PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO FERNANDEZ Y MAGNO, ALIAS “FERNAN” AND JOEL SANTIAGO Y RUSTIA, ACCUSED.FERNANDO FERNANDEZ Y MAGNO, ACCUSED APPELLANT.

Fernandez versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Fernando Fernandez y Magno, known as Fernan, with his co-accused Joel Santiago y Rustia. Fernandez appeals his conviction for a terrible crime committed in one afternoon in Baliuag, Bulacan: a staged medical consultation that became a robbery and ended in the killing of a doctor's wife. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching case on the weight of positive identification by a single eyewitness, and on why an old man's eyes can still be trusted. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it draws the line between robbery with homicide and robbery with homicide and physical injuries, and tells us that the second is not a separate crime at all.

Procedural History

Fernandez and Santiago were charged before the Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region, Branch 6, stationed at Malolos, Bulacan, under an information dated the thirtieth of April, nineteen hundred ninety-one. Only Santiago was initially apprehended. After trial, the trial court found Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and a partial decision dated the twenty-third of December, nineteen hundred ninety-one was promulgated on the third of February, nineteen hundred ninety-two. Fernandez remained at large and was arrested by elements of the Philippine National Police of Baliuag only on the twenty-eighth of January, nineteen hundred ninety-three. On the third of February, nineteen hundred ninety-three, assisted by counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the regional trial court rendered the now appealed decision, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and physical injuries, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, four hundred thousand pesos as actual damages, and one hundred thousand pesos as moral damages. Fernandez appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the tenth of April, nineteen hundred ninety-one, at around two o'clock in the afternoon, a man pretending to have difficulty breathing and wanting treatment rang the doorbell at the residence of Doctor Delfin Tolentino and his wife Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino on Vergel de Dios Street, Baliuag, Bulacan. Because of the man's persistence, the doctor let him in. Once inside, the sickly man overpowered the doctor, covered his eyes with masking tape, and gagged him. The doctor had gotten a good look at the man's face before his eyes were covered, and he would later positively identify the intruder as Fernando Fernandez.

Fernandez forced the doctor down on the floor, took his watch, and tied both his hands and feet. A second person entered the room. The doctor was told to keep quiet, otherwise he would be killed. Both men entered the room where the doctor's wife was staying. The doctor heard his wife say, Joel, ano ba, and nothing was heard from her thereafter. After about twenty minutes, the men returned and carried the doctor upstairs. The masking tape was removed, his eyeglasses were put back on him, and he was told to open the vault. Both men ransacked its contents, taking jewelry, cash, certificates of title, and stock certificates. The doctor testified that he was only about one to two feet away from them, with Fernandez in front of him and Santiago to his right, and that he could see them both very clearly. When the doorbell rang, both men hurriedly left. The doctor locked the door and telephoned his son, Doctor Nilo Tolentino. When his son and a helper arrived, the doctor was brought down to the clinic, where he later learned that his wife had been killed.

Doctor Nilo Tolentino testified that he saw the cabinets ransacked, a pool of blood in front of the stereo and television cabinets, and drops of blood leading to the examination room, where he saw the lifeless body of his mother. The family spent around three hundred thousand pesos for the wake and burial. The police investigator testified that Santiago admitted his participation and said Fernandez was the one who stabbed Eugenia after she called for help. The Sony Betamax machine was recovered from the house of a certain Rogelio Abesamis, while a search of Santiago's house yielded the chisel used in the killing and some bloodied clothes. Rene Julian, owner of the tricycle Fernandez drove for a living, testified that Fernandez took it early that morning, that he saw it parked in front of the doctor's house between one-thirty and two o'clock, and that Fernandez returned it at around seven o'clock that evening and personally handed over fifty pesos as boundary for the day. Doctor Benito Caballero testified that Eugenia sustained twenty-four stab wounds, which could have been inflicted by more than one person using sharp, pointed objects, probably two, due to the different sizes of the wounds. Fernandez admitted taking the tricycle but claimed he had quarreled with his wife, asked his brother Freddie to drive it instead, and took a bus bound for Isabela at around six o'clock that morning. His wife and mother tried to corroborate him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of the police investigator recounting the extrajudicial statements of the co-accused Santiago, who was never presented and could not be cross-examined.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in lending credence to the positive identification made by Doctor Delfin Tolentino, who was eighty-two years old at the time of the incident.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Fernandez of robbery with homicide and physical injuries, rather than of robbery with homicide alone.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the crime of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, and the decision quotes the charging portion in full. The operative allegation reads:

That on or about the 10th day of April, 1991, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, armed with chisel and screw driver, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence, intimidation, take rob and carry away with them one (1) Sony Betamax worth P9,000.00, assorted jewelries worth P300,000.00 and cash amounting to P100,000.00, belonging to Sps. Dr. Delfin Tolentino and Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the total amount of P409,000.00; and on the occasion of the commission of the said robbery, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, and with intent to kill one Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and stab with the said chisel and screw driver the said Eugenia Lindain-Tolentino, hitting the latter of her body thereby causing her serious physical injuries which directly caused her death and also causing physical injuries to Dr. Delfin Tolentino which required medical attendance for some period of time.

This allegation frames the entire case: the taking by force and intimidation, the killing on the occasion of the robbery, and the physical injuries to the doctor, which the Court will later absorb into the single complex crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agrees with Fernandez, but only up to a point. The implicatory statements of Santiago were not given during the trial of Fernandez, who was thus deprived of the right of cross-examining and confronting his accuser. Santiago's statements, as related to the trial court by the police investigator, are therefore mere hearsay, which even if not objected to, as in this case, nevertheless do not deserve credence. But this error does not exonerate him.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the positive identification by Doctor Delfin Tolentino, who is untainted by any motive to falsely testify, sufficiently established the guilt of Fernandez, for the law does not require that positive identification be corroborated to obtain conviction. There was no proof that the doctor lacked the proper mental and physical faculties at the time of the incident. The record shows he saw the malefactors at close range: three to four feet when the man first asked for consultation, one to two feet when the vault was opened, and about fifteen minutes of observation with his eyeglasses restored. His categorical, clear, and consistent answers during intensive cross-examination showed that he possessed all the faculties required of a qualified witness. The Court also restates the settled doctrine that appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, because the trial court had the first-hand opportunity to observe their deportment and manner of testifying.

On the third issue, the Court holds that the trial court committed an error in convicting Fernandez of robbery with homicide and physical injuries. The crime committed should simply be robbery with homicide, since physical injuries committed during or on the occasion of the robbery are absorbed therein, regardless of the number of homicides and physical injuries committed. The Court cites People versus Pamintuan for this rule.

Doctrine

First, hearsay is hearsay even without objection. The extrajudicial statements of a co-accused who is never presented in court cannot be used against another accused, because the latter is deprived of the right of cross-examining and confronting his accuser. Second, positive identification by one credible eyewitness, standing alone, is sufficient for conviction; the law does not require that positive identification be corroborated. Third, and the rule to memorize: in robbery with homicide, physical injuries committed during or on the occasion of the robbery are absorbed by the complex crime, regardless of the number of homicides and physical injuries committed. There is no separate crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries.

Disposition

The appealed judgment was affirmed, with the modification that Fernandez was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Remember This

Memorize the line: physical injuries committed during or on the occasion of the robbery are absorbed in robbery with homicide, regardless of their number. Examiners use this case to test the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and the sufficiency of a lone but positive identification.