EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148730
June 26, 2003
-versus-
JOSE DELA CRUZ Y DACILLO, JAMES
SALBORO
Y JOROLAN,EDWIN "BUTCH" GENER
Y CATEAN
AND ARNEL SAN PEDRO Y TACOME,
Appellant.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an automatic review
of the Decision of the court a quo convicting accused-appellants Jose
dela
Cruz y Dacillo, James Salboro y Jorolan, Edwin "Butch" Gener y Catean
and
Arnel San Pedro y Tacome of robbery with homicide and imposing upon
them
the supreme penalty of death.[1]
On 13 July 1999, at
around 1:15 in the morning, a passenger bus of the Chinese-Filipino
Friendship
Transport, Inc. (CFFTI), with Plate No. PXS 898, driven by Terry Edma
with
Antonio Dormitorio as conductor was on its way to its garage in
Fairview,
Quezon City. For both Edma and Dormitorio it was another grueling day
as
they had been plying their customary Alabang-Monumento-Letre route
since
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon the day before.cralaw:red
Upon reaching EDSA-Guadalupe,
they decided to pick up Quezon City-bound commuters on their homeward
trip
to maximize their income and earn extra for the day. Seven
(7) new passengers boarded the bus, referring to the group of herein
accused-appellants
Jose dela Cruz, James Salboro, Edwin "Butch" Gener, Arnel San Pedro and
three (3) unidentified companions. An eighth passenger, SPO1
Joven
Avida Ebona of the Western Police District, who was in plain clothes as
he was already off-duty and on his way home, likewise got into the bus
after accused-appellants’ group.cralaw:red
As the bus approached
Riverside St., Barangay Camachile, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City,
accused-appellant
James Salboro pulled a .38 cal. revolver and announced a holdup.
Accused-appellant Arnel San Pedro who was also armed with a gun
commanded
bus conductor Dormitorio to hand over his fare collections, which
amounted
to P3,000.00, and his Seiko 5 wristwatch which he readily
surrendered.
Accused-appellant Jose dela Cruz ordered Edma to pull over to the side
of the street and turn off the interior lights of the vehicle. He
poked his gun at Edma’s head and took all his money amounting to
P2,000.00.
Thereafter, Jose dela Cruz aided by Edwin "Butch" Gener hurriedly
divested
the other passengers of their money and valuables.cralaw:red
Meanwhile, SPO1 Joven
Avida Ebona, who was dozing off, was roused by the
disturbance.
He was unaware that the bus was being robbed. Visibly irritated,
Ebona yelled "ano yan?" at accused-appellants. He did not realize
the danger until he found himself surrounded by seven (7) men with
drawn
guns. Then hell broke loose. A flurry of gunshots followed
in the wake of which Ebona slumped dead on his seat, soaked in his own
blood.[2]
The holdup men took
the service firearm of Ebona and fled on foot. They left him dead
in the crime scene and the rest of the passengers in terror. As
soon
as the driver regained his composure, he drove his bus to the nearby
Litex
Police Detachment to report the incident.cralaw:red
Dr. Tomas D. Suguitan,
Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP who conducted the post-mortem
examination
of SPO1 Joven Avida Ebona, found that the victim died of "hemorrhage as
a result of gunshot wounds in the head and trunk."[3]chanrobles virtual law library
On 14 July 1999 a team
of detectives from the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG)
invited Edma and Dormitorio to the CIDG Field Office, Station 10,
Edsa-Kamuning,
Quezon City, for purposes of identifying the suspects in the
robbery-homicide
incident. Edma and Dormitorio positively identified three
(3)
of the suspects from among the photographs in the rogues’
gallery:
accused-appellants Jose dela Cruz, James Salboro and Arnel San
Pedro.
Driver Edma likewise identified a fourth suspect, Edwin "Butch" Gener,
whom he described as a "fat man," although the suspect had no picture
in
the CIDG criminal portfolio.cralaw:red
The identified suspects
fell one by one into the hands of the authorities following a brief
manhunt.
