ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 189279 : March 9, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. NELSON PALMA y HANGAD, Appellant. R E S O L U T I O N NACHURA, J.: On appeal is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision The case stemmed from the following facts: On December 7, 2004, at approximately 7:00 in the evening, AAA, while walking along the C-5 Bridge in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City, noticed that a man had followed her after she passed the talipapa. Suddenly, the man placed his arm over her shoulder, poked a sharp object on the left side of her body, then instructed her to go with him. When she turned her head towards the man, she recognized the assailant (although then, she did not know his name) as she regularly saw him at the bridge every time she and her co-workers would pass by. Then, appellant hit her on the stomach and told her to undress. But she refused. He thus pushed her towards the sofa (found under the bridge), slashed her clothes and underwear and threatened her with the knife. Appellant thereafter grabbed AAAs bag and took her cellular phone and transportation money amounting to On December 16, 2004, while conducting their routine patrol, members of the barangay security force chanced upon appellant, whom they found sleeping, using several ladies wallets as pillows, under the C-5 bridge, near the place where AAA was raped. It appearing that appellant was drunk and recalling the rape incident that occurred a few days earlier, the barangay security force brought appellant to the Barangay Hall for verification. On December 17, 2004, appellant was charged in an Information for Robbery with Rape. Appellant denied liability and insisted that he only saw AAA in the precinct. He claimed that, on December 7, 2004, he was vending cigarettes at the corner of Crossing and Mandaluyong, and that he slept in Mandaluyong afterwards. When questioned by the court, he, however, admitted that he indeed slept under the C-5 bridge on the date AAA was raped. He later on changed his statement by saying that he only slept under the bridge on the night he was apprehended. On October 17, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant was, likewise, ordered to pay Hence, this appeal, raising the following issues:
cralawFirst, appellant insists that his warrantless arrest was unlawful. Second, he questions the credibility of AAA because of allegedly inconsistent statements in her testimony. Third, he assails the validity of his identification, claiming that it was marked by suggestiveness. Lastly, he avers that the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should not have been appreciated since nighttime was not taken advantage of in order to ensure the commission of the offense.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary We find no reason to reverse appellants conviction. Hence, we affirm the CA Decision, but with modification.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As to the regularity of appellants arrest, we have consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground, before arraignment. On the question of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, it is well-settled that findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by the appellate court. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, because it is in the best position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied the appellate court. Neither can we sustain appellants contention that his identification was marked by suggestiveness, because he was presented to AAA alone and not in a police lineup. As correctly pointed out by the CA, a police lineup is not required for the proper and fair identification of offenders. What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the persons charged were the malefactors. Finally, the CA did not err in sustaining the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. As testified to by AAA, she easily recognized appellant as she regularly saw him standing at the C-5 Bridge every morning. In choosing to commit the crime in the evening and in bringing AAA under the bridge, nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime with impurity. As correctly stated by the CA, the cover of darkness aided appellant in order to ensure that the execution of his criminal action would go unnoticed. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for Robbery with Rape, to wit: Art. 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: 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, and in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, the higher penalty, which is death, should be imposed. However, with the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," appellant shall be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity to-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'> WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 25, 2009 is AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) appellant Nelson Palma y Hangad is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; 2) the award of civil indemnity is INCREASED from SO ORDERED. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. RENATO C. CORONA C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|