PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BEN MANANGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
ELBINIAS, M.P., J.:
dated January 22, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela,
Branch 22 (“trial court” for brevity) in Criminal Case No. 22-1597 for
“ROBBERY IN BAND”.
The conviction of accused-appellant Ben Manangan (“accused-appellant” or “Manangan” for brevity) stemmed from an Information[2] dated March 8, 2001, which read as follows:
“That on or about the 5th day of February, 2001, in the
[M]unicipality of Tumauini, [P]rovince of Isabela, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Ben
Manangan, together with John Doe, Peter Doe, Richard Doe, Paul Doe and
Albert Doe, whose identities are still to be determined, conspiring,
confederating together and helping one another, all armed with assorted
firearms, with intent to gain and by means of force and intimidation
against person, that is: by poking their firearms, towards the persons
of Ocampo U. Denna and members of his family including one Felix Denna
and at gun point, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, take, steal and bring away cash money in the amount of
P50,000.00, belonging to the said Ocampo U. Denna, against his will and
consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner, in the aforesaid
amount of P50,000.00.CONTRARY TO LAW.”[3]
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely: Jolita Denna
(“Jolita” for brevity), and Fortunata Denna (“Fortunata” for brevity) in
order to prove the following:
Witness Jolita testified that accused-appellant Manangan was the nephew of her husband, Ocampo Denna (“Ampoy” for brevity).
On February 5, 2001 at about 7:30 in the evening, Jolita, together with
her daughter Jesusa Denna, her brother-in-law Mariano Denna, and her
niece Fortunata, was inside Jolita’s house at San Vicente, Tumauini,
Isabela.[4]
Later in the evening, Jolita’s husband, Ampoy, arrived.[5]
After turning the lights off, Jolita heard someone call, “Uncle Ampoy, Uncle Ampoy”.[6] Jolita responded, “you wait I will just put on the light”.[7]
At that time, Jolita recognized that the voice was coming from
accused-appellant Manangan, because Jolita knew him for a long time.[8]
Jolita then lit the lamp, opened the door and saw five (5) other armed
men wearing bonnets along with accused-appellant, who was not wearing a
bonnet.[9] However,
accused-appellant blew the light out from the lamp held by Jolita.
Afterwards, the group asked Jolita to cook food for them because they
were hungry.[10] Jolita complied.[11]
According to Jolita, after eating, three of the armed men went to the
nearby house of Jolita’s brother-in-law while the others remained in
their house.[12] Afterwards,
the remaining men asked Jolita and her husband to surrender their money,
saying, “hold up, hold up, Iyawa nu y kwartu”, which meant “give me the
money”.[13]
Jolita and her husband replied that they did not have any money.[14]
The men refused to believe the spouses, and made them choose for their
life or money. Out of fear, Jolita cried and pleaded for her husband to
give their money to the group.[15]
Jolita then handed Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) to one of the
six armed men, all of whom were already in their house at that time.[16]
Witness Fortunata, who was also at the house of Jolita, stated that
after the money was given by Jolita, accused-appellant Manangan and his
group left.[17]
The
defense, on the other hand, presented accused-appellant Manangan, and
the admitted proferred testimony of Johnny Mamauag, in order to prove
the following:
Accused-appellant testified that he knew the
private complainant Jolita because she was the aunt of his wife, and
because they were neighbors.[18]
According to accused-appellant Manangan, on the evening of February 5,
2001, he was inside his house located at San Vicente, Tumauini, Isabela.[19]
Accused-appellant said that around 7:30 in the evening, he was drinking
at their house together with his brother-in-law, Johnny Mamauag.[20] They finished drinking at 9:00 in the evening. Afterwards, accused-appellant Manangan went to bed.[21]
In the morning of February 6, 2001, accused-appellant was awakened by his wife because police officers were looking for him.[22]
Accused-appellant Manangan went outside their house and saw policeman
Rey Magaru (“Magaru” for brevity) together with other policemen.[23] They brought accused-appellant to the police station where he saw Jolita’s husband, Ocampo, and Mariano Denna.[24] There, the policemen asked accused-appellant about the robbery. Despite saying that he had no knowledge of it[25], the police officers imprisoned accused-appellant Manangan for a month.[26]
Subsequently, an Information[27] for “Robbery in Band” was filed against accused-appellant, John Doe, Peter Doe, Richard Doe, Paul Doe, and Albert Doe.[28]
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “NOT GUILTY”.[29]
Eventually, the trial court rendered the Decision[30]
appealed from, convicting accused-appellant Manangan of “Robbery in
Band”. The dispositive portion of the Decision disclosed the following:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ratiocination, the Court finds accused Ben Manangan ‘GUILTY‘ beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery in band and sentences him to:
1. suffer the indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of
prision correccional as its minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor
as its maximum period;2. indemnify the private complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.
SO DECIDED.”[31] (Emphasis was made in the original)
In appealing from the Decision, accused-appellant prayed that
“judgment be immediately rendered reversing the Decision of the trial
court dated 22 January 2010 and to put an end to his mental torture,
acquitting accused Ben Manangan for the crime of Robbery in Band for
failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt his
participation in the conspiracy as alleged in the Information.”[32]
Accused-appellant Manangan raised this sole assignment of error:
“With all due respect, the Honorable Regional Trial Court erred:
IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN IT APPLIED ITS ‘HONEST BELIEF’
THAT ACCUSED IMPLIEDLY CONSPIRED WITH UNIDENTIFIED MEN DESPITE ITS
FINDINGS THAT ‘THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE CO-ACCUSED DOES
HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ACCUSED BEN MANANGAN TO COMMIT ROBBERY AND
DECIDED TO COMMIT IT.’”[33]
To begin with, in the prosecution for “Robbery in Band”, the
following elements must be proven: a) the unlawful taking, (b) of
personal property belonging to another, (c) with intent to gain, (d)
with violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things,
and; (e) more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission
of Robbery.[34]
Prosecution witnesses positively identified accused-appellant Manangan
as one of the (6) six armed men who, through intimidation, unlawfully
took Php 50,000.00 from Spouses Jolita and Ampoy (“Spouses Denna” for
brevity). This positive identification of the accused-appellant Manangan
by the prosecution’s witnesses triumphs over accused-appellant’s
defense of denial and alibi, in that when the alleged robbery was
committed, accused-appellant alleged that he was in his house “drinking”[35] with his brother-in-law from 7:30 until 9:00 in the evening, and that afterwards, accused-appellant went to sleep.[36] Such a defense is negative and is self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[37]
Besides, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be
at the house of Spouses Denna at the time the crime of Robbery was
committed. This is because, accused-appellant and Spouses Denna were
neighbors at San Vicente, Tumainin, Isabela.[38]
The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses were credible,
considering that no ill-motive was shown to have existed on the part of
prosecution witnesses Jolita and Fortunata to testify against
accused-appellant.[39]
All of these were as similarly found by the trial court, to wit:
“To the mind of the Court, the private complainant could
not possibly make an error in positively identifying Ben Manangan to be
one among the armed persons who robbed them due to the fact, that, Ben
is known to them, they being neighbors of good standing. Likewise, Ben
confirmed, that, he and Jolita are neighbors and know each other.
Moreover, there is no ill or evil motive shown or manifested by Jolita
Denna to implicate Ben Manangan in the instant case. Ben is her nephew,
Ben having been married to the niece of Jolita’s husband. It is for
these reasons, that, Jolita’s testimony must be given weight and
probative value.On the other hand, the defense of the accused is alibi and general denial.
