SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253136. November 24, 2021.]
RICHARD MARK LUGTO y CAPILI @ "ICHI", petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253136 (Richard Mark Lugto y Capili @"Ichi" v. People of the Philippines). — At the vortex of this instant Petition for ReviewonCertiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated 2 September 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated 16 June 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41456. The assailed Decision affirmed the Decision 4 dated 26 February 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 34, finding petitioner Richard Mark Lugto y Capili @ "Ichi" (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery under Article 293, in relation to Article 294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
This case has its provenance in an Information charging petitioner with the crime of robbery with unnecessary violence, the accusatory averments of which read:
That on or about May 26, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said (petitioner), conspiring and confederating with others, whose true names, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation upon person to wit: by then and there suddenly approaching one NOLI CHAVEZ Y DIESTRO while walking along A. Francisco Street corner Granate Street, San Andres Bukid, this City, uttering the following words, to wit: "IBIGAY MO NA ANG GAMIT MO HUWAG KA NA LUMABAN MASASAKTAN KA LANG" and choking (sic) the said NOLI CHAVEZ Y DIESTRO, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away his cash amounting to Php3,000.00 and his bull cap worth Php100.00, or all in the total amount Php3,100.00, belonging to said NOLI CHAVEZ Y DIESTRO, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of Php3,100.00 Philippine Currency, and that on the occasion, of the said robbery, the said (petitioner) stabbed the said NOLI CHAVEZ Y DIESTRO twice at his back and once on the abdomen, thereby inflicting upon the latter physical injuries which have required and will require medical attendance for a period of more than nine (9) days and which incapacitated and will incapacitate him from performing his customary labor during the same period of time.
Contrary to law. 5
The combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses endeavored to establish the following factual backdrop: CAIHTE
Around 3:30 in the morning of 26 May 2015, private complainant Noli Chavez (hereafter, Chavez) was on his way home and walking along A. Francisco Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila when he noticed four men standing along Onyx Street. While traversing Onyx Street en route to Granate Street, Chavez noticed that the four men were following him. Thereafter, a member of the group, later on discovered as petitioner, placed his arm on Chavez's shoulder, telling him, "Ibigay mo na ang gamit mo, huwag ka ng lumaban masasaktan ka lang." Suddenly, one of the men strangled him while the other two frisked him. The malefactors were able to take Chavez's money in the amount of P3,000.00 and his hull cap amounting to P100.00. After taking his belongings, petitioner stabbed him once on his abdomen, and twice on his back. Afterwards, the four men fled. 6
Desperate for help, Chavez sought the aid of a woman at a nearby eatery. He was taken to Sta. Ana Hospital where he received treatment. Thereat, he underwent exploratory laparostomy and it was discovered that he had sustained two penetrating injuries, i.e., two tears to the proximal small intestines. Dr. Ma. Vanessa Corpus (Dr. Corpus), the attending physician, surgically repaired the tears and ligated the bleeders. She explained that Chavez was already tachycardic when they saw him and could have died within 15 to 30 minutes of unattended bleeding. 7
With the help of Shiela Bernardo, Chavez's sister, SPO2 Laurencio Bernardo conducted an investigation on the incident. The CCTV footages recovered from various barangay halls revealed that Chavez was walking alone at Crisolita Street going to Topacio Street where three men were seen loitering. Barangay Captain Hospicio Abrito (Abrito) of Barangay 767, San Andres Bukid, Manila, identified the two men in the video as Gilbert David (David) and Wally Lareza (Lareza). Invited to the barangay for questioning, they admitted to be the persons seen on the CCTV footage. However, they denied participation in the robbery and pointed to petitioner as the perpetrator. They avouched that petitioner threatened them to rob Chavez and forced them to give him the money. 8
David and Lareza's narrative and their positive identification of petitioner impelled the police officers to confirm that he was one of the perpetrators. Inevitably, he was arrested. 9
As it happened, Chavez was confined at Sta. Ana Hospital for seven days owing to the nature of the wounds he had sustained. He was discharged on 3 June 2015. Dr. Corpus opined that the abdominal surgery he underwent usually entailed a recovery and recuperation period of around 30-45 days. 10
Professing his innocence, petitioner weaved a divergent version of facts. He avowed that on 26 May 2015, he was at home the whole day with his cousins, niece, nephews, and other relatives. The following day, he learned that someone from the office of Barangay 775 wanted to talk to him. When he arrived at the barangay hall, Kagawad Bobby Cudal told him that he and one John Paul were being implicated in a robbery incident. Thereat, he was made to sign a piece of paper. The police officers boarded him inside a van and brought him to Precinct 6 along with two others who were likewise accused of committing robbery. At the precinct, he was made to hold a bloodied Dickies shirt while the police officers recorded the incident. 11
On 26 February 2018, the RTC of Manila, Branch 34, rendered a Decision, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the guilt of (petitioner) having been proven beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery under Article 293, in relation to Article 294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, with the presence of one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and six (6) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum.
The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be deducted in his favor.
Further, the (petitioner) is hereby directed to pay private complainant Noli Chavez the following:
1. Php3,000.00 as actual damages;
2. Php30,000.00 as moral damages:
3. Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The said amounts shall earn an interest of six (6) percent per annum from the finality of this Decision until the same has been fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC ruled that the prosecution sufficiently discharged its burden of proving petitioner's guilt of robbery beyond reasonable doubt, giving credence to Chavez's testimony recognizing him as the one who took his cap and money and thereafter stabbed him. The RTC likewise ruled that petitioner inflicted unnecessary violence on Chavez by stabbing him thrice despite having succeeded in taking his personal belongings. Au fond, the element of animus posidendi or intent to gain is presumed from the taking of private complainant's personal property. Lastly, the RTC held that the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevailed over his unsupported denial. 13
Displeased by the foregoing verdict, petitioner appealed to the CA which in its Decision dated 2 September 2019, affirmed the ruling of the RTC but modified the penalty and increased the award of damages, viz.:
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The February 26, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34, finding (petitioner) RICHARD MARK LUGTO y CAPILI @ "ICHI" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Unnecessary Violence is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. (Petitioner) RICHARD MARK LUGTO y CAPILI @ "ICHI" is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisionmayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusiontemporal as maximum. He is ordered to pay the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid. All other dispositions of the Regional Trial Court as appearing in the dispositive portion of the February 26, 2018 Decision are affirmed.
SO ORDERED. 14
The CA ratiocinated that the prosecution adequately established the elements of Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons but accentuated the trial court's error in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Inasmuch as robbery is a crime against property and not against persons, treachery cannot be validly considered therein. Thus, there being no aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, the proper penalty, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The CA likewise increased the amount of damages awarded to conform to the ruling in People v Jugueta. 15
His Motion for Reconsideration 16 having been denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution, petitioner now comes to the Court assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He obdurately asseverates that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence positively identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime. Avowedly, inasmuch as Chavez was intoxicated at the time of the incident, it was hard to believe that he was able to identify petitioner as one of his assailants. DETACa
Did the CA commit a reversible error in affirming the conviction of petitioner as adjudged by the RTC for the crime of Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons under Article 293 in relation to Article 294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code?
We rule in the negative. A fortiori, the Petition is bereft of merit.
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 as this Court is not a trier of facts. 17 Here, the disputations advanced by petitioner specifically with respect to Chavez's identification of petitioner as one of the perpetrators, involve questions of fact. Well-ensconced is the rule that if a question posed requires the reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses, the issue is factual. 18 Moreover, none of the exceptions to the rule that factual questions cannot be passed upon in a Rule 45 petition obtain in this case. 19
Appositely, in resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, the Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness. 20 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 even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bench. 21
Invariably, the Court finds no compelling reason to digress from the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In sooth, both the CA and the RTC unerringly adjudged that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of robbery. 22First, the taking of personal property was duly proven through Chavez's positive, straightforward, and categorical testimony that while walking on his way home, petitioner instantaneously put his arm around his shoulder and took his cap and cash amounting to P3,100.00. Second, the personal belongings taken by petitioner belonged to Chavez. Third, the element of intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. 23Fourth, the robbery was committed with violence against or intimidation on the person of Chavez by petitioner's act of stabbing Chavez. It bears emphasis that the violence employed in the commission of robbery in this case was carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime considering that despite having already succeeded in taking petitioner's cap and money, petitioner still stabbed him three times to ensure that he would not be able to retaliate. As a consequence of petitioner's act of stabbing, Chavez sustained three stab wounds — one on the abdomen and two on his back — thereby inflicting upon the victim physical injuries which required hospitalization for seven days and 30-45 days of recuperation from his surgery. 24
Petitioner's lackluster defense of denial fails to cast doubt on the positive identification made by Chavez and the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution. The Court has consistently held that denial, being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. 25 Mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. 26
We sustain the penalty imposed and the awards of damages as they are in accord with law and recent jurisprudence. aDSIHc
In précis, We discern no reversible error in the affirmance of petitioner's conviction.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 2 September 2019 and the Resolution dated 16 June 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41456 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-32.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Walter S. Ong, concurring. Id. at 36-50.
3.Id. at 52-53.
4.Id. at 77-85.
5.Rollo, p. 77.
6.Id. at 78.
7.Id. at 79.
8.Rollo, pp. 80-81
9.Id. at 81.
10.Id. at 79.
11.Id. at 81-82.
12.Rollo, p. 85.
13.Id. at 82-84.
14.Id. at 49-50.
15. 783 Phil. 800 (2016).
16.Rollo, pp. 106-115.
17. See Ledesma v. People, G.R. No. 238954, 14 September 2020.
18.Id.
19. (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. Miano, Jr. v. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), G.R. No. 205035, 809 SCRA 193, 199, 16 November 2016; 800 Phil. 118, 123 (2016).
20.Estioca v. People, 578 Phil. 853-864 (2008).
21. See People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
22. The elements of robbery are:(1) there is a taking of personal property; (2) the personal property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animus lucrandi; and (4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. — Consulta v. People, 598 Phil. 464, 471 (2009).
23.People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 246580, 23 June 2020.
24.Rollo, p. 79.
25.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 246194, 4 November 2020.
26.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 246194, 4 November 2020.