Dela Cruz and Gener were arrested on 15 July 1999, while Salboro and
San
Pedro were apprehended a day after or on 16 July 1999. Witnesses
Edma and Dormitorio were with the CIDG operatives when they nabbed the
suspects.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants raised
the defense of denial and alibi. Primarily they denied complicity
in the crime as in fact, according to them, they had not known each
other
individually prior to their arrest. Accused-appellant Jose dela
Cruz
claimed that at the time of the incident he and his wife were
transferring
their household belongings from their old house in Luzviminda St.,
Filinvest,
Batasan Hills, Quezon City, to a newly rented room two (2) blocks away
from Luzviminda St.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant James
Salboro stated that from 1:00 o’clock to 6:00 o’clock in the morning of
13 July 1999 he was at home in Visayas St., Batasan Hills, Quezon City,
taking care of his wife who was then pregnant and very sick.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant Arnel
San Pedro similarly declared that in the evening of 12 July 1999 until
the following morning he was at home with his wife and children in
Barangay
Holy Spirit, Batasan Hills, Quezon City.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant Edwin
"Butch" Gener asserted that from 12 to 13 July 1999 he stayed home the
entire time in Sauyo Road, Novaliches, Quezon City, as he was not
feeling
well and suffering from boils in both armpits.cralaw:red
After a thorough review
of the evidence on record, we cannot find any reason to set aside the
conviction
of accused-appellants. By and large, the instant case basically
revolves
around the question of credibility of witnesses. The
well-entrenched
rule in this jurisdiction, of course, is that the matter of assigning
values
to the testimonies of witnesses is best discharged by the trial court,
and appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the
trial
court in this respect. The reason is quite simple: the
trial
judge is in a better position to determine the conflicting testimonies
of witnesses after having heard them and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying. As we ruled in People v. Cayabyab -[4]
Having the advantage
of directly observing the witnesses, the trial judge is able to detect
that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will
determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be
discernible
from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing
court.
The records will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the
truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted
assertion
or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or a tremulous mutter of a
reluctant
answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The records will
not show if the eyes darted in evasion or looked down in confession or
gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or
conceal.
The records will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or
in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge
trying
the case can see all these and on the basis of these observations
arrive
at an informed and reasoned verdict.cralaw:red
It is incumbent upon
accused-appellants to convince this Court that a departure from the
basic
rule is justified and warranted, and only upon a satisfactory showing
that
the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances
of weight and substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome
of
the case. These, accused-appellants miserably failed to do.chanrobles virtual law library
Prosecution witnesses
Terry Edma and Antonio Dormitorio, who were themselves victims of the
holdup,
positively identified accused-appellants as among those responsible for
the bus robbery and the killing of police officer Ebona. In
their Sinumpaang Salaysay, executed before the CIDG investigator, Edma
and Dormitorio declared in no uncertain terms -
TERRY EDMA:
T:
Sinabi mo na makikilala mo ang mga hold-upper kung makikita mo silang
muli
lalong lalo na sa mukha at sa hitsura nila, mayroon akong ipapakita na
mga litrato sa iyo (at the same time this investigator showing a group
of pictures of some of the suspects placed on a white folder), mayroon
ka bang nakikilala sa mga ito, pagmasdan mong mabuti?
S:
Opo sir, ito po sir, ito ang tumutok sa akin (affiant at the same time
pointing to the picture of Jose dela Cruz y Dacillo, alias Bonjoe, as
the
one who poked a gun on his head and at the time affixing his signature
below the picture number 7) sir ito po ang nagsabi ng "hold-up to"
(affiant
at the same time pointing to the picture of James Salboro y Jorolan,
alias
James, as the one who declared the hold-up and at the same time
affixing
his signature below the picture number 9), at ito sir (affiant pointing
to the picture of Ariel San Pedro, who poked a gun to his conductor and
forcibly got the collection money and same fixing his signature below
the
picture number 10).chanrobles virtual law library
T:
Paano mo nasabi at nakilala na ito si Jose dela Cruz y Dacillo, alias
Bonjoe,
James Salboro y Jorolan, alias James, at Ariel San Pedro, ay isa sa mga
nangholdap sa inyo?
S:
Kasi sir, nakikita ko sila sa aking center mirror at maliwanag po sa
loob
ng bus ng mag-deklara sila ng holdap x x x x
T:
Bakit mo naman nasabi na itong sina Jose dela Cruz at James Salboro ay
isa sa mga bumaril doon sa pasahero ninyong pulis?
S:
Kasi sir, ng sumigaw yung pulis na "ano yan?" sabay tindig nitong si
Jose
dela Cruz at ibinaling na niya ang kanyang baril doon sa pulis at sabay
putok, pati na rin itong si James Salboro at ang kanyang mga kasamahan
at pagkatapos ay pilit na ipinapapatay sa akin ni Jose dela Cruz ang
ilaw
(ng bus) x x x x
ANTONIO DORMITORIO:
T:
Mayroon akong ipapakita sa iyo na mga larawan ng mga suspects na mga
holdaper,
at ito ay pagmasdan mong mabuti, (at the same time this investigator
showing
to the affiant some pictures of suspects placed on a white folder with
corresponding number), may nakikilala ka ba rito?
S:
Opo sir, ito sir ang nagsabi na "para at hold-up ito" at tumutok sa mga
pasahero (at the same time affiant pointing to the picture of James
Salboro
y Jorolan, alias James, and affixing his signature below the picture
number
9) ito sir ang tumutok naman sa akin at pilit kinuha yung collection
namin
at yung aking relo na Seiko 5 (affiant pointing to the picture of Ariel
San Pedro and same affixing his signature below the picture number 10),
at ito naman sir ang tumutok sa aking driver (at the same time affiant
pointing to the picture of Jose dela Cruz Dacillo, alias, Bonjoe and
same
affixing his signature below the picture number 7).cralaw:red
T:
Paano mo nakilala itong sila Jose dela Cruz, James Salboro at Ariel San
Pedro na siyang nangholdap sa inyo sa nasabing petsa, oras at lugar?
S:
Tandang-tanda ko po sir yung mga mukha at hitsura nila dahil maliwanag
sa loob ng bus at kakaunti na lang yung pasahero namin x x x x
T:
Nasabi mo rin dito na pinagbabaril ng mga holdaper yung pasahero mong
pulis,
nakailaw pa ba sa loob ng bus?
S:
Opo sir.chanrobles virtual law library
T:
Nakita mo ba kung sino ang bumaril doon sa pulis?
S:
Nakita ko po na ang nagngangalan sa picture na si James Salboro ay
siyang
unang bumaril sa pulis, pagkatapos sinundan na nila Jose dela Cruz,
Ariel
San Pedro at iba pa nilang kasamahan x
x
x (underscoring supplied for emphasis).[5]
Again, Edma and Dormitorio
readily pointed to the same accused-appellants in open court and
identified
them during the trial. Both witnesses gave substantially the same
accounts of the incident and the personalities involved, hence for
brevity,
we quote only the testimony of witness Edma -chanrobles virtual law library
FISCAL CEDILLO: As far
as you know and remember, how many persons [were] involved in that hold
up incident, Mr. witness?
WITNESS: There were
seven of them sir x x x
FISCAL CEDILLO: Now
look around this courtroom and tell us if you can identify some of them?
WITNESS: There are persons
here sir.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: Please
point one by one.cralaw:red
WITNESS: That man sir.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER: Witness
pointing to a man who identified himself as James Salboro.chanrobles virtual law library
FISCAL CEDILLO: Now
you pointed to James Salboro, could you please tell this Court what his
participation was in that hold up, if any, Mr. witness?
WITNESS: He was the
one who shot sir.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: Next,
Mr. witness.cralaw:red
WITNESS: That one at
the far end sir.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER: Witness
pointing to a man who identified himself as Jose dela Cruz your Honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: This
Jose dela Cruz, what was his role in that hold up?
WITNESS: He was the
one who was behind me and he was the one who poked the gun at me sir.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: Next
Mr. witness.cralaw:red
WITNESS: That thin man
sir.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER: Witness
pointing to a man who identified himself as Arnel San Pedro your Honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: This
Arnel San Pedro, what was his participation Mr. witness?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS: He was the
one who declared the hold up and he was the one who poked the gun at my
conductor sir.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: Who
else Mr. witness?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS: That fat man
sir.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER: Witness
pointing to a man who identified himself as Edwin Gener your Honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL CEDILLO: What
was his participation in this hold up Mr. witness?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS: He was also
one of those who shot the person in civilian clothes and also collected
from the passengers sir x x x x (underscoring ours).[6]
Verily, the eyewitness
identification of accused-appellants is a vital and decisive evidence
which,
as in most cases, virtually sealed their culpability.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants would,
however, lay considerable emphasis on a perceived weakness and
deficiency
in the identification of accused-appellants by witnesses Edma and
Dormitorio.
In their separate briefs,[7]
accused-appellants tenuously assert that: (a) the overhead lights
inside
the bus were turned off during the robbery and were switched on only
after
the holdup men alighted, which rendered the malefactors’ identification
impossible; and (b) the prosecution witnesses never identified
accused-appellant
Gener as one of the culprits - neither in the police investigation, nor
in the supposed police line-up, nor in the inquest proceedings; and,
that
the only instance witness Edma pointed to accused-appellant Gener
as one of the robbers was during the trial, but even then, his "court
declaration
must be taken with a grain of salt x
x
x [as] it is palpably an afterthought. An afterthought is a
lie, a big lie, in disguise x
x
x Edma’s questionable identification in court with respect to Gener was
dictated upon, or at least suggested by the police x
x x"chanrobles virtual law library
We are not persuaded
by accused-appellants. The records reveal that the witnesses were
in an ideal position to know the identities of their
assailants.
Witness Edma testified on direct examination -
WITNESS: The man at,
right behind me ordered me to pull over and to turn off the light of
the
bus sir.chanrobles virtual law library
FISCAL CEDILLO: Did
you obey the order, did you obey the man that commanded you to do that,
Mr. witness?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS: I was not able
to obey because when I was about to do that, I looked behind and there
was a gunshot sir.chanrobles virtual law library
FISCAL CEDILLO: When
you looked back and there was a gunshot, what did you observe Mr.
witness?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS: They were shooting
a man in civilian clothes sir.[8]
Likewise, both Edma
and Dormitorio in their Sinumpaang Salaysay respectively affirmed that:
"Nakikita ko sila sa aking center mirror at maliwanag po sa loob ng bus
ng mag-deklara sila ng holdap," and "Tandang-tanda ko po sir yung mga
mukha
at hitsura nila dahil maliwanag sa loob ng bus at kakaunti na lang yung
pasahero namin."
It is thus evident that
at the time of the holdup the bus was sufficiently lighted inside,
which
circumstance undeniably allowed Edma and Dormitorio to have an
unobstructed
view of the crime scene. Moreover, their proximity to
accused-appellants
while the robbery was in progress further strengthened their
identification
of accused-appellants. Where the conditions of visibility are
favorable
and witnesses Edma and Dormitorio do not appear to harbor ill motives
against
the men on the dock, their assertions as to the identities of the
malefactors
should be accepted. More so in this case where both witnesses
were
themselves victims of the bloody heist, who could be expected to strive
to remember the faces of their assailants. They bore witness to
every
detail of the holdup since they were inside the bus and, naturally,
keenly
observed what happened as they faced the same danger as the other
passengers.
As observed by the trial court, "bus drivers and conductors - like
kristos
in a sabungan - have an uncanny way of retaining the looks of their
passengers,"
precisely because it is part of their job to be on the watch and know
who
has paid his fare and who has not.chanrobles virtual law library
Even assuming arguendo
that accused-appellant Edwin "Butch" Gener was not identified by
eyewitnesses
during the CIDG investigation, it was only because the CIDG had no
picture
of Gener on file. At any rate, there is no law requiring a police
investigation or a police line-up as a condition sine qua non for the
proper
identification of an accused.[9]
What is crucial is that witness Edma positively and categorically
identified
accused-appellant Gener during the trial. The suggestions of
defense
counsel to the effect that accused-appellant Gener’s identification in
court was merely an "afterthought," "a big lie" and "dictated upon by
the
police," are, to say the least, unfair. Primarily, the CIDG would
certainly gain nothing by falsely implicating Gener to the ghastly
crime.
Also, in the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcement agencies
of the government enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance
of their official functions.cralaw:red
Although there are some
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses Edma and Dormitorio -
as
pointed out by the defense counsel - due probably to the general
confusion
that characterized the incident, we hold that these testimonial
imperfections
hardly relate to facts material to the commission of the
crime.
