FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233660. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MCCOY PANGILINAN y CAYABYAB and MARVIN PANGILINAN y HANIPIS, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233660 (People of the Philippines v. McCoy Pangilinan y Cayabyab and Marvin Pangilinan y Hanipis). – For resolution is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated June 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04309, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated November 3, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 96, in Criminal Case No. Q-05-136175. The CA affirmed the convictions of accused-appellants McCoy Pangilinan y Cayabyab (McCoy) and Marvin Pangilinan y Hanipis (Marvin) for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedent Facts
On August 8, 2005, an Information was filed charging McCoy and Marvin with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide committed as follows:
The undersigned accuses MCCOY PANGILINAN Y CAYABYAB and MARVIN PANGILINAN Y HANIPIS of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of August 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, accused conspiring together, and confederating with each other, armed with bladed weapons, with intent to gain and by means of force against and intimidation of persons, take the personal property of MARIA THERESA TANGAN-BANATAO in the following manner, to wit: while she and her son were asleep inside their bedroom in their residence located at Blk. 1, Lot 1-B, Summerville Subd., Sauyo Road, this City, said accused forcibly took away the personal properties of MARIA THERESA TANGAN-BANATAO more particularly described as follows:
One (1) Ericsson and one (1) Nokia Cellular Phone Assorted pieces of jewelries worth P20,000.00 and $400.00 dollars cash money.
That on the occasion or as a necessary means to commit robbery, accused with intent to kill, taking advantage of their superior strength, attacked, assaulted MARIA THERESA TANGAN-BANATAO by stabbing her with a bladed weapon, inflicting upon her mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were present in the commission of the offense.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
McCoy and Marvin both pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as its witnesses Alexander Banatao (Alexander), Kyle Kristopher Banatao (Kyle), Police Chief Inspector Dr. Filemon Porciuncula, Jr. (Dr. Porciuncula), Police Officer (PO) 3 Victorio Guerrero, PO3 Renato Morales, PO2 Joseph Merin, and Janice Yu (Janice).
On August 5, 2005, a little past midnight, the victim Maria Theresa T. Banatao (Theresa) and her five-year-old son, Kyle, were asleep in their bedroom on the second floor of their house located at Block 1, Lot 1-B, Summerville Subdivision, Sauyo Road, Quezon City. They were awakened by the forcible entry of McCoy, Marvin, and another assailant through their bedroom window. One man held down Kyle's hands while Marvin stabbed Theresa and McCoy took her money. They then fled the house also through the bedroom window.
Kyle shouted and cried "Mommy, Mommy ko!" which awakened his grandfather sleeping in the adjacent room. Janice, Theresa's sister-in-law, also woke up after hearing Kyle's cries and ran to their bedroom. They saw Theresa bloodied and lying on the floor. They tried to wake her up but she did not move. They brought her to the FEU Hospital but she was pronounced dead on arrival. When they arrived home from the hospital, Janice noticed that Theresa's two cellphones were missing, along with USD 400.00 and jewelry worth P10,000.00. 4
Members of the Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and Scene of the Crime Operatives conducted an investigation at the scene of the crime but did not find any fingerprints.
At around 3:00 a.m., Theresa's mother and sister called Alexander, Theresa's husband, who was a Captain of the Philippine Army assigned in Davao City at the time. They informed him of Theresa's death and he immediately flew back to Manila and went directly to the funeral home. He was able to speak to Kyle at 3:00 p.m. who narrated to him how the men entered through their window and that one man held his hands and threatened him with bodily harm if he shouted. He described one man as having short hair and light complexion, and the other with thick hair and dark complexion. 5
The next day, Alexander and Kyle went to the Police Station upon instruction to identify suspects from a police line-up. The police officers invited McCoy and Marvin, who lived near Theresa, based on a tip from a confidential informant that they were seen selling Theresa's stolen items. Kyle was asked to look at the suspects from the police line-up composed of five persons and he positively identified McCoy and Marvin as the perpetrators of the crime. 6 They were arrested and Kyle proceeded to give his statement to PO2 Edwin DG Dela Cruz, Sr.
Dr. Porciuncula was the medico-legal officer from the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Crime Laboratory who conducted the autopsy of Theresa. His findings showed the presence of 14 external injuries, two incised wounds caused by a bladed sharp weapon, four stab wounds (two in the neck and two in the chest), three contusions, two ecchymosis, and three abrasions on the body. The stab wounds in the neck, in the left chest piercing the heart and the right lung, and the one piercing the left lung, were fatal. It was also found that Theresa was sexually abused. The wounds on Theresa's body indicate that two or more instruments were used by the assailants.
Version of the Defense
McCoy and Marvin interposed the defenses of denial and alibi.
McCoy claimed that on the evening of August 4, 2005, he went to sleep at 10:00 p.m. together with his common-law wife, Mallen Rubia (Mallen), and their child. He was asleep during the time the crime was committed since he had boils (pigsa) and was not feeling well. He woke up at around 7:00 a.m. on August 5, 2005, and went with Marvin to their workplace at Likas Papaya. However, they were told to return the following day since they had no gate passes.
On August 6, 2005, he was not able to return to his workplace since his boils (pigsa) were hurting. He stayed home and slept until he was awakened by police officers who grabbed his neck and handcuffed him. He was taken to the Barangay Hall and then to Camp Karingal. They afterwards proceeded to his workplace at Likas Papaya where Marvin was also arrested. 7
He alleged that the police officers told him and Marvin to admit the crime but they denied it. They were returned to the Police Station at 5:00 p.m. and led to a mirror along with five other people. They were then brought to City Hall for inquest. After the inquest, he and Marvin were brought to separate rooms where they were tortured by the police officers for more than two days.
McCoy's testimony was corroborated by his common-law wife, Mallen. She testified that on the night when the crime occurred, McCoy was at home because he had boils (pigsa) and fever. On August 6, 2005, police officers arrived at their house which prompted her to go to her mother-in-law's house to inform her of the situation. While returning to their house, she saw police officers in civilian clothes arrest and handcuff McCoy and was informed that he would be taken to Camp Karingal. On August 7, 2005, she went to Camp Karingal and saw McCoy with wounds in his head and chest. He informed her that he was tortured by the police officers and forced to admit the crime. 8
Marvin alleged that he did not commit the crime because on the day the crime was committed, he was applying for a job at Likas Papaya with McCoy. They were told to return the next day so he just brought his cousin's children to school and went home. He went to bed at around 9:00 p.m. that evening.
On August 6, 2005, he was arrested in his workplace at Likas Papaya without a warrant. The police told him they wanted to ask something for verification. He was brought to the Barangay Hall then Camp Karingal where he was detained. He was tortured there by police officers who placed a blue SM plastic bag over his head to make it difficult for him to breathe. They forced him to divulge the whereabouts of the stolen items and admit the commission of the crime. The torture stopped when a Colonel Garcia told the police officers that Theresa's relatives were in the other room.
Marvin's testimony was corroborated by his mother, Nilda Pangilinan (Nilda). She testified that on the night the crime was committed, Marvin was sleeping beside her in their house. She alleged that Marvin was arrested in his workplace without a warrant and then detained at Camp Karingal. Marvin was maltreated there but she did not file a case against the police officers due to fear for his life. 9
RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered its Decision 10 dated November 3, 2009 convicting McCoy and Marvin of robbery with homicide:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court finds accused MCCOY PANGILINAN Y CAYABYAB and MARVIN PANGILINAN Y HANIPIS "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and they are hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua. Furthermore, they are hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim in the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity delicto and P100,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 11
The RTC determined that Kyle was a competent and credible child witness. His testimony was not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of any material fact and thus sufficient to support the factual conclusions. 12 It noted that the inconsistencies in his testimony pertained only to minor details that can be expected from a child witness. His overall testimony remained clear and straightforward and he was able to pinpoint McCoy and Marvin for the court from the pictures shown to him without any hesitation. The RTC pertinently pronounced:
As borne out from the records, while mere may be slight inconsistencies in Kyle's testimonies, still it deserves scant consideration and should not be disregarded. It appears that such "inconsistencies" concerned minor details and considering that he is just a minor that cannot fully comprehend to the questions being propounded to him. Moreover, the testimony of the said child as regards assailants' identity and culpability, being clear and straightforward, the court found it to be worthy of credence, which suffices to convict the herein accused. While it is true that during the presentation of the said minor child, the latter failed to identify the herein accused, when they were lined up in the courtroom will not in any way destroy his credibility. In fact, as observed by the Court, when he was confronted by several pictures, without any hesitation, Kyle was able to pinpoint before the Court, the pictures depicting the identity of his mother's assailants. Surprisingly, the picture turned out to be the herein accused. The Supreme Court once held that, family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved one usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants. Being a child of tender years, it is understandable that Kyle may suffer some difficulty in instantaneously recalling the identity of his mother's assailants. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. His immaturity and intelligence in answering the propounded questions while recalling that fatal incident, and also his capacity of not telling blatant lies are given wide latitude and instill belief in the court. A child witness could not be expected to give a precise response to every question posed to him. His failure to give an answer to the point of being free of any minor inconsistencies is understandable and does not make him a witness less worthy of belief.13
Aggrieved, McCoy and Marvin appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
McCoy and Marvin filed their Brief for Accused-Appellants 14 dated August 31, 2016. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the plaintiff-appellee, filed a Brief for the Appellee 15 dated December 12, 2016. McCoy and Marvin thereafter filed a Reply Brief 16 dated January 4, 2017.
CA Ruling
The CA issued its Decision 17 dated June 20, 2017 affirming the convictions of McCoy and Marvin for robbery with homicide:
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM [the] decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City dated 3 November 2009.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA upheld the RTC's findings on Kyle's competency and credibility as a child witness. It stressed that the determination of the competence and capability of Kyle as a child witness rests primarily with the trial judge who had the unique advantage of examining his demeanor during trial. 19 It further held that McCoy and Marvin's unsubstantiated testimonies had stark inconsistencies that created doubt on the credibility of their defenses. 20
McCoy and Marvin appealed the CA Decision to this Court. 21
The Court issued its Resolution 22 dated November 8, 2017 ordering the parties to submit their respective Supplemental Briefs. Both parties manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs since they have extensively and exhaustively discussed all the issues and arguments in their Briefs submitted before the CA. 23
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming the convictions of McCoy and Marvin for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Ruling of the Court
McCoy and Marvin primarily argued in their appeal 24 that their conviction constituted reversible error on the grounds that (1) the prosecution failed to offer the allegedly stolen items in evidence or present the police's confidential informant as a witness, (2) their warrantless arrest was illegal, and (3) Kyle's testimony, as the only evidence linking them to the crime, was seriously flawed. 25
They emphasized that Kyle failed to identify them in open court which shows the weakness and inaccuracy of his testimony. They additionally claimed that the trial court judge committed a highly irregular act when he presented only three pictures to Kyle for verification when he called him to the court chambers to identify the suspects again. 26 Hence, "a positive identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded evidentiary force." 27
The OSG, representing plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, argued that (1) Kyle's testimony was credible and sufficiently identified McCoy and Marvin as the assailants, and (2) the defenses of alibi and denial were unsubstantiated and thus cannot prevail over Kyle's positive identification. 28
The appeal is denied. The convictions of McCoy and Marvin are affirmed.
Kyle's Testimony as a Child
The primary argument made on appeal is that Kyle's testimony as a child witness was flawed and inaccurate. This was anchored on the fact that Kyle made a mistake in identifying McCoy and Marvin in open court during trial. Further claims were made that Kyle's out-of-court identifications were tainted with irregularities and anomalies and should therefore not have been considered.
This argument is bereft of merit.
It was established in People v. Esugon29 that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness in the absence of contrary proof. The assessment of a child witness's credibility is best left to the trial court which is in the best position to observe his or her demeanor during trial. Hence, the factual findings and assessment of witnesses' testimonies made by a trial judge are accorded great respect on appeal. The Court thus pronounced:
That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December 2000), every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's competency. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child.
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court. All questions bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying, something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and function of its office. The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, particularly the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court. 30 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
Similar to this case, the child witness involved in Esugon was the victim's five-year-old son. The Court here gave significant weight to the common findings of the CA and the RTC on the child witness's credibility and capacity to perceive and communicate his perception. It was stressed that these findings cannot be disturbed on appeal absent a strong showing of mistake or misappreciation on the part of the trial court:
For sure, he could not be expected to act and to react to what happened like an adult. Although children have different levels of intelligence and different degrees of perception, the determination of their capacity to perceive and of their ability to communicate their perception to the courts still pertained to the trial court, because it concerned a factual issue and should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a strong showing of mistake or misappreciation on the part of the trial court.
It is true that an appeal in a criminal case like this one opens the record of the trial bare and open. Even so, the finding of facts by the trial court are still entitled to great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA. This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial court's direct and personal access to the witnesses while they testify in its presence, giving them the unique opportunity to observe their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, and to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or sincere and trustworthy. With both the RTC and the CA sharing the conviction on Carl's credibility, his capacity to perceive and his ability to communicate his perception, we cannot depart from their common conclusion. Moreover, according credence to Carl's testimony despite his tender age would not be unprecedented. In People v. Mendiola, the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals, the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. As such, Carl's testimony was entitled to full probative weight.
