay-in employee, Rico Victor Arbas, discovered the dead body of the
security guard, Gilbert Esmaquilan, lying near the guardhouse which was inside
the Jeepney Shopping Center compound.
A piece of wood with blood stains was found about
three to five meters from the body of Gilbert Esmaquilan. Another blood-stained
piece of wood was found in the locker room within the compound but outside the
main building of the Jeepney Shopping Center.
At the opening leading to the comfort room in the
ground floor of the main building, there were found pieces of jalousie slabs
and frames scattered on the ground.
At the second floor, the lifeless body of Felix
Aranez was found, lying face down and with feet and hands tied with yellow
plastic straw. A piece of cloth was stuck in his mouth and his nape had an
incise wound. A bunch of keys was found inside the display cabinet which was in
disarray. It was discovered that some pieces of jewelry inside the display
cabinet were missing.
At the third floor, the dead body of Delfin
Biniahan was found lying on a folding bed between two glass cabinets. He
sustained injuries on the upper part of his body. The glass cabinets were
splattered with blood. The door of the Administrative Office had been destroyed
and bore some traces of blood.
Police Senior Inspector Emmanuel Reyes,
Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory,
Southern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, conducted an autopsy on the
bodies of the three victims. The examination on the body of Felix Aranez
revealed that he sustained a hack wound on the nape, measuring 0.3 cm. x 0.7
cm., which could have been caused by a bladed weapon, and hematoma on the
occipital region or on the right side of the head, measuring 8 cm. x 8 cm., and
on the frontal region just above the right eye which may have been caused by a
blunt object. Delfin Biniahan sustained five lacerated wounds on the frontal
region, particularly on the forehead, which could have been caused by the
application of a hard object, and his lower jaw was displaced toward the left
side, which could have been caused by a hard blow. The cause of death of Felix Aranez and Delfin
Biniahan was “intracranial hemorrhages
secondary to traumatic injuries of the head.” Gilbert Esmaquilan sustained
multiple stab wounds on the left mammary region piercing the aorta near its
attachment to the heart; the left subcostal region piercing the stomach; the
vertebral region piercing the underlying soft tissues; the left posterior rib;
the right infrascapular region piercing the 7th right posterior
intercostal muscle and the lower and upper lobes of the right lung; and the
right costal region piercing the posterior right 8th intercostal
muscle and the lower and upper lobes of the right lung. The fatal wounds were
those which pierced his heart and lungs. The cause of death of Gilbert
Esmaquilan was “hemorrhage and shock secondary to multiple stab wounds of the
body.”
Around 8:30 in the evening of June 28, 2001, appellant
met with his girlfriend, Richlie Ladiana (“Richlie”), in the latter’s workplace
in Panorama Street, SSS Village, Marikina City and gave her P6,000.00.
Appellant was with co-accused Ricky Ladiana (“Ricky”), Richlie’s brother.
Richlie noticed that at that time, appellant appeared to have a problem, while
Ricky looked stern. After giving the money to Richlie, appellant and Ricky
immediately left.
Around 8:30 in the morning, of the following day,
June 29, 2001, appellant called up Richlie and asked her to drop by the house
of Ricky in Cupang, Antipolo City where he was.
At 8:57 that same morning. appellant also sent a
text message to their head supervisor, Roger Tan, which read, “Boss, Gud morning. Bukas na ako papasok o
kaya Lunes ang sama talaga ng trangkaso nabasa K C ako ng ulan nong Martes pag
diliver namin.” At 9:57, appellant sent another text message to Roger Tan,
which read, “Boss, balita daw na ako ang
suspek sa nangyari dyan boss matagal na ako sa companya kahit alam kong inaapi
ako nyo wala akong ginawa na masama sa trabaho ko.”
When Richlie arrived at the house of Ricky,
appellant gave her P500.00 and asked her to buy him some tee-shirts and
shorts. Appellant also asked Richlie to return the P6,000.00 which he
had earlier given to her because he was leaving for the province.
Around 2:30 in the afternoon, Richlie again
dropped by the house of Ricky before going to school. Appellant requested her
not to attend her classes anymore because he was leaving for the province.
Richlie stayed with appellant in the house of Ricky until 7:00 o’clock in the
evening. While appellant was putting on his clothes, Richlie noticed that
appellant was wearing a cross pendant. Thereafter, appellant handed to her
something wrapped in a newspaper. When she opened the newspaper to look what
was inside, she saw 4 pairs of earrings, a pairless earring, and 5 ladies’ rings.
Around 9:00 that same evening, appellant and
Ricky went to the house of Eduardo dela Cruz (“Eduardo”) in Cupang, Antipolo
City. Eduardo was the second cousin of the mother of Richlie and Ricky. Ricky
looked very nervous and his eyes were reddish, while appellant was very quiet.
Ricky told Eduardo that they were in trouble and asked him to accompany
appellant to the house of Panfilo dela Cruz, Eduardo’s first cousin, in Sitio
Tibol, Barangay Salasa, Palauig, Iba, Zambales. Ricky told Eduardo that
appellant will be staying in Zambales for two to three days. Eduardo acceded to
such request.
Eduardo and appellant proceeded to the bus
terminal of Victory Liner in Cubao, Quezon City. When they arrived in Cubao
around 11:30 that same evening, the last trip for Zambales had already left.
Appellant told Eduardo that they will just get a taxi in going to Olongapo
City. They were able to hire a taxi for P1,500.00. They arrived in
Olongapo City around 1:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day, June 30,
2001. While waiting for a bus going to Zambales, they drank coffee in a nearby
store. During their conversation, Eduardo asked appellant what happened. Appellant
confessed to Eduardo that he and Ricky entered a place in Pasay City and they
killed two persons and seriously wounded another whom they left fighting for
his life. Appellant also told Eduardo about the vault which contained money and
that if “he can open the vault, and even if they die their family will live
comfortably.” Further, appellant told Eduardo that nothing will be traced to
him because his hands were wrapped such that no fingerprints would be recovered
from the crime scene. They arrived at the house of Panfilo dela Cruz around
6:00 o’clock in the morning. Eduardo introduced appellant to Panfilo dela Cruz
and told the latter that appellant will be staying there for about two (2)
days. At noontime, Eduardo went back to Manila.
After a week, Eduardo went to SPO3 Rodrigo Urbina
of the PNP Regional Mobile Patrol Group. Eduardo told SPO3 Urbina what was
confessed to him by appellant and that he brought appellant to Zambales. SPO3
Urbano coordinated with the Pasay City Police Station, Crime Investigation
Division, for appellant’s arrest.
Around 5:00 o’clock in the morning of July 12,
2001, the joint team of the Regional Mobile Patrol Group, the Pasay City Police
Station and the Palauig Police Station arrested appellant in the house of
Panfilo dela Cruz. Appellant was frisked and a cross pendant was recovered from
his pocket.
The inventory conducted by Cresilda Tigolo, the
accounting clerk of Jeepney Shopping Center, revealed that 191 pieces of
jewelry in the amount of P304,140.00 and 2 imported bags worth P23,250.00
were stolen. The stolen items had a total value of P327,390.00.
The gold pendant recovered from appellant was
worth P3,400.00. Also recovered were a diamond earring worth [P]6,700.00
and a diamond ring worth P5,450.00 which Richlie had pawned through a
friend Wilfredo Mazo. Said pawned items were recovered from Villarica Pawnshop,
Inc., in Marikina City. Thus, the total amount of the pieces of jewelry
recovered was P15,550.00.
The .38 Caliber Armscor revolver service weapon
of victim Gilbert Esmaquilan, owned by the Energetic Security Specialist, was
recovered by PO3 Edison Cabotaje in the house of Ricky Ladiana.
