People v. Sotto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 24, 1985, Josephine Galvez, accompanied by Silveriano Pangilinan and Fernando Marasigan, was en route to Coron, Palawan, carrying P33,015.00 for business. Their pumpboat, JOJO IRA II, was intercepted by a banca, "MI ANN," manned by Edmundo Sotto and Quintin Garraez. Sotto boarded the pumpboat, brandished a gun, and forced the pumpboat to proceed to Sangat Island. Upon arrival, Sotto tied the passengers and directed them inland, where he shot Rosauro Wenceslao, Silveriano Pangilinan, and Fernando Marasigan. Rosauro and Silveriano died instantly, while Fernando, feigning death, managed to escape. Josephine Galvez was later found dead with gunshot wounds. Sotto and Garraez were charged with robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, convicted Quintin Garraez y Tan and Edmundo Sotto of robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide. Edmundo Sotto escaped detention during the trial. The trial court found the charge for illegal possession of firearms unsubstantiated. The dispositive portion ordered both accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and the surviving victim. The Petition: Appellant Quintin Garraez y Tan appealed his conviction, faulting the trial court for not giving credence to his defense of denial and alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty as a principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the eyewitness testimony of Fernando Marasigan. Whether the defense of alibi interposed by the appellant is tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the appellant Quintin Garraez y Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice in the commission of robbery with homicide. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prison mayor medium as the minimum penalty to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as the maximum penalty. He was ordered to pay half of the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court to the heirs of the slain victims and a reduced indemnity to Fernando Marasigan. The Court directed efforts for the arrest of Edmundo Sotto y Piedad.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant as an accomplice in robbery with homicide: The Court held that the crime proven beyond reasonable doubt is robbery with homicide, not robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is generic and embraces all acts producing anything short of death, regardless of the number of victims. The multiplicity of victims slain during a robbery is an aggravating circumstance. The Court found that while conspiracy between Sotto and Garraez was not sufficiently proven, Garraez's community of criminal design could be inferred from his actions: blocking the victims' pumpboat, pretending the banca needed towing, and facilitating Sotto's boarding. These acts constituted assistance and cooperation, making him an accomplice. The trial court erred in holding him equally liable as a principal. On the conviction based on eyewitness testimony: The Court affirmed the trial court's reliance on the eyewitness testimony of Fernando Marasigan, who unequivocally identified appellant Garraez as Sotto's companion. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses, especially when there is no showing of ill motive. The identification made by Fernando Marasigan was spontaneous and bolstered by the testimony of police officers who presented Sotto and Garraez to him. The absence of a police line-up does not invalidate the identification, provided it was not suggested by the police. On the tenability of the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi interposed by appellant Garraez unavailing. His testimony that he was working on a farm in Barangay Bintuan from June 22 to 26, 1985, was contradicted by his own "sinumpaang salaysay" and the eyewitness testimony of Fernando Marasigan. The "sinumpaang salaysay" admitted borrowing the boat with Sotto and acting as its operator, and going to Sangat Island where he found Sotto and the female passenger. This admission, coupled with the eyewitness identification, rendered his alibi improbable and insufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide, as defined under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, is a single and indivisible offense, regardless of the number of deaths or injuries sustained during the commission of the robbery. An accomplice in robbery with homicide is subject to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for the principal.