c2 People Vs Mendoza

2/12/2016
PeoplevsMendoza:104461:February23,1996:JPanganiban:ThirdDivision
THIRDDIVISION
[G.R.No.104461.February23,1996]
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.ROMEOMENDOZAyREYESandJAIMEREJALI
yLINA,defendantsappellants.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE CREDIBILITY FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY NOT
DISTURBEDONAPPEALEXCEPTIONS.Thisappealhingesprimarilyontheissueofcredibilityofwitnesses.Asthis
Courthasruledininnumerablecases,thetrialcourtisbestequippedtomaketheassessmentonsaidissueandtherefore,
its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal unless the court a quo is perceived to have overlooked,
misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight, which, if properly considered, would affect the
resultofthecaseandwarrantareversalofthedecisioninvolved.Wedonotfindintheinstantcaseanysuchreasonto
departfromsaidgeneralprinciple.Nevertheless,intheinterestofsubstantialjustice,weshallconfronttheissuesraised
hereinbytheappellants.
2. ID. ID. ID. NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY INCONSISTENCIES ON MINOR DETAILS. Inconsistencies or
contradictionsonminordetailsdonothaveanymaterialbearingontheculpabilityoftheappellantsastheydonotinany
way refute their positive identification by the two eyewitnesses as the perpetrators of the holdup. On the contrary, they
reflectthetruthfulnessofthetestimoniesofGraceandGlory.
3.ID. ID. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED MADE BY VICTIMS DEPENDS LARGELY ON
ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT. Visibility is an important factor in the
identification of a criminal offender. However, its relative weight and significance depends largely on the attending
circumstancesandthediscretionofthetrialcourt.Anotheroverridingconsiderationisthefactthatthemostnaturalreaction
ofvictimsofviolenceistostrivetoseetheappearanceoftheperpetratorofthecrimeandobservethemannerinwhichthe
crimewasbeingcommitted.
4.ID.ID.ID.ALIBIUNAVAILINGINTHEFACEOFPOSITIVEIDENTIFICATIONCASEATBAR.Inlightofthepositive
identificationoftheappellantsastheperpetratorsofthecrime,theiralibisareworthless.Moreover,thedefensefailedto
meettherequisitesforalibitobeconsideredasavaliddefense.Itisnotenoughthattheappellantsweresomewhereelse
whenthecrimetranspired.Theymustlikewisedulyestablishthattheyweresofarawaythatitwasnotphysicallypossible
for them to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at or about the time of its commission. Balicbalic in
Sampaloc,ManilaandAuroraBoulevardinSanJuan,MetroManilaarenotverydistantfromeachotherconsideringthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/104461.htm
1/14
2/12/2016
numerouspublictransportationfacilitiesplyingbetweensaidplaces.
5. ID. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INFORMATION DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE CONTROLS OVER DESIGNATION
THEREOFCASEATBAR.Intheinterpretationofaninformation,whatcontrolsisnotthedesignationbutthedescription
oftheoffensecharged.ConsideringtheallegationsoftheaforequotedInformation,appellantshereinshouldbeliablefor
thespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideunderArt.294oftheRevisedPenalCode,robberyhavingbeenduly
established beyond reasonable doubt by the asportation of thirty pesos from Glory Oropeo. It is immaterial that Ramilyn
Zuluetasdeathwasaccidentalbecauseitwasproducedbyreasonorontheoccasionoftherobbery.Thephysicalinjuries
inflicteduponGraceZuluetaduringthecommissionofthecrimeareabsorbedinthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide.
6. CRIMINAL LAW P.D. 532 (HIGHWAY ROBBERY) PURPOSE IS TO COMMIT ROBBERY INDISCRIMINATELY. To
obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution should have proven that the accused, in the instant case, were
organizedforthepurposeofcommittingrobberyindiscriminately.There,however,wasatotalabsenceofsuchproof.There
wasalsonoevidenceofanypreviousattemptsatsimilarrobberiesbytheaccusedtoshowtheindiscriminatecommission
thereof.
7.ID.ID.NUMBEROFPERPETRATORS,NOLONGERANELEMENT.Incidentally,itwouldberelevanttoaddthatthe
numberofperpetratorsisnolongeranessentialelementofthecrimeofbrigandageasdefinedbyPD.No.532.
8.ID.ID.NOTEVERYROBBERYCOMMITTEDONHIGHWAYSCOVEREDTHEREBY.Itwouldbeabsurdtoadoptaliteral
interpretation that any unlawful taking of property committed on our highways would be covered thereby. Hence, in
charging a crime under P.D. No. 532, it is important to consider whether or not the very purpose for which the law was
promulgated has been transgressed. Petty robbery in public transport vehicles (with or without personal violence and
death) committed against the middle and lower economic classes of society is as reprehensible as (if not more so than)
largescalerobberycommittedagainsttheeconomicallywellheeled.Nonetheless,thelawmustbeinterpretednotonlyto
bringforthitsaimandspiritbutalsoinlightofthebasicprinciplethatalldoubtsaretoberesolvedliberallyinfavorofthe
accused.Assuch,appellantsmaynotbeheldliableunderP.D.No.532butonlyundertheprovisionsoftheRevisedPenal
Code.
9.ID.CONSPIRACYPROVENBYTHECOORDINATEDACTIONSOFAPPELLANTS.Conspiracywasdulyprovenbythe
coordinatedactionsoftheappellantsandtheircompanionofdeprivingGloryofhermoneyandinjuringbothRamilynand
GracewhichresultedinRamilynsaccidentaldeath.
10.ID.ID.THEACTOFONEISTHEACTOFALL.Sincebothappellantstookpartintherobbery,theyshallbeliablefor
thecomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideintheabsenceofproofthattheyendeavoredtopreventtheaccidentalkillingof
Ramilyn.
11. ID. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE DEATH PENALTY REDUCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA. In view of the
prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty when the crime was committed, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
was then the single and indivisible penalty for robbery with homicide. It shall be imposed on each of the appellants
regardlessofthemitigatingandaggravatingcircumstancesattendingthecommissionofthecrime.
2/14
2/12/2016
12. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION SPIRIT OR INTENT OF THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE SUBORDINATED TO THE
LETTER THEREOF. It is an elementary rule of statutory construction that the spirit or intent of the law should not be
subordinatedtotheletterthereof.Triteasitmayappear,wehaveperforcetostresstheelementarycaveatthathewho
considers merely the letter of an instrument goes but skin deep into its meaning, and the fundamental rule that criminal
justiceinclinesinfavorofthemilderformofliabilityincaseofdoubt.
APPEARANCESOFCOUNSEL
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficefordefendantsappellants.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Themainquestionansweredinthiscaseiswhethertheaccusedshouldbeconvictedofhighwayrobberywithhomicide
punishableunderPresidentialDecreeNo.532,orofrobberywithhomicideunderArticle294oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Appellants Romeo Mendoza and Jaime Rejali were charged on June 17, 1991 before the Regional Trial Court in Pasig,
Metro Manila (Branch 156) of the crime of ROBBERY HOLDUP (sic) with HOMICIDE (P.D. No. 532, AntiPiracy and Anti
Highwat(sic)RobberyLawof1974)1inanInformationwhichreadsasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe29thdayofMay1991,inthemunicipalityofSanJuan,MetroManila,Philippines,aplacewithinthejurisdictionof
thisHonorableCourttheabovenamedaccused,armedwithgunandknives,conspiringandconfederatingtogetherwithonealiasJack
whosetrueidentityandpresentwhereaboutsisstillunknown,andmutuallyhelpingandaidingoneanotherwithintenttogainandbymeans
offorce,violenceandintimidation,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslytake,robanddivestoneGloryOropeoofcash
moneyamountingtoP30.00,whilethesaidvictimwasaboardapassengerjeep,cruisingalongAuroraBlvd.,SanJuan,MetroManila,
whichisaPhilippineHighway,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheownerthereof,intheaforementionedamountofP30.00thatonthe
occasionofsaidrobbery(holdup)andforthepurposeofenablingthemtotake,robandcarryawaypersonalbelongingsofallpassengersin
pursuanceoftheircriminalactsaidaccused,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandemploypersonal
violenceuponthepassengers(sic)ofsaidpassengerjeep,oneRamilynZuluetabythenandtherehittingherheadwithagunandkicked
(sic)heroutofthepassengerjeepwhichcausedhertofallin(sic)thepavementhittingherheadontheground,therebyinflictinguponthe
lattermortalinjurieswhichdirectlycausedherdeath,whileMa.GraceZulueta,punchingherfaceandhittingherheadwithagun,asa
resultofwhichsaidMa.GraceZuluetasustainedphysicalinjurieswhichrequiredmedicalattendanceforaperiodoflessthannine(9)days
andincapacitatedherfromperforminghercustomarylaborforthesameperiodoftime.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
The records show that both accused were assisted by their counsel de oficio, Atty. Fernando Fernandez of the Public
AttorneysOffice(PAO),whentheypleadednotguiltytothechargeuponarraignmentonAugust9,1991.
EvidencefortheProsecution
3/14
2/12/2016
EvidencefortheProsecution
TheprosecutionthereafterestablishedthatonMay29,1991,atabout9:00intheevening,17yearoldMa.GraceZulueta
and her elder sister, Ma. Ramilyn, were on their way home from their grandparents house in Altura Ext., Sta. Mesa, Manila.
TheyboardedapassengerjeepneyboundforCubaoviaAuroraBlvd.Thejeepneywasfullyloadedwiththedriver,hiswifeand
twochildrenonthefrontseatandeightpassengersoneachofthetwoparallelbackseats.2
The Zulueta sisters were seated near the rear entrance of the jeepney3 with accused Romeo Mendoza seated beside
Grace.4ItwasthroughMendozathatGracehandedovertheirfaretothedriverasthejeepneypassedbytheSMcomplex.5
GloryOropeo(orLoryEuropeo6),whoboardedthesamejeepneyneartheStopandShopSupermarket,wasseatedbehind
thedriver.AccusedJaimeRejaliwasbesideGlorywhiletheircompanionnamedJack,whohasremainedatlarge,wasseated
acrossher.7
WhenthejeepneyreachedthedarkportionofAuroraBlvd.inSanJuan,MetroManila,nearSt.PaulsCollege,justafterthe
bridge and before Broadway Centrum, someone announced a holdup8 Both Mendoza and Rejali had guns while Jack was
armedwithaknife.ItwasRejaliwhofiredhisgun.9JacktoldtheZuluetasistersthattheywouldbringthesistersalong.Asthe
accused appeared drunk, the sisters ignored them. However, a male passenger jumped off the jeepney and a commotion
ensued.Perplexed(naguluhan)bythisturnofevents,theaccusedheldRamilynwhostartedkicking,tryingtoextricateherself
fromtheirgrasp.ThispromptedMendozatohitherontheheadwithhisgun.Heboxedandkickedher,causingRamilyntofall
outofthejeepneyintothestreetwheresherolled.10
Mendoza then held Grace by her right arm. As she struggled, Grace shouted, bitawan mo ako, bitawan mo ako, in an
attempttocalltheattentionofthedriversoftheothervehiclesontheroad.OneoftheaccusedhitGraceontheheadwitha
guncausinghertoloseconsciousness.11(ShefinallycametoattheSt.LukesHospitalshewasconfinedthereuptoJune7,
1991.12)Whileallthiswashappening,Rejalipokedhisgunattheotherpassengers.13
From Glory, the accused were able to get the amount of P30.00. She handed it to the holdupper seated in front of her.
Whenthecommotiontookplace,thedriversloweddownthejeepneybuttheholdupperstoldhimtokeeponmoving.Oneof
themorderedthedrivertoproceedtoJ.RuizSt.andmakeseveralturnsuntil,whentheyreachedPaterno,theculpritsalighted
andmadetheirescape.14
Ramon Zulueta, the father of Grace and Ramilyn, learned about the incident from his other daughter, Joralyn, who was
informedthatGracewasattheSt.LukesHospital.Grace,whowasthenastudentemployedatthePizzaHutforP3,000.00a
month,wasconfinedinsaidhospitalfromMay30toJune7,1991forheadtraumashehadcontusionsandhematomasonthe
lefttemporalregionandontherightoccipitoparietalandanteriortemporalregions,andabrasionsonthesupraorbitalareaas
wellaselbow.15RamonZuluetaspentaroundP19,000.00forGraceshospitalization.16
UponlearningfromGracethatRamilynhadbeenwithher,RamonZuluetasurmisedthatshemighthavebeenbroughtto
4/14
2/12/2016
thehospitalnearertheplaceoftheincident,theUERMhospital.Whenhegotthere,helearnedthatRamilyn,21yearsoldand
a computer management student, had already died of severe, traumatic head injuries.17 The Zulueta family spent around P
15,000.00forherinterment.18
Two days after the incident, Ramon Zulueta was informed that the jeepney driver and his wife had surrendered to the
policestationinSanJuan.Thefollowingday,hewenttherebutthedriverwasnotaround.Hegaveastatementtothepolice.19
Byflukeoffate,itwasGraceherselfwhobroughtabouttheapprehensionofMendoza.OnthemorningofJune12,1991,
GracesawMendozasellingicecreamalongAlturaSt.ShenoticedMendozastaringather.Whenshestaredback,Mendoza
lowered his gaze and left immediately. That same afternoon, she saw him again. Considering her poor eyesight, she was
instructedbyhercousintobuyicecreamfromMendozasothatshecouldgetnearenoughtobesureifhewasindeedoneof
theholduppers.WhensheapproachedandaskedMendoza,Mama,kilalakita?,hecouldnotlookherintheeyesandseemed
confused.Certainnowthathewasoneoftheholduppers,Graceannouncedtoherbrotherandtheotherpeoplepresentthat
Mendozawasoneoftheholduppers.Mendozatriedtomakearunforit,butthepeoplegavechaseandovertookhim.20
MendozawasbroughttothepolicestationwherehewasidentifiedbyGraceinalineup.21Rejaliwasapprehendedthat
samenightbypoliceoperatives.AccordingtoSPO1DalmacioLuces,LuciaSalinas,thewifeofjeepneydriverVirgilioSalinas,
describedoneofthesuspectstotheNBIcartographerwhocameoutwithasketchofhisface.22However,Lucesfailedtogeta
statementfromLucia.23
EvidencefortheDefense
Appellantsinterposeddenialandalibiasdefenses.Bothofthemadmittedknowingeachotherastheywereworkingasice
cream vendors at the Ana Maria Ice Cream Factory in 1045 Balicbalic, Sampaloc, Manila where they also lodged in rooms
providedbytheiremployer.Mendoza,28yearsold,sworethatonthatfatefulday,hesoldicecreamfrom8:30a.m.toabout
