People vs. Dapitan, 1991

8/13/2019 People vs. Dapitan, 1991

1/9

G.R. No. 90625 May 23, 1991chanrobles virtual law library

P!P" !# $% P%&"&PP&N',Plaintiff-Appellee,chanrobles virtual lawlibraryv.(N)&*$! )+P&$+N y M+R$&N, -(enny- an #R) ) G/M+N,accuse. (N)&*$! )+P&$+N y M+R$&N -(enny-,Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

)+&), R., J.

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal (Branch 7, !an "ateo#$th %u&icial Region, fin&ing the accuse&'appellant guilty of the crime of Robbery with omici&ean& sentencing him to)

. . . suffer the penalty ofRE!"S#O$ PERPET"A, an& to pay the heirs of the victim Rolan&o*mil in the amount of Thirty Thousan& (+-,---.--# +esos, without subsi&iary imprisonment incase ofinsolvency. 1

nly the accuse&'appellant was trie&. is co'accuse&, /re& &e 0uzman, remaine& at large an&the court or&ere& the archival of the case as against him, to be revive& upon his arrest.

The information file& with the court a %uoon 7 *ugust 1234 against accuse&'appellant an& hisco'accuse& rea&s in part as follows)

That on or about the 14th &ay of "ay, 1234, in Barangay !an Rafael, "unicipality of Ro&riguez(formerly "ontalban#, +rovince of Rizal, +hilippines, a place within the 5uris&iction of thisonorable Court, the above'name& accuse& conspiring an& confe&erating together an& mutuallyhelping an& ai&ing one another, with intent to gain, arme& with &ea&ly weapon an& by means offorce an& violence, then an& there willfully, unlawfully an& feloniously too6, robbe&stole an&carrie& (sic# away two (8# pieces of men9s watches worth ne Thousan& ne un&re& :ighty:ight +esos (+1,133.--#, one (1# pair of long pants worth Two un&re& /ifty +esos (+8-.--#an& cash money in the amount of !eventy /ive +esos (+7.--# belonging to rencia :. *mil,without the 6nowle&ge an& consent of sai& owner an& to her &amage an& pre5u&ice in the totalamount of ne Thousan& /ive un&re& Thirteen +esos (+1,1.--#, +hilippine Currency; that on

the occasion of the sai& robbery an& for the purpose of enabling them to ta6e, steal an& carryaway the above'mentione& articles, the herein accuse& in pursuance of their conspiracy, &i& thenan& there willfully, unlawfully an& feloniously, with evi&ent preme&itation an& ta6ing a&vantageof their superior strength an& with intent to 6ill, treacherously attac6, assault an& employpersonal violence upon the person of Rolan&o *mil (an eight year ol& chil by stabbing him onthe nec6 an& hitting him several times on the hea& with a piece of woo&, to prevent him fromma6ing an outcry, thereby inflicting upon him physical in5uries which &irectly cause& his&eath. 2chanrobles virtual law library


2/9

* an& de oficiocounsel for the accuse& manifeste& that the accuse& hasmanifeste& his &esire to ma6e a plea of guilty to a lesser offense but the circumstances are yet tobe ma&e in &etails. @t appears that there are two mitigating circumstances that maybe applie&.The +rosecuting /iscal ma&e no ob5ection but also manifeste& that he has to loo6 into the penaltyapplicable. The counsel for the accuse& an& the +rosecuting /iscal 5ointly move& that the hearingof this case be reset to another &ate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library


3/9

"*RT@= 0@>T B:=D R:*!=*B>: DBT of the crime of RBB:R *< T*T /*FR! T: *CC!:D *++:>>*=T. 12

e is thus &eeme& to be in complete agreement with the fin&ings an& conclusion of facts by thetrial court which