Carl positively identified the appellant as the culprit during the investigation and during the trial. Worthy to note is that the child could not have been mistaken about his identification of him in view of his obvious familiarity with the appellant as a daily presence in the billiard room maintained by the child's family. Verily, the evidence on record overwhelmingly showed that the appellant, and no other, had robbed and stabbed the victim. 31 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
In People v. Nuñez, 32 citing People v. Teehankee, Jr., 33 this Court applied the totality of circumstances test to assess the witnesses' credibility and enumerated the following factors which must be considered:
(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. (Citation omitted)
It was pronounced in Nuñez that a witness's credibility depends on his or her opportunity to view the malefactor and the degree of attention possessed at the time of the incident. Necessarily, the accuracy and reliability of a witness's identification is affected by the lapse of time. It was thus elucidated that what is most critical is the witness's initial identification during the investigation stage right after the incident, and not the identification during trial. It was pertinently held:
A witness' credibility is ascertained by considering the first two factors, i.e., the witness' opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime and the witness' degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility and the extent of time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to be exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain their identity. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The degree of a witness' attentiveness is the result of many factors, among others: exposure time, frequency of exposure, the criminal incidents' degree of violence, the witness stress levels and expectations, and the witness' activity during the commission of the crime.
xxx xxx xxx
The totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the moment of identification. What is most critical here is the initial identification made by the witness during investigation and case build-up, not identification during trial.
A witness' certainty is tested in court during cross-examination. In several instances, this Court has considered a witness' straight and candid recollection of the incident, undiminished by the rigors of cross-examination as an indicator of credibility.
Still, certainty on the witness stand is by no means conclusive. By the time a witness takes the stand, he or she shall have likely made narrations to investigators, to responding police or barangay officers, to the public prosecutor, to any possible private prosecutors, to the families of the victims, other sympathizers, and even to the media. The witness, then, may have established certainty, not because of a foolproof cognitive perception and recollection of events but because of consistent reinforcement borne by becoming an experienced narrator. Repeated narrations before different audiences may also prepare a witness for the same kind of scrutiny that he or she will encounter during cross-examination. Again, what is more crucial is certainty at the onset or on initial identification, not in a relatively belated stage of criminal proceedings.
The totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the length of time between the crime and the identification made by the witness. "It is by now a well established fact that people are less accurate and complete in their eyewitness accounts after a long retention interval than after a short one." Ideally then, a prosecution witness must identify the suspect immediately after the incident. This Court has considered acceptable an identification made two (2) days after the commission of a crime, not so one that had an interval of five and a half (5 1/2) months. 34 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
In this case, both the CA and the RTC upheld Kyle's credibility and capacity as a qualified witness. This is a factual finding which the Court gives great respect since it was the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe Kyle's demeanor and behavior during his questioning in court and inside the Judge's closed chambers.
Based on the records, Kyle evidently had a clear opportunity to see Marvin and McCoy during their commission of the crime. Kyle was inside the room with his mother when they entered through the window. Although the incident occurred at night, he could see them because the lamp was turned on. It also cannot be denied that he saw them since they held his hand and spoke to him during the incident. Kyle accordingly testified:
ATTY. CALLUENG:
xxx xxx xxx
Q Saan dumaan?
A Sa bintana.
Q Pumasok sa bintana?
A Opo.
Q Nung pumasok sa bintana anong ginagawa mo, nagtutulog-tulugan sa tabi ni mommy?
A Opo.
Q Yung humawak sa 'yo, bakit ka hinawakan, malikot ka, kasi sumisigaw ka?
A Hindi po.
Q Tulog si mommy?
A Gising.
Q Ano sabi ni mommy sa kanila, labas kayo dito?
A Hindi.
Q Ano sabi ni mommy?
A Wala.
Q Bukas yung ilaw sa lamp?
A Opo.
Q Yung lamp beside sa bed bukas ba?
A Opo.
Q Nakita mo sila, yung mga taong dumaan sa bintana?
A Nakita mo sila, yung mga taong dumaan sa bintana?
Q Yung humawak ng kamay mo nakita mo din?
A Opo.
Q Sino doon sa mga taong dumaan sa bintana ang may kinuha sa loob ng kuwarto n'yo?
A (The child pointed to McCoy Pangilinan) 35
Hence, when the police officers arrived at the scene of the crime to investigate, Kyle was able to recount to them what he saw and informed them that he would be able to recognize the perpetrators of the crime. This investigation happened on the same night right after the commission of the crime leaving little opportunity for any person to coach or manipulate Kyle. Kyle's Affidavit executed on August 5, 2005, given before PO2 Ronaldo F. Nava, thus states:
1. [T:] Ano ang pangalan mo?
