PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO VIVAS @ LANDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The appellant was one of three men accused of robbery with homicide
in the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro. The other two are still at large. Only he was arrested and subsequently tried and convicted.^[1]
He now asks for reversal of the judgment on the ground that he was not at all
involved in the offense imputed to him.

The trial court found that Rolando Vivas, together with Bobot
Manongdo and Jeffrey Picar, attacked the barangay outpost at Bagong Sikat, San
Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in the early morning of September 23, 1986, killing,
three patrolmen and taking from them two rifles and one revolver.^[2]

Barangay captain Reynaldo Sagnip testified that, immediately
prior to the incident, he was sitting on a bench at the checkpoint some ten
meters away from the outpost while the other members of his patrol team were
resting inside. Bobot Manongdo arrived
with Jeffrey Picar (both of them also team members) and, without warning,
suddenly fired his M-16 rifle at the outpost. Sagnip immediately pulled out his .38 caliber revolver and shot at
Manongdo, who returned fire, but neither of them was hit. It was at this moment that Vivas appeared
seemingly out of nowhere and succeeded wresting Sagnip’s gun from him. Vivas
shot at him but missed. Vivas then
joined Manongdo and Picar inside the outpost, where several shots were fired in
succession. After a while, Vivas, Manongdo and Picar came out and scampered
away carrying the three firearms.^[3] They
left behind the dead bodies of Patrolmen Abelardo Gonzales, Mamerto Canaveral,
and Marciano Primero who, as the autopsies later revealed, had all expired from
gunshot wounds.^[4]

In his defense, Vivas disclaimed any complicity in the
attack. He testified that earlier that
morning, Manongdo and Picar had passed by his house and invited him to eat
“pulutan ng karneng aso” at the barangay outpost. He said he would follow soon. Upon arriving
at the outpost, he saw Sagnip shooting at Manongdo, who was at the door of the
outpost. Acting on impulse, he lunged
for and was able to get Sagnip’s pistol. Surprisingly, however, Manongdo pointed his armalite at him and demanded
Sagnip’s revolver, which he immediately surrendered. Manongdo then ordered him to go with him inside the outpost where
Manongdo fired successively at Gonzales and then took the man’s rifle. Manongdo told him to go with him and Picar
and he obeyed for fear of his life.^[5]

The sole issue raised in this appeal is the credibility of the
witnesses. On this issue, we place much
reliance on the findings of the trial court, absent any clear showing that it
acted arbitrarily or without substantial basis.

The reason for this policy has been explained often enough by
this Court.^[6]
The trial court has the opportunity not available to the appellate court of
directly observing the witnesses on the stand and determining by their demeanor
whether or not they are telling the truth. The badges of falsity are many and subtle: the hesitant pause, the stammered reply, the evasive eyes, the
flustered face, the guilty look – these and many other telltale signs may be
detected by the trial judge but are not reported in the record. The appellate court, supposing that the
court below took these into account in resolving the factual issues, will
accord them heavy if not, indeed, conclusive weight.

In the case before us, we find that Judge Restituto L. Aguilar
did not err in sustaining the evidence of the prosecution as against that of
the defense. We are not inclined to
reject the version of the killing narrated by Sagnip, who was in fact one of
the victims of the attack of Vivas and his companions. No improper motive has been shown to prove
that Sagnip was perjuring himself. The,
accused and the victims were all members of the same patrol team to whom, as
barangay captain, he would have accorded equal treatment. We see no reason why he should falsely
implicate the appellant against whom, to all appearances, he had no ill
feeling.

The pretense that Vivas was coerced into joining Manongdo and
Picar is not believable. What is is
that he was involved with them at the very start. Vivas himself declared that he pounced on Sagnip when he saw him
exchanging shots with Manongdo. This
was hardly an impartial impulse. And
even on the assumption that he was forced at gunpoint to follow the other two,
there is still no reason why he did not escape as soon as he could and return
to his barangay and report to the authorities. What he did instead was remain
in hiding like his co-accused until he was finally apprehended after four
years.^[7]
This was not the conduct of a person who had committed no crime and was ready
to face the law and prove his innocence.

While there is no direct evidence that Vivas actually shot any of
the three victims, it has been sufficiently established that there was a plot
between him and the other two men who entered the outpost and shot the three
patrolmen inside. Vivas himself
admitted that he leaped to the defense of Manongdo when Sagnip was firing at
his friend and that together he and Manongdo entered the outpost, where
successive shots were soon heard. Vivas later came out with Manongdo and Picar,
and all three were each carrying the weapons described in detail in the
information against Ahem. The concert,
of action and unity of purpose of the three in shooting the patrolmen to death
and stealing their weapons enmeshed the three accused in a clear conspiracy
that held each of them equally liable for their common offense.^[8]

We agree with the trial court that the offense was accompanied by
treachery because the victims were shot while they were asleep, or without
warning, and had no opportunity to defend themselves against the sudden attack.^[9]
In the crime of robbery with homicide, however, treachery is only a generic
aggravating circumstance and does not qualify the killing to murder.^[10]
There is no complex crime of robbery with murder under the Revised Penal Code.

The dispositive portion of the challenged decision reads as
follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds
the accused ROLANDO VIVAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
“Robbery with Homicide” and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, with
the accessories provided by law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Patrolman Abelardo Gonzales, Marciano Primero, Jr. and Mamerto Cañaveral the
sum of P30,000.00 to each of them, as well as to return or otherwise pay to the
Republic of the Philippines the value of the three (3) guns so stolen at their
prevailing prices – all these without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

The accused shall, however, be entitled to the full term of his,
preventive imprisonment, provided, that he shall have agreed in writing to
abide with the disciplinary rules and regulations imposed on convicted
prisoners; otherwise, he shall be credited only four-fifth (4/5) of his preventive
imprisonment.

With costs against the said accused Rolando Vivas.

SO ORDERED.

The Court notes that the three accused were charged with robbery
with multiple homicide. The charge
should have been for robbery with homicide although three persons were killed.^[11]
Judge Aguilar was correct in convicting Vivas of robbery with homicide
only. Let it, be added that in this
complex crime, the penalty prescribed in Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code is not affected by the number of killings accompanying the robbery. As we held in People v. Quinones:^[12]

The Court finds that the accused were incorrectly charged with
robbery with multiple homicide and so were also incorrectly sentenced by the
trial court. The reason is that there
is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the Revised Penal
Code. The charge should have been for
robbery with homicide only regardless of the fact that three persons were
killed in the commission of the robbery. In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial
and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the said Code.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED,
with the modification that the civil liability for the heirs of each of the
three “victims is increased to P50,000.00. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision, penned by RTC Judge Restituto L. Aguilar; Branch 45, San Jose
Occidental Mindoro, May 14, 1991; Rollo, pp. 14-22.

^[2]
Information, Records, p. 23.

^[3]
TSN, January 30, 1991, pp. 7-9.

^[4]
Records, pp. 103, 106 and 107.

^[5]
TSN, February 14, 1991, pp. 2-7.

^[6]
People v. Jalon, 215 SCRA 680; People v. Danao, 215 SCRA 795;
People v. Guibao 217 SCRA 64; People v. Cammado, 217 SCRA 162;
People v. De la Cruz, 217 SCRA 283.

^[7]
Several Orders of Arrest were returned unserved because subject persons were no
longer residing in the given address, with their whereabouts unknown. Order of
Arrest dated October 19, 1990 was only served on accused-appellant on October
24, 1990; Rollo, pp. 24 -31.

^[8]
TSN, February 14, 1991, pp. 4-7; People v. Villanueva, 211 SCRA 403;
People v. Mallari; 212 SCRA 646; People v. Rizal, 215 SCRA 247.

^[9]
Records, pp. 7-8.

^[10]
People v. Mantawar, et al., 80 Phil. 817; People v. Abang, G.R.
No. L-14623, Dec. 29, 1960; People v. Corpuz, 110 Phil. 633; People v.
Medina, 71 Phil. 383; People v. Rayos, 100 Phil. 1090.

^[11]
People v. Dimaano, 209 SCRA 819; People v. Maranion, 199 SCRA
421; People v. Nunag, 196 SCRA 206;People v. Ampo-an, 187 SCRA
173; People v. Repuela, 183 SCRA 244; People v. Quiñones, 183
SCRA 747.

^[12]
183 SCRA 747; 753.