PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAYMOND MAXION Y GASPAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Maxion

The Case

This is People versus Maxion, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Raymond Maxion for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The charge arose from an armed robbery of the cash deposit of a supermarket in Quezon City, in the course of which the bank security escort was shot and killed. The case matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it states the elements of robbery with homicide as a special complex crime, it explains the required nexus between the robbery and the killing, and it is a compact lesson on the hierarchy of evidence — positive identification by an eyewitness defeats denial and alibi, and credibility findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal.

Procedural History

An information for robbery with homicide was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Raymond Maxion and Carlos Villacruz. Maxion entered a plea of not guilty. The case against Villacruz was later dismissed for lack of evidence, and trial proceeded against Maxion alone. The trial court convicted him of robbery with homicide, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the supermarket the stolen amount and to pay the heirs of the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, and burial expenses. Maxion filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved on writ of error, and the Court affirmed the conviction with modification of the damages awarded.

Facts

On the morning of May 24, 1993, Ronald Himor, a teller of the United Coconut Planters Bank, Bohol Avenue Branch, crossed the street to the Hi-Top Supermarket on Sgt. Esguerra Street, Quezon City, to pick up the supermarket's cash deposit of 1,464,644.75 pesos. He placed the money in a duffle bag and padlocked it, then called the bank to send his security escort. The bank sent Emmanuel Gargaceran.

As Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the street back to the bank, two armed men suddenly appeared. One stood in front of Gargaceran and the other behind him, both aiming their guns at him. The man behind took Gargaceran's handgun, and the man in front shot him at close range, hitting him in the chest. Himor tried to run toward the bank with the bag, but the armed men stopped him and ordered him to release it. With guns pointed at him, he tossed the bag to them and ran back to the supermarket. An autopsy performed the same day found the cause of death to be a penetrating gunshot wound to the anterior left thorax.

Ten days later, Himor went to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in Camp Crame and helped a cartographer draw the face of the suspect. On June 18, 1993, a police investigator showed him a group picture, and he immediately pointed to a man carrying a child as one of the armed men. Maxion was arrested at Binangonan, Rizal, on June 21, 1993, and the next day Himor positively identified him in a police line-up. Maxion denied any participation and claimed he was at home in Taytay, Rizal, celebrating his wife's birthday, a claim corroborated by a neighbor.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the eyewitness despite the alleged contradiction between his direct and cross examinations.
• Whether or not the accused's defense of denial can prevail over his positive identification by the eyewitness.
• Whether or not the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and burial expenses are proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the definition of robbery in the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.

This is the first component of the complex crime, and the evidence showed the taking was accomplished by violence and intimidation against Himor and Gargaceran.

The decision also applies the civil law rule on moral damages, quoting the Civil Code:

Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.

This provision supports the award of moral damages to the victim's widow, who testified to her suffering after seeing her husband bloodied in the morgue and being left to support three children.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved all the elements of robbery with homicide: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons, the property belonging to another, the taking done with intent to gain, and homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. The principal intention of the two armed men was to get the supermarket's money, as shown by their shouting at Himor to release the bag. Since the robbery resulted in the killing of Gargaceran, the offense is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is essential is that there be a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the killing be prior or subsequent to the robbery or both committed at the same time.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of contradiction. When the witness said on cross-examination that he had no time to look at the faces of the attackers, he was referring to the moment the robbers approached and poked their guns at Gargaceran. At the time the accused stopped Himor and ordered him to let go of the bag, the two were face to face. Absent any showing of ill motive, the testimony of the eyewitness is worthy of full faith and credit. The Court stressed that credibility of witnesses is best addressed by the trial court, which heard the witness and observed his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless weighty facts were overlooked or misapprehended.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense and must be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses. Faced with positive identification, the denial cannot prevail.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed the award of 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity. It increased moral damages to 50,000 pesos as proper under the Civil Code, but disallowed the 25,310 pesos as actual damages because the Court can grant such expenses only if proper receipts support them.

Doctrine

Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime whose elements are: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things; the property taken belongs to another; the taking is done with intent to gain, or animo lucrandi; and on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. There must be a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. Positive identification by an eyewitness prevails over denial and alibi, which are weak defenses. Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent overlooked or misapprehended facts of weight. Moral damages may be recovered when they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission, while actual damages require proper receipts.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Raymond Maxion for robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties, ordering him to reimburse the supermarket 1,464,644.75 pesos and to pay the heirs of Emmanuel Gargaceran 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the four elements of robbery with homicide and the rule that the killing must have a direct relation and intimate connection to the robbery. Examiners use this case to test the special complex crime, the weight of positive identification over denial and alibi, and the requirement of receipts for actual damages.