The Honda VTEC 1999 model car with plate no. WFD
891, owned by a certain Oliver Gatchalian, which had been used as the “getaway”
car by appellant, was recovered somewhere in Quezon City.[7]
For his part, appellant
denied having committed the crime charged against him. He testified that on
June 26, 2001, he called up Jeepney Shopping Center to inform them that he was
sick. He later decided to go to the house
of his niece Lea Ezra Uy in Caloocan to have a massage. He was there from 8:30
p.m. until the following morning. At
noontime of June 27, 2001, Richlie, his girlfriend and Ricky's sister, called
him up asking for money to pay for her tuition fee. At around 7 p.m., he met
with her in Marikina and gave her P6,000.00.[8]
On June 28, 2001,
appellant went to Richlie's place and saw her and her brother Ricky arguing
about an incident that happened at Jeepney Shopping Center. Richlie showed appellant a newspaper where
his name appeared as a suspect. Ricky then put his arms around him saying “huwag ka na lang maingay.” He then told Ricky that he could not keep
quiet because he was afraid that he might be implicated since he knew that
Ricky and his companions were the ones responsible for the incident. Ricky then
gave him a package containing two pairs of earrings and three pieces of rings
but declined to accept them as he already had many.[9]
After a while, Eduardo
dela Cruz, Ricky's uncle, arrived and invited them to drink. Eduardo told him
that he should be acquainted with Richlie's relatives in Zambales. Although appellant knew that he only had
three days leave, he agreed to go with Eduardo to Zambales. Before he left for
Zambales, he gave the pieces of jewelry which Ricky gave him to Richlie.
Richlie gave him back the P6,000.00 he earlier gave her saying he might
be needing the money for his trip.[10]
Around
9 p.m. of June 29, 2001, he and Eduardo rode a taxi going to Olongapo City.
They were not able to talk to each other since he was asleep the whole trip.
Then they boarded a bus going to Zambales. They reached the house of Panfilo
dela Cruz, Eduardo's cousin, in Palauig, Zambales around 4 a.m. the following
day, Eduardo introduced him to Panfilo
as Richlie's fiancé. After breakfast,
Eduardo told him that he was going back to Manila and would just fetch him
after two or three days.[11]
On July 12, 2001, three
policemen entered his room and arrested him. They boarded him in a van and
brought him to the Zambales Police Station. PO3 Michael Manarang took a pendant
from his pocket and told him that he already had an evidence against him. He
was tortured to admit the crime.[12]
On
September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision[13] convicting
appellant of robbery with homicide and imposing upon him the penalty of
death. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court,
after considering the qualifying/aggravating circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, finds the accused Antonio Manuel Uy y Suangan GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt, as principal, of the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide in
violation of paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act 7659, and hereby sentences him to suffer the extreme penalty of
DEATH by lethal injection. The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the
following:
a)
the legal heirs of the late Aranez the sum of P50,000.00
as death indemnity;
b)
the legal heirs of the late Biniahan the sum of P50,000.00
as death indemnity;
c)
the legal heirs of the late Esmaquilan the sum of
P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
d)
the Jeepney Shopping Center the sum of P311,840.00
as reparation of the damage caused; and
e)
the Energetic Security Agency the sum of P49,784.75
for the funeral expenses of guard Esmaquilan.
Considering
the penalty imposed, let the records of this case be forwarded for automatic
review by the Honorable Supreme Court within twenty (20) days, but not earlier
than fifteen days after promulgation of this judgment.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The case was elevated to Us on automatic
review. In a Resolution[15] dated
August 24, 2004, pursuant to our ruling in People
v. Mateo,[16]
we referred the case to the CA.
On July 18, 2006, the CA issued the assailed decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the court AFFIRMS the
decision of the Trial Court in convicting Antonio Manuel Uy of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide and MODIFIES the penalty imposed from death penalty to reclusion perpetua.
The accused is likewise ordered to
indemnify the following:
a) the
legal heirs of the late Aranez the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
b) the
legal heirs of the late Biniahan the sum of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity;
c) the
legal heirs of the late Esmaquilan the sum of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity;
d) the Jeepney Shopping Center the sum of P311,840.00
as reparation of the damage caused; and
e) the Energetic Security Agency the sum of P49,784.75
for the funeral expenses of guard Esmaquilan.
SO ORDERED.[17]
In a Resolution[18] dated
November 20, 2006, we accepted the appeal, the penalty imposed being reclusion perpetua. We required the
parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire.
Appellant filed a Manifestation[19] dated February 8, 2007 stating that he adopts his
Appellant's Brief as Supplemental Brief.
The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) filed its Manifestation and Motion[20] dated March 2, 2007, in lieu of the supplemental
brief, stating that it will adopt its Appellee's Brief as its Supplemental
Brief in order to avoid repetitious discussions of the issues that had been
addressed in its appellee's brief and to prevent further delay.
In his Brief, appellant assigned the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO
THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE
DEATH PENALTY.[21]
We find no merit in this appeal.
Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by
reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery
with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking
of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain;
and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as
used in the generic sense, was committed.[22] A
conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and
objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery.[23]
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may
occur before, during or after the robbery.[24]
In this case, we find that the evidence presented by the prosecution
had established beyond reasonable doubt that the crime of robbery with homicide
was indeed committed. As the CA correctly observed:
x x x The removal of the jalousies in the restroom of the Jeepney
Shopping Center to gain entrance, the destruction of the display cabinet where
the items were kept, the destruction of the lock leading to the cashier's
office on the third floor of the building; and the inventory of missing items
makes the situation possess the first essential element as stated above. In
robbery by the taking of the property through intimidation or violence, it is
not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be
the owner thereof, robbery may be
committed against a bailee or a person
who himself stole it. As long as the taker of the personal property is not the
owner, the second element exists. The third element is animus lucrandi or intent to gain which is defined by the Supreme
Court as “an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of
the offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
pertaining to another, unless special circumstance reveal a different intent on
the part of the perpetrator.” We agree
with the finding of the trial court that: “the intent to steal was likewise
proven from accused's statement to Eduardo dela Cruz to the effect that if they
were able to open the vault, their families would have lived a good life even
if they die in the process.” On the other hand, the accused was proven to be a
friend of, and was with, Ricky Ladiana right after the commission of the crime
as testified to by Richlie Ladiana, his lover. Being so when the firearm of the
fallen guard was found from the abandoned house of Ricky, the conclusion is
that Ricky and Antonio Uy have been together at the shopping center and
presumed the taker of a thing taken or doer in the doing of a recent wrongful
act. In the instant case, no special circumstance was present to belie the
presumption of the intent to gain of the accused-appellant. The existence of
the fourth element is incontestable. The homicide preceded the robbery but
committed on the occasion thereof, the purpose is to eliminate an obstacle to
the commission of robbery. The grudge of the appellant against his former
co-workers Felix Aranez and Delfin Biniahan is not sufficient to overcome the
presumption and evidence of intent to gain, it is clear that the victims were
killed on the occasion of robbery and to commit robbery. Essential in robbery
with homicide is that there is a nexus, an intimate connection between the
robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the
former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time.[25]
While there was no direct evidence to establish
appellant's participation in the commission of the crime, direct evidence is
not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding
of guilt.[26]
The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to
support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which
proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference. At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is
imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in
setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[27] Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court on circumstantial
evidence requires the concurrence of the following: (1) there must be more than
one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that
results to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[28]
We have carefully gone over the records of the case and we find that
the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that appellant and his co-accused Ricky conspired to commit
the crime of robbery with homicide. We find apropos the CA's ratiocination in
this wise:
x x x We concord with the trial
court that the success of the prosecution in discharging its duty to prove the
guilt of the accused is anchored in the circumstantial evidence present and
proven in this case, to wit:
1.
Possession of the stolen goods by the accused and
his girlfriend was not satisfactorily explained;
2.
Intent to steal was evident in his confession to
Eduardo dela Cruz who had no reason to lie as he even helped him to escape;
3.
