People v. Palino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 3, 1985, at nighttime, in Barangay Camaya, Mariveles, Bataan, Lito Palino y Mercado and Armando Manalansan y Santiago were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that they conspired, confederated, and mutually helped each other, using violence and intimidation by stabbing Marieta Guarizo with a deadly weapon on her chest, with intent to gain, they took cash amounting to P20,000.00 and jewelry worth P10,000.00. As a result of the stabbing, Marieta Guarizo sustained mortal injuries which caused her death. Procedural History: Armando Manalansan was at large, so Lito Palino was tried separately. The Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 4, convicted Palino of Robbery with Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, sentencing him to death. The court ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Marieta Guarizo and return the recovered stolen articles and cash. The court did not impose civil liability for the unrecovered cash due to insufficient proof. The Petition: The accused-appellant Lito Palino appealed the decision, raising several assignments of error concerning the credibility of prosecution witnesses, identification of the accused, recovery of stolen proceeds, consideration of aggravating circumstances, and the finding of conspiracy.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence solely to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite alleged glaring inconsistencies and contradictions. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the circumstances of the identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence solely to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the circumstances of the recovery of the alleged proceeds of the crime. Whether the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime against the accused-appellant. Whether the trial court erred in its finding that there was conspiracy in the commission of Robbery with Homicide.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the trial court is affirmed with the modification that the penalty imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua from death. The accused-appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Marieta Guarizo in the sum of P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses: The Court found no material inconsistencies. Minor discrepancies were considered to enhance credibility, showing witnesses were not rehearsed. Whether Cabiling was fetched or met along the way, or whether the victim's mouth was stuffed with a duster or T-shirt, were deemed minor details that did not detract from the core testimonies regarding the commission of the crime. The fact that the victim was gagged with an item of clothing was established. On the identification of the accused-appellant: The Court found the identification credible. The witnesses saw the two intruders ransacking the victim's room, and when the intruders rushed out, there was a frontal encounter illuminated by a fluorescent lamp. The accused Palino even stabbed Cabiling when the latter tried to prevent their escape. These circumstances provided ample opportunity for the witnesses to recognize the assailants, negating the defense's claim that identification through jalousied windows was impossible. On the recovery of the alleged proceeds of the crime: The Court found the recovery credible despite the appellant's claim of planted evidence. The appellant failed to provide any explanation for how he knew the sister-in-law of the victim allegedly supplied the jewelry, nor was there any indication of a motive for her to plant evidence. The recovery of stolen articles from the appellant's possession created a presumption of guilt, as established in People v. Newman. On the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime: The Court affirmed the trial court's consideration of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. However, nighttime was not considered aggravating because the crime scene was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp, and the culprits did not specifically resort to darkness to facilitate the crime. The Court cited People v. Cristobal Jr., stating that nighttime is not aggravating when not especially sought to commit the robbery, and the place was sufficiently illuminated. On the finding of conspiracy: The Court disagreed with the appellant's contention that there was no conspiracy. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence and can be inferred from the acts of the accused, such as ransacking cabinets, taking stolen items, and the victim's death occurring during the robbery. The Court cited People v. Pineda and People v. Newman, stating that acts committed together or in common reveal cooperation and spontaneous coordination, indicating unity of purpose.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy in robbery with homicide can be inferred from the acts of the accused such as ransacking cabinets, asportation of stolen items, and the accompanying death of the victim. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua, regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, due to the indivisible nature of the penalty.