People v. Vallar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 21, 1989, at around 7:00 PM, in San Isidro, Malibud, Gingoog City, four masked individuals, identified as Willy Vallar, Danny Vallar, Oracleo Vallar, Jr., and Edgardo Mabelin, armed with firearms and a bladed weapon, conspired to commit robbery. They took P15,000.00 from Eugracia Bagabaldo. On the occasion of the robbery, they attacked Cipriano Opiso, stabbing him in the stomach, and Eufracio Bagabaldo, shooting him, resulting in the latter's instantaneous death. Opiso survived due to timely medical intervention. The accused allegedly employed treachery, evident premeditation, superior number, and strength, and disguise. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gingoog City, Branch 27, found Willy, Danny, Oracleo, and Edgardo guilty of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide, with aggravating circumstances of employment of disguise and commission by a band. Willy's liability was extinguished due to his death. The RTC rejected the defenses of denial and alibi. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC ruling, finding the accused guilty of robbery with homicide only, with aggravating circumstances of employment of disguise and abuse of superior strength. The CA deleted compensatory damages and awarded temperate damages, reduced moral damages, and awarded civil indemnity and exemplary damages. Oracleo and Edgardo appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant Oracleo Vallar, Jr. appealed his conviction, questioning the proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt for robbery with homicide, attended by the aggravating circumstances of employment of disguise and abuse of superior strength.
Issue(s)
Whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide, attended by the aggravating circumstances of employment of disguise and abuse of superior strength. Whether the defenses of denial and alibi were sufficiently proven. Whether the lower courts correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances, and the civil aspect of the case.
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting appellant Heracleo Vallar, Jr. (a.k.a. Oracleo Vallar, Jr.) of the crime of robbery with homicide with modifications on the awarded damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant for robbery with homicide: The Court found no merit in the contention that the testimonies on the exact participation of the accused-appellant were inconclusive and unreliable. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly Cipriano Opiso, were clear, categorical, and straightforward. Although no witness directly saw the face of the accused-appellant, Opiso positively identified him based on his utmost familiarity with the appellant's physical build and bodily actions, having known the four accused personally for about 20 years as residents of the same barangay and as frequent buyers from the store. The Court reiterated that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and are not to be disturbed unless there is a compelling reason. On the defenses of denial and alibi: The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that his teacher's testimony substantially corroborated his defense of alibi. The Court quoted with approval the CA's conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the requisite physical impossibility of his presence at the locus and tempus of the crime. The crime scene was only about five kilometers away from Gingoog City proper, with readily available public transportation, and reachable in about thirty minutes. Furthermore, the teacher's testimony was deemed unreliable as she admitted to not always checking attendance and that students could finish quizzes within thirty minutes, making it probable that the appellant left class before the crime occurred. The testimony of Cecilia Bitangcor, who met the appellant at 8:00 PM, was also insufficient to support the alibi, as the crime happened around 7:00 PM, leaving ample time for the appellant to be at the crime scene before his alleged meeting. On the appreciation of aggravating circumstances and the civil aspect of the case: The Court agreed with the CA in modifying the RTC's appreciation of aggravating circumstances. While both lower courts correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of employment of disguise, the commission of a crime by a band was not established because only three of the malefactors were proven to have carried arms, falling short of the requirement of more than three armed malefactors. However, the CA properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of superior strength, considering the number of malefactors and the kind of weapons used. The Court reiterated that the penalty for robbery with homicide, when attended by aggravating circumstances, is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to R.A. 9346. The Court affirmed the CA's awards for civil indemnity and moral damages, increasing the amounts for Pedrita Bagabaldo to P100,000 each, and granting Cipriano Opiso civil indemnity and moral damages amounting to P75,000 each. The Court also increased the exemplary damages for Pedrita to P100,000 and for Opiso to P75,000. The temperate damages for Pedrita were increased to P50,000, in lieu of actual damages, as pecuniary losses were shown but could not be proven with certainty.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of employment of disguise and abuse of superior strength, modifying the damages awarded. The Court reiterated that alibi must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime, and that positive identification by witnesses, even without seeing the face of the accused, is credible if based on familiarity with physical build and bodily actions.