SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 234519, June 22, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. REYNALDO JUARE Y ELISAN AND DANILO AGUADILLA Y BACALOCOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated July 4, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08369 which affirmed the Decision3 dated October 23, 2014 of Branch 170, Regional Trial Court (RTC), City of Malabon in Criminal Case No. 22886-MN. The RTC found Reynaldo Juare y Elisan (Juare) and Danilo Aguadilla y Bacalocos (Aguadilla) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide punishable under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
That on or about the 24th day of May, 2000 in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a blunt instrument and bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation employed upon the person of ADELA ABELLA Y DE CASTRO, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away one (1) bag containing cash money amounting to P15,000.00 and assorted jewelries worth P300,000.00 owned and belonging to ADELA ABELLA Y DE CASTRO, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the total amount of P315,000.00; that on the occasion of the said robbery the accused with the use of bladed weapon & blunt instrument/stab and hit one ADELA ABELLA Y DE CASTRO thereby inflicting upon the said ADELA ABELLA Y DE CASTRO serious physical injuries which directly cause her death.At the arraignment on September 14, 2000, Juare and Aguadilla pleaded not guilty to the charge.6
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of both accused Reynaldo Juare y Elisan and Danilo Aguadilla y Bacalocos having been proven beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery with Homicide each is hereby imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Likewise, said accused Reynaldo Juare and Danilo Aguadilla are jointly and severally ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50.000.00 as moral damages and P315,000.00 as and by way of restitution of the stolen jewelries and monies of that amount or value.The RTC declared that there was no eyewitness to the robbing and killing of the victim. Nevertheless, it held that direct evidence is not the only matrix where the trial court may draw its conclusion, and circumstantial evidence may be the basis for a conviction.60
SO ORDERED.59
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision October 23, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of the City of Malabon, Branch 170. in Criminal Case No. 22886-MN is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that accused-appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Adela Abella civil indemnity in the amount P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 in addition to the actual damages.Unsatisfied with the CA's Decision, Juare and Aguadilla are now before the Court through an appeal.
SO ORDERED.63
Based on a careful examination and meticulous consideration of all the circumstantial evidence proffered by the Prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused are responsible for robbing the victim as well as killing her. The combination of the circumstances alleged and proven is such as to prove a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.The factual findings of the RTC were affirmed by the CA, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryx x x x
All in all, the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses show a positive finding that indeed herein accused were in the very place where the crime happened. Particularly, in the case of accused Aguadilla his going to and entering the residence of the Abellas on the night of May 23, 2000 was unrebutted and in fact he admitted it when he testified for his own defense. But also Aguadilla's having gone home or out of the Abellas residence after 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. (when their playing of chess and drinking of gin came to an end) or by 11:00 p.m. (when witness Alfredo Tecson went home from the store of Roman Cruz --- which is just across the residence and/or business establishment of the Abellas), no one has ever testified to/on about it. To add to this was the discovery of the bloodied shorts in the morning of May 24, 2000, as well as one of the knives owned by the victim already tucked in the wall of the house of accused Aguadilla, also in the same morning of May 24, 2000.
x x x When asked by the Court what was his reaction apart from being "surprised" upon hearing about the news that Mrs. Abella was robbed and killed, he simply said that he really felt bad because of her loss or "nanghihinayang."
During the presentation of the evidence for the Defense, the Undersigned Presiding Judge had closely observed the demeanor of both accused on the witness stand and it is his observation that both were definitely not telling the truth as (hey were evasive in their answers and were resorting to "palusot" instead of answering the simple questions with simple but forthright direct and candid answers.67 (Italics supplied.)
The accused-appellants and prosecution witness Alfredo Baudin were all in agreement that at least between 6 PM to 9 PM of May 23, 2000, only the three of them were in the victim's house aside from the victim herself. They were also in agreement, and supported by the ocular inspection of the police as well as the testimony of the victim's daughter Teresita Abella, that the three doors of the building can only be locked from inside and that no one can enter without being let in by somebody inside. There was also an eyewitness in the person of Alfredo Tecson that accused-appellant Danilo Aguadilla did not leave the premises before 11 PM. We also note that he claimed to be home between 6 AM and 1:00 PM in the afternoon of May 24, 2000. These established and admitted facts only point to nothing else but that the perpetrator/s of the crime is/are among the people inside. However, aside from being at the scene of the crime, there were other circumstances that point to the accused-appellants as authors of the crime. A blood-stained pair of shorts were found by the police among the things of Accused-Appellant Renaldo Juare, which was unexplained by the latter. As for Accused-Appellant Danilo Aguadilla, the fact that the knife which belonged to the victim as claimed by the victim's daughter was found in his house on the day of the crime was discovered, was also unrefuted.68The Court upholds the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA, and the conclusion that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible which must be taken into consideration than the incredible and unbelievable version of the accused-appellants. To stress, the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness first-hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during examination.69 The factual findings of the RTC, therefore, are accorded the highest degree of respect especially if the CA adopted and confirmed these, unless some facts or circumstances of weight were overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted as to materially affect the disposition of the case.70 In the absence of substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's findings, assessment and conclusion, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the Court generally affirms the trial court's findings.