Participation in the commission of the crime was
proven by the tracing of the possession of the deceased's firearm at Ricky
Ladiana's house, accused Antonio's friend and companion right after the
killing;
4.
Antonio Manuel Uy was seen in person by a guard
at the scene of the crime on the night of the robbery and killing;
5.
Suspicious presence at the place of robbery
immediately before the incident;
6.
Antonio Manuel Uy's cellphone was established as
the sender of text messages to at least two co-employees of his; [and]
7.
Confession/testimony of Richlie Ladiana,
acknowledged sweetheart of accused Uy that the latter gave her the jewelries,
part of the stolen jewelries from the shopping center.
Another circumstance is the unexplained impromptu
vacation of Antonio Manuel Uy. It has been ruled that flight per se cannot prove the guilt of an
accused. But if the same is considered in the light of other circumstances, it
may be deemed a strong indication of guilt. Considering the surrounding
circumstances when he left with Eduardo dela Cruz for Palauig, Zambales, We
could draw a conclusion that he is trying to evade something in his work place.
Settled is the rule that flight of an accused, when unexplained, is a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. [29]
In his appeal with the CA and with Us, appellant contends that
contrary to the RTC findings, he was able to satisfactorily explain the
circumstance of his possession of the stolen pieces of jewelry. He claims that Ricky, Richlie's brother,
insisted on giving him those pieces of jewelry, but since he was afraid he
might be implicated in the commission of the crime which Ricky and his
companion had committed, he decided to leave the pieces of jewelry to Richlie. As to the cross pendant which was also part of
the stolen items allegedly recovered from him, appellant claims that the same
was merely planted on him by PO3 Michael Manarang. He further contends that assuming there is
truth to Richlie's allegation that the pieces of jewelry which she pawned came from
him, the stolen items did not prove his culpability for robbery with homicide.
Appellant's explanations do not inspire belief.
Appellant testified that when Ricky gave him the valuable pieces of
jewelry, he declined to receive them saying that he already had many jewelry,[30] yet he
was still in possession of these items and he even admitted giving them to
Richlie.[31] In fact, Richlie categorically declared that
before they parted ways at around 7 p.m. of June 29, 2001, appellant gave her
something wrapped in a newspaper.[32] Upon
reaching her house, she opened the wrapped newspaper which contained 4 pairs of
diamond earrings, a pairless diamond
earring and 5 pieces of diamond rings.[33] Richlie testified that appellant called her
up and instructed her to pawn the items as he needed money,[34] thus,
Richlie asked her friend Wilfredo Mazo to pawn the diamond ring and a pair of
earrings to Villarica pawnshop.[35] Later, Mazo, together with Richlie and SPO3
Rodrigo Urbina, went to the pawnshop and redeemed the items[36] which
were proved to be part of the stolen items.
Appellant's claim that the cross pendant found on him at the time of
his arrest was merely planted by PO3 Manarang was not proven at all. In
fact, P03 Manarang rebutted such claim by testifying
that as member of the arresting team of the Pasay Police, he saw PO3
Ernie Cabrega searched
appellant's body and recovered from him the cross pendant.[37] PO3 Cabrega, in his direct examination,
positively declared that upon appellant's arrest, he searched the latter's body
and found the cross pendant at the back of his pocket.[38] The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties was not overcome as there was no evidence
showing that the police officers were impelled by improper motive.
In fact, Richlie corroborated the testimonies of these two police
officers when she declared that she saw appellant wearing the cross pendant for
the first time on June 29, 2001,[39] thus, establishing appellant's possession of
the cross pendant even before his arrest on July 12, 2001. The recovery of the
stolen items which admittedly came from appellant gives rise to the legal
presumption of guilt which he failed to overcome, thus, he must necessarily be
considered the author of the robbery and the killings.[40]
Appellant argues that his alleged confession to Eduardo dela Cruz was
not sufficient to convict him of the crime as the latter's testimony merely
established that appellant admitted his intention to rob a vault at an
unspecified place; that even if he (appellant) allegedly admitted the killings,
Eduardo did not state who between him and his co-accused Ricky committed the
killing.
