People v. Cariño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 24, 1995, three men barged into the sari-sari store of Floserfina Panis and her helper Milagros Behil. They demanded money, dragged and mauled Floserfina, and took cash from the cashier's box and Romeo Panis' wallet, totaling approximately P5,000.00. The intruders then turned off the lights. Milagros fled. Romeo Panis followed one intruder to the back door and was fatally stabbed. Floserfina heard her husband's cries and then her grandson Emmanuel's wails. She saw Emmanuel lying on the sofa, whom she initially thought was sleeping. The intruders demanded the key to the upstairs room, which Floserfina gave. They proceeded upstairs, while Floserfina escaped. Upon inspection by army soldiers, the bodies of Romeo Panis and Emmanuel were found. Ernesto Cariño and Goyeto Cariño were identified by the witnesses in a police line-up. Procedural History: An Information for robbery with multiple homicide and serious physical injuries was filed against Ernesto Cariño, Goyeto Cariño, and John Doe. The accused denied the charges, claiming alibi. The trial court found their defense weak against the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. It convicted Ernesto and Goyeto Cariño of the complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to death, considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry. They were ordered to pay damages. The case against John Doe was archived. The Petition: Accused-appellants Ernesto Cariño and Goyeto Cariño appealed, challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies and arguing that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish robbery.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses render them unreliable. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry can be appreciated against the accused-appellants. Whether the penalty of death is proper, or if it should be reclusion perpetua, and the propriety of the awarded damages.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and adjusted the awarded damages. The death sentence was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the prosecution sufficiently established the crime of robbery with homicide: The Court held that the elements of robbery with homicide were sufficiently proven. These elements are: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) that the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of robbery or by reason thereof homicide was committed. Floserfina's testimony that Goyeto Cariño and his companion took money from the cashier's box and Romeo's wallet satisfied the first three elements. The killing of Romeo and Emmanuel fulfilled the last element. The Court reiterated that in robbery, the amount of money or property taken is inconsequential; what is vital is the proof of taking and the intent to gain, which were adequately established. The Court cited the principle aliud ex alio malum, meaning one evil rises out of another, to explain why these offenses are treated as a single special complex crime under Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. On whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses render them unreliable: The Court found the alleged inconsistencies between Floserfina Panis' sworn statement and her direct testimony to be more imagined than real, explaining them as a result of the events that transpired. While she initially stated she did not recognize the assailants in her sworn statement, she assured she would identify them upon seeing them again, which she did during a police line-up. Her subsequent identification in court was thus based on this recognition. Regarding Mitos Panis' testimony, the Court noted a discrepancy concerning Goyeto Cariño's participation in the stabbing of Romeo Panis. Mitos' sworn statement indicated only Ernesto entered the kitchen and stabbed Romeo, while her court testimony implicated Goyeto. The Court considered Mitos' testimony unreliable concerning Goyeto's participation in Romeo's stabbing, citing the principle that while inconsistencies between affidavits and court testimonies do not necessarily damage credibility, affidavits often approximate the truth as they are made when the event is fresh in memory. However, the Court found circumstantial evidence pointing to Ernesto Cariño as the aggressor who stabbed Emmanuel. On whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry can be appreciated against the accused-appellants: The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry could not be appreciated against the accused-appellants because they were not alleged in the Information. Citing jurisprudence and the New Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court stated that these circumstances cannot be considered if not formally charged, despite testimonial evidence supporting their attendance. On whether the penalty of death is proper, or if it should be reclusion perpetua, and the propriety of the awarded damages: The Court found that with the absence of any proven aggravating circumstances (as they were not alleged) and no mitigating circumstances, the imposable penalty for robbery with homicide should be reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court noted that the trial court had imposed the death penalty based on the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry, which could not be considered on appeal. Therefore, the penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the awarded damages, reducing them to amounts supported by receipts. The P50,000.00 for burial expenses, P8,542.15 for hospital expenses, and P54,000.00 for medical operation expenses were affirmed as proven. The P5,000.00 for actual damages was not explicitly discussed in the modification, but the aggregate amount for medical and hospital expenses was P62,542.15. The P50,000.00 indemnity for the death of each victim (Romeo V. Panis and Emmanuel Panis), totaling P100,000.00, and costs were affirmed.
Main Doctrine
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed when the homicide is committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery. The amount of money or property taken is inconsequential in proving the commission of the crime, as long as the taking and the intent to gain are established. Inconsistent statements between an affidavit and court testimony do not necessarily damage credibility, but affidavits often approximate the truth as they are made when the event is fresh in memory.