People v. Llavore
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jovito Llavore y Barrientos, Joel Lobaton y Oreta, Rodolfo Fuentes y Castillo, Daniel Guillero y Alvarez, and one "Galoy" Longno were charged with robbery with homicide for the killing of Danilo Malata and the theft of his tricycle. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and intent to kill. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds, and the stolen tricycle belonged to Erna Tancinco. Procedural History: Jovito Llavore, Joel Lobaton, and Rodolfo Fuentes pleaded not guilty. Fuentes escaped. Daniel Guillero was arrested and also pleaded not guilty. "Galoy" Longno remained at large. The prosecution presented evidence that Joel Lobaton confessed to the crime and implicated the other accused. Police officers found the stolen tricycle at Jovito Llavore's house, with altered parts and defaced serial numbers. Rodolfo Fuentes executed an affidavit confessing his participation and implicating others. A postmortem examination confirmed multiple stab wounds, with the fatal wound being a stab below the left nipple. The defense presented alibi and denial. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Jovito Llavore, Joel Lobaton, and Daniel Guillero guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Rodolfo Fuentes was tried in absentia. The RTC ordered the accused to pay civil indemnity and the value of the tricycle. Jovito Llavore appealed, while Lobaton and Guillero withdrew their appeals. The Petition: Appellant Llavore contended that the RTC erred in convicting him based on the inadmissible extrajudicial confession of Fuentes, in not declaring his arrest and the seizure of the tricycle illegal, and in rejecting his claim of not knowing his co-accused.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confession of Rodolfo Fuentes, who was not presented as a witness, could be used as evidence against appellant Jovito Llavore. Whether the arrest of appellant Llavore and the seizure of the tricycle were illegal and thus inadmissible in evidence. Whether appellant Llavore's claim of not knowing his co-accused was credible. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to prove appellant Llavore's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide, and the propriety of the award of damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jovito Llavore y Barrientos for robbery with homicide, with modifications to the awarded damages. The Court ruled that while Fuentes' extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against Llavore, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction. The Court also held that Llavore waived any objection to his arrest by entering a plea and participating in the trial. The award for the value of the tricycle was deleted as it was returned to the owner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of Fuentes' extrajudicial confession: The Court agreed with the appellant that Rodolfo Fuentes' extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against Jovito Llavore. Fuentes was not presented as a witness, thus Llavore was not afforded the right to cross-examine him. The Court reiterated that extrajudicial confessions are generally admissible only against the confessant and not against his co-accused, unless the confession is made in the presence and with the consent of the co-accused, or if the conspiracy is established. In this case, the confession was made by Fuentes alone and not in the presence of Llavore, and the conspiracy was not yet sufficiently established at the time of the confession. On the legality of the arrest and seizure: The Court ruled that any objection to the legality of an arrest or the seizure of evidence must be made before entering a plea during arraignment. By entering a plea of not guilty and subsequently participating in the trial, filing motions for bail, and presenting evidence, appellant Llavore waived his right to assail the validity of his arrest and the seizure of the tricycle. The Court emphasized that it is too late to complain about a warrantless arrest after arraignment, trial, and conviction. On appellant Llavore's claim of not knowing his co-accused: The Court found Llavore's claim of not knowing his co-accused to be incredible given the circumstances. The Court noted that it is not necessary for co-perpetrators to know each other in crimes of this nature; what matters is the evidence of participation. The presence of the stolen tricycle in Llavore's house, the defaced serial numbers, and the recovery of missing parts near his father's house, coupled with Lobaton's confession implicating Llavore, all pointed to his involvement. On the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the award of damages: The Court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove Llavore's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court enumerated the following circumstances: (1) the tricycle was stolen on May 23, 1991; (2) the tricycle was found in Llavore's possession without a satisfactory explanation; (3) parts of the tricycle were altered or removed, and its serial numbers defaced; (4) Danilo Malata was killed on the occasion of the theft; (5) the postmortem examination revealed multiple fatal stab wounds; and (6) missing parts of the tricycle were found near Llavore's father's house. These circumstances, when taken together, were inconsistent with Llavore's innocence and produced conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the P50,000.00 civil indemnity for the death of Danilo Malata, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. However, the P53,000.00 award for the value of the tricycle was deleted because the records showed that the tricycle was returned to its owner, Hernani Tancinco, as evidenced by a receipt. The Court also awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim, pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A waiver of objection to an illegal arrest is deemed to have occurred if the accused enters a plea without assailing the validity of the arrest.