Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84204:59654&catid=1594&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:38:58+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE OROSCO, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE OROSCO, Accused-Appellant.
On appeal is the Decision1 dated March 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05171 which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 24, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 10 finding the accused-appellant Charlie Orosco guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
That on or about the 16th day of May, 2006, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent of gain and by means of violence, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly enter the store owned by one Lourdes Yap situated at Purok 4, Barangay Rawis, Legazpi City, and once inside said store, take, steal and carry away cash money, to the damage and prejudice of said Lourdes Yap, and by reason of or on occasion of said robbery, and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the aforesaid cash money in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously and taking advantage of their superior strength and with intent to kill, attack, assault and stab the aforesaid Lourdes Yap, thereby inflicting upon her injury which directly caused her untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of her legal heirs.
The factual scenario presented by the prosecution is based on the eyewitness account of Albert M. Arca (Arca), the postmortem findings of Sr. Pol. Chief Insp. Dr. James Margallo Belgira who conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, and the victim’s grandson, Ryan Francis Yap.
Yap was brought to the Aquinas University Hospital but she was declared dead on arrival. Later, at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Legazpi City District office, Arca gave descriptions of the faces of appellant and the dark thin man who stabbed Yap (“John Doe”). From a surveillance digital photo and video clip shown to him, Arca positively identified Abner Astor (Astor) as one of the two men sitting beside the store as lookouts. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against appellant and Astor. But only appellant was arrested as Astor, John Doe and Peter Doe remained at large.
Stab wound, left anterior costal region, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm, 5 cm from the anterior midline, 9 cm deep. The wound tract is directed posteriorwards, upwards and medialwards, cutting the sixth anterior thoracic rib and piercing the heart.
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, the Court hereby finds accused Charlie Orosco GUILTY of the crime of robbery with homicide. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of Lourdes Yap P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the fact of death, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Insofar as the other accused is concerned, the case is hereby sent to the archives, pending their eventual arrest.
Appellant went to the CA but his appeal was dismissed. The CA upheld his conviction as it found no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court.
In this petition, appellant reiterates the arguments he raised before the CA that the trial court erred in giving credit to the uncorroborated eyewitness testimony of Arca who could not point to him during the trial, and that even granting that criminal charges may be imputed against him, it should only be robbery and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide considering the fact that it was not him who stabbed Yap.
In this case, both the trial and appellate courts found the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Arca, convincing notwithstanding that he was quite slow in narrating the incident to the court and that he initially desisted from physically pointing to appellant as the one who held Yap’s hands from behind and took her money at the store after she was stabbed by appellant’s cohort (John Doe).
This person who was holding the hands of Lourdes Yap, were you able to identify him?
Yes, sir. He is Charlie.
Do you know the family name?
If this Charlie Orosco whom you said was then holding the hands of Lourdes Yap, if he is in Court, would you please point to him?
Please look around you and point at him.
If he is in Court, please point at him.
Why can’t you point at him?
At this juncture, the witness is somewhat trembling.
The witness can not answer.
By the look of the witness, Your Honor, he is afraid. Perhaps….
We have already foreseen the witness to pinpoint at anyone.
No. He said that the….
Then, let him voluntarily do it.
Your Honor, I move that the prosecutor will transfer to another question because we keep on waiting already.
Your Honor, it is understandable that even he is slow, he keeps on glancing at the person.
At this point, Your Honor, I would like to make of record that when it comes to the person of Charlie Orosco, Your Honor, he stopped and did not say ---- he did not nod or do anything of what he has been doing when the other persons were identified.
Now, is this Charlie Orosco here in Court?
Yes, sir, he is around.
This person who took the money or Charlie Orosco you said “he is in Court,” will you please look at him.
Is he now in Court?
The same observation, Your Honor.
Yes, Your Honor, he is hesitant. It is understandable because he is afraid.
Why can you not point at Charlie Orosco who according to you he is inside the Court?
I can’t afford to point at him.
You mentioned that you saw two (2) persons talking to Lourdes Yap. Who are these persons you are referring to?
Your Honor please, we are again registering our objection.
Charlie Orosco and a certain thin person.
Why are you able to say that Charlie Orosco was one of the persons talking, how long have you known Charlie Orosco?
He always go with a fisherman and act as helper and because of that I know him.
You mentioned that you have long known Charlie Orosco. Will you look around and point to him if he is in Court?
At this juncture, the witness is pointing to a man wearing a yellow T-shirt with handcuff and when asked answered by the name of Charlie Orosco.
Here, Albert Arca, the prosecution’s main witness, positively identified accused Orosco as one of [the] two men who robbed and killed Lourdes Yap on that fateful day. As observed by the trial court during the bail hearings, when asked to identify one of the men who robbed and killed the victim, Arca was trembling and constantly looking towards the direction of accused Orosco. Though simple-minded, Arca was well-aware of the possible consequences his testimony could trigger. To the Court’s mind, Arca’s act of constantly looking towards Orosco’s direction whenever he was asked to point out one of the culprits, is a mute but eloquent manner of identifying Orosco as one of the perpetrators of the crime. As such, Arca’s act is sufficient identification already.
Appellant repeatedly harped on the hesitation of Arca to point to him at the trial. However, as the trial court’s firsthand observation of said witness’ deportment revealed, Arca’s fear of appellant sufficiently explains his initial refusal to point to him in open court during his direct examination. Arca was finally able to point to appellant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery and killing of Yap during his additional direct examination when he had apparently mustered enough courage to do so.
Here, the homicide was committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery as appellant and John Doe had to kill Yap to accomplish their main objective of stealing her money. The earlier verbal tussle where the two pretended to have paid a greater amount and asked for the correct change was just a ploy to get inside the store where the victim kept her earnings. To verify whether the cash payment was indeed a P500 or P100 bill, the victim let them enter the store but once inside they got hold of her and stabbed her. Appellant, however, argues that if he had committed any offense, it was only robbery since Arca testified that it was John Doe, whom he described as a thin man, who stabbed the victim.
The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly showed that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused. Appellant and John Doe first engaged the unsuspecting victim in a verbal altercation until she allowed them to enter the store. Upon getting inside, they held the victim with John Doe wrapping his arm around her neck while appellant held her hands at the back. With the victim pressed between the two of them, John Doe stabbed her once in her chest before releasing her. Once she fell down, appellant quickly took the money placed at the altar inside the store and fled together with John Doe and the two lookouts outside the store. All the foregoing indicate the presence of conspiracy between appellant and his co-accused in the perpetration of robbery and killing of the victim.
It must be stressed that appellant played a crucial role in the killing of the victim to facilitate the robbery. He was behind the victim holding her hands while John Doe grabbed her at the neck. His act contributed in rendering the victim without any means of defending herself when John Doe stabbed her frontally in the chest. Having acted in conspiracy with his co-accused, appellant is equally liable for the killing of Yap.
The aforesaid sums shall earn the legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05171 affirming the Decision dated June 24, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 10 in Criminal Case No. 10916 is AFFIRMED. The sums awarded as civil indemnity (P75,000.00), moral damages (P75,000.00) and exemplary damages (P30,000.00) shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2 Records, pp. 285-291. Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Theresa G. San Juan-Loquillano.
4 TSN, November 7, 2007, pp. 7-17, 22-32, 36-38.
6 TSN, October 13, 2010, pp. 6-11, 18-19.
7 TSN, January 26, 2011, pp. 3-9.
8 TSN, February 23, 2011, pp. 3-5.
10People v. Porras, 413 Phil. 563, 588 (2001), citing People v. Listerio, 390 Phil. 337, 348 (2000); People v. Dela Cruz, 390 Phil. 961, 975 (2000); and People v. Bromo, 376 Phil. 877, 898 (1999).
11 TSN, November 7, 2007, pp. 17-22.
13 TSN, June 2, 2010, pp. 8-9, 11-12.
15People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701, 721 (2009), citing People v. Yatco, 429 Phil. 163, 173 (2002), see also People v. Boquirin, 432 Phil. 722, 728-729 (2002), People v. Taboga, 426 Phil. 908 (2002).
16People v. Doca, 394 Phil. 501, 516 (2000), citing People v. Salazar, 342 Phil. 745, 764 (1997).
17 People v. Quemeggen, et al., 611 Phil. 487, 498 (2009), citing People v. Jabiniao, Jr., et al., 576 Phil. 696, 710 (2008); People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 428 (2004).
18People v. De Jesus, id. at 427.
19 635 Phil. 608, 624 (2010).
21People v. Balute, G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015, pp. 5-6.
22 People v. Dadulla, 657 Phil. 442, 457 (2011), citing People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, 119-120 (2001).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.