People v. Magdamit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 21, 1988, at approximately 9:00 PM, seven armed individuals, including appellants Jury Magdamit and Wilfredo Gerero, allegedly conspired to rob the Convote Aquatic Development in Bulan, Sorsogon. During the robbery, Jou Wen Shiong, a Taiwanese national, was shot in the head and killed. The accused allegedly took television sets, betamax, a betamax rewinder, an electric fan, watches, rings, and cash amounting to P60,000.00. Procedural History: Only Jury Magdamit and Wilfredo Gerero were arrested. They were charged with robbery with homicide. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Ariel Serrano as an eyewitness who positively identified Magdamit and Gerero. Magdamit claimed he was tortured into confessing, while Gerero raised the defense of alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted both accused of robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of band, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. Wilfredo Gerero died during the pendency of his appeal, and his appeal was dismissed. Jury Magdamit pursued his appeal. The Petition: Accused-appellant Jury Magdamit appealed his conviction, arguing that his extrajudicial confession was obtained without observing his constitutional rights and that his identification by the witness was flawed.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Jury Magdamit for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant Jury Magdamit was admissible in evidence. Whether the identification of accused-appellant Jury Magdamit by the prosecution witness was proper and credible. Whether the aggravating circumstance of 'band' was correctly appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding accused-appellant Jury Magdamit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of band. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt for robbery with homicide: The Court held that conspiracy to commit robbery was established by the concerted acts of the appellant and his co-accused. Since homicide was committed on the occasion or as a consequence of the robbery, all participants in the robbery are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, regardless of whether they actually participated in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. The Court found that the prosecution witness, Ariel Serrano, positively identified appellant Magdamit and Wilfredo Gerero as among those who chased and robbed the victim. The trial court's evaluation of the witness's testimony was given high respect as it had the opportunity to observe the witness directly. The Court reiterated the consistent doctrinal rule that when a homicide takes place by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part in the robbery shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court found the appellant's contention that his extrajudicial confession was inadmissible to be untenable. A confession is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved, and the burden of proof is on the person making the confession. The Court noted that the confession was executed with the assistance of counsel and sworn before a judge. Furthermore, it contained details that only the declarant could have supplied, indicating voluntariness. The exculpatory tone of the confession, pointing to other accused as more guilty, was also considered an indicium of its voluntary nature. Even if the confession were disregarded, the Court found sufficient evidence independent of it to support the conviction. On the identification of the accused: The Court dismissed the argument that the identification should have been made at a police lineup, stating there is no law requiring it. The positiveness of the witness's identification is what matters, and this goes to the credibility of the witness, which was tested during trial. The Court found no improper motive on the part of Ariel Serrano in testifying against the appellant, thus his testimony was entitled to full faith and credit. The Court also explained that the non-presentation of other eyewitnesses was due to threats against their lives and the prosecution's prerogative to choose its witnesses. On the aggravating circumstance of 'band': The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of 'band' because the offense was committed by more than three armed malefactors acting together. In this case, seven armed conspirators were involved. However, due to the constitutional prohibition against the death penalty at that time, the maximum penalty of death could not be imposed, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua was applied.
Main Doctrine
When homicide is committed on the occasion or as a consequence of robbery, all participants in the robbery are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, regardless of whether they directly participated in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. The aggravating circumstance of 'band' applies when more than three armed malefactors act together.