SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238448. July 1, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FERNANDO LUBAS, JR. ALIAS JUN AND JOURNAL PELLERIN, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238448 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FERNANDO LUBAS, JR. alias JUN and JOURNAL PELLERIN
Appellants Fernando Lubas, Jr. and Journal Pellerin were charged with robbery and homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
After due proceedings, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification of the monetary awards.
Appellants now seek affirmative relief from the Court and pray anew for a verdict of acquittal.
The elements for robbery with homicide are: (a) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide was committed. 1 A conviction 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. 2 HTcADC
Intent to rob the victim Estelita Lozada was evident in appellants' actions. It was amply established that Lubas, through the roof, entered the house where Estelita was staying. He opened the door to let Florencio Pamilgan and Pellerin in. When Estelita woke up and saw them, Lubas knocked her unconscious. Lubas went upstairs but hurried down when he heard Estelita, who had regained consciousness, shouting for help. He strangled her to death while Pellerin just looked on. Thereafter, Lubas and Pellerin went to Estelita's room, rummaged through it and took Estelita's P10,000.00. Appellants acted with cooperation and in concert to rob the victim. The decision to kill came only when Estelita woke up, saw them, and shouted for help.
Against the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies, appellants interposed denial and alibi. We have pronounced time and again that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses who consistently identified the accused as the one who committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial, on the other, the former prevails. 3
In any event, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, this Court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, especially when already affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It is settled that the trial court's factual findings are entitled to great weight and respect because they are in a better position to assess the same where there is no showing, as in this case, that significant facts and circumstances have been overlooked or disregarded. 4 So must it be.
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the trial court's verdict of conviction for robbery with homicide against appellants. Too, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed on them absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, We modify the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages from P100,000.00 each to P75,000.00 each. In addition, We grant P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. These amounts shall earn six (6) percent interest per annum from finality of this decision until fully paid. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated October 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
Appellants Fernando Lubas, Jr. and Journal Pellerin are found GUILTY of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. They are sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay 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.
These amounts shall earn six (6) percent interest per annum from finality of this resolution until fully paid."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Palma, et. al., 754 Phil. 371, 377-378 (2015).
2.People v. Sugan, 661 Phil. 749, 754 (2011).
3. See People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, January 07, 2019.
4. See People v. Quitola, 790 Phil. 75, 88 (2016); People v. Esugon, 761 Phil. 300, 311 (2015).