4:00p.m.Fromthefactory,hewentasfarasV.MapaSt.,passingunderthebridgeneartheStopandShopSupermarket.By
5:30intheafternoon,hewasbackatthefactory.HespentthenightofMay29,1991inhislivingquartersatthefactorytaking
careofhischildashiswifewaspregnant.24
Forhispart,27yearoldRejalitestifiedthathealsosoldicecreamonthedateinquestion,from7:30a.m.to4:00p.m.,
alongE.TuazonSt.nearBalicbalic.HeclaimedthathehadnotgonetoSanJuanashedidnotevenknowwhereSanJuan
was,beingnewinthevicinity.Oncebackinthefactory,hepreparedicecreamforsalethenextday.Thenherestedinhis
room.25
MyrnaBalderama,whoalsostayedinthelivingquarterswithinthesameicecreamfactory,corroboratedthetestimoniesof
thetwoaccused.Accordingtoher,shesawMendozaenterthecompoundintheafternoonofMay29,1991.Fromoutsideher
room,shecouldseeMendozasroomonthenightinquestion,shesawhimtakingcareofhischild.AstoRejali,sheknewthat
5/14
2/12/2016
hedidnotleavethepremisesthateveningasshehadaconversationwithhimupto10:00p.m.whilehewaspreparingice
cream.26
OnMarch10,1992,thetrialcourt27renderedtheDecisionsubjectofthisappeal.Itsdispositiveportionreadsasfollows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtfindsbothaccusedROMEOMENDOZAyREYESandJAIMEREJALIyLINAguilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofViolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.532(AntiPiracyandAntiHighwayRobberyLawof1974)
andherebysentenceseachofthemtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuawithallitsaccessorypenalties,toindemnifytheheirsof
RamilynZuluetaintheamountofFIFTYTHOUSANDPESOS(P50,000.00),topaythesumofP23,673.35bywayofreimbursementof
thehospitalization,burialandotherrelatedexpensesforRamilynZuluetaandthefurthersumofP30,000.00bywayofmoralandexemplary
damagestopayGloryOropeothesumofP30.00bywayofreparationofthestolencashmoneytopayMa.GraceZuluetathesumof
P6,400.00bywayofreimbursementofherhospitalizationexpenses,allwithoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandtopay
thecosts.
Intheserviceoftheirsentence,theaccusedshallbecreditedinfullwiththeperiodoftheirpreventiveimprisonment.
SOORDERED.
In this appeal, appellants fault the trial court for giving credence to the inconsistent, conflicting and contradictory
testimoniesofprosecutionwitnessesGraceZuluetaandGloryOropeoandforconvictingthemofthecrimechargeddespitethe
failureoftheprosecutiontoprovetheirguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.28
Althoughnotdirectlyraisedbytheappellants,wefind,uponathoroughscrutinyofthefactsthatthereisyetanother
questionwhichisofconcerntothebarandthebench:arethefactsattendanttothiscaseconstitutiveofthecrimeofhighway
robbery with homicide under Pres. Decree No. 532 or of the felony of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised
PenalCode?
TheCourtsRuling
Thisappealhingesprimarilyontheissueofcredibilityofwitnesses.AsthisCourthasruledininnumerablecases,thetrial
courtisbestequippedtomaketheassessmentonsaidissueandtherefore,itsfactualfindingsaregenerallynotdisturbedon
appealunlessthecourtaquoisperceivedtohaveoverlooked,misunderstoodormisinterpretedcertainfactsorcircumstances
ofweight,which,ifproperlyconsidered,wouldaffecttheresultofthecaseandwarrantareversalofthedecisioninvolved.29
We do not find in the instant case any such reason to depart from said general principle. Nevertheless, in the interest of
substantialjustice,weshallconfronttheissuesraisedhereinbytheappellants.
Appellants allege the following inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses: (a) Grace testified that it was
6/14
2/12/2016
Rejaliwhoshoutedholdup,pulledoutagunandfired,incontradictiontoGlorystestimonythatthemaninfrontofher,referring
toJack,announcedtheholdup,and(b)atthedirectexamination,Gracepointedoutthatshewasstruckbehindherrightear
butduringcrossexamination,shesaidthatshewashitontheleftear.
ThefirstinconsistencymaybeattributedtothedifferenceintherelativepositionsofGraceandGloryinsidethejeepney.
GracewasseatedneartherearentranceofthejeepneywhileGlorywasbehindthedriver.BecauseGracewasfarfromboth
JackandRejaliwhowereseatednearGlory,thiscouldhaveaffectedherperceptionofwhoannouncedthe holdup. At any
rate, such disparity in their testimonies does not at all derail the sufficiently established fact that both appellants herein
participated in the holdup. As regards the injuries sustained by Grace, the certificate issued by her attending physician, Dr.
Sosepatro Aguila, states that she sustained injuries on both sides of the head,30 clearly showing no contradictions in her
testimonywithrespecttowhereshewashit.
