FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245311. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LEFF LUIGI ARGANA y PAÑARES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245311 (People of the Philippines v. Leff Luigi Argana y Pañares). — Before the Court is an Appeal 1 filed by herein accused-appellant Leff Luigi Argana y Pañares (accused-appellant) challenging the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated September 27, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09680, which affirmed, with modification, the Decision 3 dated June 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 34 (RTC), finding him guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity as well as moral and exemplary damages.
The appeal should be denied.
Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime punished under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. 4 It is perpetrated when, by reason or on the occasion of robbery, homicide is committed. Article 294 (1) states:
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:
1. The penalty of reclusión perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
xxx xxx xxx.
To hold a person liable for this crime, the prosecution must establish the following elements with proof beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. 5 ETHIDa
In the instant case, the straightforward testimony of the eyewitness leaves no doubt that the first three elements are present, viz.:
Q: Did you actually see the man inside the store pointing a bladed weapon against the person inside the store?
A: Yes[,] ma'am.
Q: Would you know if the person inside the store is a female or a male person?
A: A female[,] ma'am.
Q: [Y]you saw the man holding a bladed weapon?
A: Yes[,] ma'am.
Q: Can you describe to us what kind of a bladed weapon was the man holding at that time?
A: A knife[,] ma'am.
Q: Would you know how long the knife used?
A: I cannot remember the size of the knife[,] ma'am.
Q: How many times was the woman inside the store stabbed by the man?
A: More than twice[,] ma'am.
Q: Do you know in what part of the body was the woman stabbed?
A: On the side of her body[,] ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Prior to the stabbing incident, did you hear any argument that transpired between the accused in this case and his victim?
A: I just heard a shout[,] ma'am.
Q: Who shouted, Mr. [W]itness?
A: The victim and the assailant[,] ma'am.
Q: What were they shouting?
A: The assailant told the female person ["]ibigay mo sa akin yan.["]
Q: What was the reply or the response of the victim in this case?
A: I just heard her [shout]. I think she was asking for help.
Q: What was being taken by the man inside the store, as you said when you heard him say ["]ibigay mo sa akin yan.["]
A: I think money[,] ma'am. 6
In People v. De Jesus, 7 this Court held that "intent to rob may be inferred from proof of violent taking of personal property." 8 There is no doubt that accused-appellant employed violence when he pointed a knife at Ma. Titalyn B. Abella (Abella), while he shouted "ibigay mo sa akin yan!" at his victim. When he did succeed in getting the money, he fatally stabbed Abella before fleeing the scene. Upon his apprehension by Police Officer (PO) 2 Reynaldo Tamayo and PO1 Ferdie Burgos, cash from the eatery amounting to P1,040.00 was found in his possession, and this was eventually returned to the owner, Jerilyn Tagalog. 9 Being in possession of the money from the said establishment, the presumption under Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court — a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act — applies. 10
The taking was undoubtedly done with animus lucrandi or intent to gain, considering that accused-appellant had in his possession the money subject of the robbery.
With regard the fourth element, it is well-established that in robbery with homicide, the original intent of the perpetrator is to commit robbery, and the killing is merely incidental. 11 In People v. De Jesus, 12 this Court enunciated: cSEDTC
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. x x x. 13
Based on the eyewitness' account, it is unquestionable that accused-appellant's intention at the store was to rob. At knife-point, he intimidated Abella into giving him the cash, but he did not just simply escape afterwards. Before running off with his loot, he stabbed Abella on her side, which injuries directly caused her death.
Accused-appellant challenges the identification made by the eyewitness and interposes that he was enrolled as a Grade 10 student at the time. 14 Unfortunately, alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. 15 Accused-appellant's simple assertion is insufficient to overturn the prosecution's positive evidence that he was arrested moments after the robbery. What is more, this particular defense will not preclude his physical presence at the scene where the robbery was committed, since it occurred in the middle of the night. Lamentably, his twin defenses of alibi and denial fail in light of the positive identification made by the eyewitness. 16 The possibility that he was in the vicinity of the store at the time of the crime could also not be discounted because he lived in the area.
Additionally, there is no showing that Jat Martinez Licudo (Licudo), the eyewitness, had any ill motive to implicate accused-appellant. In fact, they did not know each other, and Licudo only remembered accused-appellant because the latter passed by the branch of Andok's where he worked just before the robbery at Jerny's.
As to the penalty, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states that any person guilty of robbery of any person shall suffer the "penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed." In the absence of any aggravating circumstance, it is the lesser penalty, within the range of the imposable penalty, that should be applied. 17 Here, the CA was correct in modifying the penalty imposed by the RTC, considering the absence of any modifying circumstance that would warrant the imposition of death. It must be noted that homicide does not serve as an aggravating circumstance to robbery. The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime with a prescribed penalty that already takes into consideration the acts sought to be punished. Imposition of the higher penalty would require the presence and proof of an aggravating circumstance, otherwise, it is the lesser penalty prescribed for the special complex crime that will be applied.
Anent the award of damages, this Court likewise finds that the CA acted in line with prevailing jurisprudence. 18 Accused-appellant is liable to pay the heirs of Abella the following amounts: P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. 19 In addition, since the heirs of Abella failed to present a receipt or competent proof of the funeral or burial expenses, temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is warranted. 20 These awards shall earn an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 21
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09680 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Leff Luigi Argana y Pañares is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Ma. Titalyn Abella y Balais civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall be subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED."
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. 14-15.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring; id. at 3-13.
3. Penned by Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo; CA rollo, pp. 42-49.
4.People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 20, 2019; People v. Mendoza, 348 Phil. 744, 751 (1998).
5.People v. Quemeggen, 611 Phil. 487, 497 (2009).
6. TSN, November 14, 2016, pp. 6-8.
7. 473 Phil. 405 (2004).
8.Id. at 427.
9. Records, pp. 10-11.
10.People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 228951, July 17, 2019.
11.People v. Labagala, G.R. No. 221427, July 30, 2018, 874 SCRA 503, 511.
12.Supra note 7.
13.Id. at 427. (Citations omitted)
14. TSN, May 29, 2017, p. 6.
15.Esqueda v. People, 607 Phil. 480, 497 (2009).
16.People v. Sanota, G.R. No. 233659, December 10, 2019.
17. Revised Penal Code, Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — x x x.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
18.People v. Madrelejos, 828 Phil. 732 (2018).
19. CA rollo, p. 12.
20.People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 8, 2020; People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
21.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).