[S:] Kyle Christopher Banatao y Tangan
2. T: Ano ang nakita mo sa kwarto ng mommy mo?
S: Dalawang lalake.
3. T: Ano ang ginawa ng dalawang lalake?
S: Pinalo ang mommy. Ang isa bumaba.
4. T: Kyle, mamumukhaan mo ba sila?
S: Opo.
5. T: Ano pa ang nakita mo?
S: May kutsilyo po ang isa. 36
Moreover, Kyle identified Marvin and McCoy as the perpetrators of the crime during the police's investigation a day after the incident while his memory was still fresh.
On August 6, 2005, Kyle was requested to return to the police station where he was asked for details on what he saw the previous night. He gave a consistent narration of what happened and reaffirmed that he would be able to recognize the perpetrators of the crime if shown to him.
He was then asked to verify if any of the perpetrators were present among a police line-up of five persons, from which he readily identified McCoy and Marvin. These events were narrated in Kyle's Karagdagang Salaysay37 executed on August 6, 2005, as follows:
08. T: Ano ba ang pangalan ng MOMMY mo, KYLE?
S: MARIA THERESA T. BANATAO.
09. T: Paano ba pinatay si MOMMY mo, KYLE?
S: Saksak sa leeg at dibdib.
10. T: Nasaan si MOMMY mo ng sinaksak siya?
S: Nandoon sa higaan.
11. T: Nakita mo bang sinaksak si MOMMY mo?
S: Opo.
12. T: Sino ba ang kasama ni MOMMY mo sa higaan?
S: Ako.
13. T: Nakita mo ba ang sumaksak kay MOMMY mo?
S: Opo.
14. T: Ano ba ang sumaksak sa mommy mo lalaki ba o babae?
S: Lalaki.
15. T: Ilang lalaki ba ang sumaksak kay MOMMY mo?
S: Dalawa.
16. T: Ano ba ang ginamit na panaksak kay MOMMY mo?
S: Kutsilyo po.
17. T: Kung makikita mo ba ang mukha ng sumaksak kay mommy mo maituturo mo ba ulit sila?
S: Yes.
18. T: May ipakikita ako sa iyo na mga lalaki, na may mga number sila 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ituro mo nga sa akin ang lalaki na nakita mo na sumaksak kay mommy mo? (This prober presented to witness five male persons with corresponding number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for immediate identification. Sino ba sa mga lalaki na may mga number ang nakita mo na sumaksak kay mommy mo, ituro mo nga sa akin?
S: No. 2 and No. 4 (Witness during police line-up, positively identified two male persons with number 2 and 4, when I asked their identities they gave themselves as No. 4 MC COY PANGILINAN y CAYABYAB, 19 years old, single, jobless, and a resident of No. 135 Sauyo Road, Brgy. Sauyo, Novaliches, Quezon City, and No. 2 MARVIN PANGILINAN y HANIPIS, 24 years old, single, laborer and a resident of the same address)
19. T: Iyong lalaking itinuro mo na may number 2 and 4 na sumaksak kay mommy mo, may ginawa ba sila sa iyo?
S: Pinalo po ako.
20. T: Saan ka ba pinalo noong dalawang lalaki (Referring to MC COY PANGILINAN and MARVIN PANGILINAN)
S: Left na kamay.
Contrary to the prosecution's insinuation, no sufficient proof was adduced that Alexander coached Kyle into identifying McCoy and Marvin during the police line-up. No ill motive can be imputed on Alexander since he did not even know McCoy and Marvin and testified that he only first saw them at the police line-up conducted. 38
Alexander confirmed during his direct examination that McCoy and Marvin were the ones identified by Kyle from the police line-up:
Q So, in short, there was a police line-up conducted?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many persons presented before you by the police officers?
A There were five (5) persons, sir.
Q Did your son identify the persons responsible [for] the killing of your wife?
A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Witness, so you were also present when your son Kyle identified the persons responsible [for] the killing of your wife?
A Yes, actually, "magkasama po kami."
Q If these persons were shown to you, would you be able to identify them also?
A Yes, sir.
Q If these persons are present in the court room now, could you please point to them?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please step down and tap the shoulder of the person you identify. (Witness step down on the witness stand and proceeded to the public area of the court room, on the second row, tap the shoulder of a male persons wearing yellow t-shirt)
THE COURT:
Could you please give your names?
(Who when asked by the Court answered the names of MARVIN PANGILINAN and MCCOY PANGILINAN)
(Witness returned to the witness stand) 39
The Letter Referral for Inquest 40 issued by the QCPD to the Department of Justice Prosecutor likewise confirmed that Kyle's identification of the accused during the investigation was given in straightforward manner showing credibility.
