EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
145731
June 26, 2003
-versus-
GREGORIO GERAL Y
FERNANDEZAND
MARCOS USNAN
Y BUSTAMANTE,
Appellants.
LORETO SANTAN (AT
LARGE),
Accused.
D E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On automatic review is
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City finding the
accused
Gregorio Geral y Fernandez and Marcos Usnan y Bustamante, in conspiracy
with accused Loreto Santan, who remains at large, guilty of Robbery
with
Homicide for having forcibly carted away assorted articles belonging to
one Mary Ann Estoce, and in pursuance of such felonious deed, slashed
the
throat of her grandmother Josefina Estoce which caused her death.
Accordingly, accused Geral and Usnan were each sentenced to suffer the
penalty of "reclusion perpetua to death" and ordered to indemnify
solidarily
the heirs of Josefina Estoce P50,000.00 for her death and P30,000.00
for
funeral expenses.[1]
Mary Ann Estoce, a computer
operator, lived with her grandmother Josefina Estoce whom she called
"Nanay"
at Km. 19, Los Amigos, Tugbok, Davao City.cralaw:red
On 18 August 1996, Sunday,
at around 6:40 in the evening, Mary Ann was in their sala preparing to
watch television when she heard someone knocking at the door.
When
she opened the door, she was met by three (3) rugged and apparently
inebriated
individuals who inquired from her if she knew one Roel Daban.
When
she told them that she was not familiar with the person and pointed to
another house where they could inquire about him, the three (3) men
entered
the house while pointing a gun at Mary Ann. Two (2) of the
intruders
approached her grandmother Josefina Estoce and took turns manhandling
her,
while a certain Boy[2]
brought Mary Ann upstairs and tried to rape her. But failing to
rape
her, Boy ordered Mary Ann to hand him over her money.cralaw:red
After taking some P500.00
from her, Boy boxed Mary Ann on the stomach causing her to lose
consciousness.
When she recovered some three (3) minutes later, Mary Ann saw her Nanay
lying in a pool of blood and no longer responding to her frantic
cries.
Accompanied by their neighbors, Mary Ann went to her relatives to seek
their help.cralaw:red
On the witness stand,
complaining witness Mary Ann Estoce testified that some articles,
particularly
pieces of jewelry, their TV remote control, a bag, an umbrella, her
passbook,
an ATM card, all valued at approximately P6,000.00, and P500.00 in cash
were taken by the robbers.[3]
During the trial, Mary
Ann Estoce positively identified Gregorio Geral as one of those who
robbed
them and killed her grandmother Josefina Estoce in the early evening of
18 August 1996.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
Another prosecution
witness, Edgar Sab-owan, testified that sometime on 7 August 1996 while
attending the wake of his grandfather, he met Marcos Usnan alias Dodong
who told him matter of factly that he and some companions were planning
to rob somebody at Km. 20. On 9 August 1996 he again met Usnan
who
pointed to him the house that his group was intending to rob which,
according
to Usnan, was occupied by an old woman and a young lady. He
further
stated that on 18 August 1996 at around 8:30 to 9:00 o’clock in the
evening
Gregorio Geral alias Gorio and Loreto Santan alias Boy arrived at his
house.
Both wore muddied clothes and talked to each other in
whispers.
Edgar also said that Boy told him that their job was finished and that
the old woman was dead.cralaw:red
The following morning,
19 August, Ireneo Juesan alias Onyot arrived at his house carrying with
him a camera and a TV remote control and wearing a ring on one of his
fingers.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant Gregorio
Geral denied the accusations against him. He insisted that in the
morning of 18 August 1996 he was on the way home after buying food from
the market when three (3) individuals accosted him introducing
themselves
as Edgar, Onyot and Loreto. At about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon,
the three (3) went back to his house and asked for something to eat
since
they were hungry. When asked what their business was, they told
him
that they were waiting for the buyer of gold bars. Since he was
in
a hurry to get a hilot for his pregnant wife who was in labor, he then
asked to be excused. However, the three (3) followed him.
One
of them whose name he later learned to be Edgar, pointed a gun at his
head
and forced him to go with them, otherwise, he would kill him and his
family.cralaw:red
All four (4) walked
towards Calinan and took a truck towards Tugbok. Arriving in
Tugbok
at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, they alighted in front of a
house
where Loreto asked the occupants, a young lady and an old woman, if
they
knew a certain Roel Daban. Suddenly, Loreto seized the old woman
and Onyot the young lady. Edgar, who was standing beside the
door,
pushed him (Geral) inside the house. It was then that he saw
Loreto
stab the old woman. He rushed out of the house and waited for a
passenger
jeepney bound for Wangan but the three (3) robbers chased him. As
soon as they caught up with him, they warned him not to tell anybody
what
he had just witnessed. According to Gregorio, he decided not to
tell
the authorities about the grisly incident for fear that Edgar would
make
good his threat to kill him and his family.cralaw:red
At the trial, accused-appellant
Gregorio Geral denied that Marcos Usnan was one of the malefactors;
instead,
he affirmed and reaffirmed that it was Edgar, Onyot and Loreto who
perpetrated
the hideous killing.[5]
For his part, accused-appellant
Marcos Usnan refused to admit that he was a party to the killing and
robbery
of 18 August 1996. According to him, on that date, he was at home
the whole day. He denied knowing his accuser Edgar Sab-owan, or
his
co-accused Gregorio Geral whom he met for the first time only on 19
August
at the detention cell.[6]chanrobles virtual law library
After trial, the court
a quo adjudged both accused-appellants Gregorio Geral and Marcos Usnan
guilty of robbery with homicide on the basis of their identification by
prosecution witnesses Mary Ann Estoce and Edgar Sab-owan.
According
to the trial court:[7]
Accused Geral claimed
he was in his house (in) the whole day and night of August 18,
1996.
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses and should be rejected when the
identity
of the accused has been sufficiently established (P v. Remollo, 213
SCRA
218; P v. Sambangan, 125 SCRA 726; P v. Regalo, 127 SCRA 287).cralaw:red
Accused Usnan claimed
Loreto Santan, Ireneo Juesan and Edgar Sab-owan forced him to go with
them
to the victim’s house. He is saying he has nothing to do
with
the crime but admits that he was in the house of the victim with the
accused
when the crime was committed. The statement of Prosecution
witness Edgar Sab-owan plainly pointed to the accused Usnan as one of
the
three who robbed and killed Josefina Estoce.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants Geral
and Usnan now implore this Court to take a second hard look at their
conviction
on the ground that the court a quo erred in: (a) giving weight and
credence
to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; (b) finding the guilt
of accused-appellant Usnan despite the failure of Mary Ann Estoce to
identify
him in open court; (c) finding that Edgar Sab-owan positively
identified
Usnan as one of the three (3) men who robbed and killed Josefina
Estoce;
(d) finding that the guilt of accused-appellant Geral for the crime
charged
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; and, (e) imposing the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death.[8]
Discussing jointly the
first four (4) assigned errors, accused-appellants argue that, contrary
to the finding of the trial court, Sab-owan did not identify
accused-appellant
Usnan as one of those who robbed and killed Josefina Estoce, but rather
as the one who proposed to him the plan to rob a house occupied by an
old
woman and a young lady. Even principal witness Mary Ann Estoce
was
not able to identify Usnan when she testified in court. She only
identified accused-appellant Geral.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants also
deplore the failure of the trial court to consider the more credible
evidence
of the defense vis-à-vis that of the prosecution.
According
to them, had the trial court only considered the fact that
accused-appellant
Geral was merely threatened and compelled by the real culprits to join
them, thus depriving him of the freedom to act, he should have been
exempted
from criminal liability.chanrobles virtual law library
Accused-appellant Usnan
anchors his defense on the theory that the prosecution failed to
establish
with certitude his identity as one of the gang of robbers who
burglarized
the Estoce residence and killed Josefina Estoce. On the part of
accused-appellant
Geral, he bases his plea for acquittal on the alleged failure of the
trial
court to give credence to his assertion that he was deprived of the
freedom
to act and was never a willing participant in the commission of the
crime
charged.cralaw:red
The rule is, in every
criminal prosecution the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of
the crime is crucial to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
This much is required to overcome the presumption of innocence
guaranteed
by the Constitution in favor of the accused. The failure of the
prosecution
to discharge this onus is fatal to its cause and calls for an
acquittal,
at least insofar as regards the accused whose identity is not
established.cralaw:red
Where, as here, principal
witness Mary Ann Estoce who could be expected to ensure that the guilty
would not go unpunished, failed to identify accused-appellant Usnan
despite
his presence in the courtroom, his guilt is at once beclouded by a
heavy
pall of doubt. Even the testimony of Sab-owan, the sole basis for
his conviction in the lower court, is fatally flawed. It will be
seen that Sab-owan’s uncorroborated testimony in no way establishes the
identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It does not
place
Usnan at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission nor can a
reasonable inference be made to ascertain his complicity in the crime
charged.
The statement of witness Sab-owan to accused Usnan, which was timely
objected
to by the defense counsel as hearsay, could not be used against him
unless
it be fully established by other evidence that Sab-owan was privy to
the
crime or had personal knowledge of its commission. Even
accused-appellant
Geral himself, Usnan’s co-accused, affirmed and reaffirmed during his
examination
that at gunpoint he was coerced by Sab-owan, Juesan, and Santan into
joining
them in their looting foray. He was emphatic however that Usnan
was
not involved in the robbery.cralaw:red
But accused-appellant
Geral’s case is a different matter altogether. His defense that
he
was deprived of the freedom to act because of uncontrollable fear does
not inspire our serious consideration. For this defense to
prosper,
it is incumbent for him to prove that the duress must not be
speculative,
fanciful, or a remote fear for one’s life and limb. Even assuming
that this tale was not a mere figment of his imagination, the records
are
bereft of any evidence to support his claim. He averred that
during
the robbery he was told, but he refused, to give assistance to the
malefactors
in their malevolent activity. He managed to "escape" even as an
armed
robber was standing near the door. Worse, the culprits supposedly
chased and caught up with him only to tell him never to report the
incident
to the authorities. All these circumstances show that the
presence
of uncontrollable fear, so doggedly insisted by accused-appellant
Geral,
was speculative, remote or, at the most, illusory.chanrobles virtual law library
A person should not
commit a very serious crime on account of a feeble kind of fear.
If we were to take seriously Geral’s account, there would be no
explaining
why three (3) persons bent on committing a crime would place a total
stranger
in their confidence, force him to witness their wicked deed for no
apparent
purpose, and let him go with nothing more than a flimsy threat.
Overshadowing
all these considerations however was the positive identification made
by
complainant Mary Ann Estoce of accused-appellant Geral as an active
participant
in the burglary which resulted in the killing of Josefina
Estoce.
Complainant, who has no known impure motive against accused-appellant
Geral,
would not impute a serious offense against him had it not been for her
singular intention to bring to the bar of justice the men who
dispossessed
her of her valuables and forever deprived her of her Nanay’s loving
presence.cralaw:red
On the penalty imposed
by the court a quo, we agree, as pointed out by accused-appellants and
by the Office of the Solicitor General, that the same should not be
"reclusion
perpetua to death." This penalty is not in accord with Art. 63 of
The Revised Penal Code providing the rules for the application of
indivisible
penalties. The crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by
reclusion
perpetua to death under Art. 294, par. (1), of The Revised Penal
Code. In the absence of an aggravating or mitigating
circumstance,
the lower penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed.cralaw:red
With respect to the
amount of P30,000.00 awarded by the trial court representing funeral
and
other expenses, apart from the barren testimony of prosecution witness
Teodoro Estoce who testified on damages, none was duly supported by
receipts.
Consequently, the Court can only allow those expenses properly
receipted
or duly proved and genuinely incurred in connection with the death,
wake,
and burial of the deceased, unlike the indemnity for the death of the
victim
which is automatically awarded to the heirs of the deceased. In
addition,
the sum of P6,500.00 must be paid as it represents the total value of
the
items taken during the incident. Moreover, moral damages must be
awarded without need of further proof other than the fact of the
killing.chanrobles virtual law library
A final word.
In writing a decision, we do not necessarily require the judge to adopt
a florid and dramatic style such as would appeal to the Shakespearean
in
us, yet, we deem it of the essence that the decision be lucidly
crafted,
complete in all its vital details, to enable the parties involved to
clearly
understand how the judge arrived at his conclusions. Sadly, the
decision
of the trial court, the ratio decidendi in particular, is not exactly
an
exemplar in thoroughness and perspicacity but is rather an expression
of
slapdashness and lack of interest, giving the impression that the
author
was more after bare compliance than the need to explain the verdict of
the court in a clear and convincing manner.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
of the RTC-Br. 15, Davao City, finding accused-appellant Gerardo Geral
y Fernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
homicide is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the
heirs
of the deceased Josefina Estoce the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity
for
her death and the additional sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
He is also ordered to pay the heirs the amount of P6,500.00 which
represents
the value of the items asported during the robbery.cralaw:red
However, accused-appellant
Marcos Usnan y Bustamante is ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, is ordered
immediately
released unless there are other legal grounds for his continued
detention.cralaw:red
The Director of Prisons
is DIRECTED to implement this Decision forthwith and to inform this
Court
within five (5) days from receipt hereof of the date accused-appellant
Marcos Usnan y Bustamante shall have been actually released from
confinement.chanrobles virtual law library
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Decision penned by Judge Jesus V. Quitain, RTC-Br. 15, Davao City.
[2]
TSN, 6 November 1996, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id., p. 9chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
TSN, 27 January 1998, pp. 60-74.
[6]
TSN, 3 November 1998, pp. 91-104.
[7]
Rollo, p. 29.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Id., pp. 60-61. |