PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 193672
Appellee,
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA,
and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
GLENFORD
SAMOY and
LEODIGARIO
ISRAEL,
Accused, Promulgated:
LEODIGARIO
ISRAEL,
Appellant. January 18, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This
case is about the reliability of the identification of the accused involved in
a robbery with homicide case three years after the commission of the crime.
The Facts and the Case
The Cagayan Provincial Prosecutor filed
a case for robbery on the highway[1]
against accused Jonathan Valencia, Glenford Samoy, and Leodigario Israel before
the Aparri Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, in Criminal Case VI-967.
Edmund Addun and Johnny Ventura (Johnny)
testified that on the morning of December 27, 1997 they left Tuguegarao City for
Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, with Rodolfo Cachola, Canuto Forlaje, and Melencio
Ventura (Melencio) to buy pigs. They
rode a small Isuzu Elf truck with Johnny on the wheel. They were on errand for spouses Edwin and
Elizabeth Cauilan, their employers, who bought and sold hogs.
When the group reached the boundary
of Barangay Logac, Lallo, Cagayan and
Barangay Iringan, Allacapan, Cagayan,
three armed men, which included accused Glenford Samoy and Leodigario Israel, flagged
them down. One carried an M16 armalite
rifle, the second a .45 caliber pistol, and the third a .38 caliber
pistol. The accused ordered those on the
truck to alight and hand over their money.
Melencio, who was in charge of buying the hogs for their employer,
immediately handed over the P60,000.00 he had with him.
The accused then ordered their
captives to get their things from the truck and go up the mountain. When they hesitated, one of the accused fired
his gun. This prompted the captives to run
for their lives, except Addun who closed his eyes because of a gun aimed directly
at him. The accused fired three warning
shots to stop those who where running away.
When the latter did not heed the shots, the accused fired directly at
them, seriously wounding Melencio while slightly hurting Johnny and Forlaje. The robbers then fled to the mountain. Although the robbery victims brought Melencio
to the hospital, he was pronounced dead on arrival.
The accused, on the other hand,
denied having taken part in the commission of the crime. Accused Samoy claimed that when the robbery
took place, he was helping out in the wedding preparations of a cousin. He was unable, however, to attend the wedding
on the next day because of a hangover he got from drinking the night
before. Accused Israel, for his part, claimed
that he was planting rice in a farm all day on December 27, 1997. He left home early in the morning and returned
home in the afternoon.
On July 1, 2003 the RTC found both Samoy and Israel
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and meted out to them the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
RTC held that the accused committed only one act of robbery and that the prosecution
was unable to prove that they organized themselves to commit robbery on the
highway. The RTC likewise held them
solidarily liable to Melencios heirs in the sum of P1,260,000.00 for loss
of earning capacity, P30,000.00 as actual damages, and P50,000.00
as moral damages. The RTC also ordered
the accused to return the P60,000.00 taken during the robbery to the
spouses Cauilan.
Both
accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00328 but Samoy
escaped from prison on October 5, 2004, resulting in the dismissal of his
appeal. On June 4, 2010 the CA affirmed
the RTC decision with respect to Israel.
In addition, it ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P20,000.00 more for loss of earning capacity to correct a
discrepancy in computation.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented is whether
or not the CA, along with the RTC, erred in finding that accused Israel committed
robbery with homicide in company of others.
The Ruling of the Court
Accused Israel assails the manner by
which Johnny and Addun identified him. Three
years had passed, he said, before they identified him at the trial as one of
the robbers. Israel argues that his
physical appearance had surely changed through those years, rendering Johnny
and Adduns identification of him inaccurate.
Israel also pointed out that the RTC and the CA failed to take into
account the witnesses emotional imbalance, caused by the terrible experience
they went through, making their testimonies altogether untrustworthy. The Court disagrees.
Contrary to the theory of the accused,
victims of criminal violence are more likely to observe and remember their
appalling experience rather than ignore and forget them.[2] Three years are not too long. Such victims are able to recall the faces of and
the body movements unique to the men who terrorized them.[3] Parenthetically, the robbery in this case took
place in broad daylight, the assailants were not wearing masks or hats, and the
frightening episode lasted for several minutes.
The offenders tried before fleeing to send their victims up the mountain
after robbing them.
Accused Israel claims that the CA
improperly ignored inconsistent testimonies regarding the question of whether or
not he wore sunglasses during the robbery.
But the fact is that Addun and Johnny categorically identified him as
the robber among the three who was armed with a .45 caliber pistol. That one of these witnesses had the
impression that Israel wore sunglasses could not diminish the strength of such
identification.
For his part, all that Israel could
claim is that he could not have been involved in the robbery since he was
planting rice elsewhere when it happened.
But Israels house was just near the Maluyo highway, giving him an easy
access to any public transport which could bring him to the Logac
junction. He was not able to prove that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission.[4] Thus, in the absence of any improper motive
to incriminate Israel, the positive identification made by the prosecution
witnesses must prevail over his mere denial and alibi.
The RTC and the CA were likewise correct in finding accused
Israel guilty only of robbery with homicide, not of robbery on the highway as
defined in P.D. 532. Conviction for the
latter crime requires proof that several accused organized themselves for the
purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately, preying upon innocent and defenseless
people on the highway.[5] Here, the prosecution proved only one act of
robbery.
WHEREFORE,
this Court AFFIRMS in its entirety the
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00328 dated June
4, 2010.
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice