People v. Basao y Maca and Iligan y Salahay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Gilbert Basao y Maca and accused-appellant Pepe Iligan y Salahay were charged with one count of Robbery and two counts of Murder. The charges stemmed from an incident on April 14, 1994, where P/Insp. Joerlick Faburada and Dra. Arlyn Faburada were shot and killed. Items stolen from the deceased included a Caliber .45 pistol, an ICOM handset radio, and a PNPA gold ring. The Information for murder alleged conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation, with aggravating circumstances of insult to sex and rank, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and evident premeditation. Procedural History: Gilbert Basao was arrested and tried separately. He was acquitted on October 14, 1996, due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and issues with his custodial investigation affidavit. Accused-appellant Pepe Iligan remained at large until his arrest on August 15, 1996. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented testimonies from Gilbert Basao and Reynaldo Angeles, as well as reproduced testimonies from SPO4 Manuel Azarcon and SPO2 Dominador Plaza. Dr. Luciano Ortega provided medical certificates. The defense presented denial and alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, Branch 41, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery and two counts of Murder, sentencing him to death for the murders and an indeterminate sentence for robbery. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, raising errors concerning the admission of Gilbert Basao's testimony and the reliance on Reynaldo Angeles' testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Gilbert Basao. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of Reynaldo Angeles. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of Robbery, Murder, or Theft. Whether the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, cruelty, insult/disregard of rank, and abuse of superior strength were present. Whether the awarded damages are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder qualified by treachery but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court reclassified the crime of robbery to theft, imposing a prison term for theft and ordering reparation for stolen articles. The awards for moral damages were reduced, and exemplary damages were deleted. WHEREFORE, the decision dated December 10, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur (Branch 41) is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that: 1. In Criminal Case No. C-14, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft and is hereby sentenced to a prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional minimum period, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum period and to pay the amount of P45,000.00 as reparation for the unrecovered stolen articles; 2. In Criminal Case No. C-15, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; he is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim: a) Death indemnity — P50,000.00, b) Moral damages — P50,000.00, c) Actual damages — P100,000.00 3. In Criminal Case No. C-16, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; he is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim: a) Death indemnity — P50,000.00, b) Moral damages — P50,000.00, c) Actual damages — P100,000.00
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility and credibility of Gilbert Basao's testimony: The Supreme Court found no cogent justification to depart from the trial court's assessment of witness credibility. The Court noted that the defense failed to point out specific contradictory statements and waived the opportunity to cross-examine Basao on alleged inconsistencies. The trial court's own searching questions of Basao did not elicit any material inconsistencies that would impair his credibility. The Court held that Basao's testimony, as an eyewitness, positively established the accused-appellant's involvement in the shooting and the subsequent taking of items. The delay in Basao's disclosure was excused due to the accused-appellant being at large and the potential for retaliation. On the reliance on Reynaldo Angeles' testimony: The Supreme Court found Angeles' testimony to be corroborative of Basao's account. Angeles pawned the victim's ring at the request of the accused-appellant, who later admitted to Angeles that he shot the victims. The Court found Angeles' explanation for his possession of the ring satisfactory and upheld his positive identification of the accused-appellant as the source of the ring. The Court rejected the accused-appellant's contention that Angeles' signature on the pawn ticket and redemption receipt discredited the prosecution's claim, emphasizing that positive testimony prevails over bare denials. On the classification of the crime (Robbery vs. Theft): The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of robbery. The Court reasoned that the primary criminal intent was to kill Lt. Faburada, and the taking of personal properties was an afterthought, not an integral part of the homicide. Since the victim was already wounded when his belongings were taken, there was no need for violence or intimidation against his person. Therefore, the crime committed was theft, not robbery with homicide, under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. On the presence of aggravating circumstances: The Court found that treachery qualified the murders, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victims unable to defend themselves. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of evident premeditation, noting the lack of proof regarding the time of determination, the act of clinging to the determination, and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. The aggravating circumstances of cruelty and insult/disregard of rank were also not appreciated due to insufficient evidence. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the death indemnity and actual damages. However, the award for moral damages was reduced from P500,000.00 to P50,000.00 in both murder cases, deeming the original amount excessive. Exemplary damages were deleted in both murder cases, as they are only awarded when the crime is committed with aggravating circumstances, which were not sufficiently proven. For the theft conviction, the Court ordered reparation for the unrecovered stolen articles.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for murder qualified by treachery, but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of proven aggravating circumstances. The Court also reclassified the crime of robbery to theft, as the taking of personal property was an afterthought and not integral to the commission of the homicide.