PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO I. TORRES @ PANG-AE, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, ACCUSED. DANILO I.TORRES @ PANG-AE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Torres

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Danilo Torres, known by the alias Pang-ae, with two unnamed companions charged alongside him. It is a criminal appeal from a conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The case matters for two reasons. First, it shows how the Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses who see a killing at close range in broad daylight. Second, it states the elements of robbery with homicide as a rule, and explains that the killing may come before the taking, so long as robbery and killing are directly and intimately connected.

Procedural History

Danilo Torres was charged by information before the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 3. He entered a plea of not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. The trial court rendered its decision on June 20, 1997, finding him guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Torres filed a notice of appeal, but mistakenly directed it to the Court of Appeals. The trial court nonetheless elevated the records to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the rule requiring a party to specify the court to which the appeal is being made is merely directory, and that an error in the court to which an appeal is made is not fatal to the appeal. In the interest of justice, the Court decided the appeal on the merits.

Facts

On the morning of November 21, 1996, Lorenzo Isagan, Junior, drove his truck toward Libacao to buy copra and abaca. Four laborers rode at the back: Macky Galanao, his father Vicente Galanao, his brother Julian Galanao, and Jose Lumio. Isagan carried a blue bag containing cash and wore a gold necklace, a gold ring, and a gold plated wristwatch.

In Barangay Torralba, Banga, Aklan, a man flagged the truck down, climbed the stepboard, and shot Isagan once. The truck rolled backward about fifteen meters and stopped when its tire struck the canal. Two other men then appeared, both in fatigue uniform and both armed, and ordered the laborers to lie face down. The men opened the door of the truck, and after about five minutes they left toward the mountain, carrying the blue bag. Isagan was found lifeless. A post mortem examination showed nine gunshot wounds on the left side of the neck, and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple gunshot wounds.

The next day the police invited the four helpers to the station, but they could not yet describe the culprits. A week later, shown photographs of suspects, they recognized Danilo Torres as the man who stopped the truck and shot their employer. Only Torres was apprehended; his two companions remained at large. Torres denied the charge and claimed alibi, saying he was in Bohol with his wife at the time, and his wife, a landlady, and a neighbor corroborated him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the accused was positively identified as one of those who committed the crime charged.
• Whether or not the trial court failed to find that the robbery aspect of the crime charged was not duly proven by the prosecution.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving weight and credence to the defense of the accused and in not acquitting him.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a codal text, but it fixes the penalty by the range prescribed for the offense. The governing rule on penalty is stated in the Revised Penal Code as follows:

The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death.

This range bears on the case because, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed the lower of the two indivisible penalties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused was positively and convincingly identified by Macky and Vicente Galanao. They stood at the left side of the truck just behind the driver's seat, the roof was low, their view of the road ahead was unhampered, they were only four meters from the assailant, and the crime was committed in broad daylight. Their failure to describe the culprits on the day after the shooting was understandable, because they were still in shock; a week later they recognized the appellant from the photographs. Absent any showing of evil intent, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. The Court also brushed aside the alleged inconsistencies: one witness said fatigue outfit and another said t-shirt, but the crime was executed swiftly; and the witnesses heard one shot while the autopsy showed multiple wounds, but ordinary men with their lives under threat are not expected to count gunshots.

On the second issue, the Court held that all the elements of robbery with homicide were proven. The onus probandi is to establish the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, that the property belongs to another, that the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi, meaning the intent to gain, and that on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof homicide was committed. The phrase by reason covers homicide committed before or after the taking, as long as the motive in killing is to deprive the victim of his property. The Court ruled that it matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking; what is essential is a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. Here the wife testified that the victim counted 500,000 pesos and placed it in his bag, and that he wore the jewelry. The laborers saw the culprits flee with the bag, and the money and jewelry were missing from the body. The logical conclusion is that the victim was killed to rob him.

On the third issue, the Court held that the alibi must fail. Where alibi is established only by the accused, his relatives, and his associates, it deserves scant consideration, especially against the affirmative testimony of credible prosecution witnesses. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lower of the two indivisible penalties was imposed, without the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Doctrine

Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property, in which the homicide is incidental to the robbery that is the main purpose of the criminal. Its elements are the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against a person, that the property belongs to another, that the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi, and that on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof homicide was committed. The killing may occur before or after the taking, provided there is a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. The penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, and absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lower indivisible penalty is imposed. On evidence, the Court will not disturb the trial court's assessment of credibility unless facts of weight and influence were overlooked, and alibi established only by the accused, his relatives, and his associates deserves scant consideration against credible eyewitnesses.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, ordered restitution of the jewelry or its equivalent value of 30,000 pesos and of the 500,000 pesos in cash, and modified the award to the heirs to 50,000 pesos as indemnity for wrongful death rather than as actual or compensatory damages, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in robbery with homicide, it matters not that the victim was killed before the taking, so long as there is a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. Examiners use this case to test the elements of the special complex crime, the meaning of by reason of the robbery, and the rule that alibi supported only by relatives and associates cannot overcome positive identification.