People v. Nang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Sumina Gamo and Lumunsog Gabasan, along with Pablito Nang (at large), were charged with robbery with homicide for allegedly robbing the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Nicanor Gonzales and killing Nicanor Gonzales on May 16, 1990. The prosecution presented Epifania Gonzales (wife) and Elizabeth Gonzales (daughter) as eyewitnesses. They testified that three masked men attacked Nicanor Gonzales outside their house, then entered the house, robbed them of P500.00, and injured Epifania. Nicanor, who was stabbed, identified Pablito Nang and Sumina Gamo before he died. The post-mortem examination revealed Nicanor died of hemorrhage due to stab wounds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 19, found accused-appellants Gamo and Gabasan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to return the stolen money and pay damages. Accused-appellants appealed. The Petition: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in ignoring material inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, giving undue credence to the testimonies of the victim's wife and daughter, and holding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in its findings of fact and appreciation of evidence, particularly concerning alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and whether the testimonies of the victim's wife and daughter were credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the defense of alibi was credible. Whether accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide, and the propriety of the penalty imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants Sumina Gamo and Lumunsog Gabasan for the crime of robbery with homicide but modified the penalty imposed by deleting the phrase "or life imprisonment" from the dispositive portion of the trial court's decision. The Court ordered the arrest of Pablito Nang to be put on trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistencies in testimonies and credibility of witnesses: The Court held that minor inconsistencies between affidavits and testimonies do not necessarily discredit witnesses, as affidavits are often incomplete and testimonies in open court are generally superior. The essential facts of the accused-appellants' presence and participation in the crime were corroborated. The Court reiterated the doctrine that it will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of witness credibility unless there is a clear showing of overlooked or misinterpreted facts, which was not present here. The testimonies of Epifania and Elizabeth Gonzales, despite their relationship to the victim, were found credible as they positively identified the accused-appellants and had no proven motive to testify falsely. The tender age of Elizabeth (11 years old) did not render her incompetent as a witness, as she demonstrated the capacity to perceive, recollect, and communicate her perceptions truthfully. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi to be weak and easily fabricated, especially when contradicted by positive identification by eyewitnesses. The accused-appellants failed to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for them to be at the scene of the crime. The distance between their claimed location and the crime scene was negotiable within a short period, rendering their alibi unconvincing. On the elements of robbery with homicide and the penalty imposed: The Court found that all elements of robbery with homicide were adequately established. The prosecution proved the taking of P500.00 from the Gonzales family trunk by means of violence and intimidation, the intent to gain (animus lucrandi), and that homicide was committed on the occasion of the robbery. The stabbing of Nicanor Gonzales facilitated the commission of the robbery, and the attack on Epifania and Elizabeth also occurred during the commission of the crime. The presence of conspiracy meant that all participants were equally responsible for the crime, including the homicide, even if they did not directly inflict the fatal wounds. The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, as defined under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, it clarified that reclusion perpetua and "life imprisonment" are distinct penalties. The trial court erroneously included "or life imprisonment" in its dispositive portion, which was deleted by the Supreme Court to conform to the prescribed penalty.
Main Doctrine
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide requires the prosecution to establish the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, ownership by another, intent to gain, and that homicide occurred on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery. In conspiracy, all participants are liable for the crime committed, even if they did not directly perpetrate the homicide. Minor inconsistencies between affidavits and testimonies do not necessarily discredit witnesses, especially when essential facts are corroborated.