FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213684. August 17, 2016.]
ANASTACIO B. MAHILUM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and REUBEN TABORADA NIÑO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 17, 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213684(Anastacio B. Mahilum v. People of the Philippines and Reuben Taborada Niño). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated 31 July 2013. The CA affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20, which found petitioner guilty of robbery in an inhabited house.
In brief, the prosecution proved the following facts. Around 2:30 in the morning on 22 September 2003, Mier Niño ("Mier") found a man clad only in white underpants standing near the kitchen sink on the ground floor of their house in Lower Kalunasan, Cebu City. Mier screamed, "There's a man, there's a thief!" and ran back to her bedroom on the upper floor. 3
The shouts awakened Mier's sister-in-law, Shiela Niño ("Shiela"), who was then sleeping in their living room. Shiela quickly switched on the light and recognized the intruder who turned out to be their neighbor, Anastacio Mahilum (petitioner). He was wearing only an underwear and in his hands were her Nokia 3210 mobile phone, which was worth no less than P2,000 at that time; her mother's Seiko watch; and the money for her tuition fee in the amount of P3,200. Petitioner threatened to kill her if she called out for help then he opened the kitchen door and walked out. Later, Shiela and Mier discovered that five (5) slats had been removed from their jalousie window. 4
Consequently, petitioner was charged with robbery of one Nokia 3210 cellular phone worth P4,300; one Seiko lady's watch worth P2,200; and cash in the amount of P3,200.
During trial, petitioner denied the charge and posed the alibi that he was in Carcar, Cebu, when the alleged robbery took place. He claimed that after his duty as security guard at the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) office in Lahug, Cebu City, at 11:00 in the evening on 21 September 2003, he went straight to Carcar to borrow money from his uncle. The commute supposedly took two (2) hours by motorcycle since Carcar was 40 kilometers away from the city. Because his uncle was not able to entertain him immediately, petitioner left Carcar around 1:45 a.m. on 22 September 2003 and got home around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. 5
The RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. In addition, it ordered him to indemnify Reuben Taborada Niño in the sum of P5,200 for the value of the stolen phone and cash only, since no proof of the value of the wristwatch had been presented. 6
The RTC gave more credence to the testimonies of Mier and Shiela, as no ill motive had been ascribed to them and no corroborative evidence presented to bolster petitioner's alibi. Although the prosecution had presented mere circumstantial evidence, the trial court ruled that the evidence was sufficient to support a judgment of conviction, because all the requirements under Section 34, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, had been satisfied. 7
On appeal, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. It rejected petitioner's contention that the testimonies of Mier and Shiela were riddled with inconsistencies, and that their story was contrary to human nature. Instead, the CA ruled that the inconsistencies adverted to pertained to extraneous and collateral matters. 8
The CA, however, modified the penalty in lieu of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. It sentenced petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. 9
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the CA. When the issue of a witness's credibility is involved, the appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter was in a better position to resolve the matter. That is, the trial court had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their deportment during trial, unless it plainly ignored certain facts of value which if considered might affect the result of the case. 10
The Court finds no error in petitioner's conviction based on the testimonies of Mier and Shiela, which the trial court had found credible. Their testimonies established the presence of petitioner at the scene of the crime, his unlawful taking of their personal properties, as well as his forcible entry into their house. As the CA correctly held, the prosecution had positively shown all the elements of robbery under Article 299 (a) (1): (1) the accused entered an inhabited house; (2) his entry was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egress, such as the window which he broke; and (3) once inside, the accused took personal property belonging to another with an intent to gain. 11
Petitioner claims that the prosecution's version is incredible. He claims that a bare-handed burglar garbed only in a white undergarment would only invite, rather than evade, attention. Suffice it to say that criminals do not necessarily follow a standard behavior before, during and after the commission of a crime. 12 It has been ruled that one with a criminal mind, who is capable of committing a despicable crime, could be so bereft of inhibitions or of any sense of modesty or propriety that matter of decency would be the least concern. 13
Petitioner likewise takes issue with Shiela's testimony that she was able to take her school examination without paying the tuition fee and asserts that her claim is contrary to the usual school practice. The alleged flaw in her testimony, however, is inconsequential to the probative value of her entire testimony. There is no rule of law that requires a court to disregard the entirety of the testimony of a witness just because a portion of it may be doubtful. 14 Besides, as the CA has correctly observed, the flaw adverted to pertains to an extraneous matter that does not necessarily make the prosecution's evidence any less credible.
There is no error, as well, in the penalty imposed by the CA. In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, 15 or from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 16 the maximum of the penalty to be imposed on petitioner shall be within the range of prision mayor medium, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense, or prision correccional in any of its periods, which ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. CAIHTE
As regards the award of civil indemnity, the supposed value of the stolen cellular phone must be deleted for lack of competent proof. 17 In conformity with current policy, legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on the amount of civil indemnity computed from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 31 July 2013 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01655 affirming the conviction of petitioner Anastacio Mahilum is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of civil indemnity shall be reduced to P3,200, which shall earn 6% legal interest from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
No costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 82-95; Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Edgardo L. delos Santos and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2. Id. at 35-46; Penned by Presiding Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr.
3. Id. at 37.
4. Id. at 36.
5. Id. p. 41.
6. Id. at 46.
7. Id. at 45.
8. Id. at 92.
9. Id. at 94.
10. People v. Ulep, 474 Phil. 790-807 (2004).
11. Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, 12 February 2014, 716 SCRA 84.
12. Estioca y Macamay v. People, 578 Phil. 853-875 (2008).
13. People v. Detuya, 238 Phil. 412-429 (1987).
14. People v. Angeles y Ramos, G.R. Nos. 104285-86, 21 May 1993, 222 SCRA 45.
15. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 64 (1).
16. Act No. 4103, as amended.
17. Beltran, Jr. v. CA. 662 Phil. 296 (2011).