Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGION
PROVINCE OF LEYTE
BRANCH 12

THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. _______
Plaintiff,

- versus - -for-

Bonifacio “Podong” Pino, ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

“Damang” Pino, “Ligtik” Pino,
Joel “Titik” Araño, Eduardo “Eddie”
Araño, and Ramil Cedol,
Accused.
x --------------------------------------------------------------- x
INFORMATION

The undersigned Prosecutor III (Senior Assistant

Provincial Prosecutor) accuses Bonifacio “Podong” Pino,
“Damang” Pino, “Ligtik” Pino, Joel “Titik” Araño, Eduardo
“Eddie” Araño, and Ramil Cedol of the crime of robbery with
homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code committed as follows:

That on or about 13th day of September, 2006 at about

5:00 o’clock in the afternoon at Barangay Masumbang,
Municipality of Merida, Province of Leyte, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, by means of force and violence
employed upon the person of Temistocles “Boy” Boholst, in
that by repeatedly stabbing with their “sundang” the abdomen
and different parts of his body, with the intent to gain and
against the will and consent of said Temistocles “Boy” Boholst,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal, and rob from the latter a wristwatch, a ring, and a
money amounting to P18,000.00. As a consequence of the
force and violence employed by herein accused upon the
person of Temistocles “Boy” Boholst, prompted by deliberate
intent to kill, thereby inflicting upon the latter hemorrhage
secondary to multiple stab wounds which directly caused his
death.
Contrary to law.

Merida, Leyte.
September 25, 2006.

CHERISH EUNICE M. NAVARRO

Private Prosecutor
IBP Number xxxxx
MCLE Compliance No. XXXXX
Roll of Attorney No. XXXX
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
HALL OF JUSTICE
PROVINCE OF LEYTE

THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. _______
Plaintiff,

- versus - -for-

Bonifacio “Podong” Pino, ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

“Damang” Pino, “Ligtik” Pino,
Joel “Titik” Araño, Eduardo “Eddie”
Araño, and Ramil Cedol,
Accused.
x --------------------------------------------------------------- x

INQUEST RESOLUTION

The respondent Bonifacio “Podong” Pino, “Damang”

Pino, “Ligtik” Pino, Joel “Titik” Araño, Eduardo “Eddie” Araño,
and Ramil Cedol, was charged of the crime of Robbery with
homicide in a complaint filed by Ariel Boholst.

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant

attached the following documents;

1. Postmortem Report
2. Affidavit of Jeffrey Pelin
3. Certification of Police
4. Certification of Funeral Homes

That around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon more or less at

Sitio Pagtan-an, Masumbang, Merida, Leyte, Temistocles
“Boy” Boholst while attending market day at Sitio Pagtan-an,
he was attacked by “Podong” Pino, “Damang” Pino, “Ligti”
Pino and “Titik” Araño and “Eddie” Araño. “Podong” He was
feloniously stabbed with the used of long bladed instrument
hitting particularly his abdomen and different parts of the
body and while he was lying on the ground “Podong” Pino and
“Damang” Pino got Temistocles “Boy” Boholst to stand up.
“Titik” Araño cut the his belt while “Eddie” Araño got the
wristwatch and ring of Temistocles “Boy” Boholst. “Eddie also
took away the money amounting to P18,000.00. Hemorrhage
secondary to multiple stab wounds caused the death of
Temistocles “Boy” Boholst.

Based on the evidence submitted, undersigned finds that

probable cause for Robbery with Homicide exists against
Bonifacio “Podong” Pino, “Damang” Pino, “Ligtik” Pino, Joel
“Titik” Araño, Eduardo “Eddie” Araño, and Ramil Cedol and
corresponding information be filed against them.

No bail recommended.

Merida, Leyte, September 15, 2006.

________________________
Prosecutor III
Senior Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

APPROVED:

___________________
Prosecutor V
Provincial Prosecutor
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGION
PROVINCE OF LEYTE
BRANCH 12

THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. _______
Plaintiff,

- versus - -for-

Bonifacio “Podong” Pino, ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

“Damang” Pino, “Ligtik” Pino,
Joel “Titik” Araño, Eduardo “Eddie”
Araño, and Ramil Cedol,
Accused.
x --------------------------------------------------------------- x
RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint for Robbery with homicide

filed by Ariel Boholst against Bonifacio “Podong” Pino,
“Damang” Pino, “Ligtik” Pino, Joel “Titik” Araño, Eduardo
“Eddie” Araño, and Ramil Cedol.

Based on the eyewitnesses account of 16-year old minor

Jeffrey Pelin, while he and Temistocles “Boy” Boholst were at
the vicinity of Sitio Pagtan-an, Brgy Masumbang, Merida,
Leyte, looking to buy a carabao, but since the carabao that
they were supposed to buy was already sold, they decided to
drop by a “tabo” and watched a “tupada”. After the “tupada”
Jeffrey Pelin was told to get the horse and when he was 6
meters away from Temistocles “Boy” Boholst, he noticed that
the latter was attacked by “Podong” Pino, “Damang” Pino,
“Ligti” Pino and “Titik” Araño and “Eddie” Araño. Temistocles
“Boy” Boholst was feloniously stabbed with the used of long
bladed instrument “sundang” hitting particularly his abdomen
and different parts of the body. Ramil Cedol was standing
nearby and said “Cige patya na si Boy”. While Temistocles
“Boy” Boholst was lying on the ground “Podong” Pino and
“Damang” Pino got him to stand up. “Titik” Araño cut the belt
while “Eddie” Araño got the wristwatch and ring of
Temistocles “Boy” Boholst. “Eddie also took away the money
amounting to P18, 000.00. Temistocles “Boy” Boholst died
due to Hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds.

On the basis of the evidence on record, undersigned

finds probable cause to indict respondents for the crime of
Robbery with homicide as defined and penalized in Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code. The information clearly shows that
the element of robbery, that is, that there be a personal
property belonging to another, the information specifically
alleged “his wristwatch, a ring, and a money amounting to
P18, 000.00”. On the second element that there is an unlawful
taking of that property, it is specifically alleged that the
accused “did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously take, steal and rob”. On the third element that the
taking must be with intent to gain, the information
categorically avers “with intent of gain”. And on the last
element that there is violence against or intimidation explicitly
asserts “by means of force and violence employed upon the
person of Temistocles “Boy” Boholst.

On the first element of the crime of homicide that a person

was killed, the information expressly avers that "the latter
[Temistocles “Boy” Boholst] sustained Hemorrhage secondary
to multiple stab wounds which caused his death". On the
second element that the accused killed the victim without any
justifying circumstance, the information does not affirm the
existence of any such justifying circumstance. On the third
element that the accused had the intention to kill, the
information definitely affirms that the accused were
"prompted by deliberate intent to kill". And on the last
element that the killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide, the information does not mention any such
circumstances.

On the proof of the elements of robbery and homicide, we

have already found in our discussion on the evidence that the
guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of robbery with
homicide has been established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.