Republic of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - TEOFILO REY BUYAGAN, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 187733
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: February
8, 2012 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal, filed by
Teofilo Rey Buyagan (appellant),
from the decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) dated
The RTC Ruling
In its P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P22,400.00 as actual damages, and P592,000.00 as
unearned income; and to pay the heirs of PO2 Osorio P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P200,000.00 as moral damages, P50,690.00 as actual
damages, and P1,588,600.00 as unearned income.[3]
The CA Decision
On intermediate
appellant review, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, but modified the penalty
imposed on the appellant from death to reclusion
perpetua. The CA held that the
appellant acted in concert with John Doe in committing the crime; in fact, he shot
Calixto to facilitate the escape of John Doe. It explained that in the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide, as long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the
killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. The appellate court also
ruled that the appellant failed to impute any ill motive against the
prosecution witnesses who positively identified him as the person who shot
Calixto and PO2 Osorio. It also disregarded the appellants denial for being
incredible.[4]
Our Ruling
In this final
review, we deny the appeal, but
further modify the penalty imposed
and the awarded indemnities.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
Essential for conviction of robbery
with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate
connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the
latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were
committed at the same time.[5] In
the present case, we find no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the
RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness accounts of the prosecution
witnesses are worthy of belief as they were clear and straightforward and were consistent
with the medical findings of Dr. Vladimir Villaseor. Melvyn Pastor and
Cristina Calixto positively identified the appellant as the person who shot
Calixto at the back of his head as the latter was grappling with John Doe; Orlando
Viray, Jeanie Tugad, Allan Santiago, and Joel Caldito all declared that the
appellant shot PO2 Osorio at the market while the latter was chasing him.
Significantly, the appellant never imputed any ill motive on the part of these
witnesses to falsely testify against him.
The lower courts
correctly ruled that the appellant and John Doe acted in conspiracy with one
another. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may
be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a
joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to
exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period
prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of
the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its
execution.[6]
The records show that after John Doe
robbed the WT Construction Supply store, he casually walked away from the store
but Calixto grabbed him. While John Doe and Calixto were grappling with each
other, the appellant suddenly appeared from behind and shot Calixto on the
head. Immediately after, both the appellant and John Doe ran towards the
In People v. Ebet,[7] we
explained that homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if
its commission was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit;
(b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent
discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in
the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery
and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs
of the robbery.
Under the given facts, the appellant clearly
shot Calixto to facilitate the escape of his robber-companion, John Doe, and to
preserve the latters possession of the stolen items.
The Proper Penalty
The
special complex crime of robbery with homicide is penalized, under Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, with reclusion
perpetua to death. Since the aggravating circumstance of the use of an
unlicensed firearm had been alleged and proven during trial, the lower court
correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the death penalty pursuant to
Article 63[8] of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Nonetheless, we cannot impose the death
penalty in view of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9346, entitled An Act Prohibiting
the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. Pursuant to this law,
we affirm the CAs reduction of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count, with the modification that the
appellant shall not be eligible for
parole.
Civil Liabilities
For
the deaths of Calixto and PO2 Osorio, we increase the amounts of the awarded
civil indemnities from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, as the imposable
penalty against the appellant would have been death were it not for the
enactment of R.A. No. 9346.[9]
We
affirm, to be duly supported by evidence, the award of P1,588,600.00 as
indemnity for loss of earning capacity to PO2 Osorios heirs. We, however,
delete the award for loss of earning capacity to Calixtos heirs because the prosecution
failed to establish this claim. As a
rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss
of earning capacity. While there are exceptions to this rule, these exceptions
do not apply to Calixto as he was a security guard when he died; he was not a
worker earning less than the current minimum wage under current labor laws.
With
respect to actual damages, established jurisprudence only allows expenses duly
supported by receipts. Out of the P50,690.00
awarded by the RTC to PO2 Osorios heirs, only P15,000.00 was supported
by receipts. The difference consists of
unreceipted amounts claimed by the victims wife. Considering that the proven amount is less
than P25,000.00, we award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00
in lieu of actual damages, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Villanueva.[10] For the same reasons, we also award temperate
damages in the amount of P25,000.00, in lieu of actual damages, to the
heirs of Calixto since the proven actual damages amounted to only P22,400.00.
The
existence of one aggravating circumstance also merits the grant of exemplary
damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. Pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, we award exemplary damages of P30,000.00, respectively, to
the heirs of PO2 Osorio and of Calixto.[11]
Finally, we
uphold the award of moral damages to the heirs of PO2 Osorio and to the heirs
of Calixto, but reduce the amount awarded from P200,000.00 to P75,000.00
to conform to prevailing jurisprudence.[12]
However, we observed that the dispositive portion of the RTC decision, as
affirmed by the CA, only awarded moral damages to the heirs of PO2 Osorio. [W]hile the general rule is
that the portion of a decision that becomes the subject of execution is that
ordained or decreed in the dispositive part thereof, there are recognized
exceptions to this rule: (a) where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body
of the opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment,
because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the
decision's ratio decidendi; and (b)
where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in
the body of the decision.[13]
We
find that the second exception applies to the case. The omission to state in
the dispositive portion the award of moral damages to the heirs of Calixto was
through mere inadvertence. The body of the RTC decision shows the clear intent
of the RTC to award moral damages to the heirs of Calixto.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and P25,000.00 as temperate
damages, in lieu of actual damages. For the death of PO2 Osorio, the appellant
is ordered to pay the victims heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages; and
P1,588,600.00 as loss of earning capacity.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, and concurred in by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo and Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 51-71.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] See
People v. Aminola, G.R. No. 178062,
[6] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173,
[7] G.R.
No. 181635,
[8] Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.
[9] See
People v. Baron, G.R. No. 185209,
[10] 456 Phil. 14 (2003).
[11] See People
of the
[12] See People
of the
[13] Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 70, 85.