Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40336:g-r-no-113446-august-4,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-elmer-fegidero&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:23:57+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELMER FEGIDERO y CORDOVA, Accused-Appellant.
or all valued at P19,500.00 belonging to the said Emilio Castro y Mallari, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the amount of P19,500.00 Philippine Currency, that on the occasion of the said robbery and by reason thereof, the herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the said EMILIO CASTRO Y MALLARI, and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
Upon arraignment on April 16, 1993, Accused Elmer Fegidero y Cordova pleaded not guilty. 4 Trial ensued.
Emma called up Police Station No. 6, Western Police District Command, Manila and reported that accused was detained at the barangay outpost. She made an entry about the incident in the barangay blotter. Afterwards, policemen from Police Station No. 6 arrived and took custody of accused and the balisong.
Bok-bok and Boy invited Elmer to a drinking spree in Taft Avenue, Manila which accused accepted. They left the house and boarded a passenger jeepney bound for Taft Avenue.
While the jeepney was cruising along Pedro Gil, Manila one of the passengers, an old man, signaled the driver to stop as he was going down. The passenger jeepney stopped in front of a gasoline station, at the corner of Brgy. San Vicente, Paco, Manila.
When the old man was about to stand up from his seat, Bok-bok grabbed the old man’s bag and threw it to Elmer, whom he (Bok-bok) instructed to run (Takbo!). The old man put up a fight causing a commotion inside the passenger jeepney. The passengers began to alight one by one, including accused Elmer. All the while, Elmer was not conscious that he was holding the bag of the old man.
Edna Monares, Elmer’s sister visited him at the Western Police District Command Headquarters. She noticed that he had wounds all over his body and his shirt was bloodied. He told her that he was with Bok-bok Morales when it happened.
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused guilty, as principal, of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide defined in and penalized by Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on said Accused the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code and hereby condemns him to pay the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, by way of indemnity. Upon the finality of this Decision, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to turn over the bag, Exhibit "E" and its contents, Exhibit "E-2" to the heirs of the deceased.
"The period during which the Accused was detained in the City Jail of Manila during the pendency of this case shall be credited to him in full provided that he agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Manila. With costs against the Accused.
In this appeal, Accused-appellant Elmer Fegidero y Cordova claimed that the court a quo erred in holding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established his guilt. He said that the acts and statements of the victim immediately after the stabbing incident are not part of res gestae and must not be admitted as evidence against him. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, he pretended that he did not conspire with Bok-bok Morales to commit the crime.
In the instant case, Accused appellant claims that the third element is wanting.
Assuming arguendo that it was Bok-bok Morales who had the intention of robbing the victim and that accused was just an unsuspecting companion, why then did he try to escape from the vehicle carrying the bag of the victim? Instead of running away with the loot, the normal reaction of a person who has come into possession of a thing which he knew to be stolen is to return it to the owner if he had no intent to gain. This showed that he had knowledge about the plan to commit the robbery, he was part of the conspiracy and he did nothing to stop it.
Accused-appellant claimed that he had no participation in the killing of victim Emilio Castro y Mallari. When accused-appellant was frisked by barangay councilor Frederico Lukban, a 7 ½ balisong was found inside his pants’ left pocket, covered with blood. When asked to explain why he had it in his possession, Accused just kept silent and did not explain.
Contrary to the contention of accused-appellant, the trial court did not err in considering the statement "Hoy! Hoy!" uttered by victim Emilio immediately after the robbery as part of res gestae, hence admissible against him. Taking into account the context when this was uttered and the time it was uttered, it very well pointed to accused as the one responsible for the crime. One of the prosecution witnesses, Eddie Mayani, testified that when he inquired from victim Emilio what happened to him, the latter said that he was held-up, while at the same time shouting after the escaping Elmer, "Hoy, Hoy!" This statement did cast "important light" upon the issue by identifying accused as the victim’s attacker. This was uttered immediately after the startling occurrence and without an opportunity on the part of the victim to come up with a lie.
With this chain of events, there is no logical conclusion except that accused Elmer Fegidero y Cordova was responsible for the robbery and death of victim Emilio Castro y Mallari.
1.	In Criminal Case No. 93-118514, Decision, Judge Romeo J. Callejo, presiding, Rollo, pp. 14-58.
2.	Regional Trial Court Record, pp. 1-2.
4.	Regional Trial Court Record, p. 12.
5.	RTC Decision, Rollo, pp. 14-58.
9.	TSN, May 21, 1993, pp. 20-22.
11.	RTC Decision, supra, second paragraph, p. 5.
12.	TSN, May 26, 1993, pp. 24-25. Ibid., p. 26.
17.	TSN, May 21, 1993, pp. 15-16.
18.	Regional Trial Court Record, p. 49.
19.	TSN, July 14, 1993, pp. 44-50.
23.	Regional Trial Court Decision, Judge Romeo J. Callejo, Rollo, pp. 14-58, at p. 58.
24.	Regional Trial Court Record, p. 109.
26.	People v. Botona, 304 SCRA 712, 728-729 .
27.	Rule 133, Section 4, Revised Rules on Evidence.
28.	People v. Botona, supra, Note 26, at p. 729.
29.	TSN, May 21, 1993, p. 35.
30.	People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 118573-74, May 31, 2000.
31.	Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition, p. 678.
32.	People v. Manhuyod, Jr., 290 SCRA 257, 271-272 .
33.	Rule 130, Section 42, Revised Rules on Evidence.
34.	Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code.
35.	People v. Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000; People v. Francisco, G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000; People v. Sanchez, 308 SCRA 264, 287 .

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