THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

People versus Cruz

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Roberto Cruz, an automatic review of a judgment of conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide. The accused was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance of robbery in band with the use of unlicensed firearms, and was sentenced to death. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses who are related to the victim, and of the presumption of voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession. Second, and more importantly for the bar, it draws a precise line between the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm under Article 296, which does not apply to robbery with homicide, and the generic aggravating circumstance of band, which does.

Procedural History

The accused was charged and tried before the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstance of robbery in band with the use of unlicensed firearms, and without any mitigating circumstance. He was sentenced to death, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Ricardo Cruz in the amount of twelve thousand pesos, and to pay the costs of suit. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review. On appeal, the accused argued that the evidence of the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court erred in disregarding his testimony and that of his witnesses.

Facts

On the twenty-third of December, nineteen hundred seventy, several men met at the apartment of Jimmy Katigbak in Paliwas, Obando, Bulacan, and planned to rob the house of Dolores Cruz San Jose, a jewelry dealer. They met again on the twenty-eighth of December, and on the morning of the twenty-ninth of December, nineteen hundred seventy, they gathered once more before proceeding to her house in Saluysoy, Meycauayan, Bulacan. All of them were armed with guns. Rogelio Joaquin acted as lookout and signalled the house to be robbed, while Gavino Caponpon stayed in the car.

At the time, Zenaida Santiago was in the house verifying the jewelries entrusted to Dolores. The door suddenly opened and Ricardo Castro entered, pointing a gun at the head of Dolores and announcing a hold-up. He gathered the jewelries on the table and in the showcase. Roberto Cruz then entered the house and even sat on a sofa pretending to be a visitor. Ester Cruz-Villanueva, who was in the same compound, saw the men enter and went to the house, but one of them grabbed her. Because she kept shouting, two of the men, one of whom was Roberto Cruz, ganged up on her and she was hit on her left eye. Dolores saw Ester sitting on the floor, her nose bleeding, with Roberto Cruz beside her. The robbers took jewelries worth around one hundred fifty-one thousand nine hundred pesos, more or less. As they left, gunshots were heard for two to three minutes. Ester saw one of the intruders fire upon Ricardo Cruz at his back, and Dolores later saw Ricardo Cruz lying flat on the driveway, seriously wounded. He was brought to a clinic but was pronounced dead on arrival. The autopsy showed that he died from gunshot wounds on his left arm and body.

After the incident, the Mayor of Meycauayan sought the help of the Criminal Investigation Service. On the thirty-first of December, nineteen hundred seventy, they apprehended Romeo Lodia, who confessed that he was with the group and pointed to the hiding place of the others. In the early morning of the fifth of January, nineteen hundred seventy-one, a raiding team went to Paliwas, Obando, Bulacan, and apprehended Roberto Cruz with his firearm, recovering from him a bag of jewelries. Dolores identified seventy-two pieces of paper containing jewelries and four pieces of cardboard with golden chains as those taken from her. Roberto Cruz gave a written statement at Camp Crame admitting his participation in the planning and execution of the robbery, signed and sworn to before Fiscal Liberato Reyes, who apprised him of his right to counsel.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were the sisters and daughter of the deceased, should be discredited on the ground of relationship to the victim.
• Whether or not the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses is credible despite the lapse of more than a year before they testified.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused is admissible, given his claim that he was maltreated and forced to sign it.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm under Article 296 in a case of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of band may be appreciated in robbery with homicide, and what penalty is properly imposable.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime charged:

Any person guilty of robbery in which the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263 of this Code, or the crime of homicide shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death.

This is the provision under which the accused was convicted, and it fixes the range of the penalty at two indivisible penalties.

Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides on robbery in band with the use of unlicensed firearms:

When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be unlicensed, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense committed.

The Court held that this special aggravating circumstance applies only to robbery in band under Article 295, in relation to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294, and not to robbery with homicide under paragraph 1.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code defines band as an aggravating circumstance:

That the act be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

The Court treated the element of band, or cuadrilla, as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.

Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of indivisible penalties:

When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

This is the rule the Court applied in fixing the penalty, there being no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstance of band.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not impair their credibility where there is no showing of improper motive. The factual findings of the trial court on credibility deserve great respect and are generally not disturbed on appeal.

On the second issue, the Court found the identification positive and clear. The robbery took place in broad daylight, and the malefactors did not bother to cover their faces. The accused was seen at close range by two prosecution witnesses when he and a companion ganged up on Ester Cruz-Villanueva. The lapse of a little over one year before they testified did not make the identification improbable, for victims and their relatives who witnessed the robbery would strive to remember the uncovered faces of the malefactors.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the extrajudicial confession. The accused himself admitted signing the statement before Fiscal Reyes, who apprised him of his right to counsel, and he made no complaint about any maltreatment. There being no strong and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption of voluntariness applied. The recitals reflected spontaneity and coherence that could not be associated with a mind subjected to violence and torture, and the statement was replete with details only the accused could have supplied.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the accused that the trial court erred. The special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm under Article 296 applies only to robbery committed by a band under Article 295, in relation to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294, and cannot be appreciated in relation to robbery with homicide under paragraph 1 of Article 294.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that although the special aggravating circumstance was wrongly appreciated, this error could not alter the result. The robbery with homicide was committed by a band, which is a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14. The offense remains robbery with homicide, but the element of band is appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. With no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the greater penalty should be imposed. However, for lack of the necessary votes for the imposition of death, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.

Doctrine

First, the use of an unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance that applies exclusively to robbery in band under Article 295, in relation to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294. It cannot be appreciated in robbery with homicide under paragraph 1 of Article 294.

Second, when robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the offense is still denominated robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, but the element of band is appreciated as an ordinary or generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14.

Third, where there is one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the greater penalty is applied under Article 63, paragraph 1. Where the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death and the required votes for death are not obtained, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed.

Fourth, relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair credibility absent a showing of improper motive, and the factual findings of the trial court on credibility are generally not disturbed on appeal.

Fifth, an extrajudicial confession is presumed voluntary absent strong and convincing evidence to the contrary, especially where the accused affirmed it before a fiscal who apprised him of his right to counsel.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all other respects, but modified by reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increasing the indemnity to thirty thousand pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: the use of an unlicensed firearm under Article 296 does not aggravate robbery with homicide, but band does, as a generic aggravating circumstance. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a candidate can distinguish a special aggravating circumstance tied to a specific article from a generic aggravating circumstance that applies across offenses.