July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176639 : July 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RENATO PEÑA Y BUAN:
[G.R. No. 176639 : July 07, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RENATO PEÑA Y BUAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second. Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 July 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 176639* (People of the Philippines v. Renato Pe�a y Buan).
This case involves the conviction of an accused despite inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution's eyewitness.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Angeles City charged the accused Romano Manlapaz y Marimla (Manlapaz) and accused-appellant Renato Pe�a v Brian (Pe�a) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City[1] of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case 92-484. Because Pe�a was brought into custody subsequent to Manlapaz's conviction for the offense, the PTC tried him separately.[2]
Roel Dayrit (Dayrit) testified that around 10:00 p.m. on May 18, 1992 he was on a passenger jeepney, seated alongside its driver, Israel Lacson (Lacson), as it traveled on the Dau, Mabalacat, Angeles City road when accused Pe�a and Manlapaz came on board. At some point down the road, the new passengers asked Lacson to stop the vehicle, presumably so they could alight. Lacson complied and requested fares from the two. But, rather than pay, they stepped out of the jeepney, walked towards Dayrit's side, and drew their guns.
While Manlapaz was prodding Lacson to give up the jeepney's money box, Pe�a tried to pull Dayrit out of the vehicle by his hair even as he pointed his gun at Lacson. Dayrit then heard a gun shot and Lacson fell sideward on his lap. Pe�a and Manlapaz fled on foot, taking the jeepney's cash with them. Efforts to revive Lacson failed.
Amelia Lacson, the victim's wife, testified on the family's claim for damages. SPO3 Medardo Manalo and SPO3 Romulo Bagsic testified on their investigation of the crime,
Pe�a denied any part in the crime charged. He claimed that he could not have committed it since he slaughtered carabaos for Ernesto Tiglao in San Fernando and lie got to Angeles City around 10:30 p.m. already. Ernesto Tiglao, Roberto Cunanan, and Corazon Pe�a corroborated his testimony.
On March 26, 1997 the RTC rendered a decision, finding Pe�a guilty as charged and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to pay, solidarity with Manlapaz, P3,500.00 in hospitalization expenses, P11,500.00 in burial and funeral expenses, and P50,000.00 in indemnity for death.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC 01389, the latter court rendered judgment on October 16, 2006, affirming the RTC decision.[3] This prompted Pe�a to come to this Court, seeking acquittal.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that Pe�a, acting in conspiracy with Manlapaz, robbed Lacson of his earnings and killed him as Dayrit testified.
The Ruling of the Court
As a rule, appellate courts regard themselves as bound by die trial judge's assessment of the witnesses who testify before him, face to face. He is able to observe in the smallest details how each witness takes the questions and how readily or with hesitation he responds to them. People have the uncanny ability to communicate their thoughts to others beyond the words they say. This is an advantage that is denied those who review trial proceedings merely from the pages of the transcripts.[4]
Of course, the appellate courts can take positions that differ from that of the trial court if it appears from the record that it overlooked or misunderstood certain facts or circumstances that could alter the result of the case.[5] Here, Pe�a points out that when Dayrit testified during the earlier trial of the crime against co-accused Manlapaz, Dayrit claimed that it was Manlapaz, not Pe�a as he claimed during the second trial, who pulled his hair, trying to get him out of the jeepney.
But witnesses are not expected to be infallible. Here, both robbers threatened Dayrit and Lacson (the driver) with their guns as they stood on Dayrit's side of the jeepney. One pulled Dayrit by the hair, trying to get him out of the vehicle, while the other ordered Lacson to give up the money in his cash box. That Dayrit made a mistake the second time he testified five years later as to which of the robbers did what cannot erode his credibility. The crime took place on May 18, 1992. Dayrit testified at the trial of Manlapaz four months later on September 2, 1992 when the facts were relatively fresh in his mind. On the other hand, he testified at the trial of Pe�a on November 13, 1997, more than five years later.