Such argument deserves scant consideration.
Eduardo testified that appellant told him that the main
purpose of appellant and his co-accused Ricky in entering the Jeepney Shopping
Center was to open the vault to get everything in it, which cost millions of
pesos that would make their families live comfortably;[41] that
when they entered the establishment, they immediately looked for the vault and
in the process killed three people.[42] It has been established that they were able to
open the glass showcase containing the valuable pieces of jewelry.[43]
Cresilda Tigolo, the shopping center's employee who is responsible for
preparing the monthly inventory of the pieces of jewelry for sale, testified
that pieces of jewelry and imported bags with a total amount of P327,390.00
were missing.[44] Moreover, it has also been proven that on the
occasion of the robbery, two stay-in staff and the guard on duty in the Jeepney
Shopping Center were killed.
Appellant's confession to Eduardo, who is not a police officer, is
admissible in evidence.[45] The declaration of an accused acknowledging
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
therein, may be given in evidence against him.[46]
Appellant's admissions are not covered by Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article
III of the Constitution,[47] because
they were not extracted while he was under custodial investigation. The rule is
that any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is
competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard and understood all of
it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it
must be given in its substance. [48] And case law has it that whenever homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in
the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually
take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the same.[49] There was no showing that appellant attempted
to prevent the killing.
Appellant argues that neither the text messages he sent to his supervisor,
Roger Tan (Tan), nor to a co-worker, Bernardo Cruz (Cruz), would prove that he
was responsible for the robbery with homicide.
We are not convinced.
At 8:57 a.m. of June 29, 2001, appellant texted Tan telling the latter
that he will just report for work the following day, or Monday, because he had
a fever.[50]
At 9:57 a.m., appellant again texted Tan
saying that he learned that he was a suspect in the incident that happened in
the shopping center and that he did nothing wrong in his work.[51] On July
1, 2001, appellant texted Cruz asking why he was considered a suspect when he
and his wife were on their honeymoon.[52] Appellant's excuses for not reporting for
work since June 26, 2001 were contradictory showing their untruthfulness.
Significantly, while appellant already knew that he was considered a suspect to
a very serious crime, he did not report for work anymore. If he was really
innocent of the crime as he professed to be, he should have immediately thought
of clearing himself of any suspicion. Instead, on the night of June 29, 2001,
appellant hurriedly left for Zambales and hid thereat until his arrest on July
12, 2001. Appellant's sudden and
unexplained trip to Zambales at the time that he was considered a suspect and
had a work to report to was undoubtedly flight from justice which is an
indication of a guilty mind. "Indeed,
the wicked man flees though no man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."[53]
Appellant contends that the recovery of the service firearm of the
slain security guard Esmaquilan at Ricky's house did not prove his
participation in the commission of the crime. Appellant even pointed to Ricky
and his companions as the ones responsible for the crime of robbery with
homicide.
Such defense is far from convincing.
Joel Adol, the security guard on duty at Chong Hwat Company located
adjacent the shopping center, testified that around 11 p.m. of June 26, 2001,
he saw two persons, one of whom he identified as appellant peeping inside the
compound of the Jeepney Shopping Center.[54] He was familiar with appellant, as he had
seen him directing traffic in the area and cleaning the premises of the
shopping center.[55]
He clearly saw appellant as there was a light coming from the bank beside the
shopping center, as well as the light coming from the guardhouse of the
shopping center.[56]
Notably, that was the night before the crime was discovered the following
morning.
