FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 218130, February 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERMIE PARIS Y NICOLAS, Accused,
RONEL FERNANDEZ Y DELA VEGA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This resolves the appeal filed by appellant Ronel Fernandez y Dela Vega (Fernandez) assailing the July 21, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06013 which affirmed with modification the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. L-9196 dated January 22, 2013 finding him and his co-accused Hermie Paris y Nicolas (Paris) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In an Information3 dated June 17, 2011, Paris and Fernandez were charged with robbery with homicide, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about June 15, 2011[,] midnight up to about June 16, 2011 early morning, in McKinley St., Poblacion, Binmaley, Pangasinan[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named armed accused in conspiracy with each other, with evident premeditation did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously enter the Anna Leizel Construction Supply building and thereafter broke into the office of the said establishment and upon gaining entry[,] the said accused took[,] with intent to gain[,] the assorted pieces of jewelry worth the sum of P128,000.00 and the cash amounting to P700,000.00, all owned by Anna Leizel S. Abagat (without her consent) and on the occasion of such asportation, the said accused stabbed Reymark Salvador, a stay-in worker in the establishment on several parts of his body with the [use] of a sharp[-]pointed [weapon] causing the instantaneous death of the said Reymark Salvador, to the prejudice and damage of the said Anna Leizel S. Abagat and the heirs of Reymark Salvador.
Contrary to Article 293 in relation to Articles 294 and 299 of the Revised Penal Code.
During arraignment, Paris and Fernandez separately pleaded not guilty to the offense charged against them. At the pre-trial conferenc, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following facts: that the incident happened at McKinley St., Binmaley, Pangasinan; the identity of the accused and the appellant; and that Fernandez was a stay-in worker of Anna Leizel Trading and Construction Supply (Anna Leizel Trading) at the time of the incident. Trial on the merits followed.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: PO1 Osman Honrado, P/C Insp. Mary Ann Cayabyab; Dr. Gladiola Manaois, SPO1 Jose Ysit (SPO1 Ysit), Atty. Franco Francisco (Atty. Francisco), Anna Leizel Abagat (Anna), and Luisito Salvador. Their testimonies were summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General in the Consolidated Brief tor Plaintiff-Appellee4 as follows:
At around midnight of June 16, 2011, Reyrnark Salvador (Salvador) and Fernandez were sleeping in their separate rooms in the warehouse of Anna Leizel Trading at McKinley Street, Binmaley, Pangasinan.Version of the Defense
Fernandez woke up when he heard someone knocking on the gate of the warehouse. He then got up from his bed, opened the gate, and let Paris and his unnamed companions enter the warehouse.
Once inside, Paris and one of his companions asked Fernandez where the office of Anna Leizel Abagat (Anna) is located. Fernandez pointed Anna's office to them. However, before going to said office, Paris and his companion went to Salvador's room. Fernandez heard Salvador crying for help.
Moments later, Paris and his companion left the room but Fernandez could no longer hear anything from Salvador.
Paris and his companions proceeded to Anna's office and began searching the place. Several minutes later, Paris left the office carrying a big bag.
At around five o'clock in the morning of the next day, Fernandez texted Russel Abagat (Russel), Anna's husband, informing him that something happened to Salvador. Fernandez went to the Abagat's residence and informed Russel and Anna that Salvador was stabbed several times.
Fernandez, Russel, and Anna went to the warehouse. Thereat, Fernandez accompanied them to the comfort room where they saw the lifeless body of Salvador.
Russel and Alma went to Binmaley Police Station and reported the incident. Together with several police officers, they went back to the warehouse. When they arrived thereat, Anna proceeded to her office and saw that the door's safety lock was destroyed. When she went inside, she saw that the safety hubs of the steel cabinet were also destroyed and discovered that the money and pieces of jewelry inside the steel cabinet were missing.
Anna approached Fernandez and asked hin1 about what happened in her office. Fernandez apologized and told her that the missing money and pieces of jewelry from her cabinet were taken by Paris and the latter's companions.
Anna called the police officers and informed them of Fernandez's confession. The latter was then brought to Binmaley Police Station.
While at the police station, Colonel Samson, the Chief of Police, informed Senior Police Officer I Jose Ysit (SPO1 Ysit) of Fernandez's intention to confess. At that time, Mercedes dela Vega Fernandez (Mercedes), Fcmandez's mother, was also present. SPO1 Ysit approached Fernandez and confirmed from the latter his intention to confess. SPO1 Ysit asked Fernandez whether he wanted a counsel [to] which the latter answered in the affirmative.
Several police officers went to Binmaley City Hall to look for a lawyer. They found Atty. Franco C. Francisco (Atty. Francisco) and informed him that a person in the police station needs a lawyer.
Atty. Francisco went to the police station, and met Fernandez. Atty. Francisco informed Fernandez that he can choose another counsel but the latter told him that he preferred him.
Atty. Francisco also informed Fernandez that any information he will disclose during the confession may be used against him. Fernandez replied that he is aware of the consequences of his voluntary confession.
Fernandez, Mercedes. and Atty. Francisco together with SPO1 Ysit went to the investigator and made his Extra Judicial Confession x x x. Atty, Francisco translated and explained every question to Fernandez.
