People v. Basilan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 15, 1984, at approximately 5:30 AM, Rafael Abarico overheard a woman's voice inside Alpha Grocery store in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, threatening to kill the Chinese store owner, Lim Wan, if their demands were not met. Abarico witnessed two men holding Lim Wan while Felicisima Basilan stood in front of him. One of the men then stabbed Lim Wan in the back. Abarico saw two men flee the scene, followed by Basilan, who then slipped and fell while hurrying towards the market. Lim Wan's body was found later that morning. The drawer of his desk was pulled out, and P500.00, which Ubaldo Pimentel had left with Lim Wan the previous night, was missing. The municipal health officer's autopsy revealed multiple stab wounds, with the cause of death being internal hemorrhage. Procedural History: An information was filed charging Felicisima Basilan y Abu, John Doe, and Peter Doe with Robbery with Homicide. Only Basilan submitted to the court's jurisdiction. The trial court convicted Basilan of Robbery with Homicide, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua, and ordering her to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The court also directed efforts to apprehend the other accused. The Petition: Basilan appealed, assigning errors concerning the insufficiency of evidence, the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies, and the conviction for murder instead of robbery with homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the appellant of Robbery with Homicide, and whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are credible and reliable. Whether the appellant can be convicted of murder when the information charged Robbery with Homicide. Whether conspiracy was proven.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision, finding the appellant guilty of Attempted Robbery with Homicide and imposing an indeterminate penalty. The indemnity to the heirs was increased. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence, credibility of witnesses, and conviction for Robbery with Homicide: The Court found the first and second assigned errors without merit. The testimony of the sole eyewitness, Rafael Abarico, was corroborated by the necropsy report showing a stab wound on the victim's back. While the appellant questioned Abarico's presence at the scene and the timing of his testimony, the Court found his explanation for leaving mass early credible, given his sister's expected arrival. The defense's attempt to introduce another woman, Anita Abas, as the source of the threatening words was dismissed due to the defense witness's questionable residence and the testimony of Ubaldo Pimentel, a co-owner who would have known of another occupant. The Court reiterated the rule that the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is sufficient for conviction, especially in the absence of any improper motive for the witness to testify falsely. Abarico's delay in reporting was deemed understandable for a 16-year-old fearing reprisal. The appellant's own testimony was found less credible due to inconsistencies regarding her proximity to the incident and her actions after the crime. On the conviction for murder versus robbery with homicide: The Court agreed with the appellant that the information did not allege qualifying circumstances for murder, thus a conviction for murder would violate her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. However, the Court found that the evidence supported a conviction for attempted robbery with homicide. The utterance, "Pag hindi mo ibinigay ang hinihingi namin sa iyo ay papatayin ka namin," clearly indicated the intent to rob, coupled with the willingness to use violence. The Court noted that while conspiracy was established, there was no proof or reasonable certainty that anything was successfully taken from the deceased. Therefore, the crime committed was attempted robbery with homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, with the threat alone being sufficient to establish the attempt to rob. The Court cited People v. Carunungan in support of this classification. On the finding of conspiracy: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of conspiracy among the accused. The appellant's utterance of the threat while her companions held the victim, followed by the stabbing and their subsequent flight, demonstrated a concerted effort to commit the offense. Consequently, the act of one conspirator was deemed the act of all, making the appellant responsible for the killing, even if she did not personally inflict the stab wound.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Robbery with Homicide to Attempted Robbery with Homicide, holding that while conspiracy was established and the intent to rob was evident, there was insufficient proof that anything was successfully taken from the victim. The Court also affirmed that the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is sufficient for conviction, and that the act of one conspirator is the act of all.