PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ORLANDO SIMEON Y MAGDALENA @ LANDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Simeon

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Orlando Simeon y Magdalena, known in the record as Lando — a criminal appeal in which the State prosecutes a man for robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, for snatching a cellular phone from a pedestrian beside the Manila City Hall. The accused was convicted by the trial court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it restates the four elements of robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; it shows how the Court weighs positive identification against the weak defenses of denial; and it corrects an erroneous maximum term under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, making it a compact review of both the substantive crime and the penalty.

Procedural History

An Information dated September 12, 2012 charged Orlando Simeon, also known as Lando, with robbery by means of force and violence upon person before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 17. At his arraignment on October 1, 2012, with the assistance of counsel, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits followed, with the prosecution presenting the victim, Christopher Ian Viana, and Police Officer 3 Jupiter Tajonera, and the defense presenting only the accused himself.

In its Decision dated November 4, 2013, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery and sentenced him to imprisonment of four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and twenty days of prision mayor, as maximum, subject to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code on the crediting of preventive imprisonment. From that judgment the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as his lone error that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Facts

On the morning of September 10, 2012, at around eight thirty, Christopher Ian Viana was standing near the Manila City Hall, waiting for a jeepney and sending a text message on his Nokia C5 cellular phone worth nine thousand pesos. His leg was in a metal cast. A man later identified as the accused approached and forcibly grabbed the phone from his hands, then ran. Viana could not give chase, held back by fear and shock and by his injured leg.

Unknown to the accused, Police Officer 3 Jupiter Tajonera of the Manila City Hall Police Assistance was on visibility patrol in the area, deployed precisely because of numerous reports of snatching and robbery. From about two meters away, the officer saw the accused seize the phone and gave chase. The accused tried to board a passing jeepney, but a passenger shoved him out, and he fell to the ground. The officer caught him, arrested him, and recovered the stolen phone from the right pocket of his pants. Viana then approached and identified the accused as the man who had taken his phone. Fearing that the accused might have companions nearby, the officer brought both men to the police station.

For his defense, the accused denied the charge. He claimed that while walking toward SM Manila he was suddenly grabbed by a man who turned out to be a police officer, brought to the police assistance office, and threatened with a case unless he paid ten thousand pesos; when he refused, he was charged with robbery. He also claimed that he first saw Viana three days after his arrest and that Viana appeared to be friends with the officer. The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses, found the denial self-serving, and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
• Whether or not the alleged inconsistency as to the time of the incident, arising from the Medico-Legal Report, creates a reasonable doubt that would warrant acquittal.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, fixes the penalty for simple robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons:

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.

This is the provision the Court applies in computing the penalty and in correcting the maximum term set by the trial court.

Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, quoted by the trial court in its judgment, governs the crediting of preventive imprisonment:

Article 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.

This provision bears on the service of the sentence imposed on the accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is without merit and that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To sustain a conviction for robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the prosecution must prove four elements: that there is personal property belonging to another; that there is unlawful taking of that property; that the taking is with intent to gain; and that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The victim's testimony established all four: he owned the phone, the accused unlawfully took it from his hands, the taking was with intent to gain, and the taking was accomplished by force, the sudden grabbing of the phone from his grasp. The victim's account was corroborated in all material points by the arresting officer, who saw the taking from two meters away, gave chase, arrested the accused, and recovered the phone from his pocket. The Court respected the trial court's evaluation of credibility, noting that appellate courts will not disturb it absent a clear showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. The claim that the officer and the victim conspired to extort money rested on the bare and self-serving testimony of the accused, and mere allegation is not evidence. Nor had the victim any motive to testify falsely, since the accused himself admitted he did not know the victim before the incident.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no inconsistency as to time. Both prosecution witnesses were consistent that the incident occurred on September 10, 2012 at around eight thirty in the morning. The Medico-Legal Report, which stated one o'clock in the afternoon, was correctly disregarded: it was a mere photocopy, and the physician who prepared it was never presented, making it hearsay. In any event, time is not an essential element of the crime of robbery, so the discrepancy could not produce an acquittal. Against the positive and categorical identification by the eyewitness, the defense of denial, unsupported by any competent proof, cannot prevail.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty required modification. While the trial court correctly set the minimum period, the maximum period should be decreased to eight years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the minimum imposable penalty should range from four months and one day to four years and two months, while the maximum term should range from six years and one day to eight years. The Court therefore fixed the penalty at four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum.

Doctrine

First, the elements of robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons are: personal property belonging to another; unlawful taking of that property; taking with intent to gain; and violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. All four must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Second, denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; it cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of an eyewitness and his identification of the accused. Where no improper motive is shown for a witness to testify falsely, the testimony deserves faith and credit.

Third, time is not an essential element of the crime of robbery, so a discrepancy as to the time of the incident does not warrant acquittal.

Fourth, a medico-legal report whose author is not presented and cross-examined is hearsay and has no evidentiary value as to its truth, and a mere photocopy of it is likewise of no weight.

Fifth, under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, simple robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons carries prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law with no modifying circumstances, the minimum ranges from four months and one day to four years and two months, and the maximum from six years and one day to eight years.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed with modification, the accused being sentenced to four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize the four elements of robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, and the rule that denial cannot overcome positive identification. Examiners use this case to test the elements of robbery, the treatment of hearsay medico-legal reports, and the correct computation of the indeterminate penalty under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.