EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
121177
November 12, 2003
-versus-
CHARLIE
ALMOGUERRA
AND DANTE ATON,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM.:
The crime involved
in the instant case is despicable because innocent lives of three (3)
young
children were callously taken. This gruesome incident which occurred on
the day of the barangay election last May 9, 1994 shocked the quiet
barangay
of Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate. The grieving folks of that
Barangay
branded the killing of those children as the "Masbate Massacre."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For automatic review
is the Decision[1]
dated May 9, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, San Jacinto,
Masbate, in Criminal Case No. 561, declaring Charlie Almoguerra and
Dante
Aton, appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Special Complex
Crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing them to suffer the
supreme
penalty of death. They were also adjudged to pay Florentino and Lily
Julaton,
parents of the victims, P150,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00,
the amount taken.cralaw:red
The Information[2]
dated June 29, 1994 against appellants is quoted as follows:
"That on or about May
9, 1994, in the morning thereof, at Sitio Nabarira, Barangay
Piña,
Municipality of San Jacinto, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within
the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring
together and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain by means
of violence and/or intimidation of person, did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously rob the residence of spouses FLORENTINO
JULATON
and LILY AMOR located at the above-mentioned address by then and there
taking away the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) in
different
denominations and coins without the consent of said spouses, to their
damage
and prejudice in the amount aforementioned and that on the occasion of
said Robbery and pursuant to the same conspiracy, herein accused, with
intent to kill, by means of treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
persons
of GINA JULATON Y AMOR, 14 years old, LYN JULATON, 8 years old, and REY
JULATON Y AMOR, 7 years old, by then and there stabbing them with a
bladed
weapon (machete), hitting them on different parts of their bodies,
thereby
inflicting upon them serious and mortal wounds which were the direct
and
immediate cause of their untimely deaths.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Committed with
the
aggravating circumstance that the crime is committed in the dwelling of
the offended party.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
Upon arraignment,
appellants,
with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, the
prosecution presented the following witnesses: SPO2 Noli Bartolay, Dr.
Rosario Mores, Jessie Genova, Jr., Jessie Genova, Sr., Lily Julaton,
Lea
Amor, Florentino Julaton, Regino Esparraguerra and Dr. Jesus Camposano.
Their testimonies are summarized below.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
May 9,
1994,
spouses Florentino and Lily Julaton went to the polling precinct at
Barangay
Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate, to cast their votes in the barangay
elections.[3]
Before leaving, they instructed their three (3) children, namely: Gina
, 14 years old, Lyn, 8 years old and Rey, 7 years old, to watch their
store
and prevent strangers from entering their house.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 9:30
o'clock
that same morning, Jessie Genova, Jr. was gathering "malunggay" leaves
at their farm,[5]
about thirty (30) meters away from the Julaton's house,[6]
when he heard appellant Dante Aton shouting and inviting him to smoke
cigarettes.[7]
As he was approaching the house, he noticed that appellant Aton was
hiding
his right hand behind the door while his left hand was holding a
cigarette.[8]
Near the door were the bodies of two (2) dead children, Gina and Rey.[9]
When appellant Aton uttered "ada na" (here he comes),[10]
appellant Charlie Almoguerra immediately went down the stairs holding
assorted
coins at his right hand and a bladed knife or "machete" at his left
hand.[11]
Appellant Almoguerra then forced him (Jessie Genova, Jr.) to accept the
loose coins.[12]
Frightened, he received the coins, placed them inside his pocket and
ran
away.[13]
At the moment, he heard them shouting "kon mamarita ka, papatyon ka
namon
hasta an iyo familya" (if you tell somebody, we will kill you and your
family).[14]
Upon reaching his house, he placed the loose coins inside the cabinet.[15]
Meanwhile, he and his father, Jessie Genova, Sr., accompanied Spouses
Julaton
in bringing the dead bodies to Ticao District Hospital at San Jacinto.[16]
Upon their return to Barangay Piña, he gave the loose coins
amounting
to P30.75 to his father and told him about the incident.[17]
The next day, his father convinced him to report the incident to the
police.
