SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 206227, August 31, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY BUENAMER Y MANDANE, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the June 7, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CR-H.C. No. 04881, which affirmed with modification the May 18, 2010 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 09-272017, finding appellant Stanley Buenamer y Mandane (Buenamer) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide, as defined and penalized in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court
Buenamer and his co-accused Jerome Lambada y Landero (Lambada) were indicted for the felony of robbery with homicide for staging an armed robbery inside a passenger FX taxi and causing the death of one of the passengers therein. The indictment against them alleged—
The undersigaed accuses STANLEY BUENAMER y MANDANE and JEROME LAMBADA y LANDERO of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryArraigned on December 7, 2009 both accused, assisted by counsel, entered a negative plea to the crime charged. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits followed.That on or about October 20, 2009 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, to wit: by boarding a passenger FX taxi going to España Blvd., Sampaloc, this City, announcing a hold up then pointing their guns to its passengers and FERRARIE TAN y OALLESMA and divesting from him his black bag containing a Sony PSP colored black with casing and one (1) brown envelope with cash money in the amount of P5,460.00, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the same, against his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said FERRARIE TANy OALLESMA in the amount of more than P5,460.00, Philippine Currency; that on occasion of or by reason of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling themselves to take, rob and carry away the personal properties of the passengers, attack, assault and use personal violence upon said FERRARIE TAN y OALLESMA when he chased the said accused who boarded a passenger jeepney in order to escape, but was boxed when he held on the handle bar of the jeepney causing him to [lose] his grip and [fall] from the jeepney and thereafter was ran over by the rear tire of said jeepney, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.CONTRARY TO LAW.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated May 18, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Manila in Criminal Case No. 09-272017 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, Accused-appellant is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, and is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.From that Decision, Buenamer took the present appeal and in support thereof now contends that the CA's Decision was contrary to the evidence, the law, and jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;All the elements mentioned above are present in this case. In point of fact, the prosecution succeeded in showing that the primary aim or objective of the malefactors Buenamer and Lambada was to rob the passengers of the FX taxi. Prosecution witness David, a passenger of the FX taxi in which the two robbers staged the heinous felony, was herself a victim of the robbery that was staged by the malefactors that afternoon of October 20, 2009 along España Boulevard in Sampaloc, Manila. David positively identified Buenamer as the very perpetrator of the crime together with his co-accused Lambada. David testified that she saw the faces of these two malefactors when these two boarded the FX taxi at the Pantranco terminal in Quezon Avenue, Quezon City; that Buenamer and Lambada, then armed with firearms, declared a hold-up on board the moving vehicle, after which these; two divested the passengers of their personal belongings, while threatening the passengers that they would blow off their heads ("pasabugin ang ulo namin") should the passengers resist the robbery. By taking the personal belongings and valuables of the passengers, employing force, violence, and intimidation, end motivated moreover by animus lucrandi or intent to gain or profit, and thereafter hitting Ferrarie causing him to fall from the passenger jeepney resulting to his death, there can be no question that Buenamer did commit robbery with homicide.
(2) The property taken belongs to another;
(3) The taking is with animo lucrandi; and cralawlawlibrary
(4) By reason of the robbery, or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.6chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
And, no less clear, and convincing, is the testimony of traffic enforcer Mendez about the identity of Buenamer. Mendez was one of the traffic enforcers who immediately responded to David's plea for help about the robbery hold-up; in fact, this witness boarded the very vehicle where the robbery hold-up took place. And, as his testimony attests, there can be no doubt or question that Buenamer was one of the perpetrators of this heinous crime:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[Private Prosecutor] Atty. ARNULFO PELAGIO Q Now, you said that there were two male persons who boarded the FX, what about the other one, would you be able to recognize him also? THE WITNESS: A Yes, sir. Q Again, will you please look inside the Courtroom and tell the Honorable Court if he is inside the Courtroom? Note: At this point the Witness is pointing to accused Stanley Buenamer y Mandane. Q Now, after this male person who was seated at the middle seat announced the hold up and pointed the gun to the driver, what happened next, Madam Witness? A He told [us] to bring out the cellphones and wallet, sir. And then he [threatened] to kill us if we will not give our belongings to them and if ever we will fight back then he will [blast] our heads away [pasabugin ang ulo namin], he will fire at our heads.7
Anent appellant's claim that the CA erred in not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, this Court agrees with the CA that this mitigating circumstance cannot be invoked by the appellant. "This mitigating circumstance addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the offender executes or commits the criminal act"9 - an intention that must comport, amongst others, with the weapon/s used by the offender and the mode of attack adopted by the latter, vis-a-vis the injuries sustained by his victim. Thus, in People v. Gonzalez, Jr.,10 we explained -
Q Could you tell us that incident, Mr. Witness? A Because that hour is a rush hour, we were directing traffic at that time at our jurisdiction Sir when all of a sudden we heard a voice from a woman coming from my right side asking for assistance. Q Could you recall the words that you heard from the woman? A "Tulungan nyo po kami hinohold-up kami." Q Upon hearing those words from that woman, what did you do Mr. Witness? A I approached her and she pointed to the jeepney where the hold-uppers boarded. Q Could you please describe to us, Mr. Witness, the jeepney? A It is a red jeepney. Q After x x x Diana pointed to you the jeepney where the hold-uppers transferred, what did you do? A I approached the jeepney and I saw a person wearing white clothes was holding at the "estribo" in the passenger side of the jeepney and that person cannot ride at the front portion because [sic] of the jeepney and so he was being drag [sic] by the jeepney. Q You said that the person wearing white uniform [was] holding at the bar or the "estribo" of the jeepney at the right side, could you tell us which hand was x x x holding on to the bar? A His right hand, Sir. Q What about his left arm? A What I saw [was] that that person wearing white uniform [was] getting something from [the] person seated inside the jeepney. Q After you saw this incident, what happened next after that? A I saw the person holding the iron bar was hit on his arm so he fell down and he was r[a]n over by the last tire of the jeepney, Sir. Q Could you tell us who was that person which you said hit the arm of the person wearing white uniform while he was holding at the iron bar or "estribo"? A Yes, Sir. Because I was near them. Q Could you tell us who is that? A Stanley Buenamer, Sir.8
[t]his mitigating circumstancs is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed, and the injury sustained by the victim. x x xHere, the records showed that Buenamer boxed or struck Ferrarie with such force that the latter lost his grip on the estribo or handle bar of the vehicle, fell off and run over by the vehicle's rear tire. He subsequently died. The legal postulate enshrined under Article 3 of the RPC decrees that every person shall be held responsible for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. And, complementing this Article 3 is Article 4 of the same RPC, which provides that "criminal liability shall be incurred (1) by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended." These two articles of the RPC must thus apply with implacable force against appellant; he must be called to account for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act; and hence must be deemed to have incurred criminal liability, although the felonious act he committed might have been different from that which he intended.
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 110-120; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison andDanton Q. Bueser.
2 Id. at 22-34; penned by Presiding Judge Reynaldo G. Ros.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 CA rollo, p.34.
5 Id. at 119.
6People v. Barra, 713 Phil. 698, 705 (2013) citing People v. Quemeggen, 611 Phil. 487, 497 (2009).
7 TSN, January 25, 2010, pp. 12-13.
8 TSN, February 5, 2010, pp. 5-6.
9People v. Badriago, 605 Phil. 894, 911 (2009), citing People v. Abueg, 230 Phil. 27 (1986).
10 411 Phil. 893, 925 (2001).