PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY MARQUEZ Y BACAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Marquez

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Jimmy Marquez y Bacay, an automatic review of a conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The accused was charged, together with four unidentified companions, with taking jewelry and cash from the victim Pampilo Aclan by force and intimidation, and with killing him on the occasion of that robbery. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the elements of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, and it teaches how the Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses who happen to be the victim's own son and salesgirl, and how it weighs alibi against positive identification.

Procedural History

The accused was charged in two separate informations before the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 32, San Pablo City: one for robbery with homicide, and one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree Number 1866. He pleaded not guilty, and the two cases were tried jointly. The trial court convicted him of robbery with homicide, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay damages to the heirs of the victim, but acquitted him of the illegal possession charge. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

Pampilo Aclan was a businessman who bought and sold jewelry from a store in the public market of San Pablo City. On the afternoon of September 22, 1995, he packed his jewelry into two boxes, placed his cash in a shoulder bag, and rode a tricycle home with his son Jerwin and his salesgirl Rizza Cervantes. Near the entrance to their residence, five armed men blocked the tricycle and ordered the driver to stop.

Announcing a hold-up, the accused pointed his gun at Aclan and demanded the bag. Aclan refused, one of the men grabbed it, and a struggle followed. Rizza tried to help her employer but was pushed inside the tricycle, and the bag was taken. When Aclan ran after the robber, the accused shot him. Jerwin, who had been stabbed on the arm in his own struggle with another man, heard the shot and turned to see the accused standing over his fallen father with a gun. The robbers fled with the bag and the two boxes of jewelry. Aclan died shortly after reaching the hospital.

The accused was later apprehended in Batangas City and identified by both Rizza and Jerwin in a police line-up of five persons. His defense was alibi: he claimed he was in Taguig, Metro Manila from September 18 to September 25, 1995, helping his brother build a septic tank and witnessing a barangay settlement. The Court found the defense witnesses incredible, many of them having merely repeated what the accused's brother had instructed them to say.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and in sentencing him to death.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of the victim's son and salesgirl as biased witnesses.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as cited in the information, defines the crime charged:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged, and it supplies both the elements of the taking and the aggravated consequence of death on the occasion of the robbery.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which the trial court also cited in its judgment, 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.

Homicide in its generic sense is the killing that, when committed on the occasion of robbery, raises the offense to the special complex crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction was fully supported by the evidence. A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of four elements: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things; that the property taken belongs to another; that the taking was done with intent to gain; and that on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense was committed. All four were established. The Court rejected the accused's suggestion of DNA testing, noting that no such test existed to prove his innocence, and it rejected his alibi against the positive identification made by the witnesses.

On the second issue, the Court held that the relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not by itself impair their credibility. There is no legal provision disqualifying relatives of a victim from testifying if they are competent, and a relative like Jerwin should be considered especially qualified because he has an interest in securing the conviction of those truly guilty. In the absence of proof of an improper motive, a witness is presumed not to be so moved, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. The Court also held that the failure to present the tricycle driver did not weaken the case, because the question is not one of number but of the quality of the testimonies offered.

Doctrine

Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime. Its elements are: 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 animus lucrandi, meaning intent to gain; and homicide in its generic sense is committed on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. The relationship of a witness to the victim does not give rise to a presumption of bias and does not ipso facto impair credibility, and absent proof of improper motive, the witness is presumed to have none. Alibi, being a weak defense, cannot prevail over positive and categorical identification by eyewitnesses who were face to face with the accused and who identified him in a police line-up.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jimmy Marquez for robbery with homicide, with the modification of the damages awarded, and upheld the penalty of death.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: relationship to the victim does not presume bias, and alibi crumbles against positive identification. Examiners use this case to test the elements of robbery with homicide and the credibility of eyewitnesses who are relatives of the victim.