People v. Sumallo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eduardo Sumallo, Cesar Datu, and Ruben Datu were charged with robbery in band with homicide. The information alleged that on January 23, 1991, at around 1:30 AM, the accused, armed with firearms and bladed weapons, conspired to hold up a passenger jeepney. During the robbery, one of the accused shot the driver, Renato D. Adel, causing his instantaneous death. The accused pleaded not guilty. Ruben Datu escaped during the trial. Eyewitnesses Jesus Capon and Sandra Capon testified that the jeepney ran over coconut trunks placed on the road, causing it to stop. Gunshots were fired, and several men appeared, identified as the accused. Sandra Capon testified that Cesar Datu and Eduardo Sumallo demanded money from her, and she gave them P20,000.00 cash and a P123,000.00 demand draft. Jesus Capon testified that Cesar Datu poked a gun at him, while Eduardo Sumallo and Ruben Datu collected money from passengers. He identified Eduardo Sumallo and Ruben Datu as those who collected from him, taking P2,645.00. The driver, Renato Adel, was brought to the hospital and died due to a gunshot wound to the head. Dr. Angel Cordero's autopsy report confirmed the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage due to a gunshot wound. A slug from a .38 caliber gun was recovered. Sylvia Adel, the victim's widow, testified only on the fact of death and expenses. Cesar Datu denied the charge, claiming he was at his uncle's house drinking tuba with others. Florencio Murallos corroborated parts of Cesar Datu's testimony but stated he saw Eduardo Sumallo and Cesar Datu sleeping in the kitchen. Eduardo Sumallo, in a counter-affidavit, admitted to the robbery and shooting the driver. Procedural History: The trial court convicted Eduardo Sumallo, Cesar Datu, and Ruben Datu of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the victims and the heirs of Renato Adel. Ruben Datu's appeal was dismissed due to his escape. Eduardo Sumallo withdrew his appeal. The decision now concerns only appellant Cesar Datu. The Petition: Appellant Cesar Datu assailed the trial court's decision, arguing that the court erred in giving weight to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, disregarding the defense, and considering an alleged extra-judicial confession and recovered gun not in evidence. He also claimed the evidence was insufficient for conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the theory of the defense. Whether the trial court gravely erred in considering in its judgment of conviction an alleged extra-judicial confession of one accused and an alleged recovered gun from the other accused, both of which are not in evidence. Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding accused-appellants Eduardo Sumallo and Cesar Datu guilty of robbery with homicide despite the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence that would warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction against appellant Cesar Datu is affirmed in toto. The conviction for robbery with homicide is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the theory of the defense: The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies of Jesus Capon and Sandra Capon were positive, straightforward, and unequivocal. Both witnesses positively identified appellant Cesar Datu as one of the perpetrators. Jesus Capon identified Cesar Datu as the one who poked a gun at him, and Sandra Capon identified Cesar Datu as the one to whom she handed the stolen money and draft. The Court emphasized that their identification remained steadfast despite grueling cross-examination. The defense of alibi presented by Cesar Datu was rendered inutile and worthless by this positive identification. The Court noted that alibi, to be credible, must be convincing and show that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Cesar Datu's admission that his uncle's house was only a kilometer away, a short walk, failed to establish this impossibility. Furthermore, the Court addressed the appellant's contention that the witnesses' reactions were unnatural. It reiterated the well-entrenched rule that different people react differently to startling and frightening experiences, and there is no standard human behavioral response. The Court highlighted that victims often strive to see the faces of their assailants, which aids in reliable identification. Therefore, the reactions of Jesus Capon and Sandra Capon were not considered unnatural or inconsistent with human nature. The Court also dismissed the appellant's claims of vacillation in Jesus Capon's testimony, explaining that when taken in its whole context, the witness's statements regarding identification were consistent, clarifying that his first identification in court was after the incident, and it was his second time seeing the accused since the crime. The Court concluded that the evidence for the prosecution indubitably showed that the accused, at gunpoint, took personal property belonging to the victims with intent to gain, and on the occasion of the robbery, the driver was shot and killed. The elements of robbery with homicide were sufficiently proven. On the issue of the trial court gravely erred in considering in its judgment of conviction an alleged extra-judicial confession of one accused and an alleged recovered gun from the other accused, both of which are not in evidence: The Court found this assertion baseless. It was crystal clear from the evidence on record that the extrajudicial confession of Eduardo Sumallo was not made the basis for the conviction of the accused. Neither was it necessary for the prosecution to present the gun to prove the crime of robbery with homicide. The use of a gun to shoot the driver was sufficiently established, and a slug from a .38 caliber gun was recovered from the victim's body, corroborating the use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. The conviction was based on the positive identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses and the established elements of the crime, not on the alleged confession or the physical presentation of the weapon used by another accused. On the issue of the trial court gravely erred in finding accused-appellants Eduardo Sumallo and Cesar Datu guilty of robbery with homicide despite the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence that would warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the evidence sufficient for conviction. The prosecution successfully proved the essential elements of robbery with homicide: (a) the taking of personal property perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property taken belonged to another; (c) the taking was characterized by intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. The eyewitnesses, Jesus Capon and Sandra Capon, positively identified the accused as the perpetrators of the robbery and the killing of the driver. The physical evidence, such as the slug recovered from the victim's body, corroborated the testimony regarding the use of a firearm. The Court reiterated that the positive identification by credible witnesses, coupled with corroborating evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi was properly disregarded due to the strong positive identification and the failure to prove physical impossibility of presence at the scene.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses, especially when unwavering despite cross-examination, renders the defense of alibi virtually inutile. Different individuals react differently to stressful situations, and the observed reactions of victims during a crime are not necessarily unnatural or inconsistent with human nature. The prosecution need only prove the elements of robbery with homicide: the taking of personal property by violence or intimidation, ownership by another, intent to gain, and the commission of homicide on the occasion of the robbery.