ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Search for www.chanrobles.comPLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 110834 December 13, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSCAR COBRE, accused-appellant,
AGUSTIN ORTIZ (state witness), PAPIAS JABA (at large), and MARIO CARREON (at large).
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.chanrobles virtual law library
Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.
PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal, 1in which accused-appellant Oscar Cobre was convicted of the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph I of the Revised Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the heirs of the deceased Renato Leyva Biteranta in the amount of P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 2chanrobles virtual law library
The Information against appellant Oscar Cobre and the other accused, reads:
That on or about and sometime on the first week of October, 1988 in the Municipality of Pililla, Province of Rizal, Philippines a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with one Papias Jaba and Mario Carreon whose present whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping and aiding with one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously entered the farm of one Renato Biteranta y Leyva and once inside, take, steal and carry away the following items, to wit:
one(1) telescope P1,000.00
one (1) flashlight 500.00
one (1) cutter 150.00
one (1) battery 50.00belonging to said Renato Biteranta y Leyva represented by one Daniel Biteranta, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner thereof in the total amount of P1,700.00; and that by reason and on the occasion of the said robbery, the above-named accused, together with their companions, with intent to kill and armed with gun, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot said Renato Biteranta y Leyva on the vital part of his body, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wounds which directly caused his death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3chanrobles virtual law library
Accused Papias Jaba and Mario Carreon were not tried as they remained at large. Agustin Ortiz was later utilized by the prosecution as a state witness.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The evidence of the prosecution was given by witnesses RENATO GUZMAN, 4DR. DESIDERIO MORALEDA, 5and AGUSTIN ORTIZ. 6chanrobles virtual law library
The prosecution established that on October 4, 1988, accused-appellant Oscar Cobre, Agustin Ortiz, Papias Jaba, and Mario Carreon had an altercation with their employer Renato Biteranta. They were working in the orchard of Biteranta and wanted to leave the farm. The demand payment of their wage for the entire month of October. 7Biteranta refused to pay them since the month was not over.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Biteranta's refusal triggered the crime at bench. Jaba dashed towards Biteranta's house and he was followed by Biteranta. Before Biteranta could reach the steps of his house, Jaba stopped him with a kick. Jaba then armed himself with a .38 caliber pistol while Carreon and accused-appellant armed themselves with shotguns. 8chanrobles virtual law library
Fearful for his life, Biteranta tried to run away but Jaba had poked his gun at him. 9Jaba took Biteranta's wallet, 10shot but missed him. 11Accused-appellant then shot Biteranta with his shotgun. 12Biteranta sprawled dead on the ground.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
During the incident, Ortiz realized the presence of their co-worker Renato Guzman, a godson of Biteranta. 13Ortiz pushed Guzman into the house. On orders of accused-appellant, Ortiz tied the hands of Guzman, his wife Melitona "Mely," and his three (3) year old son Ronnie. 14Sensing danger to the life of Biteranta, Mely screamed "Huwag ninyong patayin ang ninong." 15Guzman then heard three (3) gun shots. 16He surmised that accused-appellant, Carreon, and Jaba shot their ninong Biteranta.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Somehow, Ortiz felt remorse in the killing of Biteranta. He tried to help Guzman escape but Jaba foiled his intent. "Ting, 17ano ba yan," he shouted and simultaneously pointed his gun at Ortiz. Ortiz shivered and continued to guard the Guzman family. 18chanrobles virtual law library
Before fleeing, accused-appellant and his cohorts saw to it that they would not be pursued. They punctured the tires of the jeep and let loose the horses of Biteranta. They fled with their guns and bags to Manila taking a passenger jeepney from Bugarin, Rizal to Divisoria. 19chanrobles virtual law library
An hour later, Guzman's wife untied him. He found Biteranta's lifeless body near the doorstep. He immediately reported the killing to Joe Presto and Floro delos Reyes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The police authorities arrived and interrogated Guzman. Upon ocular investigation, they discovered that a sheet of the wooden flooring of Biteranta's room was opened, wide enough to let one (1) person in. 20They found that Biteranta's telescope, flashlight, and scissors used for pruning "dalanghita" were missing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Lt. Colonel Desiderio A. Moraleda, Chief Medico-Legal Officer of the PC, Camp Crame, Quezon City certified that Biteranta sustained seven (7) gunshot wounds in his head and trunk. His death was caused by hemorrhagic shock as a result of shotgun wounds. 21He inferred that only one (1) gun was used because of the pellets' points of entry. 22chanrobles virtual law library
The defense had a different account of the incident. Accused-appellant denied having killed Biteranta. He testified that on that fateful day he saw the dead body of Biteranta at the doorstep of his house. He turned his back and saw Carreon who was also going to kill him. 23He ran but was overpowered by Carreon who forced him to hold an empty gun 24and to tie up spouses
Guzman. 25chanrobles virtual law library
The trial court on July 29, 1992 convicted accused-appellant of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and imposed the penalty mentioned earlier.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Hence, this appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
These are the assigned errors.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
Ichanrobles virtual law library
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE DESPITE THE DISCREPANCY IN THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS GUZMAN AND STATE WITNESS ORTIZ.
IIchanrobles virtual law library
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Accused-appellant Cobre insists that the prosecution failed to establish that he was the one who shot Biteranta. He claims that it was impossible for Ortiz and Guzman to witness the killing of Biteranta since they were inside the latter's house when the shooting started. He suggests that it was Jaba who held the loaded .38 caliber pistol who shot Biteranta to death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
We reject the arguments of accused-appellant. State witness Ortiz categorically testified that from his vantage view he saw accused-appellant shoot Biteranta, thus:
Q Thereafter what happened?chanrobles virtual law library
A Papias Jaba suddenly shot him followed by Oscar Cobre.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q What do you mean by following?chanrobles virtual law library
A Followed with one gun shot. He also shot Renato Biteranta. Papias Jaba was not able to hit Renato Biteranta. It was Oscar Cobre who was able to shoot and hit Renato Biteranta.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q Will you tell us what kind of a gun Oscar Cobre was holding at that time? (sic)chanrobles virtual law library
A Shotgun, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q How many times did he fire his gun?chanrobles virtual law library
A Only once, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q Do you know if the shot that came from the gun being held by Oscar Cobre hit Renato Biteranta?chanrobles virtual law library
A In the armpit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q Why do you know?chanrobles virtual law library
A I was near the door.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q How far were you?chanrobles virtual law library
A Two to three meters, sir. 26
The position of Ortiz near the door allowed him to see the shooting even if he was inside the victim's house. On the other hand, Guzman never claimed he saw who shot the victim. He was hog-tied inside the victim's house and could not have a view of the incident.
The attempt of accused-appellant to picture Jaba as the one who shot the victim cannot succeed. Jaba had a .38 caliber pistol. Dr. Desiderio Moraleda testified that the wounds suffered by the deceased were inflicted by a shotgun, thus:
Q With regard to the picture, will you please examine the picture and tell in layman's language the significance? (sic)chanrobles virtual law library
A Based on the examination of the body, it showed 7 shotgun wounds on the right side of chest and then . . . on the left side of the chest and this shotgun wound with vital organ like the heart and the lungs. (sic)chanrobles virtual law library
Q Mt. witness, of these 7 wounds which were mortal?chanrobles virtual law library
A All the shotgun wounds caused the death of the victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q Of these 7 shotgun wounds, in your opinion how many guns were used in inflicting the injuries? (sic)chanrobles virtual law library
A There is only one shotgun used.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Q What is your basis?chanrobles virtual law library
A This is area of the point of entry. 27
Moreover, accused-appellant will not be acquitted even if he established that it was Jaba who shot the victim. The evidence of the prosecution proved that all the accused, including the appellant, conspired to commit the crime at bench. Considering the circumstance of conspiracy, the act of one of the accused can be considered as the act of the others involved in the conspiracy.
In a last ditch to absolve himself, accused-appellant avers that Ortiz' testimony could have been exaggerated out of gratitude to the prosecution for utilizing him as a state witness. The argument is no more than a guesswork and deserves scant attention. We have verified Ortiz' Sinumpaang Salaysay 28and unwavering testimony taken one (1) year and eight (8) months thereafter, or on August 8, 1990 and they jibed on material points - that they took Biteranta's .38 caliber pistol and two (2) "de-sabog" guns from his room on October 3, 1988; that Jaba took Biteranta's wallet and shot him but missed; that accused-appellant pulled the trigger of his shotgun and hit Biteranta; that they also took away Biteranta's telescope, flashlight, cutter, battery, and some medicines; and that they deflated the tires of the jeep and unleashed the horses to make sure their escape. In fact, he was remorseful during the slaying. "Pasensiya ka na Kuya at Ate hindi ko akalain na papatayin nila si Kuya." 29"Gusto ho akong kalagan noon," Guzman recounted. 30chanrobles virtual law library
The only defense then of accused-appellant is denial. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime. 31His attempt to pass the blame to Jaba who allegedly shot the victim with a .38 caliber pistol cannot succeed. His story is uncorroborated and is contradicted by state witness Ortiz.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Well-settled is the rule that when 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 of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide. 32The exception to the rule is when it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing. The exception does not apply to accused-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
There is thus no doubt that accused-appellant has committed the crime of Robbery with Homicide. He was correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 33chanrobles virtual law library
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed Decision dated July 29, 1992 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against accused-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Judge Arturo A. Marave, Presiding, Branch 80.chanrobles virtual law library
2 RTC Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 16.chanrobles virtual law library
3 Original Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtual law library
4 Thirty-seven (37) years old, farmer, married, and a resident of Sitio Bugarin, Pililla, Rizal. T.S.N. June 14, 1989, pp. 2-3.chanrobles virtual law library
5 He is assigned as Chief Medico-legal, PC-INP, Camp Crame, Quezon City. He conducted the autopsy of the cadaver of Renato Biteranta on October 8, 1988. T.S.N. February 26, 1990, pp. 1-2.chanrobles virtual law library
6 Accused turned state witness. He is twenty-seven (27) years old, single, student, and a resident of Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna. T.S.N. August 8, 1990,
p. 2.chanrobles virtual law library7 T.S.N. June 14, 1989, p. 22.chanrobles virtual law library
8 Id., p. 15.chanrobles virtual law library
9 Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
10 T.S.N. August 8, 1990, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
11 T.S.N. June 14, 1989, p. 22.chanrobles virtual law library
12 Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
13 As a trusted worker and godson, Guzman and his family are permitted to live in Biteranta's house. Id., p. 15.chanrobles virtual law library
14 Sinumpaang Salaysay dated October 5, 1988.chanrobles virtual law library
15 T.S.N. June 14, 1989, p. 28.chanrobles virtual law library
16 Id., p. 13.chanrobles virtual law library
17 Referring to Agustin Ortiz.chanrobles virtual law library
18 Id., p. 28.chanrobles virtual law library
19 T.S.N. August 8, 1990, p. 12.chanrobles virtual law library
20 Sinumpaang Salaysay, op. cit.chanrobles virtual law library
21 Medico-Legal Report No. M-2440-88, Original Records, p. 102.chanrobles virtual law library
22 T.S.N. February 26, 1990, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
23 T.S.N. October 15, 1990, p.3.chanrobles virtual law library
24 Id., p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
25 Id., p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library
26 T.S.N. August 8, 1990, pp. 5-6.chanrobles virtual law library
27 T.S.N. February 26, 1990, p.4.chanrobles virtual law library
28 Exhibit "H".chanrobles virtual law library
29 Referring to Renato Biteranta, Exhibit "B."
30 T.S.N. June 21, 1989, p. 28.chanrobles virtual law library
31 People vs. Macagaling, G.R. Nos. 109131-33, October 3, 1994.chanrobles virtual law library
32 People vs. Calegan, G.R. No. 93846, June 30, 1994.chanrobles virtual law library
33 Supra.
