People v. Soriano y De Ocampo

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242211. June 26, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.BIENVENIDO SORIANO y DE OCAMPO AND JOHN PAUL ROTONE y SUPE, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 26, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242211 (People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Soriano y De Ocampo and John Paul Rotone y Supe). — Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated April 11, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08258, which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated January 20, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, in Criminal Case No. QZN-13-00511 convicting Bienvenido Soriano y De Ocampo (Soriano) and John Paul Rotone y Supe (Rotone) (accused-appellants) of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and convicting Soriano for Violation of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), as amended, in Criminal Case No. QZN-13-00512.

The Facts

Soriano was charged with violation of the OEC, as amended by Sections 32 and 36 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7166. 3 In another Information, Soriano and Rotone were indicted for Robbery with Homicide. The informations read as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. QZN-13-005114

(Violation of Omnibus Election Code

That on or about the 16th day of May 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, during election period, said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly bear, carry or transport one (1) improvised pen gun caliber .38 with two (2) live ammunitions with marking DL outside his residence or place of business, in a public place particularly along NIA Rd. No. 46-D Brgy. Pinyahan, this City, without first securing permit from the Commission on Elections.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. QZN-10-005125

(Robbery with Homicide)

That on or about the 13th day of May 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation against persons, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously rob PAZ BRIGUEZ y OLAVIAGA in the following manner to wit: while said complainant and her son NOCKY BRIGUEZ y OLAVIAGA were walking along the Footbridge in Quezon Avenue, cor. EDSA, this City, the said Accused suddenly appeared from behind and forcibly took, robbed and carried away complainant's necklace, to her damage and prejudice. CAIHTE

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented six witnesses, namely: (a) Police Senior Inspector Maria Felicidad Mercedes Aulida (Dr. Aulida), the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on Nocky Briguez's (Nocky) body; (b) Paz Briguez (Paz), one of the victims and the mother of the deceased, Nocky; (c) Police Officer 1 Archie Evangelista (PO1 Evangelista), one of the arresting officers; (d) PO1 Jay-ar Ryan Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), another arresting officer; (e) PO2 Dennis Llapitan (PO2 Llapitan), to whom the gun and knife were surrendered after confiscation from the accused; and (f) Thelma Castillo (Castillo), an eyewitness who identified the accused.

The prosecution's narrative proceeded with private complainant, Paz, who was 69 years old at the time of the incident, and her son, Nocky, who was 30 years old at the time of his demise. It was on May 13, 2013, when Paz and Nocky were treading Quezon Avenue Footbridge when one of the appellants, Rotone, snatched Paz's necklace. Startled by the unexpected occurrence, Nocky immediately hit the accused with a kettle and thereafter engaged in a brawl with Rotone. 6

Rotone's companion, Soriano, pushed Nocky during the fistfight. It was then when Nocky, caught the arms of his mother, hugged her as he fell and both victims rolled down the footbridge which led to Nocky's head being hit against a pavement and his mother being injured as well. 7

Fearful for her son's life, Paz immediately got hold of water to make him drink as she feared for his struggled breathing, and did not remember her necklace anymore. Paz frantically called on a passerby to help her in bringing Nocky to the nearest hospital, the Children's General Hospital. Unfortunately, Nocky was pronounced dead on arrival. 8

Castillo narrated that on May 13, 2015, at about 6:15 p.m., she was stationed at the side of Centris Quezon Boulevard, Quezon City calling and dispatching passengers. She testified that she saw Paz and Nocky alight from a passenger jeepney from the University of the Philippines Diliman campus route, and trek the overpass. Later, she saw two male persons waiting for the two at the top of the footbridge. Castillo narrated that before Paz and Nocky reached the end of the stairs of the overpass, and prior to reaching the middle, Rotone grabbed the necklace of the old woman. She then saw Nocky hit Rotone with a plastic containing a kettle. Later, it was identified that the man who pushed Nocky and Paz down the footbridge was Soriano. 9

Castillo and passersby brought Paz and Nocky to the nearest hospital, Lungsod ng Kabataan Hospital. 10

Castillo, afraid that she would be held responsible for the crime or that the accused-appellants might take vengeance and harass her, immediately reported the incident to the authorities and executed a Sworn Statement dated May 15, 2013. 11

Castillo further testified that she had known the accused-appellants for 15 years already, and as a dispatcher who was familiar with the streets, she often sees them around the area, doing the exact same thing. That due to the numerous complaints regarding the accused-appellants, she opted to report the incident to the authorities. 12

Dr. Aulida, the medico-legal officer who conducted the examination on the cadaver of Nocky, determined that the cause of his death was Acute Myocardial Infarction. 13 Dr. Aulida also presented the following external findings per Medico-Legal Report No. A13-376 dated May 14, 2013:

Head and neck

1. Area of multiple abrasions, frontal region, measuring 7.5cm x 5.5cm, 4.0cm left of the anterior midline.

2. Abrasion, left temporal region, measuring 4.0cm x 2.0cm, 6.0cm from the anterior midline.

3. Area of multiple abrasions, nasal region, measuring 3.0cm x 1.0cm, 2.0cm from the anterior midline.

Trunk

4. Abrasion, left pectoral region, measuring 0.4cm x 0.2cm, 3.0cm from the anterior midline.

Extremities

5. Abrasion, dorsum of the 2nd digit of the left hand, measuring 0.3cm x 0.3cm. 14 DETACa

Another prosecution witness, the police officer on duty, PO1 Evangelista, further corroborated the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. He testified that on the day of the incident when the report was made, he was the police officer-on-duty. Thereafter, or on May 16, 2015, when a follow-up operation was conducted as a result of the incident report made earlier, he spoke with a certain Melanie Tagatac (Melanie), a barker and dispatcher, who pointed to him the whereabouts of the accused-appellants. 15

PO1 Evangelista and PO1 Dela Cruz testified that when they arrived at the address of the accused-appellants, Melanie pointed to them and positively identified them as the persons responsible for the Robbery with Homicide committed against Paz and Nocky. At that time, the accused-appellants were sitting along an alley. It was then that PO1 Dela Cruz saw that a gun was tucked in the waistband of Soriano who, at that time, was not wearing any shirt. 16

Upon seeing the gun, PO1 Dela Cruz, together with PO1 Evangelista and PO1 Edwin Reyes, cautiously approached the accused-appellants, identified themselves as police officers and immediately confiscated the gun with two live ammunitions. Rotone was, likewise, frisked and a knife was found on his person. 17

A Certification dated March 5, 2015, issued by the Committee on the Ban and Firearms and Security Personnel of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), specifically stated that Soriano neither applied for nor was granted an exemption from the ban on bearing, carrying or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons. 18

Version of the Defense

The accused-appellants vehemently denied the charges hurled at them.

Soriano testified that on the evening of May 16, 2013, he was watching television with his wife and son at their house located in NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City, when six police officers barged into their home without a warrant and arrested him. Rotone who was sleeping at that time was roused from his sleep and was also arrested and brought with his father to the police station. At the police station, he found out that they were being charged with "Robbery with Homicide." Soriano claimed that he had a misunderstanding with Castillo "at the pilahan sa jeep kasi gusto nya masolo." 19 He also claimed that his son, Rotone, has never met Castillo.

Rotone testified that on the specified time and date of the crime, he was at home. He worked as a barker from 4:00 a.m. until noontime of the same day. According to him, his father and Castillo had a misunderstanding with respect to work which could possibly be the motive behind the accusations hurled at them.

Rotone also claims that it was his first time to see the firearm during the inquest proceedings and denied any involvement in the Robbery with Homicide which he and his father are being accused of.

On January 20, 2016, the RTC of Quezon City rendered a Joint Decision 20 finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crimes charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 13-00511, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused BIENVENIDO SORIANO y DE OCAMPO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of the Omnibus Election Code[,] as amended by Secs. 32 & 36 of Republic Act 7166[,] and he is sentenced to a jail term of one (1) year. aDSIHc

2. In Criminal Case No. 13-00512, judgment is hereby rendered finding JOHN PAUL ROTONE y SUPE and BIENVENIDO SORIANO y DE OCAMPO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and they are both ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Nocky Briguez, herein represented by his mother, Paz Briguez[,] the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED. 21

On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court albeit with modifications on the award of damages. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision 22 dated April 11, 2018 reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Decision dated 20 January 2016 of Branch 81, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. QZN-03-00511 and QZN-13-00512, as amended by its Order dated 4 April 2016, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case No. QZN-13-00512, the monetary awards shall be:

a. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) — Civil Indemnity

b. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) — Moral Damages

c. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) — Exemplary Damages

All amounts awarded by way of civil indemnity shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

(2) In Criminal Case No. QZN-13-00511, the penalty imposed for Violation of Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, committed by Bienvenido Soriano y De Ocampo, shall be imprisonment for one (1) year[,] as minimum, to two (2) years as maximum, without probation, with the accessory penalties of disqualification from public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage.

SO ORDERED.23

Hence, this appeal.

Ruling of the Court

The Court finds no reversible error in the CA decision upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants for Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 (1) of the RPC; Soriano for violation of the OEC, as amended, and the penalties imposed.

It must be stressed that in criminal cases, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below. Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA. 24

Guilt of the accused-appellants

After a careful scrutiny of the attendant factual milieu, the Court finds both the accused-appellants guilty as co-conspirators in the crime of Robbery with Homicide which eventually resulted in the death of Nocky. The accused-appellants clearly acted in concert to attain a common purpose. Their respective actions, taken collectively, all point to the achievement of a common criminal objective. ETHIDa

Time and again, the Court has ruled that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution. 25

As correctly found by the CA, the prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused-appellants through the unwavering and straightforward testimony of Paz and Castillo, viz.:

In the instant case, all the elements were established by the prosecution: that on 13 May 2013, both Bienvenido and John Paul, conspiring with one another, forcibly took the necklace of Paz, with intent to gain, employing violence and intimidation against the persons of both Paz and Nocky, and, in the course thereof and on the occasion of the robbery, caused the death of Nocky.

