People v. Carizo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellants, Ramir, Ricardo, Reynaldo, and Pompeo, all surnamed Carizo, along with Tobias Abarrientos, were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that on June 21, 1986, they conspired to steal personal properties valued at P6,370.00 from Frank P. San Jose. On the occasion of the robbery, they allegedly attacked and stabbed San Jose with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation, superior number, and strength, using sharp bladed instruments, causing his instant death. Procedural History: Ricardo, Reynaldo, and Pompeo Carizo pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Ramir Carizo pleaded guilty and was allowed to prove mitigating circumstances. Tobias Abarrientos remained at large. The Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon convicted Ramir Carizo of robbery with homicide aggravated by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Pompeo, Ricardo, and Reynaldo Carizo were convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua each. All were ordered to pay damages. The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed their conviction, assigning errors primarily concerning the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses, Salvador Cortez and Benjamin Celso, and the probative value of testimonies regarding motive.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Salvador Cortez and Benjamin Celso are credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants. Whether the testimonies regarding the motive of the Carizo family to kill the victim are admissible and sufficient to prove guilt. Whether the killing of Frank P. San Jose was qualified by treachery, thus constituting murder. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established among the accused-appellants.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants Reynaldo, Pompeo, and Ricardo Carizo for murder. The Court noted that Ramir Carizo had died during the pendency of the appeal. The award of moral damages was deleted, but the death indemnity was increased to P50,000.00. The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying the crime to murder, and that conspiracy was sufficiently established.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Salvador Cortez and Benjamin Celso: The Court found Salvador Cortez's testimony credible, despite the defense's assertions of improbability. The Court reasoned that the duration of Cortez's walk and the consumption of beer were not inherently unbelievable, and his explanation for the delay was satisfactory. The Court also found it not incredible that assailants could perform their plan at a distance of fifteen meters without being noticed by an eyewitness, nor should it be assumed that every eyewitness must be seen by every malefactor. Cortez's explanation for identifying the weapon but not the person carrying the victim was also deemed adequate, considering he did not know all the assailants. His delay in reporting was excused due to understandable fear of reprisal from his town mates, a valid excuse for momentary silence, especially in rural areas where such delays are known. Cortez's eyewitness account was found to be consistent with the autopsy findings. The Court found Benjamin Celso's testimony credible, rejecting the defense's argument that criminals tend to remain silent. The Court reasoned that the Carizo brothers were unaware of Celso's presence when Ramir Carizo allegedly made the incriminating statement. The positive identification by Celso, who had no shown bias or motive to falsely implicate the Carizos, lent credence to his testimony. The defense failed to show any taint of bias, partiality, or motive to falsely implicate the Carizos, despite them being his neighbors. On the admissibility and sufficiency of motive testimonies: The Court held that the testimonies of Salvador Duque, Jaime Gredonia, and Romeo Guamos were not hearsay evidence, as they had personal knowledge of the Carizos' motive to kill the victim. The Court reiterated that proof of motive is not even necessary when there is positive identification of the accused, but it strengthens the prosecution's evidence. The defense's argument that mere proof of motive is insufficient was acknowledged but deemed not applicable given the other reliable evidence. On treachery qualifying the crime to murder: The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing was attended by treachery. The attack from behind on an unsuspecting victim, who was hogtied, tortured, stabbed to death, and his body dumped in a creek, clearly depicted the swift and sudden nature of the assault, preventing any chance of defense. The autopsy findings corroborated the multiple stab wounds and the cause of death as shock secondary to hemorrhage. On conspiracy: The Court found that the accused-appellants conspired to kill San Jose. This was inferred from their collective action of barging out from a thicket to ambush the victim, tying his hands, and carrying him away. The Court reiterated the established principle that where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate a common design towards an unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident. Even if only one or two committed the killing, the rest are liable as principals if they did not prevent the assault and instead participated in carrying the victim away to be killed with extreme cruelty.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is committed when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery. Treachery may be considered as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. Conspiracy is evident when the accused collectively and individually demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose.