FIRST DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
116326
April 30, 2003 - versus -
ROBERT LEE, ET
AL.,
Accused-Appellant. D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:
This is an appeal from
a decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, of Malolos, Bulacan,
finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to
a penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts of record
are as follows:
Private complainant
Belen Portugal-Legaspi, in the pursuit of her jewelry business, usually
commuted in her car between the family residence in Saluysoy,
Meycauayan,
Bulacan and the BLG Jewelry Store that she owned and managed at P.
Paterno
St., Quiapo, Manila.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 7:00 p.m. of
February 21, 1990, Mrs. Legaspi and her salesgirl, Flordeliza
Francisco,
were aboard her car, driven by her only son, Joselito, on their way
from
Quiapo to Saluysoy.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their green-colored
Ford Laser car, Mrs. Legaspi was seated in front beside her son, while
Ms. Francisco occupied the backseat alone.[3]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not long after the
said car entered the Meycauayan exit of the North Expressway, while it
was cruising along the street leading to the St. Francis Subdivision in
Malhacan, Meycauayan, a white old-model Toyota Corona sedan rammed it
from
behind, immediately overtook it, and finally blocked its path.[4]
Four men (three with drawn handguns and one clutching a long firearm)
thereupon
alighted from the Toyota sedan, while two others remained therein.[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joselito backed up
the Ford Laser car but it slammed against the concrete wall of a nearby
textile factory and got stalled in that position.[6]
The four men rushed to the car of the Legaspis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
One of the men stood
by the Ford Laser’s car door near the driver’s seat and, in quick
succession,
fired his handgun once in the air, then to the ground and, finally, at
Joselito. Then he made a quick turn round the front of the Ford
Laser,
opened the right front door and forcibly positioned himself beside Mrs.
Legaspi.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Another man shoved Joselito
towards the middle portion of the front seat and took over the steering
wheel.[8]
The other two men occupied
the back seat to the left and right of Ms. Francisco.[9]
With the Toyota Corona
sedan following closely behind, the Ford Laser was driven along the
intended
route of the Legaspis over a distance of one kilometer or so, up to a
dumpsite
in front of a church under construction. There, having already
divested
Mrs. Legaspi of her personal valuables and taken two bags containing
assorted
pieces of jewelry worth about P3 Million, and P65,000.00 in cash, the
armed
men abandoned the Ford Laser, boarded their Toyota Corona sedan and in
no time sped away.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finding the wounded
Joselito already lifeless, Mrs. Legaspi hailed a passenger jeepney and,
aboard the same, rushed him to the Nazareno Clinic where he was
pronounced
dead on arrival.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Benito B. Caballero,
Municipal Health Officer of Bocaue, Bulacan, at the request of the
PNP-Meycauayan,
conducted the autopsy of the cadaver at 8:30 p.m. of February 21, 1990
at the Meycauayan Funeral Homes.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He issued a certificate,
stating the cause of Joselito P. Legaspi’s death as: "Shock due
to
massive external and internal hemorrhage due to gunshot wound in the
chest
penetrating both lungs and heart."[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time of his death,
Joselito was 21 years old, single, and a college student. The
family
of the deceased incurred expenses in the amount of P60,000.00 for his
wake
and P20,000.00 for the funeral service.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 20, 1990, Robert
Lee, Edmundo Rivera, Igmedio del Mundo, Angelito Orosco and Wilfredo
Alcantara
were charged by the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan with the crime of
Robbery with Homicide penalized under par. 1, Article 294 of the
Revised
Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information, filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, reads as follows:
"That on or
about the 21st day of February, 1990, in the municipality of
Meycauayan,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused together with
other
persons who are still at large and against whom the preliminary
investigation
has not yet been completed, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping
one another, armed with unlicensed firearms such as long firearm and
handguns,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent
of
gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, take, rob and
carry
away with them cash money in the sum of P65,000.00 and several pieces
of
jewelry valued at P3,000,000.00 belonging to one Belen Legaspi; to the
damage and prejudice of the owner, said Belen Legaspi in the total
amount
of P3,065,000.00; and on the occasion of the commission of the said
robbery
in band, the said accused with intent to kill one Joselito Legaspi; did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously in furtherance of
their
conspiracy, with evidence premeditation and treachery, attack, assault
and shot with the said firearm the said Joselito Legaspi, hitting the
latter
at his chest which directly caused his death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The aggravating
circumstance
of use of a motor vehicle is present in the commission of this offense."[15]
On May 17, 1990, Robert
Lee and Eduardo Rivera were arraigned and they pleaded, "not
guilty."
Trial proceeded as to these two, as the other accused were then at
large.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 18, 1991,
Angelito Orosco was arrested and subsequently brought to the trial
court.
He also pleaded, "not guilty" upon being arraigned.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, on April
22, 1993, the Regional Trial Court found all the three abovementioned
accused
guilty as charged, stating in the dispositive portion of its decision,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ROBERT
LEE y MANUTA of Antipolo, Rizal EDUARDO
RIVERA
y DELA CRUZ alias "Eddie" of Bagbaguin, Meycauayan, Bulacan and
ANGELITO
OROSCO y SINCABAN of Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as co-principals by conspiracy of the crime of Robbery
in Band with Homicide as charged in the Information and sentencing each
of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessories
prescribed by law; and ordering them to jointly pay unto the heirs of
the
late Joselito P. Legaspi the amounts of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the
fact of his death, P80,000.00 as expenses for the traditional wake and
funeral services for the aforenamed victim, P50,000.00 as moral
damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and unto Mrs. Belen Portugal-Legaspi
the
amount of P3,065,000.00 representing the value of the pieces of
assorted
jewelry and cash subject-matter of the robbery, deducting therefrom the
undetermined value of the few jewelry items subsequently recovered and
delivered to her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[16]
From said decision,
only
the accused Angelito Orosco appealed.
Appellant assigned the
following as errors:[17]
1. THE
TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION FOR HAVING
BEEN TAKEN AS A RESULT OF WARRANTLESS ARRESTS AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF
THE
SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION, CONSISTING OF THE
ALLEGED
CONFESSIONS OF ACCUSED ROBERT LEE AND EDUARDO RIVERA, INSPITE OF THE
FACT
THAT THEY WERE TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN GREATLY RELYING UPON THE PURPORTED IDENTIFICATION OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ANGELITO OROZCO MADE BY PROSECUTION WITNESSES BELEN LEGASPI AND
FLORDELIZA
FRANCISCO INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE UTTERLY UNRELIABLE.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED APPELLANT ANGELITO OROZCO.
Appellant first argues
that the extrajudicial confessions of his co-accused, Robert Lee and
Eduardo
Rivera, should be excluded because said persons were arrested without
arrest
warrants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellee, through the
Solicitor General, replies that arrest without warrant and custodial
investigation
are two different concepts, subject to separate requisites, so that the
invalidity of a warrantless arrest does not per se make the confessions
taken during the custodial investigation inadmissible in
evidence.
Accordingly, appellee submits that even assuming that the
aforementioned
co-accused were unlawfully arrested without warrants, the same will not
affect the extrajudicial confessions signed by them during custodial
investigation.
The confessions, appellee points out, were taken freely and
voluntarily,
without any duress. The persons investigated were duly informed
of
their rights to remain silent and to counsel. They were in fact
ably
represented by Atty. Dale Dick Liban of the Citizens Legal Assistance
Office
during said custodial investigation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court finds it unnecessary
to resolve the foregoing issue. For independently of the
extrajudicial
confessions, the prosecution’s evidence establishes beyond reasonable
doubt
the guilt of appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the testimony of
Belen Portugal-Legaspi, there is no question that appellant shot and
killed
her son that fateful early evening of February 21, 1990, in the course
of an armed robbery, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What part did Angelito Orosco have in the commission of that offense
that
you have described?
A
He was the one who shot my son, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Where was Orosco whom you have pointed to the court now when he shot
your
son?
A
He was outside on the street and beside the driver’s seat where my son
is situated.cralaw:red
Q
On which side of the car?
A
Left side (Witness indicating her left side)
Q
How far exactly from the car was him when he shot your son?
A
He was very near.cralaw:red
Q
How far?
A
Less than a meter.cralaw:red
Q
You said that your son was the one driving the car. Now, will you
kindly tell the Court the position of Orosco in relation to your son
when
your son was shot?
A
Orosco was beside the window near the driver’s seat.cralaw:red
Q
At the time according to you Orosco shot your son, who were the
persons,
if any, in the front seat of the car?
A
My son and me.cralaw:red
Q
In your previous testimony you referred to a person who sat beside you,
at what moment did this person sit beside you inside the car?
A
After my son was shot.cralaw:red
Q
What did he do?
A
Nothing except that he sat beside me after my son was shot.cralaw:red
Q
After Orosco shot your son can you tell the Court where he went?
A
He was the person who sat beside me, actually, he went around the car
and
sat beside me and somebody pushed my son and that somebody drove the
car.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant would, however,
fault this eyewitness on two grounds: (1) she could not have seen
the assailant’s face, as it was dark; and (2) her testimony is not
consistent
as to who drove the car and who shot her son, and further differs from
that of Flordeliza Francisco.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the first point,
Mrs. Legaspi testified that the road was lighted and that there were
lights
coming from the houses around the area and from the vehicles traveling
on the road, and said lights enabled her to see and identify the
perpetrators
of the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
She testified, thus:
COURT:
Q
Let’s go back to the scene of the crime or where your son was shot by
the
assailants, was that area lighted at the time considering that it was
already
night-time?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
The place was lighted with what?
A
The road is lighted and that road is being used by vehicles.cralaw:red
Q
Aside from that street lamp, were there other sources of light in the
premises?
A
There are, the lights coming from the houses around there.cralaw:red
Q
Was that a residential area or a commercial area?
A
A sort of combination, residential and commercial area and there are
many
vehicles passed (sic) that way.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q
Now, you answered the Court that when the incident took place on
February
21, 1990 the place was lighted, do you recall the time when this
incident
took place?
A
More or less, 7:00 o’clock in the evening.cralaw:red
Q
And some of the commercial places which you said were lighted were
already
closed at 7:00 o’clock, is it not?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And the only light that illumines the place is the light of the
electric
post?
A
Aside from that, the lights from the incoming vehicles and also the
lights
from residential houses.[19]
Furthermore, on cross-examination,
Mrs. Legaspi maintained the same point:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.cralaw:red
Q
Madam witness, from the time that your car was bumped from behind by
the
car of the holduppers you will agree with me that no light inside your
car was on at that very moment,
A
Yes, sir. Seldom do car-owners light their lights inside the car.cralaw:red
Q
That is true also at the time the four holduppers entered or boarded
your
car, is it not?
A
But it was brightly illuminated by the coming vehicles.cralaw:red
Q
My question is, no light inside your car was on at that time.cralaw:red
A
There was no light actually inside the car but it was bright in that
particular
place, I could easily see them.cralaw:red
Court:
Q
By the way, did the Court get you right when you declared that it was
Angelito
Orosco who shot your late son?
A
Yes, Your Honor. He was the one.cralaw:red
Q
Prior to that incident have you ever known or seen the accused Angelito
Orosco?
A
No, Your Honor.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As correctly noted by
appellee, the Court has held that the light from the stars,[21]
or the moon,[22]
or flames from an oven,[23]
or a wick lamp or "gasera,"[24]
can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize
another. Clearly, therefore, lights from street
lamps,
houses and passing cars are sufficient to enable the eye- witness to
identify
the appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regarding the second
point, on the alleged inconsistencies, the same are minor in nature and
do not detract from the credibility of the witnesses. Besides,
Mrs.
Legaspi never wavered on the point that it was appellant herein,
Angelito
Orosco, who shot and killed her son. She only erred in first
saying
that he also drove their car, but later she corrected herself on this
point.
Similarly, Flordeliza Francisco, who was seated at the back, thought it
was appellant who drove the car. As stated, these are minor
inconsistencies
that do not affect the thrust of the testimony of Mrs. Legaspi that
appellant
shot and killed her son.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of damages
are correct and in accordance with law and the evidence, except the
award
of P80,000 for wake and funeral expenses. This was not supported
by receipts and therefore cannot be granted.[25]
However, an award of P25,000 for temperate damages may be allowed,
under
Article 2224 of the Civil Code,[26]
since the fact of having incurred expenses for such purposes is
incontrovertible.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the
award
of P80,000 for wake and funeral expenses is set aside but an award of
P25,000
as temperate damages is GRANTED. Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
TSN, 15 October 1990, pp. 22-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Ibid, pp. 16-24; TSN, 1 February 1991, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ibid, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid, pp. 17-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid, pp. 18, 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ibid, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid, pp. 19-20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid, p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid, p. 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid, pp. 30-32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Ibid, pp. 34-35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, March 15, 1991, pp. 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Exhibit A, RTC Records, p. 189.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Ibid, pp. 41-42 and 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Decision, pp. 20-21; Rollo pp. 38-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 4-5; Rollo, p. 105.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, October 18, 1991, pp. 13-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, Ibid, pp. 72-73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, November 20, 1991, pp. 44-45chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Vacal, 27 SCRA 24 (1969).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Pueblas, 127 SCRA 746 (1984).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. De la Cruz, 147 SCRA 359 (1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Aboga, 147 SCRA 404 (1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People v. Plazo, 350 SCRA 433 (2001); People v. Go-od, 331 SCRA 612
(2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Art. 224 of the Civil Code provides: "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."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Sumibcay, G.R. Nos. 132130-31, May 29, 2002; People v. Plazo,
supra, see note 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |
