SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244838. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs. SYLVESTER LAZO y RUSTAS and MARK JEFFERSON TENORIO y BANARES,accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244838 (People of the Philippines v. Sylvester Lazo y Rustas and Mark Jefferson Tenorio y Banares). — On appeal 1 is the March 20, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08189 which affirmed the February 18, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 139, in Criminal Case No. 13-1055 finding accused-appellants Sylvester Lazo y Rustas (Lazo) and Mark Jefferson Tenorio y Banares (Tenorio; collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide.
Version of the Prosecution:
On December 28, 2012, at around 8 p.m., a pregnant Analyn Bibon (Analyn) and her live-in partner, Melvin De Leon Piñon (Melvin), were in their junk shop at No. 11 Guadalupe Bliss, JP Rizal Street, Makati City. Since she was not feeling well, Analyn stood in front of the junk shop while Melvin ate alone. Suddenly, two armed individuals who were later identified as Lazo and Tenorio, entered the junk shop and announced a "hold-up." Tenorio pointed a gun at Analyn. Upon seeing this, Melvin rushed to Analyn's aid by grabbing Tenorio's arm then pushing him. Shortly after, Lazo shot Melvin causing the latter to fall. Tenorio also fired his gun twice. A bullet struck Melvin while the other hit the roof. 4 Subsequently, the attackers fled the scene on board a motorcycle with no license plate. Analyn noticed another unidentified individual riding the motorcycle waiting for Lazo and Tenorio. 5
Analyn ran outside to seek assistance from their neighbors. Melvin's friend, Reynaldo Reyes, helped bring the victim to the hospital. 6 Unfortunately, Melvin was pronounced dead on arrival. 7 At the hospital, the investigating police officers interviewed Analyn. 8
Analyn identified Lazo and Tenorio as the perpetrators from among the 30 photographs shown to her by the police investigators. 9 The autopsy 10 confirmed that the cause of Melvin's death 11 was gunshot wounds to the trunk. The said finding was reduced in writing by Police Inspector Editha Martinez 12 in Medico-Legal Report No. BLMC-A12-354. 13
Melvin's mother, Cecilia Piñon, executed a sworn statement 14 that she learned of the identities of the assailants when the police confirmed it (through the photographs) with Analyn while she was at a hospital in Pasig.
Analyn also executed a sworn statement 15 dated January 3, 2013 where she essentially narrated the facts as alleged by the prosecution. She asserted that if she were to see the assailants again, she would be able to recognize them. She affirmed that the perpetrators failed to take any personal property and that they rode on a black motorcycle to escape.
After almost two weeks, Analyn accomplished another sworn statement 16 dated January 21, 2013. She stated that the police already arrested the malefactors in Pasay City sometime on January 15, 2013 for committing the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms. Additionally, she averred that while she was in the hospital at Pasig, the police officers of Makati and Pasay informed her that they have arrested two individuals on board a black motorcycle who admitted to committing an attempted robbery and shooting in Guadalupe Bliss. They then showed her the photographs of the accused-appellants. She identified them as the persons who killed Melvin.
Relevantly, the Final Investigation Report 17 prepared by Police Officer (PO) 3 Arnel M. Noriega (PO3 Noriega) indicated the following:
04. Follow up investigation was then conducted within the vicinity of the said place for possible identities of the suspects, but [to no] avail, until on January 14, 2013, PSINSP TITOY JAY CUDEN, Commander of PCP2, of Pasay City informed PCINSP ALFREDO DELA CRUZ, Chief of [the Investigation Branch of the Makati City Central Police Station], of the two suspects identified as MARK JEFERSON TENORKO [y] BANARES [and] SYLVESTER LAZO y RUSTAS, who were arrested by elements of PCP 2 for Violation of PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294 [Illegal Possession of Firearms] and during their intense Tactical Interrogation to suspects, they admitted that they were engaged in a Robbery Hold-up and Gun for Hire activities and also revealed that they were the ones who tried to rob a junkshop in Guadalupe Bliss, Brgy[.] Cembo, Makati City and shot its owner.