When the confession was completed, SPO1 Ysit printed a copy of said confession. Atty. Francisco read and explained one by one the contents of said written confession in the Pangasinan dialect to Fernandez. The extra-judicial confession was then freely signed by Fernandez, Mercedes and Atty. Francisco.
Dr. Gladiola Manaois (Dr. Manaois), the Municipal Health Officer of Binmaley, Pangasinan, testified that she conducted an autopsy on the body of Salvador. She placed her findings in an autopsy report. According to Dr. Manaois, Salvador sustained several stab wounds on his neck and chest which have been caused by a pointed sharp instrument such as a knife or bolo. Dr. Manaois confirmed that the cause of the death of Salvador was due to hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds.5
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, both accused Hermie Paris and Ronel Fernandez are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE and are hereby imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.Aggrieved by the RTC's Judgment, Paris and Fernandez elevated their case to the CA.
Accused Hermie Paris and Ronel Fernandez are ORDERED to PAY, jointly and severally, the heirs of Reymark Salvador P75,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages, respectively; and to pay P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount for the funeral and other expenses.
On the other hand, accused are likewise ordered to pay jointly and severally Anna Liezel Abagat the amount of P800,000.00 constituting the actual damages suffered.
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Judgment dated 22 January 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69 in Criminal Case No. L-9196 finding accused-appellants Hermie Paris y Nicolas and Ronel Fernandez y Dela Vega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the heirs of Reymark Salvador, jointly and severally, the amount of Php25,000.00 as temperate damages is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php50,000.00 (instead of Php75,000.00 as moral damages should also be jointly and severally paid by them to the heirs of Reymark Salvador; the amount of Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of the said heirs is DELETED; the amount of Php700,000.00 (instead of Php800,000.00) should be jointly and severally paid by them to Anna Leizel Abagat as actual damages; and interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all the damages, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid, is also awarded.Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, Fernandez filed a Notice of Appeal14 dated August 8, 2014.
SO ORDERED.13
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No. 743816 requires that "any person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel."
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. x x x It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and the investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in com1ection with an alleged offense.In this case, Fernandez was not assisted by counsel at all times during his custodial investigation. The records show that Fernandez was assisted by Atty. Francisco only during the time he executed his extrajudicial confession. However, no lawyer assisted Fernandez at the time he was arrested and brought to the police station to answer questions about the robbery with homicide.
x x x Circumstantial evidence is that evidence 'which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established.' Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to convict the offender if i) there is more than one circumstance; ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are proven; and iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All the circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.The following pieces of circumstantial evidence, as testified by Fernandez himself, established his guilt for the crime of robbery with homicide: first: Fernandez and Paris were acquaintances even prior to the incident; second: Fernandez opened the gate of Anna Leizel Trading without first checking who was knocking outside thereby allowing Paris and his companions to freely enter the premises; third: Paris and his companions purposely proceeded-directly to the room occupied by the victim Salvador; fourth: Paris and his companions did not harm Fernandez despite the latter having already recognized or seen their faces; instead, they went looking for Salvador who was then asleep and killed him; fifth: it was Fernandez who directed Paris and his companions to the office of Anna; sixth: Fernandez did not offer any resistance nor attempted to help Salvador; and, seventh: Fernandez did not do anything after seeing Paris and his companions leave Anna's office carrying a bag; interestingly, he waited for more than three hours before informing his employers about the incident.
x x x We find that said acts of accused-appellant Fernandez. when taken together with the acts of Paris and his two unidentified companions, show concerted action and joint purpose. x x x [I]t is contrary to human nature that, if Paris and his companions were the only perpetrators of the crime charged, they would also have killed Fernandez to prevent him from being a witness and not merely frighten him.25Indeed, why would Paris and his companions harm and kill Salvador, who was totally unaware of their activities since he was inside his room sleeping, and leave Fernandez, who was a witness to their illegal acts, alive and unscathed?
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. -Here, the imposition of additional/incremental damages is not favorable to Paris who did not appeal. Hence, only Fernandez should be made accountable therefor.
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per November 29, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
1 CA rollo, pp. 199-231; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Melchor Q.C. Sadang.
2 Records, pp. 140-173; penned by Judge Caridad V. Galvez.
3 Id. at 1-2.
4 CA rollo, pp. 163-182.
5 Id. at 168-170.
6 Id. at 78.
7 Id.
8 TSN, June 14, 2012, pp. 3-36.
9 TSN, August 2, 2012. pp. 12-13.
10 Id. at 9 and 19.
11 TSN, August 28, 2012, pp. 5-7.
12 Records, p. 173.
13 CA rollo, p. 227.
14 Id. at 237.
15People v. Peñaflor, 766 Phil. 484, 500 (2015).
16 AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. Approved April 27, 1992.
17 710 Phil. 728, 739 (2013).
18 TSN, June 14, 2012, pp. 24-26.
19 TSN, July 5, 2012, pp. 17-18.
20 TSN, March 20, 2012, pp. 28-30.
21People v. Cachuela, supra note 17 at 739-730.
22 TSN, March 20, 2012, pp. 5, 7.
23Dungo v. People, 762 Phil. 630, 679 (2015).
24 735 Phil. 530, 539-540 (2014).
25 CA rollo, p. 224.
26People v. Lago, 411 Phil. 52, 61 (2001).
27People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 237 (2013).
28 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 373.