People v. De Asis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 29, 1991, at approximately 1:40 A.M., in Quezon City, two taxi drivers, Antonio Bautista and Rogelio Miranda, were eating at a restaurant. They heard a shout of "hold-up" from a Rocalex taxi that stopped nearby. Upon investigation, they saw two men inside the taxi, one beside the driver and another in the back. The two men alighted and threatened Bautista and Miranda with a fan knife. The taller man, identified as Danilo Mercado, held the knife, while the shorter man, identified as Elmer de Asis, was in the back. The two accused fled towards Manila. Bautista and Miranda, along with others, chased them. Mercado was apprehended by Barangay Tanod Rodrigo Austero, and a bloodied fan knife was recovered from his pocket. De Asis was caught by Barangay Tanod Mariano Perez, who recovered a wallet containing P350.00 and the driver's license of the victim, Victor Peregrino, from De Asis's pocket. The victim, Victor Peregrino, was found dead inside his taxi with multiple stab wounds, the cause of death being cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 89 of Quezon City, found both accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court noted no mitigating or aggravating circumstances and did not award civil liability, as the heirs reserved their right to file a separate civil action. The Petition: Accused-appellants appealed the decision, raising several errors, including the denial of their motion for preliminary investigation, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the improbability of identification due to environmental conditions, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the explanation for their presence near the crime scene.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for preliminary investigation. Whether the prosecution witnesses were "eleventh-hour witnesses" lacking credibility, and whether the identification of the accused-appellants was improbable due to environmental conditions. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses contained irreconcilable inconsistencies. Whether the presence of the accused-appellants near the crime scene was sufficiently explained. Whether the failure of accused-appellant Elmer de Asis to corroborate accused-appellant Danilo Mercado's testimony regarding the alleged mauling should be held against the defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellants Elmer de Asis and Danilo Mercado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. They were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for preliminary investigation: The Court found no merit in the contention that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. It held that the accused-appellants were estopped from claiming lack of preliminary investigation because they waived the same by allowing themselves to be arraigned and pleading "not guilty" without invoking their right thereto. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings, and it must be invoked prior to or at the time of the plea. On the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and identification: The Court found no irregularity in the presentation of the prosecution witnesses, Antonio Bautista and Rogelio Miranda, despite their names not appearing in the information. Their non-inclusion is common practice for their protection and does not affect their credibility. The Court reiterated the principle that appellate courts give due weight to the findings of fact of trial courts regarding witness credibility. While no witness saw the actual stabbing, the confluence of events, including the chase, the recovery of the victim's wallet and driver's license from De Asis, and the bloody knife from Mercado, strongly indicated their guilt. The visibility conditions at the scene were favorable, and the witnesses' testimonies were corroborated by other evidence. On inconsistencies in testimonies: The Court stated that inconsistencies and contradictions in minor details do not affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses; in fact, they can bolster credibility as it shows the witness is not reciting a memorized account. The core testimonies of Bautista and Miranda regarding the identification of the accused and the sequence of events were consistent and supported by other evidence. On the explanation for presence near the scene: The accused-appellants' explanation that they were on their way to Sta. Teresita Hospital was deemed flimsy and puerile, especially in light of their unexplained possession of the victim's wallet, driver's license, and a bloody knife immediately after the incident. The Court emphasized that conviction is based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not the weakness of the defense. On the failure to corroborate Mercado's testimony: The Court clarified that conviction is based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. The failure of one accused to corroborate the other's testimony does not automatically lead to acquittal. The Court found solid and strong circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of both accused-appellants, which was sufficient for conviction beyond reasonable doubt, irrespective of the corroborating testimony.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Homicide, holding that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defense of alibi and denial were unmeritorious in the face of strong prosecution evidence. The Court also ruled that the right to preliminary investigation can be waived by failure to invoke it prior to arraignment.