PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO TE-KIAT Y BAGUIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Te-Kiat

The Case

People versus Te-Kiat is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Francisco Te-Kiat y Baguio, a tricycle driver, for the shooting death of Ming Chien Shien, also known as Richard Mon, and for the taking of the victim's clutch bag containing cash and a cellular phone. The trial court convicted him of the single complex crime of robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court's decision matters because it enforces the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him: where the prosecution files separate informations for murder and for robbery, the trial court cannot merge them into a complex crime and convict on a charge never alleged. It also teaches the correct treatment of conspiracy, of alibi, and of the civil liabilities arising from death.

Procedural History

Two separate informations were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219: one for murder and one for robbery. When arraigned, assisted by counsel, he pleaded not guilty to both. After pre-trial and trial, the trial court rendered its decision on November 20, 2003. It acquitted him of murder for failure of the prosecution to prove that crime beyond reasonable doubt, but convicted him of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim actual damages, moral damages, and funeral expenses.

The accused appealed both cases to the Supreme Court. In his appellant's brief he argued mistaken identification, failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and, in the alternative, that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him of the single complex crime of robbery with homicide under two separate informations for murder and robbery. The appeal reached the Supreme Court as a direct appeal from the trial court's decision.

Facts

On the evening of October 11, 2001, Amelia Sales was in the apartment she shared with her boyfriend, Richard Mon, in Pag-asa, Quezon City. Between seven and half past seven, as they prepared to go to a nearby department store, Amelia looked out the window and saw a tricycle parked in front of the apartment, brightly lit by the street light and by the light from the apartment. The driver, a man with a mustache, turned out to be the accused. The couple boarded the tricycle and told him to bring them to the store.

Instead of the usual route, the driver went straight to another road, saying there was traffic, then sped past the turn to their destination, saying the other way was faster. He suddenly stopped in front of a store along the road extension. A motorcycle arrived, and its driver conversed with the tricycle driver. Richard alighted; before he could go far, the motorcycle driver shot him in the back and he fell flat on the ground. The gunman took Richard's clutch bag, which contained ten thousand pesos in cash and a cellular phone worth seven thousand pesos, then ran to his motorcycle and fled together with the accused. Richard was brought to a hospital in Bago Bantay, where he was pronounced dead. The autopsy showed a gunshot wound of the trunk, with the slug recovered, and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to that gunshot wound.

Amelia told the police investigator that the tricycle bore body number 427 or 247, and she was certain the last digit was seven. Two tricycles bearing those numbers, with their drivers, were brought to the police camp. When asked to identify the suspect, Amelia unhesitatingly pointed to the accused, whom she remembered by his face, his mustache, and the manner he spoke. For his part, the accused interposed denial and alibi, saying he never had the couple as passengers, and he claimed he voluntarily surrendered at a police station upon learning he was being implicated. His co-tricycle drivers corroborated that he was at the terminal that day, but both last saw him there at seven o'clock in the evening.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly through the positive identification made by Amelia Sales.
• Whether or not the defenses of alibi and non-flight, together with the claim of voluntary surrender, overcome the evidence of the prosecution.
• Whether or not the trial court could convict the accused of the single complex crime of robbery with homicide when the two separate informations charged only murder and robbery.
• Whether or not the accused is liable for homicide, and what civil liabilities should be awarded to the heirs of the victim.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 2, Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

This is the provision the Court invokes to strike down the conviction for a complex crime that was never alleged in any information.

Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, on simple robbery, provides:

The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in the case of any other robbery committed under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, if the value of the property taken exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos but does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos.

This is the provision under which the Court convicts the accused of simple robbery, with the penalty fixed in the dispositive portion.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, on homicide, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the provision under which the Court convicts the accused of homicide for the killing of Richard Mon.

Paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, on voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, provides:

That the offender voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed the commission of the crime before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.

This is credited in favor of the accused in fixing both penalties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed, absent a showing that it arbitrarily overlooked facts of significance. Amelia positively identified the accused as the companion of the gunman: she saw him on the tricycle waiting outside the apartment, spoke with him while on board, glimpsed his face, and recognized him by his face, his mustache, and the manner he spoke. She was firm when she first identified him at the police camp and unwavering in open court. The theory of a switching of tricycles was mere conjecture, and no ill motive was shown on her part to falsely implicate him.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi. Alibi is the weakest of defenses because it is easily fabricated, and it prospers only if the accused was in another place at the time of the crime and it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Here the second element was never substantiated, since even his own witnesses last saw him at the terminal at seven o'clock in the evening, the very time of the killing and robbery. Non-flight is not conclusive proof of innocence, but his voluntary surrender was credited in his favor as a mitigating circumstance.

On the third issue, the Court held that the accused could not be convicted of robbery with homicide. No information charged that special complex crime; the trial court had combined the allegations of the two separate informations, and to hold him liable for the complex crime would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Manalili:

Their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of the offense as alleged in the information. While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it can not convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

Accordingly, he was convicted only of simple robbery under Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that the killing was done independently of the intention to rob: the gunman shot Richard and only thereafter grabbed the clutch bag, and there was no clear evidence that the killing was for the purpose of the robbery. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation could not be considered, since treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself and cannot be assumed from the suddenness of the attack or the location of the wound, and evident premeditation requires proof of planning and preparation. Nevertheless, the accused conspired in the killing by bringing the victim to the scene and fleeing with the gunman; in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, and a conspirator may be held as a principal even if he did not participate in every act. He was therefore guilty of homicide under Article 249. On the civil liabilities, the Court reduced moral damages to fifty thousand pesos, awarded civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos, and awarded temperate damages of twenty-five thousand pesos in place of the unsubstantiated funeral expenses.

Doctrine

First, the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is violated when the trial court convicts him of a complex crime that is not alleged in any information; the description of the offense in the information controls, and separate informations for murder and robbery cannot be merged into robbery with homicide.

Second, positive identification by a credible eyewitness, based on face, voice, and manner of speaking, prevails over alibi, which is the weakest of defenses and requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene.

Third, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and a conspirator is a principal even if he did not participate in every act constituting the offense.

Fourth, robbery with homicide requires that the killing be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery; where the killing was independent of the intent to rob, the crimes are separate, and the accused may be convicted of homicide and simple robbery.

Fifth, voluntary surrender under Paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code is a mitigating circumstance, and in homicide or murder the heirs are entitled to moral damages, civil indemnity, and temperate damages for funeral expenses.

Disposition

The decision of the trial court was modified: the accused was acquitted of robbery with homicide but found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple robbery and of homicide, sentenced to the corresponding indeterminate penalties, and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim restitution, moral damages, civil indemnity, and temperate damages.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the description of the offense in the information controls, and a court cannot convict an accused of a complex crime not alleged in any information. Examiners use this case to test the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation, the rules on alibi and conspiracy, and the distinction between robbery with homicide and separate crimes of homicide and robbery.