EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
125784
November 19, 2003
-versus-
DINDO VALLEJO Y
MASOLA,
DARWIN
LLARENAS Y OCENAR,ROMEO TIPASI
Y
QUIRAN
& ARNOLD CAMO Y ACOI,
Appellants.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
For automatic review
is the Decision[1]
dated May 16, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Manila in
Criminal
Case No. 94-135584 finding Dindo M. Vallejo, Darwin O. Llarenas, Romeo
Q. Tipasi, Jr. and Arnold A. Camo, appellants, guilty of robbery with
homicide
and imposing upon them the supreme penalty of death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information[2]
filed against appellants reads:
"That on or
about April 3, 1994, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused
conspiring and confederating together with others whose true names,
identities
and present whereabouts are still unknown, and helping one another, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to
gain
and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by barging
inside
Bell All Sales Corporation while armed with firearms, and once inside,
take, rob and carry away cash money amounting to approximately
P63,000.00
and other personal properties, belonging to SANTOS DELOS SANTOS Y CHUA,
to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount
of
P63,000.00, Philippine currency; that in the commission of the said
offense,
the said accused in pursuance of their conspiracy and by reason of the
aforesaid robbery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,
with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon
said
Santos delos Santos y Chua by shooting the latter on the left portion
of
his back with a .380 caliber, thereby inflicting upon him mortal
gunshot
wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Contrary to law."
Upon arraignment on
June
16, 1994, appellants, assisted by their respective counsel, pleaded
"not
guilty"[3]
to the charge. Thereafter, trial ensued. The prosecution presented
eight
witnesses, namely: PO3 Ramon Torrefiel, Armando Opeña, Vilma
Nobleza,
Rita Delos Santos (the victim's wife), PO3 Erlindo Lomboy, Arthur
Portalla,
Chua Yu Chun, and Dr. Marcial Lagonera. Their testimonies established
the
following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Santos
Delos
Santos Chua was the General Manager of Bell All Sales Corporation
(BASC)
located at 2867 Lamayan Street, Sta. Ana, Manila. Its compound has two
gates. The big gate is for incoming and outgoing vehicles and can be
opened
and closed manually. The small gate can be opened only by a remote
electronic
control situated inside the office of Chua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 3, 1994
at
around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, while Armando Opeña,
driver
of BASC, was cleaning a car in the garage situated two meters away from
Chua's office, he overheard somebody talking through the intercom. Then
the lock inside the small gate was released and he saw appellant Dindo
Vallejo entering the compound through this gate. Vallejo was a. former
live-in employee of the corporation and oftentimes recommended to Chua
applicants for employment. Vallejo then approached the big gate and
tried
to open it. Armando stopped him, instructing him to ask Chua's
permission.
So Armando accompanied Vallejo to Chua's office. Upon seeing Vallejo,
Chua
asked him about the person he was recommending for work. Vallejo
replied
that he was recommending a utility boy. Meanwhile, Armando left and
resumed
cleaning the car.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moments later, Vallejo
rushed back to the big gate and opened it. Several persons entered.
Appellants
Romeo Tipasi and Arnold Camo poked their guns at Armando and ordered
him
to lie down on the back seat of the car.[5]
Appellants Vallejo and Darwin Llarenas went inside Chua's office, while
the other two proceeded to the adjacent room where Vilma Nobleza, a
checker
of the corporation, was supervising employees repacking sugar.
Appellants'
other companions stood as look-out while the heist was going on.
Armando, then being
guarded by two persons, heard a commotion inside Chua's office. Chua
was
shouting. Shortly thereafter, Armando heard gun shots.cralaw:red
Armando, Vilma and Rita
de los Santos (Chua's wife) saw the bloodied Chua being carried by
three
persons to the warehouse adjacent to the garage. While he was lying
face
down, appellant Darwin Llarenas shot him.[6]
At that instance, Armando heard someone shouting "takbo na!" All the
assailants
fled. Arthur Portalla, victim's neighbor, saw them escaped through a
yellow
taxi with Plate No. NYT 417 proceeding towards Panaderos Street.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Immediately, Armando
and Rita brought Chua to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Sta. Mesa,
Manila.