He claims, he is in his house sleeping together with his wife and child at the time the alleged robbery incident happened.
xxx
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
prove, that, he was not at the locus delicti at the time the crime was
committed and, that, it was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission xxxCulled from the testimonies of the victim and the
accused, it was shown, that, they are neighbors at San Vicente,
Tumauini, Isabela, hence, there is no physical impossibility for accused
Ben Manangan to be at the locus delicti.The defense tried its best to debase the credibility of Jolita
Denna but failed. She was subjected to a rigid and lengthy
cross-examination by the defense counsel. However, she clung to her
testimony, that, she positively identified Ben Manangan the herein
accused as one among the persons who robbed them and carted away the
amount of P50,000.00.In short, accused’s gallant defense of alibi and general
denial crumbled with the positive identification of Jolita Denna
pointing accused Ben Manangan as one among the persons who robbed them.”[40] (Emphasis supplied)
Contrary to accused-appellant’s sole assignment of error, conspiracy existed between accused-appellant Manangan and the five (5) unidentified men.
Accused-appellant Manangan had argued as follows:
“To justify its Decision, the trial court, one by one, discussed
the elements of Robbery in Band and relate its findings based on the
evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Decision carefully considered
the relevant evidence to prove all elements of Robbery in Band. But it
failed to consider one thing: the participation of Ben Manangan in the
commission of the crime.In order for the trial court to link Ben Manangan to the
unidentified perpetrators whom it found to have committed the crime, it
applied the concept of implied conspiracy. And for this, it erred.There is an implied conspiracy if it is proven that two or more
persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a
conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to
concert means is proved.
xxx
Applying said jurisprudence in the case at bar, there
can be no implied conspiracy since both Fortunata Denna and Jolita Denna
testified that Ben Manangan did not do anything. In fact, he merely
stood outside the house. And when the masked men announced ‘hold up,
hold up!’ both witnesses also testified that they do not know where Ben
Manangan was anymore. Also, they both testified that Ben Manangan did
not receive the P50,000.00 nor was he there when Jolita handed it to a
tall person.Furthermore, both testified that Ben Manangan was the only
person who was not wearing bonnet to cover his face. How could there be
conspiracy when it would seem that he was out of the loop as far as the
plan to cover their faces? It could even be possible that Ben Manangan
was also threatened to accompany the masked men.xxx
What is then (sic) the proof that they have a common design and
purpose? The Trial Court in its Decision provided the answer: None. It
would seem that the Prosecution failed to establish express conspiracy
considering the pronouncement in page 8 of the Decision:‘Express Conspiracy was not shown by the prosecution. It means
that there is no evidence showing that the co-accused do have an
agreement with accused Ben Manangan to commit robbery and decided to
commit it.’What then is the basis for the trial court to sustain its
conviction? In the same page 8 of the Decision, the trial court relied
in its ‘honest belief’. Its honest belief that due to the inaction of
Ben Manangan, he impliedly conspired with the perpetrators.xxx
Even the presence of Ben Manangan at the scene of the crime
cannot be considered as an implied conspiracy in the absence of a proven
criminal design.”[41] (Emphasis supplied)
Defeating accused-appellant’s arguments however, is that the
mutual purpose between accused-appellant and five other armed men of
robbing the Spouses Denna, and the unity of executing their purpose were
demonstrated by the coordinated acts of accused-appellant Manangan and
the five (5) armed men, which acts in turn, had been established.
Accused-appellant Manangan was seen by prosecution witnesses Jolita and
Fortunata together with the five (5) armed men wearing bonnets as the
ones who robbed Spouses Denna. Prosecution witness Jolita heard
accused-appellant as the one who called his uncle Ampoy, which call even
prompted Jolita to open the door. Moreover, accused-appellant Manangan
ordered for Jolita to cook food for them, with accused-appellant
Manangan eating together with the group[42]. Afterwards, one of the men in the group declared a hold-up and demanded money from the Spouses Denna.[43] Accused-appellant did not do anything to prevent the group from committing robbery against Spouses Denna.[44] Accused-appellant Manangan left with the group after the money was given to them.[45]
Thus, the acts of accused-appellant Manangan before, during and after
the commission of the crime established the intent common to
accused-appellant and his companions, to rob the Spouses Denna. This
situation was as had already been similarly ruled by the Supreme Court
in People of the Philippines vs. FO1 Felipe dela Cruz y Reyes, et. al. G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, to wit:
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy
may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are
indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of
interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is
sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the
malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution.From the circumstances obtaining in this case, it cannot be
doubted that the appellants acted in conspiracy in committing the crimes
charged. The appellants were together in the jeepney when it stopped at
Petron Gasoline station and then at the 7-Eleven Convenience Store.
Afterwards, they were still together in the jeepney when it went to
Tarlac. From the time they announced a robbery at Petron to the moment
they entered the 7-Eleven Convenience Store and shot the store’s
security guard, up to the time they fled towards Tarlac, there can be no
other conclusion than that they hatched a criminal scheme, synchronized
their acts for unity in its execution, and aided each other for its
consummation.When conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal
design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the other
conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of
each of them becomes secondary.” (Emphasis supplied)
When the crime is committed by more than three (3) armed
malefactors, such as the situation here, the crime of Robbery is deemed
to have been committed by a band, as what the Supreme Court had declared
in People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M. Basao alias “Dodong,” et al., G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012, to wit:
“The crime of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised
Penal Code has the following elements: (a) intent to gain, (b) unlawful
taking, (c) personal property belonging to another, and (d) violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon things. Under Article
296 of the same Code, ‘when more than three armed malefactors take part
in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed
by a band.’ It further provides that ‘any member of a band who is
present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as
principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be
shown that he attempted to prevent the same.’All of the foregoing elements had been satisfactorily
established herein. At least five (5) people, including
accused-appellants, carrying guns and a hand grenade, barged into the
home of, and forcibly took pieces of jewelry and other personal
properties belonging to, spouses Yatsumitsu and Emelie Hashiba.
Accused-appellants themselves made their intent to gain clear when they
assured their victims that they were only after the money.” (Emphasis supplied)
Given all these, no cogent reason was therefore shown to justify
any deviation from the following findings of the trial court, which
findings were based on the facts and the law:
“Expressed conspiracy was not shown by the prosecution. It means
that there is no evidence showing that the co-accused Does had an
agreement with accused Ben Manangan to commit robbery and decided to
commit it.However, it is the honest belief of the Court, that, implied conspiracy exist (sic).
Ben Manangan was with the armed malefactors when they
went to the house of the victim. In fact, he was the one who called for
the owner of the house, Ocampo Denna by shouting ‘Uncle Ampoy, Uncle
Ampoy’. His voice was recognized by Jolita Denna, hence, the opening of
the door of the house was facilitated and hastened. He even ate with his
co-accused as they directed the victim to cook food, they being hungry.
After eating, one of his co-accused declared a hold up and demanded
money from the Denna at gun point. Ben did not show any external act or
behavior to stop his co-accused to execute what they had declared to be a
hold-up, hence, all along, he [acquiesced] and agreed with what they
were doing, the commission of robbery. After being successful in getting
the money from the victim, they all left at the same time. This being
the factual milieu of the case, the Court is convinced beyond moral
certainly that conspiracy was shown, hence, Ben is equally guilty with
the others as a co-conspirator to the crime of robbery.Simply stated, the act of Ben Manangan [in] not doing
anything to prevent the robbery against the Denna is a clear
manifestation, that, he agreed with their evil intent and criminal
purpose.”[46] (Emphasis Supplied)
Indeed, the trial court’s appreciation of facts and evaluation of
testimonies and credibility of the witnesses, as is the deeply
entrenched rule, deserves much weight and respect, and should not be
disturbed.[47] This is because
the trial court had the distinct opportunity, not available to the
reviewing courts, to hear the testimonies of the witnesses and to
observe their conduct and demeanor on the stand.[48]
However, a need exists to reduce the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of Prision Correccional
as its minimum to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor as its maximum period
which was imposed by the trial court. This is because under Article
294, paragraph 5, in relation to Article 295 and 296 of the Revised
Penal Code, the crime of Robbery committed by a band is punished by the
maximum period of Prision Correccional maximum to Prison Mayor medium. Such maximum period in turn, is Prision Mayor
in its medium period, the range of which is from eight (8) years and
one (1) day to ten (10) years. Article 294, paragraph 5 in relation to
Article 295 and 296 of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows:
“Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
xxx
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.” (Emphasis supplied)
“Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of
firearm on a street, road or alley. — If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band,
or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship,
or by entering the passenger’s compartments in a train or, in any
manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties.” (Emphasis supplied)“Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by
the members thereof.— When more than three armed malefactors take part
in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the
commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be
imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of the criminal
liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.Any member of a band who is present at the commission of
a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the
assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.” (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law here reveals that the
maximum term of the penalty should be taken from the medium period of Prision Mayor,
which is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. The minimum
term of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the penalty next
lower in degree, which is Arresto Mayor maximum to Prision Correccional medium in any of its periods, the range of which is four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.[49]
Hence, pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant
should instead suffer the penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of Prision Correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor as maximum.[50]
However, the trial court was correct in ordering accused-appellant to
indemnify private complainant the amount of fifty thousand pesos (Php
50,000.00) as the amount unlawfully taken from private complainant.
This, given that a person criminally liable is also civilly liable.[51]
After careful consideration of all the facts, arguments, and issues
appearing on the records, as well as of the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and, in accordance with what is best determined to be
proper under the circumstances, the following disposition is therefore
made on these matters.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of accused-appellant is REDUCED to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of Prision Correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican, (Chairman) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 178-186
[2] Records, pp. 37 – 38
[3] Records, p. 37
[4] TSN, January 14, 2008, pp. 7 – 8
[5] TSN, Jaunary 14, 2008, p. 8
[6] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 9
[7] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 9
[8] TSN, January 14, 2008, pp. 22 – 23
[9] TSN, January 14, 2008, pp. 12, 14, 34
[10] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 12, 28
[11] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 12
[12] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 13
[13] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 14
[14] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 14
[15] TSN, January 14, 2008, pp. 15-16
[16] TSN, January 14, 2008, p. 16, 31
[17] TSN, August 21, 2008, p. 23
[18] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 4
[19] TSN, November 19, 2009, pp. 2 , 4
[20] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 4
[21] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 5
[22] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 6
[23] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 6
[24] TSN, November 19, 2009, pp. 7 – 8
[25] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 9
[26] TSN, November 19, 2009, pp. 9 – 10
[27] Records, pp. 37 – 38
[28] Records, p. 37
[29] Records, p. 68
[30] Records, pp. 178 – 186
[31] Records, p. 186
[32] Rollo, p. 75
[33] Rollo, p. 59
[34] People of the
Philippines vs. Alberto M. Basao alias “dodong,” Jovel S. Apole,
Melquiades L. Apole, Estrelita G.Apole, Rolando A. Apole alias “bebot,”
Vicente C. Salon, Jaime Tandan, Renato C. Apole alias “boboy,” Rolando
M. Ochivillo alias “allan,” Lorenzo L. Apole, John Doe, Peter Doe and
Mike Doe, accused, Jovel S. Apole, Rolando A. Apole, and Renato C.
Apole, G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012 , Article 296, Revised Penal
Code
[35] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 4
[36] TSN, November 19, 2009, pp. 4 – 5
[37] People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Baldomar y Liscano, G.R. No. 197043, February 29, 2012
[38] TSN, November 19, 2009, p. 4
[39] People of the Philippines vs. Paul Tagana, et al., G.R. No. 133027, March 4, 2004
[40] Records, pp. 183 – 184
[41] Rollo, pp. 45 – 49
[42] TSN, August 21, 2008, p p. 15 – 16
[43] TSN, August 21, 2008, p. 16
[44] TSN, August 21, 2008, pp. 16 – 18
[45] TSN, August 21, 2008, p. 23
[46] Records, pp. 185-186
[47] People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Albalate, Jr., G.R. No. 174480, December 18, 2009
[48] People of the Philippines vs. Sammy Ramos, G.R. No. 172470, April 8, 2008
[49] People of the
Philippines vs. Alberto M. Basao alias “Dodong”, et al., G.R. No.
189820, October 10, 2012; Article 294, paragraph 5, in relation to
Articles 295 and 296 of the Revised Penal Code
[50] Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law
[51] Article 100, Revised Penal Code