Also, Richlie testified that on June 28, 2001, i.e., the day after the crime was committed, appellant, together
with her brother, co-accused Ricky, came to see her at her employer's house in
Marikina.[57]
She noticed that Ricky looked sterned while appellant looked bothered as if
they have a problem[58] and
then appellant gave her P6,000.00 and told her to study hard. On June
29, 2001, Richlie met again with appellant and her brother at the latter's
house in Antipolo, where appellant asked her to return the money he gave her as
he was leaving for the province.[59] They were together in Ricky's house until she
left at 7 p.m.[60]
Moreover, Eduardo dela Cruz, Richlie and Ricky's uncle, testified that
at 9 p.m. of June 29, 2001, Ricky, together with appellant, came to his place
in Cupang, Antipolo.[61] Ricky
asked him to bring appellant to the house of Panfilo dela Cruz, Eduardo's
cousin and Ricky's uncle, in Zambales because Ricky and appellant were in
trouble.[62] He was told that appellant would stay in
Panfilo's house for only two to three days. Eduardo observed that Ricky's eyes
were reddish and he was nervous, while appellant was quiet.[63] Eduardo
obliged and brought appellant to Zambales and endorsed him to his cousin
Panfilo. It was during their trip that
appellant told him what they did in Jeepney Shopping Center. In the meantime, Ricky, together with his
family, packed their things and left their house on June 30, 2001 and never
returned.[64]
The actuations of appellant and his co-accused Ricky are not the normal
behavior of innocent men. Their flight
without plausible explanation, coupled with the recovery of the gun of the slain security guard in
Ricky's house, establish that they were together in committing the crime.
Appellant's defense consisted merely of alibi. To prosper, alibi must meet strictly the
requirements of time and place,[65] meaning
that the accused was not at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed, and that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[66]
In this case, appellant claims that on June 26, 2001, he was at the
house of his niece, Lea Ezra, in Caloocan from 8:30 p.m. until the following
day. Notably, appellant failed to
present corroborating witness to strengthen his alibi. Moreover, appellant failed to show that it
was physically impossible for him to be present at the locus criminis, considering that at
nighttime, Caloocan would only be more than an hour's travel to the
crime scene in Pasay City. But most
importantly, security guard Joel Adol positively declared that he saw appellant
with a companion at the Jeepney Shopping Center around 11 p.m. of June 26,
2001. And it is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative
testimony.[67]
The CA correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. We agree
with the CA that the RTC erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity and treachery when they were not specifically alleged in the information.
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
which became effective on December 1, 2000, provides that aggravating
circumstances must be alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be
considered against the accused even if they are proven during the trial.
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable under
Article 294, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, by reclusion perpetua to
death. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that when the
law prescribes a penalty consisting of two (2) indivisible penalties, and the
crime is neither attended by mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the
lesser penalty shall be imposed. [68]Considering
that there was no modifying circumstance which attended the commission of the
crime, the CA correctly modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages in the
amount of P50,000.00 each is granted automatically in the absence of any
qualifying aggravating circumstances.[69] These
awards are mandatory without need of allegation and evidence other than the
death of the victim owing to the fact of the commission of the crime.[70]
In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity.
The heirs of the victims are also entitled to the award of moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each. As borne out by human nature and experience,
a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish
on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow,
torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or
brutal killing.[71]
We
likewise affirm the RTC's Order for appellant to indemnify the Jeepney Shopping
Center the sum of P311,840.00 as reparation and the Energetic Security
Agency the sum of P49,784.75 for the funeral expenses of security guard
Esmaquilan.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00110 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
petitioner is also ORDERED to pay
the heirs of the victims the amount of P50,000.00 each as moral damages.
The police and other law enforcement agencies of the government are ORDERED to immediately implement the
warrant of arrest issued against Ricky Ladiana y Davao, for him to stand trial.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as an additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Raffle
dated May 30, 2011.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L.
Reyes and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 198-222.
[2] CA rollo,
pp. 54-67.
[3] Id. at 10-13.
[4] Id. at 10-12.
[5] Records,
p. 25.
[6] Id. at 43-46.
[7] CA rollo, pp. 157-168
[8] TSN,
December 12, 2002, pp. 6-13.
[9] Id. at 16-21.
[10] Id. at
23-32.
[11] Id. at 35-41.