During trial, Kyle failed to identify both the accused in open court. However, when shown pictures, he was able to identify Marvin Pangilinan. Notably, although he failed to identify McCoy Pangilinan, he registered a negative reaction when shown a picture of him by the private prosecutor:
ATTY. QUIJANO:
May I ask counsel to show the pictures? Your Honor, counsel having presented the pictures might prejudice the right of the accused.
THE COURT:
Noted.
Spread and let the child pick the photographs. Are you not admitting?
ATTY. QUIJANO:
As far as my client is concerned. . . they have already, Your Honor.
ATTY. CALLUENG:
May mga pictures dito, Kyle?
ATTY. QUIJANO:
May I just make of record, Your Honor, that the accused are present at the other side of the court room.
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Q Sino ang humawak sa kamay mo, who hold your hands?
THE FISCAL:
May we make of record, Your Honor, at the middle, the child took one picture.
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Q Yan ba 'yon? Sino sumaksak sa mommy?
A (The child took the second picture, as the one who stabbed the victim)
There are two (2) pictures pointed earlier by the child, the first picture is Billy Lim, Jr., and the second picture is Marvin Pangilinan.
Q Tanong ko uli sa 'yo, Kyle, sino humawak sa kamay mo?
ATTY. QUIJANO:
Objection, Your Honor, it was already answered.
THE COURT:
Go to another question.
THE FISCAL:
Considering the developmental age of the child, Your Honor, we just want to ask the witness as to the names, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Q Tingnan mong mabuti (The pictures handed and shown to the child) Sino humawak sa kamay mo?
A Again, the child pointed to the picture of Billy Lim, Jr.
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Your Honor please, we also. . .
THE FISCAL:
It seems, Your Honor, that the first picture taken by the witness, is the same with the one previously pointed by the child.
ATTY. QUIJANO:
I would disagree, Your Honor.
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Q Anong ginawa nito sa 'yo? (Referring to the picture of Billy Lim, Jr.)
A Hinawakan po ako.
Q Ito, ano ang ginawa sa 'yo nito? (Showing the picture of Mccoy Pangilinan) Anong ginawa nito sa 'yo?
A Negative reaction when shown the picture of Mccoy Pangilinan. 41
Despite Kyle's mistake in including Billy Lim, Jr. as an additional perpetrator, the fact remains that he still identified both McCoy and Marvin as perpetrators of the crime through their pictures:
Q Nakita mo sila, yung mga taong dumaan sa bintana?
A Opo.
Q Yung humawak ng kamay mo, nakita mo din?
A Opo.
Q Sino doon sa mga taong dumaan sa bintana ang may kinuha sa loob ng kwarto niyo?
A The child pointed to Mccoy Pangilinan.
Q Ano ang kinuha nung tao na yun?
A Pera po.
Q Saan n'ya kinuha yung pera?
A Ewan ko.
Q Nakita mo ba yung pera, hawak-hawak niya yung pera?
A Opo.
Q Ito ang sumaksak kay mommy, ito ang humawak sa'yo?
A Opo.
Q Nandoon ba silang tatlo, sino pa yung pumasok na dumaan sa bintana?
A (The child pointed to the first picture, the one who stabbed the victim, the second picture identified by the child was Mccoy Pangilinan, who is also one of the accused in this case; the third one, identified by the child was Billy Lim, Jr.)
Q Sinong may kinuha sa loob ng kuwarto n'yo?
A Witness child pointed at Mccoy Pangilinan.
Q At yung humawak sa 'yo?
A Witness pointed to Billy Lim, Jr.'s picture.
THE FISCAL:
The first picture identified was Marvin Pangilinan, ang sumaksak sa victim; the second picture who took something, identified by the child witness was Mccoy Cayabyab; and the last picture identified by the witness, who stabbed the deceased, was Marvin Pangilinan. 42
All told, the totality of circumstances supports the unanimous finding by the CA and the RTC that Kyle was a credible eyewitness. Kyle positively identified McCoy and Marvin through pictures twice during trial and, more importantly, at the police line-up a day after the incident. He had a clear opportunity to see them and possessed sufficient attentiveness during the commission of the crime.
The CA correctly observed that to a child witness like Kyle, McCoy and Marvin may have looked different when they were presented to him in open court for identification over six months after the incident. However, he immediately identified them when shown their photographs taken right after they were arrested. The Court concurs with the CA's pertinent findings on Kyle's credibility:
The accused-appellants have capitalized on the failure of the child witness Kyle to pinpoint the accused-appellants in the court room. This incident does not in any way impair the credibility of Kyle. It must be remembered that Kyle was only five years old when the heinous crime occurred on 5 August 2005 and he testified on 23 January 2006, or almost six months thereafter. McCoy and Marvin, in the courtroom, might have looked differently from what Kyle had pictured of them in his mind six months ago. When presented several photographs, including that of the accused-appellants taken immediately after their arrest in August, 2005, Kyle was able to pinpoint them. Considering his tender years, his innocence, it is improbable that Kyle would testify falsely that the accused-appellants stabbed his mother and took away items from their house. Further, an ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded him as a child witness gripped with the tension due to the novelty and the experience in testifying before the trial court.
As the records show, Kyle positively pointed to the accused-appellants as the persons who entered their bedroom through the window and pinpointed twice to Marvin as the one who stabbed his mother and McCoy (also twice) as the one who took money from their home.
In addition, the husband of the victim, Alexander Banatao, in his testimony, clearly stated that Kyle was able to identify the accused-appellants from the police line-up composed of five males and proceeded to identify them in the courtroom. x x x 43
Consequently, the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming Kyle's credibility and capacity as a child witness. No substantial reasons were raised on appeal to reverse this factual determination.
The Prosecution Sufficiently
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is punished under Article 294 (1) 44 of the RPC, to wit:
ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
To be convicted of robbery with homicide, the following elements must be established:
1. The taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
4. On the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. 45 (Citations omitted)
In robbery with homicide, the offender's original criminal intent must be to commit robbery. The killing, which may occur before, during, or after the robbery, is merely incidental and subsidiary. 46
In this case, the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of robbery with homicide. The RTC, affirmed by the CA, gave credence to Kyle's testimony positively identifying McCoy and Marvin as the assailants who entered their house, stabbed his mother, Theresa, and fled after taking personal property. The relevant portions of Kyle's testimony are quoted below:
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Q Kyle, may kapatid ka ba?
A My playmate "Adi", in Tuguergarao.
Q Where is your mommy?
A (The child did not answer the question)
Q What happened to your mommy?
A (The child has a negative reaction)
Q Mommy is not here, where is your mommy?
A In heaven.
Q Kyle, alam mo bakit nasa heaven si mommy?
A She is dead.
Q Alam mo paano sinaktan si mommy?
A Yes. (The child nodded)
Q Saan sinaktan si mommy . . . sinaksak si mommy?
A (Again, the child registering in a negative by just shaking his head)
Q May ipapakita kaming pictures sa 'yo, sabihin . . . ituro mo sa amin ha?
A (The child just nodded)
Q Saan sinaksak si mommy?
A (The child pointed to his neck)
Q Saan dumaan yung sumaksak kay mommy, through the window?
A Sa bintana.
Q Ilan sila?
A Dalawa.
Q Saan ka hinawakan?
A My two (2) hands.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. CALLUENG:
Q Yung sumaksak kay mommy, ano ang kinuha nya sa loob ng kwarto?
A Wala.
Q Pero meron siyang kinuha, 'di ba, cell phone?
A Oo.
Q Saan dumaan?
A Sa bintana.
Q Pumasok sa bintana?
A Opo.
Q Nung pumasok sa bintana anong ginagawa mo, nagtutulog-tulugan sa tabi ni mommy?
A Opo.
Q Yung humawak sa 'yo, bakit ka hinawakan, malikot ka, kasi sumisigaw ka?
A Hindi po.
Q Tulog si mommy?
A Gising.
Q Ano sabi ni mommy sa kanila, labas kayo dito?
A Hindi.
Q Ano sabi ni mommy?
A Wala.
Q Bukas yung ilaw sa lamp?
A Opo.
Q Yung lamp beside sa bed bukas ba?
A Opo.
Q Nakita mo sila, yung mga taong dumaan sa bintana?
A Opo.
Q Yung humawak ng kamay mo nakita mo din?
A Opo.
Q Sino doon sa mga taong dumaan sa bintana ang may kinuha sa loob ng kuwarto n'yo?
A (The child pointed to Mccoy Pangilinan)
Q Ano ang kinuha nung tao na 'yun?
A Pera po.
Q Saan n'ya kinuha yung pera?
A Ewan ko.
Q Nakita mo ba yung pera, hawak-hawak n'ya yung pera?
A Opo.
Q Ito ang sumaksak kay mommy, ito ang humawak sa 'yo?
A Opo.
Q Nandoon ba silang tatlo, sino pa yung pumasok na dumaan sa bintana?
