People v. Sabio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 5, 1965, Catalino Espina, an 80-year-old sari-sari store owner, was found wounded on the forehead in his dwelling. He died three days later. Jesusa Birondo testified to hearing a shout for help and seeing the accused, Rodulfo Sabio, exit the victim's store. Camilo Semilla, the victim's grandnephew, testified to seeing Sabio running away from the victim's house shortly before being told to return home due to the victim's cries for help. Upon returning, Semilla found the victim wounded and the store merchandise in disarray, with a tin can that previously held cash sales empty. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted Rodulfo Sabio of Robbery with Homicide, imposing the death penalty, with a recommendation for commutation to life imprisonment due to his youth. The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defense assigned errors concerning the conviction for Robbery with Homicide instead of Homicide, the admissibility of the antemortem declaration, the credibility of a prosecution witness, and the finding that the appellant was the perpetrator.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence established the crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the antemortem statement of the victim was admissible in evidence. Whether the credibility of the prosecution witness Jesusa Birondo was sufficiently established. Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the accused guilty only of Homicide, not Robbery with Homicide. The death penalty was commuted to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The accused was ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for Robbery with Homicide: The Court held that the evidence presented for robbery was merely circumstantial and did not establish the commission of robbery beyond reasonable doubt. While the victim's store merchandise was in disarray and a tin can was found empty, there was no eyewitness to the alleged robbery, nor was any of the alleged missing property recovered. The Court emphasized that a conviction for Robbery with Homicide requires the robbery itself to be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime, and it cannot be inferred from mere suspicion or presumption. The Court cited People vs. Labita et al. and People vs. Pacala to support the principle that intent to rob and evidence of carrying away personalty must be proven. On the admissibility of the antemortem statement (Exhibit "A"): The Court found the antemortem statement admissible. The seriousness of the head injury, its profuse bleeding, the victim's difficulty in speaking, his spontaneous declaration that "only Papu Sabio is responsible for my death," and his subsequent death from the wound all strengthened the conclusion that the victim believed his death was inevitable. The Court clarified that it is the belief in impending death, not the rapid succession of death, that renders a dying declaration admissible, citing U.S. vs. Virrey. The victim's request to fetch a policeman did not negate his belief in impending death but rather indicated a desire to disclose his assailant to the authorities before it was too late. On the credibility of witness Jesusa Birondo: The Court found Jesusa Birondo's testimony credible. Her familiarity with the accused since his infancy and her daily observation of him made her identification reliable, even at a distance of 17 meters in the early morning and during rain. Her description of the accused's clothing was corroborated by Camilo Semilla. The Court dismissed alleged divergences between her preliminary investigation statement and trial testimony as minor details or collateral matters, noting that affidavits are often incomplete and inaccurate, citing People vs. Pacala. The defense failed to show any ulterior motive for her to falsely implicate the accused. On the guilt of the accused: The Court concluded that the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Homicide. The alibi presented by the accused was overcome by the positive identification by witnesses Jesusa Birondo and Camilo Semilla, and the dying declaration of the victim. The proximity of the accused's house to the victim's dwelling also made his presence at the scene of the crime plausible. The aggravating circumstances of disregard of respect due to the victim's age and dwelling were considered, while recidivism was not, due to the failure to conclusively establish robbery.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that while the killing was established, the element of robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, thus reducing the conviction from Robbery with Homicide to Homicide. The Court also affirmed the admissibility of the dying declaration despite the victim's request to fetch a policeman, emphasizing the victim's belief in impending death.