He then executed a sworn statement.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, upon
being
informed of the incident by Sonny Amor, Spouses Florentino and Lily
Julaton
immediately returned home.[19]
Along the way, they saw appellant Almoguerra on the upper part of the
hill
near their house.[20]
Arriving there, they found all their children dead.[21]
They also found that their wooden chest or "baul" was forcibly opened
and
that their cash of P15,000.00 and some loose change were missing.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO2 Noli "Socoy"
Bartolay
of the PNP of San Jacinto, Masbate conducted an investigation.[23]
He saw the dead bodies of Gina and Rey inside the kitchen, while that
of
Lyn in the bedroom.[24]
Lily Julaton informed him that their wooden chest or "baul" was
forcibly
opened and the amount of P15,000.00 kept therein was missing.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Rosario Mores
examined
the victims' bodies. While on the witness stand, she confirmed her
three
(3) separate Post-Mortem Reports,[26]
reproduced below:
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"According to
the hospital
record, GINA A. JULATON of Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate was
examined
in the hospital on May 9, 1994 with the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Stabbed
wound, 3
cm., anterior, neck. "
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x."[27]
"According to the
hospital
record, LYN A. JULATON of Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate was
examined
in the hospital on May 9, 1994 with the following findings:
1.
Stabbed
wound, neck, 5 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Stabbed wound,
abdomen,
5 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Stabbed wound,
3.5
cm., hand, left, thru and thru.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Stabbed wound,
face,
1 cm., right.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x."[28]
"According to the
hospital
record, REY A. JULATON of Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate was
examined
in the hospital on May 9, 1994 with the following findings:
1.
Stabbed
wound, chest, 5 cm.
2. Stabbed wound,
neck,
3 cm. "
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x."[29]
Dr. Mores declared
that
all the stab wounds "were probably inflicted or caused by a sharp
pointed
or edged instrument."[30]
Lea Amor testified
that
when she visited her cousin, Efren Magdaraog, detained at the municipal
building, she saw appellant Almoguerra, who was also detained. When she
asked him why he killed the Julaton children, he answered that they
refused
to sell him cigarettes on credit.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Aton
merely
denied the charge. He testified that on that particular date, he was in
Barangay Piña to cast his vote in the barangay election but his
name was not in the voters' list. So, he decided to go to his brother's
residence at Barangay Bagahanglad that same day.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He also testified
that
he was investigated by the police[32]
and was forced to execute an affidavit on May 12, 1994,[33]
stating that he was with appellant Almoguerra and Efren Magdaraog when
they committed the crime, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"That last 9 May
1994
at about 9:30 in the morning more or less, I was on the way to barangay
Bagahanglad, San Jacinto, Masbate from sitio Guintariban, Piña,
San Jacinto, Masbate;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That during
that time
and date, I saw Charlie Almoguerra and Efren Magdaraog, both drunk, at
the well at sitio Nabarira, Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate about
fifty
(50) meters away from the house of Florentino 'Tinoy' Julaton. Then
Charlie
Almoguerra told me to go with them to buy cigarette at the store of
Florentino
Julaton, and so I went with them and when we were already near the
house
of Florentino Julaton, I heard Efren Magdaraog saying, "May cuarta pa
dide"
which, in English means, "There is money here", referring to the house
of Florentino Julaton. And then when we reached the house of the
latter,
immediately Charlie Almoguerra and Efren Magdaraog entered the house.
Charlie
Almoguerra went directly to a young girl about 14 years old and
demanded
for cigarette, while Efren Magdaraog started searching for the money;
"That because
the young
girl did not give cigarette to Charlie, he unsheated his machete and
stabbed
the girl causing her to fall down;
"That at this
juncture,
Jessie Genova, Jr. alias 'Pinoy' arrived and seeing the situation that
there were two children dead, he ran away and so because I was already
afraid, I also ran away, leaving behind Charlie Almoguerra and Efren
Magdaraog.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x."
