People v. Villamor y Portez

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202705. January 13, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL VILLAMOR Y PORTEZ, FRANCISCO AMASCA, DEWEY MAGBANUA Y ABLAO & THREE OTHER JOHN DOES, accused, EFREN TUY Y DOE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 January 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 202705 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. JOEL VILLAMOR Y PORTEZ, FRANCISCO AMASCA, DEWEY MAGBANUA Y ABLAO & THREE OTHER JOHN DOES, accused, EFREN TUY Y DOE, accused-appellant). — We resolve the appeal, filed by accused-appellant Efren Tuy y Doe (Efren), assailing the December 28, 2011 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04452. The CA decision affirmed with modification the April 5, 2010 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur, finding Efren guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The Case

In an Information dated March 8, 2005, Efren was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide as follows:

That on or about 6:00 P.M. of May 31, 2004 in Sitio Turo, Bgy. Pantat, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain, constituting themselves as a band, by means of violence, took and stole cash amounting to Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos, assorted merchandise, one (1) cellular phone, three (3) wristwatches, assorted clothing and wearing apparel contained in a bag, and a bag containing expensive cosmetics all valued at One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, belonging to Dominador Velasco and his immediate family, against their will, to their prejudice; and on the occasion of the robbery and in furtherance of their conspiracy to enable all of the same accused to take and steal the personal properties described above, accused Joel Villamor shot to death Dominador Velasco, to the prejudice of the latter's heirs.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.

When he was eventually arrested years after the incident, and thereafter arraigned, Efren pleaded not guilty. 3

The evidence for the prosecution narrates:

On May 31, 2004, at around 6:00 PM, while Zenaida Velasco (Zenaida), Dominador Velasco (Dominador), and their two children (Francis and Angel) were inside their store at Sitio Toro, Barangay Pantat, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, three (3) armed men suddenly raided their store and pointed their guns at the Velascos. These men were later identified to be accused Joel Villamor (Joel), Dewey Magbanua (Dewey) and Francisco Amasca (Francisco). Another armed man, later identified as appellant Efren, remained outside the store, and near the door.

After ordering the members of the Velasco family to lie on the ground, Joel fired a shot at Dominador. Francisco thereafter uttered the words, "ilabas ang baril at saka pera."

As the gun resounded, Angel ran while crying and covering her ears. Dewey then kicked Angel, which prompted Zenaida to run after her. As Zenaida was then standing, she noticed a fourth man standing by the door acting as a lookout. This man was later identified to be Efren.

Thereafter, the three (3) armed men started taking goods from the store and placing these inside a sack. After they had finished carting the goods away, they directed the family to remain in their position, otherwise they would be killed. After the perpetrators had left, Zenaida and Francis carried Dominador outside of their house with the help of their neighbors. They later found out that several merchandise, including clothes, three (3) wristwatches and a cellular phone, all amounting to P100,000.00, and a money bag containing P300,000.00 had been taken from their store. IAETDc

The following day, or on June 1, 2004, an autopsy was conducted on Dominador, resulting in the finding that he died due to rapid internal and external hemorrhage caused by a gunshot wound on his forehead.

In his defense, Efren denied any participation in the commission of the crime. He alleged that he was then at his house in Sitio Bontog, Barangay Bani, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, looking after his daughter.

In its April 5, 2010 decision, the RTC found Efren guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. The RTC held that the prosecution successfully proved all the essential elements of the crime charged, and that Efren conspired in its commission. It gave no credence to Efren's defenses of denial and alibi because Zenaida, who is Efren's relative, categorically and positively identified him.

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced Efren to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; ordered him to solidarily indemnify the heirs of Dominador in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and restitute the victims for the items they stole, in the amount of P100,000.00 for the stolen merchandise and P300,000.00 for the contents of the money bag.

In his brief, Efren discredits the prosecution's version of what transpired.

First, he claims that Zenaida's positive identification of him is highly unusual because she described the culprits as wearing bonnets that partly exposed their faces. He explains that if his group indeed staged a robbery, they would have certainly covered their faces so that nobody would recognize them.

Second, he argues that there were material inconsistencies in the sworn statement of Zenaida and her court testimony.

Third, Efren contends that the prosecution was not able to prove conspiracy because there was no overt and positive act on his part as the robbery was being committed. Since he was merely standing by the door while holding a gun, his mere presence does not necessarily prove conspiracy.

Finally, Efren questions the award of actual damages because this claim was not substantiated by receipts or other credible evidence.

In its decision dated December 28, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision with the following modifications: (a) the phrase without eligibility for parole was appended to the penalty of reclusion perpetua; (b) the awarded civil indemnity and moral damages are increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, respectively; (c) the exemplary damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00; (d) the appellant is further ordered to pay P25,000.00 as temperate damages; and (e) he is further ordered to return the value of the contents of the stolen money bag if restitution is no longer possible.

The CA upheld the ruling that the elements for the crime of robbery with homicide had been proven, and that Efren's positive identification — plus the absence of the element of physical impossibility — negated his defenses of denial and alibi. It added that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses were minor and were not enough to raise any reasonable doubt as to his participation in the crime.

Our Ruling

After due consideration, we affirm Efren's conviction for robbery with homicide, but modify the awarded indemnities.

The Elements of Robbery with Homicide

There is robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the RPC when a homicide is committed either by reason of or on occasion of a robbery. 4 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. 5 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. 6 The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. 7

The prosecution was able to establish all these elements in this case. We point out that before the malefactors entered the store, Francisco had just handed P13,000.00 to his father as proceeds of the sale of a cow. While Efren remained at the entrance of the store, his three (3) companions went inside and at gunpoint, ordered the Velascos to lie on the ground. Before asking where the money and his gun was located, Joel fatally shot Dominador. Efren pointed a gun at the family members, while one of his companions took several items from the store, and placed them inside a sack. Thereafter, Efren and his three (3) companions fled together and took with them a money bag containing P300,000.00 and a sack stuffed with several merchandise.

From these circumstances, it can be said that the real intention of Efren and his co-accused was to rob the store owned by the Velascos.

While it was undisputed that only Joel shot Dominador, the lower courts correctly found Efren and the other two (2) accused liable for robbery with homicide. Whenever homicide is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of a robbery with homicide although they may not have taken any direct part in the homicide; unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. 8

The Presence of Conspiracy

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 9 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. 10 DcHSEa

In this case, Efren and his co-accused were all principals to the crime of robbery with homicide because — as shown by their concerted execution — they acted in unison to attain a common goal. We point out that Efren was armed with a gun like his three companions; he pointed his gun at the members of the Velasco family while his companions were robbing the store. Efren also fled together with the group while they were carrying the stolen merchandise. There was also no showing that he tried to prevent the shooting of Dominador.

Efren's Denial and Alibi

Efren's defense of denial and alibi must fail because he was positively identified and he was not able to prove that it his presence in the crime scene was physically impossible.

It is well-settled that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. 11

In the present case, Zenaida's testimony was enough for the courts below to qualify the identification as fully positive and credible. Zenaida had testified that she noticed the armed Efren twice: first, when she ran to save Angel; and second, when Efren and his co-accused were about to leave after the robbery.

Efren's alibi is likewise unworthy of credence because he himself said that the place where he resides is about one (1) to two (2) hours away from the place where the incident happened. Clearly, it was not impossible for Efren to be physically present at the crime scene during its commission. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. 12

The Proper Penalty and the Awarded Indemnities

The special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the RPC is penalized with reclusion perpetua to death. We agree with the penalty imposed by the CA since the penalty would have been death in view of the alleged and proven aggravating circumstance of band.

In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically without need of allegation and evidence other than the death of the victim owing to the crime. 13 The courts a quo were correct in granting these awards, except that the award should be P100,000.00 each. Recent jurisprudence declares that when the imposable penalty is death, the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages shall be P100,000.00 each. 14

Apart from civil indemnity and moral damages, the lower courts awarded exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code because at least one (1) aggravating circumstance was present. We, however, modify the awarded amount from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. 15

We affirm the CA's award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages because these may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be provided with certainty. 16

The awarded amounts shall accrue interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the Court's Resolution until fully paid.

Finally, we affirm the CA's order to restitute the stolen items or to pay their monetary value, if restitution is not possible.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the December 28, 2011 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04452 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) the awarded civil indemnity and moral damages are increased from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00, respectively; (b) the exemplary damages is increased from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00; and (c) the awarded amounts shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the Court's Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.''

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-54; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.

2. CA rollo, pp. 47-58; penned by Presiding Judge Freddie D. Balonzo.

3. The RTC issued warrants of arrest against Joel Villamor, Francisco Amasca, Dewey Magbanua, Efren Tuy, but the authorities were able to arrest only Amasca. The RTC found Amasca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide in its decision of October 29, 2007, but he did not appeal his conviction. Efren was arrested only on September 29, 2008.

4. People v. Latam, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 406, 410.

5. Id.

6. Id.

7. Id., citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, 575 SCRA 412, 436. See also People v. Uy, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 236, 249.

8. See People v. Villanueva, Jr., G.R. No. 187152, July 22, 2009, 593 SCRA 523, 525; People v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA 603, 607.

9. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 8.

10. People v. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 571, 576.

11. People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 687, 704.

12. People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 689, 706-707.

13. Supra note 10, at 706, citing Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 590, 603.

14. Id., citing People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508, 535.

15. Id.

16. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2224.