Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83405:57581&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:50:30+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO TORRES, JAY TORRES, BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES Y NAVA, BRION, AND RONNIE TORRES, Accused, BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES Y NAVA, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the July 23, 2009 Decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02925, which modified the December 5, 2006 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 27 in Criminal Case No. 02-200171. The RTC found appellant Bobby Torres @ Roberto Torres y Nava (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder but on appeal, the CA found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
That on or about September 21, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, armed with bladed weapons, conspiring and confederating together with one malefactor whose true name, real identity and present whereabouts [is] still unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, to wit: while one JAIME M. ESPINO was on board his car and travelling along C.M. Recto Avenue corner Ylaya St., Tondo , this City, by blocking his path and forcibly grabbing from the latter his belt-bag; that on the occasion of the said robbery and by reason thereof, the herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault, use personal violence and abuse of superior strength upon the said JAIME M. ESPINO and that when the latter resisted, by then and there stabbing the latter with bladed weapons on x x x different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, and afterwhich, divest, take, rob and carry away a belt-bag, wallet, necklace, watch and ring of undetermined amount, belonging to said JAIME M. ESPINO.
At around 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001, Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto Avenue in Divisoria, Manila when Ronnie suddenly blocked his path. Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his belt-bag. Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt-bag but the latter’s brothers, Jay, Rey, appellant, and an unidentified companion suddenly appeared. With all of them brandishing bladed weapons, appellant and his brothers took turns in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held him by the neck. When Espino was already sprawled on the ground, they took his belt-bag, wallet and jewelries and immediately fled.
Espino was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. In his Medico-Legal Report No. W-658-2001,8 Dr. Salen concluded that Espino died of multiple stab wounds caused by sharp bladed instruments. The back portion of his head bore two stab wounds while his body suffered four stab wounds which proved fatal. Considering the number and varying measurements of the wounds, Dr. Salen opined that there were more than one assailant.
Prosecution witness Merlito D. Macapar testified that Ronnie took the belt bag of the deceased while Bobby and the rest took his wristwatch, ring and necklace. However, on cross-examination, witness admitted that he did not see who took the ring, wristwatch and necklace because as soon as the deceased fell on the ground, accused and companions surrounded him. Merlito’s testimony was contradicted by Eduardo Umali on a vital point. Thus, Merlito testified that there was an exchange of heated words. There was no intimation whatsoever what the altercation was about. He was ten meters away. No such altercation, however, took place according to Eduardo who was barely five meters away. This tainted the testimony of Merlito and Eduardo with suspicion. When material witnesses contradict themselves on vital points, the element of doubt is injected and cannot be lightly disregarded. That was not all though. Merlito testified [that] several people witnessed the incident. The stall of the victim’s daughter was about ten meters from the crime scene, which was a few meters from the stall of Ronnie. They both had been in their respective stalls for quite sometime. The principal prosecution witnesses are familiar with the deceased and the accused except for the unidentified companion as they often see them at the vicinity. Thus, in all likelihood, accused and the victim are familiar if not know each other very well. The perpetration of robbery at the place was thus unlikely.
Even granting that the element of taking is present, still, accused cannot be held liable for the complex crime of robbery with homicide for the reason that it was not indubitably shown that the main purpose of the accused was to rob the victim. To the mind of the Court, this is precisely the reason why the prosecution skipped the utterances made by the protagonist[s] during the attack. To sustain a [conviction] for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the culprit must be robbery and the homicide is perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the robbery, or by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (People vs. Ponciano, 204 SCRA 627).
The RTC thus concluded that appellant can only be liable for the killing of Espino. It held him guilty of murder after it found the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which was alleged in the Information and duly established by the prosecution. Moreover, the RTC ruled that conspiracy among the accused attended the crime.
Anent the civil aspect of the case, the RTC granted civil indemnity, actual and moral damages to the heirs of Espino, but denied the claim for loss of earning capacity for lack of documentary evidence.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds accused Bobby Torres y Nava, “Guilty” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00, the additional sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, actual damages in the amount of P62,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Let alias warrant of arrest issue against accused Reynaldo Torres, Jay Torres and Ronnie Torres.
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 which was denied in an Order18 dated April 10, 2007.
WHEREFORE, in view of foregoing, the appealed decision of the RTC Manila, Branch 27 dated December 5, 2006 is hereby MODIFIED in that appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court’s award to the heirs of the victim, Jaime Espino, of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and actual damages in the amount of P62,000.00 as well as its order to appellant to pay the costs of suit, are hereby AFFIRMED.
Appellant maintains that the CA erred in finding him liable for robbery with homicide as charged in the Amended Information. He argues that his appeal to the CA was limited to his conviction for murder and excluded his acquittal for robbery. And by appealing his conviction for murder, he does not waive his constitutional right not to be subject to double jeopardy for the crime of robbery. He claims that even assuming that the RTC erred in acquitting him of the robbery charge, such error can no longer be questioned on appeal.
We cannot give credence to appellant’s contentions. “An appeal in [a] criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties.”26 “[W]hen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.”27 In other words, when appellant appealed the RTC’s judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information instead of murder.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the primordial intention of appellant and his companions was to rob Espino. Had they primarily intended to kill Espino, they would have immediately stabbed him to death. However, the fact that Ronnie initially wrestled with appellant for possession of the belt-bag clearly shows that the central aim was to commit robbery against Espino. This intention was confirmed by the accused’s taking of Espino’s belt-bag, wallet, wrist-watch and jewelries after he was stabbed to death. The killing was therefore merely incidental, resulting by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
eyewitnesses are worthy of credence.
Appellant attempts to discredit Umali and Macapar by asserting that there are glaring contradictions in their testimonies. He calls attention to the RTC’s observation that Macapar gave conflicting testimonies on whether he actually witnessed who among appellant and his cohorts took Espino’s valuables after he fell to the ground. Appellant asserts further that Umali’s testimony that an altercation did not precede the commission of the crime contradicts the testimony of Macapar that a heated exchange of words occurred prior to the incident. He also claims that it is contrary to human nature for Espino to alight from his car at 10:00 p.m. while in possession of a large amount of money without fear of an impending hold-up.
Moreover, it is unlikely that Espino feared alighting from his vehicle at a late hour while in possession of a huge amount of money since he was a vendor doing business in the vicinity where the incident occurred. He was familiar with the people and their activities in the premises.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the CA properly lent full credence to the testimonies of Umali and Macapar.
The weapons are not the corpus delicti.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient for his conviction since the weapons used in the stabbing of Espino were not presented. In other words, he asserts that it was improper to convict him because the corpus delicti had not been established.
In this case, the corpus delicti was established by the evidence on record. The prosecution eyewitnesses testified that appellant and his cohorts used knives to perpetrate the crime. Their testimonies on the existence and use of weapons in committing the offense was supported by the medical findings of Dr. Salen who conducted the post-mortem examination. Dr. Salen found that Espino sustained several stab wounds with varying measurements which were caused by sharp bladed instruments. Appellant is therefore mistaken in arguing that the failure to present the weapons used in killing Espino was fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
The defenses of denial and alibi cannot prosper.
We are in complete agreement with the RTC and the CA in finding lack of merit in appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi.
Appellant claims that he was in a drinking session in his friend’s house in Villaruel, Tayuman, Manila, from 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001 until 1:00 a.m. of the following day. He alleges to have slept at the place and went home at around 7:00 a.m. of September 22, 2001. According to appellant, he did not depart from his friend’s house from the time they started drinking until he went home the following morning.
the presence of abuse of superior strength.
Appellant argues that mere superiority in numbers does not indicate the presence of abuse of superior strength. In the same manner, appellant claims that the number of wounds inflicted on the victim is not the criterion for the appreciation of this circumstance.
“There is abuse of superior strength when the offenders took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.”38 Here, appellant and his four companions not only took advantage of their numerical superiority, they were also armed with knives. Espino, on the other hand, was unarmed and defenseless. While Ronnie was wrestling with Espino, appellant and his co-accused simultaneously assaulted the latter. The unidentified companion locked his arm around the neck of Espino while appellant and his co-accused stabbed and hacked him several times. While Espino was lying defenseless on the ground, they divested him of all his valuables. Thereafter, they immediately fled the scene of the crime.39 It is clear that they executed the criminal act by employing physical superiority over Espino.
In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically without need of allegation and evidence other than the death of the victim owing to the commission of the crime.43 Here, the RTC and CA granted civil indemnity and moral damages to Espino’s heirs in the amount of P50,000.00 each. These courts were correct in granting the awards, but the awards should have been P100,000.00 each. Recent jurisprudence44 declares that when the imposable penalty is death, the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages shall be P100,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, the July 23, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02925 that affirmed with modifications the December 5, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 02-200171 is AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Bobby Torres @ Roberto Torres y Nava is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Jaime M. Espino, P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The interest rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
Carpio, (Acting Chief Justice),* Velasco, Jr.,** Del Castillo, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
* Per Special Order No. 1778 dated September 16, 2014.
** Per Raffle dated September 8, 2014.
1 CA rollo, pp. 145-156; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now a Member of this Court) and Antonio L. Villamor.
2 Records, pp. 256-262; penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.
7 TSN, September 15, 2004, pp. 2-29; TSN, May 4, 2005, pp. 2-20; TSN, December 7, 2004, pp. 3-15; TSN, March 29, 2005, pp. 2-5.
9 TSN, December 6, 2005, pp. 2-12.
10 TSN, May 30, 2006, pp. 3-18.
11 TSN, September 5, 2006, pp. 4-15 and TSN, June 21, 2006, pp. 3-16.
12 TSN, June 13, 2006, pp. 2-51.
13 TSN, August 29, 2006, pp. 3-25.
19 See Notice of Appeal, id. at 290 and the RTC Order of July 30, 2007 which gave due course to the said notice of appeal, id. at 291.
20 CA rollo, pp. 145-156.
26People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 774.
28Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 590, 598.
29 TSN, September 15, 2004, pp. 4-6; TSN, May 4, 2005, pp. 3-7.
30People v. Dean, Jr., 314 Phil. 280, 292 (1995).
31People v. Alas, G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 310, 320.
32 Villarin v. People, G.R. No. 175289, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 500, 520-521.
33 TSN, May 30, 2006, p. 14.
34People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 689, 706-707.
35People v. Sumalinog, Jr., 466 Phil. 637, 650 (2004).
37People v. Ebet, supra note 34 at 707.
38People v. Lacbayan, 393 Phil. 800, 808 (2006).
40 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 294, paragraph 1.
41 People v. Villanueva, Jr., 611 Phil. 152, 178 (2009).
43Crisostomo v. People, supra note 28 at 603.
44People v. Gambao, G. R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013.
45Crisostomo v. People, supra note 28 at 604.
47People v. Gambao, supra note 44.
48People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 280, 296.
49 People v. Obligado, 603 Phil. 371, 376 (2009).

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