He died three hours later. Armando returned to the compound and found
Yu
Chun taking pictures, identified and marked during the hearing as
Exhibits
"P" — "P-20".[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PO3 Torrefiel, SPO1
Efren Cruz and SPO1 Julius Bustamante, of the Western Police District
(WPD),
conducted an investigation. They proceeded to the crime scene at Sta.
Ana,
Manila and found the victim's office in complete disarray. All the
drawers
of the tables were forcibly opened. Broken bottles were scattered on
the
ground.[9]
They recovered the following items: a ball cap with the markings
"Toronto
Blue Jays", marked as Exhibit "A"; a broken telephone receiver with
blood
stains, marked as Exhibit "B"; a broken Seiko watch with blood stains,
marked as Exhibit "C"; two live bullets of a .380 caliber revolver with
dot in the primer, marked as Exhibits "D" & "D-1"; an empty shell
of
the same caliber, marked as Exhibit "D-2"; and a gun holster marked as
Exhibit "E".[10]
Later, the police took Armando's sworn statement[11]
identifying all the appellants as the malefactors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 4, 1994, upon
the order of the Chief of Homicide Division, WPD, PO3 Lomboy, SPO1
William
Gondranios, SPO1 Eduardo Liwanagan and SPO1 Norberto Panlilio arrested
the appellants in their respective houses[12]
without warrants of arrest. They recovered from appellant Darwin
Llarenas
an Omega wrist watch, marked as Exhibit "I"; from appellant Romeo
Tipasi,
a gold Cross ballpen with the engraved name of the victim, marked as
Exhibit
"H"; and a black wallet, marked as Exhibit "G".[13]
All these items belonged to the victim. Then the appellants were placed
in a police line-up and were identified by Armando.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vilma and Rita corroborated
the testimony of Armando and positively identified the appellants as
the
perpetrators of the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rita testified that
it was appellant Darwin Llarenas who shot her husband.[15]
He was 47 years old and was earning P50,000.00 a month when he died.[16]
She enumerated some of his personal belongings taken by the appellants,
such as: one Omega wrist watch valued at P70,000.00; one black wallet;
one gold Cross ballpen worth P1,000.00; and P63,000.00 she placed in
the
drawer of her husband's office table intended for the salaries of the
employees.
She incurred P500,000.00 for his funeral expenses.[17]
Dr. Lagonera, Medico-Legal
Officer of the WPD who conducted the post-mortem examination of Chua,
submitted
a Report with the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"EXTERNAL
FINDINGS:
1.
Lacerated
wound, left parietal region, measuring 1x0.3 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Lacerated wound,
stellate in shape, left frontal region, measuring 0.4x0.4 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
Contusso-abrasion,
right forehead, measuring 9x3 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Abrasion, right
zygomatic region, measuring 2x2 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. Abrasion, bridge
of the nose, measuring 6x2 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. Lacerated wound,
left zygomatic region, measuring 1x0.2 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. Lacerated wound,
left parietal region, measuring 3x0.4 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. Lacerated wound,
mid-occipital region, measuring 0.5x0.2 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. Abrasion, left
infra-clavicular
region, measuring 2x0.3 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
10. Abrasion, left
posterior shoulder, measuring 2x1 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
11. Gunshot wound,
with the point of entry at the left posterior lumbar region, 37 inches
from heel, 9 cms. From posterior midline, measuring 0.5x0.6 cm. and
contusion
collar measures 1x0.9 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The bullet course was
directed
downwards, forwards crossing midline, lacerating the left kidney and
renal
blood vessels, and ileum and its mesentery. A copper coated slug was
extracted
in the sub-cutaneous tissue in the right iliac region, 35 inches from
heel
and 8 cms. from anterior midline.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"INTERNAL
FINDINGS:
1. Injuries to
organs
and tissues as indicated in the internal extension of the gunshot
wound,
with massive bleeding in the pelvic cavity.
2. The rest of the
internal organs were pale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Small amount of
partially digested rice meal with meaty materials and without alcoholic
odor was recovered from the stomach."[18]
All the appellants
raised
the defenses of denial and alibi. They denied connivance in the
commission
of the crime. According to them, they did not know each other prior to
their arrest.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Dindo Vallejo
declared on the witness stand that at the time of the incident, he was
in his brother's house at 65 V. Luna, Quezon City where he has been
residing
for about a year. He could not go out of the house as he was sick with
pulmonary tuberculosis and was vomiting blood. In fact, he was
hospitalized
at the Quezon Institute from March 20-26, 1994.[19]
His sister-in-law, Rose Vallejo, corroborated his testimony.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Darwin Llarenas,
a dried shrimps vendor, testified that on April 3, 1994, which was
Easter
Sunday, he and his wife and their two children attended mass at the
Sta.
Mesa Parish Church. They returned home at 392 Parcel Street, Sta. Mesa,
Manila at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning. He cooked lunch as they
were preparing a small gathering for his brother coming from the
province.[21]
Before lunchtime, he went to the house of Cristina Latine and invited
her.
After lunch, they had a drinking spree with the visitors. Meantime, he
repacked dried shrimps and gave them to Adela Editha Jameliano. Both
Editha
and Cristina left late in the afternoon. The party ended at almost 7:00
o'clock in the evening and, thereafter, he went to bed.[22]
Cristina and Editha, as well as his mother and wife, corroborated his
testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Arnold Camo,
a barbeque vendor, testified that on April 3, 1994, he was in his house
at 361 Parcel Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila because he was ill. Two weeks
prior
to that date, he was already sick and bedridden.[23]
His left ear was swollen and he had fever. He could hardly move because
of so much pain. Dr. Ramos attended to him. Several members of his
family
corroborated his testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Romeo Tipasi
gave the following version: On April 3, 1994, at 10:30 in the morning,
spouses Valentin and Patrocinia Leyte fetched him from his house at 295
Parcel Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila to stand as sponsor in the christening
of their child. They stayed in the church until past noon. Then he
attended
the reception held in the couple's house at 385 Parcel Street, Sta.
Mesa,
Manila until about past 6:00 o'clock in the evening.[24]
Patrocinia Leyte corroborated his testimony.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 16, 1996, the
trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
"WHEREFORE,
this court finds all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating circumstances of
abused
of superior strength and craft, without any mitigating circumstance,
this
court hereby imposes the penalty of DEATH in accordance with Article
294
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Article 63 of the
same code and for the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim
jointly
and solidarily the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
P50,000.00
for the death of the victim;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) P156,000.00 as
actual damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) P6,072,000.00
as
unrealized earnings of the victim;
(d) P1,000.00 as
moral
damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) P500,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and
(f) To pay the cost.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SO ORDERED."[26]
Hence, this appeal.
Quoted
below are the assignments of error being ascribed to the trial court by
the appellants:
By
appellant
Darwin Llarenas:
"I
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF VICTIM
SOLIDARILY,
THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS: P50,000.00 FOR THE DEATH OF VICTIM; P156,000.00
AS ACTUAL DAMAGES; P6,072,000.00 AS UNREALIZED EARNINGS OF THE VICTIM;
P1,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES; P500,000.00 AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND; TO
PAY
THE COSTS."[27]
By appellants Arnold
Camo
and Romeo Tipasi:
"I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARNOLD CAMO AND ROMEO TIPASI, JR.,
ACTED
IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE OTHER ACCUSED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS TO SOLIDARILY PAY THE HEIRS OF THE
VICTIM
THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS: P50,000.00 FOR THE DEATH OF VICTIM; P156,000.00
AS ACTUAL DAMAGES; P6,072,000.00 AS UNREALIZED EARNINGS OF THE VICTIM;
P1,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES; P500,000.00 AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND; TO
PAY
THE COSTS."[28]
By appellant Dindo
Vallejo:
"I
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT ACTED IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE OTHER
ACCUSED
IN KILLING THE VICTIM.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
''II
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"III
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO SOLIDARILY PAY THE HEIRS OF THE
VICTIM
THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS: P50,000.00 FOR THE DEATH OF VICTIM; P156,000.00
AS ACTUAL DAMAGES; P6,072,000.00 AS UNREALIZED EARNINGS OF THE VICTIM;
P1,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES; P500,000.00 AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND; TO
PAY
THE COSTS."[29]
The Solicitor General
counters
that the guilt of the appellants who acted in conspiracy, was
established
by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. They were positively identified by
the prosecution witnesses. While there may be inconsistencies in their
testimonies, the same do not affect their credibility. Moreover,
appellants
failed to prove by convincing evidence that it was physically
impossible
for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.