[12] TSN,
January 10, 2003, pp. 13-15.
[13] CA
rollo, pp. 116-130; Per Judge Vicente
L. Yap
[14] Id. at 129-130.
[15] Id. at 77.
[16] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[17] CA rollo, p. 221.
[18] Rollo, p. 28.
[19] Id.
at 32-33.
[20] Id. at 35-37.
[21] CA
rollo, p. 83.
[22] People v. Baron, G.R. No. 185209, June
28, 2010, 621 SCRA 646, 656; People v. De
Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 426-427 (2004), citing People v. Pedroso, 336 SCRA 163 (2000).
[23] Id.
[24] People
v. Baron, supra note 22, citing People v. Dela Cruz, 575 SCRA 412, 436 (2008); People
v. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 619, 641.
[25] CA rollo,
pp. 216-217.
[26] Salvador
v. People, G.R. No. 164266, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 461, 469-470; People v. Almoguerra, 461 Phil. 340, 356
(2003).
[27]
Salvador v. People, supra, at 469-470, citing People v. Padua, 516 SCRA 590, 600-601
(2007).
[28] Id. at 470.
[29] CA rollo,
pp. 217-218.
[30] TSN,
December 12, 2002, p. 21.
[31] Id.
at 32.
[32] TSN,
April 10, 2002, p. 11
[33] Id.
[34] TSN,
April 16, 2002, p. 5.
[35] TSN,
April 10, 2002 , pp. 10-11.
[36] TSN,
April 16, 2002, p. 17; TSN, July 4, 2002, pp. 7-8.
[37] TSN,
March 25, 2003, p. 13.
[38] TSN,
June 11, 2002, pp. 11-12.
[39] TSN,
April 10, 2002, pp. 9, 14.
[40] People v. Escote, Jr., 448 Phil. 749,
782 (2003).
[41] TSN,
March 21, 2002, p. 17.
[42] Id. at 17; TSN, March 12, 2002, p. 19.
[43] TSN,
November 29, 2001, pp. 4-24.
[44] TSN,
December 18, 2001, p. 41.
[45] People v. Suela, 424 Phil. 196, 228 (2002), citing People v. Aringue, 263 SCRA 291 (1997), People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95, (1997) and People v. Tawat, 129 SCRA 431, (1984).
[46] Id. at 229, citing Rules of Court, Rule
130, Sec. 33.
[47] Id., citing People
v. Andan, supra note 45.
[49] People v. Escote, supra, note 40, at 631,
citing People v. Cando, 344 SCRA 330
(2000).
[50] TSN,
February 14, 2002, p. 18.
[51] Id. at 20.
[52] TSN,
December 11, 2001, pp. 50, 53.
[53] People v. Dela Cruz, 459
Phil. 130, 137 (2003).
[54] TSN,
November 20, 2001, p. 11.
[55] Id. at 14.
[56] Id. at 13.
[57] TSN,
April 3, 2002, p. 34.
[58] Id. at 36.
[59] TSN,
April 10, 2002, p. 7.
[60] Id. at 9.
[61] TSN,
March 12, 2002, p.
[62] Id. at 8.
[63] Id. at 9.
[64] TSN April 10, 2002, p. 16.
[65] People v. Piandiong, 335
Phil. 1028, 1042 (1997), citing People v.
Matildo, 230 SCRA 635 (1994) and People
v. Dela Cruz, 229 SCRA 754 (1994).
[66] Id., citing People v.
Saguban, 231 SCRA 744 (1994) and People
v. Dolor, 231 SCRA 414 (1994).
[67] People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635,
November 15, 2010.
[68] Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA
590, 603, citing People v. Musa, 591 SCRA 619, 643-644 (2009).
[69] Id. at 603.
[70]
People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196,
August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 337, 367.
[71] People v. Musa,
supra
note 68, at 644; People v. Piedad,
441 Phil. 818, 839; (2002), cited in People
v. Rubiso, 447 Phil. 374, 383 (2003).