A (The child pointed to the first picture, the one who stabbed the victim, the second picture identified by the child was Mccoy Pangilinan, who is also one of the accused in this case; the third one, identified by the child was Billy Lim, Jr.)
Q Sinong may kinuha sa loob ng kwarto n'yo?
A Witness child pointed to Mccoy Pangilinan.
Q At yung humawak sa 'yo?
A Witness pointed to Billy Lim, Jr.'s picture.
THE FISCAL:
The first picture identified was Marvin Pangilinan, ang sumaksak sa victim; the second picture who took something, identified by the child witness was Mccoy Cayabyab; and the last picture identified by the witness, who stabbed the deceased was Marvin Pangilinan. 47
Kyle's testimony was corroborated by Janice who testified that when they returned home from the FEU hospital, she discovered that Theresa's two cellphones, money, and jewelry were missing. 48
It is evident from the foregoing that the first and second elements of robbery with homicide are present. McCoy and Marvin surreptitiously entered Theresa's bedroom and used violence and intimidation through their bladed weapons to steal her mobile phones, money, and jewelry. The third element of intent to gain is also present and is presumed from the overt acts of unlawful taking. 49
The fourth element is present since on the occasion of the robbery, Theresa was killed by the multiple stab wounds inflicted by Marvin. This was substantiated by Dr. Porciuncula's medical findings from the autopsy of Theresa's body.
The argument that the prosecution failed to offer evidence of the stolen items cannot stand. The Court in People v. De Jesus50 established that the stolen property need not be presented in court to support a conviction for robbery with homicide, provided the fact of asportation has been established:
Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved. 51 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
In this case, the fact of asportation of the stolen items was proven through the credible testimonies of Kyle who saw the actual taking, and Janice who confirmed that Theresa's belongings were missing.
All told, the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of the crime of robbery with homicide to hold McCoy and Marvin guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Their defenses of denial and alibi were unsubstantiated and inherently weak. These cannot prevail over Kyle's clear and credible testimony, as further corroborated by other testimonial and documentary evidence.
Imposable Penalties
The Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on McCoy and Marvin in accordance with Article 294 (1) of the RPC.
However, the Court modifies the ruling on the damages awarded pursuant to the landmark case of People v. Jugueta. 52 Accordingly, McCoy and Marvin are liable to pay the heirs of Theresa the following:
1. Civil Indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00;
2. Moral Damages in the amount of P75,000.00;
3. Temperate Damages in the amount of P50,000.00; and
4. Exemplary Damages in the amount of P75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04309 is AFFIRMED. MCCOY PANGILINAN y CAYABYAB and MARVIN PANGILINAN y HANIPIS are GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide punished under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and each sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
They are ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Maria Theresa T. Banatao damages in the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
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. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Ramon R. Garcia and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court).
2.Id. at 160-178; penned by Presiding Judge Afable E. Cajigal.
3. Records, p. 1.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id. at 5.
6.Id. at 5-6.
7.Id. at 7.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9.Id. at 9.
10. CA rollo, pp. 160-178.
11.Id. at 178.
12.Id. at 168.
13.Id. at 169-170.
14.Id. at 142-159.
15.Id. at 185-199.
16.Id. at 202-208.
17.Rollo, pp. 2-17.
18.Id. at 16.
19.Id. at 13.
20.Id. at 16.
21.Id. at 18-21.
22.Id. at 24-25.
23.Id. at 26-31, 35-39.
24.Id. at 142-159.
25. CA rollo, pp. 149-151.
26.Id. at 151-153.
27.Id. at 155-156.
28.Id. at 191-197.
29. 761 Phil. 300 (2015).
30.Id. at 311.
31.Id. at 312-313.
32. 819 Phil. 406, 423 (2017).
33. 319 Phil. 128, 180 (1995).
34.People v. Nuñez, supra note 32 at 423-428.
35. TSN, January 23, 2006, pp. 7-8.
36. Records, p. 9.
37.Id. at 7.
38. TSN, November 29, 2005, pp. 11-12.
39. TSN, November 7, 2005, pp. 21-23.
40. Records, pp. 4-5.
41. TSN, January 23, 2006, pp. 3-5.
42.Id. at 7-8.
43.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
44. As amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
45.People v. Labagala, G.R. No. 221427, July 30, 2018.
46.People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019.
47. TSN, January 23, 2006, pp. 2-8.
48.Rollo, p. 162.
49.People v. Del Rosario, 411 Phil. 676, 686 (2001).
50. 473 Phil. 405 (2004).
51.Id. at 427-428.
52. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).