Lastly, there is no merit in their contention that their arrest without
warrants is unconstitutional. Any infirmity attending one's arrest is
cured
when the accused filed a petition for bail[30]
and/or when he entered a plea when arraigned.[31]
After a thorough review
of the evidence on record, we affirm the conviction of all the
appellants.
A. The arrest of
the appellants without warrants is constitutional.chanrobles virtual law library
We have consistently
held that any objection by the accused to an arrest without a warrant
must
be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived.[32]
We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the
illegality
of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information
against
him before his arraignment.[33]
And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
the
court over the person of the accused, any defect in his arrest may be
deemed
cured when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court[34]
as what was done by the appellants in the instant case. Not only did
they
enter their pleas during arraignment, but they also actively
participated
during the trial which constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in
their
arrest.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. The appellants
were positively identified by the prosecution witnesses.chanrobles virtual law library
Even if the warrantless
arrest was unlawful and the evidence obtained inadmissible, the
conviction
of the appellants would still be in order because they were positively
identified by eyewitnesses. Verily, such identification is a vital and
decisive evidence which virtually sealed appellants'
culpability. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants, however,
contend that the prosecution witnesses could not possibly identify
them.
Armando was lying face down during the commission of the crime; Rita
was
on the second floor when the commotion was taking place on the ground
floor;
and Vilma was in the adjacent room.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not persuaded.
Armando testified on direct examination as follows:
ATTY. PANER:
Q And what about
Dindo,
what did he do?
A He opened the
lock
of the big gate.
Q And what
happened
next after that?
A Some other
people
entered.
Q Have you been
able
to know more or less how many persons entered the compound after Dindo
opened the gate?
A The first batch
consisted
of five (5) persons and there was another batch.
Q There were how
many
persons more or less?
A About 4 persons,
sir.
Q And when these
persons
entered the compound, what happened next?
A They approached
me
and poked their guns at me.
Q How many persons
approached
you and poked a gun on you?
A Two (2) persons,
sir.
Q If you will be
able
to see these two persons when you said poked their guns on you, would
you
be able to recognize them?
A Yes, sir.
Q If these persons
are
inside this court room, please point at them.
A The fourth one
and
the 6th one from the left. (Witness pointing to the persons inside the
court room who when asked, gave their names as Romeo Tipasi and Arnold
Gamo).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q While these two
persons
were poking their guns at you, what happened next?
A They asked me to
lie
down in the car.
Q And what
happened
next after that?
A I heard Kuya
Gamay
(Chua) shouting.
Q Shouting from
what
direction?
A From the office,
sir.
Q And what
happened
next after you heard your Kuya shouting inside the office?
A There was a
commotion
inside and I heard bottles being broken.
Q What else, if
any,
did you hear?
A Kuya was
shouting.
Q After that what
happened
next?
A I heard
gunshots,
sir.
Q From what
direction?
A From the office,
sir.
Q After you heard
that
shot from the direction where your Kuya Gamay was inside, what happened
next?
A I still heard
shots.
Q And what
happened
after you have heard your Kuya Gamay shouted?
A I heard bottles
were
broken.
Q And what
happened
after that?
A I saw three (3)
persons
carrying Kuya Gamay.
Q And where did
they
bring your Kuya Gamay?
A They brought him
to
the big storage room which was beside the Ford Fiera.
Q And what did
they
do with your Kuya Gamay?
A They threw him
there,
sir.
Q What happened
next
after that?
A He was shot, sir.
COURT :
That was the
second
time you heard the shots?
A Yes, Your Honor.
COURT :
Proceed.
ATTYPANER:
Q Did you see that
person
who shot your Kuya Gamay?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you will be
able
to see that person who shot your Kuya Gamay, will you be able to point
him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please look
around
and point this person.
A That man, sir.
(Witness
pointing to a person inside the court room who when asked, gave his
name
as Darwin Llarenas.)
Q Now, after this
person
shot your Kuya Gamay, what happened next?
A They shouted
'takbo
na!'.
Q And to what
direction
did they go?
A Towards the big
gate,
sir."[36]
(Emphasis
ours.)
Clearly, even if
Armando
was forced to lie face down by the appellants, still he had a glimpse
of
them as they moved inside the compound. It may be recalled that he saw
them when they entered the big gate. Furthermore, considering that the
crime took place during the day, he could very well see appellants,
especially
Camo and Tipasi who poked their guns at him when they entered the
compound.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vilma's testimony is
reproduced below:
"ATTY.
PANER:
Q While you were
performing
your duty as a checker of Bell All Sales Corp. on said date, do you
know
what incident took place after that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please
narrate
to the Honorable Court.
A Several male
persons
entered.
Q Did you see how
they
were able to enter the gate?
A Yes, sir.
Q How?
A Dindo Vallejo
opened
the big gate.
Q How many persons
entered
the compound after Dindo Vallejo opened the big gate.
A About 5 persons.
Q And after the 5
persons
entered the big gate what happened next?
A Two of the men
approached
me.
Q And what did
they
do when they approached you?
A They poked their
guns
at me.
Q And what about
the
driver Armando Opeña where was he at that time?
A He was near the
car.
Q And did you see
Armando
Opeña that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what
happened
to him if any?
A Guns were also
poked
at him.
Q How many persons
poked
gun on Armando Opeña?
A Two, sir.
Q Now these 2
persons
whom you said poked their guns on Armando Opeña, if you see them
again would you be able to identify them?
A Yes, sir.
Q If they are in
the
courtroom, will you please point them out?
A (Witness
pointing
to 2 persons inside the courtroom who gave their names as Romeo Tipasi
and Arnold Camo)
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
ATTY. PANER:
Q While these 2
were
guarding you what happened next?
A We heard a
commotion
inside the office.
Q What happened
next
after you heard the commotion?
A I heard a
gunshot.
Q From what
direction
did the gunshot came from?
A From the office,
sir.
Q After you heard
this
commotion and gunshot inside the office what happened next?
A Our employer was
shouting.
Q What happened
after
you heard your employer shouting?
A They brought our
employer
outside the office to the garage.
Q What was the
condition
of your employer at the time he was being brought out of his office?
A He was bleeding.
Q Where did they
bring
your employer?
A Near the door of
the
warehouse, sir.
Q What happened
next
after they brought your employer near the door of the warehouse?
A He was strangled
and
shot.
Q Did you see the
person
who shot your employer?
A Yes, sir.
Q How far were you
from
this person when this person shoot your employer?
A 5 meters, sir.
Q And if you would
be
able to see this person again who shoot your employer, would you be
able
to recognize him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please
look
around and point to us if he is around?
A Witness pointing
to
a person inside the courtroom who when asked, gave his name as Darwin
Llarenas.
Q Now after this
person
whom you pointed as Darwin Llarenas shot your employer what happened
next?
A Somebody shouted
'takbo'
and they all ran away.
Q What happened
next
after they ran away?
A We saw our
employer
already sprawled on the ground.
Q What did you do
after
that?
A We brought him
to
the hospital.
Q Who brought your
employer
to the hospital?
A His wife and the
driver
and a houseboy and his son.
Q And how about
you
where did you go?
A I stayed in the
company.
Q Did you go to
the
office of Kuya Gamay?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you
find
out?
A I saw the office
was
in disarray and there was blood around and broken bottles."[37]
(Emphasis
ours.)
Rita also positively
identified
Llarenas as one of the culprits in a clear, categorical and
straightforward
manner, thus:
"Q Will you
please narrate to this Honorable Court what was that unusual incident
all
about?
A My eldest child
called
me and told me that there was a commotion going on outside. I asked him
if it was outside or within our premises and he told me that it was
within
our premises and that he heard a gunshot.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What happened
after
that?
A I looked out the
window
together with my children and househelp.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
ATTY. PANER:
Q When you peeped
through
that particular window marked as Exhibit "S-3-a", what did you see?
A I saw a man
standing
with a gun.
Q What was he
doing
there?
A He was standing.
He
had a gun with him.
Q What did you do
if
any?
A I asked my maid
to
call the police.
Q Why?
A Because I saw
that
the man had a gun and he looked to be a hold-upper.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
ATTY. PANER:
Q What else did
you
see aside from that gunman?
A I saw three men
dragging
my husband to this place.
Q What did they do
to
your husband?
A I saw that as
they
were dragging my husband, he fell here (Witness pointing to the lower
left
most portion of the photograph marked as Exhibit "S-4".
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
ATTY. PANER:
Q What happened
next
after you saw your husband?
A He was shot.
Q Did you see the
person
who shot your husband?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you will be
able
to see that person who shot your husband, will you be able to recognize
him?
A Yes, sir.
Q If that person
is
inside this courtroom, will you please point at him?
A Third from the
left
(witness pointing to a person in the courtroom who when asked,
identified
himself as Darwin Llarenas).
Q What did you do
after
you saw your husband having been shot by that person?
A I hurriedly went
down,
sir."[38]
(Emphasis
ours.)
It is, thus, evident
that
prosecution witnesses Armando, Vilma and Rita had an unobstructed view
of the crime scene and the events then transpiring. Their proximity to
appellants while the crime was in progress enabled them to identify
them
well. We have held that where the conditions of visibility are
favorable
and witnesses do not appear to harbor ill motives against the
malefactors,
their assertions as to the latter's identities should be accepted.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. The alleged
inconsistencies
in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not affect their
credibility.chanrobles virtual law library
Although there are some
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
specifically
as to the exact number of persons who entered the compound, due
probably
to the general confusion that characterized the incident, we hold that
this imperfection does not diminish their credibility. What is
important
is the fact that there is a sustained consistency in their testimonies
relating the principal elements of the crime and positively identifying
the appellants as the perpetrators.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, truth-telling
witnesses are not expected to give flawless testimonies, considering
the
lapse of time involved and the treachery of human memory. We have ruled
time and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses
do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their
testimonies
on the whole are coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies
may
in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not
been
rehearsed.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D. Appellants'
defenses
of denial and alibi failed to meet the requisites of time and place.chanrobles virtual law library
In the face of the positive
identification of appellants by the prosecution witnesses, their
defenses
of denial and alibi must fall. Denials, as negative and self-serving
evidence,
do not deserve as much weight in law as positive and affirmative
testimonies.
Oft-repeated is the rule that for alibi to offset the evidence of the
prosecution
demonstrating appellants' guilt, they must establish not only that they
were somewhere else when the crime was committed but that it was also
physically
impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time
it was perpetrated.[42]
Here, the defense utterly failed to meet these requisites.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We take judicial notice
of the fact that the residences of appellants Llarenas, Camo and
Tipasi,
which are all in Sta. Mesa, Manila, where they claimed to have been at
the time of the commission of the crime, are in close proximity to Sta.
Ana, Manila, the locus criminis. As for Vallejo, while he could have
been
in Quezon City, it was not physically impossible for him to have been
in
Sta. Ana, on the day the crime was perpetrated. He could reach the
crime
scene after an hour travel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
E. All the
elements
of the crime are present.chanrobles virtual law library
The elements of robbery
with homicide are the following: (a) the taking of personal property
with
violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things; (b)
the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking be done with
animus
lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense was committed. The
offense
becomes a special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article
294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the
occasion
or by reason of the robbery.[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, all the
essential elements of robbery with homicide have been established by
the
prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Personal properties and
cash
belonging to the victim were taken by appellants by means of force and
intimidation, and with obvious intent to gain. Moreover, in the course
of the robbery, the victim was mercilessly gunned down by appellant.