The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference does not relate to the probative value of the evidence.It is well-settled that in the absence of direct evidence, the courts could resort to circumstantial evidence to avoid setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.78 Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience.79 An accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided the proven circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.80 It is akin to a tapestry made up of strands which create a pattern when interwoven.81
Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, "indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact-finder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence."
The probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between "direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred." The same quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
A number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a fact from which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and that the accused is its perpetrator. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only direct evidence may convict. After all, evidence is always a matter of reasonable inference from any fact that may be proven by the prosecution provided the inference is logical and beyond reasonable doubt.77
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:Thus, for the courts to consider circumstantial evidence, the following requisites must be present: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which inferences are derived were proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.82
(a) There is more than one circumstance:
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Hereunder are the circumstances that proved that the herein accused Reynaldo Juare y Elisan and Danily Aguadilla y Bacalocos - and no other-have robbed and killed the victim:The combination of all of these circumstances convinces this Court that the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstantial evidence, as proven by the prosecution, are sufficient proof of the accused appellants' guilt. Records reveal that there are several circumstantial evidence surrounding the commission of the crime. Every circumstance and factual evidence from which inferences are derived were proven and supported by physical and testimonial evidence. And the combination of all these circumstances produced a conviction of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
- Both accused Reynaldo Juare and Danilo Aguadilla are/were under the employ of the Abellas with the former (Reynaldo Juare) as a stay-in houseboy/helper and the latter (Danilo Aguadilla) was a driver of the Abellas for about three (3) months only reckoned to the day of the robbery and killing of the victim.
- Also, both accused Juare and Aguadillo were in the know, that as of the time of the robbery (and killing of the victim) on the night of May 23, 2000 until the early morning of May 24, 2000, said victim had considerable and valuable jewelries because a month earlier she had been robbed already in her bedroom of some of her jewelries valued at P3,000,000.00, being then both employed by and at the victim's residence/business establishment.
- Likewise, both accused Juare and Aguadilla are known to-if not close to-each other because it was the latter (Aguadilla) who recommended the former (Juare) to the Abellas to be hired as houseboy/helper.
- On the night of May 23, 2000, both accused Reynaldo Juare (as a stay-in househelp) and Danilo Aguadilla who visited and entered the residence of the Abellas (as a former driver) were inside and stayed in the premises of the Abellas as they played chess and drank gin with the other house help/caretaker of the Abellas in the person of Alfredo Baudin.
- In the same night of May 23, 2000, it was accused Reynaldo Juare who was tasked to close/secure the gates and/or entrances to the residential building of the Abellas as the other househelp/caretaker (Alfredo Baudin) was not feeling well.
- In the morning of May 24, 2000, when PO2 Jose Jumaquio conducted an ocular inspection of the entire premises of the residential building of the Abellas, particularly the room or quarters occupied by accused Reynaldo Juare, a short pants stained with blood was found among the personal things or belongings of the latter (accused Reynaldo Juare).
- Also, in the same morning at about lunchtime of May 24, 2000, when househelp/caretaker Alfredo Baudin went with Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Tan to the house of accused Danilo Aguadilla to retrieve the umbrella that the latter borrowed from the former (Alfredo Baudin), said Brgy. Chairman Tan retrieved or recovered a kitchen knife tucked to the wall of the Aguadilla's house --- which knife was later identified as being owned by the victim (gifted to her by the latter's daughter who resided in the USA), as testified to by Teresita Abella.
- Both accused Reynaldo Juare and Danilo Aguadilla were in dire need of financial resources because Juare was earning only his wages as a houseboy/helper while Aguadilla (though a driver) was earning only P2,500 a month and he was sending money to his family of five (5) in the Visayas every month to support/sustain the family's needs and weeks before the incident the wife of said accused Aguadilla needed a medical operation.
- Finally, both accused Reynaldo Juare and Danilo Aguadilla are of questionable character and/or personal predisposition with accused Juare tagged as an "addict" and accused Aguadilla, a "problematic" guy with his family, particularly on financial matters.
- Prosecution witnesses have no ill-motives to testify against the accused.83
x x x 1. accused was at the locus criminis at around the time of the stabbing incident; 2. witnesses testified seeing him at the scene of the crime going in and going out of the house of the victim at the time of the perpetration of the crime; 3. accused, in his own admission mentioned that he was going to Batangas for medical treatment, however, when the policemen, together with the Barangay Chairman went to Talisay, Batangas where he lives, he was nowhere to be found; 4. immediately after the incident, the witnesses and the offended party noticed that all his clothes kept underneath the bamboo bed where the victim was found sprouted with blood were all gone because he took everything with him although his intention was merely for medical treatment in Batangas; 5. he mentioned that he was then still waiting for Kuya Henry, husband of Lourdes, when he had already a talk with Henry Vergara that he will go to Batangas for medical treatment that did not materialize; 6. after the killing incident, accused simply disappeared and did not return anymore; 7. when he was confronted by Henry Vergara concerning the killing, he could not talk to extricate himself from the accusation; and 8. that he has been using several aliases to hide his true identity.85In Beriber, the witnesses only saw the accused at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the crime, but they did not see him actually robbed and killed the victim. However, the Court considered several circumstances us sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused and eventually convicted him.
ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:It requires the following elements: (1) taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is with anima lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery, or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.87 A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery.88 The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.89x x x x
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
Added to this, the blood-stained kitchen knife was found in the house of Aguadilla when Baudin and the authorities went therein to retrieve the umbrella borrowed by Aguadilla on that fateful night.97 The knife belonged to the victim as claimed by her daughter. Notably, Aguadilla's possession of the subject knife was also unrefuted; he offered no substantial explanation on how he had in his house the bloodied knife with human blood on it.
ATTY. BARIAS: DIRECT EXAMINATION x x x x Q: Mr. Witness, in connection with your work as medico-legal officer, do you remember having been referred to your office by the SOCO four (4) specimen, which are as follows: One (1) pc. pillow case color yellow marked RDS-1 One (1) pc. printed short marked RDS-2 One (1) pc. t-shirt color dark blue REEBOK RDS-3 Pieces of broken flower base in connection with this case? A: Yes sir. Q: What kind of examination did you perform Mr. Witness? A: Serology examination sir. Q: Did you prepare a report in your examination of the request of SOCO in connection with this case? A: Yes sir. Q: May we have it then? A: Here sir. ATTY. BARIAS At this juncture Your Honor, may we request that Serology Report No. S-1019-00 be marked in evidence as Exhibit "S" as in sugar, and we request that the photocopy be instead marked after comparison has been made by the defense Your Honor. COURT Why, where will you bring the original? The original can be marked, why do you have to keep the original? ATTY. BARIAS Because there are other cases wherein we will use this Your Honor. COURT Show it counsel. ATTY. TAN The photocopy is the faithful reproduction of the original Your Honor. COURT Mark it. ATTY. BARIAS Q: Based on this report Mr. Witness, it was made to appear for your findings, which we would like to quote as follows: Specimen "A", "B", "C" and "D" gave positive results to the test for the presence of human blood; Specimen "C" gave negative result to the test of human blood; and Specimens "A" and "D" revealed that blood stains belong to human blood, which we request that the quoted portion be bracketed and marked as Exhibit "S-1" Your Honor. COURT Mark it. ATTY. BARIAS Q: What is your conclusion in connection with this findings of yours? A: My conclusion is that Specimen "A", "B", and "D" reveal presence of human blood; Specimens "A" and "D" reveals human blood, group "O", and Specimen "C" absence of blood sir.96
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member as per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020; on leave.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated August 8, 2017, rollo, pp. 18-19.
2Id. at 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 50-65; penned by Presiding Judge Zaldy B. Docena.
4 Records, pp. 1-2.
5Id. at 1.
6Id. at 26.
7 TSN, February 11, 2002, pp. 3-10.
8Id. at 3-5.
9 TSN, March 7, 2002, p. 8.
10Id. at 10-13.
11Id. at 13.
