PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ORLANDO SIMEON Y MAGDALENA @ LANDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GARCIA, R. R. J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused ORLANDO SIMEON y Magdalena GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY and hereby sentences him to imprisonment of from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as the maximum of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, subject to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code states and we quote:
“Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of time of imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence x x x.”
SO ORDERED.[2]
THE FACTS
In an Information[3] dated September 12, 2012, appellant Orlando Simeon y Magdalena @ “Lando” was charged with robbery by means of force and violence upon person committed as follows:
That on or about September 10, 2012, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person, to wit: by then and there suddenly grabbing and forcibly snatching from one CHRISTOPHER IAN VIANA y CRUZ his Nokia C5 Cellphone valued at P9,000.00, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the same, against his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said CHRISTOPHER IAN VIANA y CRUZ in the aforesaid amount of [P9,000.00], Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
During the arraignment on October 1, 2012, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty.[5] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely: victim Christopher Ian Viana[6]; and PO3[7] Jupiter Tajonera[8].
The version of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:
On September 10, 2012, at around 8:30 a.m., victim Christopher Ian Viana was standing at the vicinity of the Manila City Hall, waiting for a jeepney while holding a Nokia C5 cellular phone worth P9,000.00. As he was sending a text message, a man, whom he later identified as appellant, approached and forcibly took the cellular phone from him. Victim Viana was unable to run after appellant since his leg was in a metal cast at that time. Fortunately, just as appellant was about to board a passing jeepney to make his escape, one of the passengers shoved out appellant, causing the latter to lose his grip on the jeepney railing and to fall eventually.
Meanwhile, on that same day of September 10, 2012, PO3 Jupiter Tajonera was assigned by the Manila City Hall Police Assistance (CHAPA) to conduct a visibility patrol within the perimeter of the Manila City Hall and nearby streets. This directive was brought about by the numerous reports of snatching and robbery incidents in the area. At around 8:30 a.m., PO3 Tajonera was on board his motorcycle at Taft Burgos Street in front of the Manila City Hall when he saw appellant forcibly take the cellular phone of victim Viana, who was then sending a text message. After obtaining the cellular phone, appellant quickly made his escape and PO3 Tajonera chased him. Appellant tried to board a passenger jeepney, but one of the passengers inside prevented him from doing so. When appellant fell down from the jeep, PO3 Tajonera was able to reach him. Appellant was arrested and thereafter searched. PO3 Tajonera found the stolen cellular phone on the right pocket of appellant.
After appellant’s arrest, victim Viana approached PO3 Tajonera and appellant. He identified appellant as the person who stole his cellular phone. Because they were out in the open, and fearing that appellant may have companions who may come to his rescue, PO3 Tajonera brought appellant and victim Viana to the police station for further investigation.
For the defense, appellant[9] was the only witness presented.
Appellant raised the defense of denial. He denied stealing the cellular phone of victim Viana. On September 10, 2012, at around 8:30 a.m., he was walking on the way to SM Manila when he met PO3 Tajonera. At that time, appellant did not know that PO3 Tajonera was a police officer since he was not wearing a uniform. Without warning, PO3 Tajonera suddenly grabbed appellant, introduced himself as a police officer, and placed the latter under arrest. Appellant was brought to the CHAPA Office. PO3 Tajonera threatened appellant that a case would be filed against him unless he pays the amount of P10,000.00. True enough, when appellant refused to give money to PO3 Tajonera, he was charged with robbery. Appellant also testified that it was only three (3) days after his arrest that he saw victim Viana for the first time. Since then, he saw victim Viana several times at the CHAPA Office and he appeared to be friends with PO3 Tajonera.
In the assailed Decision[10] dated November 4, 2013, the court a quo found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery. It gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that appellant forcibly took the cellular phone of victim Viana. The positive statements of the two eyewitnesses cannot prevail over appellant’s bare denial. The pertinent portions of the decision are quoted:
After going through the versions of both sides, the Court finds that [the] prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused vehemently denied committing the offense and claimed that he was charged with Robbery because he failed to come up with the demanded amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) by PO Tajonera, his arresting officer. However, private complainant positively identified and pointed to him as the one who perpetrated the offense by snatching his cellphone while texting. Accused failed to refute such accusation as he merely denied the same. In fact, he pointed to his arresting officer, PO Tajonera who allegedly demanded money from him by harassing him that a complaint be filed against him and in fact, PO Tajonera had a ready complainant in the person of the victim Christopher Ian Viana.
The denial of the accused is self-serving that should not be given credence as the private complainant, Christopher Ian Viana pointed and positively identified him as the one who snatched his cellphone. He, together with PO Tajonera who arrested accused after witnessing the robbery-snatching and retrieved the cellphone from the possession of the accused had no grudge to impute a grievous offense. Thereby, it is a positive proof that it was accused who snatched the cellphone of complainant. Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent of any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the appellant’s defense of denial and alibi. x x x
Denial and alibi are inherently weak and unreliable defenses which cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused by the victim himself. x x x The testimonies of private complainant Christopher Ian Viana and PO Tajonera are worthy of credence and belief as they are clear, straightforward, and eminently plausible under the circumstances not like accused who often changed his testimony. At one time, accused claimed that he often saw Viana and PO Tajonera inside the CHAPA police station but, after sometime, changed his mind and alleged that it was the first time that he saw them at the said police station.
As stated earlier, Viana’s testimony was made in a straightforward and categorical manner regarding the identity of his malefactor. He did not waver despite the incessant questioning fielded by the defense.
As to the discrepancy of the time when the incident happened as reflected on the Medico-Legal Report x x x, the attending physician who made the Report was not presented nor cross-examined. Thus, the Medico-Legal Report was admitted only as to existence but not to the the veracity and truthfulness thereof. This is, likewise, true with the non-appearance of external injury on the person of the accused.[11]
Hence, this appeal in which appellant raised the lone ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR[12], to wit:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
THE ISSUE
The sole issue in the instant case is whether or not the court a quo correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
THE RULING
The instant appeal is not impressed with merit.
Appellant contends that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting him of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons on the basis of the incredible and inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
We are not persuaded.
After a thorough and careful review of the records, this Court is convinced that the prosecution has sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt of robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
To sustain a conviction for robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the prosecution must prove the following elements: a) that there is personal property belonging to another; b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[13]
Here, victim Viana proved all the above-mentioned elements of robbery. He testified that in the morning of September 10, 2012, while waiting for a jeepney to take him home, he was sending a text message on his Nokia C5 cellular phone. All of a sudden, appellant forcibly grabbed the phone from his hands and ran away. Victim Viana was unable to immediately respond because of fear and shock, coupled with the fact that his leg was in a metal cast. Appellant took advantage of victim Viana’s fright to make an immediate getaway. Just as appellant was about to board a passing jeepney, one of the passengers inside shoved appellant, causing him to fall from the vehicle. A policeman then appeared and placed appellant under arrest. Victim Viana identified appellant as the person who forcibly took his cellular phone moments earlier. A search of appellant’s pockets revealed the stolen phone. The pertinent portions of victim Viana’s testimony are quoted:
FISCAL POSECION: You said that the said accused robbed you or snatched your cellphone from you? A: Yes, Ma’am. FISCAL POSECION: When did that incident happen? A: September 10, 2012, Ma’am. FISCAL POSECION: Where? A: Beside City Hall in front of Intramuros, Ma’am. x x x FISCAL POSECION: You said you were then using your cellphone? A: Yes, Ma’am. x x x FISCAL POSECION: How did it happen that the accused snatched your cellphone? A: While I’m texting suddenly a person robbed my cellphone. x x x FISCAL POSECION: After that what happened next? A: He was about to board a jeepney but a person inside the jeep [suddenly pushed] him and hit him and causing him to [fall] down on the ground. FISCAL POSECION: What happened next after that A: I saw Sgt. Tajonera grabbed the accused. x x x FISCAL POSECION: What happened to your cellular phone after that? A: I was able to recover my cellular phone because when I saw Sgt. Tajonera grabbed the accused I got my cellphone. x x x FISCAL POSECION: How much is the cost of your cellphone? A: Nine Thousand (9,000). x x x FISCAL POSECION: How did you feel when the accused suddenly snatched your cellular phone? A: I was really shocked and surprised and [nervous] because it happened suddenly.[14]
The testimony of victim Viana was corroborated in all its material points by arresting officer PO3 Tajonera who also saw appellant steal the cellular phone. Having seen a crime being committed in his presence, PO3 Tajonera gave chase to appellant, who tried to escape by riding a passing jeepney. Fortunately, one of the jeepney passengers, who probably also witnessed the snatching incident, reacted quickly and pushed appellant out of the vehicle. PO3 Tajonera was able to catch up just as appellant fell down from the jeepney. After making the arrest, PO3 Tajonera immediately brought appellant and victim Viana to the police station, fearing that appellant may have cohorts nearby. We quote PO3 Tajonera’s testimony, as follows:
FISCAL POSECION: Officer Tajonera, where were you on September 10, 2012 at around 8:30 in the morning? A: I was ordered together with other police officers from the Manila CHAPA to conduct visibility patrol within the [parameter] of Manila City Hall and nearby streets, Ma’am. x x x FISCAL POSECION: While you were there on duty was there any unusual incident that happened? A: Yes, ma’am. FISCAL POSECION: What was that? A: I witnessed a robbery snatching incident right in front of me. x x x FISCAL POSECION: Who was the victim? A: A certain Christopher Viana, Ma’am. x x x FISCAL POSECION: How does that incident took place? A: At about two (2) meters away from me, I saw a male person suddenly grabbed Mr. Viana’s cellphone who was then texting and using his cellphone, Ma’am. FISCAL POSECION: Who was that person who grabbed or snatched the cellphone of Mr. Viana? A: Ma’am, I later found out that his name was Orlando Simeon. x x x FISCAL POSECION: What did you do upon seeing that the said accused was grabbing the cellular phone of the victim, Mr. Viana? A: [Ma’am], seeing that the crime has been committed in my presence being a police officer I gave [chase] to Orlando Simeon, to the suspect. x x x FISCAL POSECION: And how did you catch him? A: He [tried] to board a passenger jeep but unfortunately one of the passengers inside the jeepney hit him so he fell from the jeep and I was able to x x x [apprehend] him. x x x FISCAL POSECION: What did you find [from] him? A: We recovered the cellphone from his right pocket, Ma’am.[15]
The court a quo correctly accorded credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses after finding their answers to the questions on direct and cross-examination to be intelligible, candid and unwavering. Being in the best position to discriminate between the truth and falsehood, the court a quo’s assignment of values and weight on the testimonies of the witnesses should be respected. It is an oft-repeated rule that appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses in the absence of a clear showing that the trial judge had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance.[16]
Appellant attempted to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses by alleging that prosecution witnesses PO3 Tajonera and victim Viana are friends and that they were co-conspirators in a scheme to extort money from appellant. Appellant’s sole evidence to establish this was his bare and self-serving testimony. Suffice it to state that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[17]
It may also be well to state that victim Viana has no motive to testify falsely against appellant. As admitted by appellant himself, he did not know victim Viana before the incident.[18] Settled is the rule that where no evidence exists to show any convincing reason or improper motive for a witness to falsely testify against an accused, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[19]
Appellant also contends that he cannot be found guilty in the light of the prosecution’s failure to establish with certainty the precise time of the incident. Specifically, the Medico-Legal Report states that the incident happened at 1:00 p.m., while both witnesses testified that it happened at around 8:30 a.m. of September 10, 2012.
We disagree.
There is no such inconsistency with regard to the time of the incident as alleged by appellant. Prosecution witnesses victim Viana and arresting officer PO3 Tajonera were both consistent in their respective testimonies that the incident occurred on September 10, 2012 at around 8:30 in the morning.
With regard to the Medico-Legal Report which stated that the time of incident was 1:00 p.m., the court a quo correctly disregarded the same for having no evidentiary value. Not only was the Medico-Legal Report a mere photocopy of the original, but the physician who prepared the same was also not presented in court to testify thereon, making it hearsay.[20]
In any case, the Office of the Solicitor General is correct to point out that time is not an essential element of the crime of robbery.[21] As such, the perceived inconsistent statement with regard to the time of the incident would not result in the acquittal of appellant.
Amidst the convincing narrations of the prosecution eyewitnesses, appellant offered nothing but the defense of denial. It is an elementary rule of evidence that denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the eyewitness and his identification of the accused. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here, not a shred of competent proof was adduced by appellant to corroborate his denial as the same is supported only by his self-serving testimony. Hence, it does not merit any evidentiary value.
Anent the penalty imposed by the court a quo, that is, imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum, there is a need to modify the same. While the court a quo correctly set the minimum period, the maximum period should be decreased to eight (8) years.
Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in cases of simple robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of person. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the minimum imposable penalty should range from four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. On the other hand, the maximum term should range from six (6) years, one (1) day to eight (8) years.[23]
Based on the foregoing discussion, this Court finds it proper to impose the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision[24] dated November 4, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Orlando Simeon y Magdalena @ Lando is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Dimagiba, L. R., and *Sempio Diy, M.E., JJ., concur.
* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 15-15-ABR dated January 20, 2015.
[1] Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Felicitas O. Laron-Cacanindin; Annex “A” to the Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, pp 45-48.
[2] Id., at pp 47-48.
[3] Records, p 1,.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Order dated October 1, 2012, Records, p 45; Certificate of Arraignment, Records, p 43.
[6] TSN dated October 22, 2012, pp 4-17.
[7] PO3 Tajonera is also designated as PO Tajonera.
[8] TSN dated October 22, 2012, pp 18-31; TSN dated March 4, 2013.
[9] TSN dated June 3, 2013; TSN dated August 14, 2013.
[10] Supra, at note 1.
[11] Rollo, pp 46a-47.
[12] Rollo, p 31.
[13] Sazon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150873, February 10, 2009; Diamante vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009.
[14] TSN dated October 22, 2012, pp 4-8, 10.
[15] TSN dated October 22, 2012, pp 21-25.
[16] People of the Philippines vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998; Gamboa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188052, April 21, 2014.
[17] Agdeppa vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 146376, April 23, 2014.
[18] TSN dated August 14, 2013, p 4.
[19] People of the Philippines vs. Delen, G.R. No. 194446, April 21, 2014.
[20] Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881, April 21, 2014; Atienza vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014.
[21] The OSG cited Cruz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014.
[22] People of the Philippines vs. Baturi, G.R. No. 189812, September 1, 2014; People of the Philippines vs. Alhambra, G.R. No. 207774, June 30, 2014.
[23] See People of the Philippines vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008.
[24] Supra at note 1.