People v. Marquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 22, 1995, Pampilo Aclan, a jewelry businessman, was on his way home with his son Jerwin and salesgirl Rizza Cervantes, carrying jewelry worth P2.5 million and P300,000.00 cash in boxes and a bag. Their tricycle was blocked by five armed men. Accused-appellant Jimmy Marquez pointed a gun at Aclan and demanded the bag. A struggle ensued, and one of the hold-uppers grabbed the bag. When Aclan tried to run after the hold-upper, Marquez shot him. The victim died from the gunshot wound. The hold-uppers fled with the valuables. Accused-appellant was later apprehended and identified by the eyewitnesses. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant Jimmy Marquez guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death. He was also charged with illegal possession of firearms, but acquitted of this charge. The RTC ordered him to pay damages to the heirs of the victim. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the RTC erred in finding him guilty and in relying on the testimonies of biased witnesses. He also raised the issue of DNA testing for his innocence.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible despite their relationship to the victim. Whether the penalty of death imposed by the trial court was proper. Whether the awards for damages and restitution were appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the awards for damages and restitution. The acquittal for illegal possession of firearms was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that the elements of robbery with homicide were sufficiently established. These include the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, ownership by another, intent to gain, and homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The positive identification of the accused-appellant by eyewitnesses Rizza Cervantes and Jerwin Aclan, who were face-to-face with the perpetrators and had no masks, was found to be credible. The Court reiterated that alibi is a weak defense, especially when unsubstantiated, and cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court also noted that the motive for the killing was evident: to facilitate the robbery. On Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible despite their relationship to the victim: The Court ruled that the relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim (salesgirl and son) does not automatically impair their credibility. It is presumed that witnesses are not moved by improper motives unless proven otherwise. The Court found no reason to doubt their testimonies, as they positively identified the accused-appellant. The Court also pointed out that the same argument could be made against the accused-appellant's brother, who testified for his defense, but the accused-appellant did not question his credibility. Therefore, the testimonies of Rizza Cervantes and Jerwin Aclan were given full faith and credit. On Whether the penalty of death imposed by the trial court was proper: The Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. While Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides for reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with homicide, the trial court considered the aggravating circumstance of commission by a band or armed malefactors. However, this circumstance was not alleged in the information filed against the accused-appellant. Citing Rule 110, §8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court held that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information to be appreciated, especially if they would raise the imposable penalty to death. Since no aggravating circumstance was alleged, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. On Whether the awards for damages and restitution were appropriate: The Court affirmed the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and the award for burial and other incidental expenses of P80,000.00. However, the Court reduced the restitution for stolen cash and jewelry from P2 million to P1 million, considering the stipulation was subject to the court's discretion and the factual circumstances. The moral damages were reduced from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00, and exemplary damages were awarded at P25,000.00, consistent with jurisprudence allowing such awards when an aggravating circumstance exists.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. However, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information to be appreciated. If not alleged, the penalty should be imposed without such aggravating circumstances.