Later, appellant Aton
retracted
the above affidavit on the ground that it was obtained involuntarily
and
that he was not assisted by his counsel.[34]
Hence, appellant Almoguerra and Magdaraog were released from detention.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, or
on
May 20, 1994, he executed another affidavit[36]
with the assistance of his counsel, imputing the commission of the
crime
only to appellant Almoguerra. Appellant Aton, in the same affidavit,
also
stated that he was with appellant Almoguerra during the incident; that
the latter then intended to buy cigarette; that he prevented Almoguerra
from stabbing the first victim; that Almoguerra also stabbed another
girl;
and that he (Aton) because of fear ran away. His affidavit is partly
reproduced
below:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Last 9
May
1994 at about 9:30 in the morning more or less, I was at sitio
Nabarira,
Piña, San Jacinto, Masbate. That during that time and date, I
saw
Charlie Almoguerra at the well about 50 meters away from the house of
Florentino
'Tinoy' Julaton, and he told me to go with him to buy a cigarette, and
when we arrived at the said house, Charlie Almoguerra proceeded inside
the house and went directly to a young girl about 14 years old and
demanded
for a cigarette, and because the girl did not give a cigarette to
Charlie
Almoguerra, the latter unsheated a machete and held the arm of the
young
girl, and then I glanced at the window and prevented him but he did not
obey instead he stabbed the young girl causing her to fall down, then
he
went to another small girl who was crying and then stabbed her again
then
I went near the door and this time Jessie Genova, Jr. arrived and when
he saw that there were two children already dead, he ran away as fast
as
he could, then because of fear, I also ran away."
Later, appellant Aton
attempted
to retract the above affidavit by asserting that he was merely forced
and
tortured by SPO2 Noli "Socoy" Bartolay to execute and sign it.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon rebuttal, the
prosecution
presented Dr. Jesus Camposano who testified that appellant Aton could
not
have been maltreated or tortured by the police; and that when
physically
examined, he was found to be mentally fit with no signs of apparent
injuries
on his body.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part,
appellant
Charlie Almoguerra, together with his mother Josefina and his sister
Rodelyn,
have a different story to tell.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 9, 1994,
the
day of the incident, at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Josefina
Almoguerra
left her house at Bagabansalan, Bartolabac, San Jacinto and went to the
polling precinct at Barangay Piña to cast her vote in the
barangay
election.[39]
At that time, her husband, Bienvenido, and her children, appellant
Charlie,
Jerry, Darwin, and Rodelyn, were still asleep.[40]
After casting her vote at about 10:00 o'clock that same morning, she
heard
that Florentino Julaton's children were killed.[41]
She then proceeded to their residence and stayed there until 11:00
o'clock
noon. She saw the dead bodies.[42]
After informing her family and children about the incident,[43]
her husband and their son, appellant Charlie, went to the Julaton's
house
where they stayed for only thirty (30) minutes because the latter had a
fever[44]
caused by a boil at his left armpit. On May 12, 1994, at around 8:00
o'clock
in the evening, appellant was investigated by the police.[45]
On July 4, 1994,[46]
he was arrested and detained. He admitted that while he was in
detention
at the Matiporon provincial jail, he escaped with a certain Donggoy and
thereafter committed another crime of robbery in Aroroy, Masbate.[47]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 9, 1995,
the
trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which,
reads:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered by proof beyond reasonable doubt, this Court hereby
convicts the accused Charlie Almoguerra and Dante Aton for the crime of
Robbery with Homicide defined and punished under Article 294 of the
Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A. No. 7659, with the presence of
aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling. Charlie Almoguerra
and Dante Aton are both sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of
death
and to pay the heirs of the three (3) children the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) PESOS each or the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND
(P150,000.00) PESOS and to return the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND
(P15,000.00)
PESOS taken from the spouses Florentino and Lily Julaton. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SO ORDERED."[48]
In convicting both
appellants,
the trial court held:
"The
defense
evidence consist of denials and alibis which are all considered the
weakest
of all defenses. Aton's testimony was that he allegedly went to
barangay
Bagahanglad after he failed to see his name in the list of registered
voters
in Barangay Piña, while Charlie Almoguerra alleged to have been
at home not far away from the scene of the crime allegedly being sick
and
asleep.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Their allegations
did
not help them at all. It is of judicial notice that Barangay
Bagahanglad
where Aton claims to be, and Sitio Bagabansalan, Barangay Bartolabac
where
Charlie claims he was, are neighboring barangays of barangay
Piña
where both places could be reached in a matter of minutes. Moreover,
Aton
claims to be in Barangay Piña in the morning of May 9, 1994
while
the mother of Charlie was even in Barangay Piña on that fateful
morning to cast her vote. Thus, their defense of alibi cannot be
considered
as it is not far-fetched that it was indeed easy to commit the crime
then
hide in the safety of their homes considering the proximity of the
scene
of the crime to their respective alleged whereabouts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The alibi offered
by
the accused is unavailing. It is well-settled that in order for alibi
to
prosper, the evidence to support it must be clear and convincing so as
to preclude the possibility of the accused' presence at the scene of
the
crime while the evidence to his identification must be weak and
insufficient
(People vs. Damos, G.R. No. 108599, Oct. 7, 1994). As narrated above,
it
is not impossible for the two accused to have been at the situs of the
crime then escape to the safety of their homes/hideouts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"It is axiomatic
that
a person's guilt may be established not only by direct evidence but
also
by circumstantial evidence which is sufficient to convict as long as:
(a) there
is
more than one circumstance; and
(b) the
combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable
doubt (People vs. Ballesteros and Avestro, G.R. No. 110289, Oct. 7,
1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The circumstances
narrated
borne-out by the records indubitably point to the accused as the
culprits.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"This Court agrees
with
the prosecution that the circumstance of killing was aggravated by
treachery
and dwelling. The mere fact of killing a child already constitutes
treachery.
The three (3) innocent children were all hacked to death without anyone
defending for them all because of the evil minds of the accused.
Killing
a child is characterized as treachery even if the manner of the assault
is not shown because the weakness of the victim due to their tender age
results in the absence of any danger to the accused (People vs.
Cabarrubias,
223 SCRA 363).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Dwelling is
likewise
present in this case as aggravating circumstance because robbery could
not be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of
the home (People vs. Gapasin, 145 SCRA 181)."[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Almoguerra,
in
his brief, ascribed to the trial court the following errors:
"I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
CHARLIE
ALMOGUERRA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE BY GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF
PROSECUTION
WITNESSES WHICH ARE REPLETE WITH IMPROBABILITIES.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANT CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA TO PAY THE HEIRS OF
THE
THREE CHILDREN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) EACH OR
TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00)
AND TO RETURN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00) TAKEN
FROM
THE SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND LILY JULATON."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, appellant
Aton raised in his brief the following assignments of error:
"I.
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DANTE ATON GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II.
"THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DANTE ATON TO PAY THE HEIRS OF THE THREE
CHILDREN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) EACH OR A
TOTAL
AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00) AND TO RETURN
THE AMOUNT OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00) TAKEN FROM THE
SPOUSES
FLORENTINO AND LILY JULATON."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In essence, appellants
contend that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of the crime
of robbery with homicide considering that the May 11, 1994 affidavit of
prosecution witness Jessie Genova, Jr. does not mention the name of
appellant
Almoguerra as one of the assailants; and that appellant Aton's May 20,
1994 affidavit stating that he was with Almoguerra when the latter
committed
the crime was obtained through force and maltreatment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Articles 293 and 294(1)
of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
7659, Section 9, provides:
"Art. 293.
Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who, with intent to gain, shall
take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence
against
or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be
guilty
of robbery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Art. 294. Robbery
with
violence against or intimidations of persons; Penalties.- Any person
guilty
of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
person
shall suffer:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The
penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery
shall
have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Direct evidence of the
commission of the crime charged is not the only matrix wherefrom a
court
may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. The rules on evidence
and
case law sustain the conviction of appellants through circumstantial
evidence.[50]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 4, Rule
133 of the Revised
Rules of Court on circumstantial evidence, the following requisites
must concur:
(1) there
must
be more than one circumstance;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) the combination
of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the accused.