What is important is that Dayrit stuck to the substance of his story, missing out only on which of Manlapaz and Pe�a pulled him by the hair. His mistake under the circumstances is understandable. Indeed, it shows that the prosecutor did not prepare him by requiring him to read the transcript of his testimony at the previous trial. He testified spontaneously from what he could recall. This can be regarded as a badge of truth.[6]
Pe�a also points out that, since Dayrit must have been in a state of shock when the robbery was taking place, he could not have properly observed the faces of the men who committed the crime. But Dayrit's identification of Pe�a as one of the two robbers was straightforward and categorical.[7] And contrary to Pe�a's view, most witnesses do retain vivid memories of extraordinary experiences that they go through,[8] no doubt aided by the adrenalin rush to their system. Besides, there is no evidence that Dayrit's testimony prompted spite or desire for revenge.
Given Dayrit's positive and clear identification of Pe�a, his defense of alibi is unavailing.[9] This is especially so since such alibi was not an air-tight one. He admitted that he was in Angeles City at 10:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after the commission of the crime as reported.[10]
While we affirm the imposition of the penalty on the accused, we modify the imposition of the civil liability. The RTC, together with the CA, erred in imposing solidary liability on Pe�a and Manlapaz since the RTC ceased to have jurisdiction over Manlapaz when it decided the case against Pe�a. In imposing joint liability for the two accused, the RTC, assumed jurisdiction over Manlapaz when in reality, it no longer had, his appeal having been decided much earlier.
In addition, under prevailing jurisprudence,[11] the Court also imposes, by way of moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victims.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 16, 2006 in CA-GR. CR HC 01389 which, with the RTC in Criminal Case 92-484, found the accused-appellant Renato Pe�a y Buan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay, the following amounts: (1) death indemnity of P50,000.00 and (2) actual damages amounting to P11,500.00 for burial and funeral expenses and P3,500.00 for hospitalization expenses with the following MODIFICATIONS:
G.R. No. 176639* (People of the Philippines v. Renato Pe�a y Buan).
This case involves the conviction of an accused despite inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution's eyewitness.
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Angeles City charged the accused Romano Manlapaz y Marimla (Manlapaz) and accused-appellant Renato Pe�a v Brian (Pe�a) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City[1] of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case 92-484. Because Pe�a was brought into custody subsequent to Manlapaz's conviction for the offense, the PTC tried him separately.[2]
Roel Dayrit (Dayrit) testified that around 10:00 p.m. on May 18, 1992 he was on a passenger jeepney, seated alongside its driver, Israel Lacson (Lacson), as it traveled on the Dau, Mabalacat, Angeles City road when accused Pe�a and Manlapaz came on board. At some point down the road, the new passengers asked Lacson to stop the vehicle, presumably so they could alight. Lacson complied and requested fares from the two. But, rather than pay, they stepped out of the jeepney, walked towards Dayrit's side, and drew their guns.
While Manlapaz was prodding Lacson to give up the jeepney's money box, Pe�a tried to pull Dayrit out of the vehicle by his hair even as he pointed his gun at Lacson. Dayrit then heard a gun shot and Lacson fell sideward on his lap. Pe�a and Manlapaz fled on foot, taking the jeepney's cash with them. Efforts to revive Lacson failed.
Amelia Lacson, the victim's wife, testified on the family's claim for damages. SPO3 Medardo Manalo and SPO3 Romulo Bagsic testified on their investigation of the crime,
Pe�a denied any part in the crime charged. He claimed that he could not have committed it since he slaughtered carabaos for Ernesto Tiglao in San Fernando and lie got to Angeles City around 10:30 p.m. already. Ernesto Tiglao, Roberto Cunanan, and Corazon Pe�a corroborated his testimony.
On March 26, 1997 the RTC rendered a decision, finding Pe�a guilty as charged and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to pay, solidarity with Manlapaz, P3,500.00 in hospitalization expenses, P11,500.00 in burial and funeral expenses, and P50,000.00 in indemnity for death.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC 01389, the latter court rendered judgment on October 16, 2006, affirming the RTC decision.[3] This prompted Pe�a to come to this Court, seeking acquittal.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that Pe�a, acting in conspiracy with Manlapaz, robbed Lacson of his earnings and killed him as Dayrit testified.
As a rule, appellate courts regard themselves as bound by die trial judge's assessment of the witnesses who testify before him, face to face. He is able to observe in the smallest details how each witness takes the questions and how readily or with hesitation he responds to them. People have the uncanny ability to communicate their thoughts to others beyond the words they say. This is an advantage that is denied those who review trial proceedings merely from the pages of the transcripts.[4]
Of course, the appellate courts can take positions that differ from that of the trial court if it appears from the record that it overlooked or misunderstood certain facts or circumstances that could alter the result of the case.[5] Here, Pe�a points out that when Dayrit testified during the earlier trial of the crime against co-accused Manlapaz, Dayrit claimed that it was Manlapaz, not Pe�a as he claimed during the second trial, who pulled his hair, trying to get him out of the jeepney.
But witnesses are not expected to be infallible. Here, both robbers threatened Dayrit and Lacson (the driver) with their guns as they stood on Dayrit's side of the jeepney. One pulled Dayrit by the hair, trying to get him out of the vehicle, while the other ordered Lacson to give up the money in his cash box. That Dayrit made a mistake the second time he testified five years later as to which of the robbers did what cannot erode his credibility. The crime took place on May 18, 1992. Dayrit testified at the trial of Manlapaz four months later on September 2, 1992 when the facts were relatively fresh in his mind. On the other hand, he testified at the trial of Pe�a on November 13, 1997, more than five years later.
What is important is that Dayrit stuck to the substance of his story, missing out only on which of Manlapaz and Pe�a pulled him by the hair. His mistake under the circumstances is understandable. Indeed, it shows that the prosecutor did not prepare him by requiring him to read the transcript of his testimony at the previous trial. He testified spontaneously from what he could recall. This can be regarded as a badge of truth.[6]
Pe�a also points out that, since Dayrit must have been in a state of shock when the robbery was taking place, he could not have properly observed the faces of the men who committed the crime. But Dayrit's identification of Pe�a as one of the two robbers was straightforward and categorical.[7] And contrary to Pe�a's view, most witnesses do retain vivid memories of extraordinary experiences that they go through,[8] no doubt aided by the adrenalin rush to their system. Besides, there is no evidence that Dayrit's testimony prompted spite or desire for revenge.
Given Dayrit's positive and clear identification of Pe�a, his defense of alibi is unavailing.[9] This is especially so since such alibi was not an air-tight one. He admitted that he was in Angeles City at 10:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after the commission of the crime as reported.[10]
While we affirm the imposition of the penalty on the accused, we modify the imposition of the civil liability. The RTC, together with the CA, erred in imposing solidary liability on Pe�a and Manlapaz since the RTC ceased to have jurisdiction over Manlapaz when it decided the case against Pe�a. In imposing joint liability for the two accused, the RTC, assumed jurisdiction over Manlapaz when in reality, it no longer had, his appeal having been decided much earlier.
In addition, under prevailing jurisprudence,[11] the Court also imposes, by way of moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victims.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 16, 2006 in CA-GR. CR HC 01389 which, with the RTC in Criminal Case 92-484, found the accused-appellant Renato Pe�a y Buan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay, the following amounts: (1) death indemnity of P50,000.00 and (2) actual damages amounting to P11,500.00 for burial and funeral expenses and P3,500.00 for hospitalization expenses with the following MODIFICATIONS:
SO ORDERED.
(1) The imposition of solidary liability with Romano Manlapaz y Marimla for the civil liability of this case is hereby DELETED; and (2) For the accused Renato Pe�a y Buan to PAY the amount of P50,000.00, by way of moral damages.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* J. Nachura, no part. J. Perez, additional member, per Special Order No. 863 dated July 5. 2010; J. Peralta, no part. J. Villarama, Jr., additional member, per Special Order No. 858 dated July 1, 2010.
[1] Branch 59.
[2] Manlapaz's conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 121483 entitled People v. Manlapaz, 375 Phil. 930 (1999).
[3] Previously, the Court transferred the initial review of the case (G.R. No. 138118) to the CA via Resolution dated September 22, 2004, in view of the ruling in People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[4] People v. Castillon III, 419 Phil. 92, 103 (2001).
[5] People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 519, 536.
[6] People v. Dioneda, G.R. No. 180923, April 30, 2009, 587 SCRA 312, 318.
[7] TSN, November 13, 1997, pp. 8-9, 18-19.
[8] People v. Molina, supra note 5, at 537.
[9] People v. Amodia, G.R. No. 173791, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 518, 535.
[10] TSN, February 19, 1999, p. 3.
[11] People v. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 619, 644.
