People v. Oquiño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 10, 1971, in Tacloban City, three accused, Antonio Oquiño, Romulo Lagario alias "Rogelio Lagario", and Arnido Calosor, allegedly conspired to commit robbery with homicide. They attacked Aniceto Parades and Marina Uy, intending to steal Parades' "RADO" wrist watch valued at P650.00. During the assault, Aniceto Parades was stabbed with bolos (pisao) by Lagario and Calosor, resulting in his instantaneous death. The wrist watch was taken. Procedural History: An information for robbery with homicide was filed, later amended to include four aggravating circumstances: nighttime, abuse of superior strength, recidivism, and habitual delinquency. Accused Antonio Oquiño died during the proceedings, and Arnido Calosor remained at large. Romulo Lagario was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was subsequently found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which sentenced him to suffer the death penalty, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay costs. The Petition: The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. The accused-appellant, Romulo Lagario, through his counsel de oficio, contended that the lower court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the eyewitness, Marina Uy; in finding him guilty of robbery; in admitting Exhibit "G" (an alleged sworn statement); and in not believing his testimony and acquitting him.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the eyewitness, Marina Uy. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the element of robbery. Whether Exhibit "G", an alleged sworn statement of the accused, was admissible in evidence. Whether the accused Romulo Lagario is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding accused Romulo Lagario guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The death sentence and the civil indemnity of P12,000.00 were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Marina Uy: The Court held that the relationship of Marina Uy to the deceased victim does not, by itself, impair her credibility. Her testimony was found to be firm, cogent, credible, and straightforward. Any perceived inconsistencies regarding the weapon used or the exact moment of penetration were deemed trivial and unsubstantial, explainable by the fast succession of events and the fear engendered by the incident. The Court reiterated the rule that the testimony of a single witness, if credible, is sufficient to convict. On the element of robbery: The Court found that the motive to rob was duly proven. This was established by Marina Uy's categorical statement that the accused "wanted to take his watch," coupled with the subsequent disappearance of the wrist watch and its recovery from a person indicated by the accused and his co-accused. The accused's own testimony that he was asked to sell the watch further indicated the intent to gain. On the admissibility of Exhibit "G": The Court ruled that the sworn statement (Exhibit "G") was admissible. The Assistant City Fiscal identified the accused's thumbmark and testified that the statement was explained to the accused in a dialect he understood. The accused's admission of executing an affidavit, even with a denial of having sworn to it, did not impugn the statement's contents. The trial court correctly used the statement to impeach the accused's credibility due to inconsistencies with his court testimony. On the guilt of Romulo Lagario: The Court found that the accused's presence at the scene of the crime, his company with one of the perpetrators, and the recovery of the watch from a person he indicated, all showed his complicity. His defense was disbelieved against the positive and interlocking testimony of Marina Uy, corroborated by the medical findings and the testimony of the investigating officer. The aggravating circumstances of recidivism, habitual delinquency, and abuse of superior strength were properly considered, with no mitigating circumstances to offset them, thus warranting the death penalty.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime. The presence of aggravating circumstances such as abuse of superior strength, recidivism, and habitual delinquency, without any mitigating circumstance, warrants the imposition of the supreme penalty of death.