In the case at bar, the
following circumstances cited by the trial court led us to the
inevitable
conclusion that the prosecution proved by evidence beyond reasonable
doubt
all the elements of robbery with homicide and that appellants conspired
to commit the crime, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Appellants
knew very well that May 9, 1994 was a barangay election day and that
most
of the registered voters of San Jacinto, Masbate, including Florentino
and Lily Julaton, would go to the polling precincts to cast their
votes;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. That same
morning,
only the Julaton children were left to watch their house and store;
3. Prosecution
witness
Jessie Genova, Jr. testified that on that particular day and time, he
saw
appellant Aton at the Julaton's house and the latter, in a loud voice,
asked him to smoke;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. When Jessie
Genova,
Jr. was approaching the house, he saw appellant Aton hiding his right
arm
behind the door while his left hand was holding a cigarette. At that
instance,
he also saw the two (2) dead bodies of the Julaton children;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. And after he
heard
the appellant Aton utter "ada na" (here he comes — referring to Jessie
Genova, Jr.), appellant Almoguerra went down the stairs holding a
"machete"
or bladed knife at his left hand and loose coins at his right hand;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. Appellant
Almoguerra
then forced Jessie Genova, Jr. to accept the loose coins. The latter
placed
them inside his pocket and immediately ran away;
7. While running
away,
he heard the appellants shouting "kon mamarita ka, papatyon ka namon
hasta
an iyo familya" (if you tell somebody, we will kill you and your
family);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. Police
investigation
established that the dead bodies of Gina and Rey Julaton were found
inside
the kitchen while that of Lyn Julaton was inside the bedroom. The
amount
of P15,000.00 was missing from spouses Julaton's wooden chest or "baul"
that was forcibly opened;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. Physical
examination
of the victims showed that the stab wounds inflicted upon them were
caused
by a sharp pointed or edged instrument;
10. Appellant
Aton's
two (2) affidavits state that on the date of the commission of the
crime,
he was with appellant Almoguerra who wanted to buy cigarette at the
Julaton's
store; and that he stabbed the victims;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
11. Appellant
Aton's
affidavit of May 12, 1994 reveals his and his companions' intent to rob
the house of spouses Julaton. In his affidavit, appellant stated that
while
on their way to the Julaton's residence, Edren Magdaraog said, "may
cuatra
pa dide" (there is money here);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
12. Dr. Jesus
Camposano
who examined appellant Aton found that the latter was physically and
mentally
fit with no apparent signs of injuries. Hence, his affidavits deserve
credence;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
13. Appellant
Almoguerra
escaped while he was detained at the provincial jail. Worse, he even
committed
another crime (robbery) in another barangay.
The foregoing
circumstances
when viewed in their entirety are as convincing as direct evidence and
as such, negate the innocence of the appellants. Otherwise stated, the
prosecution established beyond a shadow of a doubt, through
circumstantial
evidence, that both appellants conspired to commit the complex crime of
robbery with homicide. The elements of this crime are:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) the
taking
of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or
intimidation
against a person;
(b) the property
taken
belongs to another;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the taking is
characterized
by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) on the occasion
of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, here used
in
its generic sense, is committed.[51]
From the circumstantial
evidence offered by the prosecution, it is clear that both appellants,
acting in conspiracy, took P15,000.00 from the Julatons by means of
violence
against the three (3) children. For why should appellants kill them
were
it not for their intent and determination to take the money?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, by his own
account, appellant Aton placed himself squarely at the crime scene when
the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery. However, he
vigorously
contends that he cannot be held liable for robbery with homicide
because
he neither took the money nor killed the victims. In fact, he prevented
appellant Almoguerra from killing the first victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It bears stressing that
appellant Aton admitted not only once but twice in his own affidavits
that
he was with appellant Almoguerra before, during, and after the
commission
of the crime charged. And he even confirmed the veracity of his
statements
on the witness stand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Aton's contention
that he intervened when appellant Almoguerra attacked the first victim
and that thereafter, he ran away out of fear does not deserve credence.
If this were so, why did he leave only after he saw prosecution witness
Jessie Genova, Jr.?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the whole, appellant
Aton's conduct affirms the fact that he consciously concurred with
appellant
Almoguerra in committing the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The proof of conspiracy
is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances.[52]
The series of events in this case clearly show that appellants were of
one mind, not only in taking the money of spouses Julaton, but also in
the manner they committed the crime. Clearly, their concerted actions
are
indications of a criminal conspiracy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants, to exculpate
themselves, merely denied the commission of the crime and interposed
the
defense of alibi. For his defense to stand, it must be shown that not
only
were appellants somewhere else when the crime was committed but also
that
it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the
crime at the time it was committed.[53]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On this point, the trial
court held:
"x
x x Aton's testimony was that he allegedly went to
barangay
Bagahanglad after he failed to see his name in the list of registered
voters
in Barangay Piña while Charlie Almoguerra alleged to have been
at
home not far away from the scene of the crime allegedly being sick and
asleep.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Their allegations
did
not help them at all. It is of judicial notice that Barangay
Bagahanglad
where Aton claims to be, and Sitio Bagabansalan, Barangay Bartolabac
where
Charlie claims he was, are neighboring barangays of barangay
Piña
where both places could be reached in a matter of minutes. Moreover,
Aton
claims to be in Barangay Piña in the morning of May 9, 1994
while
the mother of Charlie was even in Barangay Piña on that fateful
morning to cast her vote. Thus, their defense of alibi cannot be
considered
as it is not far-fetched that it was indeed easy to commit the crime
then
hide in the safety of their homes considering the proximity of the
scene
of the crime to their respective alleged whereabouts."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are in accord with
the
trial court's finding that considering the distance between the scene
of
the crime and the places where both appellants claimed they were, it
was
physically possible for them to have been in the crime scene at the
time
it was committed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum, we find appellants'
defenses of denial and alibi unavailing. Alibi is inherently weak and
unreliable,
unless corroborated by disinterested witnesses. Since appellants were
unable
to substantiate their alibi with the testimony of a credible witness,
it
is reduced to self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law.[54]
Appellant Almoguerra's
defense is further weakened by his escape from the provincial jail.
Flight
per se cannot prove his guilt. But considered in the light of other
circumstances,
it may be deemed a strong indication of guilt.[55]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, the trial court
correctly held that the circumstances taken together point to the fair
and logical conclusion that both appellants are guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide. The only remaining question is whether the crime
was attended by aggravating circumstances.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The aggravating circumstances
of treachery and dwelling have been alleged in the Information and
proved
by the prosecution by strong and convincing evidence.cralaw:red
In People vs. Escote,[56]
we held that "treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the
victim of homicide is killed with treachery." The killing of minor
children
who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a
defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of
attack
was not shown.[57]
Considering that the victims in this case of robbery with homicide are
young children, aged 7, 8 and 14, the killing was aggravated by
treachery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, the
aggravating
circumstance of dwelling is present here. Appellants' deliberate
intrusion
in the privacy of the Julaton's domicile shows perversity.cralaw:red
In People vs. Feliciano,[58]
"dwelling is considered aggravating in robbery with homicide because
this
kind of robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of
transgressing
the sanctity of the house."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 294 of
the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A.
No. 7659, the prescribed penalty for robbery with homicide is
composed
of two indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death. Considering
that in the present case, there is the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling
that attended the commission of the crime, we impose upon the
appellants
the supreme penalty of death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regarding damages, the
trial court correctly awarded P150,000.00 as civil indemnity to the
victims'
heirs. When death occurs as a result of a crime, each appellant should
be ordered to pay the heirs of each victim P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity,
without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[59]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to Lily Julaton's
claim that the sum of P25,000.00 was spent for her children's funeral
expenses,
we find the same unsubstantiated. In People vs. Solamillo,[60]
we ruled that to be entitled to the award of actual damages, "it is
necessary
to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of
certainty,
premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to
the
injured party." While the prosecution failed to present any receipt to
prove the claim for actual damages, we are aware that the same were
indeed
incurred by the family of the deceased. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Temperate damages, in
lieu of actual damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with
certainty.[61]
In People vs. Abrazaldo,[62]
we computed temperate damages at P25,000.00. We award the same in this
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to moral damages,
we, in similar cases,[63]
awarded the victims' heirs the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
For
verily, moral damages are not intended to enrich the victims' heirs;
rather
they are awarded to allow them to obtain means for diversion that could
serve to alleviate their moral and psychological sufferings.[64]
Here, Lily Julaton, mother of the victims, equivocally described how
she
and her husband suffered untold wounded feelings for the loss of their
children.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the award for
exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the Civil
Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be
imposed
when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances.
Considering that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present
here,
P25,000.00[65]
exemplary damages may be awarded to spouses Julaton.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the assigned error
that the trial court erred in ordering the appellants to return the
P15,000.00
they took from the Spouses Julaton, suffice it to say that "the
restitution
of the thing itself" or the return of the P15,000.00 cash stolen by
appellants,
is proper under Article 105 of the Revised
Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Three (3) members of
the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate
opinions
expressed in People
vs. Echegaray that R.A.
No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is
unconstitutional,
nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is
constitutional
and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision dated May 9, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, San
Jacinto, Masbate, in Criminal Case No. 561, is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION
in the sense that appellants CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA and DANTE ATON are
sentenced
to suffer the penalty of death and individually ordered to pay the
victims'
heirs (a) P150,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as temperate
damages;
(c) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.cralaw:red
Let the records of this
case, upon finality of this decision, be forwarded to the Office of the
President for the possible exercise of her pardoning power pursuant to
Article 83 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of R.A.
