THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222565. November 29, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GILBERT ANIMAS y TATOY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222565 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Gilbert Animas y Tatoy, accused-appellant) — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated 7 October 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01205-MIN, which affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant of Robbery with Homicide. The accused-appellant was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Branch 31, in its Decision, 2 dated 5 July 2013, in Criminal Case No. 17761.
THE FACTS
On 25 April 2011, an information filed with the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case No. 17761, charged appellant Gilbert Animas (Animas), together with two (2) John Does, of robbery with homicide, thus:
That on or about April 1, 2011, in the City of Tagum, Province of Davao del Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who was previously convicted for the crime of Theft under Criminal Case Nos. 16324 and 16325 before the Regional Trial Courts, Branches 30 and 2, respectively, conspiring together with two (2) John Does and armed with unlicensed firearms, taking advantage of nighttime with the use of motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of the crime as well as their escape, with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, rob, take, steal and carry away cash amounting to Php50,000.00 and cellular phones owned by spouses Bonifacio Santiago, Jr. and Lilia Santiago and on the occasion of said robbery, accused Gilbert Animas shot Bonifacio Santiago, Jr., thereby inflicting upon him fatal wound which caused his death, and further causing actual, moral and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment, Animas entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge. In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of Lilia Santiago (Lilia), the victim's surviving spouse, Rechie Lumotos (Rechie), 4 Rolando B. Santiago, and SPO2 Alejandro L. Dionaldo. The defense then presented the testimonies of Arman Tanguan, Johnny Tatoy, Bequilla Animas, Willie Ninel, and appellant himself.
The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), summarized the facts in this wise:
At around 8:00 P.M. of April 1, 2011, the deceased, Bonifacio Santiago, Jr. (Bonifacio), was driving an FB L300 van, together with his wife, Lilia Santiago (Lilia), his child and employees. They were on their way home to Magsanoc, Brgy. Mankilam from the public market.
Upon reaching the family residence, Arnel Cotamora, an employee, alighted from the vehicle to open the gate. Before he could do so, a person holding a gun pushed him back into the van. The same man pointed the gun [at] the other employees inside the van and asked them for a cellular phone and a bag, which they gave.
Another person went to the driver's seat and pointed a gun [at] Bonifacio and asked him where the drugs are. Lilia told the man that they had no drugs. Instead, she gave him a bag containing money and a cellphone. The man asked for another bag, so Lilia alighted from the van and went to the back portion of the vehicle to retrieve another bag from the employees.
While Lilia was at the back of the van, Bonifacio and the armed man from the driver's seat were grappling for the gun. Upon seeing this, the other perpetrator from the back went to his companion and helped him. He struck the head of Bonifacio with his gun and thereafter shot Bonifacio. After shooting Bonifacio, the two men boarded a waiting motorcycle, driven by another person. The three fired a shot and left.
Bonifacio was brought to Tagum Doctor's Hospital. While at the hospital, the policemen arrived to investigate. Pictures were shown to Lilia and she identified the accused-appellant Gilbert Animas as the one who shot Bonifacio. Bonifacio died on April 2, 2011. 5
The CA summarizes the version of the defense as follows:
The defense proffered a diametrically opposing version of the facts. Appellant claims that he was nowhere near the locus criminis at the time of the victim's killing but was instead at his cousin's place in Kapalong, Davao del Norte, having a drinking spree with his cousins, Arman Taguan, Tata Animas, and Johnny Tatoy. He recounted that he was invited by Arman to drink at around 7 o'clock in the evening. He and his cousin Tata then set out to join the group at around 7:45 in the evening and proceeded to have fun with his cousins. Jojo Lamenio, a purok leader, arrived and berated their group for having a drinking spree in the area. He was incensed and had a heated argument with Jojo that nearly culminated in a fist fight. Luckily, Willie Ninel arrived to pacify them. He maintained that when the party ended at 11 o'clock in the evening, he immediately went home. 6
The Ruling of the RTC
In its decision promulgated on 5 July 2013, the RTC rendered its judgment finding Animas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P120,409.00 as actual expenses.
The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the two (2) witnesses for the prosecution. Both Rechie and Lilia stated that of the two (2) men who pointed guns at them during the night of the incident, it was Animas who shot Bonifacio after they had taken their bags, money, and cellphones.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but, instead of awarding exemplary damages, it awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
The CA found the testimonies of Animas' witnesses — his mother, relatives, and a long-time neighbor — tainted with bias on account of their close relations to him. His alibi is not buttressed by uninterested, unbiased persons who would, in the natural order of things, be best situated to support the tendered alibi.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
OUR RULING
We affirm the CA decision with the modification that the amounts representing civil indemnity and moral damages be both increased to P75,000.00 each in line with current jurisprudence. 7
It is essential for a conviction of robbery with homicide that there is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were committed at the same time. 8 After a careful review of the records, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness accounts of the witnesses for the prosecution are worthy of belief as they were clear, consistent, and straightforward. Both Lilia and Rechie positively identified Animas as one of the men who robbed them. Lilia also identified him as the man who shot her husband. There is no proof that the witnesses harbored any ill will towards him for them to testify against him.
Both the RTC and the CA also correctly found that Animas and the two (2) John Does acted in conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution. 9
Per the records, Animas aimed a gun on the employees who were at the back of the vehicle and took their belongings. The John Doe who pointed a gun at Bonifacio demanded drugs, and also took the belongings of the spouses. Animas came to the aid of John Doe when he was grappling with Bonifacio for the gun. After the commission of the felony, both Animas and John Doe boarded a motorcycle driven by the other John Doe. Clearly, their respective actions show a collective effort to achieve a common criminal objective.
After a careful review of the records, we agree with both the RTC and the CA that Animas' alibi does not deserve credit. It is settled that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 10 Similarly, alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution, because it can easily be fabricated. 11 For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission. 12 Animas himself stated that Kapalong was only one (1) hour away from Tagum City. Such fact does not preclude the possibility of appellant being in Tagum City at the time of the commission of the felony. It is also noted that the accused boarded a motorcycle after the commission of the robbery.
The defense argues that given the circumstances of the location of the incident, the eyewitnesses could not have clearly seen the face of the perpetrator. For the defense, it appears that it was only in court, after they had clearly seen the accused's face, that they strongly claimed that the assailant had a mole on his face. 13 It is known, however, that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated. 14 Most often, the face of the assailant and body movements thereof create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness' memory. 15 Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time. 16
Rechie and Lilia testified that they identified Animas through photographs presented to them both at the hospital right after the incident and at the police station the day after. Contrary to the assertion of the defense, Lilia testified that she told the police who visited her in the hospital that the person who shot her husband had a mole "at the left of his face, below his mouth." 17 Animas' defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, especially in the face of categorical statements coming from a credible witness who has no ill motives in testifying. 18
As to the award of damages, consistent with our ruling in People v. Jugueta, we modify the award to include P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P120,409.00 as actual expenses. We delete the award of exemplary damages as no attendant aggravating circumstances had been proven.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the assailed Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01205-MIN finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide is hereby AFFIRMED. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of damages is MODIFIED. The accused is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P120,409.00 as actual expenses to the heirs of Bonifacio Santiago, Jr.
SO ORDERED." (J. Gesmundo, on leave)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 59-72.
2.Id. at 27-34.
3.Id. at 27.
4. Also referred as "Ritchie Lomontoc" in some parts of the rollo.
5. CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
6.Id. at 61.
7.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
8.People v. Buyagan, 681 Phil. 569, 574 (2012).
9.Id. at 574.
10.People v. Tamolon, et al., 599 Phil. 542, 552 (2009).
11.Id. at 552.
12.Id.
13. Brief for Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, p. 23.
14. People v. Esoy, et al., 631 Phil. 547, 555 (2010).
15. Id. at 556.
16. Id.
17. TSN, 04 October 2011, p. 15.
18. People v. Tamolon, et al., supra note 10 at 552.