People v. Escote
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 28, 1996, at past midnight, accused-appellants Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan boarded a Five Star passenger bus. While the bus was traveling along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, they announced a holdup, divested passengers of their valuables, and shot and killed SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. The robbery and killing lasted approximately 25 minutes. The accused then alighted in Mexico, Pampanga. Subsequently, on October 25, 1996, Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. was apprehended while driving a taxi and was found in possession of the identification card of the victim, SPO1 Manio, Jr. He admitted to the robbery and killing. Victor Acuyan was later arrested. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Bulacan convicted both accused-appellants of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to suffer the supreme penalty of death. They were also ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the victim and to the bus company. The Petition: Accused-appellants appealed the decision, primarily questioning the positive identification by the witnesses and their conviction for robbery with homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in holding that the driver and conductor positively identified the accused-appellants. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. Whether treachery can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court deleted the death penalty and the award of P6,000.00 to the bus company, while increasing the award for lost earnings and granting temperate damages to the bus company. The Court also affirmed the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of positive identification: The Court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the driver, Rodolfo Cacatian, and the conductor, Romulo Digap, positively identified the accused-appellants. Despite the fear experienced during the holdup, the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the perpetrators due to the bus lights being on, their proximity to the accused, and the duration of the incident. The Court noted that it is natural for victims to try and see their assailants. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the trial court's reliance on the witnesses' testimonies, even though the cross-examination of Rodolfo Cacatian was not fully completed, as the defense had ample opportunity to cross-examine but waived this right due to their counsel's repeated absences. The subsequent identification of the accused-appellants in court by the witnesses was also considered reliable. On the conviction for robbery with homicide: The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, ownership by another, intent to gain, and the commission of homicide on the occasion of the robbery. The Court reiterated that in robbery with homicide, the intent to rob must precede the taking of life, and the killing can occur before, during, or after the robbery. The possession of the victim's identification card by one of the accused without explanation further strengthened the conviction. On the appreciation of treachery as an aggravating circumstance: The Court extensively discussed the issue of whether treachery can be appreciated in robbery with homicide. While acknowledging prior jurisprudence that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, the Court ultimately ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated to aggravate the penalty because it was not alleged in the Information, as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that even if treachery was proven, its absence in the Information prevents it from being used to increase the penalty. Therefore, in the absence of any modifying circumstances, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, the lower end of the penalty prescribed for robbery with homicide.
Main Doctrine
Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, even though the latter is classified as a crime against property, provided it is not alleged in the Information. If not alleged, it cannot aggravate the penalty.