4/9

!he li6ewise testifie& that she lost two watches worth +1,13-; pants at +8-.-- an& cashamounting to +7.--; an& after her son9s burial she further foun& that her chil&9s toy worth+--.--, a flashlight an& a bolo worth +$.-- an& +18-.--, respectively, were missing. (T!=,pages 3'2, hearing of *ugust 8$, 1237#.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

rencia *mil9s testimony is li6ewise corroborate& on its material points by the testimony of Celo=ilo, another prosecution witness. e testifie& that between the hours of 3)-- to 2)-- in themorning of "ay 14, 1234, he saw two persons entering the house of "rs. rencia *mil, one ofwhom he i&entifie& as Bene&icto Dapitan, (T!=, pages $', hearing of ctober 84, 1237#. epositively i&entifie& Bene&icto Dapitan who was in Court (T!=, pages '4, hearing of ctober84, 1237#. e li6ewise testifie& that when the two suspects entere& the house of "rs. *mil, hehear& the voice of a chil&. @n the statement he gave the police investigators (:?hibit B# which heconfirme& when he testifie&, pertinent portions of which are herein Auote&, he sai&)

??? ??? ???

T =oong "ay 14, 1234, sa pagitan ng ia ())) n* u&a*a, natatan&aan mo ba noon 6ung saan 6anaroroonGchanrobles virtual law library

! *6o po ay galing sa aming bahay at a6o po ay patungo sa bun&o6 para magtanim po ngpunong saging.

??? ??? ???

T =oong i6aw ay papa&aan sa malapit sa bahay ni rencia *mil, wala 6a bang napansin na taona nagtungo &oon sa 6anilang bahay.Gchanrobles virtual law library

! "ayroon po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

T =a6ilala mo ba naman 6ung sinong tao ang iyong na6ita na &umaan &oon sa bahay nina "rs.rencia *milGchanrobles virtual law library

! @yon lang pong isang tao ang a6ing 6ilala na &umaan &oon sa bahay nina "rs. rencia *mil nasi +enny ,apitanna ang tirahan po ay &oon po rin sa !itio Taba6, Brgy. !an Rafael, RR, peroiyon pong isa na 6asama ni +enny ,apitan ay hin&i 6o po 6ilala sa 6anyang tunay napangalan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

T @lan bang tao ang iyong na6ita na nagpunta &oon sa bahay ni "rs. rencia *milGchanrobles

virtual law library

! Dalawang tao po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

T "ayroon 6a ba gaano 6alayo &oon sa &alawang tao na ang isa ay si+enny,apitanng sila ayma6ita mo na pumunta &oon sa bahay ni "rs. rencia *milGchanrobles virtual law library


5/9

! "ayroon po lamang na mga 1- metro ang a6ing layo sa6anila.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

T "atapos na ma6ita mo si na si +enny ,apitan at iyong isa niyang 6asama ay pumaso6 &oon sabahay, ano pa ang suno& na pangyayariGchanrobles virtual law library

! *6in pong na6ita na matapos na sila ay ma6apaso6 sa loob ng bahay ni "rs. *mil ay 6anilapong isinara iyong pintuan noong bahay, at hin&i 6o po naman sila pinansin at a6o po aynagpatuloy na sa a6ing pupuntahan.

??? ??? ???

T "atapos na ma6apaso6 iyong sina +enny ,apitan &oon sa bahay,wala a ba na&an* narini*na si*aw n* isan* bataGchanrobles virtual law library

!ayroon po pero hindi o po pinansin. (:mphasis supplie.

??? ??? ???chanrobles virtual law library

The testimonies of these two witnesses, evaluate& together, on what transpire& in the morning of"ay 14, 1234, between the hours of 3)--'2)-- a.m. attest to the e?istence of the followingfacts)chanrobles virtual law library

1. That the victim, Rolan&o *mil, was alive when her mother left her as testifie& to by rencia*mil an& witness Celo =ilo, who cry out when the two suspects entere& the house. (Testimonyof rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library

8. That the accuse& Bene&icto Dapitan an& an uni&entifie& companion entere& the house at atime when "rs. *mil ha& alrea&y left, an& that the victim, at the time, was still alive.(Testimonies of Celo =ilo H rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library

. That when "rs. *mil returne& at Auarter to nine she saw Bene&icto Dapitan an& /re& &e0uzman leaving the premises.(Testimony of rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library

$. *n& that when "rs. *mil entere& her house, the victim, Rolan&o *mil, was alrea&y &ea&.(Testimony of rencia *mil#chanrobles virtual law library

*s gleane& from the recor&s, witness rencia *mil was straightforwar& in her testimony. !he

remaine& stea&fast even on cross'e?amination, an& there is nothing on recor& concerning hertestimony which woul& leave the court in &oubt as to the truth of what she testifie& to. ertestimony therefore, relative to the circumstances transpiring at the time she left the house at 3)-a.m. up to the time she returne& at Auarter to nine engen&ersbelief.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Celo =ilo9s testimony was li6ewise ma&e in the same vein as that of rencia *mil. This witnesswas not shown to have cause to per5ure himself on a serious crime against the accuse&. *s the


6/9

Court observe& &uring the trial, his testimony, base& on his &emeanor when he testifie&, isimpresse& with a ring of veracity.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Court &i& not give cre&it to the testimony of +atrolman Ro&olfo Rivera e?cept on the factthat he con&ucte& an investigation. =o value whatsoever was given to the sworn statement of

Bene&icto Dapitan, even as to the portion in sai& testimony, where Bene&icto Dapitan a&mitte&being present when /re& &e 0uzman allege&ly hit the victim on the hea& an& that the stolenarticles were in the possession of /re& &e 0uzman, because as wisely put by &efense counsel, thesworn statement was ta6en in violation of the constitutional rights of theaccuse&.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

@n sum, therefore, there can be no other inference from the evi&ence presente& by the prosecutionconsi&ering the short span of time the victim Rolan&o *mil was left alive by his mother, an& herreturn fifteen (1# minutes later to fin& him &ea& an& the testimony that the accuse& was seenentering an& leaving the premises &uring this intervening perio&, e?cept the inevitable conclusionthat the accuse& is responsible for the &eath of Rolan&o

*mil.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

/or his part, the accuse& Bene&icto Dapitan interposes the &efense of alibi. This, he sought toestablish through the testimony of witness @smael *nacio. +ertinent portion of the witness9testimony, is herein Auote&, to wit)

??? ??? ???

I =ow, &o you remember, "r.


7/9

*ssuming though, for the sa6e of argument, that the witness actually monitore& the whereaboutsof the accuse& &uring all the time, his testimony sustaining Bene&icto Dapitan9s &efense ofalibi cannot &efeat the positive i&entification ma&e of Bene&icto Dapitan an& of his presence in"ontalban on "ay 14, 1234, by witness rencia *mil an& Celo =ilo. :ven on this score alone,without ta6ing into consi&eration that !ampaloc District where he allege&ly was, is

geographically not so far from "ontalban, from where he coul& have commute& through theor&inary means of transportation present in the area, his &efense of alibi naturally falls, so thathis conviction is reasonably calle& for. 14chanrobles virtual law library

@n support of the assigne& error accuse&'appellant argues that the imposition over him of thepenalty of reclusion te&poral by the trial court is tantamount to &eprivation of life or libertywithout &ue process of law or is tantamount to a cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman punishmentprohibite& by the Constitution an& he submits that the righteous an& humane punishment thatshoul& have been mete& out shoul& be in&eterminate sentence with all mitigatingcircumstances as well as the legal provisions favorable to the accuse&'appellant . . . appreciate&or . . . ta6en a&vantage for constructive an& humanitarian reasons. e stresses that since

mitigating circumstances are base& on, among others, the lesser perversity of the offen&er, suchshoul& be appreciate& in his favor since he ha& a companion then when he entere& "rs. rencia*mil9s house an& perpetrate& the offense. 15*n& it was his companion or mate by the name of/re& &e 0uzman who too6 the personal belongings of "rs. *mil as the men9s watch worth+1,133.--. @t was /re& &e 0uzman who is still at large who stabbe& an& hit the hea& of Rolan&o*mil. 16These facts or circumstances reveal that accuse&'appellant ha& a lesser perversity thanhis companion /re& &e 0uzman. *s evi&ence of such lesser perversity, he &i& not flee or hi&ehimself from the authorities. . . . within two (8# &ays9 time he surren&ere& voluntarily to thepolice authorities . . . . Thus, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender &ust beconsideredin his favor. 1chanrobles virtual law library

e prays that he be sentence& to an in&eterminate penalty ranging from twelve (18# years an&one (1# &ay of reclusion te&poral, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua as ma?imum. 1chanroblesvirtual law library

"eeting sAuarely the points raise& by the accuse&'appellant, the +eople, in the Brief for +lantiff'*ppellee submitte& by the !olicitor 0eneral on 2 %une 122-, asserts that the same are withoutmerit for the accuse& was not &eprive& of &ue process as he was, as a&mitte& by him, affor&e&full opportunity to be hear&; for a penalty to be cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman, it must ta6e morethan merely being harsh, e?cessive, out of proportion, or severe. . . . ; it must be flagrantly an&plainly oppressive, &isproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc6 the moral sense ofthe community 19or when they involve torture or lingering &eath 20an& since the penaltyofreclusion perpetuaimpose& on him is sanctione& by law, *ct =o. 31 as amen&e&, otherwise6nown as the Revise& +enal Co&e, sai& penalty is not cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman. @t furtherargues that the special comple? crime of robbery with homici&e &efine& un&er *rticle 82$, par.1, of the Revise& +enal Co&e is punishable with reclusion perpetuato &eath; with the abolitionof the &eath penalty by the 1237 Constitution, the only penalty imposable upon a person foun& tohave committe& such comple? crime is the single penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is anin&ivisible penalty. n&er *rticle 4 of the Revise& +enal Co&e it shoul& be applie& regar&less


8/9

of the presence of any mitigating or aggravatingcircumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

*s regar&s the @n&eterminate !entence >aw, the +eople submits that the accuse&'appellantcannot avail of it since !ection 8 of the law (*ct =o. $1-# specifically provi&es that it shall not

apply to, among others, persons convicte& of offenses punishe& with &eath penalty or lifeimprisonment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

aw, but &efinitely for more. et,he foun& it futile to go any farther.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

=either is the penalty of reclusion perpetua cruel, &egra&ing, an& inhuman. To ma6e that claimis to assail the constitutionality of *rticle 82$, par. 1 of the Revise& +enal Co&e, or of any otherprovisions therein an& of special laws imposing the sai& penalty for specific crimes or offenses.The proposition cannot fin& any support. *rticle 82$, par. 1 of the Revise& +enal Co&e hassurvive& four Constitutions of the +hilippines, namely) the 12 Constitution, the 127Constitution, the /ree&om Constitution of 1234 an& the 1237 Constitution. *ll of these&ocuments mention life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua as a penalty which may be impose&in appropriate cases.25*s a matter of fact, the same paragraph of the section of *rticle @@@ (Bill


9/9

of Rights# of the 1237 Constitution which prohibits the imposition of cruel, &egra&ing an&inhuman punishment e?pressly recognizes reclusion perpetua. Thus)

!ec. 12(l#. :?cessive fines shall not be impose&, nor cruel, &egra&ing or inhuman punishmentinflicte&. =either shall the &eath penalty be impose&, unless, for compelling reasons involving

heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provi&es it. *ny &eath penalty alrea&y impose& shall bere&uce& toreclusion perpetua.

*s to the appreciation of mitigating circumstances,

Documents

People vs. Dapitan, 1991