FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251011. December 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROLANDO CARIQUEZ y CAMBA AND REYNALDO CARIQUEZ y CAMBA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 251011 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Rolando Cariquez y Camba and Reynaldo Cariquez y Camba, accused-appellants).
After a careful review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal. The January 31, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09999, which affirmed with modification the September 29, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 133 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-00322-CR, finding Rolando Cariquez y Camba (Rolando) and Reynaldo Cariquez y Camba (Reynaldo; collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is AFFIRMED.
To hold a person liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294, par. (1) of the RPC, 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 animo lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. 3 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. 4
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the above-mentioned elements. Personal properties belonging to the water station owner were taken with violence. The accused-appellants' overt acts showed their intent to gain, especially when they rushed to leave as soon as they took the personal properties. Lastly, death occurred on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery when Reynaldo shot Emer Bañas (Emer) after the taking of the properties.
As regards the positive identification of accused-appellants, the same was properly made through the valid out-of-court identification, as well as in open court. Contrary to accused-appellants' claim, the RTC and the CA were correct in ruling against any impermissible suggestion in the identification of Reynaldo because Elmer Bañas 5(Elmer) had already described Reynaldo in his sworn statements prior to the out-of-court identification in the hospital. The defense did not offer any concrete evidence to show that Elmer had, indeed, no opportunity to witness and see the faces of accused-appellants at the time of the crime. The alleged inconsistent statement relating to accused-appellants' height was immaterial and did not affect the credibility of Elmer as a witness. Thus, guided by the totality of circumstances test, Elmer's out-of-court identification of Reynaldo was admissible, reliable, and had probative value.
Moreover, the group photo from Facebook which was the defense's lone documentary proof in its attempt to establish that Rolando was not involved in the robbery cannot be given weight considering that said photo did not bear any date and time. 6 The defense also failed to show that it was physically impossible for Rolando to be present at the crime scene.
In sum, accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi will not prevail over the categorical, straightforward, and positive identification by the prosecution witness. Denial is an inherently weak defense and is generally viewed upon with disfavor because it is easily concocted but difficult to disprove. For an alibi to prosper, it must be proved that the accused was in another place during the commission of the crime, rendering it physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Further, an alibi must be corroborated by disinterested witnesses. 7
Finally, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and sustained by the CA, as well as the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages, was correct. The additional award of exemplary damages was likewise proper. Further, the CA correctly reduced the award of actual damages for being unsubstantiated. Since actual damages are awarded to compensate for a pecuniary loss, the injured party is required to prove two things: (1) the fact of the injury or loss and (2) the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. 8 Unfortunately, the prosecution was only able to sufficiently substantiate actual damages in the amount of P77,593.42 for medical and funeral expenses, and not P200,000.00 as awarded by the RTC.
Further, the CA likewise properly deleted the order for the reparation of the stolen items because their values were not duly proven. Art. 2199 of the Civil Code is clear that "one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him, as he has duly proved." 9 On the other hand, it was correct to maintain the order to pay Ronald Lava, the water station owner, the amount of P1,500.00 representing the stolen cash.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The January 31, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09999 which affirmed with modification the September 29, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 133 in Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-00322-CR, finding Rolando Cariquez y Camba and Reynaldo Cariquez y Camba guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants are SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and are jointly and severally liable to PAY the heirs of the victim Emer Bañas the following: (1) P77,593.42 as actual damages, (2) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, (3) P75,000.00 as moral damages, and (4) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Accused-appellants are likewise ORDERED to PAY Ronald Lava the amount of P1,500.00 as actual damages for the stolen cash.
All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., no part; Hernando, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 9, 2020.
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. 3-19; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 74-86; penned by Presiding Judge Elpidio R. Calis.
3.People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019.
4.People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 427 (2004).
5. Emer's twin brother.
6. CA rollo, p. 83.
7.People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 239138, February 17, 2021.
8.Yamauchi v. Suñiga, 830 Phil. 122, 134 (2018).
9.Viray v. People, 720 Phil. 841, 855 (2013).