7659. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Matinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna
and
Tinga, JJ., concur. chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Manuel S. Pecson, Rollo at 20–32.
[2]
Rollo at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated February 7, 1995 at 3;
Records
at 387.
[4]
Exhibit "A", Records at 82.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
(TSN) dated September 13, 1994 at 4; Records at 195.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 5 and 18; Records at 196 and 209.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 21–22; Records at 212–213.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 7; Records at 198.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 6; Records at 197.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 5; Records at 196.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 7; Records at 198.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 8; Records at 199.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 9; Records at 200.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id. at 10; Records at 201chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN dated September 13, 1994, supra at 11; Records at 202.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 10–12; TSN dated October 21, 1994 at 6–7; Records at 201–203 and
239–240.
[18]
Exhibits "B" and "G", Records at 7 and 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN dated February 7, 1995 at 3–4; Records at 387–388.
[20]
Id. at 5; Records at 389.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
TSN dated September 13, 1994, supra at 46; Records at 227.
[22]
Id. at 49; Records at 230.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN dated July 13, 1994 at 7; Records at 132.
[24]
Id. at 8; Records at 133.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 13; Records at 138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Exhibits "D", "E" and "F", Records at 83–85,
[27]
Exhibit "D", Records at 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Exhibit "E", Records at 83.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Exhibit "F", Records at 85.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
TSN dated July 13, 1994 supra at 32; Records at 157.
[31]
TSN dated November 16, 1994 at 2–3; Records at 266–267.
[32]
TSN dated December 14, 1994 at 3–4; Records at 290–291.
[33]
Annex "E", Records at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
TSN dated December 14 1994, supra at 4; Records at 291.
[35]
Exhibit "5"; Records at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Exhibit "C", Records at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
TSN dated December 14, 1994, supra at 17; Records at 304.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
TSN dated March 1, 1995 at 5–6; Records at 414–415.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
TSN dated December 14, 1994, supra at 19–20; Records at 306–307.
[40]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
TSN dated December 14, 1994, supra at 20; Records at 307.
[42]
Id. at 21; Records at 308.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Id. at 22 and TSN dated January 5, 1995 at 10–12; Records at 309 and
346–348.
[45]
TSN dated January 5, 1995, id at 13; Records at 349.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Id. at 18–19; Records at 354–355.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Id. at 32–33; Records at 368-369.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
Decision, Rollo at 32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Id. at 30–32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086–87, February 6, 2002, 376
SCRA
500, citing People vs. Fegidero 337 CRA 274, 282 (2000).
[51]
People vs. Ricardo Napalit Y Paral, G.R. Nos. 142919 and 143876,
February
4, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
People vs. Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001, 352 SCRA 713,
720–721.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
People vs. Avendaño, G.R. No. 137407, January 28, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
People vs. Solamillo, G.R. No. 126131. June 17, 2003, citing People vs.
Rabanal, 349 SCRA 655 (2201); People vs. Suitos, 329 SCRA 440 (2000).
[56]
G. R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003. Decided by the majority en banc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
People vs. Abuyen, G.R No. 77285, September 4, 1992, 213 SCRRA 569,
citing
People vs. Limaco, 88 Phil. 35 (1951); People vs. Mabilangan, 111 SCRA
398 (1982); People vs. Lora, 113 SCRA 366 (1982); People vs. Valerio,
Jr.,
112 SCRA 208 (1982).
[58]
256 SCRA 706 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
People vs. Joey Manlansing y Ambrosio and Mario Manlansing y Ambrosio,
G.R. Nos. 131736–37, March 11, 2002.
[60]
Supra at 55, citing Peopl vs. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7,
2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
Id. at 23, citing People vs De la Tongga, 336 SCRA 687, 700 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
People vs. Solamillo, supra, citing People vs. Marquez, G.R. No.
136736,
April 11, 2002; People vs. Yatco, G.R. No. 138388, March 19, 2002;
People
vs, Matic, G.R. No. 133650, February 19, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
People vs. Pacina, 338 S(RA 195, 215–216 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
People vs. Nicolas, G.R. No. 137782, April 1, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |