Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53040:gr-180992-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:50:00+00:00

Document:
ELMER DIAMANTE y SIOSON and TANNY BOY STA. TERESA y LINTAG Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Along with Archimedez Lintag y Fausto (Lintag) alias Medes, Maricar Manalang y Mallari (Maricar) alias Marie, and Virgilio Gerardo y Supatan (Gerardo), herein two petitioners Elmer Diamante y Sioson (Diamante) alias Romeo Diamante and Mengoy and Tanny Boy Sta. Teresa y Lintag (Sta. Teresa) alias Tanny were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong with robbery1 and carnapping2 in two separate Informations, both dated July 13, 2000.
At about 2:00 o' clock in the afternoon of July 9, 2000, while Cadorniga was in his clinic inside his house at San Rafael Street, Mandaluyong City, Maricar, accompanied by petitioner Diamante, knocked on the door seeking a dental check-up. Cadorniga let them in and entered an inner room to fix himself. After he emerged from the inner room, he saw that there were already five persons inside.
Cadorniga went on to conduct the check-up, after which someone grabbed him and announced a hold-up. Sta. Teresa quickly tied him down to a stool and wrapped his entire body, including his face and eyes, with a clear scotch tape. Lintag and Dela Rosa poked guns at him, prompting him to cry, "Kunin niyo nang lahat, huwag niyo lang akong saktan." The assailants soon ransacked the clinic for around 15 minutes and left carrying Cadorniga's personal effects. Cadorniga thereafter heard his car alarm sound off, putting him on notice that his car, a Daewoo racer, was likewise taken.
Still tied to a stool, Cadorniga struggled to reach the main door which he opened. A neighbor who saw his condition helped him untangle himself. Cadorniga thereupon called the police who swiftly arrived at the crime scene, gathered fingerprints thereat, and took Cadorniga's statement.
At about 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. of the following day, Gerardo turned up at the clinic and advised Cadorniga that they had to rush to Pandacan because his car would be sold to a buyer in Cavite. Accompanied by officers of the Manila police, Gerardo led Cadorniga and his brother to the house of Sta. Teresa who promptly confessed being one of those who had robbed Cadorniga. Sta. Teresa subsequently led them to the house of Loza where the other accused were hiding. The police thus apprehended Sta. Teresa, Diamante, Maricar, and Lintag and brought them to the police station. Some of the stolen items, including the Daewoo racer, were recovered.
On July 9, 2000, in Pandacan, Manila, Gerardo was flagged down by a male passenger, later identified to be Dela Rosa, who instructed him to head to Boni Avenue corner San Rafael Street, Mandaluyong City. Along the way, they picked up Dela Rosa's companions, later identified as Diamante, Sta. Teresa, Lintag, and Maricar. Upon reaching their destination, Diamante and Maricar alighted from the taxi and entered the clinic of Cadorniga. The remaining passengers shortly followed upon Diamante's signal.
Gerardo waited outside as told. His passengers went out of the clinic after about 30 minutes carrying things. Lintag boarded Gerardo's taxi, while the others rode in the Daewoo racer parked behind it. Gerardo was asked to tail the Daewoo racer, but lost sight of it when they reached Makati. He was thus instructed to, as he did, proceed to Dela Rosa's house in Pandacan where Lintag got off and came back with Maricar. Gerardo was then told to drive on. They reached the house where the Daewoo racer had been brought, whereupon two other members of the group again boarded Gerardo's taxi. Gerardo overheard that they would take the Daewoo racer to Cavite.
His passengers having been brought to their final destination, Gerardo demanded payment for his services. Dela Rosa poked a gun at him, however, and told him to go away and keep quiet about everything. Gerardo returned to Dela Rosa the next day to demand payment once more, but the latter again poked a gun at him and asked him to leave. Gerardo thus left.
That night on his way home, Gerardo dropped by the clinic of Cadorniga and talked to him. It was then that he realized what had happened the day before. He accompanied Cadorniga in seeking police assistance; and led him and the police to Sta. Teresa who, in turn, led them to the other assailants and the location of the Daewoo racer.
In Criminal Case No. MC00-2728 for Robbery, accused ELMER DIAMANTE y SIOSON, TANNY BOY STA. TERESA y LINTAG, MARICAR MANALANG y MALLARI @ MARIE and RONALD DELA ROSA, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months of Prision Correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor as maximum, each.
Archimedes Lintag y Fausto having voluntarily pleaded to the crime charged under plea bargaining in Criminal Case No. MC00-2728, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, one (1) month and ten (10) days of prision mayor as maximum.
In Criminal Case No. MC00-2729 for Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. 6539), accused ELMER DIAMANTE y SIOSON, TANNY BOY STA. TERESA y LINTAG, ARCHIMEDEZ LINTAG y FAUSTO @ MEDES, MARICAR MANALANG y MALLARI @ MARIE and RONALD DELA ROSA @ "RONNIE DELA ROSA", to suffer imprisonment of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, each.
The case/s against ARNOLD LOZA @ "BIMBO" will be resolved separately in relation to accused's Demurrer to Evidence he filed before this court, in the above-entitled case.
Likewise, the bail bonds posted by Elmer Diamante, Tanny Boy Sta. Teresa, Maricar Manalang and Ronald Dela Rosa for their provisional liberty are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.
Let alias warrant for the manhunt of Maricar Isip-Manalang be issued.
The trial court credited the version of the prosecution, primarily the testimony of Gerardo, to be clear and coherent; and appreciated the presence of conspiracy in the commission of the crimes. It deemed the alibi of the defense inherently weak.
Petitioners Diamante and Sta. Teresa, as well as Lintag and Dela Rosa, timely filed a notice of appeal, hence, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals.18 Maricar has remained at large.
By Decision of July 31, 2007,19 the appellate court affirmed in toto the Decision of the trial court, upon a finding that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly those of Cadorniga and Gerardo, were not only consistent, reliable and trustworthy, but also corroborative of and in harmony with each other. It likewise observed that, in contrast, the testimonies of the therein appellants were incongruous.
Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated December 3, 2007,20 petitioners seek relief from this Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari.
On the merits, what petitioners essentially want is for this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis - Ã -vis the defense witnesses and to take this case out of the purview of the general rule in order to review it in its entirety, a task entrusted to the trial court, which is in the best position to discriminate between truth and falsehood because of its untrammeled opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses during trial.
Nevertheless, from a review of the records, the Court does not appreciate a conclusion different from the trial court's, as affirmed by the appellate court.
The trial and appellate courts found that petitioners were among those who committed robbery and carnapping against Cadorniga as shown by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which both courts considered to be straightforward, clear, and consistent. The Court finds no cogent reason to rule otherwise.
Gerardo's testimony should thus not be doubted merely because his participation was limited to bringing his passengers to their destination. He positively identified petitioners as among those he had brought to the clinic of Cadorniga and who entered the same on the day of the incident. At the very least, this is further proof of petitioners' presence at the crime scene when the robbery and carnapping were committed, belying all uncorroborated allegations to the contrary.
In fine, petitioners' guilt is indubitable.
As to the penalties imposed, the Court resolves to modify them to conform to applicable jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29967 affirming in toto that of Branch 211 of the Mandaluyong RTC in Crim. Case Nos. MC00-2728 and MC00-2729 is MODIFIED in that for robbery, the penalty imposed on petitioners is imprisonment for Four (4) years and Two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum, and Eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum; and for carnapping, the penalty imposed on petitioners is imprisonment for an indeterminate sentence of Seventeen (17) years and Four (4) months as minimum to Thirty (30) years as maximum. In all other respects, the assailed judgment is AFFIRMED.
1 Records, pp. 1-3. Criminal Case No. MC00-2728 (for Robbery).
2 Records, pp. 27-28. Criminal Case No. MC00-2729 (for Violation of Republic Act 6359 also known as Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972).
6 TSN of August 12, 2002, pp. 4-18.
7 By Order of February 12, 2003, the trial court granted the motion of the prosecution for the discharge of Gerardo to be a state witness in accordance with Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court; records, p. 395.
8 TSN of February 12, 2003, pp. 3-20.
9 TSN of May 20, 2002, pp. 1-7; TSN of June 3, 2002, pp. 2-9.
10 TSN of August 12, 2002, pp. 1-3.
11 TSN of November 12, 2003, pp. 1-12.
12 TSN of May 19, 2004, pp. 1-12.
13 TSN of June 29, 2005, pp. 1-15.
14 TSN of August 31, 2005, pp. 1-30.
15 TSN of February 23, 2005, pp. 1-28.
18 CA rollo, p. 52.
19 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas Peralta; CA rollo, pp. 131-150.
21 Vide Petition for Review on Certiorari, rollo, pp. 11-27.
22 Vide Comment, id. at 120-130.
23 People v. Biyoc, G.R. No. 167670, September 7, 2007, 532 SCRA 528, 543, citing People v. EreÃ±o, 383 Phil. 30 (2000), People v. Tidula, 354 Phil. 609 (1998), People v. Cabiles, 348 Phil. 220 (1998), People v. Mahusay, 346 Phil. 762 (1997), People v. Rivera, 315 Phil. 454 (1995) and People v. Lopez, Jr., 315 Phil. 59 (1995).
24 Vide People v. Hernandez, 347 Phil. 56, 74-75 (1997).
25 Vide People v. Nazareno, 329 Phil. 16, 22 (1996).
26 People v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546, September 3, 2008, 564 SCRA 135, 149-150.
27 Vide Abay v. People, G.R. No. 165896, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 34, 45.
28 Bautista v. Castillo, G.R. No. 174405, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 398, 406.
29 Castillo v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 150, 159 (1996).
Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
31 Republic Act No. 6539, Section 2.
32 People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 171085, March 17, 2009.
33 People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009.
37 Vide Abay v. People, supra note 27 at 43-44.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.
39 Eduarte v. People, G.R. No. 176566, April 16, 2009.
40 Republic Act No. 6539, Section 14.
41 Act No. 4103, Section 1; . . . and if the offense is punished by [a special] law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
42 People v. Viente, G.R. No. 103299, August 17, 1993, 225 SCRA 361, 373.

References: v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.