People v. Arcamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 13, 1970, a cargo truck of Lim Tiaoco Sons, Inc., driven by Epimaco Balabag and carrying salesman Joventino Lumactud and cargo boy Policarpo Horcerada, was returning to Tagbilaran. At barrio Songcolan, Dauis, Bohol, two students and the appellants, Hermilo Arcamo and Nicasio Diola, hitched a ride. After proceeding a short distance, Arcamo shouted 'Para!', stopped the truck, drew a pistol, and shot the driver, Balabag. Diola aimed his pistol at Lumactud. The others fled. Lumactud was ordered to raise his hands, and the appellants took a bag containing P3,500.00 in cash from the truck before escaping. Balabag died from the gunshot wound. The bag, containing receipts and a notebook, was recovered later, but the cash was missing. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bohol convicted Hermilo Arcamo and Nicasio Diola of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to death and ordering them to pay P12,000.00 to the heirs of Balabag and P3,500.00 to Lim Tiaoco Sons, Inc. The case was elevated for automatic review. The Petition: The appellants assigned two errors: (1) the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Horcerada and not to the defense witnesses, and (2) the trial court erred in convicting them.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the eyewitness, Policarpo Horcerada. Whether the appellants were sufficiently identified as the perpetrators of the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over positive identification. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide, and whether certain aggravating circumstances were properly considered. Whether the presence of treachery was established and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was applicable to appellant Diola. Whether the amount of restitution ordered was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Hermilo Arcamo and Nicasio Diola for the complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to death. The Court modified the restitution amount to P700.00. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Policarpo Horcerada: The Court held that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of Policarpo Horcerada. The appellants' counsel de oficio assailed Horcerada's credibility due to his demeanor and a prior inconsistent statement. However, the Court found the demeanor understandable and the prior inconsistent statement explained by fear and caution. The Court reiterated the rule that appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses. On the identification of the appellants: The Court found that Policarpo Horcerada positively identified the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Despite Joventino Lumactud's partial recognition, Horcerada's positive identification of Arcamo and Diola was sufficient to establish their identities. The Court emphasized that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses. On the defense of alibi: The Court reiterated that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses. On the crime committed and aggravating circumstances: The Court affirmed that the crime committed was robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court agreed that uninhabited place and habituality (for Arcamo) were sufficiently established as aggravating circumstances. However, it disagreed with the trial court's finding of evident premeditation and noted that the use of a firearm cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance in the complex crime of robbery with homicide. On the presence of treachery and voluntary surrender: The Court found that treachery was sufficiently established. With respect to appellant Diola, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated. The Court concluded that the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place, treachery, and habituality (for Arcamo) outweighed any mitigating circumstances. On the amount of restitution: The Court modified the restitution amount ordered by the trial court. The restitution to Lim Tiaoco Sons, Inc. was reduced to P700.00, representing the actual cash taken from its salesman.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the positive identification of the accused by a credible eyewitness, even if the victim of the homicide did not identify the perpetrator and the defense of alibi was presented. Treachery is an aggravating circumstance when the victim is shot at the back without opportunity to defend himself. The amount of restitution should be based on the actual amount taken, not on potential uncollected amounts.