EN BANC.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140756
April 4, 2003 -versus-
JUAN GONZALES
ESCOTE,
JR.ALIAS JUN MANTIKA
OF
STA. LUCIA,ANGAT, BULACAN AND
VICTOR ACUYANY
OCHOVILLOS ALIAS VIC ARROYO
OF STO.
NIÑO,
POBLACION, BUSTOS, BULACAN,
Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Robbery with homicide is
classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless, treachery is a
generic
aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is
killed
treacherously. The Supreme Court of Spain so ruled. So does
the Court rule in this case, as it had done for decades.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before the Court on
automatic review is the Decision[1]
of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Criminal Case
No.
443-M-97 convicting accused-appellants Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and
Victor
Acuyan of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, meting on each of
them the supreme penalty of death, and ordering them to pay the heirs
of
the victim, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., the total amount of P300,000.00 by
way of actual and moral damages and to pay to Five Star Bus, Inc., the
amount of P6,000.00 by way of actual damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
The antecedent facts
as established by the prosecution are as follows:
On September 28, 1996
at past midnight, Rodolfo Cacatian, the regular driver of Five Star
Passenger
Bus bearing Plate No. ABS-793, drove the bus from its terminal at Pasay
City to its destination in Bolinao, Pangasinan. Also on board was
Romulo Digap, the regular conductor of the bus, as well as some
passengers.
At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus, including
Victor
Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants,
rubber
shoes, hats and jackets.[2]
Juan seated himself on the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row
of the passengers’ seats, while Victor stood by the door in the
mid-portion
of the bus beside Romulo. Another passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio,
Jr., a resident of Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the
bus on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was his
service gun bearing Serial Number 769806. Every now and then,
Rodolfo
looked at the side view mirror as well as the rear view and center
mirrors
installed atop the driver’s seat to monitor any incoming and overtaking
vehicles and to observe the passengers of the bus.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The lights of the bus
were on even as some of the passengers slept. When the bus was
travelling
along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood
up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup. Petrified,
Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror towards the passengers’ seat and
saw
Juan and Victor armed with handguns. Juan fired his gun upward to
awaken and scare off the passengers. Victor followed suit and
fired
his gun upward. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and
divested them of their money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo
of the fares he had collected from the passengers. The felons
then
went to the place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded that he show them
his identification card and wallet. Manio, Jr. brought out his
identification
card bearing No. 00898.[3]
Juan and Victor took the identification card of the police officer as
well
as his service gun and told him: "Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka
namin,
baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo." The police officer pleaded for
mercy: "Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako."
However,
Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on
the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio,
Jr.
sustained six entrance wounds. He fell to the floor of the
bus.
Victor and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated
themselves
beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the
bus.
Rodolfo heard one of the felons saying: "Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng
tao.
Parang pumapatay ng manok." The other said: "Ayos na naman tayo
pare.
Malaki-laki ito." Victor and Juan further told Rodolfo that after
they (Victor and Juan) shall have alighted from the bus, he (Rodolfo)
should
continue driving the bus and not report the incident along the
way.
The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will follow their
instructions,
he will not be harmed. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop
the
bus along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the
bus. The robbery was over in 25 minutes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the bus reached
Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the
incident
to the police authorities. The cadaver of SPO1 Manio, Jr. was
brought
to the funeral parlor where Dr. Alejandro D. Tolentino, the Municipal
Health
Officer of Mabalacat, Pampanga, performed an autopsy on the cadaver of
the police officer. The doctor prepared and signed an autopsy report
detailing
the wounds sustained by the police officer and the cause of his death:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Body still flaccid
(not in rigor mortis) bathed with his own blood. There were 6
entrance
wounds and 6 exit wounds. All the entrance were located on his
right
side. An entrance (0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.) located infront of the right
ear exited at the left side just below the ear lobe. Another
entrance
through the mouth exited at the back of the head fracturing the occiput
with an opening of (1.5 cm x 2 cm). Blood CSF and brain tissues
came
out. Another fatal bullet entered at the upper right cornea of
the
sternum, entered the chest cavity pierced the heart and left lung and
exited
at the left axillary line. Severe hemorrhage in the chest cavity
came from the heart and left lung. The other 3 bullets entered
the
right side and exited on the same side. One entrance at the top
of
the right shoulder exited at the medial side of the right arm.
The
other entered above the right breast and exited at the right lateral
abdominal
wall travelling below muscles and subcutaneous tissues without entering
the cavities. Lastly another bullet entered above the right iliac
crest travelled superficially and exited above the right inguinal line.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cause of Death:
Shock, massive internal
and external hemorrhage, complete brain destruction and injury to the
heart
and left lung caused by multiple gunshot wounds."[4]
Rodolfo and Romulo proceeded
to the police station of Plaridel, Bulacan where they reported the
robbery
and gave their respective sworn statements.[5]
SPO1 Manio, Jr. was survived by his wife Rosario Manio and their four
young
children. Rosario spent P20,000.00 for the coffin and P10,000.00
for the burial lot of the slain police officer.[6]
Manio, Jr. was 38 years old when he died and had a gross salary of
P8,085.00
a month.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Barely a month thereafter,
or on October 25, 1996, at about midnight, SPO3 Romeo Meneses, the team
leader of Alert Team No. 1 of Tarlac Police Station, and PO3 Florante
S.
Ferrer were at the police checkpoint along the national highway in
Tarlac,
Tarlac. At the time, the Bambang-Concepcion bridge was closed to
traffic and the police officers were tasked to divert traffic to the
Sta.
Rosa road. Momentarily, a white colored taxi cab without any
plate
number on its front fender came to view. Meneses stopped the cab
and asked the driver, who turned out to be the accused Juan Gonzales
Escote,
Jr., for his identification card. Juan told Meneses that he was a
policeman and handed over to Meneses the identification card of SPO1
Manio,
Jr. and the money which Juan and Victor took from Manio, Jr. during the
heist on September 28, 1996.[8]
Meneses became suspicious when he noted that the identification card
had
already expired on March 16, 1995. He asked Juan if the latter
had
a new pay slip. Juan could not produce any. He finally
confessed
to Meneses that he was not a policeman. Meneses brought Juan to
the
police station. When police officers frisked Juan for any deadly
weapon, they found five live bullets of a 9 millimeter firearm in his
pocket.
The police officers confiscated the ammunition. In the course of the
investigation,
Juan admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor, alias
Victor
Arroyo, staged the robbery on board Five Star Bus and are responsible
for
the death of SPO1 Manio, Jr. in Plaridel, Bulacan. Meneses and
Ferrer
executed their joint affiavit of arrest of Juan.[9]
Juan was subsequently turned over to the Plaridel Police Station where
Romulo identified him through the latter’s picture as one of those who
robbed the passengers of the Five Star Bus with Plate No. ABS-793 and
killed
SPO1 Manio, Jr. on September 28, 1996. In the course of their
investigation,
the Plaridel Police Station Investigators learned that Victor was a
native
of Laoang, Northern Samar.[10]
On April 4, 1997, an Information charging Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and
Victor Acuyan with robbery with homicide was filed with the Regional
Trial
Court of Bulacan. The Information reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
28th day of September 1996, in the municipality of Plaridel, province
of
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually
helping each other, armed with firearms, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously, with intent of (sic) gain and by means of force,
violence
and intimidation, take, rob and carry away with one (1) necklace and
cash
in the undetermined amount of one SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., to the
damage
and prejudice of the said owner in the said undetermined amount; that
simultaneously
or on the occassion (sic) of said robbery, said accused by means of
violence
and intimidation and in furtherance of their conspiracy attack, assault
and shoot with the service firearm of the said SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr.,
thereby inflicting serious physical injuries which resulted (sic) the
death
of the said SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[11]
On the strength of a
warrant of arrest, the police officers arrested Victor in Laoang,
Northern
Samar and had him incarcerated in the Bulacan Provincial Jail.
Assisted
by Atty. Ramiro Osorio, their counsel de parte, Juan and Victor were
duly
arraigned and entered their plea of not guilty to the charge.
Trial
thereafter ensued. After the prosecution had rested its case on
August
26, 1998, Juan escaped from the provincial jail.[12]
The trial court issued a bench warrant on September 22, 1998 for the
arrest
of said accused-appellant.[13]
In the meantime, Victor adduced his evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Victor denied the charge
and interposed the defense of alibi. He testified that in 1996,
he
worked as a tire man in the vulcanizing shop located in Banga I,
Plaridel,
Bulacan owned by Tony Boy Negro. On one occasion, Ilarde
Victorino,
a customer of Tony Boy Negro, ordered Victor to sell a tire.
Victor
sold the tire but did not turn over the proceeds of the sale to
Ilarde.
The latter hated Victor for his misdeed. The shop was later demolished
and after two months of employment, Victor returned to Barangay
Muwal-Buwal,
Laoang, Northern Samar. On September 26, 1996, at 9:30 p.m.,
Victor
was at the town fiesta in Laoang. Victor and his friends, Joseph
Iringco and Rickey Lorcio were having a drinking spree in the house of
Barangay Captain Ike Baluya. At 11:30 p.m., the three left the
house
of the barangay captain and attended the public dance at the town
auditorium.
Victor and his friends left the auditorium at 5:30 a.m. of September
27,
1996. Victor likewise testified that he never met Juan until his
arrest and detention at the Bulacan Provincial Jail. One of the
inmates
in said provincial jail was Ilarde Victorino. Victor learned that
Ilarde implicated him for the robbery of the Five Star Bus and the
killing
of SPO1 Manio, Jr. to hit back at him for his failure to turn over to
Ilarde
the proceeds of the sale of the latter’s tire.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 14, 1999,
Juan was rearrested in Daet, Camarines Norte.[14]
However, he no longer adduced any evidence in his behalf.
The Verdict of
the
Trial Court
On March 11, 1999, the
trial court rendered its Decision judgment finding Juan and Victor
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, meted on each of them the
penalty of death and ordered them to pay P300,000.00 as actual and
moral
damages to the heirs of the victim and to pay the Five Star Bus Company
the amount of P6,000.00 as actual damages. The decretal portion
of
the decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, this Court
finds both accused, Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under
Art.
294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and hereby sentences both to
suffer
the supreme penalty of Death and to indemnify the heirs of the late
SPO1
Jose C. Manio, Jr., the amount of P300,000.00 as actual and moral
damages
and to pay the Five Star Bus P6,000.00 as actual damage.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[15]
Assignment of
Errors
Juan and Victor assail
the Decision of the trial court and contend that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT RODOLFO CACATIAN AND ROMULO DIGAP, DRIVER AND CONDUCTOR
OF THE FIVE STAR BUS, RESPECTIVELY, WERE ABLE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY
THE
TWO (2) MEN WHO HELD-UP THEIR BUS AND KILLED ONE PASSENGER THEREOF AT
AROUND
3:00 O’CLOCK IN THE EARLY MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THE TWO (2) ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME
OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.[16]
The Court’s
Verdict
Anent the first assignment
of error, Juan and Victor contend that the trial court committed a
reversible
error in relying on the testimony of Rodolfo, the bus conductor, for
convicting
them of the crime charged. They aver that although their counsel
was able to initially cross-examine Rodolfo, the former failed to
continue
with and terminate his cross-examination of the said witness through no
fault of his as the witness failed to appear in subsequent
proceedings.
They assert that even if the testimonies of Rodolfo and Romulo were to
be considered, the two witnesses were so petrified during the robbery
that
they were not able to look at the felons and hence could not positively
identify accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. They
argue
that the police investigators never conducted a police line-up for the
identification of the authors of the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contentions of Juan
and Victor are not meritorious. There is no factual and legal
basis
for their claim that they were illegally deprived of their
constitutional
and statutory right to fully cross-examine Rodolfo. The Court
agrees
that the right to cross-examine is a constitutional right anchored on
due
process.[17]
It is a statutory right found in Section 1(f), Rule 115 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that the accused has the
right
to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the
trial.
However, the right has always been understood as requiring not
necessarily
an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the
right
to cross-examine if desired.[18]
What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the
absence of the opportunity to cross-examine.[19]
The right is a personal one and may be waived expressly or
impliedly.
There is an implied waiver when the party was given the opportunity to
confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take
advantage
of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.[20]
If by his actuations, the accused lost his opportunity to cross-examine
wholly or in part the witnesses against him, his right to cross-examine
is impliedly waived.[21]
The testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be
received
or allowed to remain in the record.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the original
records show that after several resettings, the initial trial for the
presentation
by the prosecution of its evidence-in-chief was set on November 18,
1997
and December 5, 1997, both at 9:00 a.m.[23]
Rodolfo testified on direct examination on November 18, 1997. The
counsel of Juan and Victor forthwith commenced his cross-examination of
the witness but because of the manifestation of said counsel that he
cannot
finish his cross-examination, the court ordered the continuation
thereof
to December 5, 1997.[24]
On December 5, 1997, Rodolfo did not appear before the court for the
continuation
of his cross-examination but Rosemarie Manio, the widow of the victim
did.
The prosecution presented her as witness. Her testimony was
terminated.
The court ordered the continuation of the trial for the
cross-examination
of Rodolfo on January 20, 1998 at 8:30 a.m.[25]
During the trial on January 20, 1998, Rodolfo was present but
accused-appellants’
counsel was absent. The court issued an order declaring that for
failure of said counsel to appear before the court for his
cross-examination
of Rodolfo, Victor and Juan waived their right to continue with the
cross-examination
of said witness.[26]
During the trial set for February 3, 1998, the counsel of Juan and
Victor
appeared but did not move for a reconsideration of the court’s order
dated
January 20, 1998 and for the recall of Rodolfo Cacatian for further
cross-examination.
It behooved counsel for Juan and Victor to file said motion and pray
that
the trial court order the recall of Rodolfo on the witness stand.
Juan and Victor cannot just fold their arms and supinely wait for the
prosecution
or for the trial court to initiate the recall of said witness.
Indeed,
the Court held in Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals, et al:
xxx
The task of recalling
a witness for cross examination is, in law, imposed on the party who
wishes
to exercise said right. This is so because the right, being
personal
and waivable, the intention to utilize it must be expressed.
Silence
or failure to assert it on time amounts to a renunciation
thereof.
Thus, it should be the counsel for the opposing party who should move
to
cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses. It is absurd for the
plaintiff
himself to ask the court to schedule the cross-examination of his own
witnesses
because it is not his obligation to ensure that his deponents are
cross-examined.
Having presented his witnesses, the burden shifts to his opponent who
must
now make the appropriate move. Indeed, the rule of placing the
burden
of the case on plaintiff’s shoulders can be construed to extremes as
what
happened in the instant proceedings.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial was reset
to March 31, April 17 and 24, 1998, all at 8:30 a.m. because of the
non-availability
of the other witnesses of the prosecution.[28]
On March 31, 1998, the prosecution presented Dr. Alejandro Tolentino,
PO2
Rene de la Cruz and Romulo Digap. During the trial on April 17,
1998,
the counsel of Juan and Victor failed to appear. The trial was
reset
to June 3, 19 and 26, 1998.[29]
The trial scheduled on June 3, 1998 was cancelled due to the absence of
the counsel of Juan and Victor. The court issued an order
appointing
Atty. Roberto Ramirez as counsel for accused-appellants.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the trial on
August 26, 1998, Atty. Ramirez appeared in behalf of Juan and
Victor.
The prosecution rested its case after the presentation of SPO2 Romeo
Meneses
and formally offered its documentary evidence. The next trial was
set on September 23, 1998 at 8:30 a.m.[31]
On November 11, 1998, Juan and Victor commenced the presentation of
their
evidence with the testimony of Victor.[32]
They rested their case on January 27, 1999 without any evidence adduced
by Juan.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Juan and Victor did
not even file any motion to reopen the case before the trial court
rendered
its decision to allow them to cross-examine Rodolfo. They
remained
mute after judgment was rendered against them by the trial court.
Neither did they file any petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals
for the nullification of the Order of the trial court dated January 20,
1998 declaring that they had waived their right to cross-examine
Rodolfo.
It was only on appeal to this Court that Juan and Victor averred for
the
first time that they were deprived of their right to cross-examine
Rodolfo.
It is now too late in the day for Juan and Victor to do so. The
doctrine
of estoppel states that if one maintains silence when in conscience he
ought to speak, equity will debar him from speaking when in conscience
he ought to remain silent. He who remains silent when he ought to
speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contention of accused-appellants
Juan and Victor that Rodolfo and Romulo failed to identify them as the
perpetrators of the crime charged is disbelieved by the trial court,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As can be gathered from
the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution, on September 28,
1996, the accused boarded at around 3:00 a.m. a Five Star Bus driven by
Rodolfo Cacatian, bound to Pangasinan, in Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon
City. Twenty (20) minutes or so later, when the bus reached the
vicinity
of Nabuag, Plaridel, Bulacan, along the North Espressway, the accused
with
guns in hand suddenly stood up and announced a hold-up.
Simultaneously
with the announcement of a hold-up, Escote fired his gun upwards.
Acuyan, meanwhile, took the gun of a man seated at the back. Both
then went on to take the money and valuables of the passengers,
including
the bus conductor’s collections in the amount of P6,000.00.
Thereafter,
the duo approached the man at the back telling him in the vernacular
"Pasensiya
ka na pare, papatayin ka namin. Baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo."
They pointed their guns at him and fired several shots oblivious of the
plea for mercy of their victim. After the shooting, the latter
collapsed
on the floor. The two (2) then went back at the front portion of
the bus behind the driver’s seat and were overheard by the bus driver,
Cacatian, talking how easy it was to kill a man. The robbery and
the killing were over in 25 minutes. Upon reaching the Mexico
overpass
of the Expressway in Pampanga, the two (2) got off the bus. The
driver
drove the bus to the Mabalacat Police Station and reported the
incident.
During the investigation conducted by the police, it was found out that
the slain passenger was a policeman, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. of the
Caloocan
City Police Department.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The above version came
from Rodolfo Cacatian and Romulo Digap, bus driver and conductor,
respectively,
of the ill-fated Five Star Bus.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the trial court. It may be true that Romulo was frightened when Juan
and
Victor suddenly announced a holdup and fired their guns upward, but it
does not follow that he and Rodolfo failed to have a good look at Juan
and Victor during the entire time the robbery was taking place.
The
Court has held in a catena of cases that it is the most natural
reaction
of victims of violence to strive to see the appearance of the
perpetrators
of the crime and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[35]
Rodolfo and Romulo had a good look at both Juan and Victor before,
during
and after they staged the robbery and before they alighted from the
bus.
The evidence on record shows that when Juan and Victor boarded the bus
and while the said vehicle was on its way to its destination, Romulo
stationed
himself by the door of the bus located in the mid-section of the
vehicle.
The lights inside the bus were on. Juan seated himself in the
middle
row of the passengers’ seat near the center aisle while Victor stood
near
the door of the bus about a meter or so from Romulo.[36]
Romulo, Juan and Victor were near each other. Moreover, Juan
divested
Romulo of his collection of the fares from the passengers.[37]
Romulo thus had a face-to-face encounter with Juan. After shooting SPO1
Manio, Jr. at the rear portion of the bus, Juan and Victor passed by
where
Romulo was standing and gave their instructions to him.
Considering
all the facts and circumstances, there is no iota of doubt that Romulo
saw and recognized Juan and Victor before, during and after the heist.[38]
Rodolfo looked many times on the rear, side and center view mirrors to
observe the center and rear portions of the bus before and during the
robbery.
Rodolfo thus saw Juan and Victor stage the robbery and kill SPO1 Manio,
Jr. with impunity:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx
Q
So, the announcement of hold-up was ahead of the firing of the gun?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And before the actual firing of the gun it was even still said bad
words
before saying the hold-up?
A
After they fired the gun they uttered bad words, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Mr. Witness before the announcement of the hold-up you do not have any
idea that you will encounter that nature which took place, is that
correct?
A
None, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Within the two (2) year[s] period that you are plying the route of
Manila
to Bolinao that was your first experience of hold-up?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And the speed of above 70 kilometers per hour your total attention is
focus
in front of the road, correct, Mr. witness?
A
Once in a while the driver look at the side mirror and the rear view
mirror,
sir.cralaw:red
Q
Before the announcement there was no reason for you to look at any at
the
rear mirror, correct, Mr. witness?
Court:
Every now and then they
usually look at the side mirror and on the rear, that was his statement.cralaw:red
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q
I am asking him if there was no reason for him.cralaw:red
Fiscal:
Before the announcement
of hold-up, there was no mention.cralaw:red
Court:
Every now and then.cralaw:red
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q
When you said every now and then, how often is it, Mr. witness?
A
I cannot tell how often but I used to look at the mirror once in a
while,
sir.cralaw:red
Q
How many mirror do you have, Mr. witness?
A
Four (4), sir.cralaw:red
Q
Where are these located?
A
Two (2) on the side mirror, center mirror and rear view mirror, sir.cralaw:red
Q
The two side mirror protruding outside the bus?
A
Yes, sir, they are in the side of the bus, sir.cralaw:red
Q
One of them is located on the left and the other on the right, correct?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
You only look at the side mirror when you are going to over take, Mr.
witness?
A
No, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Where is this center mirror located, Mr. witness?
A
In the center, sir.cralaw:red
Q
What is the purpose of that?
A
So that I can see the passengers if they are already settled so that I
can start the engine, sir.cralaw:red
Q
What about the remaining mirror?
A
Rear view mirror, sir.cralaw:red
Q
What is the purpose and where is it located?
A
The rear view is located just above my head just to check the
passengers,
sir.cralaw:red
Q
So that the center mirror and the rear view mirror has the same purpose?
A
They are different, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How do you differentiate of (sic) one from the other?
A
The center mirror is used to check the center aisle while the rear
mirror
is for the whole view of the passengers, sir.cralaw:red
Q
If you are going to look at any of your side mirrors, you will never
see
any passengers, correct, Mr. witness?
A
None, sir.cralaw:red
Q
If you will look at your center mirror you will only see the aisle and
you will never see any portion of the body of your passengers?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Seated passengers?
A
It is only focus (sic) on the middle aisle sir.cralaw:red
Q
If you look at your rear mirror, you will only see the top portion of
the
head of your passengers, correct?
A
Only the portion of their head because they have different hight (sic),
sir.cralaw:red
Q
You will never see any head of your passengers if they were seated from
the rear mirror portion, correct, Mr. witness?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Before the announcement of hold-up, all of your passengers were
actually
sleeping?
A
Some of my passengers were sleeping, some were not, sir.cralaw:red
Q
But you will agree Mr. witness that when you said every now and then
you
are using your mirror? It is only a glance, correct?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And by mere glancing, Mr. witness you were not able to identify any
person
on the basis of any of your mirror, correct?
A
If only a glance but when I look at him I can recognize him, sir.cralaw:red
Q
You agree a while ago by every now and then it is by glancing, as a
driver,
Mr. witness by your side mirror?
A
Not all glancing, there are times when you want to recognize a person
you
look at him intently, sir.cralaw:red
Q
The purposes of your mirror inside your Bus is mainly of the safety of
your passengers on board, Mr. witness?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And as a driver, Mr. witness, you do not used (sic) your mirror to
identify
the person particularly when you are crossing (sic) at a speed of 70
kilometers
per hour?
A
I do that, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How long Mr. witness can you focus your eyes on any of these mirror
before
getting back your eyes into the main road?
A
Seconds only, sir.cralaw:red
Q
When you said seconds, for how long the most Mr. witness that you can
do
to fix your eyes on any of your mirrors and the return back of
(sic)
your eyes into the main road?
A
Two seconds, sir.cralaw:red
Q
At that time Mr. witness, that you were travelling at about 70
kilometers
you were glancing every now and then on any of your mirrors at about
two
seconds, correct?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And when you heard the announcement of hold-up your natural reaction is
to look either at the center mirror or rear mirror for two seconds,
correct?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And you were instructed Mr. witness to even accelerate your speed upon
the announcement of hold-up?
A
No sir, they just told me to continue my driving, sir.cralaw:red
Fiscal:
May I request the vernacular
"alalay ka lang, steady ka lang.cralaw:red
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q
Steady at what speed?
A
70 to 80, sir.cralaw:red
Q
What is the minimum speed, Mr. witness for Buses along North Expressway?
A
60 kilometers, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Are you sure of that 60 kilometers, minimum? Are you sure of that?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
That is what you know within the two (2) years that you are driving?
Along
the North Expressway?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And while you were at the precise moment, Mr. witness, you were being
instructed
to continue driving, you were not looking to anybody except focus yours
eyes in front of the road?
Fiscal:
May I request the vernacular.
Nakikiramdam ako.cralaw:red
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q
That’s what you are doing?
A
During the time they were gathering the money from my passengers, that
is the time when I look at them, sir.cralaw:red
Q
For two seconds, correct?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Which of the four (4) mirrors that you are looking at within two
seconds,
Mr. witness you said you are nakikiramdam?
A
The rear view mirror, sir.cralaw:red
Q
The Bus that you were driving is not an air con bus?
A
Ordinary bus, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And at what time your passengers, most of your passengers were already
sleep (sic), Mr. witness?
A
Most of my passengers, sir. Some of my passengers were still
sleep
(sic), sir.cralaw:red
Q
And the lights inside the Bus are off, correct Mr. witness?
A
The lights were on, sir.cralaw:red
Q
While the passengers were sleep (sic) the light was still on, Mr.
witness,
at the time of the trip.?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Now, Mr. witness when the hold-up was announced and then when you look
for two seconds in the rear mirror you were not able to see any one,
you
were only sensing what is happening inside your bus?
A
I saw something, sir.cralaw:red
Q
You saw something in front of your Bus? You can only see inside
when
you are going to look at the mirror?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
That is the only thing that you see every now and then, you said you
were
looking at the mirror?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How many times, Mr. witness did you look Mr. witness at the rear mirror
during the entire occurance (sic) of the alleged hold-up?
A
There were many times, sir.cralaw:red
Q
The most that you can remember, please inform the Honorable
Court?
During the occurance (sic) of the alleged hold-up, Mr. witness?
A
I cannot estimate, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How long did the alleged hold-up took place?
A
More or less 25 minutes, sir.[39]
When Rodolfo gave his
sworn statement to the police investigators in Plaridel, Bulacan after
the robbery, he described the felons. When asked by the police
investigators
if he could identify the robbers if he see them again, Rodolfo declared
that he would be able to identify them:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8.
T: Natatandaan mo ba kung ano ang itsura
ng dalawang lalaki na nanghold-up sa minamaneho mong bus?
S:
Halos magkasing taas, 5’4" o 5’5" katam-taman ang pangangatawan,
parehong
nakapantalon ng maong naka-suot ng jacket na maong, parehong naka
rubber
shoes at pareho ring naka sumbrero.cralaw:red
9.
T: Kung sakali bang makikita mo pa ang
mga
ito ay makikilala mo pa sila?
S:
Makikilala ko po sila.[40]
When asked to identify
the robbers during the trial, Rodolfo spontaneously pointed to and
identified
Juan and Victor:
QFiscal:
(to the witness)
xxx
Q
Those two man (sic) who stated that it was a hold-up inside the bus and
who fired the gun are they inside the Court room (sic) today?
A
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q
Point to us?
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to
a man wearing red T-shirt and when asked his name answered Victor
Acuyan
and the man wearing green T-shirt and when asked his name answered Juan
Gonzales.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, Romulo
likewise spontaneously pointed to and identified Juan and Victor as the
culprits when asked by the prosecutor to identify the robbers from
among
those in the courtroom:
xxx
Q
You said that you were robbed inside the bus, how does (sic) the
robbing
took place?
A
They announced a hold up ma’am, afterwards, they confiscated the money
of the passengers including my collections.cralaw:red
Q
You said "they" who announced the hold up, whose (sic) these "they" you
are referring to?
A
Those two (2), ma’am.cralaw:red
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to
the two accused.cralaw:red
Public Pros.:
May we request that
the accused be identified, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Court:
(to both accused)
What are your names?
A
Juan Escote, Your Honor. Victor Acuyan, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Public Pros.:
May we know from the
accused if his name is Juan Escote Gonzales because he just said Juan
Escote.
In the Information, it is one, Juan Gonzales, Jr., so, we can change,
Your
Honor.[42]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, when he was
accosted by SPO3 Romeo Meneses on October 25, 1997 in Tarlac, Tarlac,
Juan
was in possession of the identification card[43]
of the slain police officer. Juan failed to explain to the trial
court how and under what circumstances he came into possession of said
identification card. Juan must necessarily be considered the author of
the robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr. In People v. Mantung,[44]
we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx The recovery
of part of the loot from Mantung or the time of his arrest gave rise to
a legal presumption of his guilt. As this Court has held, ‘In the
absence of an explanation of how one has come into possession of stolen
effects belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed, he must
necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death of the
said person and of the robbery committed on him.’chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While police investigators
did not place Juan and Victor in a police line-up for proper
identification
by Rodolfo and Romulo, it cannot thereby be concluded that absent such
line-up, their identification by Romulo and Rodolfo as the authors of
the
robbery with homicide was unreliable. There is no law or police
regulation
requiring a police line-up for proper identification in every
case.
Even if there was no police line-up, there could still be proper and
reliable
identification as long as such identification was not suggested or
instigated
to the witness by the police.[45]
In this case, there is no evidence that the police officers had
supplied
or even suggested to Rodolfo and Romulo the identities of Juan and
Victor
as the perpetrators of the robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Felony
Committed
by Juan and Victor
The Court finds that
the trial court committed no error in convicting Juan and Victor of
robbery
with homicide. Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended
by Republic Act 7659, reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery
shall
have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To warrant the conviction
of Juan and Victor for the said charge, the prosecution was burdened to
prove the confluence of the following essential elements:
xxx (a) the taking of
personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person;
(b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is
characterized
by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the
robbery
or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a
generic sense, was committed. xxx[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The intent to rob must
precede the taking of human life.[47]
In robbery with homicide, so long as the intention of the felons was to
rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
In
People v. Barut,[48]
the Court held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the controlling Spanish
version of article 294, it is provided that there is robbery with
homicide
"cuando con motivo o con ocasión del robo resultare
homicidio".
"Basta que entre aquel este exista una relación meramente
ocasional.
No se requiere que el homicidio se cometa como medio de
ejecución
del robo, ni que el culpable tenga intención de matar, el delito
existe según constanta jurisprudencia, aun cuando no concurra
animo
homicida. Incluso si la muerte sobreviniere por mero accidente, siempre
que el homicidio se produzca con motivo con ocasión del robo,
siendo
indiferente que la muerte sea anterior, coetánea o posterior a
éste"
(2 Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 1975 14th Ed. P. 872).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even if the victim of
robbery is other than the victim of the homicide committed on the
occasion
of or by reason of the robbery, nevertheless, there is only one single
and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. All the crimes
committed
on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated
into
a single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. This was the
ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain on September 9, 1886, et sequitur
cited by this Court in People v. Mangulabnan, et al.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We see, therefore, that
in order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with
homicide
it is enough that a homicide would result by reason or on the occasion
of the robbery (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26,
1892, and January 7, 1878, quoted in 2 Hidalgo’s Penal Code, p. 267 and
259-260, respectively). This High Tribunal speaking of the
accessory
character of the circumstances leading to the homicide, has also held
that
it is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident
(Decision
of September 9, 1886; October 22, 1907; April 30, 1910 and July 14,
1917),
provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons
intervening
in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into consideration
(Decision of January 12, 1889 - see Cuello Calon’s Codigo Penal, p.
501-502).
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Case law has it that
whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of
the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will
also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although
they
did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they
endeavored
to prevent the homicide.[50]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juan and Victor conspired and
confabulated
together in robbing the passengers of the Five Star Bus of their money
and valuables and Romulo of his collections of the fares of the
passengers
and in killing SPO1 Manio, Jr. with impunity on the occasion of the
robbery.
Hence, both Juan and Victor are guilty as principals by direct
participation
of the felony of robbery with homicide under paragraph 1, Article 294
of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, punishable by
reclusion
perpetua to death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Proper Penalty
The trial court imposed
the supreme penalty of death on Juan and Victor for robbery with
homicide,
defined in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
punishable
with reclusion perpetua. Under Article 63, paragraph 1 of the
Revised
Penal Code, the felons should be meted the supreme penalty of death
when
the crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance attendant in
the
commission of the crime absent any mitigating circumstance. The trial
court
did not specify in the decretal portion of its decision the aggravating
circumstances attendant in the commission of the crime mandating the
imposition
of the death penalty. However, it is evident from the findings of facts
contained in the body of the decision of the trial court that it
imposed
the death penalty on Juan and Victor on its finding that they shot SPO1
Manio, Jr. treacherously on the occasion of or by reason of the
robbery:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx
The two (2) accused
are incomparable in their ruthlessness and base regard for human
life.
After stripping the passengers of their money and valuables, including
the firearm of the victim, they came to decide to execute the latter
seemingly
because he was a police officer. They lost no time pouncing him
at
the rear section of the bus, aimed their firearms at him and, in a
derisive
and humiliating tone, told him, before pulling the trigger, that they
were
rather sorry but they are going to kill him with his own gun; and
thereafter,
they simultaneously fired point blank at the hapless policeman who was
practically on his knees begging for his life. Afterwhich, they
calmly
positioned themselves at the front boasting for all to hear, that
killing
a man is like killing a chicken ("Parang pumapatay ng manok"). Escote,
in particular, is a class by himself in callousness. xxx.[51]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the trial court that treachery was attendant in the commission of the
crime.
There is treachery when the following essential elements are present,
viz:
(a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend
himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular
means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[52]
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor
on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to
defend
himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
himself.
Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the
danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the
time
of the infliction of the coup de grace.[53]
In the case at bar, the victim suffered six wounds, one on the mouth,
another
on the right ear, one on the shoulder, another on the right breast, one
on the upper right cornea of the sternum and one above the right iliac
crest. Juan and Victor were armed with handguns. They first
disarmed
SPO1 Manio, Jr. and then shot him even as he pleaded for dear
life.
