Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
x---------------------------------------------
- - - - - -x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
The Facts
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On 1 July 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation
praying that the trial court issue an order directing the Office of the
Prosecutor of Las Pias City to conduct a preliminary investigation in
accordance with Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.Petitioner also asked
that the charge filed against him be amended to acts of lasciviousness
instead of rape since fingering is not covered under Article 266-A,
paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353).In the Order dated 5
August 2002, the trial court denied petitioners Motion for
Reinvestigation.
The Issues
Under Rule 65, a special civil action for certiorari lies where a
court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.In this case, petitioner
failed to allege any circumstance which would show that in issuing the
assailed Orders, the trial court acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, following the
hierarchy of courts, a special civil action for certiorari assailing an
order of the Regional Trial Court should be filed with the Court of
Appeals and not with this Court. Petitioner did not raise any special
reason or compelling circumstance that would justify direct recourse
to this Court.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
The real name of the victims mother is withheld per Republic ActNo.
7610, Republic ActNo.cralaw9262, and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC.See
People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 cralawSeptember 2006.
The real name of the victim is withheld per Republic ActNo. 7610,
Republic ActNo. 9262 and cralawA.M. No. 04-11-09-SC.See People v.
Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006.
Otherwise known asThe Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
Rollo, p. 5.
Id. at 3.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 1.
People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 67787, 18 April 1989, 172 SCRA 415.
Id.
Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 1014 (2003).
Lalican v. Vergara, 342 Phil. 485 (1997).
RULES OF COURT,Rule 45, Section 4.
Id.
Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant. - When a
person is lawfullyarrested without a warrant involving an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation, thecralawcomplaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided cralawan inquest has been conducted in
accordance with existing rules.In the absence or
unavailabilitycralawof an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be
filed by the offended party or a peace officercralawdirectly with the
proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting officercralawor person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may
ask for acralawpreliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule,
but he must sign a waiver of the provisions cralawof Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel.cralawNotwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and
the investigation must be terminated within cralawfifteen (15) days
from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a
preliminarycralawinvestigation, the accused may, within five (5) days
from the time he learns of its filing, askcralawfor a preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense
ascralawprovided in this Rule.(Emphasis supplied)
PAMARAN, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED
205 (8th Ed., 2005) citing People v.cralawVelasquez, 405 Phil. 74
(2001).
Records, p. 14.
Id. at 15.
436 Phil. 719 (2002).
Article 266-A, paragraph 2of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -
xxx
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof,cralawshall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another persons mouth or analcralaworifice, or
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.
THIRD DIVISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
-versus- Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LILIO U. ACHAS, NACHURA, and
Accused-Appellant. PERALTA, JJ.
Promulgated:
August 4, 2009
x - - - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
This is an appeal from the Decision dated May 19, 2008 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00480, affirming the Decision
dated March 11, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37 in
Cagayan de Oro City. The RTC adjudged accused-appellant Lilio U.
Achas guilty of two (2) counts of the crime of rape.
In 1998, AAA, then barely eight years old, was staying with her
mother, BBB, and her common-law spouse, Achas, in Misamis
Oriental. One Sunday in June of that year, AAA, while watching over
her two half-brothers, CCC and DDD, in their home, was grabbed by
Achas and led to their adjoining store. Once inside the store, Achas
removed AAAs short pants and underwear. He then mounted her and
succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, causing her
excruciating pain.
Sometime in March 1999, EEE, BBBs sister, saw a very pale AAA
and asked what the matter was. For a reply, AAA only placed her arms
around her aunt, shivering. Sensing that something was amiss, EEE
lost no time in having AAA examined at the Northern Mindanao
Medical Center where AAA was found to be afflicted with gonorrhea.
The beastly act that occurred in June 1998 was to be repeated in the
same place sometime in July 1999, while BBB was out gathering
firewood. This time around, Achas covered AAAs mouth with a towel
to prevent her from making any noise. And pointing a knife at the left
side of AAAs neck before and after the sexual abuse, Achas warned
her that he would kill her mother should she tell on him. cralaw
CCC, AAAs half-brother and Achas son, testified that it was not his
father but two young boys who sexually molested his sister. According
to CCC, AAA no less told him about Achas virtual innocence. Pushing
his point, CCC testified to being told by EEE to keep quiet about AAA
not having been raped by Achas. EEEs instructions, per CCC, allegedly
came when Achas was already in jail.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
The RTC forthwith elevated the records of the case to this Court
for automatic review in light of the penalty imposed. In accordance,
however, with the People v. Mateo ruling, the Court, per Resolution of
June 6, 2006, ordered the transfer of the case records to the CA for
intermediate review.
SO ORDERED.
On June 24, 2008, Achas filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), would
have the Court discredit the proffered defenses of denial and alibi,
describing them as the favorite sanctuary of felons. And for reasons
detailed in its Brief, the OSG, citing jurisprudence, urges that Achas
assault on AAAs credibility be rejected.
Just like the CA, the Court loathes to disturb the trial courts
assessment of AAAs credibility, having had the opportunity to observe
her demeanor in the witness box. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her
account of what transpired, considering not only her relative
vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the
matter to which she testified is not true.
AAA may perhaps have not cried for help while being taken
forcibly by Achas to the store adjoining their house or during the
actual penile insertion itself. This imputed omission, however, does
not necessarily diminish the plausibility of AAAs story, let alone
destroy her credibility. AAA was a young country girl of eight during
the period material. It was easy to intimidate her then into silence.
She was with her stepfather who enjoyed moral authority over her
and the only people around were her two younger and doubtless
undiscerning half-brothers whom she was looking after. Could the two
toddlers be expected to understand what their father was about to do
or was doing then to AAA and come to their half-sisters succor?
Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is
brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits herself out of
fear. As has been held, the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance
does not make voluntary the victims submission to the criminal acts
of the accused. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim
and is, therefore, subjective. AAAs credibility should, thus, not be
undercut just because she did not cry out, if this really be the case, for
help. Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way
to an attack by a sexual fiend. There is no stereotypical form of
reaction for a woman when facing a traumatic experience, such as a
sexual assault. When a girl, especially a minor, says that she has been
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed.
While RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and the
penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, the accused is, however, no
longer eligible for parole. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
THIRD DIVISION
-versus- YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson,
CORONA,*
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JESUS PARAGAS VELASCO, JR., and
CRUZ, PERALTA, JJ.
Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:
August 4, 2009
x-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
The Facts
The Information dated February 23, 1999 against Cruz alleged
the following:
That on or about the 6th day of June 1998 in the City of
Paraaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with one [AAA], a minor, 9 years old,
against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
AAA tried her best to keep the rape a secret as she was
terrified that Cruz would come back and kill her. Nevertheless,
she told her mother BBB what happened to her a few months
later. BBB subsequently told Cruzs wife of what she had just
discovered. Thereafter, BBB took her daughter to the
barangay hall and then to the police station to report the
matter to the authorities.
The RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. It found
Cruzs defense too shallow in light of his positive identification
as the perpetrator of the rape. The dispositive portion of the
RTC Decision reads:
On June 25, 2008, Cruz filed his Notice of Appeal of the RTC
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
The Issue
Impotence as a Defense
Defense of Alibi
Cruzs final argument likewise fails to convince this Court. He
relies on as alibi his presence in Multinational Village in
Paraaque City conducting a land survey at the time of the
rape incident. To sustain such an alibi, the defense must
establish the physical impossibility for the accused to be
present at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission. True it is that his story was corroborated by
additional witnesses. These testimonies, however, did not
show the physical impossibility of Cruz to be present at AAAs
home when she was raped. Even if Cruz conducted the land
survey on the same day, he could have very easily committed
the rape as he was in the same city as AAA.
Penalty Imposed
EN BANC
Promulgated:
x-----------------------------------------
----------x
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Mamantak and Taurak pleaded not guilty when arraigned.
After pre-trial, trial ensued and the parties presented their
respective evidence.
The next day, she and her husband took the boy to the
nearest police outpost but no one was there so they just
brought the boy to their stall. They opted to keep the boy until
his parents could claim him.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Taurak and Mamantak appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a
decision[4] dated March 31, 2006, the appellate court ruled
that the trial court erred in not considering the demand for
P30,000 as a demand for ransom. Such circumstance required
the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the appellate court
affirmed the conviction of Taurak and Mamantak with
modification amending the penalty from reclusion perpetua to
death.[5] Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 as amended by
Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, the appellate court
certified the case to this Court and accordingly ordered the
elevation of the records.[6]
Taurak unlawfully kept the child under her control and custody
and even brought him to Lanao del Norte. She demanded
P30,000 in exchange for his return to his mother. On the other
hand, Mamantaks actions (e.g., her presence in the carinderia
and her acceptance of the ransom) showed without doubt that
she was aiding her sister and was acting in concert with her.
