SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248453. December 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EDMOND GAMENG y ZABAT a.k.a. "BOTCHOK", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248453 (People of the Philippines v. Edmond Gameng y Zabat a.k.a. "Botchok"). — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse the March 28, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09011 that affirmed in toto the December 6, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Manila City, in Criminal Case No. 09-266938 finding accused-appellant Edmond Gameng y Zabat a.k.a. "Botchok" (Gameng) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
In an Information 4 dated March 5, 2009, Gameng, together with co-accused Joel Satuito (Joel) and Joseph Satuito, were charged as follows:
That on or about February 23, 2009, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with others whose true names, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by entering the unit rented by ROSALIE TURCOLAS y PANTONE at the 4th floor of Unit 40-D NISUS Building located at No. 1532 A.H. Lacson Avenue, Sta. Cruz, this City and once inside, divesting therein one (1) unit laptop Valo model worth Php35,000.00, one (1) unit Sony Erickson model K800 worth Php15,000.00, one (1) unit of Nokia Model N-70 cellular phone worth Php10,000.00 and one (1) color cream wallet containing [an] undetermined amount of money, or all in the total amount valued at Php60,000.00, more or less, belonging to said ROSALIE TURCOLAS y PANTONE, then take, rob and carry away the same against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P60,000.00, more or less, Philippine Currency, that on the occasion of the said robbery and by reason thereof, the herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon said ROSALIE TURCOLAS y PANTONE by then and there shooting the latter with a cal. 97 m (380) "Llama" bearing serial no. 103897 on her head, thereby inflicting upon the latter [a] mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter. CAIHTE
Contrary to law. 5
Upon arraignment, Gameng entered a plea of not guilty. 6 Thus, pre-trial and trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The RTC narrated the prosecution's evidence as follows:
BASED ON EVIDENCE, at around 7:30 o'clock in the evening of February 23, 2009, Rosalie Turcolas y Pantone (Rosalie) was found dead inside a condo unit at 40-D, NISUS Building, 1532 A.H. Lacson Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila by Kristle Concha Lim. Rosalie and Kristle Concha Lim were residing at the said condo. They were just college students. Rosalie was last seen alive at the condo by Kristle at around 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of February 22, 2009 when the latter left her. When Kristle returned at 7:30 o'clock in the evening of the next day February 23, 2009, Rosalie was lying and bloodied on the sofa inside the condo. Kristle immediately reported to the security guard who reported to the police. The policemen arrived at the scene of the crime and right away, investigated the scene and Kristle. It was found out that one (1) laptop used by Rosalie and Kristle was missing, and two (2) cellphones of Rosalie were also missing. The body of Rosalie was brought to the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory for post mortem and autopsy examinations. A gunshot wound in the head was found which caused Rosalie's death. A .380 caliber bullet was also found in Rosalie's hair. There is no finding of any sexual abuse or rape.
[I]n the evening of February 27, 2009, the Manila police through its assigned investigator Joseph Kabigting received a call from the La Loma Police Station in Quezon City that one of their detainees named Juan Daniel Gesmundo had knowledge about the crime incident. x x x After getting the information from Gesmundo on the whereabouts of the suspects, the Manila police particularly from the Manila City Hall Detachment went to Marilao, Bulacan, and there, they arrested Joel Satuito and Joseph Satuito at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of February 28, 2009. In the course of their arrest, the police seized from Joel Satuito one (1) .380 caliber pistol, and they seized one (1) .9mm pistol from accused Joseph Satuito. When Joel Satuito informed the police that the items taken from Rosalie were sold to accused Reggie Santos, the police proceeded to arrest said accused at her residence in Sampaloc, Manila at around 2:00 o'clock; at around 4:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, the police picked up and arrested accused Edmond Gameng who was on his tricycle waiting for passengers along Maceda Street corner Dapitan, Sampaloc, Manila. x x x 7
Witness Juan Daniel Gesmundo's (Gesmundo) testimony was summarized by the RTC in this wise:
Juan Daniel Gesmundo testified that: he knew all the accused; x x x he knew accused Edmond Gameng because he was a tricycle driver in their place; x x x he and Joel [Satuito] were supposed to meet at Maceda Street on February 23, 2009 to execute a robbery where their target is a "doktora" residing at the second floor of [a] green building along Lacson Avenue; but he was not able to meet Joel in Maceda because he arrived late; so he proceeded to Lacson Avenue near Shoemart, San Lazaro in Sta. Cruz, Manila, and arrived there at 3:00 o'clock in the morning of February 23, [2]009; upon arrival he saw the tricycle of Edmond Gameng parked beside a tree and he also saw Edmond Gameng, "Takyo," "Loloy" and "Kambal"; he saw accused Joseph Satuito; he also saw Joel going down from a building with a backpack; then all of them boarded the tricycle except Joseph Satuito, and immediately sped away from the place; when they were inside the tricycle, Joel opened his backpack and he saw a "Sony" laptop, a cellphone N70 and a wallet; also when they were inside the tricycle he noticed Joel's shirt with a blood stain and he heard him saying that there was a lady killed at the fourth floor of the building; when he heard that someone was killed, he alighted from the tricycle and proceeded to their hide out along Maceda Street, where they met and saw each other; Joel handed to him an ATM card and an identification card; he tried to withdraw cash using the ATM card but he failed; thereafter, Joel handed to him the laptop and two (2) cellphones; he sold these items to one name "Kuya Ruel" or "Rommel" who paid P6,000.00; he gave the money to Joel and the latter gave him P1,500.00; the remaining amount was divided among their companions, except accused Joseph Satuito who was not around because he already left; at around 5:00 o'clock in the morning of that day, Joel told him that he did not intend to kill the woman but the latter woke up so that Joel shot her twice but missed the first shot, and the second shot hit the head of the victim; and when he looked at the identification card, he learned the victim was Rosalie Turcolas. 8
Version of the Defense:
Gameng's defense of denial is summed up by the RTC thus: DETACa
Accused Edmond Gameng testified that: he does not know anything about the crime; he did not know the accused Joel Satuito and Joseph Satuito and he came to know them only when they were incarcerated at the Manila City Hall on February 28, 2009; he does not know [the] prosecution's witness Juan Daniel Gesmundo; he was a tricycle driver; on February 23, 2009 at around 3:00 o'clock in the morning, he was at their tricycle terminal along Dapitan Street, Sampaloc, Manila waiting for passengers; then four (4) male persons boarded his tricycle and asked him to proceed to Lacson Avenue near Shoemart in San Lazaro; he brought his passengers there; when they were at the place, two (2) of his passengers alighted while the other two (2) remained inside his tricycle; his passengers asked him to wait and he waited for an hour; they proceeded to Hermosa, Abad Santos, and while there, two (2) of his four (4) passengers alighted again; he waited for fifteen (15) minutes and the two passengers who alighted returned to his tricycle; he drove his tricycle carrying his four (4) passengers and proceeded to Dimasalang; at Dimasalang, all of his four (4) passengers alighted after paying him P1,000.00; he recognized one of his four (4) passengers as loan Daniel Gesmundo; and that Gesmundo was the one who negotiated with him to take them to Lacson. 9
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its Decision 10 dated December 6, 2016, the RTC found sufficient evidence to find Joel and Gameng guilty of Robbery with Homicide. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision thus reads:
ACCORDINGLY, accused Reggie Santos y Umagat is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 09-266939 for lack of evidence.
In Criminal Case No. 09-266938, accused Joseph Satuito y Manalad is ACQUITTED for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Child in Conflict with the Law Joel Satuito y Bunag and accused Edmond Gameng y Zabat are found GUILTY by proof beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Joel Satuito y Bunag is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Ten (10) Years as Minimum to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months as Maximum. Accused Edmond Gameng y Zabat is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without the eligibility for parole. Both of them are ordered to pay jointly and severally civil indemnity of P100,000.00, moral damages of P100,000.00 and compensatory damages of P60,000.00 in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Turcolas y Pantone as well as to pay costs of this suit.
Let therefore a corresponding Release Order be issued in favor of accused Joseph Satuito y Manalad for his immediate release from the City Jail Warden of Manila.
SO ORDERED. 11
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its Decision 12 dated March 28, 2019, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. The CA found that conspiracy between Joel and Gameng was established with moral certainty; that Gesmundo's testimony was credible; and the elements of the crime of Robbery with Homicide were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The CA held:
All told, this Court does not perceive any reversible error that the RTC may have committed in handing down the guilty verdict upon accused-appellant, as well as in the imposition upon him of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and civil damages.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 6, 2016 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. 09-266938, convicting accused-appellant Edmond [Gameng] y Zabat a.k.a. "Botchok," of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 13
Hence, this appeal before the Court. In his brief, 14 Gameng raised the following issues: aDSIHc
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DOES NOT PROVE THE PRESENCE OF CONSPIRACY. 15
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS JUAN DANIEL GESMUNDO.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 16
Gameng argues that the RTC erred in heavily relying solely on the testimony of Gesmundo. 17 Gameng insists that Gesmundo could not have proved that he (Gameng) conspired with the other accused in committing the crime of Robbery with Homicide especially since he merely drove the tricycle and transported the accused. Gameng points out that Gesmundo did not mention that he (Gameng) acted as a look-out or gave moral support to the other accused. Thus, Gameng concludes that the RTC merely speculated that he conspired to commit the crime.
The Court is not persuaded.
The Court affirms the ruling of the RTC and the CA. There is no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings and conclusions of both courts.
Gameng's acts before, during, and after the commission of the crime show without doubt that he conspired with the other accused in the commission of the cringe. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement in the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 18 It is not necessary that all conspirators commit the felony itself. What is important is that all participants perform specific acts which show closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose to bring about the felony. Once this is established, each of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any of them. 19
Although Gameng did not personally perform acts constituting the crime of Robbery with Homicide itself, he nonetheless performed acts necessary to avoid discovery of the crime and the identity of the perpetrators, i.e., driving the tricycle and transporting his co-accused. Significantly, these acts unmistakably indicate a common purpose. Gesmundo clearly described Gameng's role in his Kusang Loob na Salaysay20 as follows:
S: Ganito po yun, noong February 23, 2009 humigit kumulang alas 3:30 ng madaling araw, pumunta na ako sa pagkakakitaan naming lugar, pagdating ko duon, naghintay pa ako kasi wala pa sila, nainip ako, kaya tumuloy na ako sa Forbes (affiant referring to A.H. Lacson Avenue), malapit sa SM San Lazaro. [N]akita ko sila nila JIMMY TIJAM alyas KAMBAL, GILBERT alyas TAKYO, Tatay ni Joel at si BOTCHOK (accused-appellant) at yung tricycle niya sa gilid ng malaking puno sa Lacson [S]treet at di nagtagal ay nakita ko si Joel na bumababa na may dalang bag galing sa berdeng building na nuon ay nasa pangalawang palapag na biglang tumalon at sabay sakay sa tricycle. Sumakay agad ako at nakapwesto sa likuran ni Botchok, sumakay sila Joel, Kambal at Takyo sa sidecar, yung Tatay ni Joel, hindi na sumakay, naglakad na lang papalayo. Tapos biglang nag-U turn ang tricycle na minamaneho ni Botchok bale sumalubong na sa kalsada. Pagdating namin sa may Ma. Clara [S]treet, nagtanong si Kambal, kung ano ang nakuha ni Joel, kaya binuksan ni JOEL ang backpack at nakita ko inilabas niya ang kulay itim [na] supot na tela[,] binuksan niya, inilabas ang kalahati ng laman at nakita ko kulay puti na laptop, inilabas niya yung dalawang cellphone at isang wallet tapos sinabihan niya si Botchok na iderecho na kay MOMMY JOSIE, x x x 21 (Emphasis supplied)
Gesmundo's narration clearly showed Gameng's role as driver to guarantee a quick escape from the scene of the crime. Noteworthy too is the fact that Gameng understood Joel's vague instruction to go straight to Mommy Josie ("iderecho na kay MOMMY JOSIE") 22 which, as correctly held by the CA, is "indicative of [Gameng's] afore-knowledge of the common objective to rob someone and the pre-agreed plan to dispose of the proceeds of the crime through one 'Mommy Josie.'" 23
In addition, Gesmundo testified as to the presence of Gameng during the division of the loot, to wit: ETHIDa
Q: You mentioned that the proceeds of the loot in the amount of Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php6,500.00) and you gave the total amount to Joel. Joel gave you One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php1,500.00). How about the rest, where did it go?
A: He was the one who divided it to our other companions.
Q: Where were you when the partition or division was made?
A: I was not able to know how much were the division, Ma'am, because I was doing something else during that time because I was with my wife.
Q: And who are the persons given the amount, Mr. Witness?
A: I am not really sure who were given the money, Ma'am, but there were four (4) persons in the room, Ma'am.
Q: Who were these people?
A: Joel, Edmond, Takyo and Kambal, Ma'am. 24 (Emphasis supplied)
Gameng himself testified that he was paid P1,000.00 for his services, 25 which was way more than the P5.00 per passenger fare in 2009. 26
The CA was, thus, correct in holding that conspiracy was inferred from the acts of Gameng. The Court agrees that:
Viewed under the foregoing perspective, accused-appellant's presence with his tricycle along A.H. Lacson Ave. while the crime was being committed four floors above him, and his acts of ferrying his co-accused away from the locus criminis and of participating in the distribution of the proceeds of the stolen items, constituted the key overt acts that established beyond a shadow of doubt that he and the rest of the accused acted in concert and in pursuance of a common sinister objective.
Indeed, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy since it is by its nature often planned in utmost secrecy and it can seldom be proved by direct evidence. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design.
Having proved the conspiracy among all the accused, including accused-appellant, the act of one is deemed the act of all. 27
More importantly, Joel, Gameng's co-accused, was found by both the RTC and the CA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. In fact, Joel was found to be the perpetrator of the crime itself. Joel did not anymore appeal to this Court. Thus, the case against him became final. As mentioned earlier, each of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. 28 Here, Gameng is found to be equally liable for the crime actually and proven to be committed by Joel.
Indeed, it is quite perplexing that Gesmundo, a co-conspirator, would turn against his co-accused. However, this does not render his testimony unreliable. In fact, the RTC found Gesmundo's testimony to be "clear, detailed, straightforward and categorical." 29 The Court has no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, especially when it involves matters of credibility of witnesses, since trial courts have the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and are in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. 30 The foregoing rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings of the RTC are sustained by the CA, as in this case. 31
The Court agrees with the CA in affirming the RTC's Decision holding that:
Accused-appellant attacks Gesmundo's credibility on the ground that, being himself a co-conspirator, his testimony emanated from a polluted source. Intriguing as it may be for Gesmundo to turn away from his co-accused, his being a co-conspirator, by itself, does not render his testimony, which is otherwise candid, straightforward and unwavering, unreliable.
Besides, no ill-motive was shown against Gesmundo for providing the damaging testimony. Gesmundo even admitted being accused-appellant's friend of 14 years by the time he gave his incriminating testimony. cSEDTC
xxx xxx xxx
Acceding to the foregoing decisional principle, this Court sustains the following factual findings of the Trial Court:
Although a little bit puzzling why Gesmundo testified against his former partner in-crime, his testimony, however appears clear, detailed, straightforward and categorical. His being a partner in-crime or a participant or conspirator does not disqualify or prevent him to testify for the People. Being an acquaintance of Joel for quite a considerable time, it is difficult to believe that Gesmundo was making false stories. x x x He was cross-examined well by the defense counsel and was grilled by this court on clarificatory questioning. This court cannot see an ill-motive on his part in testifying for the prosecution and against the accused. On the witness stand, Gesmundo had a continuing narration of facts, in details and giving responsive answers quickly to the examining fiscal, defense counsel and the judge. Undersigned Presiding Judge is not unmindful of police underhanded tactics in solving crimes just to appease a discontented community demanding an early crime solution. A feigning witness pushed by the police may pass public scrutiny and even the examining public prosecutor, but he cannot pass the test in a trial court, neither [in] the eyes of our judges. 32
In the end, the Court does not perceive any error on the part of the CA or the RTC in finding Gameng guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide, as well as the imposition upon him of the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole. However, the award of civil damages must be modified as follows: Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php100,000.00 as moral damages; and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Moreover, the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of the Resolution until full satisfaction. 33
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 28, 2019 Decision 34 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09011, finding accused-appellant Edmond Gameng y Zabat a.k.a. "Botchok," GUILTY of the crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay, jointly and severally with accused Joel Satuito, the heirs of Rosalie Turcolas y Pantone civil indemnity of P100,000.00, moral damages of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages of P100,000.00, as well as the costs of this suit. All amounts due shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."(Gesmundo, C.J., designated as additional Member per raffle dated October 13, 2021 vice Gaerlan, J. who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Dimaampao, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-19.
2.Id. at 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
3. CA rollo, pp. 52-72. Penned by Presiding Judge Roy G. Gironella.
4. Records, p. 2.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 75.
7. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
8.Id. at 55-56.
9.Id. at 58.
10.Id. at 52-72.
11.Id. at 72.
12.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
13.Id. at 15.
14. CA rollo, pp. 34-50.
15.Id. at 44.
16.Id. at 36-37.
17.Id. at 43.
18.People v. Pagapulaan, G.R. No. 216936, July 29, 2019. Revised Penal Code, Art. 8.
19.Id.
20. Records, p. 35.
21.Id.
22.Rollo, p. 11.
23.Id.
24. TSN, October 8, 2012, pp. 21-22.
25. TSN, February 1, 2016, p. 33.
26. TSN, February 22, 2016, p. 8.
27.Rollo, p. 12.
28.People v. Pagapulaan, G.R. No. 216936, July 29, 2019.
29. CA rollo, p. 66.
30. See Dunuan v. People, G.R. No. 239343, August 8, 2018.
31.Id.
32.Rollo, pp. 12-14.
33. See People v. Lignes, G.R. No. 229087, June 17, 2020. See also People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2018).
34.Rollo, pp. 3-16.