Truth-telling witnesses are not expected to give flawless testimonies,
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory.
The Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the
narration
of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as
their testimonies on the whole are coherent and intrinsically
believable.
Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the
truth
and have not been rehearsed.[10]
We consider innocuous whatever discrepancies there were in the
testimonies
of Edma and Dormitorio.cralaw:red
In the face of the positive
identification by prosecution witnesses, accused-appellants’ defense of
denial and alibi must fall. Denials, as negative and self-serving
evidence, do not deserve as much weight in law as positive and
affirmative
testimonies. Oft-repeated is the rule that for alibi to offset
the
evidence of the prosecution demonstrating accused-appellants’ guilt,
they
must establish not only that they were somewhere else when the crime
was
committed but that it was also physically impossible for them to have
been
at the scene of the crime at the time it was perpetrated.[11]
The defense utterly failed to meet the requisite time and place.cralaw:red
We take judicial notice
of the fact that the residences of accused-appellants Jose dela Cruz,
James
Salboro and Arnel San Pedro in Batasan Hills, Quezon City, where they
claimed
to have been at the time of the commission of the crime, are situated
in
close proximity to Riverside St., Barangay Camachile, the locus
criminis.
As for accused-appellant Edwin "Butch" Gener, while he could have been
in Sauyo Road, Novaliches, Quezon City, from 12 to 13 July 1999, it was
not physically impossible for him to have been in Riverside St.,
Barangay
Camachile, on the day the crime was perpetrated.chanrobles virtual law library
It is interesting to
note that the same accused-appellants had previously been indicted for
robbery with homicide and frustrated murder before the Office of the
City
Prosecutor, Quezon City, docketed as I.S. No. 99-12581, Abigail T.
Mayrina,
et al. v. Jose dela Cruz, et al. In that case,
accused-appellants
were reported to have held up at gunpoint a Jason Liner passenger bus
with
plate no. PXS-445 along EDSA-Balintawak, at about 10:00 o’clock in the
evening of 4 June 1999, and hurriedly collected the money and other
valuables
of the passengers. What could have been a simple holdup mission
for
the group, however, turned bloody when someone from among the
passengers
introduced himself as a police officer. Accused-appellants went
on
a shooting rampage killing four (4) passengers including the police
officer,
and wounding five (5) others.[12]
Incidentally, this EDSA-Balintawak episode happened much earlier than
the
present case, although that case was prosecuted much later. In
other
words, the instant case was already being tried by the court a quo with
the early arrest of accused-appellants before the earlier case could be
brought to trial.cralaw:red
Quite obviously, the
robbery pulled in the CFFTI passenger bus by accused-appellants, now
subject
of the instant case, was not an isolated act but appears to be a part
of
an organized, systematic and well-orchestrated bus robbery operations
of
accused-appellants on buses plying EDSA.cralaw:red
While it may be that
pursuant to Sec. 48, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court, "evidence that
one
did or omitted to do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove
that he did or omitted to do the same or similar thing at another
time,"
the same Rule also provides that "it may be received to prove a
specific
intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or
usage
and the like." Thus, the circumstance that accused-appellants
were
likewise involved in another bus robbery may be taken as proof of their
plan, scheme or modus operandi in pursuance of a heinous enterprise.cralaw:red
Robo con homicidio is
an indivisible offense, a special complex crime. It carries a
severe
penalty because the law sees in this crime that men place lucre above
the
value of human life, thus justifying the imposition of a harsher
penalty
than that for simple robbery or homicide.[13]
A conviction for robbery with homicide requires the prosecution to
firmly
establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal
property
with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property taken
belongs
to another; (c) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and, (d) on
the
occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed.[14]
In this case before
us, all the essential ingredients of robbery with homicide have been
established
by the prosecution with proof beyond reasonable doubt. Personal
properties
and cash belonging to the bus driver, conductor and passengers were
taken
by accused-appellants by means of force and intimidation, and with
obvious
intent to gain. Moreover, during the heist, a police officer was
mercilessly gunned down by accused-appellants. When homicide
takes
place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took
part
in the robbery shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing,
unless there is proof that they had endeavored to prevent the
perpetration
of the crime.chanrobles virtual law library
Robbery with homicide
is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death, under Art. 294 (1) of
The
Revised Penal Code. Quite fortunately for
accused-appellants,
however, they may be spared from the extreme punishment of death.
The 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now explicitly requires
qualifying
as well as aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically
pleaded
in the complaint or Information, otherwise they will not be considered
by the court even if proved during the trial -
Sec. 8. Designation
of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the
designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting
the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.cralaw:red
Sec. 9. Cause of the
accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in
ordinary
and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the
statute
but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances for the court to pronounce judgment.[15]
Thus, in the present
dispensation, the proper imposable penalty upon accused-appellants
should
be reclusion perpetua only in the absence of allegations of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances in the Information.chanrobles virtual law library
Accused-appellants,
whose humanity had been seared by their insatiable greed for instant
gain,
are like vultures that gorge on the weak. Callous to the pain and
misery of their innocent victims, their crime becomes especially
detestable
when lives are senselessly lost in its commission. Edma and
Dormitorio
are but simple people forced by necessity to work and earn a decent
living
in the hope that somehow they could lift themselves from penury.cralaw:red
And what about the police
officer whose wife they widowed and whose children they orphaned?
Society cannot tolerate the despicable deeds of these sociopaths, and
for
this they deserve to be cashiered to the deepest recesses of the
dungeons
where they can grind and gnash their teeth till kingdom come.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
under review finding accused-appellants JOSE DELA CRUZ y DACILLO, JAMES
SALBORO y JOROLAN, EDWIN "BUTCH" GENER y CATEAN and ARNEL SAN PEDRO y
TACOME
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide is AFFIRMED
subject
to the MODIFICATION that they are sentenced to suffer the reduced
penalty
of reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtual law library
Accused-appellants are
ordered to PAY, jointly and severally, the heirs of SPO1 Joven Avida
Ebona
the following amounts: (a) P50,000.00 civil indemnity, (b) P55,000.00
actual
damages, (c) P831,870.00 representing the loss of earnings, as proved
during
the trial, (d) P50,000.00 moral damages, and, (e) P50,000.00 exemplary
damages.cralaw:red
Finally, accused-appellants
are likewise ordered to PAY, jointly and severally, bus driver Terry
Edma
the amount of P2,000.00, and bus conductor Antonio Dormitorio P3,000.00
representing the bus fare collections taken from them by
accused-appellants,
and RETURN to Dormitorio his Seiko 5 wristwatch or its reasonable value
of P2,000.00. Costs against accused-appellants.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 Jaime N. Salazar, Jr., RTC-Br. 103, Quezon
City.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Dormitorio testified that when he turned his head and looked back, he
saw
accused-appellant San Pedro, followed by accused-appellant Salboro, and
then accused-appellant Cruz, shoot police officer Ebona, although he
heard
only one (1) shot. See TSN, 14 December 1999, p. 20.
[3]
Medico-Legal Report No. M-0582-99, Records; p. 19.
[4]
G.R. No. 123073, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 387.
[5]
See Records, pp. 11-18.
[6]
TSN, 30 March 2000, pp. 8-10.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Accused-appellants Jose dela Cruz, James Salboro and Arnel San Pedro
were
represented by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), while
accused-appellant
Edwin "Butch" Gener was represented by private defense counsel Atty.
Antonio
Carbonell.
[8]
TSN, 30 March 2000, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
See People v. Magdamit, G.R. No. 118130, 24 September 1997, 279 SCRA
423.
[10]
People v. Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 353.
[11]
See People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 123397, 13 October 1998, 298 SCRA 36.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Although in that case the Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the
filing
of the appropriate criminal charges against Jose dela Cruz and James
Salboro
only on the basis of the positive identification by complainants. Edwin
"Butch" GeNer and Arnel San Pedro were not included since they were not
positively identified by the complainants then, hence there was no
factual
basis to hold them for trial.
[13]
People v. Salazar, et al., G.R. No. 99355, 11 August 1997, 277 SCRA 67.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
People v. Baccay, et al., G.R. No. 120366, 16 January 1998, 284 SCRA
296.
[15]
See also People v. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, 20 April 2001, 357
SCRA
234. |