People v. Collado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Fernando Collado, Crisanto Lara, Felix Collado, and Romeo Gloriani, were charged with robbery with homicide. The information alleged that on January 20, 1985, in Barangay Mojon, Pila, Laguna, the accused, conspiring and confederating, with intent to gain and using violence against the person of Maria Regay, stole P5,570.00 in cash and a Seiko Wrist watch worth P500.00. By reason and on occasion of the robbery, they attacked and killed Maria Regay, an elderly woman, with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and in disregard of her age and sex, causing her death. Procedural History: The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Santa Cruz, Laguna. Upon arraignment, Fernando Collado and Crisanto Lara pleaded not guilty, while Felix Collado and Romeo Gloriani remained at large. Fernando Collado later pleaded guilty as an accomplice. Trial proceeded against Crisanto Lara, and on May 4, 1989, the trial court rendered a decision finding Crisanto Lara guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the crime of Robbery With Homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. This decision led to the present appeal by Crisanto Lara. The Appeal: In this appeal, the accused-appellant, Crisanto Lara, raises four assignments of error, primarily challenging the trial court's credibility assessment of the prosecution's witnesses, particularly Mario Marasigan, and questioning the trial court's findings regarding his physical capacity to commit the crime. He argues that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Mario Marasigan, in finding that he struck the victim with a piece of wood, and in not giving credence to the testimony of his co-accused, Fernando Collado. The appeal also questions the credibility of rebuttal witness Honorio Delos Santos. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not considering that the judge who wrote the decision did not personally observe the demeanor of Fernando Collado during his testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Mario Marasigan. Whether the trial court erred in finding that accused Crisanto Lara struck the victim with a piece of wood and in concluding that the accused could still hold and grip a stamp pad. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of rebuttal witness Honorio Delos Santos. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the entire testimony of accused Fernando Collado. Whether the aggravating circumstances of disregard of age and sex were properly appreciated. Whether the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place, taking advantage of superior strength, and evident premeditation were properly appreciated. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding Crisanto Lara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery With Homicide. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Mario Marasigan's testimony: The Court found Mario Marasigan's testimony to be credible and sufficient to support a conviction. His failure to see the accused earlier was explained by the vastness of the coconut plantation and the distance. The sound of cutting the branch was unlikely to be heard by the accused who were focused on the victim's arrival. Discrepancies in minor details were considered de minimis and did not affect the spontaneity of his testimony. His delay in reporting was attributed to pity for his uncle, the accused, and his conscience bothering him, which were satisfactory explanations. The Court reiterated that discrepancies in minor details add credence to spontaneous testimonies. On the identification of the weapon and the accused's capacity to use it: The Court held that Mario Marasigan, being a carpenter and resident of a rural area, was familiar with different types of wood, enabling him to identify the guava branch. The specific type of wood was immaterial; what was material was the testimony that the accused struck the victim with a piece of wood, corroborated by the physician's finding of a fracture caused by a hard object. The accused's alleged incapacity due to his hand injuries was not sufficiently proven; he failed to substantiate his claim and, in fact, demonstrated the ability to hold a stamp pad during cross-examination. His defense of incapacity collapsed during cross-examination. On the credibility of Honorio Delos Santos: The Court found the delay in Honorio Delos Santos's testimony to be satisfactorily explained by the fact that the victim's children needed him only after the incident. Moreover, the Court stated that the accused-appellant's conviction could be sustained even without his testimony, as Mario Marasigan's testimony was positive and credible. On the testimony of Fernando Collado: The Court noted that Fernando Collado's testimony in court, where he denied Crisanto Lara's participation, contradicted his earlier sworn statement to the police. His explanation that this was instructed by his uncle lacked reliability. The Court found it more logical to believe his earlier statement implicating Crisanto Lara, especially since his brother was also involved. The judge who rendered the decision was not required to have observed Fernando Collado's demeanor, as he meticulously reviewed the records. On the appreciation of aggravating circumstances of disregard of age and sex: The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstances of disregard of age and sex was not properly appreciated. Disregard of age and sex applies to crimes against persons or honor, not primarily crimes against property like robbery. On the appreciation of aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place, taking advantage of superior strength, and evident premeditation: The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation was not properly appreciated as the requisites (time of determination, overt act, lapse of time for reflection) were not met. However, the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and taking advantage of superior strength were found to have attended the commission of the crime. On the penalty imposed: The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua. While the presence of aggravating circumstances would ordinarily warrant the death penalty under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the 1987 Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, which is an indivisible penalty imposed regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by a credible witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, even against a defense of alibi. The aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and taking advantage of superior strength attended the commission of the crime, warranting the imposition of reclusion perpetua.