Contrary then to the accused-appellants' argument, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and, consequently, their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 26

In the case of People v. Algarme, et al., 27 the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was comprehensively discussed by this Court, the pertinent portion of which reads:

A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (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, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. 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.28 (Citations omitted and emphasis Ours)

Similarly, in People v. Aminola, et al., 29 the Court held that "essential for conviction of Robbery with Homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time." 30

Violation of OEC, as amended by

To the Court's mind, there is no reasonable ground to reverse nor dispute the findings of the lower courts that the .38 pen caliber found in the person of Soriano during the Gun Ban period constitutes a clear violation of Section 261 (q) of the OEC, as amended by Sections 32 and 36 of R.A. No. 7166. With respect to the admissibility of the firearm as evidence, the prosecution witnesses convincingly established that the .38 caliber pistol, tucked in the waist of Soriano when the latter was arrested, was clearly and undoubtedly visible and, therefore, could be lawfully seized even without a search warrant under the plain view doctrine.

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. 31

Well-entrenched is the rule that in crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof, viz.: the existence of the subject firearm and the fact that the accused, who owned or possessed the firearm, does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. 32 Under the OEC and the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7166, however, the burden to adduce evidence that accused is exempt from the COMELEC gun ban, lies with the accused. 33 cSEDTC

Section 261 of the OEC, as originally worded, provides:

Section 261.  Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

xxx xxx xxx

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. — Any person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof.

This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers while in the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature of their official duties, profession, business or occupation habitually carry large sums of money or valuables. (Emphasis Ours)

In 1991, R.A. No. 7166 took effect and reinforced Section 261 (q) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881. Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166 provides:

Section 32. Who May Bear Firearms. — During the election period, no person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places, including any building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance, even if licensed to possess or carry the same, unless authorized in writing by the Commission. The issuance of firearms licenses shall be suspended during the election period.

Only regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other enforcement agencies of the Government who are duly deputized in writing by the Commission for election duty may be authorized to carry and possess firearms during the election period: Provided, That, when in the possession of firearms, the deputized law enforcement officer must be: (a) in full uniform showing clearly and legibly his name, rank and serial number which shall remain visible at all times; and (b) in the actual performance of his election duty in the specific area designated by the Commission.

Section 36. Governing Laws. — The elections provided herein and all subsequent elections and plebiscite shall be governed by this Act, by the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Act No. 6646 and other election laws not inconsistent herewith.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the accused bears the burden of proving that he is armed with a written authorization from the COMELEC itself which otherwise permits him to carry and possess a firearm during election period. Section 32 is explicit that a mere license to possess or carry a firearm will not suffice. A written authorization from the COMELEC is an indispensable requirement.

Here, Soriano failed to prove that he had the written authority required under the OEC and R.A. No. 7166. As a matter of fact, the COMELEC issued a certification which confirmed that Soriano neither applied for nor was he granted an exemption from the ban on bearing, carrying or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons during the election period. As such, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA when it affirmed his conviction.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated April 11, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08258, finding accused-appellants Bienvenido Soriano y De Ocampo and John Paul Rotone y Supe GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and accused-appellant Bienvenido Soriano y De Ocampo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, as amended by Sections 32 and 36 of Republic Act No. 7166, is hereby AFFIRMED. SDAaTC

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 120-145.

2. Rendered by Presiding Judge Madonna C. Echiverri; id. at 16-25.

3. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS AND FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Approved on November 26, 1991).

4. CA rollo, p. 16.

5.Id. at 16-17.

6.Id. at 17.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 17-18.

10.Id. at 18.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Rollo, p. 4.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 11.

17.Id.

18. CA rollo, p. 134.

19.Id. at 70.

20.Id. at 67-76.

21.Id. at 76.

22.Id. at 120-145.

23.Id. at 144.

24.People v. Balute, 751 Phil. 980, 986 (2015).

25.People v. FO1 Dela Cruz, et al., 595 Phil. 998, 1027-1028 (2008).

26. CA rollo, p. 138.

27. 598 Phil. 423 (2009).

28.Id. at 446.

29. 644 Phil. 649 (2010).

30.Id. at 658.

31.People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 928 (2003), citing People v. Musa, 291 Phil. 623, 639 (1993).

32.People v. Lualhati, 304 Phil. 500, 508 (1994); People v. Damaso, 287 Phil. 601, 613 (1992).

33.Abenes v. Court of Appeals, 544 Phil. 614, 632 (2007).