|
PEOPLE
OF THE Appellee, |
G.R. No. 187073
|
|
- versus - |
Present:
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ. |
|
EDUARDO
CASTRO y PERALTA and RENERIO Appellants. |
Promulgated: March
14, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
On
appeal is the
Appellants,
together with Larry San Felipe Perito (Perito) and one alias Leng-leng, were
charged with the crime of robbery with homicide under the following
Information:
That on or about the 9th
day of September 2002[,] in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused confederating together and mutually
aiding each other, with intent of gain, and armed with guns, by means of force
and violence upon one RICARDO PACHECO BENEDICTO, forcibly [took] and [carried] away
the amount of more or less P100,000.00, and in the course of the commission of
ROBBERY, [shot] and kill[ed] Ricardo Pacheco Benedi[c]to which caused the latters immediate death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
On arraignment, both appellants, with the assistance of the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO), entered a plea of not guilty.
Trial ensued without the presence of the other two accused, Perito and
alias Leng-leng who remained at large.
As
summarized by the CA, the factual antecedents of the case are as follows:
On
9 September 2002, [around] seven oclock in the evening, [the] victim Ricardo
Pacheco Benedicto (Benedicto), a merchant and owner of a store selling bakery
supplies and pastries in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, was tending his store
along with his helpers, one of whom was Emily Austria (Austria), when four
(4) armed men entered the store and announced a hold-up. Two (2) of the armed men proceeded to the
table of Benedicto asking the latter to bring out his gun. One (1) of the armed men stayed outside the
store while the other one (1) guarded
Consequently,
the police officers conducted an investigation [and] gathered that one of the
assailants was herein accused-appellant Eduardo Castro (Appellant
Castro). Follow-up and surveillance
operations wereconducted leading to the apprehension of appellant Castro at
about
x
x x x
During
the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of (1) Police Senior
Inspector Filemon C. Porciuncula, Jr. (Police Senior Inspector Porciuncula),
the Medico Legal of the Northern Police District (NPD) Crime Laboratory (Caloocan
City Police Station), (2) Austria and (3) Virginia F. Benedicto, the surviving
spouse of Benedicto.
Police
Senior Inspector Porciuncula testified that upon written request, an autopsy
was conducted on Benedictos cadaver and that such examination showed two (2)
gunshot wounds at the back of the victims head and the neck region. The results also showed external injuries on
the body, two (2) hematomas on the upper and lower lips and two (2) abrasions
on the right thigh. He also confirmed
that the cause of death of the victim was hemorrhagic shock secondary to said
gunshot wounds.
Witness
Continuing
with her testimony,
Witness
Virginia Benedicto, wife of the victim, testified on how she had learned of the
events that transpired on the fateful day of
The
testimony of Police Officer 3 Leonilo Padulaga, who attested to the conduct of
the investigation and the execution of affidavits by witnesses in connection
with this case, was stipulated upon by the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution also offered the sworn
statements of May Villanueva and Aldryn Sartyn, as well as the Police
Transmittal as documentary evidence.
On
the other hand, aside from the separate testimonies of the appellants, the
defense also presented the testimonies of Alejo Castillo (Castillo) and
Francisco Beltran (Beltran), both neighbors of appellant Castro.
Witness
Castillo testified that he was at their outpost on the day of the incident, at
around
Witness
Beltran, in his testimony, corroborated, in essence, the account given by
witness Castillo on what transpired on the day of the crime. On cross-examination, he testified that he
had found it unusual that appellant Castro did not utter a word when his
brother-inlaw Perito and co-accused Leng-leng walked past the outpost telling
them that they were headed for a long vacation.
He also stated that the distance between the barangay outpost and the
scene of the crime would only take five (5) to seven (7) minutes commute if one
takes a tricycle ride.
Denying
any involvement or participation in the robbery and killing in this case,
appellant Delos Reyes claimed that prior to the commission of said crime, he
did not know appellant Castro, co-accused Perito or even the victim
Benedicto. Posing an alibi as a defense,
he claimed that on 9 September 2002, at around 6:30 in the evening, he was
inside the house of his in-laws at Phase 8-B, Package 4, Lot 1416, Bagong
Silang, Caloocan City, where he had been staying since July 2002. He admitted that he was a tricycle driver
plying the route covering all phases of Bagong Silang and that from the scene
of the crime, it would only take an eight (8) minute tricycle ride for him to
reach his in-laws house. He further
admitted that he had been arrested in connection with this crime only after he
had been arrested for another murder case.
Appellant
Castro, in turn, testified that while co-accused Perito is his brother-in-law,
he did not know appellant Delos Reyes and that he had only heard of the name
Leng-leng since the latter is a friend of Perito. He also claimed that he did not know the
victim Benedicto. He asserted that, as
narrated by witnesses Castillo and Beltran, he was at the barangay outpost at
the time of the commission of the crime.
He arrived thereat before
Appellant
Castro further narrated that between
x
x x x[4]
The RTC found appellants guilty of the offense charged and imposed on
them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The RTC held that all the evidence
pointed to the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, and the existence
of conspiracy was sufficiently alleged and proven during trial. The appellants acted in concert at the time of
the robbery towards the same purpose or design. And the rule is that whenever a homicide is
committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part as principals in the robbery would also be held guilty as principals of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Therefore, it was of no moment that none of
the prosecution witnesses saw who actually shot the victim to death.
As
regards appellants defense of alibi, the RTC held that their alibi cannot
prosper since both admitted that they were just a few minutes away from the
scene of the crime; thus, it was not physically impossible for them to be at
the scene of the crime. Also, the RTC
cited that
On
appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA did not give credence
to appellants attempt to assail
Aggrieved,
appellants elevated the case to this Court.[5]
We
have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and the parties submissions
and find no showing of any errors in law and in findings of fact by the courts a
quo. It has been consistently held
that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[6] Everything
considered, there is no doubt in our mind that the positive identification of
herein appellants by
Appellants
and their co-accused killed the victim in the course of the robbery. As such, contrary to appellants contentions, the
exact identity of the one who actually shot Benedicto and took the bag from him
is not material. The appellants are
liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide since the
existence of conspiracy among them in the commission of the robbery makes the
act of one the act of all. All those who
took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they did not actually
take part in the killing. Case law
establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who
took part as principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they
did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that
they sought to prevent the killing.[7]
Here,
evidence shows that appellants and their two co-accused entered the store and
declared a robbery.
Taken
together, the appellants actions proved beyond reasonable doubt that they
acted in concert to attain a common purpose. The evidence does not show that any of the
appellants sought to avert the killing of Benedicto. In People
v. Ebet,[8] we ruled that once
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. The precise extent or modality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are
principals.
We concur with the trial and appellate courts in rejecting
appellants defenses of denial and alibi.
Time and again this Court has ruled that alibi is the weakest of all
defenses, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove; it cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses.[9]
Moreover, for the defense of alibi to
prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. It is not
enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was
committed, but he must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at
the time the same was committed.[10] Such physical
impossibility was not shown to have existed in this case where appellants
testimonies confirmed they were in the same locality (Bagong Silang) when the
robbery-killing took place.
As to the award of damages, we sustain the award made by the CA as
the amounts are correct and in accordance with law for in robbery with
homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50,000
each is granted automatically in the absence of any qualifying aggravating
circumstances.[11]
However, an award of P25,000 for
temperate damages may be allowed under Article 2224[12]
of the Civil Code, since the victims family undeniably incurred
expenses in his burial.[13]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED.
The P25,000
as temperate damages.
With costs
against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
||
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
|
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
||
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, 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 |
* Designated additional member
per Special Order No. 1207 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ramon R. Garcia concurring. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 41-51. Penned by Judge Eleanor R. Kwong. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused EDUARDO CASTRO y PERALTA and RENERIO DELOS REYES y BONUS are hereby found GUILTY of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE as charged. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua.
Accused are likewise directed to pay the private complainant Virginia F. Benedicto as follows:
1. Fifty Thousand pesos, as civil indemnity and
2. Fifty Thousand pesos, as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
[3] Records, p. 25.
[4] Rollo, pp. 3-9.
[5]
[6] People v. Obina,
G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281; People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742,
[7] People v. Latam, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 406, 410-411;
People v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No.
140756,
[8] G.R. No. 181635,
[9] People v.
[10] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180,
[11] Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526,
[12] Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
[13] See People v. Lee, G.R.
No. 116326,