Bethatasitmay,theseinconsistenciesorcontradictionsareminoroneswhichdonothaveanymaterial,bearingonthe
culpability of the appellants as they do not in any way refute their positive identification by the two eyewitnesses as the
perpetratorsoftheholdup.31Onthecontrary,theyreflectthetruthfulnessofthetestimoniesofGraceandGlory.AsthisCourt
saidinPeoplevs.Retuta:32
Thediscrepancysignifiesthatthetwowitnessesdidnotdeliberatelypervertthetruthintheirnarrations.Thediscordanceintheirtestimonies
onminormattersheightenstheircredibilityandshowsthattheirtestimonieswerenotcoachedorrehearsed(Peoplev.Doria,55SCRA425).
AsthisHonorableCourtheldinPeoplev.Agudu,137SCRA516towit:
However,thevariance,ifany,isonaminordetailwhichwouldnotdestroytheeffectivenessoftheirtestimony.Wecannotexpectabsolute
uniformityineverydetailbecausewitnessesreactdifferentlytowhattheyseeandhear,dependingupontheirsituationandstateofmind.
Completeuniformityindetailsisabadgeofuntruthfulness.Thelightcontradictions,ontheotherhand,strengthensthesincerityofthe
testimonyofthewitnesses.
Thus,farfromevidenceoffalsehood,theminorinconsistencybetweenthetestimoniescouldjustifiablyberegardedasademonstrationof
theirgoodfaith.
Thestrongestpartofthedefenseargumentsconcernstheidentificationoftheappellantsastheperpetratorsofthecrime
considering the lighting condition inside the jeepney. Appellants believed that they could not have been recognized because
both Grace and Glory admitted that the place was dark, and so surmised that it would have been darker inside the jeepney
becausetheeyewitnessesfailedtopointoutthesourceoflighttherein.33However,intryingtoprovetheirallegation,appellants
unwittinglybroughtoutdetailsviaGracestestimonywhichdemolishtheirsurmise.Thus:
Q.Despitethedarkness,youwereabletoidentifythegun?
A.Ididnotsayitwascompletelydark.Isaidinthejeepneyitwasquitelighted.Isaiditwasdarkoutsidebutinthejeepney,itwas
quitelighted.34(Italicssupplied.)
7/14
2/12/2016
Itseems,moreover,thatappellantsonlyquotedportionsofthetestimoniesofGraceandGlorytosuittheirpurpose.Had
theappellantsbeencandidenough,theywouldhaveretainedportionsofthesametestimoniesevidencingthatitwastheplace
where the jeepney was passing through that was dark but, inside the jeepney, it was medium light. Grace had testified on
crossexaminationasfollows:
Q.Willyoumentionagaintheexactlocationoftheallegedincident?
A.Iamnotfamiliarwiththestreets,sir.Itwasafterabridge.AfterUERM,sir.
Q.Whatwastheconditionoftheplaceatthattime?
A.Itwasmoderatelydark.Quitelighted.Medium.
Q.Howaboutinsidethepassengerjeepney?Wasitlighted?
A.Medium,sir.Sinceitwasdark,youcannothaveacompletelightthere.
Q.Itwasquitedark?
A.Yes,sir.35
Forherpart,Glorytestifiedoncrossexaminationinthiswise:
Q.Madamwitness,willyoumentionagaintheexactlocationwhereyousaidyouwereallegedlyheldup?
A.SanJuan,H.LozadaandJ.RuizSt.,sir.
Q.Whatwastheconditionofthatplaceatthattime?
A.Itwasdarkbecauseitwasalreadynighttime.
Q.Youmeantheexactplacewhereyouwereheldupisadarkplace?
AYes,sir.36(Italicssupplied.)
Visibility is an important factor in the identification of a criminal offender. However, its relative weight and significance
dependslargelyontheattendingcircumstancesandthediscretionofthetrialcourt.37Anotheroverridingconsiderationisthe
factthatthemostnaturalreactionofvictimsofviolenceistostrivetoseetheappearanceoftheperpetratorofthecrimeand
observethemannerinwhichthecrimewasbeingcommitted.38
Inthecasebeforeus,Gracesunrebuttedtestimonyisthatthejeepneywasquitelightedxxxmedium.Evengrantingthat
thelightwasdimasmostjeepneyshavecoloredorlowwattagebulbsforthepassengerarea,theaddedilluminationfromthe
headlightsofpassingvehiclestravelingthebusyAuroraBoulevardwouldhavebeensufficienttopermitpositiveidentificationof
theappellants.39Moreover,identificationoftheappellantsastheholdupperswasfacilitatedbytheirphysicalproximitytothe
saideyewitnesses.GracewasseatedbesideappellantMendozawhileGlorywasbesideRejali.ThatGracehadpooreyesight
doesnotaffectherpositiveidentificationofMendozabecauseshewaswearinghereyeglasseswhentheholduptookplace.40
8/14
2/12/2016
Asstatedabove,becausetheywerevictimsofviolence,bothGraceandGlorymusthavehadtheappellantsfeaturesindelibly
imprintedintheirminds.
Inlightofthepositiveidentificationoftheappellantsastheperpetratorsofthecrime,theiralibisareworthless.41Moreover,
thedefensefailedtomeettherequisitesforalibitobeconsideredasavaliddefense.Itisnotenoughthattheappellantswere
somewhere else when the crime transpired. They must likewise duly establish that they were so far away that it was not
physicallypossibleforthemtobepresentatthecrimesceneoritsimmediatevicinityatoraboutthetimeofitscommission.42
Balicbalic in Sampaloc, Manila and Aurora Boulevard in San Juan, Metro Manila are not very distant from each other
consideringthenumerouspublictransportationfacilitiesplyingbetweensaidplaces.
But,whilethereisproofbeyondreasonabledoubttolayculpabilityontheappellantsforthekillingofMa.RamilynZulueta,
thephysicalinjuriessustainedbyhersisterGraceandtheasportationofGloryOropeosthirtypesos,wedonotagreewiththe
trialcourtthatthecrimecommittedbyappellantsiscoveredbyP.D.No.532.
InitsDecision,thetrialcourtcurtlysaid:
TheCourtfindsalltheelementsoftheoffensecharged,namely,intenttogain,unlawfultakingofpropertyofanother,(theP30.00ofGlory
Oropeo)violenceagainstorintimidationofanyperson,onaPhilippineHighwayanddeathofRamilynZuluetaandphysicalinjuriesupon
Ma.GraceZulueta,(Section2,par.3andSection3,par.b,AntiPiracyandAntiHighwayRobberyLawof1974,Pres.DecreeNo.532)
havebeendulyprovedintheinstantcase.
HighwayRobberyorRobberywithHomicide?
ConvictionunderP.D.No. 532requiresnotonly theaboveelementsmentionedbythecourtaquo.Highwayrobberyor
brigandageisdefinedbySection2ofsaiddecreeasfollows:
e.HighwayRobbery/Brigandage.Theseizureofanypersonforransom,extortionorotherunlawfulpurposesorthetakingawayofthe
propertyofanotherbymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonorforceuponthingsorotherunlawfulmeans,committedbyany
persononanyPhilippinehighway.
InPeoplevs.Puno,43thisCourt,speakingthroughthelearnedMr.JusticeFlorenzD.Regalado,explainedthepurposeof
brigandageasfollows:
Infine,thepurposeofbrigandageisinteralia,indiscriminatehighwayrobbery.Ifthepurposeisonlyaparticularrobbery,thecrimeisonly
robbery,orrobberyinbandifthereareatleastfourarmedparticipants.(citingU.S.vs.Feliciano,3Phil.422[1904])xxx
xxxPresidentialDecreeNo.532punishesashighwayrobberyorbrigandageonlyactsofrobberyperpetratedbyoutlawsindiscriminately
againstanypersonorpersonsonPhilippinehighwaysasdefinedtherein,andnotactsofrobberycommittedagainstonlyapredeterminedor
9/14
2/12/2016
particularvictim,xxx
Consistent with the above, to obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution should have proven that the
accused, in the instant case, were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. There, however, was a
totalabsenceofsuchproof.Therewasalsonoevidenceofanypreviousattemptsatsimilarrobberiesbytheaccusedtoshow
theindiscriminatecommissionthereof.
Incidentally,itwouldberelevanttoaddthatthenumberofperpetratorsisnolongeranessentialelementofthecrimeof
brigandageasdefinedbyP.D.No.532.Mr.JusticeRegaladoexplainedthisinPuno:
True,PresidentialDecreeNo.532didintroduceamendmentstoArticles306and307oftheRevisedPenalCodebyincreasingthepenalties,
albeitlimitingitsapplicabilitytotheoffensesstatedthereinwhencommittedonthehighwaysandwithoutprejudicetotheliabilityforsuch
actsifcommitted.Furthermore,thedecreedoesnotrequirethattherebeatleastfourarmedpersonsformingabandofrobbersandthe
presumptionintheCodethatsaidaccusedarebrigandsiftheyuseunlicensedfirearmsnolongerobtainsunderthedecree.xxx44
Undertheolddoctrine,brigandagewascommittedbyacuadrilla45orbymorethanthreearmedpersonsperthedefinitionof
brigandsinArticle306oftheRevisedPenalCode.46
EvenbeforethePunoholding,however,therehadbeencases47wherelessthanfouroffenderswereheldguiltyofhighway
robberyunderP.D.No.532,whichjuststrengthenstheviewthatthenumberofoffendersisnotanessentialelementinthe
crimeofhighwayrobbery.48
It is possible that since Aurora Boulevard is a highway within the purview of P.D. No 532,49 the prosecutors deemed it
propertochargeappellantswithviolationofsaiddecree.Inthisregard,thePunorulingisenlightening.ThisCourtheld:
xxx(i)twouldbeabsurdtoadoptaliteralinterpretationthatanyunlawfultakingofpropertycommittedonourhighwayswouldbecovered
thereby.Itisanelementaryruleofstatutoryconstructionthatthespiritorintentofthelawshouldnotbesubordinatedtotheletterthereof.
Triteasitmayappear,wehaveperforcetostresstheelementarycaveatthathewhoconsidersmerelytheletterofaninstrumentgoesbut
skindeepintoitsmeaning,andthefundamentalrulethatcriminaljusticeinclinesinfavorofthemilderformofliabilityincaseofdoubt.
IfthemerefactthattheoffensechargedwascommittedonahighwaywouldbethedeterminantfortheapplicationofPresidentialDecree
No.532,itwouldnotbefarfetchedtoexpectmischievous,ifnotabsurd,effectsonthecorpusofoursubstantivecriminallaw.Whilewe
eschewresorttoareductioadabsurdumlineofreasoning,weapprehendthattheaforestatedtheoryadoptedbythetrialcourtfallsfarshort
ofthedesideratumintheinterpretationoflaws,thatis,toavoidabsurditiesandconflicts.For,ifamotorvehicle,eitherstationaryormoving
onahighway,isforciblytakenatgunpointbytheaccusedwhohappenedtotakeafancythereto,wouldthelocationofthevehicleatthe
timeoftheunlawfultakingnecessarilyputtheoffensewithintheambitofPresidentialDecreeNo.532,thusrenderingnugatorythe
categoricalprovisionsoftheAntiCarnappingActof1972?And,ifthescenarioisonewherethesubjectmatteroftheunlawfulasportation
islargecattlewhichareincidentallybeingherdedalongandtraversingthesamehighwayandareimpulsivelysetuponbytheaccused,
shouldweapplyPresidentialDecreeNo.532andcompletelydisregardtheexplicitprescriptionsintheAntiCattleRustlingLawof1974?50
10/14
2/12/2016
Hence,inchargingacrimeunderP.D.No.532,itisimportanttoconsiderwhetherornottheverypurposeforwhichthelaw
waspromulgatedhasbeentransgressed.CitingthewhereasclausesofP.D.No.53251inPuno,theCourtsaid:
Indeed,itishardtoconceiveofhowasingleactofrobberyagainstaparticularpersonchosenbytheaccusedastheirspecificvictimcould
beconsideredascommittedontheinnocentanddefenselessinhabitantswhotravelfromoneplacetoanother,andwhichsingleactof
depredationwouldbecapableofstuntingtheeconomicandsocialprogressofthepeopleastobeconsideredamongthehighestformsof
lawlessnesscondemnedbythepenalstatutesofallcountries,andwouldaccordinglyconstituteanobstacletotheeconomic,social,
educationalandcommunityprogressofthepeople,suchthatsaidisolatedactwouldconstitutethehighwayrobberyorbrigandage
contemplatedandpunishedinsaiddecree.Thiswouldbeanexaggerationborderingontheridiculous.52
Pettyrobberyinpublictransportvehicles(withorwithoutpersonalviolenceanddeath)committedagainstthemiddleand
lower economic classes of society is as reprehensible as (if not more so than) largescale robbery committed against the
economicallywellheeled.Nonetheless,thelawmustbeinterpretednotonlytobringforthitsaimandspiritbutalsoinlightof
thebasicprinciplethatalldoubtsaretoberesolvedliberallyinfavoroftheaccused.Assuch,appellantsmaynotbeheldliable
underP.D.No.532butonlyundertheprovisionsoftheRevisedPenalCode.
In the interpretation of an information, what controls is not the designation but the description of the offense charged.53
ConsideringtheallegationsoftheaforequotedInformation,appellantshereinshouldbeliableforthespecialcomplexcrimeof
robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, robbery having been duly established beyond reasonable
doubt by the asportation of thirty pesos from Glory Oropeo. It is immaterial that Ramilyn Zuluetas death was accidental
because it was produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.54 The physical injuries inflicted upon Grace Zulueta
duringthecommissionofthecrimeareabsorbedinthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide.55
Conspiracywasdulyprovenbythecoordinatedactionsoftheappellantsandtheircompanion56ofdeprivingGloryofher
moneyandinjuringbothRamilynandGracewhichresultedinRamilynsaccidentaldeath.Sincebothappellantstookpartinthe
robbery,theyshallbeliableforthecomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideintheabsenceofproofthattheyendeavoredto
preventtheaccidentalkillingofRamilyn.57Inviewoftheprohibitionagainsttheimpositionofthedeathpenaltywhenthecrime
wascommitted,thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuawasthenthesingleandindivisiblepenaltyforrobberywithhomicide.Itshall
beimposedoneachoftheappellantsregardlessofthemitigatingandaggravatingcircumstancesattendingthecommissionof
thecrime.58
WHEREFORE,theDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasig,MetroManila(Branch156)inCrim.CaseNo.87218is
herebyMODIFIED.AppellantsRomeoMendozayReyesandJaimeRejaliyLinaareherebyfoundGUILTYbeyondreasonable
doubtofthespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideandaccordingly,eachofthemisherebysentencedtosufferthe
penaltyofreclusionperpetua.Theotherportionsofthetrialcourtsdecision,includingthemonetaryawardsimposedagainst
them,areAFFIRMED.Costsagainstappellants.
SOORDERED.
11/14
2/12/2016
Narvasa,C.J.(Chairman),Davide,Jr.,Melo,andFrancisco,JJ.,concur.
1Decision,p.1Rollo,p.18.
2TSN,November27,1991,pp.910.
3TSN,September24,1991,P.7.
4Ibid.,p.8.
5TSN,September11,1991,p.3.
6Exh.H3Records,p.141.
7TSN,November27,1991,p.4.
8 According to Grace, it was Jaime Rejali who announced the holdup (TSN, September 24, 1991, p. 10) but according to Glory, it was the man seated
acrossherwhodidso(TSN,November27,1991,p.5).
9TSN,September11,1991,pp.36TSN,November27,1991,p.56.
11Ibid.,p.4.
12Ibid.,p.4Exh.A,Records,p.123.
14Ibid.,pp.610.
15Exh.A.
16TSN,December4,1991,p.4Exhs.A1toA4.
17Exh.C.
18TSN,December4,1991,p.3.
19Ibid.,p.6.
20Exh.JTSN,September24,1991,p.9.
22ExhG.
12/14
2/12/2016
24TSN,January8,1992,pp.47.
25TSN,February10,1992,pp.34.
26TSN,February10,1992,pp.912.
27PresidedbyJudgeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.
28AppellantsBrief,p.1Rollo,p.34.
29Peoplevs.Nemeria,242SCRA448(March20,1995).
30Exh.A.
31Peoplevs.Canceran,229SCRA581(January31,1994).
32234SCRA645,654(August2,1994).
33AppellantsBrief,pp.89.
35Ibid.,p.7.
36TSN,November27,1991,p.9.
37 This Court has held that the culprit was properly identified even if the witnesses were five (5) meters away from the tent where the crime was
committed and the tent was lighted only by a kerosene lamp (People vs. Sabado, 168 SCRA 681 [December 22, 1988]) where the crime scene was
lightedbyagaseraaided by a shining moon (People vs. Almenario, 172 SCRA 268 [April 17, 1989]) where the eyewitness was able to recognize the
culpritbythereflectionoflightfromthenearbyhouses(Peoplevs.Juanga,189SCRAAugust30,1990])wheretheassailantsweresix(6)metersaway
fromtheMeralcopostandthewitnesswasbelowalightedColemanpetromax(Peoplevs.Riego,189SCRA445[September12,1990])andwherethe
basketballcourtwherethecrimetranspiredwasilluminatedbyalamppost(Peoplevs.Eugenio,194SCRA578[February27,1991].
38Peoplevs.Apawan,235SCRA355(August16,1994).
39Peoplevs.Parica,243SCRA557(April21,1995).
41Peoplevs.Miraday,242SCRA620(March23,1995).
42Peoplevs.Escoto,244SCRA87(May11,1995).
43219SCRA85,atp.97(February17,1993).
13/14
2/12/2016
44Ibid.,p.98.
45Aquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,Vol.III,1988ed.,p.170.
46 Art. 306. Who are brigands Penalty. When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the
highway,orkidnappingpersonsforthepurposeofextortionortoobtainransom,orforanyotherpurposetobeattainedbymeansofforceandviolence,
theyshallbedeemedhighwayrobbersorbrigands.xxx(italicssupplied).
47InPeoplevs.Chanas(212SCRA65[August4,1992]),two(2)personswerechargedofsaidcrimeandonlytheonearrestedwasconvictedthereof
whileinPeoplevs.Matilla(105SCRA768[July24,1981]),onlyone(1)accusedwasconvictedthereof.
48SeealsoPeoplevs.Ocimar(212SCRA646[August17,1992]), where the accused were six (6) in number, and People vs. Nebreja (203 SCRA 45
[October17,1991]),wheretheywerefive(5).
49 This decree defines Philippine Highway as any road, street, passage, highway, and bridges or other parts thereof, or railways or railroad within the
Philippinesusedbypersons,orvehicles,orlocomotivesortrainsforthemovementorcirculationofpersonsortransportationofgoods,articles,orproperty
orboth.
50Supra,atpp.99100.
51 WHEREAS reports from lawenforcement agencies reveal that lawless elements are still committing acts of depredation upon the persons and
propertiesofinnocentanddefenselessinhabitantswhotravelfromoneplacetoanother,therebydisturbingthepeace,orderandtranquilityofthenationand
stuntingtheeconomicandsocialprogressofthepeople
WHEREAS, such acts of depredations constitute either piracy or highway robbery/brigandage which are among the highest forms of lawlessness
condemnedbythepenalstatutesofallcountries:and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that said lawless elements be discouraged from perpetrating such acts of depredations by imposing heavy penalty on the
offenders,withtheendinviewofeliminatingallobstaclestotheeconomic,social,educationalandcommunityprogressofthepeople
52Supra,atp.98.
53Peoplevs.Aczon,225SCRA237(August10,1993)Avecillavs.People,209SCRA466(June2,1992).
54Aquino,supra,atpp.115116.
55Peoplevs.Pamintuan,222SCRA716,722(May28,1993).
56Peoplevs.Woolcock,244SCRA235(May22,1995).
57Peoplevs.Escosio,220SCRA475(March25,1993).
58Peoplevs.Yabut,226SCRA715,721(September27,1993)
14/14

c2 People Vs Mendoza

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

c2 People Vs Mendoza

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2/12/2016

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi