People v. Apolinario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Romeo Apolinario and Antonio Rivera, along with Mario Sion, were charged with robbery with homicide. The information alleged that on October 9, 1989, at around 2:00 AM, the accused, armed with bolos, conspired to enter the house of spouses Simon and Restituta Hibaler through a window. They allegedly used force and intimidation to take personal properties valued at P18,250.00 and, in furtherance of the robbery, boloed Simon Hibaler, causing his death. Procedural History: Appellants pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Roxas City, Branch 10, found them guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of Simon Hibaler and the owners of the stolen properties. Appellants appealed the decision. The Petition: Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, raising errors concerning the trial court's reliance on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the failure to positively identify the accused, and the alleged lack of proof of robbery.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of Restituta Hibaler and Ernesto Biboso and whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt due to alleged failure of positive identification. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the element of robbery in the commission of the crime. Whether the appellants were correctly convicted for robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the appellants guilty of robbery with homicide. The Court increased the indemnity for the death of Simon Hibaler from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged errors in relying on the testimonies of Restituta Hibaler and Ernesto Biboso and the failure of positive identification: The Court found the testimonies of Restituta Hibaler and Ernesto Biboso to be credible and sufficient for identification. Restituta positively identified the appellants and Mario Sion as the intruders who broke into their house, attacked her husband, and ransacked their belongings. She recognized them due to the flashlight used by the intruders and her prior acquaintance with them. Ernesto Biboso corroborated this identification, testifying that the victim, Simon Hibaler, identified Romeo, Antonio, and Mario as his attackers before he died. The Court also considered Simon's statement to Ernesto as a dying declaration, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The explanation provided by Pedro Hibaler regarding the initial omission of the assailants' identities from the police blotter, due to the presence of a police officer whose stepson was married to Romeo Apolinario's daughter, was deemed sufficient to address the defense's claim of doubt. The Court emphasized that police blotters are merely summary reports and their inaccuracies or omissions can be explained. On the alleged lack of proof of robbery: The Court rejected the appellants' contention that the element of robbery was not proven. The testimony of Restituta Hibaler clearly established that the appellants and Mario Sion ransacked their house and took personal properties. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the element of asportation in robbery is completed once the property is unlawfully taken from the owner's possession with intent to gain, even if the property is subsequently abandoned or recovered. The Court cited People v. Puloc and People v. Salvilla to emphasize that severance of goods from the owner's possession and absolute control by the taker, even for an instant, constitutes asportation. Therefore, the unlawful taking of the personal properties with intent to gain, by means of force upon things, was sufficiently established, fulfilling the elements of robbery. On the conviction for robbery with homicide: The Court held that all the elements of robbery were present, and since the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the appellants were guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua regardless of the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, rendering the alleged aggravating circumstances of superior strength and nighttime in the information moot for penalty determination purposes.
Main Doctrine
The elements of robbery with homicide are present when personal property belonging to another is unlawfully taken with intent to gain, by means of force upon things, and on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, a homicide is committed. The element of asportation in robbery is completed once the property is taken from the owner's possession, even for an instant, and subsequent disposition or recovery of the property is immaterial.