THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232222. September 6, 2017.]
PONCIANO DELA VEGA Y SARMIENTO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 6, 2017, which reads as follows: TAIaHE
"G.R. No. 232222 (Ponciano Dela Vega y Sarmiento vs. People of the Philippines) — This treats the appeal of petitioner Ponciano Dela Vega y Sarmiento (Dela Vega) from the November 28, 2016 Decision 1 and May 31, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36874.
The Facts
Dela Vega was charged with the crime of Robbery in an Information that reads:
That on or about the 17th day of August 2002, in Quezon City[,] Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with other persons whose true names and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation against person, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one RUFINO CHICO y FAJARDO, in the manner as follows: while complainant was on his way to [check] an alleged trouble inside his compound located at No. 41 C. Don Alejandrino Roces Avenue, this City, the said accused pursuant to their conspiracy grabbed and divested the following, to wit:
One (1) gold ring with diamonds worth — P16,500.00
One (1) gold ring with diamonds worth — P6,600.00
One (1) Seiko 5 gold plated watch — P5,000.00
all in the amount of P28,100.00 Philippine Currency, belonging to RUFINO CHICO y FAJARDO, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner thereof in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Trial on the merits ensued after Dela Vega entered a "not guilty" plea on arraignment.
The prosecution presented private complainant Rufino Chico (Chico) as its main witness. Chico is the lessor of a property that was being rented by the petitioner. He testified that on August 17, 2002, at around 9 o'clock in the morning, one of his tenants called his attention to the disturbance being caused by petitioner inside the apartment complex that he (Chico) had been leasing out. Upon inspection, Chico discovered that petitioner and two others were heavily intoxicated and were creating a ruckus in one of the leased apartments. Chico tried to pacify the group, but the two men accompanying petitioner accosted him. Petitioner then took his rings and wristwatch before punching him on his face. Not content, the two men shoved his face to the ground, causing him injuries. Thereafter, the malefactors scampered away, giving Chico the opportunity to call the authorities. When the police arrived, they were able to apprehend petitioner who appeared to be in a drunken stupor in his rented space.
Chico's testimony was corroborated by Rosel Ramos, the second prosecution witness and a tenant in the same compound where the crime was committed. On the other hand, the defense did not refute the prosecution's narration of the events with testimonial evidence of its own.
During the course of the trial, it was noted by the trial court that Dela Vega jumped bail on May 31, 2006, resulting in the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him and the cancellation of his bail bond.
Rulings of the Lower Courts
On July 28, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Br. 226 in Quezon City rendered a Judgment 4 in the criminal proceeding, finding petitioner guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused Ponciano Dela Vega y Sarmiento GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery defined and penalized under Article 293 in relation to 294 (par. 5) of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, accused Dela Vega is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
SO ORDERED.5
On appeal, petitioner raised that the RTC erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the glaring inconsistencies therein. Petitioner likewise decried the alleged want of proof that the items allegedly taken belonged to private complainant Chico.
Unconvinced, however, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in the following wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed July 28, 2014 Judgment of the RTC, Branch 226, Quezon City, in CRIM. CASE NO. Q02-111408, finding accused-appellant Ponciano Dela Vega y Sarmiento guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery under Article 293 in relation to 294 (par. 5) of the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMEDin toto. cDHAES
SO ORDERED.6
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration from the above ruling was denied through the CA's May 31, 2017 Resolution. Hence, the instant recourse.
The Issues
The issues presented by petitioner for resolution echo those raised in his appeal, viz.:
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES' INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES
II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is not impressed with merit.
The courts a quo did not err in
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 7 This is so because the observance of the deportment and demeanor of witnesses is within the exclusive domain of the trial courts. Considering their unique vantage point, trial courts are in the best position to assess and evaluate the credibility and truthfulness of witnesses and their testimonies. 8
In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA deemed the positive identification by the witnesses as to who robbed Chico sufficient to establish petitioner's criminal liability. The courts a quo cannot be faulted for lending credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pinpointing petitioner Dela Vega as the author of the crime. Their unrebutted testimonies sufficiently established that on the date of the incident, Dela Vega, accompanied by two other persons, divested Chico of his personal belongings before roughing him up.
That the prosecution witnesses gave conflicting names as to the identity of the two other persons that accompanied Dela Vega is of no moment. As noted by the appellate court, these are mere trivial details that do not affect the substance of the witnesses' declarations. What is material is that they have categorically, consistently, and positively identified petitioner Dela Vega as the one who employed force in removing Chico's accessories.
All the elements of Robbery had been
To recall, petitioner had been charged and convicted of Robbery as defined and penalized under Art. 293 in relation to Art. 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, which pertinently reads:
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.
Article 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:
xxx xxx xxx
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.
In Coscolla v. People, 9 the Court had the occasion to enumerate the elements of the offense as follows: (1) intent to gain; (2) unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another; and (3) violence against or intimidation of any person.
Arguing that the second element of the offense does not obtain in this case, petitioner Dela Vega prays for his acquittal. The defense is anchored on the claim that the prosecution failed to establish that private complainant Chico owned diamond-studded rings and a Seiko wristwatch to begin with, and that petitioner was not found to be in possession thereof.
We are not persuaded.
Petitioner Dela Vega cannot harp on the alleged lack of proof of Chico's ownership over the stolen items for the burden is not on Chico to prove that the said items were his. Art. 541 of the New Civil Code operates in his favor and it states:
Article 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.
In any event, the second element is satisfied by the taking of property not belonging to the accused. Here, the theory offered by the defense cannot prevail over the positive and unrefuted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who saw firsthand how Chico was manhandled and how he was divested of his possession over the stolen items. It matters not that Chico did not present evidence to prove that he owned the items taken from him, for the fact remains that the said items do not belong to petitioner Dela Vega and, hence, were not for him to take. ASEcHI
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36874, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-39. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan.
2.Id. at 41-42.
3.Id. at 30-31.
4.Id. at 57-61. Penned by Presiding Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr.
5.Id. at 60.
6.Id. at 38.
7.People v. Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014.
8.People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014.
9. G.R. No. 176566, April 16, 2009.