EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140227
November 28, 2003
-versus-
ERWIN T. OTAYDE
ALIAS
"BOY OTAYDE", JIMMY
B. QUINTANA ALIAS "OTTO",CABAGUE MAMA AND
KUMAYOG M. PANANSARAN ALIAS "RAMBO",
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:
For automatic review
is the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of the Twelfth Judicial Region, Branch 19,
Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of robbery with homicide and assault upon a person in authority, and
imposing
upon them the extreme penalty of death.
The Information charging
appellants with the aforesaid offenses alleged:
That on or
about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of March 29, 1997, at Barangay
Keytodak,
Municipality of Lebak, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and
within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, in company
with HADJI ESMAEL BUDI alias Kagui, Paterno Depositario alias Boy
Kamote,
Datu Sonny Karon Ambas alias Commander Sonny, Pascual "Kua" Karon,
MANUEL
HINOCTAN alias Doos or Idod, ALLAN INAANOD alias Dod-dog, alias Sarge,
alias Oting and alias Ali, who are at-large and whose cases are still
pending
preliminary investigation before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of Lebak-Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat, armed with assorted high-powered
firearms,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another,
with
intent to gain, with malice aforethought and by means of force,
intimidation
and violence, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
take and carry away a piggy bank containing THREE THOUSAND PESOS
(P3,000.00);
one (1) ICOM Radio; One wallet containing an amount of P2,000.00; one
(1)
Garand Rifle; and One (1) Caliber .38 Revolver belonging to EDUARDO
CEJAR
with an aggregate value of P33,000.00; also taken away was a handgun
and
cash money amounting to P12,500.00 belonging to Dodong Cabe, to the
damage
and prejudice of the said owners; that on the occasion of said robbery,
the accused in pursuance of their conspiracy, with intent to kill and
having
known Eduardo Cejar as the Barangay Captain of Keytodak, therefore a
person
in authority, and while the latter was engaged in the performance of
his
official duties as such Barangay Capitan or on the occasion of such
performance,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack,
assault
and shoot said Eduardo Cejar with the uses of the afore-mentioned
weapons,
thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the latter which directly caused
his death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW,
particularly
Articles 294 (1) and 249, in relation to Article 148 and 48 of the
Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines.[2]
On arraignment,
appellants
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The
prosecution
presented six witnesses, namely: Evelyn vda. de Cejar, Rogelio
Tabaosares,
Judge Osmundo Villanueva, Elizer Moniva, SPO4 Vicente Oro and Dr.
Johnny
Tan. Their testimonies follow.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 7:30 p.m.
on March 29, 1997, Evelyn Cejar was at home with her five children at
Barangay
Keytodak, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. Her husband Eduardo Cejar, the
barangay
captain of Keytodak, was then at the nearby plaza. Evelyn and her
children
were about to sleep when her relative, Jingjing Camban, arrived and
told
her that about ten armed men were sighted approaching Barangay
Keytodak.
Evelyn immediately relayed the information to her husband Eduardo
through
the ICOM radio; he, in turn, promptly dispatched four members of the
Civilian
Volunteers Organization (CVO), namely, Rogelio Tabaosares, Teodolfo
Erania,
Generoso Cuba and Elizer Moniva, to get the firearms in his house. When
the volunteers arrived at the Cejar residence, Evelyn gave them the
firearms
and ammunition. But as the volunteers were about to leave the Cejar
residence,
the armed men arrived, ordered them to put down their weapons and drop
to the ground. Tabaosares and Moniva obeyed while Terania and Cuba ran
away.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evelyn closed the door
of the house and instructed her children to hide in the kitchen.
Thereupon,
the armed men shouted and asked for the barangay captain. Evelyn
replied
that her husband was in the public market. The men told her to open the
door and threatened to burn down her house if she refused. As soon as
Evelyn
opened the door, one of the armed men pointed his gun at her and asked
for money. Evelyn handed over her coin bank containing about P3,000.
The
armed men also took her wallet with P200 in it and the ICOM radio of
her
husband.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A few minutes later,
a motorcycle stopped near the house and caught the attention of the
armed
group. Evelyn and her children took advantage of the opportunity and
escaped.
Meanwhile, Moniva, who was lying face down on the ground with
Tabaosares,
raised his head and saw the faces of four of the armed men illuminated
by the motorcycle's headlights. The armed men pointed their guns at the
motorcycle driver, a certain Dodong Cabe, and ordered him to lie flat
on
the ground. At this moment, Barangay Captain Eduardo Cejar arrived at
the
scene. As he approached the armed group, the men cocked and pointed
their
firearms at him. Cejar identified himself by saying "This is the
barangay
captain." He was immediately shot by one of the armed men. This was
followed
by a series of gunshots. The armed men boarded the motorcycle and fled.
As soon as the armed men were gone, Moniva stood up to look for the
barangay
captain and found him dead. Evelyn and her children likewise returned
to
their house and were shocked to see Eduardo Cejar lying dead in a pool
of blood. Evelyn then found out that the wristwatch of her husband
worth
P1,000, his .38 caliber revolver and P12,500 in cash were missing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Johnny Tan, the
Municipal Health Officer of Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, conducted a post
mortem
examination on Eduardo Cejar and found that the victim sustained four
gunshot
wounds on his body which resulted in "massive hemorrhage causing
hypochloremic
shock."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellants themselves
testified in their defense.cralaw:red
Appellant Erwin Otayde
testified that on March 25, 1997, he was with Moro National Liberation
Front (MNLF) Commander Sonny Karon, and they went to Barangay Guintales
in order to meet a certain Kague Esmail. While the three of them were
having
breakfast the following morning, two persons arrived, one of whom was a
certain Boy Kamote. He overheard Commander Karon and Kague Esmail
planning
an attack on Barangay Keytodak because firearms were said to be stored
in the house of the barangay captain. He got so scared that he sought
permission
to leave the group but Commander Karon denied his request. They then
proceeded
to Barangay Dano and arrived there in the morning of March 27, 1997.
They
stayed in the house of Boy Kamote for three days, until March 29, 1997.cralaw:red
At around 7:00 p.m.
of March 29, 1997, the group of Commander Karon, now with 13 armed
members,
left Barangay Dano and proceeded to Barangay Keytodak to carry out
their
plan to seize the firearms in the house of Barangay Captain Cejar. When
they reached the house of Cejar, they saw four civilian volunteers, two
of whom were disarmed by appellant Kumayog Panansaran, alias Rambo,
while
the two others were able to escape. Then, they ordered the wife of
Cejar
to open the door. Moments later, a motorcycle arrived, carrying three
persons
who were all ordered by appellant Cabague and a certain Oting and Ali
to
lie flat on the ground together with the two volunteers. Thereafter,
Cejar
arrived alone carrying a gun. Commander Karon told Cejar to surrender
his
firearm but he refused. Commander Karon shot him. Oting, Rambo and Ali
also fired at the victim. The group then entered the house and took a
coin
bank and ICOM radio. Then they left Keytodak. From March 30 until April
5, 1997, the group stayed in Barangay Kebitic and returned to Barangay
Guintales in the evening of April 5, 1997.cralaw:red
Otayde further testified
that during the time they were in the Cejar residence, he was just
hiding
behind the fence of the house. He denied being a member of MNLF. His
presence
at the crime scene with the armed men was mainly because of fear for
his
life.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon his arrest on April
15, 1997, Otayde executed a written extrajudicial confession[4]
in the presence of his counsel Atty. Alberto Yap, his father Eleuterio
Otayde, and SPO4 Vicente Oro. On the witness stand, he admitted having
executed the said extrajudicial confession. In the said confession,
Otayde
identified his 12 companions during the commission of the crime:
Commander
Sonny Karon, Sarge, Ali, Waway, Kumayog Panansaran, Oting, Cabague
Mama,
John, Allan, Jimmy Quintana, Boy Kamote and Hadji Esmail. Except for
appellants
Kumayog Panansaran, Cabague Mama, Jimmy Quintana and himself, the
others
have remained at large.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Kumayog Panansaran,
alias Rambo, declared that he was a member of MNLF. At about 7:00 p.m.
on March 26, 1997, Commander Karon, together with seven companions,
arrived
in his house in Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. He was told to go with them.
They
went to Guintales and then to Dano where they fetched Jimmy Quintana
before
proceeding to Keytodak on March 29, 1997. When he asked why they were
going
to Keytodak, he was told that they would attend the settlement of a
case
between Boy Kamote and a certain Father Mariano. Suddenly, he heard a
burst
of gunfire and all of them instinctively dove to the ground. The group
decided not to proceed to Keytodak anymore. He later learned that a
person
was killed. He, however, admitted that all of them were armed at that
time
and were registered members of MNLF.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Cabague Mama
narrated that at around 3:00 a.m. on March 27, 1997, he was awakened by
the arrival of Commander Karon, Boy Kamote, Otayde, Rambo, Waway,
Sarge,
Ali and Teng at his house. The group stayed in his place until 7:00
p.m.
of the same day. On March 28, 1997, he joined the group to go to Dano
where
they stayed in Boy Kamote's house. There he met Jimmy Quintana. At 7:00
p.m. on March 29, 1997, the group proceeded to Keytodak. On reaching
the
barangay, they heard about six gunshots so they decided to go back to
Dano.
He later learned from Commander Karon and Boy Kamote that Barangay
Captain
Eduardo Cejar was killed in Keytodak. Likewise, he admitted that he
used
to be a member of the MNLF but left the group to spend more time with
his
family.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, appellant Jimmy
Quintana alias Otto initially testified that he was in Dano, Sultan
Kudarat
on March 28, 1997. However, on further direct examination by his
counsel
Atty. Lorenzo Balo, appellant manifested a lack of cooperation and
interest,
prompting Atty. Balo to dispense with his testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 30, 1999, the
trial court rendered a decision convicting appellants of the offense
charged:
WHEREFORE,
upon all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accuseds
(sic),
Erwin Otayde alias Boy Otayde, Jimmy B. Quintana alias Otto, Cabague
Mama
and Kumayog M. Panansaran alias Rambo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Assault upon a Person in
Authority.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly,
however,
unpleasant, even painful is the compliance with its duty to apply the
penalty
provided by law, the Court hereby sentences the accuseds (sic), Erwin
Otayde
alias Boy Otayde, Jimmy B. Quintana alias Otto, Cabague Mama and
Kumayog
M. Panansaran alias Rambo:
(a) to
suffer
the extreme penalty of death;
(b) to jointly
and severally
indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim, Barangay Captain Eduardo
Cejar,
the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, as statutory indemnity
for
the death of the said deceased victim;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) to jointly
and severally
indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim, Barangay Captain Eduardo
Cejar,
the total amount of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED (P48,200.00)
PESOS,
by way of actual damages representing expenses incurred as a result of
the death, wake and burial of the said deceased victim;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) to jointly
and severally
return to the heirs of the deceased victim, Barangay Captain Eduardo
Cejar,
the amount of THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS seized inside a piggy
bank,
as well as, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, seized inside a
wallet, and a wristwatch or to pay its actual price of ONE THOUSAND
(P1,000.00)
PESOS, as parts of the reparation, to be returned to or to be paid by
the
accuseds (sic); andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) to pay the
costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[5]
Appellants Jimmy
Quintana,
Cabague Mama and Kumayog Panansaran assailed their conviction, raising
the sole issue of whether conspiracy should be considered against them.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, appellant
Erwin Otayde raised the following assignments of error:
1. The
Honorable
Court a quo erred in finding out (sic) that accused Erwin Otayde was
one
of the conspirators who must equally bear the consequences of the crime
done by all the other accused despite lack of sufficient, independent
and
strong evidence of conspiracy shown and proved by the prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The Honorable
Court
a quo seriously erred in finding out (sic) that accused Erwin Otayde is
a co-principal of the offense charged.[7]
We deem it fit to
jointly
discuss the errors assigned by the appellants since they are all
interrelated.
Appellants argue that
conspiracy must be proved in the same manner as any element of the
criminal
act itself. They claim that the prosecution failed to establish their
actual
participation in the crime as well as the identity of the killer of
Eduardo
Cejar, thus negating the existence of conspiracy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is true that conspiracy,
like the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A
person's
mere passive presence at the crime scene does not make him a
conspirator.
However, in the instant case, appellants' presence at the scene of the
crime was not at all passive. By their concerted acts, they directly
participated
in a common criminal design. The testimonies of Evelyn Cejar and Elizer
Moniva clearly indicated that some of the assailants searched the house
for money and firearms while the others were outside with their guns
pointed
at Moniva and Tabasaores. They acted as lookouts too. When Barangay
Captain
Cejar arrived, the assailants pointed their firearms at him. And as
soon
as the first shot was fired, a barrage of gunshots coming from the
other
assailants immediately followed, all directed at the same victim.
Thereafter,
two of the armed men entered the house to seize more valuables. Then,
appellants
and the other members of the armed group fled together from the scene
of
the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Such conduct undoubtedly
showed appellants' cooperation with one another and adequately
established
their complicity in the crime. All of them had the same purpose and
were
united in its execution. The fact that it was Commander Karon who
actually
shot Cejar did not absolve the other appellants from liability. The
concerted
manner by which appellants and their companions perpetrated the crime
proved
beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy. Where conspiracy
has been established, it matters not who among the perpetrators
actually
shot and killed the victim. All the conspirators are equally liable as
co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their
participation.
Under the law, the act of one is the act of all.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When homicide is committed
as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part
in the robbery are to be held guilty of robbery with homicide, as
principals,
although they may not actually have taken part in the homicide, unless
it is clearly shown that they tried to prevent the commission of the
homicide.[9]
Appellants in this case did nothing to prevent the actual killers from
shooting the victim and even left the crime scene together, as a group.cralaw:red
Appellants were likewise
positively identified by prosecution witnesses as among the armed men
who
attacked the Cejar residence on the night of March 29, 1997. It is
settled
that when conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do
not
appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the
malefactors
should be accepted.[10]
In the case at bar, Evelyn Cejar was able to identify the assailants as
there were then two lighted kerosene lamps in the living room of her
house.
Further, Moniva saw the faces of the armed men because they were
illuminated
by the motorcycle's headlights. Clearly, these circumstances erased
whatever
doubt there was as to the appellants' identities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Robbery with Homicide,
the prosecution need prove only the following elements:
(a) the
taking
of personal property is attended by violence or intimidation against a
person;
(b) the property
taken
belongs to another; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the taking is
characterized
with intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) on the occasion
of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, here used
in
its generic sense, is committed.[11]
In this case, all the
essential
elements of robbery with homicide were established beyond reasonable
doubt.
Personal items belonging to Eduardo and Evelyn Cejar were taken at
gunpoint
by appellants and their companions. The armed group likewise forcibly
took
the money and firearms they found. Finally, during the heist, the
barangay
captain was ruthlessly shot to death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note that appellants
Cabague Mama and Kumayog Panansaran escaped during detention from the
provincial
jail of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat before judgment against them was
promulgated.
They have not been recaptured up to this time.[12]
No other reason can be deduced from appellants' flight other than that
they were driven by a strong sense of guilt and an awareness that they
had no tenable defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pursuant to the information,
the trial court found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex crime of "robbery with homicide and assault upon a person in
authority."
This, however, is erroneous. There is no complex crime of "robbery with
homicide and assault upon a person in authority." The law is clear
that,
if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of a robbery, the
offense becomes a special complex crime of robbery with homicide
defined
and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code. Even if the victim, as in this case, was a barangay
captain
and therefore a person in authority under Article 152 of the Revised
Penal Code, the crime committed by appellants would still be
robbery
with homicide. As long as robbery is the main purpose and objective of
the criminals and the killing merely results by reason or on the
occasion
of the robbery, the indictable offense is robbery with homicide. The
evidence
of the prosecution was indubitable that the principal purpose of the
appellants
and their group was to steal the firearms kept inside the house of the
barangay captain and to divest the residents thereof of their money and
other belongings. Appellant Otayde himself admitted that, in going to
Barangay
Keytodak, their group was determined to get the firearms from the
barangay
captain's house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Erwin Otayde's extrajudicial
confession was admissible in evidence as it satisfactorily complied
with
the fundamental requirements needed for the admissibility of a
confession:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) the
confession
is voluntary;
(2) the confession
is made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
(3) the confession
is express; and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4) the confession
is in writing.[13]
It was clear that no torture, force, violence, threat or intimidation
was
used against him to extract the confession.
Otayde was assisted by
Atty. Alberto Yap, a counsel of his choice, who informed him of his
rights.
Later, appellant even affirmed his confession during the preliminary
investigation
before Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Osmundo Villanueva,[14]
in the presence of Atty. Yap. He likewise affirmed his extrajudicial
confession
in open court. He even described in detail how the group prepared for
the
assault, from their first meeting on March 25, 1997 when Commander
Karon
hatched the plan to attack the house of Eduardo Cejar up to the time
the
said plan was carried out on March 29, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pertinent portions of
Otayde's confession are quoted hereunder:
Q When did
the incident happen?
A Last March 29,
1997
between 7:00 and 8:00 o'clock in the evening.
Q How did you know
of
this incident?
A I know it sir
because
I was there when the incident happened.
Q Do you know who
were
the suspects in that incident?
A Yes sir, they
were
Commander Datu Sony Karon Ambas, a certain Sarge, Ali, Waway, Rambo,
Pascual
(Kua) Karon, Oting, Cabague Mama, John alias "Dog-dog," Allan alias
"Doods,"
"Otto," Paterno Depositario alias "Boy Kamote" and the mastermind but
was
not present during the incident is (sic) Hadji Esmael Budi.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Where did you
come
from before you came to Keytodak on that mission?
A They started the
plan
in Babato, Tran, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat but finalized (sic) in Sitio
Guintales,
Poloy-Poloy, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat.
Q Were you also in
Babato
when they started their plans?
A It was only
incidental
that I was in Babato for collections of debts from my customers and
because
we were acquainted with each other, I went with them in going back to
Lebak
and also with them in Guintales when they finalized their plans.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What was your
reason
why you went with them when they were planning that mission?
A It was
incidental
during that time that I have a problem with my family especially with
my
in-laws and that was the reason why I always go with the group wherever
they go and to relax my problems but never expect that on that
particular
day we come to the extent of going to Keytodak.
Q Were you not
informed
that they have a plan to kill the Barangay Captain on that particular
time?
A None sir, what I
only
heard from Commander Datu Sonny Ambas Karon is to operate "Agaw Armas"
since they were informed by Paterno Depositario alias "Boy Kamote" that
there are many firearms in Keytodak, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After knowing
their
mission, why did you not back-out?
A I was already
afraid
not to go with them because I know that I already know their activities
and they might kill me.
Q When did you
start
in Guintales?
A The plans was
(sic)
finalized last March 25, 1997 at about 9:00 to 10:00 o'clock in the
morning
and they group with me (sic) left Guintales March 26, 1997 at about
7:00
o'clock in the evening. We reached Sitio Dano in the safehouse of "Boy
Kamote" at about 4:00 o'clock in the morning of March 27, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q From 4:00
o'clock
in the morning of March 27, 1997, what did you do or what were your
activities?
A We just stayed
in
that safehouse until March 29, 1997 and we again moved from the said
safehouse
at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening moving fast going to Keytodak,
Lebak,
Sultan Kudarat.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Upon arrival in
Keytodak,
Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, where in particular did you proceed?
A We surrounded
the
house of Barangay Captain Eduardo Cejar and it was "Boy Kamote,"
Cabague
Mama, Rambo and Oting who entered the house and took the Radio ICOM,
piggy
bank and some others while Rambo was the one who actually disarmed the
CVO of a Garand rifle.
Q How about you,
where
were you at the time the four entered the house?
A On the other
side
of the road opposite the house more or less eight to ten meters.
Q When you arrived
in
the said house, was the Barangay Captain in his house?
A None sir, he
only
arrived after about five minutes.
Q In that
particular
incident, the Barangay Captain was shot and died on the spot, who
actually
shot him?
A It was Commander
Datu
Sonny Karon Ambas who actually shot him sir with an armalite rifle sir.[15]
The foregoing
confession
was convincing evidence since it was supported by the strong
presumption
that no person in his right mind would deliberately and knowingly
confess
to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
But we agree with appellants
Jimmy Quintana, Cabague Mama and Kumayog Panansaran that Otayde's
confession
should not be taken against them. An extrajudicial confession is
binding
only on the person making it and is not admissible against his
co-accused
because, as against the latter, the confession is hearsay.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nonetheless, even disregarding
the extrajudicial confession of Otayde, the judgment of conviction
rendered
by the lower court must be sustained. The counsel-assisted voluntary
confession
was corroborated on its material points by the prosecution witnesses,
particularly
Evelyn Cejar, Elizer Moniva and Rogelio Tabaosares, who were all
eyewitnesses
to the crime. Certainly, appellants' conviction was based not on
Otayde's
confession alone but on the overwhelming evidence presented against
them.
Appellants' defense of denial was intrinsically weak and could not
prevail
over their positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The
denial
of an accused cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
positive
declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In imposing the death
penalty on appellants, the trial court found that the circumstances of
nighttime and band attended the commission of the crime.cralaw:red
We disagree. Section
8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that "the complaint or
information
shall specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." Under the
old rule, only the qualifying circumstances needed to be alleged in
order
to be considered as such.[18]
The present rules, however, require that even aggravating circumstances
like nighttime and band must be stated in the complaint or information.
The information in the present case failed to specifically allege that
nighttime and band attended the commission of the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While it is true that
the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect only on December 1, 2000
and
it was the old
rule that was in effect at the time the crime was committed on
March
29, 1997, the revised rules can be given retroactive effect insofar as
it favors the accused.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is settled that procedural
laws, like the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, may be applied retroactively. In
relation
to criminal law, a procedural law provides or regulates the steps by
which
one who has committed a crime is to be punished.[20]
The retroactive application of procedural laws is not constitutionally
objectionable, or violative of any right of a person adversely
affected.
The reason is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to,
or
arise from, procedural laws.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is, thus, ample
basis for the retroactive application of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure in this case. Inasmuch as the
information
failed to specify the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band,
these cannot properly be appreciated against appellants. Consequently,
the penalty imposable on appellants must only be reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of P50,000
as civil indemnity for the death of Eduardo Cejar should be upheld for
being in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[22]
We, however, find the
grant of P48,200 as actual damages not properly supported by the
evidence
on record. The prosecution failed to present receipts needed to justify
the award. Instead, the trial court relied solely on the affidavit of
the
victim's wife, Evelyn Cejar, with respect to the amount incurred for
burial
expenses. The award of actual damages cannot be sustained solely on the
basis of the allegations of a witness without any tangible document to
support such claim.[23]
Nonetheless, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 may be awarded
to the heirs of the victim in line with the Court's pronouncement in
the
case of People vs. Abrazaldo.[24]
Temperate damages may be granted where the amount of actual damages
cannot
be determined because of the absence of receipts to prove the same.
When
death occurs, it is reasonable to assume that the family of the victim
incurred burial and funeral expenses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lastly, appellants should
be ordered to return the amounts alleged in the information, P3,000 and
P200 respectively, representing the value of money contained in
Evelyn's
coin bank and the money stolen from her wallet. But the payment of
P1,000
for the stolen wristwatch of the victim should be deleted.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
convicting appellants of robbery with homicide and assault upon a
person
in authority is hereby modified. Appellants are found guilty of robbery
with homicide and are accordingly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They
are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the following amounts
to the heirs of the victim:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) P50,000
as civil indemnity;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) P25,000 as
temperate
damages; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the P3,200 stolen
from the victim's family.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan robles
virtual
law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge German M. Malcampo, Rollo pp. 27–64.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 7–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, January 29, 1998, pp. 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibits "D," "D-1" and "D-2," Record, pp. 11–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 63–64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Appellants' Brief, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid., p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People vs. Cerveto, 315 SCRA 611 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People vs. Sorrel, 278 SCRA 368 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People vs. Coca, Jr., G.R. No. 133739, May 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People vs. Godoy, G.R. No. 140545, May 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Record, p. 201.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 626 [1995].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Exhibit "C," Record, pp. 116–117.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Extrajudicial confession, pp. 1–2, Record, pp. 11–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People vs. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People vs. Camat, 256 SCRA 52 [1996].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People vs. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Article 22, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People vs. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Tan, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 524 [2002].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People vs. Reyes, 309 SCRA 622 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People vs. Sanchez, 308 SCRA 264 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
G.R. No. 124392, February 4, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |