ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R.
Nos.
142919 and 143876
RICARDO NAPALIT Y PARAL, Accused-Appellant, chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred D E C I S I O N chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred CARPIO-MORALES, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Before this Court on automatic review is the consolidated decision[1] rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal Case Nos. 96-150264 and 97-156381 finding accused-appellant Ricardo Napalit guilty of robbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (the Anti-Carnapping Act), respectively.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In Criminal Case No. 96-150264, the Information[2] charges accused-appellant with robbery in band with homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 (as amended by R. A. 7659) and Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code allegedly committed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred “That on or about April 3, 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with others, whose true names, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, all armed with unknown caliber firearms, with intent of (sic) gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by then and there barging inside Tondo General Hospital located at Honorio Lopez Blvd., Tondo, announcing a hold-up, ordering the people/employees thereat to lie down on the floor, grabbing the cashier and ordering him to open the vault and filing cabinets and once opened, take, rob and carry away the following, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred cash money consisting of union’s collection, professional fees, patients’ fees, cash advances and salaries of employees chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred amounting to, more or less: P1,300,000.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred two (2) .38 caliber revolver, Squires Bingham with Serial Nos. 1093998 (from Benjamin Saclolo) and 1093986 (from Eric Santos) valued at --- P10,353.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred one (1) .38 caliber revolver, Squires Bingham with Serial No. 1094407 more or less chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred valued at: P 5,000.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred all valued in the amount of more than P1,315,353.00, belonging to Tondo General Hospital, represented herein by Rodrigo Calonzo y Sauza and Benjamin Saclolo and Eric Santos, against their will, to the damage and prejudice of the said owners, in the aforesaid amount of more than P1,315,353.00, Philippine Currency; that said accused, on the occasion and by reason of said robbery, attacked, assaulted and used personal violence upon one Pio Gomez y Ora, one of the security guards therein, by then and there fring (sic) two successive shots, hitting him at the back, thereby inflicting upon him mortal gunshots (sic) wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In Criminal Case No. 97-156381, the Information[3] charges accused-appellant with violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act allegedly committed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred That on or about April 3, 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, forcibly take and carry away or carnap two (2) motor vehicles, more particularly described as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred One (1) Unit, Toyota Tamaraw FX, BGC Taxi with Plate No. NYU-381 andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred One (1) Unit, Toyota Tamaraw Delivery Van with Plate No. PBM-990 chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred valued at P400,000.00 more or less from the drivers Felix Buenaobra y Bumaba and Nomeriano Castor y Serbo, respectively, without their consent, to the damage and prejudice of the drivers/owners thereof in the aforesaid amount of P400,000.00, Philippine currency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. Joint trial of the cases thereupon ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred From the evidence for the prosecution, the following facts are established:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred At about 4:00 p. m. of April 3, 1996, a group of more than six armed men including accused-appellant barged into the Tondo General Hospital in Honorio Lopez Boulevard, Balut, Tondo, Manila. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Security guard Eric Santos who was posted at the hospital emergency room had just finished talking to a person who was asking about the location of the x-ray room when one of the armed men pointed a gun at him, announced that there was a holdup, and instructed him to keep still as he took his firearm.[4] Simultaneously, accused-appellant pointed a gun at, and grabbed the firearm[5] of, another security guard, Benjamin Saclolo, who was seated in front of a desk at the emergency room. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Santos grappled with his assailant for the possession of the latter’s gun in the course of which Santos’ other firearm, a service revolver, was accidentally pulled out of its holster, resulting to a gunshot. This caught the attention of accused-appellant who pointed his gun at Santos and warned him that he would shoot him should he make one false move.[6] Santos then pushed his assailant in the direction of accused-appellant, causing the former to fall at which instant Santos ran but not before he was dispossessed of his service revolver.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In the meantime, about 20 meters away[7], four members of the group entered the cashier’s office of the hospital and ordered the employees to lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at cashier Rodrigo Alonzo and ordered him to open the vault.[8] Before Alonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for weapons in the course of which his wallet containing P450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vault which the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred While the four malefactors were at the cashier’s office, another security guard, Pio Gomez who was manning the hospital gate and conversing with maintenance plumber Cesar Rosella, was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the hospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armed men.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The four armed men who emptied the vault then rushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomez who had by then collapsed on the ground.[11] Two of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Numeriano Castor which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front of the hospital at San Rafael Street. One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, after forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled with his companion. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred That same afternoon of April 3, 1996, at around 6:00 o’clock, the vehicle, valued at P300,000.00, was found abandoned somewhere in Manila and was brought back to the hospital by police authorities.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred More than a month and three weeks after the heist, or on May 27, 1996, accused-appellant was arrested by police authorities. At the Western Police District, Ermita, Manila, he was positively identified in a police line-up by the hospital security guards Santos and Saclolo as one of the two armed men who announced a holdup and took their firearms at the emergency room of the hospital on the afternoon of April 3, 1996. Santos and Saclolo thereupon executed sworn statements.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred On June 8, 1996, security guard Gomez who sustained four gunshot wounds[14] expired. The findings on the autopsy conducted on his body by Dr. Juan Garcia of the Tondo Medical Center were incorporated in a medico-legal certificate.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred For the hospitalization and medical expenses of Gomez, his family incurred P70,000.00.[16] And for funeral and miscellaneous expenses, the amount of P48,000.00[17] was incurred.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred As for the defense, lone witness accused-appellant came up with an alibi. He claimed that between 3:00 p. m. and 4:00 p. m. of April 3, 1996, he and his wife were at Balic-balic, Sampaloc, Manila looking for a house to rent, and they returned home at about 7:00 p. m., thus rendering it impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime.[18] Discrediting accused-appellant’s alibi in favor of his positive identification by security guards Santos and Saclolo as one of the malefactors, the trial court convicted him of robbery with homicide in the first case and carnapping in the second in its Decision of April 25, 2000 on review, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 96-150264, the court finds accused Ricardo Napalit y Paral guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide with the attendant aggravating circumstance of the offense having been committed by an organized/syndicated crime group of which the accused belongs, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred On the civil liability of the accused, the court further sentences him to pay Evelyn Gomez, widow of the slain security guard, Pio Gomez, actual and moral damages in the respective sums of P118,000.00 and P300,000.00, and indemnity for the loss of life of the victim in the sum of P50,000.00, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from this date until fully paid. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In Criminal Case No. 97-156381, the court likewise, finds accused Ricardo Napalit y Paral guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of R.A. 6539, or carnapping, and sentences him to suffer imprisonment of 25 years and to pay the costs.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In his brief, accused-appellant ascribes the following errors to the trial court:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred II. EVEN GRANTING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE PLAN TO COMMIT ROBBERY, THE TRIAL COURT, NONETHELESS, ERRED IN ATTRIBUTING TO HIM AND HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE WHICH HAPPENED ON THE OCCASION OF THE ROBBERY.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred On the first assigned error, accused-appellant maintains that his identification by Santos and Saclolo as one of the more than six armed men during the incident was not established with moral certainty for, so he argues, said witnesses were at the time of the robbery fraught with fear and nervousness. To buttress his claim, accused-appellant draws attention to Santos’ failure to hear the gunshot which first hit Gomez when he (Santos) was struggling with his assailant for the possession of the latter’s gun, which failure, accused-appellant alleges, prevented Santos from taking a clear look at the armed man attending to Saclolo, identified as accused-appellant, since his (Santos’) attention was fully focused on his assailant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Accused-appellant readily admits, however, that both Santos and Saclolo were credible, conceding that their respective testimonies were straightforward and consistent insofar as their recollection of the disarming incident is concerned.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred When the issue of credibility is involved, appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court since the latter is in a better position to pass on it, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying, unless it is shown that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance that, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In the case at bar, the trial court found the testimony of witnesses Santos and Saclolo to be worthy of credence. From the transcripts of the stenographic notes of their testimonies, this Court finds that, indeed, they merit credence. They are straightforward and consistent. Consider the following answers of Santos, quoted verbatim:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Q: On April
3, 1996, at about 4:05 p.m., while you are manning the emergency room
of
the Tondo General Hospital, do you recall of any unusual incident that
took place?
Q: What
else happened after that man poked a gun at you and took your firearm?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: What
happened after that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: What
happened next after that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Were
you able to identify that person who initially poked a gun at you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: How about
the other person who divested the gun of your co-security guard and
your
gun also, can you recognize him?
Q: Will you please look around and point to him?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred At this juncture, witness is pointing to a man who answered by the name Ricardo Napalit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Q: Why do
you say that he was the same person who divested your gun and the gun
of
your co-security guard?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The positive identification of accused-appellant was corroborated by Saclolo in his answers, quoted verbatim:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Q: Were
you able to identify the person who poked his .45 caliver firearm at
you?
Q: Look
around and tell the court if he is inside the court room?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Q: You also testified that one of the robbers poked his gun at your back and you identified him as the accused in this case, is that correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred A: He did not poke his gun at my back, he was in front of me because I was sitted at the table.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Q: What
was your position at the time of the incident, before the gun poking?
Q: Were
you facing the door or you are at the back of the door?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: You also
mentioned that you also saw the gun of the alleged robber?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: How far
were you from the robber that approached you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: While
you were sitted, was the alleged robber in front of you standing?
Q: How did
you see him, did you see space or did you peep?
From the foregoing testimonies, it is clear that Santos and Saclolo saw accused-appellant at close range as he stood before them at the time of the taking of their firearms. It bears noting that the incident occurred in broad daylight. When conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should be accepted as trustworthy.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred That witnesses to a sudden attack may be frightened or nervous as a result thereof does not fatally impair the credibility of their testimony, especially with respect to the identification of their assailant, for they tend to strive to see his appearance and observe the manner in which the crime is being committed.[26] In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show that Santos and Saclolo were so petrified with fear as to result in subnormal sensory functions on their part.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Accused-appellant’s bare assertion of alibi thus deserves no merit. Already a weak defense, his alibi becomes even weaker by reason of his failure to present any corroboration.[28] Accused-appellant argues nevertheless that assuming that he had indeed participated in the incident, he should only be held liable for robbery and not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. For, so he claims, the shooting of Gomez by his companions was beyond his contemplation and he never intended to perpetrate any killing, hence, only the actual perpetrators of the killing should be held liable therefor and the killing should not be appreciated to increase his liability.[29] And he adds that his carrying of a firearm was only for the purpose of threatening the victims so that they would not offer any resistance to him and his companions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Accused-appellant’s arguments do not persuade. Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred 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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In robbery with homicide cases, the prosecution needs to prove these elements: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, here used in its generic sense, is committed.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not indispensable in conspiracy. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred From the time accused-appellant and his companions entered the hospital and announced a holdup up to the time they fled, in the course of which security guard Gomez was shot, there can be no other conclusion than that they hatched a criminal scheme, synchronized their acts for unity in its execution, and aided each other for its consummation.cralaw:red As correctly pointed out by the trial court, the united, concerted and coordinated contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant and his companions in marauding the hospital, neutralizing its security guards and robbing it of P1,010,274.90 unerringly indicate a well-planned robbery operation and a conspiracy among them.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred As conspiracy has been established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred That accused-appellant did not shoot Gomez is immaterial. Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code is clear and leaves no room for any other interpretation. For, for robbery with homicide to exist, it is sufficient that a homicide results by reason or on the occasion of robbery.[35] The law of course exculpates a person who takes part in the robbery from the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and punishes him only for simple robbery when there is proof that he tried to prevent the homicide. No such proof, however, was offered. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred As an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, it becomes the duty of this Court to correct errors it may find in the appealed judgment even if they have not been specifically assigned.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred One such error committed by the trial court which was not assigned by accused-appellant is its appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of the offense being committed by a person belonging to an organized or syndicated crime group under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred While accused-appellant and company confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of gain, that they formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group,[37] was neither alleged nor proved.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred There being then no aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, the proper imposable penalty for the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua, following Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code which states that when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred And the trial court erred too in finding accused-appellant guilty of the Anti-Carnapping Act. Carnapping, as defined under Section 2, paragraph 2 of this special law, is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by use of force upon things. The elements of carnapping are thus: (a) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (b) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; (c) the taking is done with intent to gain.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred From the following testimony of the Toyota Tamaraw driver Castor:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Q: You said
that armed men arrived, more or less, how many armed men did you see?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: What
did the armed person who go (sic) to the passenger’s seat do?
Q: What
about that armed person who went to your side, what did he do to you?
Q: Were
you able to identify these two armed men who took you (sic) vehicle?
Q: Will
you please look inside the court room and tell us if these two
armed
men who forcibly took your vehicle are inside the court room?
Q: Aside
from these two armed men who forcibly took your vehicle, did you see
any
other armed men also in the vicinity?
it is clear that accused-appellant took no part in seizing the vehicle. Since there is no showing that the taking was made in pursuance of the common criminal plan of the malefactors to rob the hospital, the two armed robbers who took the vehicle having merely chanced upon it while they were fleeing from the scene of the crime, accused-appellant cannot be faulted therefor. Well-settled is the rule that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts done outside their contemplation or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred As to the civil aspect of the case, for loss of earning capacity, Article 2206 (1) of the Civil Code is the applicable law. It provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death.cralaw:red Accused-appellant is thus liable for damages for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased Pio Gomez which shall be paid to his heirs. In fixing the indemnity, account is taken of the victim’s actual income at the time of his death and his probable life expectancy[41] in accordance with the formula adopted by this Court, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-age of x a reasonable portionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred the victim at the of the annual netchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred time of his death) income which wouldchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred have been received by chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred the heirs for support[42]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred At the time of his death, Gomez was 48 years old.[43] Per the certification of employment and compensation[44] presented at the trial court, his average monthly gross income was P5,383.12 or an annual gross income of P64,597.44. In the absence of proof of his living expenses, his net income is deemed to be 50 percent of his gross income.[45] Using the above-stated formula, the indemnity for the loss of earning capacity of Gomez is P688,931.70, arrived at as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Net earning capacity = 2 (80-48) x (P64,597.44 - P32,298.72)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred 3 = 2 (32) x P32,298.72 chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred 3
=
21.33
x P32,298.72chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
= P688,931.70chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred With respect to the award by the trial court of P200,000.00 in moral damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence[46], it is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred As for the award of actual damages in the amount of P118,000.00, since it is borne out by the records, it is affirmed and so is the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 96-150264 finding accused-appellant, Ricardo Napalit y Paral, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to pay the legal heirs of Pio Gomez P118,000.00 for actual damages, P50,000.00 as indemnity for death, P688,931.70 for lost earnings, and P50,000.00 for moral damages.cralaw:red The conviction of accused-appellant Ricardo Napalit y Paral in Criminal Case No. 97-156381 for violation of R. A. 6539 or the Anti-Carnapping Law is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and he is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo at 223-228.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|