When
homicide takes place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all
those
who took part in the robbery shall be guilty of the special complex
crime
of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually participated in
the
killing, unless there is proof that they had endeavored to prevent the
perpetration of the crime.[44]
Here, this exception is not present.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
F. The appellants
acted in conspiracy.chanrobles virtual law library
In the case at bar,
conspiracy was clearly manifested in the concerted efforts, unity of
purpose
and design in the execution of the offense by the appellants. They were
armed and entered the compound through the big gate. Camo and Tipasi
poked
their guns at Armando and stood guard over him as he was lying down in
the garage. Meanwhile, Llarenas and Vallejo entered the office of the
victim
and shot him. The other two also poked their guns at Vilma, while the
others
stayed within the vicinity to act as look-outs. After the appellants
and
their cohorts forcibly seized the belongings of the victim, they shot
him
and ran away. Their simultaneous acts indicate a joint purpose and
concurrence
of intentions. Where the acts of the accused collectively and
individually
demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the
perpetrators
will be liable as principals.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
G. Penalty
Pursuant to Article
294 of the Revised
Penal Code, robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion
perpetua
to death. Under Article 63, paragraph 1 of the same Code, the felons
should
be meted the supreme penalty of death when the crime is committed with
an aggravating circumstance absent any mitigating circumstance.cralaw:red
In the present case,
the trial court specified in the decretal portion of its Decision the
aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superior strength and craft in the commission
of the crime. Abuse of superior strength was present on account of the
fact that appellants were not only numerically superior to the victim
but
also because all of them were armed and purposely used force out of
proportion
to the means of defense available to the victim. Craft was also present
as shown by the fact that appellant Vallejo pretended to recommend
somebody
for employment as a means to enter the compound without suspicion on
the
part of the victim. Hence, the trial court sentenced all the appellants
to suffer the supreme penalty of death. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, appellants
may be spared from the extreme punishment of death. The Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,[46]
now explicitly requires qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances
to be expressly and specifically pleaded in the complaint or
information,
otherwise they will not be considered by the court even if proved
during
the trial,[47]
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 8.
Designation
of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the
designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting
the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 9. Cause of
the
accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in
ordinary
and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the
statute
but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances for the court to pronounce judgment."
Section 8 simply
provides
that the information or complaint must state the designation of the
offense
given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating
circumstances. With regard to Section 9, we held in People vs. Nerio
Suela[48]
that the use of the word 'must' indicates that the requirement is
mandatory
and failure to comply with it means that generic aggravating
circumstances,
although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused
if such circumstances are not alleged in the information. Although the
rule took effect on December 1, 2000, the same may be applied
retroactively[49]
because it is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are
given
retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused.[50]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
So, while superior strength
and craft were proven, however, they cannot aggravate the penalty for
the
crime since they were not alleged in the information. There being no
modifying
circumstances that attended the commission of robbery with homicide,
appellants
should each be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with
Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code.[51]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
H. Civil
liabilities
Considering that appellants
acted in conspiracy, they should be held jointly and severally liable
for
civil liabilities. As correctly held by the trial court, appellants are
jointly and severally liable to the heirs of the victim for civil
indemnity
in the amount of P50,000.00 and for moral damages also in the amount of
P50,000.00 for the pain and sorrow they suffered which were proved
during
the hearing. In view of the presence of abuse of superior strength and
craft in the commission of the crime, the heirs are also entitled to
exemplary
damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[52]
Appellants are also liable to the said heirs in the total amount of
P63,000.00
as actual damages, the prosecution having proven that such amount was
lost.
The heirs failed to prove the expenses they incurred during the wake.
However,
in lieu thereof, they are entitled to temperate damages in the amount o
t P25,000.00.[53]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to the ruling
of the trial court, the heirs are not entitled to damages for the lost
earnings of the victim for lack of factual basis. The estimate given by
the victim's widow on his income as a businessman is not supported by
competent
evidence, like income tax returns or receipts. Compensation for lost
income
is in the nature of damages and as such, requires due proof thereof.[54]
In short, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income.[55]
In this case, the victim's widow merely gave a self-serving statement
of
her deceased husband's income, hence, unreliable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 105 of
the Revised
Penal Code,[56]
the appellants are obliged to return to the heirs the items they took
from
the victim, such as the Omega wristwatch and gold Cross ballpen.
However,
since those lost items and valuables were already recovered from the
appellants
by the police investigators,[57]
the latter should deliver them to the heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. Each
appellant
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Appellants are
ordered
to PAY , jointly and severally, the heirs of Chua the following
amounts:
(a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (c)
P63,000.00 as actual damages; (d) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(e) P25,000.00 as temperate damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The police are
ordered
to return immediately to the heirs of the victim the Omega wristwatch
and
gold Cross ballpen which were recovered from the appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Eloy R. Bello, Jr., now Associate Justice of the Court
of Appeals.
[2]
Records, Criminal Case No. 94-135584 at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 36 and 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, July 29, 1994 at 6–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, September 23, 1994 at 4–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Records at 55–60; TSN, September 23, 1994 at 23–25.
[9]
TSN, July 22, 1994 at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 16–18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Exhibits "M" & "Q", Records at 109–110 & 115.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, August 25, 1994 at 2–4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 5–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Records at 115.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, August 12, 1994 at 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 13–16; Exhibit "T", Records at 117.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Exhibit "V", Records at 146.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, March 2, 1995 at 2–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, March 9, 1995 at 3–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
TSN, July 14, 1995 at 3–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, February 10, 1995 at 6–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, March 14, 1995 at 2–3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, March 16, 1995 at 4–12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rollo at 95.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 69–70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 164.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 224.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People vs. Dural, 223 SCRA 207 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
People vs. Briones, 202 SCRA 711 (1992).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People vs. Ereño, G.R. No. 124706, February 22, 2000, citing
People
vs. Lopez, Jr., 245 SCRA 95; People vs. Rivera, 245 SCRA 42; People vs.
Mahusay, 282 SCRA 80; People vs. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199; People vs.
Montilla,
285 SCRA 703; People vs. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596.
[33]
Id., citing People vs. Hernandez, 282 SCRA 387.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id., citing People vs. Nazareno, 260 SCRA 256.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Id., citing People vs. Barrientos, 285 SCRA 221.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, July 29, 1994, pp. 8–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
TSN, August 5, 1994 at 11–16; Record at 131–139.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
TSN, August 12, 1994 at 8–11; Record at 175–178).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People vs. dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 14870, June 26, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People vs. Reves, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003, citing People vs.
Appegu,
G.R. No. 130657, April 1, 2002.
[41]
Id., citing People vs. Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, September 25, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Id., citing People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 123397, October 13, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
People vs. Danilo Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003, citing People
vs. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 142932, May 29, 2002.
[44]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Id., citing People vs. Suela, G.R. Nos. 133570-71, January 15, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Rule 110. Sections 8 and 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People vs. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 148730, June 26, 2003, citing
People
vs. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001.
[48]
G.R. Nos. 133570-71, January 15, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003, citing People vs.
Mauricio, 353 SCR 114.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People vs. Buayaban, G.R. No. 112459, March 28, 2003, citing People vs.
Suela, G.R. Nos. 133570-71, January 15, 2002.
[51]
"Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all
cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall
be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the deed.chan
robl
"In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application
thereof:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x
x
x x
x
x x x chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in
the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
x x
x
x x
x
x x x "chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
Article 2234, New Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
People vs. Listerio, G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000, citing Heirs of
Raymundo
Castro vs. Bustos, 27 SCRA 327 and De la Paz vs. IAC, 154 SCRA 65.
[55]
Id., citing People vs. Villanueva, 302 SCRA 380.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
56. "Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution of the thing
itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration,
or diminution of value as determined by the court.
"The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
possession
of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the
latter
his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"This provision is not applicable in case in which the thing has been
acquired
by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by
law, bar an action for its recovery."
[57]
Records at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|