People v. Cabbab
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 22, 1988, a group including Winner Agbulos, Eddie Quindasan, and PO William Belmes went to Barangay Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra. After lunch, they were invited by accused-appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino Calpito to play "pepito." Winner Agbulos won the game. While walking home, PO Belmes, who was behind the group, heard gunshots and saw Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan hit. Belmes dove into a canal to avoid gunfire. He then saw Cabbab, Jr. and Calpito running up a hill. Eddie Quindasan, who survived the initial attack, stated that Cabbab, Jr. and Calpito ambushed them and took Winner Agbulos's money, estimated at P12,000.00. Winner Agbulos died on the spot, and Eddie Quindasan died the following day. PO Belmes also testified that Cabbab, Jr. and Calpito shot at him. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued, Abra, Branch 2, found appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with double homicide and attempted murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each killing and robbery, and an indeterminate penalty for attempted murder. Accused Segundino Calpito was acquitted. The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide, imposing reclusion perpetua, and also affirmed the conviction for attempted murder. The case was elevated back to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: Appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. pleaded for acquittal, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the witnesses did not positively identify him as the perpetrator of the shooting and relied on the paraffin test results showing he was negative for gunpowder nitrates. He also insisted on the credibility of his alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. committed robbery with homicide and attempted murder. Whether the defense of alibi is credible. Whether the paraffin test results are conclusive evidence of non-involvement. Whether the attempted murder of PO William Belmes is a separate crime or absorbed in robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Homicide, sentencing appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. to reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the decision by acquitting the appellant of the separate crime of attempted murder against PO William Belmes, holding that such act is absorbed in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The Court ordered the appellant to return the stolen amount and to indemnify the heirs of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. committed robbery with homicide and attempted murder: The Court held that the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt. PO William Belmes positively identified appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. as one of the assailants who shot Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, and subsequently fired at him. Belmes's testimony was corroborated by Vidal Agbulos, who testified that he saw appellant take the wallet from his son, Winner Agbulos, after the latter was already lying on the ground. The Court found that Belmes had a clear opportunity to identify appellant, having played poker with him just hours before the incident and being only eight meters away during the attack. The positive identification by these witnesses rendered the defense of alibi unworthy of credit. The Court reiterated that in robbery with homicide, it is immaterial whether the killing occurred before, during, or after the robbery, as long as it was by reason or on the occasion thereof. The elements of robbery with homicide were established: taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, belonging to another, with intent to gain, and homicide committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. On the credibility of the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi to be unmeritorious. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was at another place at the time of the commission of the offense and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. In this case, the place appellant claimed to be (Palao, Baddek, Bangued, Abra) was only a 30-minute drive from the crime scene (Barangay Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra), making it physically possible for him to be present. Furthermore, the positive identification of appellant by prosecution witnesses Belmes and Agbulos rendered his alibi weak and unbelievable. On the conclusiveness of the paraffin test results: The Court reiterated that the results of a paraffin test are not conclusive evidence of a person's involvement or non-involvement in firing a gun. The Court noted that negative findings could be due to various factors, such as the assailant wearing gloves, washing hands afterward, the type of firearm used, perspiration, or humidity. The NBI Forensic Chemist himself testified that factors like fertilizers or cosmetics applied to the hands could affect the results. Therefore, the negative paraffin test results did not exculpate appellant. On whether the attempted murder of PO William Belmes is a separate crime: The Court ruled that the attempted murder of PO William Belmes is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The Court clarified that attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of robbery constitutes the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed in connection with the robbery. Therefore, appellant could not be convicted of attempted murder as a separate offense.
Main Doctrine
Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of robbery is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, which is a special complex crime that remains fundamentally the same regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed in connection with the robbery.