People v. Avillano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 6, 1991, in Teresa, Rizal, Jose Ramirez, his wife Soledad Ramirez, and her mother Alejandra Nobesa were roused from sleep by the accused and their cohorts. Jose Ramirez was chased and subsequently killed with stab wounds outside the house. Inside, Soledad Ramirez was held at knifepoint by Ricardo Moloboco and Abraham Manioso, who demanded and received cash. The accused then ransacked the house, taking an airgun, a transistorized radio, a flashlight, nine fighting cocks, and cash amounting to P13,250.00. Soledad and her mother were tied to a post before the intruders departed. Soledad later found her husband dead. Procedural History: The accused Teodorico Avillano, Abraham S. Manioso, and Ricardo S. Moloboco were charged with robbery hold-up with homicide. They pleaded not guilty. The trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Jose Ramirez in the amount of P13,250.00 for the stolen items, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Petition: The accused appealed their conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the recovered fighting cocks were stolen, in identifying Manioso as the stabber, in giving credence to Soledad Ramirez's testimony, in discrediting their alibi, and in finding them guilty despite insufficient evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the two fighting cocks recovered from the accused were part of the stolen items. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused Abraham Manioso as the person who stabbed victim Jose Ramirez. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Soledad Ramirez despite alleged incredible identification. Whether the trial court erred in discrediting the defense of alibi of the three accused. Whether the trial court erred in finding the three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused Teodorico Avillano, Abraham S. Manioso, and Ricardo S. Moloboco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Jose Ramirez.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of recovered fighting cocks: The Court found that the recovery of fighting cocks from the accused, identified by the victim's widow as among those stolen, sufficiently linked them to the crime. While the exact number might be disputed, the possession of stolen property is strong evidence against the possessor. On the identification of Abraham Manioso as the stabber: The Court relied on the positive identification by Soledad Ramirez, who testified that Manioso was one of the two individuals who ransacked the house. Although she did not explicitly state Manioso was the stabber, his participation in the robbery, which resulted in homicide, made him liable for the special complex crime. On the credibility of Soledad Ramirez's testimony: The Court found Soledad Ramirez's identification of the accused credible. She positively identified Ricardo Moloboco as the one who held a sharp instrument to her neck and Abraham Manioso as her companion during the ransacking. Her identification of Teodorico Avillano was based on his voice, which she recognized due to his familiarity and frequent presence in their area. The Court noted that victims of criminal violence often strive to see their assailants' faces and actions. On the defense of alibi: The Court reiterated that the defense of alibi is weak and practically worthless in the face of positive identification. The alibi of Teodorico Avillano was contradicted by a defense witness who stated he was selling 'balut' for her. Abraham Manioso failed to present corroborating witnesses or evidence for his alibi. Ricardo Moloboco's alibi of being in Taytay did not preclude his presence in Antipolo, which is adjacent to Taytay, at the time of the incident. On the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the evidence established conspiracy among the accused. Their arrival at the scene together, the chase of the victim, the ransacking of the house, the exchange between Moloboco and Avillano regarding the victim's fate, and their subsequent departure all indicated a joint purpose and concerted action. The Court held that when homicide is committed on the occasion of a robbery, all principals in the robbery are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime. When on the occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will likewise be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the malefactors before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.