EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
132042
February 19, 2003
-versus-
ARNOLD BACLA-AN
LAPITAJE,
MARIO REYES,WENDEL
ARELLANO
Y TANIO AND ROMY BALUYOS Y PINGKI-AN,
Accused-Appellants. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before us for automatic
review is a decision dated September 22, 1997, rendered by the Regional
Trial Court of Danao City (Branch 25), the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the court
finds accused Arnold B. Lapitaje, Mario Reyes, Wendel Arellano, and
Romy
Baluyos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide as charged and defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and hereby sentences each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to
death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused are hereby ordered
to pay jointly and severally the sum of P1,210.00, the remaining
unrecovered
stolen money, unto private complainant Domingo Colonia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No other damages are
proved in court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 13, 1994,
an Information was filed before the trial court against Arnold Bacla-an
Lapitaje, Mario Reyes, Wendell Arellano y Tanio and Romy Baluyos y
Pingki-an
for Robbery with Frustrated Homicide[2]
to which they all pleaded not guilty. Despite timely medical attention,
victim Nelson Saavedra died by reason of which the Information was
amended
to Robbery with Homicide. The Amended Information reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about October
31, 1993 at around 7:30 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Catmondaan,
Municipality of Catmon, Province of Cebu, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
together with others whose real names and present whereabouts are still
unknown and helping one another did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence
and
intimidation, to wit: by entering the store of Domingo Colonia, and
once
inside held up the owner at gun point and thereafter take, steal and
carry
away cash money worth P2,000.00 belonging to the said Domingo Colonia
against
his will, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the sum of
P1,210.00
(as the amount of P790.00 was recovered) and shot one NELSON SAAVEDRA
in
their escape, thereby inflicting wounds and despite timely medical
intervention
the said wounds caused his death at the Chong Hua Hospital in Cebu City
on February 8, 1994 where he was medically treated for several months.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Contrary to law."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All accused pleaded
not guilty to the Amended Information. Trial ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution presented
oral, documentary and real evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Offended party Domingo
Colonia testified as follows: On October 31, 1993, at about 7:30
o’clock
in the evening, three unmasked armed men barged inside his store. Two
of
the men pointed firearms at him, one at his forehead, the other at his
nape. They introduced themselves as members of the New People’s Army
(NPA)
asking for aid. He recognized accused Arnold Bacla-an Lapitaje who used
to deliver edible oil to his store and was a customer in his tailoring
shop. He saw Arnold go to the kitchen and point a firearm at his wife.
The man who pointed a firearm at his nape opened the drawer of the
table,
took the coins amounting to P1,000.00, and took the contents of his
wallet
which amounted to around P1,000.00. When his wife shouted for help,
neighbors
came rushing to their aid, prompting the men to leave hastily. After
the
three men left, they heard gunfires. He learned that the fleeing
robbers
shot one of his neighbors, Nelson Saavedra, who was rushed by other
bystanders
to the nearest hospital. The following morning, a dead person was
discovered
at Sitio Bakhaw in Barangay Catmondaan, Municipality of Catmon, Cebu.
Found
in the dead man’s belongings were assorted coins and bills amounting to
P790.00 wrapped in a small towel, a .38 caliber firearm with two live
ammunitions
and an empty shell. He recognized the deceased as the person who poked
a firearm at his forehead the night before. When asked to identify the
persons apprehended and detained in jail in Catmon, he recognized
accused
Arnold Lapitaje.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rizalina Ares testified
as follows: At around 7:30 o’clock in the evening of October 31, 1993,
she met three persons coming from the store of Domingo Colonia. One was
wearing a colored short sleeve polo, another was wearing a long sleeve
fatigue shirt and the last one wore a green shirt. Shortly thereafter,
she heard gunfires. She found a neighbor, Nelson Saavedra, who was
wounded.
She and a brother of the victim rushed the victim to the hospital. The
next morning, she learned from Domingo that he was robbed. Later,
Rizalina
went to the municipal hall. She was able to identify accused Mario
Reyes
and Arnold Lapitaje, as the two men she met the night before through
the
t-shirts worn by them. Rizalina said that the person who was found dead
the morning after the robbery was the one wearing a green shirt whom
she
also met that night while she was walking towards Domingo’s store.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fred Ares testified:
On the night in question, he heard a woman’s voice coming from the
highway.
When he proceeded towards the highway, he met some of his neighbors who
told him about the fleeing robbers. As he directed his gaze towards the
direction pointed by his neighbors, he saw a parked taxi marked
"Aaron".
A speeding Hi-Ace van then arrived. Military men donning firearms
alighted
from the van and approached the taxi. The military men held the driver
of the taxi, a man seated in the first seat and another man about to
enter
the taxi. The three men who were held by the military were recognized
by
Fred in the courtroom as the accused Romy Baluyos, Wendel Arellano and
Arnold Lapitaje.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cesar Roldan testified
as follows: On the night of October 31, 1993, he was in the house of
his
uncle located 50 meters away from the place of Domingo when he heard
explosions.
He ran towards the road where he saw three persons with pistols, two of
whom he identified in the courtroom as accused Mario Reyes and Arnold
Lapitaje.
The third man happened to be the person found dead the morning after
the
robbery. He recognized the three men that night because of the
illumination
coming from the fluorescent lamp along the road. Mario Reyes wore a
fatigue
shirt, Arnold Lapitaje donned an ordinary shirt the color of which
Cesar
could no longer recall and the third man was wearing a green shirt.
Cesar
was more than an arm’s length from the three men with pistols who
proceeded
towards the direction of Sitio Bakhaw in Catmondaan coming from the
house
of Domingo Colonia. As Cesar made his way towards the place of Domingo,
he saw Nelson Saavedra lying prostrate on the ground.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO2 Calixto Nuñeza
testified that: he proceeded to the national highway on his motorcycle
upon hearing cries for help from his neighbors, at a distance of around
10 meters, he saw a Hi-Ace van with Air Force men as passengers
blocking
a taxi marked "Aaron"; when he introduced himself as a person in
authority,
Mauro Oarga who identified himself as a colonel, turned over to him the
persons of accused Romy Baluyos, Arnold Lapitaje and Wendel Arellano;
Oarga
and his men likewise turned over to him a .22 caliber revolver magnum,
five live ammunitions, one empty shell and a hand grenade which was
allegedly
recovered under the front seat of the taxi much later; he recognized
accused
Arnold Lapitaje since the latter used to deliver edible oil in their
place;
he also recognized Wendel Arellano who used crutches, and, Romy
Baluyos,
as the driver of the taxi; with the help of some barangay tanods, he
brought
the three men to the police station for proper investigation; early in
the morning of the following day, a dead person, recognized by Domingo
Colonia as one of the robbers, was found dead; said person may have
been
killed by the civilian volunteers; in the meantime, the articles
recovered
by Oarga and his men were submitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation
(NBI), Central Visayas Regional Office at Cebu City for ballistic
examination.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A chemical analysis
of the paraffin casts taken from the hands of accused Arnold Lapitaje
and
Mario Reyes yielded the following results:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1 result
for the presence of gunpowder residue on both hand POSITIVE result for
the presence of gunpowder residues on both hand casts taken from MARIO
REYES.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2 NEGATIVE
casts taken from ARNOLD LAPITAJE.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bonifacio Ayag, a ballistic
expert of the NBI, testified that he had conducted a ballistic
examination
on the specimens submitted to their office upon letter request of the
PNP,
Catmon, Cebu and that his findings, contained in his ballistic report,
are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Comparative examinations
made between the evidence empty shells marked ‘AS’, ‘AS-1’, ‘AS-2’ and
the test shells fired from "PALTIK" (COLT) REVOLVER caliber .38 without
serial number, marked EF (X on the trigger guard) and paltik (S&W)
revolver caliber .22 magnum, SN.11155 (X on the trigger guard) revealed
the following results:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Evidence empty shells
marked ‘AS-A1’ and ‘AS-2’ and the test shells fired from PALTIK (COLT)
REVOLVER CALIBER .38 without serial number, marked ‘EF’ (X on the
trigger
guard) gave POSITIVE results; said evidence shells were fired from this
particular firearm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Evidence empty shells
marked ‘AS’ and the test shells fired from PALTIK (S&W) REVOLVER
CALIBER
.22 MAGNUM, SN - 11155 (X on the trigger guard) gave positive results;
said evidence shell was fired from this particular firearm.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Wayben Briones testified:
He treated Nelson Saavedra who was admitted at the Chong Hua Hospital
in
Cebu City for multiple injuries on November 1, 1993. Nelson had a
gunshot
wound located at the right neck injuring the thyroid gland. The wound
penetrated
the scapular area and also injured the spinal cord which caused Nelson
to be paralyzed from the neck to the lower part of his body. Nelson
became
bedridden in the hospital and developed bedsores but due to financial
constraints,
he went home on December 7, 1993. He returned to the hospital on
January
27, 1994 but died on February 8, 1994 from multiple organ failures
caused
primarily by the gunshot wound on the neck.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lt. Col. Mauro Oarga,
an officer of the Philippine Air Force, testified: On October 31, 1993,
he and his companions had a beach activity at Catmondaan, Catmon, Cebu.
On their way to Catmon, they saw "four" persons running towards a
waiting
taxi. Finding the actuations of the men to be suspicious, he instructed
his driver to overtake the taxi and asked his men to disembark for the
purpose of conducting a search on the taxi as well as on the "four"
persons
who had already boarded the taxi.[12]
Accused driver Romy Baluyos and Wendel Arellano were among the persons
on board the taxicab. Their body search on the "four" persons as well
as
on the driver of the taxi failed to yield anything but a search
conducted
on the taxi produced a .22 caliber revolver with five ammunitions and
one
empty shell found under the front seat of the taxi. A hand grenade was
also discovered at the back portion of the vehicle. Although it was
already
dark at the time, the group was aided in their search by the headlights
of the van which were switched on. Upon arrival of PNP operatives, he
turned
over the five persons as well as the articles recovered from the taxi.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sgt. Rogelio Castro
testified that: while they were on their way home from Catmondaan their
commanding officer, Lt. Col. Oarga ordered the driver of the vehicle to
block a certain taxi; they disembarked from their vehicle upon
instructions
of Lt. Col. Oarga who told them to conduct a search on the taxi; they
found
the driver, who he could not recognize because it was dark, and, a
person
with an amputated leg seated in front of the taxi; during his search,
Castro
saw a .22 caliber firearm under the front seat of the taxi where the
man
with amputated leg was seated; he gave the firearm to Lt. Col Oarga who
handed it over to SPO2 Nuñeza, a member of the PNP of Catmon,
who
arrived at the scene.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused refuted
the evidence of the prosecution through the testimonies of their
witnesses
-chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Arnold Lapitaje testified:
He was a hired helper tasked to collect payments from customers of
edible
oil supplied by his employer. On October 31, 1993 at around 8:30
o’clock
in the evening, he was at Catmondaan supposedly to collect payments
from
his regular customers, Domingo Colonia and a certain Fredo. He was not
able to meet either of the two because Domingo’s store was already
closed
at the time and Fredo was not around. Arnold thought of waiting for
Fredo
but since he was already hungry, he took his supper at the market place
near the seashore. Suddenly, an explosion was heard coming from the
highway
causing the people to scamper away. Fearing for his safety, he went to
one of the houses near the marketplace and continued eating his supper
after which he proceeded to the highway to wait for a passenger vehicle
bound for Cebu City. It was while waiting for a passenger vehicle that
he learned from a group of women about some intruders who barged inside
the house of Domingo Colonia and introduced themselves as members of
the
NPA. When he boarded an Isuzu elf vehicle, a member of the CAFGU
(Civilian
Armed Forced Geographical Unit) saw him and ordered him to alight from
the vehicle. A policeman named Ceniza later arrived and brought him to
the municipal hall where he was mauled so as to force him to reveal the
identity of the persons involved in the robbery. He had nothing to
reveal
since he did not know the robbers. As a result of the mauling, he
sustained
injuries which caused him to have difficulties in standing up and
walking.
Inside the jail, he met accused Romy Baluyos and Wendel Arellano.
Accused
Mario Reyes was brought to the jail much later. The policemen told him
(Arnold) that Mario identified him as one of the robbers but when
confronted,
Mario denied having implicated Arnold. The following day, the policemen
brought him to Km. 47 where he was again asked to reveal the names of
the
persons who robbed the house of Domingo Colonia. When he denied any
participation
in the robbery, he was mauled and tied to an ipil-ipil tree by the
policemen,
some of whom he recognized as Calixto Nuneza, Bravio and Ares. Although
bribed with P5,000.00 to reveal the names of the robbers, he insisted
that
he did not know the robbers. Much later, he and Mario were brought to
the
police headquarters at Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City for examination where
the policemen poured warm water into their hands.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Arnold further testified
that Domingo might have implicated him as one of the robbers because of
an incident wherein he accidentally spilled some of the edible oil that
he was delivering in Domingo’s store which caused some sacks of rice to
get wet; that Domingo asked him to replace the spilled edible oil but
he
refused which angered Domingo.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused Wendel Arellano
testified: On October 31, 1993, at around 2:30 o’clock in the
afternoon,
after he had just bought a towel from the White Gold Store in Cebu
City,
he chanced upon his cousin Mario Albarena. After a brief conversation,
he acceded to his cousin’s invitation to go to Hagnaya so that the
latter
can catch a boat heading for Bantayan, Cebu. His cousin hired a taxi
and
upon reaching Hagnaya, the taxi driver was made to wait while they had
some snacks. Afterwards, his cousin boarded the boat bound for Bantayan
while he went back to the waiting taxi which was to take him back to
Cebu
City. The taxi left Hagnaya at around 5:45 o’clock in the afternoon.