12Id. at 14.
13Id.
14Id. at 14-15.
15Id.
16Id. at 18.
17Id.
18Id. at 18-19.
19 TSN, April 3, 2003, p. 3.
20Id.
21Id. at 4.
22Id.
23Id.
24Id. at 5.
25Id.
26 TSN, August 6, 2002, p. 4.
27Id.
28Id.
29 TSN, July 2, 2002, p. 6.
30Id. at 8.
31Id. at 8-9.
32 TSN, May 6, 2004, pp. 4-11; TSN, August 6, 2002, p. 7.
33 See Sinumpaang Salaysay of Teresita C. Abella dated May 4, 2000, record, p. 4.
34 See Medico-Legal Report No. S-092-02, id. at 261.
35 TSN, January 9, 2001, pp. 5-6.
36Id.
37Id.
38 TSN, February 19, 2002, pp. 5-8, 11.
39Id. at 13.
40Id. at 13-14, 23.
41Id. at 8-10.
42Id. at 10.
43Id.
44Id. at 10, 17.
45 TSN, April 29, 2013, pp. 7-9.
46Id. at 3.
47Id.
48Id.
49Id. at 4.
50Id. at 5.
51Id.
52Id.
53Id. at 7.
54 TSN, September 26, 2013, pp. 3-4, 8, 11.
55 TSN, March 18, 2014, p. 3.
56Id. at 5.
57 TSN, September 26, 2013, p. 5.
58Id. at 5-10.
59 CA rollo, p. 65.
60Id. at 59.
61Id. at 8.
62Id. at 13.
63Rollo, p. 16.
64Id. at 25-27; 30-32.
65People v. Sanota, G.R. No. 233659, December 10, 2019. Citations omitted.
66Id., citing People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 719-720 (2011).
67 CA rollo, pp. 59-64.
68Rollo, pp. 14-15.
69People v. Sanota, supra note 65, citing Planters, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 238889, October 3, 2018.
70Id., citing People v. Macaspac, 806 Phil. 285, 290 (2017).
71People v. Pentecostes, 820 Phil, 823, 840 (2017), citing People v. Tropa, 421 Phil. 783, 789 (2002).
72Id., citing People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 420 (2003).
73People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 417 (2003).
74Id., citing People v. Acuram, 387 Phil. 142, 151 (2000).
75Planteras, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 238889, October 3, 2018, citing Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25, 41 (2014) and People v. Villaflores, 685 Phil. 595, 615-617 (2012).
76Id.
77Id. Citations omitted.
78People v. Asis, 439 Phil. 707, 717 (2002), citing People v. Felixminia, 429 Phil. 309, 325 (2002) and People v. Gallo, 419 Phil. 937, 946 (2001).
79People v. Cachuela, 710 Phil. 728, 742 (2013).
80People v. Asis, supra note 78 at 718, citing People v. Labuguen, 392 Phil. 268, 278-279 (2000).
81Id., citing People v. Cabrera, 311 Phil. 33, 38 (1995).
82 Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
83 CA rollo, pp. 60-62.
84 693 Phil. 629 (2012).
85Id. at 638-639.
86 See People v. Salas, 384 Phil. 54 (2000).
87People v. Mancao, G.R. No. 228951, July 17, 2019.
88Id.
89Id.
90 TSN, February 9, 2002 pp. 7-8, 10-11, 20-22.
91People v. Madrelejos, 828 Phil. 732, 738 (2018), citing People v. Ebet, 649 Phil. 181, 189 (2010).
92Id.
93Id.
94Id.
95People v. Casitas, Jr., supra note 73.
96 TSN, January 27, 2005, pp. 5-6.
97 TSN, May 6, 2004, pp. 10-11. TSN, May 6, 2003, pp. 4-5.
98 RTC Decision, pp. 14-15.
99Id.
100People v. Mancao, supra note 87, citing People v. Ambatang, 808 Phil. 236, 243 (2011).
101People v. Vibal, Jr., G.R. No. 229678, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 370, 391, citing People v. Lucero, 659 Phil. 518, 540 (2011).
102People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019.
103People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
104 In a letter dated December 10, 2019, Jaime P. Batuyog Jr., Jail Inspector, Acting Superintendent, NBP, Muntinlupa City informed this Ccurt that accused-appellant Danilo Aguadilla y Bacalocos died on March 10, 2015 at NBP Hospital per attached certified true copy of the Certificate of Death of Aguadilla.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary