People v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Rogelio Lasconia, along with others including accused-appellant Charito Fernandez, planned to rob the spouses Erlinda and Nicanor Vallecera. Dionesia Lasconia, a house help, was to facilitate access. The plan was discussed on two occasions in July and August 2004, with Charito Fernandez attending the second planning meeting. On August 8, 2004, the plan was executed. Dionesia left the back gate open. Rogelio Lasconia, Rommel Escobio, and Eddie Fernandez entered the house, masked. They accosted Erlinda Vallecera, took at least P100,000.00 in cash and jewelry from the master's bedroom vault, and ransacked Erlinda's office. Rommel Escobio slashed Erlinda's throat with a samurai sword found in the office. Rogelio Lasconia then stabbed Erlinda several times in the neck. The three hogtied Dionesia Lasconia before leaving. Procedural History: An Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against several accused, including Charito Fernandez. Rommel Escobio pleaded guilty, Eddie Fernandez remained at large, Joseph Oronos was discharged as a state witness, and Dionesia Lasconia pleaded guilty to Homicide. The RTC of Abuyog, Leyte, Branch 10, convicted Charito Fernandez, Rogelio Lasconia, Eddie Olazo, and Miguel Corbis of Robbery with Homicide. Charito Fernandez, Eddie Olazo, and Miguel Corbis appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed Charito Fernandez's conviction but acquitted Eddie Olazo and Miguel Corbis due to insufficient evidence. Charito Fernandez appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Charito Fernandez argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically questioning the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, erred in finding Charito Fernandez guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and whether conspiracy was sufficiently proven against her. Whether the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were present. Whether the damages awarded were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. Charito Fernandez was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to pay the heirs of Erlinda Vallecera P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P40,000.00 as actual damages, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Charito Fernandez and conspiracy: The Court held that the RTC, having the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, found Charito Fernandez guilty, and this finding was affirmed by the CA. The Court found no reason to doubt the positive testimony of state witness Joseph Oronos, which clearly established Charito's participation. Conspiracy is present when individuals agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it, evidenced by overt acts. Joseph Oronos testified that Charito was present during the planning stages, hired him to ferry the accused to the scene, and paid him for the service a few days after the crime. Joseph also overheard Dionesia instructing the group to kill her master to conceal her involvement. Charito's act of planning, accompanying the accused, and paying for the getaway vehicle, coupled with threats to the driver, clearly evinced unity of purpose and criminal design. On the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and superior strength: The Court found evident premeditation to be present because the accused hatched their plan, had persistent attempts to carry it out (foiled on the first attempt), and there was a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, indicating reflection and calculation. The hiring of Joseph Oronos to ferry them to and from the scene showed sobriety and circumspection. The Court also found abuse of superior strength to be present, as the victim, Erlinda Vallecera, a woman, was attacked with excessive force (samurai sword and long knife) while her husband, Nicanor Vallecera, was hogtied, greatly diminishing their means of defense. These circumstances were alleged in the Information. On the penalty and damages: Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) prescribes reclusion perpetua to death for Robbery with Homicide. With the presence of two aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and superior strength), the penalty of death would have been imposable under Article 63 of the RPC. However, Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, thus reclusion perpetua is imposed. The Court, citing People v. Jugueta, held that the original award of P50,000.00 for moral damages and civil indemnity should be increased to P100,000.00 each because the penalty of death would have been imposed absent RA 9346. Exemplary damages of P100,000.00 were also awarded due to the socially reprehensible conduct of the accused, serving as a deterrent. Actual damages remained at P40,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of Charito Fernandez for Robbery with Homicide, finding that conspiracy was sufficiently established by his participation in the planning, commission, and getaway, including payment for the getaway vehicle and threats to the driver. The Court also found the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and superior strength to be present, which, while not leading to the death penalty due to RA 9346, increased the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages awarded.