SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 235739, July 22, 2019
EDWIN DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Edwin del Rosario (Edwin) assailing the Decision2 dated May 12, 2017 and Resolution3 dated November 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01228-MIN, which affirmed the Decision4 dated August 22, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 71,449-11, finding Edwin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery.
That on or about January 30, 2012, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, conspiring and confederating with one another with intent to gain and by means of violence or intimidation against person, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, stole and carried away by means of force an Italian Gold Necklace with pendant worth P18,000.00, belonging to private complainant CHARLOTTE CASIANO to the latter's damage and prejudice in the aforesaid
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of accused EDWIN DEL ROSARIO beyond reasonable doubt. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance and pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby sentences accused EDWIN DEL ROSARIO to suffer the indeterminate penalty, ranging from [s]ix (6) [m]onths and one (1) [d]ay, [p]rision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) [y]ears and [o]ne (1) [d]ay, [p]rision [m]ayor, as maximum.
No award of civil liability.
SO ORDERED.37
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City dated August 22, 2014 is Affirmed but Modified only as to the penalty imposed on the [prison] term which shall be six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum.
SO ORDERED.41
Indeed, a perusal of the testimonies [of] both witnesses on direct and cross-examinations would show that they were consistent on their narrative of the incident and of the participation of appellant Del Rosario. Thus, there is no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court especially since "[t]he direct appreciation of testimonial demeanor during examination, veracity, sincerity and candor was foremost the trial court's domain, not that of a reviewing court that had no similar access to the witnesses at the time they testified."45
[Kim's testimony:] Q: Okay, are you positive that it is Del Rosario, who is in Court, who gave the signal to Cansancio? A: Yes sir. Q: How certain are you from 1 to 100%? A: 101% sir. Q: 101%? A: Yes sir. Q: 101%, your identification? A: Yes sir. Q: That means it is impossible for you to forget the face of accused Del Rosario? A: Yes sir because it is our first time to meet this kind of incident. x x x x Q: x x x What happened after you went to the San Pedro Police Station? A: They made us identify the companion sir. Q: Where (sic) you able to identify him? A: Yes sir. Q: Who was that? A: Edwin Del Rosario sir. Q: The Edwin del Rosario you just identified before this Court, what is his relation to the person you identified in San Pedro Police Station? A: He is one and the same person sir. Q: You are very sure that the person in Court who identified himself as Edwin Del Rosario is the same person, Edwin del Rosario you identified in San Pedro Police Station? A: Very sure sir.46 [Charlotte's testimony:] Q: What happened when you were in the police station? A: At first, we were not able to see that person but they were detained there, they made us identify that person sir. Q: Were you able to identify him? A: Yes sir. Q: Is he in Court? A: Yes sir. Q: If he is in Court, can you point to him? A: Yes sir. MR. MOLINA: Witness pointed to a person wearing a black t-shirt and when asked, identified himself as Edwin Del Rosario. PROS. BELLO: He is the same person you saw boarded on the same jeepney? A: Yes sir. x x x x PROS. BELLO: Madam Witness, after you went to the San Pedro Police Station, you identify the accused ... COURT: Who among the accused? PROS. BELLO: Accused del Rosario your Honor. Is he the same person you saw in the puj you boarded earlier? A: Yes sir. Q: You are very certain of that? A: Yes sir, I immediately identify him. Q: You are very sure that he is the same person? A: Yes sir. May be because 1 was angry sir, it was stuck in my mind sir. Q: Between the range from 1 to 10, what is [your] certainty of your identity? A: 100% sir.47
COURT: Okay what happened when these two men boarded the vehicle? A: They have a conversation about the fare sir, as to who will pay the fare sir. Q: Then? A: The jeep stop[ped] briefly at Villa Abrille Building because there was a red light. Q: So, what happen[ed]? A: When I looked at them, they gave a signal. Q: Who gave a signal? A: Mr. Del Rosario sir. Q: The one who is in court? A: Yes sir. Q: Okay, you just refer to him as Del Rosario. Del Rosario gave a signal? A: Yes, sir. Q: What kind of signal? A: He said "tirahi na nang babaye bai" (Hit that lady bai). Q: So, upon hearing that message from Del Rosario, what did Cansancio do? A: He quickly snatched the necklace sir and then Cansancio ran away. Q: What about del Rosario? A: He was left in the jeep sir. Q: Then? A: I chased Cansancio sir and my sister disembark[ed] from the jeep and [s]he als[o] chased Cansancio.51
Q: Madam Witness, what happened when the jeepney you were riding was already in motion? A: I was hinting something and there was a male person in front of me, in fact, the people who are also about to board a jeep was telling him to move towards the inside direction, but he did not move sir. Q: What happened? A: What I was able to recall was that I heard a person saying "you will be the one to pay the fare." x x x x Q: What else happened? A: After that sir, upon reaching the corner of Quirino, there was a red light so the jeepney stopped. Q: What happened when the red traffic light flashed? A: When the jeep was again about to move that male person in front of me suddenly grabbed my necklace. Q: What happened after he grabbed your necklace? A: I was weak at that time sir, coming from the hospital, I tried to hold on to my necklace but I was not able to prevent him from grabbing my necklace so he jumped and ran away and I also jumped and shouted "theft". Q: What did your brother do, if any? A: When I jumped off from the jeep, my brother also chased the person sir, we were shouting "magnanakaw" (theft). Q: What happened when your brother was chasing the person who grabbed your necklace? A: I was trying to look at the ground sir if there was something that fell your Honor, I return to the multicab sir I identified all those passengers then I followed my brother sir. Q: What happened to that person who grabbed your necklace? A: He was running, heading to the direction of Villa Abrille. Q: Then, what happened next, if any? A: When I arrived there, there were three civilian police who caught or apprehended that person sir.52
In People v. [De la] Cruz,55 this Court found the accused guilty of theft for snatching a basket containing jewelry, money and clothing, and taking off with it, while the owners had their backs turned.
In People v. Tapang,56 this Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for frustrated theft because he stole a white gold ring with diamond stones from the victim's pocket, which ring was immediately or subsequently recovered from the accused at or about the same time it was stolen.
In People v. Omambong,57 the Court distinguished robbery from theft. The Court held:Had the appellant then run away, he would undoubtedly have been guilty of theft only, because the asportation was not effected against the owner's will, but only without his consent; although, of course, there was some sort of force used by the appellant in taking the money away from the owner.
x x x x
What the record does show is that when the offended party made an attempt to regain his money, the appellant's companions used violence to prevent his succeeding.
x x x x
The crime committed is therefore robbery and not theft, because personal violence was brought to bear upon the offended party before he was definitely deprived of his money.58
The OSG argues that the use of the word "grabbed", by itself, shows that violence or physical force was employed by the offenders in taking Snyders' necklaces. The Court, however, finds the argument to be a pure play of semantics. Grab means to take or seize by or as if by a sudden motion or grasp; to take hastily. Clearly, the same does not suggest the presence of violence or physical force in the act; the connotation is on the suddenness of the act of taking or seizing which cannot be readily equated with the employment of violence or physical force. Here, it was probably the suddenness of taking that shocked Snyder and not the presence of violence or physical force since, as pointed out by petitioner, Snyder did not at all allege that She was pushed or otherwise harmed by the persons who took her necklaces.61
ART. 309. Penalties. – Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
x x x x
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000).
(a) | MINIMUM – arresto mayor in its medium period, that is from two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) months; |
(b) | MEDIUM – arresto mayor in its maximum period, that is four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) months; and |
(c) | MAXIMUM – prision correccional in its minimum period, that is six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. |
x x x It is basic law that x x x the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where imprisonment exceeds one (1) year, except only in the following cases:
x x x x
h. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one (1) year.
Where the penalty actually imposed does not exceed one (1) year, the accused cannot avail himself of the benefits of the law, the application of which is based upon the penalty actually imposed in accordance with law and not upon that which may be imposed in the discretion of the court. (People v. Hidalgo, [CA] G.R. No. 00452-CR, January 22, 1962).69
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-33, excluding Annexes.
2 Id. at 35-54. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring.
3 Id. at 57-58. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas concurring.
4 Id. at 117-124. Penned by Presiding Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio.
5 Also stated as "Casiano," "Cansiano," "Cansancio" and "Consancio" in some parts of the records.
6Rollo, p. 60.
7 Id. at 117.
8 Id.
9 Also stated as "Dianne" in some parts of the records.
10Rollo, p. 117.
11 Id. at 36.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 37.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 See id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Also stated as "Emelyn" in some parts of the records.
28 Also stated as "Henry Parreno" in some parts of the records.
29Rollo, p. 119.
30 Id. at 38, 119-120.
31 Id. at 38, 120.
32 Id. at 121.
33 Id. at 40.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 117-124.
36 Id. at 124.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 35-54.
39 Id. at 52.
40 Id. at 49-50.
41 Id. at 54.
42Gamboa v. People, 799 Phil. 584, 593 (2016).
42 Id. at 593.
44Briones v. People, 606 Phil. 354, 366 (2009).
45Rollo, p. 48; citation omitted.
46 TSN, May 30, 2013, pp. 12-16.
47 Id. at 36-37, 45-46.
48Consulta v. People, 598 Phil. 464, 471 (2009).
49 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 308.
50Briones v. People, supra note 44, at 366.
51 TSN, May 30, 2013, pp. 10-12.
52 Id. at 28-31.
53 691 Phil. 542 (2012).
54 See id. at 550.
55 76 Phil. 601 (1946).
56 88 Phil. 721 (1951).
57 34 O.G. 1853 (1936).
58People v. Concepcion, supra note 53, at 549-550.
59 G.R. No. 217722, September 26, 2018.
60 Id. at 13.
61 Id. at 10.
62 See Briones v. People, supra note 44, at 367.
63 Id.
64 AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL CODE", AS AMENDED.
65 ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
66 See People v. Moreno, 425 Phil. 526, 543 (2002); see also People v. Alay-ay, 295 Phil. 943, 957 (1993).
67 677 Phil. 151 (2011).
68 354 Phil. 324, 340-341 (1998).
69Romero v. People, supra note 67, at 166.
70Rimano v. People, 462 Phil. 272, 288 (2003).
71 See People v. Moreno, supra note 66, at 543; see also People v. Alay-ay, supra note 66, at 957.