When
they reached Catmondaan at around 7:30 in the evening, the taxi driver
stopped the taxi near a lighted post to fill the overheated engine with
water. While the driver opened the hood of the car, three persons
suddenly
boarded the taxi and told him (Wendel), "Do not be afraid, Bay, because
we have here a wounded person and we wanted only this wounded person to
board this taxi. We are NPAs".[17]
Upon returning to the taxi, the driver was startled to find three other
persons on board and he moved backward. Nevertheless, the driver went
back
to his seat after the man told him that they wanted to load a wounded
person.
Before the driver could even start moving the taxi, a Hi-Ace van
stopped
in front of the taxi. Armed persons alighted from the van. One of the
supposed
NPAs told the driver to start the taxi but in his confusion, the driver
maneuvered the taxi towards the rear end of the van. The three men
jumped
off the taxi and ran away leaving him and the taxi driver behind. The
men
from the van who identified themselves as members of the Air Force,
arrested
him and the taxi driver whose name he later came to know as Romy
Baluyos.
A search conducted on the taxi failed to yield anything. Later, an
armed
person named Nuñeza arrived to whom the Air Force men entrusted
him and Romy. Nuñeza then brought them to the police station and
locked them inside the jail. Two other persons arrived in jail whose
names
he later came to know as Arnold Lapitaje and Mario Reyes. They were
implicated
in the robbery at Catmondaan although they were not among the persons
who
jumped off the taxi. At around 2:00 o’clock in the morning of November
1, 1993, Arnold was fetched by policemen. When Arnold returned, he saw
some bruises on Arnold. On the same day, Domingo Colonia happened to be
in the municipal hall. Domingo was surprised to see Arnold and asked
the
latter what he was doing there. Arnold asked for help from Domingo
saying
that he was being implicated in the robbery but a policeman pulled
Domingo
away.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wendel further
testified
that he could not have been seen running towards the taxi because his
leg
had been amputated in an accident prior to the incident in question;
that
the case which he had filed in relation to the accident causing his leg
to be amputated is still pending in Regional Trial Court, Branch 8,
Cebu.[19]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused Romy Pingkian
Baluyos testified: He had been a taxi driver for more than twenty
years.
On October 31, 1993, at around 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon, a man
boarded
the taxi together with another man whose leg was amputated. They
arrived
at Hagnaya, Cebu at around 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon. His
passengers
made him wait while they had a merienda. After thirty minutes, the man
with the amputated leg returned and informed him that they were to
proceed
back to Cebu City. Before reaching Bogo, Cebu, the taxi had a flat
tire.
He had the tire vulcanized after which they proceeded on their way.
Sometime
later, the engine of the taxi overheated, prompting him to park the
taxi
at a well lit portion of the road. He refilled the radiator with water
which he got from the baggage compartment. When he returned to the
driver’s
seat, there were already three men inside. He was told not to worry,
that
they were good persons and that they are NPAs with a wounded companion.
As Romy started the engine of the taxi, a Hi-Ace van, with armed men on
board, stopped in front of the taxi around 25 meters away, prompting
the
three men who had just boarded the taxi to jump off. The armed men who
turned out to be members of the military, alighted from the van,
arrested
him and his passenger with the amputated leg, identified later as
Wendel
Arellano. The armed men searched the taxi but their search proved to be
fruitless. When a policeman arrived, they turned him and Wendel over to
the policeman. The policeman brought him and Wendel to the Municipal
Hall
of Catmon, Cebu where they were detained. Another man whose name they
later
came to know as Arnold Lapitaje was brought in jail. Arnold said that
he
was a suspect in a robbery which occurred in Catmondaan. Later, another
person by the name of Mario Reyes was brought inside the jail. Mario
had
bruises and contusions all over his face. Arnold and Mario were not
among
the persons who jumped off from the taxi he was driving on the night of
his arrest. He came to know Domingo Colonia only on November 1, 1993
when
the latter, upon seeing them all in jail said to Arnold, "Nold, you are
here?"[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused Mario Reyes
testified that: on October 29, 1993, he was at Medellin, Cebu in the
company
of his employer, Bernardino Sabal, who is engaged in the business of
rattan
poles; Sabal returned to Cebu City ahead of him instructing him to
collect
payments from debtors in Mandaue City; on October 31, 1993, he headed
for
Cebu City on board a passenger jeepney; at around 8:00 o’clock in the
evening,
the jeepney stopped at a check point in Catmondaan and all the
passengers
were made to alight by the members of the PNP and the CAFGU; they were
bodily searched and asked to produce a "cedula"; he was held by the PNP
despite his protestations and was brought to the police station in
Catmon,
Cebu after being harmed by angry apprehenders; there were already four
persons in jail whose names he later came to know as Jose Jumao-as,
Wendel
Arellano, Romy Baluyos and Arnold Lapitaje; while he was in jail, he
met
Domingo Colonia who was surprised to see Arnold in detention; he had
fired
a gun a number of times, the last of which was on October 15, 1993 when
he fired a gun owned by the military in the mountains of Sagaboy, Mati,
Davao Oriental.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bernardino Sabal corroborated
the testimony of accused Mario Reyes on certain matters. He testified
that:
he hired Mario as a worker in his rattan business in Davao Oriental; on
October 15, 1993, he and Mario went to Cebu City to sell rattan poles;
after a week, they received an invitation from Pablo Inot to go to
Medellin,
Bogo, Cebu where the latter was engaged in selling rattan and fishing
business;
he and Mario arrived at Medellin at around 2:00 o’clock in the
afternoon;
he had to leave the following day for Davao; since Mario was still
enjoying
himself, he allowed Mario to stay behind but with the instruction that
Mario should collect payments without delay from debtors in Mandaue
City;
unfortunately, Mario was imprisoned and never got to follow him to
Davao;
he learned from Mario when he visited him in jail that when Mario was
on
his way to Cebu on board a passenger jeepney, he was told to alight
from
the vehicle and produce an identification card as well as a community
tax
receipt at a check point in Catmon, Cebu; although Mario was able to
show
his community tax receipt, he was ordered to stay and forced to
accompany
the apprehending officer.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By the evidence so presented
by the prosecution, the Court finds that all accused acted in concert
in
committing the act. The Court is convinced that Arnold B. Lapitaje who
is familiar with complainant Domingo Colonia at Catmon Daan, Cebu, was
the lead man. The Court portrays a situation that it was the two
accused
Mario Reyes and Arnold Lapitaje who barged into the house and pointed
the
gun to complainant and wife. That the two accused Wendel Arellano and
Romy
Baluyos were watchmen outside and that after the robbery and upon fear
of reprisals from neighbors who responded to the shout for help of the
wife of complainant, the four accused went hurriedly to the waiting
taxi
on the highway. Such fact of the four running towards the taxi was duly
testified by prosecution witness Col. Oarga who, seeing the four
rushing
to the waiting taxi in suspicious manner, caused their Hi-Ace Van to
block
the taxi. Thus, the arrest of the four accused and the search on the
taxi.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both evidence considered,
the Court finds overwhelmingly that the four accused acted in concert
to
commit the act of robbery with homicide, and should be responsible
therefore
(sic).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx xxx xxx.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court finds no merit
the defense of alibi and general denials of accused. The positive
identification
by prosecution witnesses upon the persons of the accused as perpetrator
of the crime negates all allegations "that accused were at some other
place
at the time of the commission of the offense or that they did not
commit
the offense as charged."[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
and found all accused
guilty of Robbery with Homicide and imposing a penalty of "reclusion
perpetua
to death". The imposition of said penalty is erroneous and
inappropriate.[24]
But because of the possibility that death could be the correct
imposable
penalty, the Court en banc entertained the automatic review of the
decision
of the trial court. Hence, herein automatic review pursuant to Article
47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their Brief, appellants
raise the following Assignment of Errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
The trial court
erred
in finding that appellants Wendel Arellano and Romy Baluyos were in
cahoots
with the other appellant Arnold Lapitaje and Mario Reyes in the
perpetration
of the crime despite the existence of exculpatory evidence warranting
the
acquittal of the first duo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
The trial court
erred
in relying on the vulnerability of the defense evidence rather than on
the strength of the prosecution evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III.
The trial court
erred
in not finding that the arrest of all appellants were illegal and the
subsequent
alleged recovery of incriminatory evidence presented against the latter
was a product of a poisonous tree, hence inadmissible in evidence.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Solicitor General
filed
the Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee with Manifestation and Motion
recommending
that the judgment convicting Wendel Arellano and Romy Baluyos be
reversed
and set aside, their guilt not having been proven beyond reasonable
doubt;
and, that the judgment convicting Arnold Lapitaje and Mario Reyes be
affirmed
with the modification that the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed upon them in the absence of any aggravating circumstance in the
commission of the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We uphold appellee’s
recommendations insofar as appellants Wendel Arellano and Romy Baluyos
are concerned, the same being in accordance with the evidence presented
by the prosecution and the defense. Both should be absolved from
liability.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The well-settled rule
is that the trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies are accorded great weight and respect, in the absence
of any clear showing that some facts or circumstances of weight or
substance
which could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a painstaking
review of the prosecution evidence, the Court found certain facts and
circumstances
of such great weight that the trial court overlooked and misappreciated
or misapplied, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The trial court
had erroneously given credence to the testimony of Lt. Col. Oarga who
testified
that he had seen four men running towards a waiting taxicab; and that
the
four who boarded the taxi were apprehended together with the driver. On
this basis, the trial court hastily concluded that Wendel and Romy
acted
as lookouts while Arnold and Mario robbed Domingo’s house and that
after
the robbery, the four ran towards the waiting taxi. The other
prosecution
witnesses consistently and unequivocably belied the testimony of Lt.
Col.
Oarga.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Prosecution witness
Fred Ares categorically testified that Oarga’s men held only three
persons:
the driver of the taxi, the man with crutches and another who was still
about to enter the taxi.[27]
Fred Ares further clarified that Wendel was just inside the taxi and
was
not one of the persons who were running towards the taxi.[28]
The testimony of Fred Ares is corroborated by Rizalina Ares who
testified
that she met three persons coming from the store of Domingo Colonia.[29]
Another prosecution witness, SPO2 Nuñeza testified that Oarga
turned
over to him only three persons, namely, the driver Romy Baluyos, Wendel
Arellano and Arnold Lapitaje.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The trial court
miserably failed to consider that appellant Wendel had a physical
disability.
Wendel could not have ran together with the other robbers because he
had
an amputated leg and walked on crutches. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The firearm and live
ammunitions allegedly found under the front seat of the taxi cannot be
used as evidence against Wendel and Romy for they were taken as a
result
of an illegal search and seizure which will be discussed forthwith.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, Oarga’s testimony
of the event leading to the arrest of appellants is not accurate and
could
not be a valid basis for the conviction of appellants Wendel and Romy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even if the defense
of general denial posited by Wendel and Romy is uncorroborated, the
trial
court committed an error in disregarding said defense considering that
the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish the participation
of
both accused Wendel and Romy in the commission of the crime charged. As
the Court has enunciated in People vs. Ladrillo:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx. The rule that
this Court should refrain from disturbing the conclusions of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses, does not apply where, as in the
instant case, the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance or
value which if considered would affect the outcome of the case; or
where
the disputed decision is based on misapprehension of facts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Denial and alibi may
be weak but courts should not at once look at them with disfavor. There
are situations where an accused may really have no other defenses but
denial
and alibi which, if established to be the truth, may tilt the scales of
justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution evidence itself
is
weak."[30]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
and in People vs.
Albao:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"xxx denial and alibi,
while inherently weak, assume relevance when the evidence of the
prosecution
linking the accused to the crime is inconclusive."[31]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to
appellant
Arnold: By the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Fred Ares and SPO2
Nuñeza, it is established that Arnold was arrested by Lt. Col.
Oarga.
However, it must be stated that the warrantless arrest of appellant
Arnold
together with Wendel and Romy was not lawful. Oarga testified that he
caused
the arrest of "four men" running towards the taxi since they were
acting
suspiciously. However, Oarga did not elaborate why he thought said men
were acting suspiciously.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 113 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 5. Arrest without
warrant; when lawful --- A peace office or a private person may,
without
a warrant, arrest a person:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A) When
in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B) When
an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge
of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it;
and
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C) When
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment
or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while
his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement
to another.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
None of the aforesaid
circumstances were attendant in the case at bar. The "four men" were
not
prisoners who had just escaped from a penal establishment. Oarga did
not
testify that the "four men" he had seen running towards the taxi have
earlier
committed or were actually committing or attempting to commit an
offense
in his presence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless,
considering
that appellant Arnold, had entered his plea and actively participated
in
the trial of the case, he submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court
thereby curing any defect in his arrest.[32]
Legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over
his
person.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In spite of said
waiver,
the firearm and live ammunition taken from the taxi during the search,
cannot be admitted in evidence against appellants because they were
seized
during a warrantless search which was not lawful.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A waiver of an illegal
warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility
of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. The following
searches
and seizures are deemed permissible by jurisprudence: (1) search of
moving
vehicles (2) seizure in plain view (3) customs searches (4) waiver or
consent
searches (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry Search) and (6) search
incidental
to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and
seizure
pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule,
an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of
arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests,
to
wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot
pursuit,
and, (3) arrests of escaped prisoners.[35]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, the search cannot
be justified on the ground that it involves search of a moving vehicle.
Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not
practicable
to secure a warrant because the vehicle carrying the prohibited drugs
can
be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must
be sought. We have already clarified in a number of cases that this
exception
in no way gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct
warrantless
searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause.[36]
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such
warrantless
search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before search that
they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime,
in
the vehicle to be searched.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As we have earlier found,
Oarga and his men did not have personal knowledge of the crime that had
just been committed and therefore had no probable cause to believe that
they will find the instruments or evidence pertaining to the crime.
Consequently,
the firearms, empty shell and live ammunitions as well as the hand
grenade
allegedly found during the search cannot be admitted as evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The above notwithstanding,
the trial court did not err in finding both appellants Arnold Lapitaje
and Mario Reyes to be the perpetrators of the crime of robbery. Despite
the inadmissibility of the guns and ammunitions, both appellants were
positively
identified by the prosecution witnesses. At the time of the incident,
Domingo
instantly recognized Arnold who pointed a firearm at his wife. He
recognized
Arnold although the robbery happened at nighttime because the place was
lit by a fluorescent bulb and all three men who entered the store were
not wearing masks. Aside from Domingo Colonia, Cesar Roldan positively
identified appellants Arnold and Mario as two of the three men, armed
with
pistols, who he saw fleeing from the store. Cesar had no motive to
testify
against appellants. He categorically testified that he saw Mario with a
pistol in one hand while running towards the direction of Sitio Bakhaw,
Domingo Colonia’s place. This is corroborated by the result of the
Chemistry
Report conducted on appellant Mario which showed the presence of
gunpowder
residue on both of his hands.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that appellant
Arnold did not have any gunpowder residue on both of his hands does not
demolish the fact that prosecution witness Domingo Colonia had
positively
identified Arnold as one of those who robbed his store and the one who
pointed a gun at his wife. It simply means that Arnold had not fired
the
gun he was holding.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, although appellant
Mario may have fired the gun he was holding at the time of robbery,
there
is no direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that he or
anyone of the appellants had shot deceased Nelson Saavedra or that the
latter was shot on the occasion of the robbery. The trial court itself
was ambivalent on the matter, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"While prosecution
evidence pointed to deceased Nelson Saavedra as one among the three who
came from the house of complainant Domingo Colonia, no convincing
evidence
is shown that the deceased is one among the perpetrators of the robbery
as charged. Possibility may rise that said deceased Nelson Saavedra may
have responded to the shout for help by the wife of complainant or
being
one of the perpetrators of the crime. At any rate, no such
intervention,
criminally or civilly, was ever interposed by relatives of the
deceased.
But the evidence on record showed that deceased Nelson Saavedra died
during
the occasion of robbery."[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While Saavedra was
indeed shot on the date of the incident, the only evidence connecting
appellants
Arnold and Mario to the gunshot wound sustained by Saavedra were the
facts
that they were seen by prosecution witnesses Rizalina Ares and Cesar
Roldan
running away from Domingo’s store with guns; that gunshots were heard
and
right after that, Rizalina Ares saw a wounded Saavedra.cralawRizalina
did not actually see the shooting. Neither did any of the other
prosecution
witnesses testify that they saw any of the appellants shoot Saavedra,
or
that he was shot while the robbers were fleeing from the store.
Notwithstanding
the presence of the neighbors who rushed to their aid after hearing the
cries for help of the wife of Domingo, the prosecution failed to
present
any one who might have actually seen how the shooting of Saavedra took
place.cralawThere
was no proof that the gunshot wound which caused the subsequent death
of
Saavedra came from any of the guns used by the robbers.cralawThe
prosecution failed to connect the results of the ballistic examination
of the guns confiscated by Lt. Col. Oarga to the gunshot wound
sustained
by the victim. Also, the guns were not admissible in evidence.cralawThus,
there is not enough circumstantial evidence to support the finding that
appellants Arnold and Mario should be held responsible for the death of
Saavedra. The prosecution evidence failed to prove circumstances that
constitute
an unbroken chain that led to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points
to said appellants, to the exclusion of all others, as the persons
guilty
of homicide perpetuated on the occasion of, before, during, or after
the
commission of the crime of robbery.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, appellants
Arnold Lapitaje and Mario Reyes should have been found guilty only of
the
simple crime of Robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised
Penal
Code which prescribes a penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period ranging from four years,
two
months and 1 day up to ten years.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the robbery was
committed with the aid of armed men is established by the positive
testimonies
of prosecution witnesses Domingo Colonia, Rizalina Ares and Cesar
Roldan
that qppellants Arnold and Mario used firearms. It is a generic
circumstance
under paragraph 8, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the Amended
Information did not specifically allege said aggravating circumstance.
