People v. Repato
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Repato and Francisco de la Cruz, alias Peping and Pancit, were charged with robbery with homicide. De la Cruz pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Repato was tried and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II, and sentenced to death. The prosecution presented evidence that Repato and De la Cruz lived with Clemente Hermogene in a bodega. On the evening of August 14, 1960, Hermogene saw Repato clean and dismantle a carbine, which they then took out in a bundle. They returned after midnight with a leather valise. The next morning, Francisco Bernal was found shot to death in his residence, with his hands tied behind his back. Several articles belonging to Bernal were missing. On August 16, 1960, Repato went to his cousin Artemio Damio's house with a valise, traveling bag, binoculars, and a gun. Damio testified that Repato confessed to robbing and killing a man in Marikina and showed him a newspaper clipping of the victim. Repato admitted the carbine was the murder weapon. Repato later tried to pawn Bernal's watch with Damio. Damio surrendered the carbine, a traveling trunk, and binoculars to the authorities. Ballistics examination confirmed that an evidence bullet was fired from the carbine. Dr. Jesus Crisostomo testified that the cause of death was hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds. The carbine was also used in another murder case involving Repato. De la Cruz repudiated his extrajudicial confession implicating Repato, claiming he did not understand Tagalog and was threatened. Repato denied the charges, claiming he was at work. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II, convicted Jose Repato of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Francisco Bernal. The Petition: Jose Repato appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Clemente Hermogene and Artemio Damio. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give full faith and credit to the testimonies of the accused Jose Repato and his co-accused Francisco de la Cruz. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Jose Repato of robbery with homicide and imposing the death penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, imposing the penalty of death upon the accused Jose Repato. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the deceased was modified to P12,000.00, in addition to P822.00 and the value of the unrecovered watch (P180.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of Clemente Hermogene and Artemio Damio: The Court found no error in the trial court's appreciation of the testimonies of Hermogene and Damio. Repato's claim that he could not have been a construction worker due to his appearance was deemed irrelevant. The dismantling of the carbine was explained as a necessary measure for concealment and transport, making Hermogene's testimony credible. Repato's assertion that his confession to his cousin Damio was incredible was dismissed, as it is not unusual for individuals to confess crimes to relatives. Damio's act of noting the carbine's serial number was viewed as a civic-minded act, not an "unusual display of interest." The Court also rejected the claim that Hermogene and Damio testified out of revenge, as there was no credible evidence to support this, and their testimonies were presumed to be truthful in the absence of proof of prejudice. The general rule that relationship to the victim does not diminish the credibility of a witness was applied. On the issue of refusing to give full faith and credit to the testimonies of Jose Repato and Francisco de la Cruz: The Court found no error in discrediting the testimonies of Repato and De la Cruz. De la Cruz's attempt to absolve Repato and implicate others was uncorroborated and contradicted his earlier sworn statement. The Court found no proof of coercion or intimidation in the taking of De la Cruz's statement and gave credence to the testimony of the investigating officer. Furthermore, De la Cruz's assertion that the carbine was not the murder weapon was contradicted by ballistic evidence. Repato's claims of credibility were rejected for reasons already discussed, and the trial court's reliance on the authenticity of Repato's letter to Damio was upheld. The appellate court generally defers to the trial court's findings on credibility, as the trial court is in a better position to observe the witnesses. On the issue of conviction for robbery with homicide and the imposition of the death penalty: The Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide. The evidence established that Repato and De la Cruz intended to commit robbery from the outset and committed the killing to ensure its consummation without witnesses. The sequence of events, as recounted by Hermogene and Repato himself, indicated robbery followed by killing. The trial court found two aggravating circumstances: nighttime and deliberate killing. However, the Court found no evidence that nighttime was purposely sought or facilitated the crime, thus it could not be appreciated. Nevertheless, the Court took note that the accused "deliberately killed the deceased Francisco Bernal as shown by the fact that they tied his hands and they shot him thereafter." This was interpreted as treachery, defined as employing means to insure execution without risk to the aggressor. Treachery, while a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, does not change the crime's qualification. Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with homicide. Since treachery was present as an aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty, which is death, was imposed.
Main Doctrine
In robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance and does not change the qualification of homicide to murder. When treachery is present, the greater penalty of death shall be imposed if the penalty prescribed is composed of two indivisible penalties.