EN BANC.
.
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139230
April 24, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
MANUEL DANIELA
ALIAS
MANUEL DE LA CRUZ
ALIAS TAGALOG AND
JOSE BAYLOSIS Y BAISAC,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before the Court on automatic
review is the Decision[1]
dated March 31, 1997 of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-42044, convicting appellants Manuel
Daniela and Jose Baylosis of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to
death and directing them to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of
the victim Ronito Enero, the sum of P50,000 and to restitute to said
heirs
the cash and pieces of jewelry taken by them.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Antecedentschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ronito Enero and his
common-law wife Maria Fe Balo and their three children: May, 4
years
old, Joan, 3 years old, and Ronito, Jr., 1 year old, resided in Sawang,
Calero, Pasil, Cebu City. The couple eked out a living
vending
fish at the Pasil public market near their house. They employed
Leo
Quilongquilong, the cousin of Maria Fe, as helper in their business and
Julifer Barrera, a "tomboy" as their househelp. Both lived with
the
couple. Manuel Daniela had been a "barkada" of Ronito in
Dansalam,
Davao City years back, while Imelda, Manuel’s wife, was Maria Fe’s
friend
and former classmate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 28, 1996, Manuel
and Jose Baylosis arrived in Cebu City and stayed in the house of Joel
Colejara in Pardo. Manuel and Jose went to the market and met
Maria
Fe. The latter informed Manuel where she and Ronito
lived.
Since then, Manuel and Jose had been to the house of the couple
and
Manuel was able to borrow money from them in the amount of P800.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 7:00 p.m. on
March 30, 1996, Maria Fe was at the public market when she was
asked
by Roland Pedrejas alias "Potot" whether Manuel was already in their
house.
She replied that she did not know. Later that evening,
Maria
Fe, Ronito, Leo and Julifer had just taken their dinner when Manuel and
Jose arrived. Manuel told Ronito that he wanted to borrow money
from
him and Maria Fe. The latter refused to lend Manuel the money but
she was prevailed upon by Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito then
had
a drinking spree in the sala. Maria Fe and Julifer went to sleep
in the former’s bedroom while Leo slept in the sala.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about midnight,
Maria Fe woke up and told Ronito, Manuel and Jose to sleep
because
she had to leave at one o’clock early that morning. By
then,
Ronito was already inebriated. She then spread mat in the sala
for
Manuel and Jose to sleep on. She and Ronito then went to their
room
and slept.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 2:00 a.m.
of March 31, 1996, Manuel, armed with a .38 caliber gun and holding a
flourescent
lamp, entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe. He poked the
said
gun on Maria Fe. She woke up and attempted to stand up but Manuel
ordered her to lie down. Jose, armed with a knife followed Manuel to
the
bedroom. The latter ordered Jose to tie the hands of Maria
Fe behind her back and put a tape on her mouth. Jose
complied.
On orders of Manuel, Jose woke up Leo and brought him to the
room.
Jose tied the hands of Leo behind his back. Jose and Manuel then
divested Maria Fe of her necklace, rings and earrings. Manuel
demanded
that she give them her money but Maria Fe told them that she had
used
her money to pay her partners in the fish vending
business.
Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe. They ransacked the room but
failed
to find money. Julifer woke up but Manuel and Jose threatened to kill
her
if she shouted. The two tied Julifer’s hands at her back.
Manuel
then threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and
kill Maria Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to
surrender
her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money from her
waist
pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. Manuel took a blanket
and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the
kitchen,
got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then
stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on
different
parts of his body. Ronito could only groan like a dying
pig.
Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of
Ronito
and took the latter’s wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer,
removed her clothes and panties and then raped her. She could do
nothing but cry. Manuel and Jose stayed in the house until 4:00
a.m.
Before they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria Fe that they were acting
on
orders of Rolando Pedrejas, Joel Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and
Juliet
Capuno. They also warned her and Leo not to report the incident
to
the police authorities, otherwise they will kill them and their
family.
Leo and Maria Fe managed to untie themselves and reported the incident
to Barangay Chairman Sergio Ocaña who conducted an
on-the-spot
investigation of the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Jesus P. Cerna performed
an autopsy on the cadaver and submitted his Necropsy Report:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Normally developed,
fairly nourished, male cadaver, in the state of rigor mortis. Pallor,
marked,
generalized; pupils, dilated. Livor [sic] mortis, brownish most
prominent
at the neck, shoulder blades, buttocks and calves.cralaw:red
Abrasions, brownish;
chin, mid-anterior aspect, 1.0 x 1.0 cm.; face, right, 1.0 x 0.2 cm.;
face,
left, 1.5 x 1.0 cm.cralaw:red
Incised wound, gaping,
mid-frontal area, 2.0 x 0.3 cm.cralaw:red
Lacerated wounds; forehead,
right, 3.0 x 1.5 cm.; face, left, 1.0 x 0.3 cm.cralaw:red
Stab wound:
Triangular in shaped
[sic] 2.0 x 1.0 x 1.cm; extremities sharp, edges, clean-cut; forehead,
left, just above eyebrow; directed backward, downward and medially,
involving
the skin and the underlying soft tissues, making a punch-in fracture on
the left frontal bone, attaining a depth of 3.0 cm. (fracture on the
left
frontal bone is 2.0 cm. in length and not triangular in shaped [sic],
and
did not involved [sic] the whole thickness of the bone).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wounds:
Six in number[s], all
elliptical in shaped [sic] and of varying sizes, three with a length of
1.0 cm. and the other three with a length of 0.7, 0.6 and 0.4 cm.; one
extremity of the six stab wounds, rounded, while the other extremities
were sharp, and all edges clean-cut; located at the neck, anterior
aspect
closed [sic] to each other; all were directed backward, downward and
then
either laterally or medially, involving the skin and the underlying
soft
tissues, 3 stab wounds perforated the trachea and the other 3 stab
wounds,
incised the blood vessels, attaining depthness ranging from 1.5, 4.0,
4.5,
5.0 and 8.0 cms.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound:
Triangular in shaped
[sic], 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0 cmextremities sharp, edges clean-cut; right
supra
clavicular area, directed backward, downward and medially, involving
the
skin and the underlying soft tissues, perforating the oarta [sic],
attaining
an approximated depth of 11.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wounds:
Three in number[s],
all elliptical in shaped [sic], of varying sizes ranging from 2.5, 2.0
and 1.2 cm., one extremity rounded, other extremities sharp, edges
clean-cut;
thoracic area, anterior aspect; one was directed backward, upward and
laterally
penetrating thoracic cavity, and perforating the heart, with a depth of
8.0 cm.; other stab wound was directed backward, upward and medially,
penetrating
thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, with a depth of 9.5 cm.; other
stab wound was directed backward downward and medially, penetrating
thoracic
cavity, perforating the heart, with a depth of 11.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound
Elliptical, 1.8 cm.
one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; arm,
deltoid
area; directed backward, upward and to the right, involving the skin
and
the underlying soft tissues, attaining a depth of 4.5 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound
Two in number[s], both
elliptical in shaped [sic], with sizes of 2.0 and 1.0 cm.; one
extremity
contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut; thoracic area, right
anterior aspect; one was directed backward, downward and medially,
penetrating
thoracic cavity, incising the upper lobe of the right lung, attaining a
depth of 10.0 cm.; other stab wound was directed backward then upwards
and medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues,
penetrating
thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, attaining an approximated depth
of 12.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound
Four in number[s], all
elliptical in shaped [sic], of varying sizes, ranging from 1.5, 1.7,
1.5
and 2.0 cm.; one of the extremities were [sic] sharp, the others were
contused,
edges clean-cut; located at the thoraco-abdominal area, anterior
aspect;
directed backward, then either downward and upwards and medially or
laterally;
one penetrated abdominal cavity and perforated the stomach, with a
depth
of 9.0 cm.; the other three incised the sternum, and non-perforating
with
depthness ranging from 5.0, 2.0 and 1.5 cms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound
Elliptical, 1.3 cm.
long, one extremity contused, other extremity, sharp, edges clean-cut;
abdomen, left anterior aspect; directed backward, upwards and medially,
penetrating abdominal cavity, perforating small intestine, attaining an
approximated depth of 9.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound
Elliptical, 1.5 cm.
long, one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut;
abdomen,
left antero-lateral aspect; directed backward, upward and medially,
involving
the skin and the underlying soft tissues only, attaining a depth of 3.5
cm., non-perforating.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wounds
Elliptical, 2.0 cm.
long, one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut;
back,
thoracic area, mid-posterior aspect; directed forward, downwards and to
the left, penetrating left thoracic cavity, perforating the heart,
attaining
a depth of 15.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stab wound
Elliptical, 3.2 cm.
long, one extremity contused, other extremity sharp, edges clean-cut;
back,
left scapular area; directed forward, downward and lateral, involving
the
skin and the underlying soft tissues only, attaining a depth of 4.0 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Brain and other visceral
organs, pale;
Hemothorax, approximately
2000 cc.cralaw:red
Hemoperitoneum, approximately
500 cc.cralaw:red
Stomach, full of food
particles (positive for alcoholic odor).cralaw:red
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hemorrhage, acute, severe,
secondary to multiple stab wounds, forehead, neck, chest, abdomen and
back.[2]
Dr. Cerna signed the
Certificate of Death of Ronito.[3]
On July 17, 1996, an
Information was filed against Manuel and Jose in the Regional Trial
Court
of Cebu City, which reads:
That on or
about the 31st of March, 1996, about 2:00 a.m., in the City of Cebu,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other,
armed
with bladed weapons and handguns, with deliberate intent and with
intent
to kill, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence
upon
one Ronito Enero by stabbing him on the vital parts of his body with
said
bladed weapons, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries thus
causing
his instantaneous death, and with intent of gain, did then and there
take
and carry away therefrom the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) 1 gold necklace
worth
………………….P 7,000.00
b) 1 pair of gold
earrings
….……………… 1,100.00
c) 2 gold rings
worth
………………………… 3,800.00
d) cash amounting
to…………………………
30,000.00
e) 1 Seiko
wristwatch
……………………. 900.00
f) 1 Seiko
wristwatch
……………………. 1,800.00
g) 1 gold ring
worth
………………………. 900.00
valued in all at
P45,500.00,
belonging to Ronito Enero and Maria Fe Balo, to the damage and
prejudice
of the owners in the amount of P45,500.00, Philippine Currency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
When arraigned on
October
17, 1996, both accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty.[5]
Thereafter trial ensued.
The prosecution presented Dr. Cerna as its first
witness.
It then presented Maria Fe as its second witness. During the
trial
on February 4, 1997, Manuel and Jose offered to withdraw their
plea
of not guilty, and to enter a plea of guilty to the crime charged in
the
information. The prosecution agreed. They were then
rearraigned
and pleaded guilty to the crime charged in the information.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, the prosecution
continued presenting its evidence. It presented Barangay Captain
Ocaña, who testified that when he talked to Maria Fe and Julifer
in their house, Maria Fe told him that Manuel and Jose had divested her
money and personal belongings and killed her husband Ronito.
Julifer
also told him that she had been raped by two of the
malefactors.
After Sergio’s testimony, the prosecution manifested that Leo
Quilongquilong,
one of the victims, had already left for Davao City after the incident,
and that Julifer Barrera had refused to take the witness stand for fear
for her life, and for that reason, it will no longer present them as
witnesses.
The prosecution thereafter rested its case.chan
robles virtual
The Defenses
and Evidence of Both Accused
When he testified, Manuel
admitted having killed Ronito. He however claimed that he stabbed
Ronito
in self-defense and in defense of Jose. He also said that
he,
Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the younger brother of Maria Fe, had been
engaged
in robberies in Davao City. Sometime in September 1995, the four
robbed a person of P50,000. However, Manuel failed to get his
share
of the loot while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got theirs. Manuel was
bitter.
He later learned in December 1995 that Ronito and Maria Fe had
left
Davao City and settled in Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel
and
Jose arrived in Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the
loot. Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai.
Ronito told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel
agreed.
In the evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the house
of Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot from
Ronito.
Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree. However, at about
two
o’clock at dawn, the next morning, Manuel and Ronito had an altercation
when Manuel demanded that Ronito give him his share of the loot. Ronito
was peeved and told Manuel that he had long given him his share through
a friend. Ronito whipped out a knife and stabbed Manuel.
The
latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito but failed. However,
Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to wrest possession of the
knife.
Jose then gave the knife to Manuel who stabbed Ronito with it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Manuel denied raping
Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria Fe of their valuables.
Jose
did not anymore testify. His counsel informed the trial court
that
the testimony of Jose would only corroborate the testimony of Manuel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 31, 1997,
the trial court rendered a Decision, the decretal portion of
which
reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing considerations, accused Manuel Daniela
alias
Manuel de la Cruz @ Tagalog and Jose Baisac Baylosis are found guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and they are
hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH to be carried out in
the
manner prescribed by law. The accused are further directed to pay
jointly
and severally, to the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 and to
restitute to the heirs the cash & pieces of jewelry taken by them
as
aforementioned and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[7]
The trial court
declared
that Manuel and Jose having pleaded guilty to the crime charged in the
information, the prosecution was deemed to have proven their guilt of
the
crime charged, the remaining matter still to be ascertained
was the presence of any modifying circumstances.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused Manuel and Jose,
now appellants, assail the decision of the trial court and insist that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH WHEN THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH WHEN THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
OF NIGHTTIME AND DWELLING WERE NOT DULY PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION.
III
RULE 110, SECTIONS 8
AND 9, OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED, DECEMBER
1, 2000, SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.[8]
Anent the first assigned
error, the appellants contend that their plea of guilty to the
crime
charged in the information was improvidently made. When they
pleaded
guilty, they did so only for homicide but not for robbery. Neither did
appellant Manuel plead guilty to rape. They assert that their
plea
of guilty to the crime charged in the information should be set aside.
The trial court erred in convicting them of the charge on the basis
solely
on their improvident plea of guilty. The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) agrees with the contention of the appellants that
their
plea of guilty to the crime charged in the information was
improvidently
made. Nevertheless, it contends that there is no more need for the
Court
to still remand the case to the trial court as their conviction for the
crime charged is warranted by the evidence adduced by the prosecution
independent
of their plea of guilty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the appellants
that their plea of guilty to the crime charged was improvidently
made.
Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC. 3. Plea of
guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. - When the accused
pleads
guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching
inquiry
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequence of his
plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree
of culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his
behalf.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The felony of robbery
with homicide is a capital offense, the imposable
penalty
therefor being reclusion perpetua to death.cralaw:red
The raison d’etre
behind the rule is that courts must proceed with caution where the
punishable
penalty is death for the reason that the execution of such a sentence
is
irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent persons have at
times
pleaded guilty. Improvident plea of guilty on the part of the
accused
when capital crimes are involved should be avoided since he might be
admitting
his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty
without
having fully comprehended the meaning and import and consequences of
his
plea.[9]
Under this rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court, namely:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) the court
must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the
plea,
and the accused’s full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2)
the
court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt
of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) the
court
must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf
and
allow him to do so if he desires.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As explained by the
Court in People v. Alicando,[11]
the searching questions must focus on (1) the voluntariness of the
plea;
and (b) the full comprehension of the accused of the consequences of
the
plea. As elaborated on by the Court in People v. Nadera,[12]
the trial court -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The warnings given by
the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must
make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant
understood
fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere
warning
that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is
insufficient.
For more often than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or
because
he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial
judge must erase such mistaken impressions. He must be completely
convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under
duress
or promise of reward. The judge must ask the accused the manner
the
latter was arrested or detained, and whether he was assisted by counsel
during the custodial and preliminary investigation. In addition,
the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred
with
the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the
consequences
of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age, educational
attainment
and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights for a
proper
verdict in the case, the trial court must ask questions concerning them.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the certificate
of arraignment on record states that when the case was called for trial
on February 4, 1997, the appellants were called by the trial court and
were informed of the nature of the charge against them. The trial
court propounded questions on the appellants and the latter answered
the
questions. Forthwith, the appellants changed their former plea of
not guilty to that of guilty.[14]
However, there is no record of what questions were asked by the trial
court,
and what answers were given by them, or whether the court explained to
the appellants the nature of the crime with which they were charged,
and
that they may be sentenced to death. It cannot be determined
whether
the questions of the trial court were searching. The records do
not
even show if the trial court explained to the appellants the meaning
and
legal effect of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the
commission
of the crime, or if the appellants were asked why they were changing
their
plea from not guilty to guilty. Clearly then, the plea of guilty
of the appellants was improvident; hence, inefficacious. Their
conviction
for the crime charged cannot be based solely on their plea of guilty to
said crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court convicted
the appellants of robbery with homicide on the basis of their plea of
guilty
during their rearraignment.[15]
Ordinarily, the case should be remanded to the trial court for
the
prosecution and the appellants to adduce their respective
evidences.
However, the records show that despite the plea of guilty of the
appellants,
the prosecution adduced its evidence. The appellants likewise
adduced
their evidence to prove their defenses. The Court will resolve
the
case on its merits independent of the plea of guilty of the appellants
rather than remand the case to the trial court.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Crime
Committed
by the Appellants
The appellants aver
that the prosecution failed to prove the crime of robbery with homicide
with which they were charged. Maria Fe was not a credible
witness;
her testimony is barren of probative weight. They contend that as
claimed by Maria Fe, the principal witness for the prosecution, the
intention
of the appellants in going to the house of Ronito and Maria Fe was
merely
to borrow money from them and not to rob them of their personal
belongings.
The prosecution even failed to prove that the appellants robbed Maria
Fe
of money and jewelry. Even if it is assumed that they robbed
Maria
Fe of money and jewelry, however, they are not liable for robbery with
homicide. That the appellants robbed the couple of their
belongings
after borrowing money from Ronito and Maria Fe, is not determinative of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
OSG contends that the prosecutor mustered the required quantum of
evidence
to prove the constitutive elements of robbery with homicide.
Maria
Fe is credible and her testimony entitled to probative weight.
Although
the inceptual intention of the appellants in going to the house of
Ronito
and Maria Fe was to borrow money, however, it is equally true that they
intended to rob the victims of their money and personal belongings and
kill Ronito in the process. The evidence on record shows that the
object of the appellants was to rob the victim of their money and
personal
properties and kill Ronito on the occasion of the robbery. The
OSG
cites the ruling of this Court in United States vs. Villorente.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the OSG.
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659
reads:
Art. 294.
-
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. -
Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation
of any person shall suffer:
1. The
penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery
shall
have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
The law was taken from
the Spanish Penal Code which reads:
1. O. Con
la
pena de reclusion perpetua a muerte, cuando con motivo o con occasion
del
robo resultare homicidio.
The elements of the
crime
are as follows:
(1) the
taking
of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons;
(2) the property
taken
belongs to another;
(3) the taking is
done
with animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of
the
robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.[18]
A conviction for
robbery
with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose
and
objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental
to the robbery. The animo lucrandi must proceed the
killing.
If the original design does not comprehend robbery, but robbery follows
the homicide either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the
homicide, then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, that of
homicide or murder and robbery, and not of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, a single and indivisible offense.[19]
It is the intent of the actor to rob which supplies the connection
between
the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex crime
of robbery with homicide.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the law does
not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and
commits
homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof.[21]
In People vs. Tidula, et al.,[22]
this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob
another,
it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of
robbery
with homicide. In People v. Damaso,[23]
this Court held that the fact that the intent of the felons was
tempered
with a desire also to avenge grievances against the victim killed, does
not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery
with
homicide.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A conviction for
robbery
with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before,
during
or after the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be committed
by
the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Even if
two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical
injuries
are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery,
there
is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What
is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction
as
to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the
commission
of the crime.[24]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Robbery with homicide
is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the
victim
of homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion
of the robbery.[25]
It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very
person
the malefactor intended to rob.[26]
For the conviction of the special complex crime, the robbery itself
must
be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the prosecution
proved through the testimony of Maria Fe that the appellants threatened
to kill her and her family and robbed her of her money and
jewelry
and Ronito and Leo’s pieces of jewelry:
Q
At about 2:00 A.M. of the following day March 31, 1996 what
happened?
A
This Manuel Daniela pushed the door of our room.cralaw:red
Q
And what did he do after he pushed the door of your room?
A
I was awakened and then I asked him what is it Log. Referring to Manuel
Daniela. [sic] alias Tagalog.cralaw:red
Q
What did you see in Tagalog when he pushed the door open?
A
When Manuel Daniela alias Tagalog entered our room he poked his handgun
caliber 38 on me at that time because he was bringing a gun.cralaw:red
Q
What is this caliber 38?
A
A pistol, caliber 38 weapon.cralaw:red
Q
But how did you know it was a 38 caliber if you do not know the weapon?
A
Because Ithis caliber 38 he was brining.cralaw:red
Q
And you said he was bringing a kerosene lamp?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
What did he do with the kerosene lamp?
A
When he poked his firearm towards me I stood up and then Manuel Daniela
told me to go back to lie down. At that time Jose Baylosis
entered
the room.cralaw:red
Q
Did you lie down following the order of Manuel Daniela?
A
Yes, maam. [sic]
Q
Your [sic] said that Jose Baylosis entered the room what did Jose
Baylosis
do while you were already lying down?
A
Manuel Daniela order [sic] Jose Baylosis to tie me.cralaw:red
Q
How were you tied?
A
He extended my two hands but Tagalog said that it is not the way to tie
her. So they placed my hands at the back and they put a masking
tape.cralaw:red
Q
Aside from your hands what were tied?
A
Only my hands were tied but Manuel Daniela ordered Jose Baylosis to let
Leo Quilongquilong my cousin to get inside the room.cralaw:red
Q
Did Jose Baylosis compky [sic] with the instruction of Manuel
Daniela
to let your cousin Leo Quilongquilong to get inside the room?
A
Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q
Did Leo Quilongquilong get inside your room/
A
Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q
What did they do with Leo Quilongquilong at the time Leo Quilongquilong
was already inside the room?
A
They also tied Leo Quilongquilong by extending his both hands
towards
them and they also ordered to place his hands at his back.cralaw:red
Q
Is that how Leo Quilongquilong was tied?
A
Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q
After you and Leo Quilongquilong were tied what did Manuel Daniela do?
A
They asked money from me but I did not tell them and so they got my
jewelries
[sic].cralaw:red
Q
What jewelries [sic] were taken from you?
A
Necklace.cralaw:red
Q
How much was the cost?
A
P7,000.00.cralaw:red
Q
Was it a gold, silver or what kind of metal?
A
Chinese gold.cralaw:red
Q
Where was it placed?
A
They took it from my neck.cralaw:red
Q
Who of the two took your gold necklace from your neck?
A
Jose Baylosis.cralaw:red
Q
After taking the gold necklace from your neck what else did Jose
Baylosis
do?
A
Jose Baylosis also removed my god ring?
Q
How many rings?
A
2.cralaw:red
Q
How much is the value of these two rings?
A
P3,800.00.cralaw:red
Q
From where did Jose Baylosis take these two gold rings?
A
From my fingers.cralaw:red
Q
While your hand were tied at the back?
A
Yes, maam.cralaw:red
Q
Aside from the two rings and one necklace what other piece of jewelries
[sic] were taken from you by Jose Baylosis?
A
My Chinese gold earrings.cralaw:red
Q
How much was the value of the Chinese gold earrings?
A
P1,100.00.cralaw:red
Q
From where did Jose Baylosis get your Chinese gold earrings?from me
[sic]
A
From my ears.cralaw:red
Q
While Jose Baylosis was divesting you these pieces of jewelry what did
Manuel Daniela do?
A
Manuel Daniela keep on poking his firearm towards me and his left hand
holding a hand grenade, and told me not to shout.cralaw:red
Q
After the two accused were able to divest you of your pieces of jewelry
what else did they do?
A
While Manuel Daniela keep on poking his firearm toward me Manuel
Daniela
insisted that the moeny [sic] would be given and I told them we have no
money because my money was paid for the fish and also to my partner of
fish vending but they did not believe.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Since Manuel Daniela did not believe you that you have no money what
did
Manuel Daniela do?
A
They ransacked our room by scattering our clothes looking for money.cralaw:red
Q
Was he able to find your money?
A
No maam.cralaw:red
Q
What did he do as he did not find anything after scattering your
clothes?
A
Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis told me to give money so they will not
harm us.cralaw:red
Q
What did you do?
A
That time my cousin Leo woke yo [sic] and gave the money to them
but Leo also told [sic] if we will give you the money then we will ha
[sic]
no more capital for our business.cralaw:red
Q
And what did you do finally?
A
Later on, we decided to gather [sic] with my cousin to give the money
in
order they will not be killed.cralaw:red
Q
Did you give the money?
A
Yes, maam because my money was inside the box which was placed inside,
it was a waist pouch.cralaw:red
Q
And what material was your pouch made of which contained the money?
A
It was made of cloth.cralaw:red
Q
How much was the content of your pouch which you said was placed inside
the map.cralaw:red
A
P30,000.00 and a wrist watch.cralaw:red
Q
And how much is the c[v]alue of the wrist watch?
A
P900.00.cralaw:red
Q
Who got the pouch under the map?
A
I was the one pushing out the pouch from over the map towards Tagalog.cralaw:red
Q
During this time when Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis were divesting
you
of pieces of jewelry and money what was your husband Ronito doing?
A
At that time my husband Ronito was sleeping. Manuel Daniela took
a blanket and then Manuel Daniela ordered Jose Baylosis to kill my
husband
and Jose Baylosis took a blanket and covered the mouth of my husband
and
placed himself on top of the body of my husband and stabbed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:
Q
With what weapon?
A
Kitchen knife.cralaw:red
COURT:
Proceed.cralaw:red
ATTY. DALAWAPU:
Q
Who owned that kitchen knife?
A
That was taken from our kitchen.cralaw:red
Q
So you owned the knife?
A
Yes we owned.cralaw:red
Q
And then after Jose Baylosis stabbed your husband several times
that
did Manuel Daniela do?
A
While Jose Baylosis stabbed several times my husband mu
[sic]
husband shouted, "aray" and then I attempted to stand up and then
Manuel
Daniela took over and place himself on top of my husband and he also
stabbed
my husband several times using a batangas knife. At that time
Manuel
Daniela was on top of my husband Jose Baylosis also pulled the legs of
my husband and he was stabbed on the lower oar [sic] of the body.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to her abdomen.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q
So your husband was never able to stand?
A
No my husband was never able to stand up because they helped each other
in stabbing him several times.cralaw:red
ATTY. DALAWAPU:
Q
At the time that Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela were stabbing your
husband
what were you doing?
A
While they were stabbing mu [sic] husband I and my cousin could not say
anything because they threatened to explode the hand grenade they were
holding. We were just on the side of the room tied and looking
them
stabbing my husband because they threatened to explode the hand grenade
if we should [sic] for help.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
How about Juliefer Barrera your helper what was she doing at this time
that Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela were stabbing your husband?
A
Our helper who slept in the bed was awakened and while she was awakened
Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela approached her and told not to shout
and
the her hands were tied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Do you mean to tell this Honorable Court that Manuel Daniela and Jose
Baylosis
stabbed and killed your husband after they were able to get your pieces
of jewelry from your person and the pouch from under the map which
contained
the sum of P30,000.00 together with your Seiko watch?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Yes, mam [sic].cralaw:red
COURT:
Q
What time was it at the time your husband was stabbed several times by
both Daniel and Jose?
A
About 2:00 o’clock dawn the following day.cralaw:red
ATTY. DALAWAPU:
Q
Ma. Fe after Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela stabbed Ronito what else
did they do?
A
After Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela killed my husband Manuel Daniela
told me that there was somebody who ordered them to kill my husband and
then I told them if you will kille [sic] me what will happene [sic] to
my three small children who will support them and also who willsupport
[sic] my parents because they depend for my support.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What did Manuel Daniela say after you told them this?
A
Manuel Daniela said that I would be killed. When Manuel Daniela
was
about to stab me my husband also groaned three times like a dying pig
and
then this Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela immediately went back to my
husband and they stabbed my husband again several times and then Manuel
Daniela strucked [sic] the head of my husband with the bat of the
firearm
while Jose Baylosis stabbed my husband in the neck, made a slit on the
neck with the use of the knife to ensure that he would be deed
[sic].
In fact, the forehead of my husband was broken as a result of the
striking
of the bat of the firearm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. DALAWAMPU:
I would like to make
it of record from the very start that the witness related here how both
accused divested her of the pieces of jewelry and money and killed dead
[sic] her husband she keep on crying.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:
Before this Honorable Court’s question.cralaw:red
Q
Can you still go on your testimony despite your feelings?
A
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
So, let’s proceed.cralaw:red
ATTY. DALAWAMPU:
Q
After they stabbed your husband again what did they do?
A
They stabbed again my husband and strucked [sic] the head of my husband
and they went back to me and saying let us kill them Bay because they
are
very noisy.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It may be true that
the original intent of appellant Manuel was to borrow again money from
Ronito and Maria Fe but later on conspired with Jose and robbed the
couple
of their money and pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion
thereof,
killed Ronito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery
with homicide. In People v. Tidong,[29]
this Court held that the appellant was guilty of robbery with homicide
even if his original intention was to demand for separation pay from
his
employer and ended up killing his employer in the process:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defense argues that
appellant never had the original design to rob when he went to the Co
compound.
That may be so. The compound of the Cos is fenced and the only
entrance
is through the gate with a security guard. It was only 7:00
o’clock
in the evening and a number of people were still awake, hardly the
proper
occasion for staging a successful robbery. Notable too is the
fact
that the amount recovered from appellant was only in the amount of the
separation pay which he demanded, leading to the inference that perhaps
appellant had no original intent to rob the Cos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nonetheless, even if
there was no original design to commit robbery, appellant is still
liable
for robbery if at the time of the taking of the personal property of
another
with violence or intimidation there was intent to gain. Although
the Court gives considerable weight to the theory of the prosecution,
we
are not inclined to entirely do away with the version of the defense,
especially
with regard to his claim that he went to the Co compound to demand his
separation pay. Although disputed by the Cos, it is possible that
appellant believed, rightly or wrongly, that he had the right to a
separation
pay.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Proper
Penalty
of Appellants
The trial court sentenced
both appellants to death on its finding that the robbery with homicide
was aggravated by nighttime and dwelling. It appreciated the plea
of guilty as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance against the
appellants.
There was no provocation on the part of Ronito and Maria Fe. The
crime was committed in their dwelling. This Court held that
dwelling
is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to
human
abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do him wrong
is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[30]
However, dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was not alleged
in the amended information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the
Revised
Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
information[31]
and proved otherwise, even if proved but not alleged in the
information,
the same shall not be considered by the Court in the imposition of the
proper penalty on the accused. Although the rule took effect only
on December 1, 2000, however, the same may be applied retroactively.[32]
The crime was committed at nighttime. However, there is no
evidence
that the appellants took advantage of the darkness of the night in
committing
the crime or that nighttime facilitates the commission of the
crime.
Indeed, the evidence on record shows that when appellant Manuel barged
into the room of Maria Fe and Ronito, he was holding a kerosene lamp.[33]
The appellants are not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea
of guilty[34]
on the finding of the Court that the plea of guilty of the appellants
was
improvidently made. Besides, when the appellants changed their
plea,
the prosecution had already commenced presenting its evidence.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Civil
Liabilities
of Appellants
The trial court ordered
the appellants to pay in solidum to the heirs of Ronito the amount of
P50,000.
However, although Maria Fe testified, the trial court did not award
moral
damages to said heirs. Neither did the trial court award exemplary
damages.
The trial court ordered the appellants to return to said heirs the
pieces
of jewelry taken by them but the trial court failed to specify or
describe
in its decision the said pieces of jewelry. Maria Fe testified
that
the appellants took her chinese gold necklace worth P7,000; two gold
rings
worth P3,000; chinese gold earring worth P1,000; wristwatch worth P900;
and cash money in the amount of P30,000 and that the appellants took
the
gold ring of Ronito worth P900, and his wristwatch worth P1,800.
However, the prosecution failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove
the acquisition cost of the pieces of jewelry taken from Maria Fe and
Ronito.
Neither is there any documentary evidence to prove that Maria Fe had
P30,000
inside her pouch. Nevertheless, the Court has to modify the
decision
of the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conformably with current
jurisprudence, the heirs of Ronito Enero are entitled to moral damages
in the amount of P50,000[35]
and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.[36]
Under Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code,[37]
the appellants are obliged to return to Maria Fe the pieces of jewelry
they stole from her and to the heirs of Ronito the wristwatch and ring
the appellants took from Ronito, whenever possible, with
allowance
for any deterioration or diminution of value as determined by the
trial court. Under Article 106[38]
of the Revised Penal Code, if the appellants can no longer return the
articles,
they are obliged to make reparation for the price of the pieces of
jewelry
if they can no longer return the same taking into account the price and
the special sentimental value thereof to the victims. Under
Article
1268[39]
of the New Civil Code, the appellants are not exempted from the
payments
of the price of the stolen articles even if the same are lost, whatever
be the cause of the loss, unless the things having been offered to the
owners thereof, the former refused to receive the same without any
valid
cause.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Verdict of
the
Court
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch
18, in Criminal Case No. CBU-42044, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
Appellants Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis are found guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of robbery with homicide defined in Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the
Revised Penal Code, as amended and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
They are ordered to return to Maria Fe her chinese gold necklace, two
rings,
chinese gold earrings and wristwatch, and to return to the heirs of
Ronito
Enero his gold ring and wristwatch and if they fail to return the said
pieces of jewelry to Maria Fe and the heirs of Ronito Enero,
respectively,
they are ordered to pay in solidum to Maria Fe and said heirs the value
of the said pieces of jewelry to be determined by the trial
court.
The appellants are ordered to pay in solidum to the heirs of Ronito
Enero
P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages in line with
current
jurisprudence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law
Vitug,
J., in the result.
Quisumbing, J.,
on official leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Galicano C. Arriesgado.
[2]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibit "B."chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[4]
Records, pp. 1-2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., at 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., at 86-87.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 63.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People v. Arizapa, 328 SCRA 214 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People v. Nadera, Jr., 324 SCRA 490 (2000).
[11]
251 SCRA 293 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
See note 10, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Records, p. 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., at 52.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Hermoso, 343 SCRA 567 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
30 Phil. 59 (1915).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333 (1922).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613 (1996).
[22]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
86 SCRA 330 (1978).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Mangulabnan, 99 Phil 992 (1956), citing Decision of the
Spanish
Supreme Court, dated January 12, 1989, cited in Cuello Calon’s Codigo
Penal,
pp. 501-502.
[25]
Id.; People v. Ga, 186 SCRA 790 (1990); People v. Balanag, 236 SCRA
474,
(1994) cited in People v. Alberca, supra.
[26]
See note 21, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Aquino, 329 SCRA 247 (2000); People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95
(2000).
[28]
TSN, 13 March 1997, pp. 7-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
225 SCRA 324 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People v. Paraiso, 319 SCRA 422 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
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
[32]
People v. Mauricio, 353 SCRA 114 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
People v. Meren, 311 SCRA 113 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
person
in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his
guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People v. Pajatol, 368 SCRA 674 (2001).
[36]
People v. Catubig , 363 SCRA 621 (2001); People v. Liad,
355
SCRA 11 (2001).
[37]
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.
[38]
ART. 106. Reparation - How made. - The court shall
determine
the amount of damage, taking consideration the price of the thing,
whenever
possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and
reparation
shall be made accordingly.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Art. 1268. When the debt of a thing certain and determinate
proceeds from a criminal offense, the debtor shall not be exempted from
the payment of its price, whatever may be the cause for the loss,
unless
the thing having been offered by him to the person who should receive
it,
the latter refused without justification to accept it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|