Although in the narration of how the crime was committed, it is alleged
that appellants "held up the owner at gunpoint", the same is not a
substantial
compliance of Sections 8 & 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal
Procedure, to wit.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 and for the court to pronounce judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People vs. Costales,
the Court held that aggravating or qualifying circumstance must be
expressly
and specifically alleged in the complaint or information; otherwise, it
cannot be considered by the trial court, even if proved during the
trial.[39]
The above-quoted Rules took effect on December 1, 2000, or after the
subject
crime of Robbery has been committed. In consonance with Article 22 of
the
Revised Penal Code, the said Rules are given retroactive effect because
they are beneficial to the appellants. Thus, the Court will not take
into
consideration the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed
with the aid of armed men.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Applying the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law, one degree lower is arresto mayor in its maximum period
to
prision correccional in its medium period or four (4) months and one
(1)
day to four (4) years and two (2) months. With no mitigating or
aggravating
circumstance, the imposable penalty may be taken from the period of one
(1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days to two (2) years, ten
(10)
months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional, for the minimum
period,
and from six (6) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days to eight (8)
years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, for the maximum period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, appellant
Arnold Bacla-an Lapitaje and Mario Reyes should be ordered to pay
jointly
and severally, to Domingo Colonia, the amount of P1,210.00,
representing
the unrecovered stolen money.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Danao City (Branch 25) is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellants Arnold
Bacla-an Lapitaje and Mario Reyes are found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the simple crime of Robbery and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, they are
sentenced
to suffer the penalty of two (2) years and ten (10) months of prision
correccional,
as the minimum to eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision
mayor,
as the maximum. They are also held jointly and severally liable to pay
the sum of P1,210.00 to Domingo Colonia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellants Romy
Baluyos and Wendel Arellano are ACQUITTED, their guilt not having been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections
is ORDERED to implement this Decision forthwith and to INFORM the Court
within five (5) days from receipt hereof, the date when appellants were
actually released from confinement.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
Callejo, Sr., J.,
no part.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 42-43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Docketed as Crim. Case No. 1258.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Original Records, pp. 63-64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, April 21, 1995, pp. 4-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, June 16, 1995, pp. 4-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, July 14, 1995, pp.5-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, August 4, 1995, pp.4-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, September 22, 1995, pp.5-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Original Records, p. 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., Exhibit [N], pp. 226-227.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, June 22, 1996, pp. 22-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 5-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 7; TSN, November 25, 1996, p. 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, November 25, 1996, pp. 22-35; 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, February 13, 1997 (afternoon session per Minute found on p. 265,
Original
Records), pp. 9-13.
[16]
Id.,chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, January 22, 1997, p. 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. pp. 16-29; p. 30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., pp. 29-30; pp. 32-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, February 13, 1997 (morning session per Minute found on p. 265,
Original
Records) pp. 3-12.
[21]
Brief for the Accused-Appellants, p. 8; RTC Decision, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, March 12, 1997, pp. 2-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Rollo, pp. 41-42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People vs. Palec, 345 SCRA 654; People vs. Mamerto Ranis, Jr., et al.,
G.R. No. 129113, September 17, 2002.
[25]
Brief for the Accused-Appellants, p. 1; Rollo, p. 75.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People vs. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695, 707 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
TSN, July 4, 1995, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
TSN, July 14, 1995, pp. 11-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
TSN, June 16, 1995, pp. 4-5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
320 SCRA 61, 74 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
287 SCRA 129, 132 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People vs. Lagarto, 326 SCRA 693, 749 [2000]; People vs. Nitcha, 240
SCRA
283, 294 [1995].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People vs. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 444 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People vs. Wilson Que, 265 SCRA 721, 731-732 [1996] citing People vs.
Bagista,
214 SCRA 63, 69 [1992].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Original Records, p. 291.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People vs. de la Cruz, 326 SCRA 324, 334 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
G.R. Nos. 141154-56, January 15, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |