FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256578. December 7, 2021.]
EPIFANIO GEROY, JR. y DACDAC, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 7, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256578 — Epifanio Geroy, Jr. y Dacdac v. People of the Philippines
Petitioner Epifanio Geroy, Jr. y Dacdac asks the Court to reverse the verdict of conviction for simple robbery rendered against him by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 266, Pasig City and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner attacks anew the credibility of the testimony of complainant Rajeev Kattal (Rajeev) pertaining to who exactly between him and his co-accused Andre Ortiz y Reyes (Ortiz) took the money from Rajeev and Jugraj Singh (Jugraj) and who between them pointed a gun at them, and whether the amount taken from Rajeev was P1,000.00 or only P400.00. 1
We affirm.
Ablaza v. People2 decreed that if a question posed requires the reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses, the issue is factual. As a general rule, the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of pure questions of law. Otherwise stated, a Rule 45 petition does not allow the review of questions of fact because the Court is not a trier of facts. The findings of fact of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Consequently, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. Said rule finds an ever more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in this case.
In any event, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed petitioner's conviction for simple robbery.
Under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), simple robbery is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. 3 For the successful prosecution of robbery, the following elements must be established: a) that there is personal property belonging to another; b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. 4
Verily, in robbery, there must be an unlawful taking, which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he did not have the opportunity to dispose of the same. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, on the other hand, is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking of the personal property belonging to another. 5
Here, Rajeev consistently and categorically identified petitioner and Ortiz as the ones who blocked his way. Ortiz pointed a gun at him, took money from his shirt pocket, and ran into the motorcycle driven by petitioner. After which, the duo sped away.
Clearly, all the elements of simple robbery are present in this case, viz.: a) personal property belonging to another — the money belonging to Rajeev; b) unlawful taking of that property — taking of the money from Rajeev without his consent; c) intent to gain — which is presumed from the taking of the money; and d) intimidation of persons — by threatening Rajeev with a gun in order for petitioner and Ortiz to get the money from the former.
As for the alleged inconsistencies between Rajeev's testimony and his Sinumpaang Salaysay, as earlier discussed, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave credence to Rajeev's open court testimony, the re-evaluation of which is beyond the Court's jurisdiction under Rule 45.
In any case, the Court has consistently held that discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court will not instantly result in the acquittal of the accused. Flores v. People6 explained that affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. Oftentimes, an affidavit is incomplete, resulting in its seeming contradiction with the declarant's testimony in court. Generally, the affiant is asked standard questions, coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers, that later turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant knows them. Worse, the process of affidavit-taking may sometimes amount to putting words into the affiant's mouth, thus allowing the whole statement to be taken out of context.
Petitioner further argues that he had no participation in the robbery, as Rajeev himself testified that he stayed in the motorcycle and did nothing. It was Ortiz who Rajeev said pointed a gun at them and took their money. More, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove that he conspired with Ortiz in committing the offense.
The argument fails.
The matter of who actually threatened Rajeev with a gun and took the money from him is inconsequential in this case as both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner and Ortiz conspired in committing the robbery in question. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized. 7
Proof of conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence. It may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of a crime. It is likewise not necessary to show that two (2) or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated. It may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. 8
Here, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that conspiracy was present. Petitioner, as driver of the motorcycle blocked the path of Rajeev and Jugraj. Ortiz then alighted from the motorcycle, pointed a gun to Rajeev, and took Rajeev's money. Then Ortiz ran to the motorcycle and together with petitioner, sped away from the scene. The acts of petitioner and Ortiz clearly manifested a common intent — to rob Rajeev and Jugraj.
All told, the Court of Appeals correctly sustained petitioner's conviction for simple robbery.
Penalty
Simple robbery under Article 295 (5) 9 of the RPC is punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period (four [4] years, two [2] months and one [1] day to six [6] years) to prision mayor in its medium period (eight [8] years and one [1] day to ten [10] years). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the maximum penalty shall be taken from the range of prision mayor in its medium period (eight [8] years and one [1] day to ten [10] years) with the minimum penalty selected from the range of the penalty next lower in degree from the one prescribed, i.e., arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period (four [4] months and one [1] day to four [4] years and two [2] months).
Thus, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum.
As for damages, however, the trial court and the Court of Appeals both directed petitioner and Ortiz to jointly and severally restitute Rajeev the amount of P1,000.00. Notably though, in Criminal Case No. 145445, the Information bore the amount of P400.00 only. Thus, petitioner and Ortiz must be ordered to restitute P400.00 only. This amount shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 6, 2020 and Resolution dated May 19, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41368 are AFFIRMED with modification. Petitioner Epifanio Geroy, Jr. y Dacdac is found GUILTY of Simple Robbery under Article 295 (5) of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to an indeterminate term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum.
Epifanio Geroy, Jr. y Dacdac and Andre Ortiz y Reyes are further ordered to PAY Rajeev Kattal P400.00 as restitution for the cash taken from him. This amount shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, J., J., no part; Marquez, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 29, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 21-26.
2. G.R. No. 217722, September 26, 2018.
3. Art. 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 against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.
4. See Flores v. People, 830 Phil. 635, 645 (2018).
5.Id. at 646.
6.Id. at 650; citing Kummer v. People, 717 Phil. 670, 679 (2013).
7.People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020.
8.Id.; also see People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 8, 2020.
9. Art. 295. 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 x x x.