FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227740. May 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RONNIE ARTUZ y DELA CRUZ, RENATO PALMA y DELA CRUZ, LEO PALMA, JUN CASTRO y PALMA alias INTSIK, and MARIBEL CANICULA y MANZANO, accused,
RONNIE ARTUZ y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227740 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. RONNIE ARTUZ y DELA CRUZ, RENATO PALMA y DELA CRUZ, LEO PALMA, JUN CASTRO y PALMA alias INTSIK, and MARIBEL CANICULA y MANZANO, accused; RONNIE ARTUZ y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant). — This treats of the Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by Ronnie Artuz y Dela Cruz (accused-appellant), seeking the reversal of the May 31, 2016 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01678, affirming with modification the May 13, 2013 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69 of Silay City, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide.
The Case
This case stemmed from an Information filed before the RTC charging accused Renato Palma (Renato), Leo Palma (Leo), Jun Castro (Jun), Maribel Canicula (Canicula), and accused-appellant with the crime of robbery with homicide, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about May 9, 2000, in Silay City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [accused], in conspiracy, with intent to gain, by means of force and violence upon one Ronald Opao, to wit: by stabbing and shooting the latter with a bladed weapon and unknown caliber firearm, inflicting upon said Ronald Opao several injuries on his body which caused his death, and then and there take, carry away the following described property belonging to the said Ronald Opao, viz.:
(1) One (1) Swiss Military Brand 25 jewels wrist watch valued at P15,000.00;
(2) One (1) gold necklace valued at P15,000.00;
(3) One (1) Cellphone Bosch valued at P5,000.00;
(4) [One] (1) gold bracelet valued at P10,000.00;
(5) P500.00 Philippine Currency; and
(6) 30 US Dollars.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Accused Leo, Jun, Renato and Canicula were arrested and duly arraigned. They all pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge. Thereafter, Canicula was discharged and admitted as a state witness. Trial then ensued. 5
During the pendency of the trial, accused-appellant remained at large. On June 19, 2003, a Decision was rendered by the trial court finding Renato guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Accused Leo and Jun, on the other hand, were acquitted from the crime. 6
It was only on June 26, 2011, when accused-appellant was arrested. When duly arraigned, he pleaded "Not Guilty." Thereupon, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. 7
Antecedents
Prosecution's Version of Facts
On May 9, 2000, Canicula, the live-in partner of accused-appellant, was with the latter and Renato in their boarding house. Accused-appellant, Leo, Jun and Renato were then having a drinking session. While drinking, accused-appellant and Renato concocted a plan to rob Ronald Opao (Opao). 8 Since Canicula, a waitress in Kalayaan Refreshment, was attending to Opao whenever he was at the said restaurant, accused-appellant, ordered Canicula to contact, by phone, Opao and invite him to a supposed birthday party of her aunt at Bangga Iglesia, Barangay Balaring, Silay City, where he (accused-appellant) and Renato would wait to rob him (Opao). 9 Canicula initially refused to comply with the order. However, accused-appellant insisted. Fearful for her life, she was constrained to give heed to accused-appellant's demand. 10
Canicula then contacted Opao and invited him to an inexistent party. Opao agreed. Since Opao was late and did not arrive at their meeting place, Canicula fetched him at his house onboard a chartered tricycle. 11 They then proceeded to Bangga Iglesia, Barangay Balaring, as instructed by accused-appellant and Renato. 12 Upon alighting and walking a short distance, Renato and accused-appellant suddenly appeared and declared a hold-up. A struggle ensued between Opao and his assailants. The valuables in Opao's possession were then forcibly taken from him, among which were his gold necklace and bracelet. 13 Opao was then instructed to run, but he did not comply. Instead, he wrestled with accused-appellant for the possession of the gun, but he was eventually shot by accused-appellant. Renato, on the other hand, stabbed him repeatedly. 14
After the incident, accused-appellant, Renato and Canicula went to Cadiz City, where a relative of accused-appellant resided. The gold necklace was pawned by accused-appellant's cousin as instructed. The proceeds thereof were then used to redeem the firearm accused-appellant pawned in Silay City. On May 15, 2000, Canicula surrendered to the authorities. Accused-appellant, meanwhile, succeeded to evade apprehension until his arrest on June 26, 2011. 15
Defense's Version of Facts
On May 9, 2000, accused-appellant left his house to inquire from the security agency, where he was working as a security guard, if he had a duty for the week. 16 When he was informed that he had no duty and would be informed through text if there would be any, he went back home and met with his cousin Pedro Artuz (Pedro). He was then invited to attend the birthday party of Pedro's daughter in their house. At around 3:00 in the afternoon of that day, he went to Pedro's house and they started drinking with Antonio Olvido and others. The drinking spree ended at about 1:30 in the morning of May 10, 2000. 17 He stayed at Pedro's house and left for home only at around 10:00 a.m. of May 10, 2000. Upon arriving home, he was informed by Jun Castro that he was being implicated in a crime of robbery with homicide in Silay City. 18
The RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the state witness, Canicula, who categorically identified accused-appellant and Renato as the ones who planned and executed the robbery on Opao. The trial court likewise gave no probative value to accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi. 19 Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds accused, RONNIE ARTUZ Y DELA CRUZ, GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of the crime of "Robbery with Homicide," as defined in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659, and hereby impose upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa City, Rizal.
Accused, Ronnie Artuz y dela Cruz, is, further, ordered by this Court to indemnify the heirs of the late Ronald Opao y Estrabon, the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00), Philippine Currency, as Civil Indemnity, and the sum of FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P47,000.00), Philippine Currency, as Actual and Compensatory Damages.
Accused, Ronnie Artuz y dela Cruz, is in the meantime remanded to the custody of the Jail Warden of the Negros Occidental District Jail (NODJ), Bago City, Negros Occidental, pending his commitment to the National Bilibid Prisons, where he shall serve the sentence imposed on him by this Court.
In the service of the sentence imposed on accused, Ronnie Artuz y dela Cruz, his period of detention pending trial of this case shall be credited in his favor.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED. 20
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 21 promulgated on May 31, 2016, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. Like the trial court, the CA considered Canicula's testimony credible and sufficient to establish accused-appellant's guilt. The CA further concluded that despite some inconsistencies in Canicula's statements, such alleged inconsistencies deal only on minor details and cannot in any way affect the totality of the prosecution's evidence pointing to accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of robbery with homicide. 22 Anent the award of damages, the CA modified it to conform with the existing rules and recent jurisprudence. The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The May 13, 2013 Decision of the RTC, Branch 69, Silay City, in Criminal Case No. 4643-69 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS whereby Ronnie Artuz y Dela Cruz is ordered to pay the heirs of Ronald Opao the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment. The rest of the RTC Decision stands.
SO ORDERED. 23
Undaunted, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 24 under Rule 124, Section 13 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision convicting accused-appellant Artuz of the crime of Robbery with Homicide despite inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutions main witness, Maribel Canicula.
The Court's Ruling
The instant appeal is unmeritorious.
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant continues to attack the credibility of the prosecution's main witness, Canicula, arguing that her testimony during trial and her affidavit were infested with inconsistencies, hence, incredible and doubtful. 25
This Court disagrees.
At the outset, the CA had already summarized the inconsistencies committed by Canicula as alleged by accused-appellant, to wit:
1. In her affidavit, Canicula stated that it was Artuz who asked her to call the victim Opao, but in her testimony in court, it appeared that it was Renato who threatened and gave her the instruction to lure the victim according to their plan;
2. In her affidavit, there was no mention of robbing the victim Opao but only the shooting and stabbing of the victim to death. Yet in her testimony in open court, she narrated that the victim was ordered to surrender his belongings and the shooting happened only after the victim tried to wrestle possession of the gun from Artuz;
3. In her affidavit, Canicula stated that it was Renato who first shot the victim while Artuz stabbed the latter; however, in her statement in court, she said it was Artuz who shot the victim on the head and it was Renato who stabbed the victim; and
4. In her affidavit, Canicula said she pleaded to Artuz and Renato that she be allowed to return to her boarding house after the alleged incident, but in her testimony in court, she said that Artuz told her to return to her boarding house, but she did not obey his instruction as she was scared and voluntarily went with the two.
xxx xxx xxx 26
A simple perusal of these alleged inconsistencies, however, will easily show that these are only minor and insignificant. They only refer to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime charged. Accordingly, these alleged inconsistencies cannot be considered a ground to reverse accused-appellant's conviction for robbery with homicide.
Furthermore, settled is the rule that discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in prior affidavits and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. 27 Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because they are oftentimes executed when an affiant's mental facilities are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements/affidavits. 28
Needless to state, these alleged inconsistencies cannot obliterate the fact that the totality of the prosecution evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime of robbery with homicide perpetrated by accused-appellant and Renato against Opao.
To recall, for an accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. 29 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. 30
Based on the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, presented and offered by the prosecution during trial, the following are established: accused-appellant and Renato, who was earlier convicted for the same crime, planned to hold-up Opao and used Canicula to execute their evil design; when Canicula and Opao alighted from the chartered tricycle in Bangga Iglesia, Barangay Balaring, Silay City, accused-appellant and Renato suddenly appeared and declared a hold-up; Opao was forced at gun-point to turn over his cash and other valuables; despite being told to run away, however, Opao wrestled with accused-appellant for the gun, but he was eventually shot and stabbed by the assailants, resulting to his death; accused-appellant, Renato and Canicula then fled together with their loot. 31
Undoubtedly, Renato and accused-appellant's main objective was to rob Opao; the fatal shooting and stabbing were merely incidental, resulting by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery.
Notwithstanding, accused-appellant tries to exonerate himself from criminal liability claiming that he could not have committed the crime charged considering that, on the day of the incident, he was in Pedro's house having a drinking spree on the occasion of Pedro's daughter's birthday; and that he went home only the day after. Simply, accused-appellant resorted to denial and alibi as his defense. 32 Unfortunately, against the prosecution's evidence, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are worthless.
It is well-settled that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 33 Alibi, on the other hand, is the "weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally rejected. For the alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establishes two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission." 34
Accused-appellant was unable to establish any of the foregoing elements to substantiate his defense of alibi. He merely claimed that he could not have committed the offense because he was at Pedro's house, having a drinking session. Worse, accused-appellant failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at Silay City, the scene of the crime, at the time of the commission of the crime. Accordingly, in the face of clear and positive declaration of Canicula and the prosecution's witnesses, accused-appellant's failure to establish his defense of denial and alibi is fatal to his cause.
From all the foregoing, this Court holds and so rules that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime charged. On the other hand, accused-appellant failed to substantiate his defenses of denial and alibi. The trial court and CA, therefore, correctly convicted accused-appellant of the crime of robbery with homicide.
The Penalty
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article 294 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 provides that the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusionperpetua to death. By applying Art. 63 (2) 35 of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusionperpetua, shall be imposed upon the accused-appellant in view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
As regards the award of damages, however, further modification must be made in view of this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 36 Accordingly, the award of exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00. Meanwhile, this Court deems it appropriate to increase the award of temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00, considering that no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses was submitted in court. 37 All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed May 31, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01678 is AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Ronnie Artuz y Dela Cruz is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Ronald Opao the following amounts: (i) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (iii) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (iv) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
All monetary awards shall earn a six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
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. 16-17.
2.Id. at 4-15; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court) and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 44-55; penned by Presiding Judge Felipe G. Banzon.
4.Id. at 44.
5.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 8.
10.Id.
11. CA rollo, p. 46.
12.Id.
13.Rollo, p. 8.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 9.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, p. 32.
19.Id. at 54-55.
20.Id. at 55.
21.Rollo, pp. 4-15.
22.Id. at 10-13.
23.Id. at 14.
24.Id. at 16-17.
25.Id. at 39-40.
26.Id. at 11.
27.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 372-373 (2017), citing People v. Yanzon, 674 Phil. 169, 180 (2011).
28.Concurring Opinion of Retired Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, Lejano v. People, 652 Phil. 512, 615-616 (2010), citing People v. Mayor Sanchez, 361 Phil. 692, 720 (1999).
29.People v. Pedroso, 391 Phil. 43, 56 (2000).
30.People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 427 (2004).
31.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
32.Id. at 9.
33.People v. Baguion, G.R. No. 223553, July 4, 2018, 871 SCRA 1, 14.
34.Id. Citation omitted.
35. Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
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 and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
xxx xxx xxx
36. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
37.People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 8, 2020.