THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO LIGON Y TRIAS AND FERNANDO GABAT Y ALMERA, ACCUSED, FERNANDO GABAT Y ALMERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch xx, rendered on February 17, 1986, convicting the accused-appellant, Fernando Gabat, of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.  The
victim was Jose Rosales y Ortiz, a seventeen-year old working student who was
earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. 
He was allegedly robbed of his cigarette box containing cigarettes worth
P300.00 more or less.^[1]

Only Fernando Gabat was arrested and brought to trial and
convicted.  The other accused, Rogelio
Ligon, was never apprehended and is still at large.

The fatal incident happened on a Sunday, October 23, 1983 at
about 6:10 p.m.  The accused, Fernando
Gabat, was riding in a 1978 Volkswagon Kombi owned by his father, Antonio
Gabat, and driven by the other accused, Rogelio Ligon.  The Kombi was coming from Espana Street going
towards the direction of Quiapo. 
Fernando Gabat was seated beside the driver, in the front seat by the
window on the right side of the Kombi. 
At the intersection of Quezon Boulevard and Lerma Street before turning
left towards the underpass at C. M. Recto Avenue, the Kombi had to stop as the
traffic light was red.  While waiting for
the traffic light to change, Fernando Gabat beckoned a cigarette vendor, Jose
Rosales y Ortiz (Rosales for short) to buy some cigarettes from him.  Rosales approached the Kombi and handed Gabat
two sticks of cigarettes.  While this
transaction was occurring, the traffic light changed to green, and the Kombi
driven by Rogelio Ligon suddenly moved forward. 
As to what precisely happened between Gabat and Rosales at this crucial
moment, and immediately thereafter, is the subject of conflicting versions by
the prosecution and the defense.  It is
not controverted, however, that as the Kombi continued to speed towards Quiapo,
Rosales clung to the window of the Kombi but apparently lost his grip and fell
down on the pavement.  Rosales was rushed
by some bystanders to the Philippine General Hospital, where he was treated for multiple physical injuries and
was confined thereat until his death on October 30, 1983.

Following close behind
the Kombi at the time of the incident was a taxicab driven by Prudencio
Castillo.  He was behind the Kombi, at a
distance of about three meters, travelling on the same lane in a slightly
oblique position (“a little bit to the right”).^[2] As the Kombi did not stop after the victim
fell down on the pavement near the foot of the underpass, Castillo pursued it
as it sped towards Roxas Boulevard, beeping his horn to make the driver
stop.  When they reached the Luneta near
the Rizal monument, Castillo saw an owner-type jeep with two persons in
it.  He sought their assistance in
chasing the Kombi, telling them “nakaaksidente ng tao“.^[3] The two men in the jeep joined the chase and
at the intersection of Vito Cruz and Roxas Boulevard, Castillo was able to
overtake the Kombi when the traffic light turned red.  He immediately blocked the Kombi while the
jeep pulled up right behind it.  The two
men on board the jeep turned out to be police officers, Patrolmen Leonardo
Pugao and Peter Ignacio.  They drew their
guns and told the driver, Rogelio Ligon, and his companion, Fernando Gabat, to
alight from the Kombi.  It was found out
that there was a third person inside the Kombi, a certain Rodolfo Primicias who
was sleeping at the rear seat.^[4] The three were all brought by the police officers
to the Western Police District and turned over to Pfc. Fermin Payuan.  The taxicab driver, Prudencio Castillo, also
went along with them.  The written
statements of Castillo and Rodolfo Primicias were taken by the traffic
investigator, Pfc. Fermin Payuan.^[5]
Payuan also prepared a Traffic Accident Report, dated October 23, 1983.^[6]
Fernando Gabat and Rodolfo Primicias were released early morning the following
day, but Rogelio Ligon was detained and turned over to the City Fiscal’s Office
for further investigation.

Investigating Fiscal
Alfredo Cantos, filed an information in court against Rogelio Ligon dated
December 6, 1983 charging him with Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence.^[7] Six months later, however, or on June 28,
1984, Assistant Fiscal Cantos filed another information against Rogelio Ligon
and Fernando Gabat for Robbery with Homicide.^[8] He filed the latter information on the basis
of a Supplemental Affidavit of Prudencio Castillo^[9] and a joint affidavit of Armando Espino and
Romeo Castil, cigarette vendors, who allegedly witnessed the incident on
October 23, 1983.^[10] These affidavits were already prepared and
merely sworn to before Fiscal Cantos on January 17, 1984.

On October 31, 1983, an autopsy was conducted by the medico-legal
officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, Dr. Orlando V. Salvador, who
stated in his autopsy report that the cause of death of Rosales was
“pneumonia hypostatic, bilateral, secondary to traumatic injuries of the
head”.^[11]

The prosecution tried to establish, through the sole testimony of
the taxicab driver, Prudencio Castillo, that Gabat grabbed the box of
cigarettes from Rosales and pried loose the latter’s hand from the window of
the Kombi, resulting in the latter falling down and hitting the pavement.  In its decision, the trial court summarized
the testimony of Castillo as follows:  At
about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of October 23, 1983, Castillo was then driving his taxicab along Lerma
Street near Far Eastern University, and at the intersection of Lerma and Quezon
Boulevard, the traffic light changed from green to red.  The vehicular traffic stopped and Prudencio
Castillo’s taxi was right behind a Volkswagon Kombi.  While waiting for the traffic light to change
to green, Castillo idly watched the Volkswagon Kombi and saw Gabat, the
passenger sitting beside the driver, signal to a cigarette vendor.  The cigarette vendor, Rosales, approached the
right side of the Kombi.  While Rosales
was handing the cigarettes to Gabat, the traffic light suddenly changed to
green.  When the Kombi moved forward,
Gabat suddenly grabbed the cigarette box
held by Rosales.  Taken aback,
Jose Rosales ran beside the Kombi and was able to hold on to the windowsill of
the right front door with his right hand. 
While Rosales was clinging to the windowsill, with both feet off the
ground, the Kombi continued to speed towards the C.M. Recto underpass.  Castillo, who was closely following the
Kombi, then saw Gabat forcibly remove the hand of Rosales from the windowsill
and the latter fell face down on Quezon Boulevard near the Recto underpass.^[12]

The version of the defense, on the other hand, was summarized by
the court as follows:  On the date and
time in question, Fernando Gabat, 31 years old, an underwriter, was on board
the Volkswagon Kombi driven by Rogelio Ligon. 
The Kombi had to stop at the intersection of Lerma Street and Quezon
Boulevard when the traffic light turned red. 
Fernando Gabat, who wanted to buy cigarettes, called a cigarette vendor
who approached the right side of the Kombi. 
Gabat bought two sticks of cigarettes and handed to the cigarette
vendor, Rosales, a P5.00 bill.  In order
to change the P5.00 bill, Rosales placed his cigarette box containing assorted
cigarettes on the windowsill of the front door of the Kombi between the arm of
Gabat and the window frame.  Suddenly,
the traffic light changed from red to green and Rogelio Ligon moved the vehicle
forward, heedless of the transaction between Gabat and the cigarette
vendor.  As the vehicle sped onward, the
cigarette box which was squeezed between the right arm of Gabat and the window
frame fell inside the Kombi.  Rosales
then ran beside the vehicle and clung to the windowsill of the moving
vehicle.  Gabat testified that when he
saw the cigarette vendor clinging on the side of the front door, he told Ligon
to veer to the right in order that Rosales could get off at the sidewalk.  However, Gabat declared, that Ligon said that
it could not be done because of the moving vehicular traffic.  Then, while the vehicle slowed down and Ligon
was maneuvering to the right in an attempt to go toward the sidewalk, Rosales
lost his grip on the window frame and fell to the pavement of Quezon
Boulevard.  Gabat allegedly shouted at
Ligon to stop but Ligon replied that they should go on to Las Pinas, and report
the incident to the parents of Gabat, and later they would come back to the
scene of the incident.  However, while
the Kombi was speeding along Dewey Boulevard, it was blocked by the taxi of
Prudencio Castillo and a jeep driven by policemen.  Gabat and Ligon were brought to police
headquarters, but neither of them executed any written statement.^[13]

The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution’s version, stating that there can be no
doubt that Gabat forcibly took or
grabbed the cigarette box from Rosales because,
otherwise, there could be no reason for the latter to run after the Kombi and
hang on to its window.  The court also
believed Castillo’s testimony that Gabat forcibly
removed or pried off the right hand of Rosales from the windowsill of the
Kombi, otherwise, the latter could not have fallen down, having already been
able to balance himself on the stepboard.

On the other hand, the trial court dismissed as incredible the
testimony of Gabat that the cigarette vendor placed the cigarette box on the
windowsill of the Kombi, holding it with his left hand, while he was trying to
get from his pocket the change for the 5-peso bill of Gabat.  The court said that it is of common knowledge
that cigarette vendors plying their trade in the streets do not let go of their
cigarette box; no vendor lets go of his precious box of cigarettes in order to
change a peso bill given by a customer.

As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded
great respect and are not disturbed on appeal, unless it is shown that the
findings are not supported by the evidence, or the court failed to consider
certain material facts and circumstances in its evaluation of the
evidence.  In the case at bar, a careful
review of the record shows that certain material facts and circumstances had
been overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter
the result of the case in that they would introduce an element of reasonable
doubt which would entitle the accused to acquittal.

While the prosecution witness, Castillo, may be a disinterested
witness with no motive, according to the court a quo, “other than to see that justice be done”, his
testimony, even if not tainted with bias, is not entirely free from doubt
because his observation of the event could have been faulty or mistaken.  The taxicab which Castillo was driving was
lower in height compared to the Kombi in which Gabat was riding – a fact
admitted by Castillo at the trial.^[14]
Judicial notice may also be taken of the fact that the rear windshield of the
1978 Volkswagon Kombi is on the upper portion, occupying approximately
one-third (1/3) of the rear end of the vehicle, thus making it visually
difficult for Castillo to observe clearly what transpired inside the Kombi at
the front end where Gabat was seated. 
These are circumstances which must be taken into consideration in
evaluating Castillo’s testimony as to what exactly happened between Gabat and
the cigarette vendor during that crucial moment before the latter fell
down.  As the taxicab was right behind
the Kombi, following it at a distance of about three meters, Castillo’s line of
vision was partially obstructed by the back part of the Kombi.  His testimony that he saw Gabat grab the
cigarette box from Rosales and forcibly pry loose the latter’s hand from the
windowsill of the Kombi is thus subject to a reasonable doubt, specially
considering that this occurrence happened in just a matter of seconds, and both vehicles during that time
were moving fast in the traffic.

We find it significant
that in his statement given to the
police that very evening,^[15] Castillo did not mention that he saw Gabat
forcibly prying off the hand of Rosales from the windowsill of the Kombi,
although the police report prepared by the investigating officer, Pfc. Fermin
M. Payuan, on the same date, stated that when the traffic signal changed to
green and the driver stepped on the gas, the cigarette box of the cigarette
vendor (Rosales) was grabbed by the passenger (Gabat) and “instantly the
former clung to the door and was dragged at a distance while at the same time
the latter punched the vendor’s arm until the same (sic) fell to the
pavement”, thus showing that during the police investigation Castillo must
have given a statement to the police which indicated that Gabat did something
to cause Rosales to fall from the Kombi.^[16]
It was by way of a supplementary affidavit prepared by the lawyer of the
complainant and sworn to by Castillo before the Assistant City Fiscal on
January 17, 1984 that this vital detail was added.  This supplementary affidavit was made the
basis for filing another information charging both Gabat and the driver with
the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Considering the above circumstances, the Court is not convinced
with moral certainty that the guilt of the accused Fernando Gabat has been
established beyond reasonable doubt.  In
our view, the quantum of proof necessary to sustain Gabat’s conviction of so
serious a crime as robbery with homicide has not been met in this case.  He is therefore entitled to acquittal on
reasonable doubt.

However, it does not
follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil
liability.  While the guilt of the
accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable doubt,
only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages.^[17] The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the
civil liability of the accused only when it includes a declaration that the
facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.^[18]

The reason for the
provisions of Article 29 of the Civil Code, which provides that the acquittal
of the accused on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt him from civil liability for the
same act or omission, has been explained by the Code Commission as follows:

“The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal
case also releases him from civil liability is one of the most serious flaws in
the Philip­pine legal system.  It has
given rise to numberless instances of miscarriage of justice, where the
acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to the
guilt of the accused.  The reasoning
followed is that inasmuch as the civil responsibility is de­rived from the
criminal offense, when the latter is not proved, civil liability cannot be
demanded.

“This is one of those cases where confused thinking leads to
unfortunate and deplorable consequences. 
Such reasoning fails to draw a clear line of demarcation between
criminal liability and civil responsibility, and to determine the logical
result of the distinction.  The two
liabilities are separate and distinct from each other.  One affects the social order and the other,
private rights.  One is for the punish­ment
or correction of the offender while the other is for reparation of damages
suffered by the aggrieved party.  The two
responsibilities are so different from each other that article 1813 of the
present (Spanish) Civil Code reads thus: 
“There may be a compromise upon the civil action arising from a
crime; but the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty shall not
thereby be extinguished.” It is just and proper that, for the purposes of
the impri­sonment of or fine upon the accused, the offense should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.  But for the pur­pose
of indemnifying the complaining party, why should the offense also be proved
beyong reasonable doubt?  Is not the
invasion or violation of every private right to be proved only by a
preponderance of evidence?  Is the right
of the aggrieved person any less private because the wrongful act is also
punishable by the criminal law?

“For these reasons, the Commis­sion recommends the adoption of
the reform under discussion.  It will
correct a serious defect in our law.  It
will close up an inexhaustible source of injustice – a cause for disillusionment
on the part of the innumerable persons injured or wronged.”^[19]

In the instant case, we
find that a preponderance of evidence
exists sufficient to establish the facts from which the civil liability
of Gabat arises.  On the basis of the
trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of both prosecution and defense
witnesses at the trial and applying the quantum of proof required in civil
cases, we find that a preponderance of evidence establishes that Gabat by his
act and omission with fault and negligence caused damage to Rosales and should
answer civilly for the damage done. 
Gabat’s wilfull act of calling Rosales, the cigarette vendor, to the
middle of a busy street to buy two sticks of cigarettes set the chain of events
which led to the death of Rosales. 
Through fault and negligence, Gabat (1) failed to prevent the driver
from moving forward while the purchase was completed; (2) failed to help
Rosales while the latter clung precariously to the moving vehicle, and (3) did
not enforce his order to the driver to stop. 
Finally, Gabat acquiesced in the driver’s act of speeding away, instead
of stopping and picking up the injured victim. 
These proven facts taken together are firm bases for finding Gabat
civilly liable under the Civil Code^[20]
for the damage done to Rosales.

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered acquitting the appellant
Gabat for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. 
However, he is hereby held civilly liable for his acts and omissions,
there being fault or negligence, and sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Jose
Rosales y Ortiz in the amount of P15,000.00 for the latter’s death, P1,733.35
for hospital and medical expenses, and P4,100.00 for funeral expenses.  The alleged loss of income amounting to
P20,000.00, not being supported by sufficient evidence, is DENIED.  Costs de officio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Information, Records, p. 1.

^[2]
T.S.N., October 31, 1984. p. 17.

^[3]
T.S.N., October 10, 1984, p. 8.

^[4]
T.S.N., October 31, 1984, pp. 12-13.

^[5]
Exhibits A and D.

^[6]
Exhibit C.

^[7]
Exhibit 1.

^[8]
Records, p. 1; Exhibit 6.

^[9]
Exhibit 3.

^[10]
Exhibit 4.

^[11]
Exhibit G.

^[12]
Decision, Records, p. 130.

^[13]
Ibid., p. 132.

^[14]
T.S.N., October 31, 1984, p. 16.

^[15]
Exhibit A.

^[16]
Exhibit C.

^[17]
Article 29, Civil Code.

^[18]
Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 559.

^[19]
Report of the Code Commission, pp. 45-46.

^[20]
Article 2176.