FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247822. November 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JASON BAJAR y LAGUDA, DARWIN HUERTAS y PELOTIN and ARSENIO ALEGRE y RAPSING, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247822 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Jason Bajar y Laguda, Darwin Huertas y Pelotin and Arsenio Alegre y Rapsing, accused-appellants).
After review of the records, this Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its June 28, 2018 Decision 1 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Accused-appellants were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide in an Information dated June 21, 2010 which reads:
That on or about the 1st day of May, 2010 in the afternoon thereof, at Crossing, Brgy. Biyong, Masbate City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, armed with unknown [caliber] of firearm, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the following cash money amounting to Forty Thousand Pesos Php40,000.00, Philippine currency, belonging to Reynaldo Financing Service Corporation and personal wallet containing Five Hundred Pesos Php500.00, Philippine currency, belonging to Michael Rafols against the consent of the owners thereof, to their damage and prejudice of the said amount; that by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the articles abovementioned, herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and taking advantage of their superior strength, with intent to kill, attack and shot with unknown [caliber] of firearm one JANPER AMBOANG and MICHAEL RAFOLS which [caused] instantaneous death of said Janper Amboang and serious wounding of Michael Rafols which [would] have caused his (Rafols) death were [it] not for the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Michael Rafols which prevented his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
As correctly held by the CA, a cursory reading of the above information shows that it contains all the essential allegations constituting the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
There is robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), when a homicide is committed by reason of or on occasion of a robbery. In order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the following elements must be proven by the prosecution: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. 3
It is well-settled that the information need not use the language of the statute in stating the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. What is required is that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense are stated in ordinary and concise language, sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged. 4 Here, the CA aptly explained that the information contained all the essential allegations for the crime of robbery with homicide:
Contrary to accused-appellants' claim, a perusal of the Information shows that it alleges that the taking of personal property was committed with violence, force and intimidation. Although the Information does not contain the words "violence, force and intimidation," it alleges that in committing the crime: (1) the accused-appellants were armed with a firearm; (2) the taking of P40,000.00 in cash belonging to Reynaldo Financing Service Corporation and the personal wallet containing P500.00 in cash belonging to Michael Rafols was "against the consent of the owner"; and (3) "for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the articles mentioned," the accused-appellants, "with treachery and taking advantage of their superior strength, with intent to kill, attack and shot with unknown caliber of firearm one Janper Amboang and Michael Rafols." Further, the injury to Michael Rafols and the death of Janper Amboang occurred on the occasion of the robbery. The clear import of such allegations is that the accused-appellants employed force, violence and intimidation in taking the property of the victims.
The contention of accused-appellants that the inclusion of the allegations of treachery and taking advantage of superior strength necessarily characterizes the charge as Murder is likewise devoid of merit.
It must be emphasized that the term "homicide" as used in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is applied in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. 5
The CA correctly affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Masbate City, Branch 44 (RTC), finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide as the prosecution duly proved all the elements of the crime charged. Michael Rafols (Michael) categorically testified that accused-appellants, armed with guns, mauled Janper Amboang (Janper) and demanded money and cellphones from them. As they were not carrying cellphones, accused-appellants were only able to get the amounts of P40,000.00 and P500.00 from the former. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of their cash. 6Acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta — a man's action is a reflection of his intention. 7 Clearly, the first three elements are present in the instant case. Anent the fourth element, it was established that on the occasion of the robbery, accused-appellants shot Janper resulting in his untimely demise.
Accused-appellants however contend that the out-of-court identification was irregular and not free from impermissible suggestion. Such argument lacks merit.
This Court has laid down the two guiding principles in order to sustain the validity of an out-of-court identification: first, a series of photographs must be shown and not merely that of the suspect; and second, when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. In addition, photographic identification should be free from any impermissible suggestion that would single out a person to the attention of the witness making the identification. 8 Here, accused-appellants failed to aver, much less prove, any act on the police officers' part which indicates that they were singled out during the out-of-court identification. As pointed out by the CA, there was also no showing that the arrangement of the photographs, when shown to Michael, was suggestive as to which of the pictures pertained to accused-appellants.
Further, a defective out-of-court identification may be cured by a subsequent in-court identification. In People v. Rivera,9 We explained that:
Even assuming arguendo that the appellant Alfonso Rivera's out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, his subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may have attended it. Without hesitation, the two prosecution witnesses, Renato Losaria and Juanito Baylon identified the appellant as one of the assailants. In People v. Timon, the accused were identified through a show-up. The accused assailed the process of identification because no other suspect was presented in a police line-up. We ruled that a police line-up is not essential in identification and upheld the identification of the accused through a show-up. We also held that even assuming arguendo that the out-of-court identification was defective, the defect was cured by the subsequent positive identification in court for the "inadmissibility of a police line-up identification . . . should not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification."10 (emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In the instant case, the RTC deemed Michael's straightforward and categorical in-court identification reliable. Michael was able to positively identify accused-appellants as the persons who robbed and shot him and Janper. 11 As observed by the CA, the incident happened in broad daylight and Michael was able to see all their faces. He was also able to describe how accused-appellants approached them, the kind of firearms they were carrying, and how accused-appellants acted to accomplish the crime.
Considering the foregoing, this Court will not disturb the trial court's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility without any palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. This Court has consistently deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the witnesses' credibility, especially when affirmed by the CA, unless the trial court is shown to have acted arbitrarily, or overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts that could alter its conclusion. 12 The trial court's unique opportunity to observe first-hand the witnesses' demeanor on the stand puts it in the best position to assess their credibility, "truthfulness, honesty and candor." 13
Anent the penalty imposed against accused-appellants, under Art. 294 (1) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. It must be pointed out that the RTC had correctly appreciated the presence of treachery as an aggravating circumstance. In People v. Baron,14 this Court reiterated that treachery is not considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide but as a generic aggravating circumstance, the presence of which merits the imposition of the higher penalty. Thus, the penalty imposed should be death which, however, is reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of R.A. No. 9346. 15
In this connection, the Court deems it proper to modify the award of damages pursuant to People v. Jugueta,16 which held that in cases of robbery with homicide where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346, the award for civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages is P100,000.00 each, all subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. 17
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its June 28, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09018. Accused-appellants Jason Bajar y Laguda, Darwin Huertas y Pelotin and Arsenio Alegre y Rapsing, are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and are hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Accused-appellants are likewise ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Janper Amboang the following amounts: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. They are likewise ORDERED to PAY Michael Rafols the amount of P932,400.00 as loss of earning capacity. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
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. 3-27; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
3.People v. Bacyaan, G.R. No. 238457, September 18, 2019.
4.People v. Amistoso, 701 Phil. 345, 354 (2013).
5.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
6.People v. Agan, G.R. No. 228947, June 22, 2020.
7.Id.
8.People v. Llamera, 830 Phil. 607, 614-615 (2018).
9. 458 Phil. 856 (2003).
10.Id. at 876-877.
11. CA rollo, p. 66.
12.Medina, Jr. v. People, 724 Phil. 226, 234 (2014).
13.People v. Layug, 818 Phil. 1021, 1028-1029 (2017).
14. 635 Phil. 608 (2010), as cited in People v. Layug, supra, at 1032.
15.Id. at 625-626.
16. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
17.People v. Masubay, G.R. No. 248875, September 3, 2020.