When the victim was shot, he was defenseless. He was shot at
close
range, thus insuring his death. The victim was on his way to
rejoin
his family after a hard day’s work. Instead, he was mercilessly
shot
to death, leaving his family in grief for his untimely demise.
The
killing is a grim example of the utter inhumanity of man to his
fellowmen.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issues that now
come to fore are (1) whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide; and if in the affirmative, (b)
whether
treachery may be appreciated against Juan and Victor. On the
first
issue, we rule in the affirmative. This Court has ruled over the years[54]
that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of
robbery
with homicide, a special complex crime (un delito especial complejo)
and
at the same time a single and indivisible offense (uno solo
indivisible).[55]
However, this Court in two cases has held that robbery with homicide is
a crime against property and hence treachery which is appreciated only
to crimes against persons should not be appreciated as a generic
aggravating
circumstance.[56]
It held in another case that treachery is not appreciated in robbery
with
rape precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against property.[57]
These rulings of the Court find support in case law that in robbery
with
homicide or robbery with rape, homicide or rape are merely incidents of
the robbery, with robbery being the main purpose and object of the
criminal.[58]
Indeed, in People vs. Cando,[59]
two distinguished members of this Court advocated a review of the
doctrine
that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
homicide.
They opined that treachery is applicable only to crimes against
persons.
After all, in People vs. Bariquit,[60]
this Court in a per curiam decision promulgated in year 2000 declared
that
treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons.
However,
this Court held in People vs. Cando that treachery is a generic
aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide, citing its prior rulings that in
robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance
when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery. This Court
opted not to apply its ruling earlier that year in People vs. Bariquit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Legal Luminaries in
criminal law and eminent commentators of the Revised Penal Code are not
in full accord either. Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino (Retired)
says
that treachery is appreciated only in crimes against persons as defined
in Title 10, Book Two of the Code.[61]
Chief Justice Luis B. Reyes (Retired) also is of the opinion that
treachery
is applicable only to crimes against persons.[62]
However, Justice Florenz D. Regalado (Retired) is of a different view.[63]
He says that treachery cannot be considered in robbery but can be
appreciated
insofar as the killing is concerned, citing the decisions of this Court
in People vs. Balagtas[64]
for the purpose of determining the penalty to be meted on the felon
when
the victim of homicide is killed with treachery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be recalled
that by Royal Order of December 17, 1886 the 1850 Penal Code in force
in
Spain, as amended by the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 was applied in
the Philippines. The Penal Code of 1887 in the Philippines was amended
by Act 3815, now known as the Revised Penal Code, which was enacted and
published in Spanish. In construing the Old Penal Code and the
Revised
Penal Code, this Court had accorded respect and persuasive, if not
conclusive
effect to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and
construing the 1850 Penal Code of Spain, as amended by Codigo Penal
Reformado
de 1870.[65]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 14,
paragraph
16 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
ART. 14. Aggravating
circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:
xxx
16. That the act
be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when
the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense
which the offended party might make.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The law was taken from
Chapter IV, Article 10, paragraph 2 of the 1860 Penal Code and the
Codigo
Penal Reformado de 1870 of Spain which reads:
Art. 10. 2. Ejecutar
el hecho con alevosia. Hay alevosia cuando el culpable comete
cualquiera
de los delitos contra las personas empleando medios, modos o for mas en
la ejecucion que tiendan directa y especialmente a asegurarla sin
riesgo
para su persona, que proceda de la defensa que pudiera hacer el
ofendido.
xxx
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 14, paragraph
16 of the Revised Penal Code is a reproduction of the 1850 Penal Code
of
Spain and the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 with a slight difference.
In the latter law, the words "las personas" (the persons) are used,
whereas
in Article 14, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code, the words "the
person"
are used.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Going by the letter
of the law, treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as
enumerated
in Title Eight, Chapters One and Two, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code.
However, the Supreme Court of Spain has consistently applied treachery
to robbery with homicide, classified as a crime against property.
Citing
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, Cuello Calon, a noted
commentator
of the Spanish Penal Code says that despite the strict and express
reference
of the penal code to treachery being applicable to persons, treachery
also
applies to other crimes such as robbery with homicide:[66]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aun cuando el Codigo
solo se refiere a los delitos contra las personas, cabe estimarla en
los
que no perteneciendo a este titulo se determinan por muerte o lesiones,
como, en el robo con homicidio, y en el homicidio del Jefe del Estado
que
es un delito contra la seguridad interior del Estado, y no obstante la
referencia estricta del texto legal a los delitos contra las personas
no
es la alevosia aplicable a la mayoria de ellos, no lo es en el
homicidio,
pues como su concurrencia lo cualifica lo transforma en delito
distinto,
en asesinato, ni en el homicidio consentido (art. 409), ni en la
riña
tumultuaria (art. 408) ni en el infanticidio (art. 410). xxx.[67]
Viada also says that
treachery is appreciated in crimes against persons (delitos contra
personas)
and also in robbery with homicide (robo con homicidio).[68]
"Contra las personas.
- Luego la circunstancia de alevosia solo puede apreciarse en los
delitos
provistos desde el art. 417 al 447, y en algun otro, como el de robo
con
homicidio, atentario, a la vez que contra la propriedad, contra la
persona."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, treachery is a
generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said
crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and
indivisible
crime. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance because as
ruled
by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision dated September 11, 1878,
the word "homicide" is used in its broadest and most generic sense.[69]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 62, paragraph
1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in diminishing or increasing
the penalty for a crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken into
account. However, aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute
a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in
defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken
into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.[70]
Under paragraph 2 of the law, the same rule shall apply with respect to
any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree
that
it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Aggravating
circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable
by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing
the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx
2. The same rule
shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances
inherent
in the crime to such a degree that it must be of necessity accompany
the
commission thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Treachery is not an
element of robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a
crime
specially punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining
the
crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty
therefor.
Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with
homicide.
Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance
in robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper penalty for
the
crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Sentencia dated
March 14, 1877, the Supreme Court of Spain declared that treachery is a
generic aggravating circumstance not only in crimes against persons but
also in robbery with homicide. The high court of Spain applied
Article
79 of the Spanish Penal Code (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code) and
ruled that since treachery is not a constitutive element of the crime
of
robbery with homicide nor is it inherent in said crime, without which
it
cannot be committed, treachery is an aggravating circumstance to said
crime.
The high court of Spain was not impervious of the fact that robbery
with
homicide is classified as a crime against property. Indeed, it
specifically
declared that the classification of robbery with homicide as a crime
against
property is irrelevant and inconsequential in the application of
treachery.
It further declared that it would be futile to argue that in crimes
against
property such as robbery with homicide, treachery would have no
application.
This is so, the high tribunal ruled, because when robbery is coupled
with
crimes committed against persons, the crime is not only an assault
(ataca)
on the property of the victims but also of the victims themselves
(ofende):chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx que la circunstancia
agravante de alevosia ni es constitutiva del delito complejo de robo y
homicidio, ni de tal modo inherente que sin ella no pueda cometerse,
sin
que quepa arguir que en los delitos contra la propiedad no debe aquella
tener aplicacion, porque cuando estos son complejos de los que se
cometen
contra las personas, no solo se ataca a la propiedad, sino que se
ofende
a estas. xxx[71]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, in the application
of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide,
the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime
against
persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime
against
property. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of
"homicide"
and not to the constituent crime of "robbery" of the special
complex
crime of robbery with homicide.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime of robbery
with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against
property
or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because
treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Treachery
merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Sentencia, dated
July 9, 1877, the high tribunal of Spain also ruled that when the
victim
of robbery is killed with treachery, the said circumstance should be
appreciated
as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx que si aparece probado
que el procesado y su co-reo convinieron en matar a un conocido suyo,
compañero
de viaje, para lo cual desviaron cautelosamente los carros que guiaban,
en uno de los cuales iba el interfecto, dirigiendolos por otro camino
que
conducia a un aljibon, y al llegar a este, valiendose de engaño
para hacer bajar a dicho interfecto, se lanzaron de improviso sobre el,
tirandolo en tierra, robandole el dinero, la manta y los talegos que
llevaba,
y atandole al pie una piedra de mucho peso, le arrojaron con ella a
dicho
aljibon, dados estos hechos, no cabe duda que constituyen el delito
complejo
del art. 516, num. I, con la circunstancia agravante de alevosia,
puesto que los medios, forma y modos empleados en la ejecucion del
crimen
tendieron directa y especialmente a asegurarla sin riesgo para sus
autores,
procedente de la defensa del ofendido.[72]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum then, treachery
is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the
victim of homicide is killed by treachery.cralaw:red
On the second issue,
we also rule in the affirmative. Article 62, paragraph 4 of the
Revised
Penal Code which was taken from Article 80 of the Codigo Penal
Reformado
de 1870,[73]
provides that circumstances which consist in the material execution of
the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
aggravate
or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of
them
at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.
The circumstances attending the commission of a crime either relate to
the persons participating in the crime or into its manner of execution
or to the means employed. The latter has a direct bearing upon
the
criminal liability of all the accused who have knowledge thereof at the
time of the commission of the crime or of their cooperation thereon.[74]
Accordingly, the Spanish Supreme Court held in its Sentencia dated
December
17, 1875 that where two or more persons perpetrate the crime of robbery
with homicide, the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery shall
be appreciated against all of the felons who had knowledge of the
manner
of the killing of victims of homicide, with the ratiocination that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx si por la Ley basta
haberse ejecutado un homicidio simple con motivo ú
ocasión
del robo para la imposicion de la pena del art. 516, num. I, no puede
sere
ni aun discutible que, concurriendo la agravante de alevosia, se
aumente
la criminalidad de los delincuentes; siendo aplicable a todos los
autores
del hecho indivisible, porque no es circunstancia que afecte a la
personalidad
del delincuente, de las que habla el art. 80 del Codigo penal en su
primera
parte, sino que consiste en la ejecusion material del hecho y en los
medios
empleados para llevarle a cabo, cuando de ellos tuvieron conocimiento
todos
los participantes en el mismo por el concierto previo y con las
condiciones
establecidad en la segunda parte del citado articulo.[75]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Be that as it may, treachery
cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor in the case at bar
because
the same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8,
Rule
110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures which reads: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
Although at the time
the crime was committed, generic aggravating circumstance need not be
alleged
in the Information, however, the general rule had been applied
retroactively
because if it is more favorable to the accused.[76]
Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the information,
treachery
cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There being no modifying
circumstances in the commission of the felony of robbery with homicide,
Juan and Victor should each be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua
conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Civil Liability
of
Juan and Victor
The trial court awarded
the total amount of P300,000.00 to the heirs of SPO1 Manio, Jr.
The
court did not specify whether the said amounts included civil indemnity
for the death of the victim, moral damages and the lost earnings of the
victim as a police officer of the PNP. The Court shall thus
modify
the awards granted by the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since the penalty imposed
on Juan and Victor is reclusion perpetua, the heirs of the victim are
entitled
to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. The heirs are
also
entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, Rosemarie Manio
having testified on the factual basis thereof.[77]
Considering that treachery aggravated the crime, the heirs are also
entitled
to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This Court held
in People vs. Catubig[78]
that the retroactive application of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure should not impair the right of the heirs to
exemplary damages which had already accrued when the crime was
committed
prior to the effectivity of the said rule. Juan and Victor are also
jointly
and severally liable to the said heirs in the total amount of
P30,000.00
as actual damages, the prosecution having adduced evidence receipts for
said amounts. The heirs are not entitled to expenses allegedly incurred
by them during the wake as such expenses are not supported by receipts.[79]
However, in lieu thereof, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages
in
the amount of P20,000.00.[80]
The service firearm of the victim was turned over to the Evidence
Custodian
of the Caloocan City Police Station per order of the trial court on
October
22, 1997.[81]
The prosecution failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove the
claim
of Five Star Bus, Inc. in the amount of P6,000.00. Hence, the
award
should be deleted. However, in lieu of actual damages, the bus
company
is entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P3,000.00.[82]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The heirs are likewise
entitled to damages for the lost earnings of the victim. The
evidence
on record shows that SPO1 Manio, Jr. was born on August 25, 1958.
He was killed on September 28, 1996 at the age of 38. He had a
gross
monthly salary as a member of the Philippine National Police of
P8,065.00
or a gross annual salary of P96,780.00. Hence, the heirs are
entitled
to the amount of P1,354,920.00 by way of lost earnings of the victim
computed,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Age of the
victim
= 38 years old
Life
expectancy
= 2/3 x (80 - age of the victim at the time of death)
= 2/3 x (80-38)
= 2/3 x 42
= 28 years
Gross Annual Income
= gross monthly income x 12 months
= P8,065.00 x 12
= P96,780.00
Living
Expenses
= 50% of Gross Annual Income
= P96,780.00 x 0.5
= P48,390.00
Lost Earning Capacity
= Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income-Living
expenses]
= 28 x [P96,780.00 - P48,390.00]
= 28 x P48,390.00
= P1,354,920.00
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan is
hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants Juan Gonzales
Escote,
Jr. and Victor Acuyan are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
the felony of robbery with homicide defined in Article 294, paragraph 1
of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances
in
the commission of the felony, hereby metes on each of them the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Said accused-appellants are hereby ordered
to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim SPO1 Jose C.
Manio,
Jr. the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral
damages, P1,349,920.00 for lost earnings, P30,000.00 as actual damages
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of P6,000.00 to
the
Five Star Bus, Inc. is deleted. However, the said corporation is
awarded the amount of P3,000.00 as temperate damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona,
Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Basilio R. Gabo, Jr.
[2]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibit "H."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibit "E."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Exhibits "A" and "G."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibits "C to C-4."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "B-1."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Exhibit "H."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibit "I."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Original Records of Crim. Case No. 443-M-97, p. 2.
