FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230226. June 19, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JUANITO JUMALON, JR. y SAMSON AND ARLON GARCIA y DANOSO ALIAS "ALLAN TUYONG", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 19, 2019which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 230226 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANITO JUMALON, JR. y SAMSON and ARLON GARCIA y DANOSO alias "Allan Tuyong," Accused-Appellants.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal against the January 26, 2016 decision 1 and July 22, 2016 resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 06896 whereby the CA affirmed the decision 3 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 266, Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 126133-H, finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
Herein accused-appellants maintained that the courts a quo erred in holding that the prosecution witnesses had positively identified them as the culprit and despite the inconsistencies in their testimonies.
In People v. Pili, we held:
It is doctrinally settled that "the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. Verily, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case. 4
We have thoroughly reviewed the case and find that both the RTC and the CA had neither misread nor misapprehended the facts. Thusly, We approve of the following observations of the CA that:
[W]itnesses Agcaoili and Tigol positively and categorically identified [accused-appellants] in open court. They personally saw [accused-appellants] at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Their straightforward and corroborative testimonies establish beyond a doubt the identities of both appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Despite being subjected to cross-examination, the credibility of the testimonies remained unscathed. 5
The accused-appellants attempted to highlight alleged inconsistencies in the sworn statements given by prosecution witnesses to the police and their testimonies in court. However, this Court has repeatedly explained in the past:
Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness. An affidavit, being taken ex parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, which are usually incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons. More so, because of the partial and innocent suggestions, or for want of specific inquiries. In addition, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself [or herself] but by another who uses his [or her] own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses' direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements. 6 (Italics supplied) aScITE
Also, We find that all elements of the crime charged were duly established by the prosecution.
The composite crime of robbery with homicide is committed when all the following elements are present, namely: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide in its generic sense is committed. A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. 7
The RTC had thus properly held that "both accused conspired to rob the two (2) security guards of their firearms. When security guard Bagame Tan refused to give in, accused Garcia shot him. On the other hand, when security guard Agcaoili refused to give her gun to accused Jumalon, the latter used force and violence against her in an attempt to get her gun." 8 There being no justifiable ground to reverse the findings of the courts a quo, the judgment of conviction shall remain.
However, We deem it necessary to modify the civil liability imposed to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 9 Accordingly, the heirs of Bagame Tan shall be entitled to the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. On the other hand, Mariel Agcaoili shall be entitled to: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the resolution until fully paid shall be imposed on all the damages awarded herein. 10
Finally, the Court received a Manifestation from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) informing the court of the death of accused-appellant Arlon Garcia y Danoso on June 28, 2018. Following Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the death of the accused totally extinguishes his criminal liability. As such, the death of Arlon Garcia y Danoso during the pendency of the appeal of his conviction would lead to the dismissal, as to him, of the criminal aspect of the case as well as the civil liability arising from such criminal act. 11
WHEREFORE, We DISMISS the appeal for lack of merit; AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the decision dated January 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 06896; ORDER accused-appellant Juanito Jumalon, Jr. y Samson (a) to indemnify the heirs of Bagame Tan in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as temperate damages; (b) to indemnify Mariel Agcaoili in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and IMPOSE interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of the resolution until fully paid. HEITAD
The manifestation of Atty. Mariane Celeste L. Cariño-Lameyra of the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for accused-appellants, submitting the certified true copy of the death certificate of accused-appellant Arlon Garcia, in compliance with the Resolution dated March 6, 2019; the compliance of Atty. Mariane Celeste L. Cariño-Lameyra of the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for accused-appellants, with the Resolution dated March 6, 2019, stating that she filed on March 19, 2019 with thereto attached copy of accused-appellant Garcia's death certificate; the letter dated June 6, 2019 of Mr. Raymund DL. Peneyra, Chief of Corrections Senior Inspector, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, informing the Court that accused-appellant Arlon Garcia y Danoso @ "Allan Tuyong" died on June 28, 2018, with thereto attached photocopy of his death certificate and death report; and the letter dated June 6, 2019 of CSSupt. Arturo N. Sabadisto, Superintendent, NBP East, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, informing the Court that accused-appellant Arlon Garcia y Danoso @ "Allan Tuyong" died on June 28, 2018, with thereto attached photocopy of his death certificate and death report, are all NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by CA Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 153-154.
3.Id. at 25-36; penned by Presiding Judge Toribio E. Ilao, Jr.
4.People v. Pili, G.R. No. 124739, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 118, 131.
5.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
6.People v. Dimapilit y Abellado, G.R. No. 210802, August 9, 2017, 836 SCRA 514, 534; citing People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012, 680 SCRA 386, 416-417.
7.SeePeople v. Latam, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 406, 410.
8. CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
9.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
10. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 459.
11.People v. Antido, G.R. No. 208651, March 14, 2018.