People v. Consejero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 25, 1989, Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan went fishing in a motorized banca. In the evening of the same day, accused-appellant Larry Consejero, armed with an M-14 rifle, and his co-accused Rommel Malapit, also armed, invited Melchor Pulido to go fishing. They encountered the victims' banca. Consejero questioned the victims about exacting quota, and then asked them to accompany them to a store. Upon reaching the river bank, Consejero and Malapit took Dionisio Usigan towards the northeast. Modesto Castillo was left behind. Ten minutes later, Consejero and Malapit returned without Usigan. Consejero ordered Malapit to tie Castillo's hands, and then they took Castillo towards the same northeast direction, after which he was no longer seen alive. Consejero and Malapit then detached the engine of the victims' motorized banca, loaded it onto their own banca, with Pulido acting as lookout. On their way home, Consejero and Malapit admitted to Pulido that the victims were dead and threatened Pulido if he revealed what he knew. The next morning, May 26, 1989, the bodies of Castillo and Usigan were found near the river bank, with Castillo's hands tied and Usigan having sustained numerous stab wounds. The motorized banca was missing. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Apaui, Cagayan, Branch 6, convicted Larry Consejero y Pascua of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnification to the heirs of the victims. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on appeal. The Petition: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in considering the testimony of Melchor Pulido, finding it improbable, and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the testimony of Melchor Pulido was credible and corroborated. Whether the defense of alibi interposed by the accused-appellant should be given credence. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide, or whether the acts constitute separate offenses of murder, homicide, and theft.
Ruling
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the decision of the Regional Trial Court and rendered a new judgment finding accused-appellant Larry Consejero y Pascua GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder, homicide, and theft. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder, an indeterminate penalty for homicide, and an indeterminate penalty for theft. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: The Court held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused-appellant, including his presence with the victims, his hostile approach, the taking of the victims one by one, the tying of Castillo's hands, the taking of the engine, and the admission of the killings to Melchor Pulido. These circumstances, when interwoven, logically led to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the crimes charged. On the credibility of Melchor Pulido's testimony: The Court gave full faith and credit to the testimony of Melchor Pulido, finding it marked with spontaneity, clarity, and candor. The trial court's observation of Pulido's demeanor enhanced his credibility. The delay in reporting the crime was satisfactorily explained by Pulido's fear for his life and his family due to threats from the accused-appellant. The alleged improbabilities were deemed inconsequential and did not alter the substance of his testimony positively identifying the accused-appellant. On the defense of alibi: The Court ruled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused-appellant by Melchor Pulido. Furthermore, the accused-appellant failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. The geographical distance between Aparri and Lal-lo was not so great as to make his presence at the locus criminis impossible, even if he was in Aparri earlier in the day. On the classification of the crime: The Court found that the crime committed was not robbery with homicide. The elements of robbery with homicide require that the killing must be directly connected with the robbery, and the original design must have been robbery. In this case, the primary purpose of the accused-appellant was to kill the victims, and the taking of the engine was merely an afterthought. Therefore, the Court classified the acts as separate offenses: murder for the killing of Modesto Castillo (attended by treachery), homicide for the death of Dionisio Usigan (without treachery), and theft for the taking of the engine.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from robbery with homicide to separate crimes of murder, homicide, and theft, finding that the primary intent was to kill and the taking of the property was an afterthought. The Court also reiterated the principles on circumstantial evidence and the requirements for alibi.