[12]
Ibid., p. 161.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., p. 163.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 179.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., p. 175.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, p. 70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, 62 SCRA 258
(1975).
[18]
Fulgado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 182 SCRA 81 (1990).
[19]
People vs. Suplito, 314 SCRA 493 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
See note 16, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People vs. Digno, Jr. 250 SCRA 237 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
See note 17, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Original Records, p. 70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Ibid., p. 86.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id., p. 89.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id., p. 92.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
See note 18, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Original Records , p. 96.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Ibid., p.107.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id., p. 113.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id., p. 157.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id., p. 172.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
31 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, § 87, p. 494.
[34]
Original Records, pp. 192-193.
[35]
People vs. Ofido, 342 SCRA 155 (2000).
[36]
TSN, Cacatian, November 18, 1997, pp. 6-7.
[37]
TSN, Digap, March 31, 1998, p. 22.
[38]
Ditche vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 327 SCRA 301 (2000).
[39]
TSN, Cacatian, November 18, 1997, pp. 19-29.
[40]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
Ibid., pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
TSN, March 31, 1998, pp. 19-20.
[43]
Exhibit "H."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
310 SCRA 819 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
People v. Lubong, 332 SCRA 672 (2000).
[46]
People vs. Nang, 289 SCRA 16 (1998).
[47]
People vs. Ponciano, 204 SCRA 627 (1991).
[48]
89 SCRA 14 (1979).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
99 PHIL. 992 (1956).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People vs. Cando, 344 SCRA 330 (2000).
[51]
Original Records, pp. 194-195.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
People vs. Reyes, 287 SCRA 229 (1998).
[53]
People vs. Bustos, 171 SCRA 243 (1989).
[54]
e.g. People vs. Semañada, 103 Phil 790 (1958); People vs.
Bautista,
et al., 107 Phil 1091 (1960); People vs. Tiongson, et al., 6 SCRA
431 (1962); People vs. Pedro, et al., 16 SCRA 57 (1966); People vs.
Sigayan,
et al, 16 SCRA 839 (1966); People vs. Pujinio, et al., 27 SCRA 1185
(1969);
People vs. Saquing, et al., 30 SCRA 834 (1969); People vs. Cornelio, et
al., 39 SCRA 435 (1971); People vs. Repato, 91 SCRA 488 (1979);
People
vs. Pajanustan, 97 SCRA 699 (1980); People vs. Arcamo, et al.,
105
SCRA 707 (1981); People vs. Tintero, 111 SCRA 714 (1982); People vs.
Gapasin,
et al., 145 SCRA 178 (1986); People vs. Badilla, 185 SCRA 554 (1990);
People
vs. Manansala, 211 SCRA 66 (1992); People vs. Bechayda, 212 SCRA 336
(1992);
People vs. Vivas, 232 SCRA 238 (1994); People vs. Pacapac, et al., 248
SCRA 77 (1995); People vs. Mores, et al., 311 SCRA 342 (1999); People
vs.
Reyes, et al., 309 SCRA 622 (1999); and People vs. Abdul, et al.,
310 SCRA 246 (1999).
[55]
Sentencia de 17 de Diciembre de 1875 of the Supreme Court of
Spain.
In several cases, this Court held that robbery with homicide is a
special
complex crime, e.g., People vs. Jarandilla, 339 SCRA 381(2000); People
vs. Quibido, 338 SCRA 607 (2000); People vs. Aquino, 329
SCRA
247 (2000); People vs. Zuela, et al., 323 SCRA 589 (2000); People
vs. Taño, 331 SCRA 449 (2000). In some cases, this Court
has
held that robbery with homicide is a single and indivisible crime,
e.g.,
People vs. Labita, 99 Phil. 1068 (unreported [1956]); People vs
Alfeche,
Jr., 211 SCRA 770 (1992).
[56]
People vs. Timple, 237 SCRA 52 (1994); People vs. San Pedro, 95
SCRA
306 (1980).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
People vs. Loseo, G.R. No. 5508-09, April 29, 1954 (unpublished). Under
Republic Act 8383, rape is a crime against persons.
[58]
People vs. Navales, 266 SCRA 569 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
344 SCRA 330 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
341 SCRA 600 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, 1987 ed., Vol. I, p. 386.
[62]
REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, 1993 ed., Vol. I, p. 412.
[63]
REGALADO, CRIMINAL LAW CONSPECTUS, 1st ed., p. 95.
[64]
68 Phil. 675 (1939).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
People vs. Mangulaban, 99 Phil. 992 (1956); People vs. Mesias, 65 Phil.
267 (1939); Marasigan vs. Robles, 55 O.G. 8297; United States vs.
Samonte,
L-3422, August 3, 1907; United States vs. Ipil, et al., 27 Phil 530
(1914),
concurring opinion: United States vs. Landasan, 35 Phil 359 (1916).
[66]
CUELLO CALON DERECHO PENAL, 1960 ed., Vol. I, p. 592.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[67]
Decisions dated January 19, 1905, April 18, 1908, June 28, 1922 and
December
18, 1947.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[68]
SALVADOR VIADA CODIGO PENAL REFORMADO DE 1870, Concordado y Comentado
5th
ed. 1926, Tomo II, p. 252. Articles 417 to 447 refer to crimes
against
persons under the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870. In Article 516,
Title XIII, Chapter 1 of the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870, robbery
with
homicide is a crime against property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[69]
Cited in United States vs. Landasan, 35 Phil 359 (1916).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
Article 62, paragraphs 1 and 2 were taken from Article 79 of the Penal
Code of Spain, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No
producen el efecto de aumentar la pena las circunstancias agravantes
que
por si mismas constituyeren un delito especialmente penado por la Ley,
o que esta haya expresado al describirlo y penarlo.
Tampoco
lo producen aquellas circunstancias agravantes de tal manera inherentes
al delito, que sin la concurrencia de ellas no pudiera cometerse. xxx.
[71]
Vide, Note 63, p. 254.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
Ibid., p. 255.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[73]
Las circunstancias agravantes o atenuantes que consistieren en la
disposicion moral del delincuente, en sus relaciones particulares con
el
ofendido, o en otra causa personal, serviran para agravar o atenuar la
responsabilidad solo de aquello autores, complices o encubridores en
quienes
concurrieren.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Las
que consistieren en la ejecucion material del hecho o en los medios
empleados
para realizarlo serviran para agravar o atenuar la responsabilidad
unicamente
de los que tuvieren conocimiento de ellas en el momento de la accion o
de su cooperacion para el delito. xxx
[74]
United States vs. Ancheta, 15 Phil 43 (1910).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[75]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[76]
People vs. Onabia, 306 SCRA 23 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[77]
People vs. Taño, 331 SCRA 449 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[78]
363 SCRA 621 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[79]
People vs. Cordero, 263 SCRA 122 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[80]
Article 2234, New Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[81]
Original Record, p. 82.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[82]
See note 79.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|