05. With this information, PCINSP ALFREDO DELA CRUZ dispatched SPO3 ELIZABETH MENDOZA, SPO1 ALFRED REYES and PO3 CHRISTOPHER ABELEDA of follow up unit of this station to proceed to PCP2 in Buendia[,] Pasay City and coordinate [with] PSI CUDEN, [who] accompanied the Makati operatives and proceeded to Pasig General Hospital to meet witness [Analyn] Bibon, who was at that time confined at the said hospital for [check-up] for her to identify the picture of the suspects, thereat when picture of the two (2) suspects Sylvester Lazo and Mark Jefferson [Tenorio], [were] shown to witness [Analyn] Bibon. She positively identified the picture of the two (2) suspects Sylvester Lazo and Mark Jefferson [Tenorio] as the same persons who both shot her [live-in] partner Melvin [Piñon] causing his death, she [elaborated] that suspect Sylvester Lazo was the one who first shot the victim followed by Mark Jefferson [Tenorio]. 18
During her testimony, Analyn recalled that at the time of the incident, the junk shop was well-lit, enabling her to recognize the assailants as they did not cover their faces. 19 She also said that the police officers of Pasay took photographs of the accused-appellants and asked her to identify them while she was still in the hospital at Pasig. 20
On cross-examination, Analyn stated that the door of the junk shop that night was still open. Thus, the perpetrators were able to enter without warning. 21 Also, she claimed that she saw the assailants flee on a motorcycle 22 and that she could identify them since they stood very near her while the felony was happening. 23
Version of the Defense:
Lazo and Tenorio denied the charges and averred that no unusual event occurred on December 28, 2012. They asserted that at around 8 p.m. on January 13, 2013, they were riding a motorcycle owned by Tenorio's friend, Michael Blaza. Since Tenorio did not have a driver's license, they were arrested and detained. They even alleged that the police tried to extort P50,000.00 from them. Since they were unable to produce the money, the police officers planted two firearms on them and charged them with Illegal Possession of Firearms and a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. The police confiscated their personal belongings as well. While detained, they were implicated in the instant case of Attempted Robbery with Homicide. 24
During Tenorio's testimony, he stated that on December 28, 2012, he was driving a colorum tricycle and that nothing unusual happened. 25 However, on January 13, 2013, he was suddenly arrested with Lazo for Illegal Possession of Firearms and a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. 26 He denied participation in the Attempted Robbery with Homicide and asserted that they were only implicated in order to pin the crime on someone. 27
On cross-examination, Tenorio claimed that he reluctantly admitted to the charge to fast track its resolution since he was spending time in prison already. 28 He likewise admitted that he was a resident of Makati City and that it would take about 15 minutes to traverse the distance from his residence to the place of the incident. 29
Lazo likewise denied the charge. He added that he was in his residence in Bataan on the day of the incident and has no idea why he was implicated in this case. 30 He averred that the Information indicated that they were arrested on January 15, 2013 when in fact they were already detained for three days during which their belongings were confiscated and attempts to extort money from them and his sister were made. Since they were unable to deliver the money, they were charged with the offense of Illegal Possession of Firearms. 31
Lazo explained that he delivered rice and money to his sister who lived in Makati City on the day of the incident. 32 He added that he met Tenorio only on January 13, 2013, so that he can be driven to the bus terminal in Pasay City for his commute back to Bataan. 33 He stated that nobody from the Makati police officers investigated the case of Attempted Robbery with Homicide. 34
On cross-examination, Lazo clarified that even if he claimed that the Pasay City police maltreated him, tried to extort money from him, and unjustly charged him, he did not file any case against the said police officers. 35 Also, he acknowledged that even if Analyn identified him through photographs, she still identified him in open court. 36 Moreover, Lazo admitted that he did not have any previous misunderstanding with Analyn and that he did not know why she would point to him as one of the assailants of Melvin. 37
On March 18, 2013, an Information 38 was filed charging Lazo and Tenorio with Attempted Robbery with Homicide, the accusatory portion of which reads:
On the 28th day of December 2012, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, conspiring and confederating, and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, with intent to gain and by means of violence upon persons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of robbery directly by overt acts, in the following manner, to wit: both accused armed with firearms unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Melvin Piñon y De Leon and Analyn Bibon y Palero and once inside, declared a 'hold-up' and threatened the occupants thereof by grabbing hold of Bibon and pointing a gun at her, but accused were not able to perform all the acts of execution which would have produced robbery by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, on the occasion of said attempted robbery, Melvin Piñon y De Leon physically resisted the same which made both accused hurriedly [leave] but not after shooting Piñon several times, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with intent to kill. Present in the commission of the offense are the aggravating circumstances of [nighttime] and abuse of superior strength.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 39
During their arraignment, Lazo and Tenorio entered pleas of "not guilty." 40 At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the RTC's jurisdiction over the case and the identities of the accused-appellants. 41 The parties also stipulated on the following during the trial: 1) the existence, authenticity and due execution of the Final Investigation Report prepared by PO3 Noriega; 2) that PO3 Noriega has no knowledge of the incident; 42 and 3) the validity of the Statement of Account and Original Receipts in relation to the hospitalization and funeral expenses spent on the victim. 43
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its February 18, 2016 Decision, 44 the RTC held that based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the accused-appellants' guilt for Attempted Robbery with Homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Their plan to rob the victims was foiled because of Melvin's intervention that unfortunately resulted in his death. The trial court did not find merit in the accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi, as the positive evidence of the prosecution established that they committed the felony charged in the Information. 45
The RTC did not find any reason to doubt Analyn's identification of Lazo and Tenorio as the assailants given that she was present when the crime occurred. In fact, Tenorio pointed a gun at her while Lazo was just in front of her, and only half a meter away when he (Lazo) shot Melvin. Additionally, the junk shop was well-lit at the time for Analyn to clearly see what was happening. There is likewise no motivation for Analyn to falsely implicate the accused-appellants as she did not know them and did not have any misunderstanding with them prior to the incident. Thus, her reaction is expected due to her desire to bring justice to the death of Melvin, her live-in partner and the late father of her deceased child. 46
Moreover, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength as alleged in the Information. The prosecution established that the accused-appellants were armed with guns and fired at the defenseless victim. Although Melvin already fell to the ground after the first shot, the malefactors shot at him a second time. 47 However, the RTC did not appreciate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime since there was no proof that the accused-appellants purposely sought the darkness of the night to perpetrate the crime. 48
The trial court also held that Lazo and Tenorio conspired with one another. Their acts of "[arriving] together in a motorcycle, and upon entry at the junkshop of the victim [declaring] a hold-up" [demonstrated a common design and purpose]. When the victim resisted, they both fired upon the victim. After the shooting, they immediately left the place on their motorcycle." 49 As such, Lazo and Tenorio should be treated as co-principals of the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide 50 and held equally liable for actual damages (supported by receipts 51 and stipulated 52 upon by the parties) and moral damages. 53 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds both SYLVESTER LAZO y RUSTAS and MARK JEFFERSON TENORIO y BANARES accused herein, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as co-principals of the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, and there being one generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength with no ordinary mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, the maximum period of the penalty provided for by law, and to pay the heirs of the victim actual damages in the total amount of P54,722.63 and moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 and to pay the costs of this suit.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 54
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed 55 to the CA and assigned these errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ON THE FLAWED POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS BY ANALYN BIBON.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 56
Lazo and Tenorio argued that Analyn was not a credible witness and her identification of them through photographs is seriously flawed. They averred that the police showed Analyn their photographs and informed her that they (the accused-appellants) had already confessed to the crime. However, the police did not present to Analyn other pictures or conduct a police line-up. Thus, the out-of-court identification cast doubt on Analyn's credibility. The accused-appellants likewise alleged that Analyn changed her story as to how she identified them when she suddenly claimed that she was presented with 30 photographs of different persons. Supposedly, she conveniently failed to mention the alleged confession of the accused-appellants. Hence, Analyn's identification of them in open court was already influenced by the photographs she was initially shown. 57
On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contended that the crime of Robbery 58 was clearly in the attempted stage since there was no indication that personal property was taken. In fact, the accused-appellants had just announced their intention to rob the victims while pointing a gun at Analyn. The violence upon the person of Analyn precipitated a confrontation with Melvin and resulted in the shooting. 59 Furthermore, Homicide 60 was committed on the occasion of the Attempted Robbery without the circumstances qualifying it to Murder. 61
The OSG pointed out that the identification of accused-appellants was the ultimate result of the investigations conducted by the police officers of the cities of Makati and Pasay. The investigation commenced as soon as Melvin was brought to the hospital after the shooting. Thereafter, on January 15, 2013, the police of Pasay City arrested two individuals riding a motorcycle for Illegal Possession of Firearms. During the investigation, the said individuals admitted that they were involved in an attempted robbery and shooting in Guadalupe Bliss, Makati City. Given the possibility that they could be the same assailants involved in Melvin's death, the police of Makati and Pasay followed-up their investigation with Analyn. Their purpose was to find out if Analyn could identify the persons under the custody of the Pasay police. Indeed, upon seeing the photographs of the said individuals, Analyn identified them as the perpetrators who killed Melvin and attempted to rob them. 62
The OSG argued that accused-appellants' identification was not brought about by the police officers' arbitrary act of showing Analyn a single photograph of a certain person that would suggest that he or she is a suspect. Here, Analyn merely confirmed the suspicion of the police officers based on their follow-up investigation of the Guadalupe Bliss incident. With or without Analyn's confirmation, the identities of the assailants could have been determined based on the available circumstances and the police officers' own verification of the accused-appellants' story. 63 In any case, Analyn was present when the incident happened and had the opportunity to see the faces of the perpetrators. 64
The OSG added that during trial, the defense had the opportunity to clarify Analyn's statements regarding the photographs as well as the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused-appellants but it did not do so. 65 Furthermore, the OSG asserted that factual findings of the trial court deserve respect because of its opportunity to observe the witnesses when they testify 66 and that accused-appellants' alibi and denial cannot undermine the testimony of the eyewitness. 67
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed March 20, 2018 Decision, 68 ruled that the facts clearly established that the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide under Article 297 of the RPC was committed. 69 It noted that although the accused-appellants declared a "hold-up" and pointed a gun at Analyn, the robbery did not materialize because of the timely intervention of Melvin who unfortunately perished afterwards. 70 Furthermore, it held that Analyn's testimony was straightforward and categorical. She clearly saw the assailants with their firearms because they did not cover their faces, added to the fact that the place was well-lit at the time. 71
The appellate court did not find merit in the accused-appellants' denial and alibi in view of Analyn's positive identification, and because they did not cite any reason why she would falsely testify against them. 72 The CA found that Lazo and Tenorio conspired with each other since they carried firearms when they declared the "hold-up" and fired at Melvin when he interceded. Hence, they are equally responsible for Melvin's death. 73
The CA affirmed the RTC's imposition of the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua in light of the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. 74 The appellate court also affirmed the RTC's award of actual and moral damages. In addition, it granted civil indemnity and exemplary damages (in view of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength), as well as legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, 75viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is hereby DENIED and the RTC Decision dated February 18, 2016 in Criminal Case No. 13-1055 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in this manner:
Appellants must pay the heirs of the late Melvin Piñon the following items:
1. the sum of P54,722.63 as actual damages;
2. the sum of P75,000.00 as moral damages;
3. the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
4. the sum of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
5. costs of suit.
All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 76
The accused-appellants then appealed 77 before the Court.
Issue
The main issue is whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide.
Our Ruling
There is no merit in the appeal.
The Court finds no reason to reverse the CA's ruling as it correctly affirmed the factual findings of the RTC. An evaluation of the facts confirms that the prosecution proved the liability of Lazo and Tenorio beyond reasonable doubt. 78 Thence, "[i]t is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. 79 This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that if considered might affect the result of the case." 80
The lower courts' evaluation of the reliability of Analyn's testimony should be given more weight when juxtaposed with the mere denial and alibi of the accused-appellants. Furthermore, Analyn identified the accused-appellants in open court. 81 Regardless of her prior identification through the photographs, what is important is that as an eyewitness, she positively identified Lazo and Tenorio as the perpetrators of the crime during trial. Besides, the identification of the accused-appellants also resulted from a follow-up investigation by the police, as indicated in the Final Investigation Report.
The Information alleged that the accused-appellants committed the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), to wit:
Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. — When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.
The elements of this felony are as follows: (1) there is an attempted or frustrated robbery; and (2) a homicide is committed. 82 To capture the essence of the special complex crimes of Attempted Robbery with Homicide and Robbery with Homicide, the following narrative is instructive. Robbery with Homicide, wherein the robbery was consummated, "carries a severe penalty because the law sees in this crime that men place lucre above the value of human life, thus justifying the imposition of a harsher penalty than that for simple robbery or homicide. 83 Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime." 84
The following are the elements of Robbery with Homicide: "(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." 85 It should be established that the main intent of the perpetrators was to commit robbery, and that the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. Stated differently, "[t]he intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery." 86
In this case, the chief objective of the malefactors was to rob the victims; they immediately demonstrated their intent to gain by displaying their guns. This became clearly manifest when Lazo and Tenorio declared a "hold-up" the moment they entered the junk shop. In like manner, the accused-appellants employed violence and intimidation against Analyn (by pointing a gun at her) and Melvin (by shooting him).
Nonetheless, the robbery remained in the attempted stage 87 since the accused-appellants were not able to perform all the acts of execution which would have consummated the robbery by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance, i.e., Melvin's intervention and resistance. Analyn confirmed that the perpetrators were not able to forcibly take anything. The element of taking was absent, affirming that the robbery stayed in the attempted stage.
All the same, the death of Melvin was caused by his act of protecting Analyn by shoving Tenorio away from her. Lazo and Tenorio shot Melvin to death even if their primary purpose was to commit robbery. They fired at him to deter resistance and as a means of escape and not because their main goal was to commit the homicide. The killing happened by reason or on the occasion of the attempted robbery so the resulting homicide 88 cannot be treated as a separate offense but rather, as part of the special complex crime under Article 297 of the RPC. In addition, the circumstances that would qualify the killing to Murder 89 are not present in this case.
As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, both Lazo and Tenorio shall bear equal criminal responsibility. Indeed, "[t]he rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the [attempted] robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of [attempted] robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." 90
Lazo and Tenorio simultaneously and voluntarily cooperated with each other in committing the crime. Emboldened by their possession of firearms, they entered the junk shop and declared a "hold-up." Such conspiracy "may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when these point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest." 91 Here, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the malefactors showed unity of will and design in committing the crime, more so when they both shot Melvin to incapacitate him and then fled the scene.
In line with this, the Information alleged the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. 92 Undoubtedly, the two aggressors carried guns that could inflict fatal damage, and they unfortunately did. The attack on the victim who was unarmed and defenseless was sudden. Clearly, Tenorio and Lazo abused their superior strength as they knew that the vulnerable Analyn or Melvin could not subdue or stop them. There was no indication that either Analyn or Melvin possessed any weapon to protect each other, considering that the accused-appellants unexpectedly appeared and declared their aim to rob. Additionally, the accused-appellants did not show that they sustained any injury during the incident. Such observation bolstered the allegation that Lazo and Tenorio purposefully employed strength in numbers and weapons to ensure that no damage or injury would befall upon them.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength should be appreciated notwithstanding any claim that the Information did not sufficiently describe the acts executed by the assailants which demonstrated their superior strength. The accused-appellants are deemed to have waived the supposed defect in the Information by their failure to file a motion to quash the Information or a bill of particulars before their arraignment. 93 During their arraignment, they voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" and proceeded with the trial. Withal, Tenorio and Lazo are aware of the implications of the crime being charged against them as indicated in the Information. 94 In any case, the Information stated that Lazo and Tenorio held guns during the incident, pointed one at Analyn and shot Melvin to death. The appreciation of this generic aggravating circumstance would have an effect on the imposable penalty upon them.
In the same vein, the prosecution alleged the existence of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. However, the Information did not specifically allege the facts constituting such circumstance 95 and did not state how Lazo and Tenorio specifically sought the darkness of the night to commit the felony.
Regardless, the accused-appellants denied the charges and presented their respective alibis. However, jurisprudence teaches that "[p]ositive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law." 96 Tenorio did not present any witness to substantiate his claim that he was driving the colorum tricycle on the night of the incident. Lazo similarly did not offer the testimony of a witness to support his allegation that he was in Bataan on December 28, 2012. Simply put, their alibis were not corroborated by any disinterested witnesses. 97 Hence, the accused-appellants failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime, 98 especially when it can be gathered from their testimonies that they both had ties and access to Makati City when the felony took place.
With regard to the imposable penalty, Article 297 of the RPC states that Attempted Robbery with Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In line with this, Article 63 of the RPC provides that if a generic aggravating circumstance exists, the higher penalty should be imposed. In the case at bench, since abuse of superior strength is considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the higher penalty which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed. 99
Furthermore, in line with recent jurisprudence, 100 the CA's monetary awards and imposition of legal interest are affirmed. However, the award for exemplary damages should be increased to P75,000.00. To reiterate, all the monetary awards should earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until full payment. 101
Notably, during the pendency of the case, Tenorio died. 102 Thus, pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, Tenorio's criminal liability is extinguished. 103 Consequently, Criminal Case No. 13-1055 before Branch 139 of Makati City is dismissed as against Tenorio.
It is unfortunate that a failed robbery caused the death of an innocent individual. Although the victim should be commended for his bravery in protecting a loved one, it will all be for naught since he already passed away. To at least provide a way to alleviate the pain of the people left behind by the victim, the Court has the duty to mete the appropriate punishment for those responsible, even if this means that the victim's life could not be revived anymore.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed March 20, 2018 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08189 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award for exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00. All the monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the Resolution until full satisfaction. Criminal Case No. 13-1055 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 139 of Makati City is DISMISSED insofar as Mark Jefferson Tenorio y Banares is concerned in view of his demise pending appeal.
The letter dated June 17, 2021 of C/Insp. Raul B. Sinadjan, Jr., Chief of Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, informing the Court of the death of PDL Mark Jefferson y Banares on March 23, 2021 per the attached Notice of Death dated March 23, 2021 of the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, Muntinlupa City, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-15.
2.Id. at 3-12. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of this Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
3. CA rollo, pp. 15-25. Penned by Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.
4. TSN, December 4, 2013, pp. 7-8.
5.Rollo, pp. 4-5; Records, pp. 13-14: TSN, December 4, 2013, pp. 13-14.
6. TSN, December 4, 2013, p. 9.
7.Rollo, p. 5.
8. CA rollo, p. 88.
9. TSN, December 4, 2013, pp. 25-26.
10. Records, pp. 130-133.
11.Id. at 16.
12. TSN, February 5, 2014, p. 13.
13. Records, p. 129.
14.Id. at 11.
15.Id. at 13-14.
16.Id. at 15.
17.Id. at 9-10.
18.Id. at 10.
19. TSN, December 4, 2013, pp. 10, 13.
20.Id. at 12.
21.Id. at 19-20.
22.Id. at 23.
23.Id. at 25.
24.Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 46.
25. TSN, October 8, 2014, pp. 4-5.
26.Id. at 5.
27.Id. at 7.
28.Id. at 13-14.
29.Id. at 15-16.
30. TSN, June 3, 2015, pp. 4-5.
31.Id. at 5, 7-8. TSN, August 13, 2015, pp. 7-8.
32.Id. at 6.
33.Id. at 7.
34.Id. at 9-10.
35.Id. at 7-8.
36.Id. at 8.
37.Id. at 9.
38. Records, pp. 2-3.
39.Id. at 2.
40.Id. at 35-36.
41.Id. at 65-66.
42.Id. at 83-84.
43.Id. at 109-110.
44. CA rollo, pp. 15-25.
45.Id. at 23.
46. CA rollo, pp. 23-24; TSN, December 4, 2013, pp. 15-16.
47.Id. at 24.
48.Id.
49.Id.
50.Id.
51. Records, pp. 136-138.
52.Id. at 109-110.
53. CA rollo, p. 24.
54.Id. at 24-25.
55.Id. at 28-29.
56.Id. at 42.
57.Id. at 47-49.
58. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 293.
59. CA rollo, pp. 90-91.
60. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 248.
61. CA rollo, p. 91.
62.Id. at 92.
63.Id. at 94-95.
64.Id. at 95-96.
65.Id. at 98-99.
66.Id. at 100.
67.Id. at 101-102.
68.Rollo, pp. 3-12.
69.Id. at 6-7.
70.Id. at 7.
71.Id. at 7-9.
72.Id. at 9.
73.Id. at 10.
74.Id.
75.Id. at 10-11.
76.Id. at 11-12.
77.Id. at 13-15, 17.
78. RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, § 2.
79.People v. Masilang, G.R. No. 246466, January 26, 2021 citing People v. Dinglasan, 334 Phil. 691, 704 (1997).
80.Id.
81. TSN, February 5, 2014, pp. 6-7.
82.People v. Barra, 713 Phil. 698, 706 (2013).
83.People v. Roelan, G.R. No. 241322, September 8, 2020 citing People v. Salazar, 342 Phil. 745, 766 (1997).
84.Id., citing People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 238 (2013).
85.Id., citing People v. Bacyaan, G.R. No. 238457, September 18, 2019.
86.Id., citing Crisostomo v. People, 644 Phil. 53, 61 (2010).
87. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 6. "There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance."
88. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 249.
89. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 248.
90.People v. Roelan, supra note89 citing People v. Sabadao, 398 Phil. 346, 366 (2000).
91.Id. citing People v. De la Rosa, Jr., 395 Phil. 643, 659 (2000).
92. Records, p. 1.
93.People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019.
94.See: People v. SilvederioIII y Javelosa, G.R. No. 239777, July 8, 2020, citing People v. Solar, supra.
95. RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, § 9.
Section 9.Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
96.People v. Masilang, supra note 85 citing People v. De Guzman, 352 Phil. 304, 313 (1998).
97.People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 239138, February 17, 2021, citing People v. Velasco, 722 Phil. 243 (2013).
98.Id.
99.People v. Barra, supra note 88 at 706.
100.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848-849 (2016).
101.Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, 720 Phil. 828, 840 (2013), citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 281-283 (2013) citing BSP-MB Circular No. 799 dated May 16, 2013.
102. See letter dated June 17, 2021 of CSInsp. Raul B. Sinadjan, Jr., Chief of Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, rollo, unpaginated.
103. See People v. Bulaclac, G.R. No. 229202, January 26, 2021.