February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 195242 : February 13, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS JOEL DELA PEÑA Y IBAY
G.R. No. 195242 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus JOEL DELA PEŅA y IBAY.
We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Joel dela Peņa y Ibay (appellant), from the August 12, 2010 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03057.
The RTC Ruling
In its September 11, 2007 decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51, convicted the appellant of robbery with homicide committed on board Five Star Bus No. 9818 on June 6, 2005. It found that the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Police Officer 2 (PO2) Darwin Aquino and Police Inspector (PINSP) Roldan Suitos were categorical in establishing the identity of the appellant as one of those who held them up. It rejected the appellant's bare claim that he was one of the hold up victims. It, likewise, found that, notwithstanding the lack of evidence pointing to the appellant as the one who fired the shot that killed the child Zainab Jalel Mohamad, the existence of conspiracy left no doubt as to his guilt. It sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and it also ordered him to pay the heirs of Mohamad the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[2]
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, giving full respect to the latter's assessment of the testimony and credibility of the eyewitnesses. It found that the prosecution proved the element of asportation, noting that the appellant and his cohorts were able to perform all the acts of execution for the consummation of the crime or robbery since some of the valuables of the bus passengers were already in their possession before the timely intervention of the police officers. It held that the appellant was also liable for Mohamad's death since once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide.[3]
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimonies of PO2 Aquino and PINSP Suitos, more so in the present case where the findings were affirmed by the CA. The lower courts correctly rejected the appellant's bare denial, which is an inherently weak defense.[4] While there is no evidence pointing to the appellant as the one who fired the shot that killed Mohamad, the appellant is still liable for robbery with homicide. Case law establishes that whenever homicide is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing.[5] In this case, there was no showing that appellant attempted to prevent the killing of Mohamad. The lower court properly appreciated conspiracy, demonstrated by the concerted efforts of the appellant and his companions in divesting the bus passengers of their valuables. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable, under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, by reclusion perpetua to death. Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.
While we affirm the lower courts' factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to modify the appellant's civil liability. We award temperate damages of P25,000.00, even if there is no receipt or competent proof to show the amount of actual damages incurred by the victim's family; it was reasonable to expect that they incurred expenses for the coffin and burial of the victim.[6]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the August 12, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03057 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Joel dela Peņa y Ibay is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Zainab Jalel Mohamad, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, J., designated as Additional Member in lieu of Reyes, J., per raffle dated February 8, 2012.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Elihu A. Ybaņez; rollo, pp. 2-9.[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. T-3802; CA rollo, pp. 24-35.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] People of the Philippines v. Arnold Castro y Yanga, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011.
[5] People of the Philippines v. Gaga Latam, et al., G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011.
[6] People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010, 636 SCRA 533, 543; and People v. Asis, G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 509, 531.