THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225784. February 4, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ARNEL ZAFRA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 4, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225784 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ARNEL ZAFRA, accused-appellant). — In an Information dated April 15, 1988, Arnel Zafra (Zafra), Evangeline Nunag (Nunag), and Tirso delas Armas (Delas Armas) were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries, as follows:
That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1988, in the municipality of Sta. Maria, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation of persons, take, rob and carry [a]way with them cash in the sum of P3,063.35 belonging to one Agueda Santos and Epifania Santos, to the damage and prejudice of the said owners in the same amount of P3,063.35; and that by reason or on the occasion of the commission of the said robbery, the above-named accused, armed with a piece of drift wood and knife, and with intent to kill the said Agueda and Epifania Santos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strike with the said weapons the said Agueda Santos and Epifania Santos, inflicting on the said Agueda Santos serious physical injuries which directly caused her death and on the said Epifania Santos less serious physical injuries which require medical attendance and incapacitated her from performing her customary labor for a period of not more than thirty (30) days.
Contrary to law. 1 CAIHTE
Immediately after committing the offense, Nunag was arrested by local police officers. 2
When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court in its December 29, 1989 Decision found Nunag guilty of robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries, and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 3
Subsequently, Nunag filed an Appeal before this Court. 4
In its April 22, 1991 Decision, this Court affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court Decision, and found Nunag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. 5
On May 22, 1991, this Court's Decision became final and executory. 6
Meanwhile, Delas Armas voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. On arraignment, he initially pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. However, he later changed his plea to guilty. 7
The Regional Trial Court, in its July 13, 1988 Partial Judgment, found Delas Armas guilty of robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries. However, since he was 15 years old when he committed the crime, his sentence was suspended and he was turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for his rehabilitation. 8
Zafra, on the other hand, had remained at large since 1988, until he was arrested in 2006. 9
On arraignment, Zafra pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits then ensued. 10
The facts established by the prosecution disclosed that on February 22, 1988, Nunag, Delas Armas, and Zafra went to the house of spouses Carlos Santos (Carlos) and Agueda Santos (Agueda) 11 to apply as household helpers. 12
While there, Epifania Santos (Epifania), the youngest daughter of Carlos and Agueda, approached the three (3) teenagers and asked them why their eyes were so red and if they got some sleep last night. When she was ignored, Epifania left and went back to her room on the second floor of the house. 13
Epifania later heard a commotion downstairs. As she opened her door to look into it, she saw Zafra just outside her room. Alarmed, she tried to close her door, but Zafra pushed it open causing her to fall. 14 Zafra attempted to stab her with a knife, which she luckily blocked, suffering only minor injuries. 15
In the meantime, Leonides Mateo (Mateo), a house helper of the Santoses, was working in the laundry room when she heard Agueda scream. Startled, she looked out the window and saw Nunag on top of a bleeding Agueda. When she tried to get out of the room, she was met by a knife-wielding Delas Armas, who locked her in the kitchen. 16
Upstairs, while Zafra and Epifania struggled, Nunag entered the room and told Epifania, "I am sorry nasaktan po namin ang lola[.]" 17
During the altercation, Epifania grabbed and squeezed Zafra's crotch. The assailant left the room in pain, 18 immediately followed by Nunag, who had already taken Epifania's wallet. 19
When Epifania finally went downstairs, she saw her mother, Agueda, lying on the floor and bleeding. She heard her mother utter, "Si Tirso, si Tirso, si Tirso ang pumasok sa bahay[.]" She helped her mother sit and told her not to move as she locked the house and went upstairs to cry for help. 20
When the neighbors arrived, the assailants jumped over the fence at the back of the house to escape. Meanwhile, Epifania took her mother to the hospital. Unfortunately, Agueda died five (5) days later due to her head wounds. 21
In its September 29, 2010 Order, the Regional Trial Court noted for the record that the defense counsel explicitly waived the presentation of defense evidence. 22 DETACa
In its June 25, 2011 Decision, 23 the Regional Trial Court convicted Zafra of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injury. 24
The Regional Trial Court gave full faith and credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. It found their testimonies to be clear, credible, and convincing. Moreover, it ruled that the prosecution established through proof beyond reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy among Nunag, Delas Armas, and Zafra: 25
WHEREFORE, [i]n the light of all the foregoing, this Court finds ARNEL ZAFRA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Robbery with Homicide and Less Serious Physical Injury," as charged herein, and SENTENCES him to suffer the PENALTY of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is likewise held to be jointly and solidarily liable with all the other accused Tirso delas Armas and Evangeline Nunag to indemnify the heirs of the victim Agueda Santos.
a. The amount of Php50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
b. The amount of Php110,573.17 as actual damages;
c. The cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 26 (Emphasis in the original)
Aggrieved, Zafra filed an Appeal before the Court of Appeals. 27
In his Accused-Appellant's Brief, Zafra argued that the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting him of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries. 28
Zafra contended that although he participated in the robbery, he was upstairs when Nunag attacked Agueda. He maintained that since he took no part in injuring Agueda, he should only be convicted of robbery. 29
In its September 30, 2015 Decision, 30 the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the Regional Trial Court June 25, 2011 Decision. It ruled that Zafra should only be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It noted that the crime of less serious physical injuries should be "merged in the composite, integrated whole of robbery with homicide[.]" 31
The Court of Appeals modified the award of damages, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated June 25, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Malolos is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Arnel Zafra is found guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He and his co-accused Tirso delas Armas and Evangeline Nunag are ordered to jointly and severally pay the heirs of Agueda Santos the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) as actual damages; Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages. All the amounts of damages awarded are subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to be reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 32 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
On October 29, 2015, accused-appellant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal before this Court. 33
On September 7, 2016, this Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. 34 However, both accused-appellant 35 and plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, 36 manifested that they would no longer file their own supplemental briefs. Accused-appellant manifested that he would adopt all the arguments he raised in his Appellant's Brief. 37 aDSIHc
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly convicted accused-appellant Arnel Zafra of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
This Court affirms his conviction with some modifications.
I
In People v. Ordona, 38 this Court held that "[t]he determination of the credibility of witnesses is a function best left to the trial courts. Generally, their findings and conclusions on this matter are given great respect and weight." 39 Without proof that the trial court disregarded or misinterpreted facts of substantial significance, this Court would not disturb its assessment of facts and the credibility of the witnesses. 40
Here, a perusal of the records shows that there is no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court. Based on the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, it correctly ruled that Nunag, Delas Armas, and accused-appellant conspired to rob the Santoses. 41
Meanwhile, the Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries. The Court of Appeals modified this decision and ruled that he should be convicted instead of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code:
ARTICLE 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 reclusión perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
To sustain a conviction for this special complex crime, the following elements must first be established: "(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." 42 The prosecution must prove with certainty that the main purpose of the assailant is to steal, and that the killing was 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." 43
Here, it appears that the primary intention of the assailants was to steal from the Santoses, and the killing was inadvertent. That Nunag even apologized to Epifania for hurting Agueda shows that they never intended to kill her. Besides, when accused-appellant left Epifania's room, Nunag immediately followed, taking with her Epifania's wallet. Immediately after, they left the house.
II
The Revised Penal Code states that "[a] conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." 44 Its essence "is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt." 45
In establishing conspiracy, direct evidence of the agreement is not necessary. Its existence may be inferred from "the acts of the accused before, during[,] and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a common purpose to commit the crime." 46 Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is considered the act of all. 47
Here, the Regional Trial Court correctly found that Nunag, Delas Armas, and accused-appellant conspired to rob the Santoses. 48 It was proven that they acted in unison to commit the crime charged. While Nunag was attacking Agueda, Delas Armas went to the laundry room to make sure that Mateo would not escape and seek help outside. Meanwhile, accused-appellant was upstairs assaulting Epifania. 49
Although it is undisputed that accused-appellant took no part in killing Agueda, the Court of Appeals correctly convicted him of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. ETHIDa
In People v. Baron, 50 this Court ruled that when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of a robbery, all who participated in the robbery shall be deemed guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. This is regardless of whether they actually participated in the killing, unless they prove that they acted to prevent the killing.
Here, accused-appellant failed to allege, much more prove, that he attempted to prevent Agueda's killing. Therefore, his nonparticipation in Agueda's killing is immaterial. With the existence of conspiracy, the acts of his co-conspirators are his acts just the same.
On the physical injury suffered by Epifania, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that it should already be included in the crime of robbery with homicide. In People v. Nunag: 51
Even if less serious physical injuries were really inflicted and proved, there is no special complex crime as robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries. The offense is denominated as robbery with homicide regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed. These other circumstances merely serve as generic aggravating circumstances which can be offset by other mitigating circumstances. 52 (Citation omitted)
Finally, in line with current jurisprudence, 53 this Court deems it proper to increase the amount of exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals September 30, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05401 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Arnel Zafra is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellant is further DIRECTED to pay the heirs of the victim, Agueda Santos, the amounts of: (1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; (2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; (3) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages; and (4) One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) as actual damages. He is likewise DIRECTED to pay Epifania Santos the amounts of: (1) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; (2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; and (3) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages. 54
All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 55
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, p. 20. The CA Decision states that the Information was dated April 6, 1988.
2.Id.
3.Rollo, p. 5.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id.
9. CA rollo, p. 21.
10.Rollo, p. 6.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 9.
13.Id. at 7.
14.Id. at 8.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 9.
17.Id. at 8.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22. CA rollo, p. 24.
23.Id. at 20-27. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Manuel D.J. Siayngco of Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan.
24. Id. at 27.
25. Id. at 26-27.
26. Id. at 27.
27. Id. at 33-34.
28. Id. at 176.
29. Id. at 178.
30. Rollo, pp. 2-20. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan of the Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
31. Id. at 18.
32. Id. at 19.
33. Id. at 21-23.
34. Id. at 26-27.
35. Id. at 30-34.
36. Id. at 35-38.
37. Id. at 30.
38. G.R. No. 227863, September 20, 2017, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/september2017/227863.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
39. Id. at 5.
40. See People v. Gabrino, 660 Phil. 485 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].
41. CA rollo, p. 26.
42. People v. Palma, et al., 754 Phil. 371, 377-378 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
43. People v. Ngano Sugan, et al., 661 Phil. 749, 754 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
44. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 8, par. 2.
45. People v. Jesalva, G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017, 827 SCRA 501, 509 [Per J. Jardeleza, Third Division].
46. People v. Campos, et al., 668 Phil. 315, 330 (2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
47. See People v. Gerero, et al., 791 Phil. 620 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
48. CA rollo, p. 26.
49. Id.
50. 635 Phil. 608 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
51. 273 Phil. 425 (1991) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division].
52. Id. at 434.
53. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
54. Id.
55. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].