These were the identical factual findings of both the trial and
appellate courts. There is no reason to disturb them as they
are sufficiently supported by evidence.
One final point of law. While the penalty for kidnapping for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code[17] is
death, RA 9346[18] has banned the death penalty and reduced
all death sentences to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole. Pursuant to this law, we reduce the penalty imposed
on appellants from death to reclusion perpetua, without
eligibility for parole.
Endnotes:
[1]
In some parts of the records, PO2.
[2]
Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Amor A. Reyes of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 43. Court of Appeals Records, pp. 23-39.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (deceased) and concurred in by Mario
L. Guaria III and Santiago Javier Ranada (retired) of the Fifth Division of the Court
of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 2-20.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id.
[7]
When the victim is a minor and the accused is any of the parents, the crime is
defined and penalized under the second paragraph of Article 271 of the Revised
Penal Code.
[8]
A public officer (such as policeman) who has a duty under the law to detain a person
but detains a person without legal ground is liable for arbitrary detention defined
and penalized under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, a public officer
who has no legal duty to detain a person may be prosecuted for illegal detention
and kidnapping.
[9]
People v. Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, 24 April 2007, 522 SCRA 174.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
See Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919).
[13]
People v. Alba, 326 Phil. 519 (1996).
[14]
People v. Garalde, G.R. No. 173055, 13 April 2007, 521 SCRA 327.
[15]
People v. Jatulan, supra.
[16]
Id.
[17]
As amended by RA 7659.
[18]
An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
[19]
See People v. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, 21 November 2007; People v. Yambot, 397
Phil. 23, (2000).
[20]
Supra note 12.
[21]
See People v. Solangon, supra; People v. Baldogo, 444 Phil. 35, 66 (2003); People v.
Garcia, 424 Phil. 158, 194 (2002).
[22]
Id.
SECOND DIVISION
Present:
- versus - QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
MILLANO MUIT, SERGIOcralaw BRION, JJ.
PANCHO, JR., EDUARDO
HERMANO ALIAS BOBBY
REYES, ROLANDO DEQUILLO, Promulgated:
ROMEO PANCHO, and JOSEPH
FERRAER, October 8, 2008
Appellants.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
After the site inspection, the three engineers walked towards the
direction of the Pajero. Seraspe was surprised to see that the three
engineers who stood together suddenly lay prostrate on the ground.
Seraspe and Chavez saw an unidentified man standing near the three
engineers. Three more armed men surrounded the Pajero. Two of
them approached Seraspe and Chavez. One of the armed men, Muit,
poked a gun at Seraspe and ordered him and Chavez to lay prostrate
on the ground.[7] The assailants dragged the victim towards the
Pajero. They forced the victim to order Seraspe to give them the keys
to the Pajero. When the victim was already on board the Pajero,
Seraspe heard one of them say, Sarge, nandito na ang ating pakay.[8]
They then started the Pajero and drove away, passing through the
Pag-asa Road gate. Two more persons who were waiting at the Pag-
asa road boarded the Pajero.[9]
At 2:30 that same afternoon, Lipa City Deputy Chief of Police, Supt.
Arcadio Mission (Supt. Mission) received a radio message from the
Tanauan Police Station that a kidnapping was ongoing and the
kidnappers on board a Pajero with plate number UDL-746 were
heading towards Lipa City. Supt. Mission immediately ordered the
police posted near the Lipa City bus stop to put up a barricade. In the
meantime, two teams were organized to intercept the Pajero. They
proceeded to the barricade.[10]
Right after Supt. Mission and the teams arrived at the barricade, the
Pajero was spotted. When policemen flagged down the Pajero, the
driver stopped the vehicle. While two policemen approached the
Pajero, the driver and front passenger opened their car doors and
started firing at the policemen. At this point, all the policemen
present at the scene fired back. The cross-fire lasted for around four
minutes. All the occupants of the Pajero, except the driver and the
front passenger who managed to escape, died. SPO1 Rolando Cariaga
apprehended one of the escapees who turned out to be Muit, the
driver of the Pajero, at Barangay San Carlos, Batangas, about 200
meters from the place of the shootout.[11]
On the other hand, after the assailants carried their plan into action,
Pancho, Jr. proceeded to their agreed meeting place but did not find
Hermanos group there. Pancho, Jr. waited along the highway in front
of the construction site. He thought that he had been left behind
when he did not see the group, so he left. When Pancho, Jr. returned
to Ferraers house, he told Ferraer what happened to their operation.
Worried that something bad might have happened to the group,
Pancho, Jr. went back and looked for the rest of his group. Pancho, Jr.
came back alone.
The prosecution presented Ignacio Ong, Sr., the father of the victim
Engr. Ignacio Ong, Jr.; Seraspe; Chavez; Dr. Anthony Llamas, the PNP
Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy; Supt. Mission,
Ferraer, as the state witness; and Atty. Narzal Mallare[12] (Atty.
Mallare), the lawyer who assisted appellants Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo
in executing their respective sworn statements as witnesses. Their
accounts were corroborated by the prosecutions documentary
evidence such as the extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr. and
Dequillo, which were executed with the assistance of Atty. Mallare.
Muit executed two extra judicial confessions: the first statement was
dated 4 December 1997, in which he was assisted by Atty. Ernesto
Vergara, and the second statement was dated 7 December 1997 in
which he was assisted by Atty. Solomon De Jesus and witnessed by his
uncle, Bonifacio Muit (Bonifacio), and his brother, Dominador Muit
(Dominador). On the other hand, the defense presented appellants
Dequillo, Pancho, Jr., and Muit.
Dequillo, for his part, claimed that for the period of November to
December 1997 he was working as a mason at Villanueva
Construction in BF Homes. His work starts at 8:00 in the morning and
ends at 5:00 in the afternoon. He stated that on 8 December 1997, he
was arrested by the CIDG at his house in Purok Sto. Domingo,
Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City. At the CIDG Detention Center, he
was questioned about the guns used in the kidnapping of the victim.
He was allegedly tortured when he denied any knowledge about the
kidnapping and was forced to sign a statement without being allowed
to read it. Atty. Mallare only came in after he had already signed the
statement. He denied any participation in the crimes charged against
him.[13]
The RTC held that mere denials and alibis of appellants cannot prevail
over the positive declarations of the prosecutions witnesses. It found
the prosecutions witnesses more credible than appellants, whose self-
serving statements were obviously intended to exculpate themselves
from criminal liability. The RTC did not give credence to the claims of
appellants that their extra judicial confessions were procured through
torture as these were belied by the testimony of Atty. Mallare and
appellants medical certificates which were issued during their
incarceration and after the execution of their statements. And the RTC
noted that even without appellants extra judicial confessions, there
was still sufficient evidence on record to hold them guilty.
The kidnapping for ransom with homicide and the carnapping were
established by the direct testimony of Ferraer, Seraspe and Chavez.
Ferraer testified on how the group approached and convinced him to
let them use his house to keep the victim they planned to kidnap.
They planned the crime in Ferraers house and waited for the call from
Romeo to inform them when the victim would be at the construction
site. The group received a call from Romeo on 2 December 1997
informing them that the victim was already at the construction site,
and so they went there to carry out their plan. At the construction
site, as testified to by Seraspe and Chavez, Muit and the other
members of the group pointed their guns at the victim and his
companion and ordered them to lie prostrate on the ground. After
getting the keys to the Pajero from Seraspe, they forced the victim to
board the vehicle with Muit driving it. They immediately reported the
kidnapping of the victim to the police and the kidnappers were
intercepted by the group led by Supt. Mission. Supt. Mission testified
that the kidnappers refused to surrender and engaged the police in a
shoot out in which the victim was among the casualties. Muit was one
of the two persons who survived the shoot out, but was apprehended
by the police. Pancho, Jr. returned to the house of Ferraer alone when
the group did not arrive at their meeting place. Ferraer, Pancho, Jr.,
and Pancho, Sr. learned from the news that the group engaged the
police in a shoot out and most of them were killed, and that Muit was
arrested by the police.
All the appellants took active part in the criminal conspiracy and
performed different roles to consummate their common plan. The
roles which Muit and his other companions played in the actual
abduction were described earlier. As for Dequillo, he was the one who
procured the guns used by the group. Pancho, Jr. served as the driver
of the back-up vehicle, and Romeo was the groups informant.
The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit also
strengthened the prosecutions case against Romeo. The rule that an
extra judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it
recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is where several
extra judicial statements had been made by several persons charged
with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference
to said several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all
material respects identical is confirmatory of the confession of the co-
defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein.
They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the
person implicated therein to show the probability of the latters actual
participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as
corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances
that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime
charged and proved. These are known as interlocking confessions.[34]
Nonetheless, the RTC, in convicting Romeo, relied not only on the
aforesaid extra judicial statements but also on Ferraers testimony that
Romeo was introduced to him in his house as the informant when they
were planning the kidnapping.
As for the penalty, the RTC did not err in imposing the penalty of death
since the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person. Neither actual demand
for nor payment of ransom is necessary for the consummation of the
felony. It is sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for the
purpose of extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances
mentioned in Article 267 were present in its perpetration.[35] The death
of the victim as a result of the kidnapping only serves as a generic
aggravating circumstance for the rule is that when more than one
qualifying circumstances are proven, the others must be considered as
generic aggravating circumstances.[36]
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, pp. 43-44. Crim. Case No. P-521 (for Kidnapping for Ransom
with Homicide).
cralaw[CONTRARY TO LAW].
[3]
Records, p. 308.
[4]
TSN, 23 November 1999, pp. 16-22; 6 July 2000, pp. 3-6.
[5]
TSN, 6 July 2000, pp. 8-11.
[6]
TSN, 31 March 1998, pp. 4-5; 13 April 1998, pp. 4-5.
[7]
TSN, 31 March 1998, pp. 6-7, 9-10; 13 April 1998, pp. 6-7, 9-10.
[8]
TSN, 31 March 1998, pp. 7-8.
[9]
TSN, 13 April 1998, pp. 8-10.
[10]
TSN, 21 July 1998, pp. 3-7.
[11]
Id. at 8-11, 20, 23-24.
[12]
See TSN, 11 February 1999.
[13]
TSN, 6 March 2001, pp. 6-14.
[14]
TSN, 27 March 2001, pp. 2-9.
[15]
TSN, 13 November 2001, pp. 3-11.
[16]
CA rollo, pp. 200-219.
[17]
Id. at 218-219. Penned by Judge Voltaire Rosales. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads as follows:
cralawWHEREFORE, this Court finds accused MILLANO MUIT Y
MUNOZ, SERGIO PANCHO Y CAGUMOC[,] JR., ROLANDO
DEQUILLO Y TARIPOS, AND ROMEO PANCHO, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM[,] resulting in the
death of Ignacio Earl Ong, Jr., punished under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code[,] as amended by Republic Act [No.] 7659,
and sentences all the accused to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
cralawIn Criminal Case No. P-607, this Court finds the accused
MILLANO MUIT Y MUNOZ, SERGIO PANCHO Y CAGUMOC[,] JR.,
ROLANDO DEQUILLO Y TARIPOS AND ROMEO PANCHO, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of CARNAPPING punished under
Republic Act [No.] 6539, and sentences all the accused to suffer
the penalty of DEATH.
cralawIn Criminal Cases Nos. P-534 and P-535, this Court finds
the accused MILLANO MUIT Y MUNOZ guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of ROBBERY with violence against or intimidation of
persons, punished under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code,
and sentences accused to an indeterminate penalty of two years
and six months of prision correccional, as minimum, up to eight
years and six months of prision mayor, as maximum. MILLANO
MUIT is also directed to pay actual damages of P18,875.00 to the
offended parties.
cralawSO ORDERED.
[18]
Id. at 298-299.
[19]
Rollo, pp. 2-31. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Andres Reyes, Jr., and Ramon Bato, Jr.
[20]
Id. at 31. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
[21]
Id. at 41-42.
[22]
CA rollo, pp. 92-93; 171-172; 244; 306.
[23]
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.―Any
private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any
other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death.
[24]
People v. Borromeo, 323 SCRA 547 (2000).
[25]
Republic Act No. 6539, Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972:
xxxx
ROBBERY CASES
Promulgated:
GARCIA, J.:
The Case
cralawIn the court of origin, appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr., along with his
cousin-in-law Segundino Calpito, was charged with the crimes of
Double Murder and Attempted Murder with Robbery in an Information
alleging, as follows:
cralawThat on or about April 22, 1988, in Sitio Kayawkaw,
Barangay Kimmalasag, Municipality of San Isidro, Province of
Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused with the intent to kill,
treachery and evident premeditation, while armed with a
firearm (not-recover), conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously assault, attack and shot from ambush
WINNER AGBULOS and EDDIE QUINDASAN, consequently
inflicting thereby multiple gunshot wounds on the different
parts of their bodies, killing Winner Agbulos on the spot and
causing the death of Eddie Quindasan shortly thereafter,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to kill, shot William Belmes, said accused having
commenced the execution of Murder by overt acts but were
unable to perform all the acts of execution, which would have
produced the crime of Murder as a consequence thereof, due
to alertness of victim William Belmes to roll and poor
marksmanship of the accused thus prevented his death, then
and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously, with the
intent of gain, take, steal and carry away the money of
Winner Agbulos in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00), Philippine currency..
The Evidence
cralawIn a decision dated August 26, 1997, the trial court acquitted
Segundino Calpito but found appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. guilty of two
crimes, i.e. (1) robbery with double homicide and (2) attempted
murder. Dispositively, the decision reads:
cralawSO ORDERED.
In a decision dated February 22, 2006, the CA modified the trial courts
decision and found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide and imposed upon him the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The CA also affirmed appellants conviction, as well
as the penalty imposed, for the separate crime of attempted murder.
cralaw
cralawFrom the CA, the case was then elevated to this Court for
automatic review. In its Resolution of September 20, 2006, the Court
resolved to require the parties to submit their respective
supplemental briefs.
FISCAL FLORES:
ATTY. YANURIA:
cralawYour Honor, it is misleading, we object, in so far as the
shooting of Eddie Quindasan and Winner Agbulos was
not seen.He only saw the persons who were firing at him
namely: Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito.
COURT:
FISCAL FLORES:
Q.cralawWill you tell the court if how far were these two (2)
accused when they were firing at you?
A.cralawEight (8) meters, sir.
xxxcralawxxxcralawxxx
ATTY. YANURIA:
FISCAL FLORES:
COURT:
cralawTo be sure, the trial court which had the unique opportunity to
observe at first hand the demeanor of witnesses Belmes and Agbulos
and asses whether they are telling the truth or not, gave full faith and
credence to their testimonies. Finding no facts and circumstances of
weight and substance that would otherwise warrant a different
conclusion, the Court accords the highest respect to the trial courts
evaluation of the credibility of these witnesses.
Costs de oficio.
* cralawOn leave.
cralawPenned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, with
Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice
Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-24.
cralawG.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 4, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
cralawIn our Resolution of August 30, 2004.
cralawCA Rollo, p. 12.
cralawCA Rollo, pp. 134-154.
cralawCA Rollo, pp. 27-34.
cralawCA Rollo, p. 131.
cralawSupra note 3.
cralawRollo, p. 29.
cralawTSN, April 15, 1993, pp. 17-19.
cralawTSN, April 15, 1993, pp. 14-15.
cralawPeople v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA
603.
cralawTSN, June 13 1991, pp. 7-8.
cralawPeople v. Oliano, G.R. No. 119013, March 6, 1998, 287 SCRA
158.
cralawPeople v. Benito, G.R. No. 128072, February 19, 1999, 303
SCRA 468.
cralawPeople v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA
102.
cralawPeople v. Lopez, G.R. No. 149808, November 27, 2003, 416
SCRA 542.
cralawPeople v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 103611, March 13, 1997, 269 SCRA
472.
cralawPeople v. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003, 401 SCRA
519.
cralawPeople v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA
384.
cralawApproved on December 31, 1993.
cralawPeople v. Cabilto, G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80, August 8,
2001, 362 SCRA 325.
cralawPeople v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA
603.
cralawPeople v. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003, 401 SCRA
519.
cralawPeople v. Werba, G.R. No. 144599, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 482.
cralawG.R. No. 124392, February 6, 2003, 397 SCRA 137.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION cralaw
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
From there, Tabernilla and six or seven of his passengers went to the
nearest police detachment to report the incident. Three policemen
accompanied them to the scene of the crime. While there, the
policemen chanced upon the robbers riding a pedicab. Socrates
Kagalingan (Kagalingan), one of the passengers-victims, recognized
the perpetrators, since one of them was still wearing the belt bag that
was taken from him.
SO ORDERED.
The case was elevated to this Court for automatic review, but on
February 9, 2005, pursuant to the decision of this Court in People v.
Mateo, we transferred the case to the CA.
SO ORDERED.
I.
II.
The only question is whether the fourth element was present, i.e., that
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, homicide was committed.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the
occasion of robbery if it is committed 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 to the commission of the crime.
There may be a connection between the two crimes, but surely, there
was no direct connection.