G.R. No. 146425. November 21, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PROCULO MEJECA Y MONTALLANA, BALDOMERO QUINTINA, ROMEO SOLARTE, DIOSECORO NARCISO, ADELINA NARCISO, NICOLAS PICACHE, JR., JULI…
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
the JTC Pawnshop owned by Victoria T. Tuparan, was fatally shot as she tried to
flee to safety when several armed men barged into the shop and carted away
assorted jewelry worth more or less P3,000,000.00.
Initially charged for the felony were Proculo Mejeca y
Montallana, Baldomero Quintina and Romeo Solarte. The corresponding information for Robbery with Homicide was filed
on August 15, 1996.[1]
Subsequently, additional suspects were identified. Thus, indicted for the crime in an Amended
Information for Robbery in Band with Homicide[2] were:
Proculo Mejeca y Montallana, Baldomero Quintina, Romeo Solarte, Diosecoro[3]
Narciso, Adelina Narciso, Nicolas Picache, Jr., Julie Hilario, Arnold Narciso
and Dante Aras. The amended information
alleges –
That on or about the 11th day of July 1996 in the City of Marikina,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, all armed with assorted firearms, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent
to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the premises of JTC Pawnshop and
once inside robbed the aforesaid pawnshop of assorted jewelries worth more or
less P3,000,000.00; that on the occasion and by reason of said robbery one of
the accused with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot LITA BERLANAS, vault custodian of the
said JTC Pawnshop thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds which
directly caused her death.Contrary to law.
Accused Proculo M. Mejeca, Nicolas Picache, Jr., Adelina Narciso,
Romeo Solarte and Baldomero Quintana have, to date, remained at large[4]
despite alias warrants of arrest issued against them. Thus, Arnold Narciso, Diosecoro Narciso, Julie Hilario and Dante
Aras, who were captured after the incident were the only ones arraigned and
pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.[5]
The case then proceeded to trial after which, the court a quo rendered judgment, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Court finds the
accused ARNOLD NARCISO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code with
the aggravating circumstances of the use of unlicensed firearm and in band and
is sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH by lethal injection. The said accused is further ordered to pay
the heirs of Lita Berlanas the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as
indemnity for the latter’s death and to pay the owner of JTC Pawnshop, Victoria
Tuparan Manansala, the amount of THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY THREE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (P3,563,645.00) PESOS representing the value of
the pieces of jewelry that were taken from the pawnshop subject of the
robbery. The other accused DIOSECORO
NARCISO, JULIE HILARIO and DANTE ARAS are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged
against them for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and are ordered released from the custody of the Marikina City
Jail unless validly held for some other offense. The case against the other accused who remain at large is ordered
archived and let a warrant of arrest be issued against them.SO ORDERED.[6]
On automatic review before this Court, accused-appellant Arnold
Narciso assails the imposition of the supreme penalty of death against him
alleging that –
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
IMPROBABLE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EYEWITNESS NANCY ALEGRE
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON
THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT.
From the prosecution’s version of the incident, as summarized in
the People’s brief, it appears that on July 11, 1996, Nancy “Ancy” Alegre, then
an appraiser employed by the JTC Pawnshop, owned and operated by Victoria
Tuparan-Manansala, left the pawnshop’s Cogeo-Antipolo branch, around 5:30 in
the afternoon and proceeded to the main branch at Bayan-bayanan Avenue,
Concepcion, Marikina City to submit her report to Lita Berlanas and to Edna
Escabe, employees of the main branch. She arrived at the main branch between 6:30 and 7:00 in the evening.
When she was about five steps from the entrance of the main
branch, she saw a man in front of the pawnshop, brandishing a gun in his right
hand while holding Lita Berlanas by her nape with his left hand. She later identified this man as
accused-appellant Arnold Narciso.
Bystanders advised Ancy not to proceed to the pawnshop warning
her, thus: “Miss, huwag ka nang tumuloy,
may hold-apan.” Alerted to the danger, she then went to
other side of the road near a 7-11 Convenience Store to observe what was going
on. She heard several gunshots fired
inside the pawnshop. She saw Arnold
fire the gun upwards and towards the street. After the gun was fired, Lita
Berlanas ran and Arnold shot her. Several men, numbering about four, including Arnold, ran out of the
pawnshop. One of the men, who was also
carrying a gun, manned the traffic. The four men commandeered a Tamaraw FX
vehicle and boarded it.
Ancy then rushed towards the pawnshop where she found Edna Escaba
hiding under the sink. She proceeded
towards the side of the pawnshop and found the lifeless body of Lita
Berlanas. All the pawned items were
gone. At that point, Ancy lost
consciousness and was brought to the hospital.[7]
The pawnshop’s owner, Victoria Tuparan-Manansala, arrived at the
scene of the crime after the robbery. She had just come from their branch on Molave Street, where she
inspected the pawned items. She
received a message on her pager that there was a robbery at the main branch and
that Lita Berlanas was gunned down. She
rushed to the site where she saw barangay officials carrying Lita Berlanas’
body out of the shop. She found that
all the items in the pawnshop were taken.[8] The
value of the items taken from the pawnshop amounted to more or less Four
Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00).
Almost two years later, in January 1998, the pawnshop’s
Karuhatan-Valenzuela branch was robbed at gunpoint. The suspects were caught and brought to Camp Crame where the
employees of the JTC Pawnshop, Ancy and a certain Edera, identified them as the
same persons who committed the July 11, 1996 robbery of the pawnshop’s Marikina
branch. They were identified as accused
Diosecoro Narciso, Dante Aras, Arnold Narciso and Julie Hilario.[9]
Accused-appellant Arnold Narciso was arrested and detained.
On the other hand, accused-appellant had a different story to
tell. He denied any participation in
the crime and alleged that on July 11, 1996, he was in his residence in Bagong
Nayon II, Antipolo City, digging a well. He asserted that the claim of Ancy Alegre that it was he who took Lita
Berlanas hostage was a “big lie.” He
pointed out that when Ancy first testified, she identified the person on the
cartographic sketch as Baldomero Quintana. However, she later declared that it
was accused-appellant who was depicted on the sketch. He also claimed that Ancy may have singled him out because among
the four accused, he was the only one who was the most vocal in court. He denied knowledge of the location of the
Marikina Branch of JTC Pawnshop. He
claimed that he only found out where it was situated when he was indicted and
detained in Marikina.[10] He
further testified that the distance between the pawnshop and the 7-11 Convenience
Store where Ancy allegedly stood was approximately 35-40 meters.[11]
The JTC Pawnshop is facing the church while the convenience store is facing
Bayan-bayanan Avenue.[12]
Accused-appellant alleged that on January 24, 1998, while he was
in his house in Bagong Nayon II, Antipolo City tending to his child and nephew,
two men in civilian clothes arrived. One of the men stood in front of the house while the second who was in
shorts with a long firearm approached him and asked him if he was the brother
of Diosecoro Narciso. When he answered
affirmatively, the man suddenly struck him on his stomach with the butt of the
gun. He was then pushed to the ground,
handcuffed behind his back, blindfolded and brought to a vehicle. He learned for the first time that he was
being implicated in the robbery when he was detained in Valenzuela.[13]
Accused-appellant insists that he was not positively identified
by eyewitness Ancy Alegre. He argues
that Ancy could not have seen his face as she described him as “sporting long
hair with dark brown complexion,” therefore “it is highly probable that the
witness could not have clearly seen the face of the man as the latter’s face
may have been covered by his long wavy hair.” He also makes capital of the fact that Ancy did not describe his
features to the police-investigator/cartographer, implying that had she really
been familiar with his face, other sketches need not have been shown to
her. He further argues that he is not
the only one among the accused with “medium build, dark complexion, sporting
long wavy hair,” inasmuch as his co-accused, Baldomero Quintina, also fits that
description and, thus, Ancy may have mistaken him for Quintina.[14]
In fine, accused-appellant raises the issue of credibility. He assails the assessment by the trial court
of the witnesses’ testimonies in regard to his identification as one of the
perpetrators of the offense charged.
Matters concerning the credibility of the witnesses are best
addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court.[15]
It is well-settled that appellate courts will not interfere with the trial
court’s assessment in this regard, absent any indication or showing that the
trial court has overlooked some material facts of substance or value or gravely
abused its discretion.[16] The
matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and
most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike
appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of accused’s
behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial.[17]
In this connection, we note in particular accused-appellant’s
positive identification by eyewitness Ancy Alegre, who testified on direct
examination as follows:
PROSECUTOR
Q You said earlier that
there were five men whom you saw participated in the incident which you
witnessed on July 21, if you will again see this group of men, will you be able
to identify them?A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please look
inside this courtroom and point to us if they are here or if any of the five
men are inside this courtroom?A Yes, sir.
Q Will you step down and
tap the shoulder or you can come close to them and point to them?A THE WITNESS POINTING TO
A PERSON INSIDE THE COURTROOM.COURT
The person pointed to by the witness,
stand up and identify yourself.ACCUSED
I am ARNOLD NARCISO Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR
Q How about the four
others?A I do not know, sir.
Q If you again see them
will you be able to identify them?A No, sir. Because I did not see their faces, sir.
Q Insofar as the
incident of July 21, 1996 is concerned which you just narrated to us, what was
the exact participation of the man you earlier pointed to and identify himself
as Arnold Narciso?A He was the man
standing at the door of the pawnshop, sir.Q And also the man who
shot Lita Berlanas?A Yes, sir.
Q And also one of the
men who came out of the pawnshop?A Yes, sir.[18]
There were attempts by defense counsel to impeach Ancy’s
credibility on cross-examination by dwelling on what was perceived to be a
vague description of accused-appellant and the supposed darkness and poor
visibility, but they only succeeded in eliciting the opposite response:
ATTY. LARRACAS
Q When you said Miss
Witness that when you were about to go in the pawnshop at JTC Pawnshop in
Concepcion, Marikina City, bystanders shouted to you that there was a
hold-up. You said that you did not go
inside the pawnshop. My question
is. How far is the other side of the
street from the pawnshop?A From my seat up to the
door of the courtroom, ma’am.PROSECUTOR
May we ask that the question be clarified
to this witness?COURT
It is noted.
ATTY. LARRACAS
You Honor, can we just stipulate. . .
PROSECUTOR
We can say 6 vehicles can accommodate the
entire width.COURT
It is a judicial notice.
ATTY. LARRACAS
Q And the incident
happened at about between 6:30 and 7:00 in the evening, you will agree with me
that at that time it was quite dark or it was already dark at that time?A It was dark but in
our place it was lighted, ma’am.[19]
What, however, spelled finis to accused-appellant’s pretensions
of innocence are the following declarations of Ancy Alegre on re-direct
examination:
Q Miss Witness, you earlier
identified Arnold Narciso as the one whom you saw standing in front of the
pawnshop at the time of the incident and who was then holding the nape of Lita
Berlanas, how certain are you that you pointed to that man whom you saw as
the one holding Lita Berlanas in her nape?A Because I could not
forget his face, sir.Q Are you one hundred
percent sure that the man you pointed to is Arnold Narciso?A Yes, sir.
Q In my previous question,
you specifically identified Arnold Narciso as the one who fired at Lita
Berlanas. On cross-examination when you
were asked by the counsel de oficio, you stated that because there were
several shots fired, you can no longer distinguish which shot hit Lita
Berlanas, will you tell which between the two answers is correct?A I saw his shot (sic)
Lita Berlanas, sir.Q Miss Witness, you were
earlier confronted with the description of the man as mentioned by counsel de
oficio, who is 5’6” to 5’7” in height, weighing 140-150 lbs., medium built with
dark complexion, long wavy hair, is this person that you described in
your statement the same as Arnold Narciso as you have pointed now?A Yes, sir.[20]
The trial court rejected accused-appellant’s defense which
consisted mainly of denial and alibi. Ancy Alegre placed him at the scene and time of the robbery and saw him
shoot Lita Berlanas. In convicting
accused, the trial court relied on Ancy’s testimony which it found to be “clear
and straightforward.”[21] Such
positive testimony prevails over accused-appellant’s denial and alibi.[22]
Furthermore, as established at the trial, Ancy Alegre had no
ulterior motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant whom she has never
met prior to the robbery. Categorical
and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill-motive on the
part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over
accused-appellant’s defense of denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense
is negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[23]
All told, we find no reason to reverse the ruling of the court a quo insofar as accused-appellant’s
culpability is concerned. This brings
us to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty against him.
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
7659, provides that:
ART. 294. Robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons. – Penalties. – 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, or when the robbery
shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson; xxx.
In meting out the supreme penalty of death, the trial court
appreciated the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed
firearm under Section 1, paragraph 3, of R.A. No. 8294.
The imposition of the death penalty is infirm for several
reasons:
First, R.A. No. 8294
took effect on July 6, 1997, fifteen days after its publication on June 21,
1997. The crime imputed to
accused-appellant was committed on July 11, 1996. It is fundamental that laws shall have no retroactive effect,
unless the contrary is provided.[24] More
importantly, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.[25]
Thus, insofar as R.A. No. 8294 is not beneficial to the accused because it
unduly aggravates the crime, such new law will not be given retroactive
application, lest it acquire the character of an ex post facto law.[26]
Stated differently, R.A. No. 8294, which considers the use of an unlicensed
firearm in the killing of a victim as an aggravating circumstance, cannot be
given retroactive effect because to do so would be unfavorable to the accused.[27]
Second, inasmuch as the
use of an unlicensed firearm is now considered as a special aggravating
circumstance[28]
which would merit the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, the same must
be specifically alleged in the
information. The amended information in
this case alleges, inter alia, that –
. . . the above-named accused, all armed with assorted firearms,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the premises of
JTC Pawnshop and once inside robbed the aforesaid pawnshop of assorted
jewelries worth more or less P3,000,000.00; that on the occasion and by reason
of said robbery one of the accused with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot LITA BERLANAS,
vault custodian of said JTC Pawnshop, thereby inflicting upon the latter
gunshot wounds which directly caused her death. xxx
The use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or
homicide is a qualifying circumstance. Following the well established rules
pertinent to this issue, the imposition of capital punishment on
accused-appellant is improper absent the express
allegation of such qualifying circumstance,[29]
otherwise it would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.[30]
Third, two (2)
requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first,
the existence of the subject firearm;
and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the guns did not have the corresponding license or
permit to carry it outside his residence.[31]
Given the prevailing facts of this case, it becomes readily apparent that these
elements are absent herein. With regard to the first element, it must be
noted that the murder weapon was never presented
in evidence as it was not confiscated by the police. There was, therefore, no opportunity to prove that the
accused-appellant used an unlicensed firearm.[32]
As for the second element, it bears stressing that the essence of
the crime penalized under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, is primarily the accused’s
lack of license or permit to carry or
possess the firearm, as possession by itself is not prohibited by law.[33]
As such, it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to
prove it beyond reasonable doubt.[34] In
this regard, either the testimony of a representative of or a certification
from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office attesting
that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the second element.[35]
There, likewise, has been no such proof to show the existence of such element
herein.
Likewise, the generic aggravating circumstance of cuadrilla (band) can not be appreciated
in this case. An offense is deemed to
have been committed by a band where more than three armed malefactors acted together
in the commission thereof.[36] As
stated, the prosecution failed to establish with certainty that all the
perpetrators of the robbery, numbering four, were armed as no such weapons were
presented in evidence.[37]
There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the
proper imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties.[38]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, finding
accused-appellant Arnold Narciso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide and ordering him to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, Lita Berlanas, and the amount of Three Million Five Hundred
Sixty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five Pesos (P3,563,645.00) as actual
damages to Victoria Tuparan, the owner of the JTC Pawnshop, is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed by the trial court on
accused-appellant is reduced to Reclusion
Perpetua.
Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales,
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on official leave.
[1]
Record, p. 1.
[2]
Ibid., pp. 54-55.
[3]
Also referred to as Dioscoro Narciso.
[4] Id., p. 35.
[5]
Id., pp. 133-135.
[6]
Id., pp. 262-280.
[7]
TSN, September 29, 1999, pp. 6-29.
[8]
TSN, June 9, 1999, pp. 14-24.
[9]
TSN, June 9, 1999, pp. 35-39.
[10]
TSN, February 8, 2000, pp. 3-6.
[11]
Ibid., p. 6.
[12]
Exhibit I.
[13]
TSN, February 8, 2000, pp. 9-10.
[14]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 12-13.
[15]
People v. Escala, 292 SCRA 48, 59 [1998].
[16]
People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751, 781 [1998].
[17]
People v.
Boquirin, G.R. No. 136829, June 6, 2002, citing People v. Daroy, 336 SCRA 24, 37 [2000].
[18]
TSN, September 29, 1999, pp. 30-32; emphasis and italics supplied.
[19]
Ibid., pp. 42-44; emphasis and
italics supplied.
[20]
Id., pp. 48-51; emphasis and italics
supplied.
[21]
RTC Decision, p. 16; Record, p. 276.
[22]
People v.
Erlinda Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. Nos. 141162-63, July 11, 2002; People v.
Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438, 446 [1998].
[23]
People v. Basquez, G.R. No. 144035, September 27, 2001.
[24]
Civil Code, Art. 4.
[25]
People v. Ladjaalam, 340 SCRA 617.
[26]
People v. Macoy, 338 SCRA 217 [2000]; People v.
Ringor, 320 SCRA 342 [1999]; People v.
Valdez, 304 SCRA 311 [1999].
[27]
People v. Valdez, 347 SCRA 594 [2000].
[28]
People v. Castillo, 325 SCRA 613 [2000].
[29]
Dela Peña v. Empaynado, Jr., 346 SCRA 6, 12 [2000].
[30]
People v. Evangelista, 256 SCRA 611, 626 [1996]; People v. Fernandez, 239 SCRA 174 [1994]; People v. Barte, 230 SCRA 401 [1994].
[31]
Advincula v. CA, 343 SCRA 583
[2000]; Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 [1999].
[32]
People v. Abendan, 341 SCRA 404 [2000].
[33]
People v. Cortez, 324 SCRA 335 [2000].
[34]
People v. Dorinon, 321 SCRA 43 [2000].
[35]
People v. Lazaro, 317 SCRA 435 [1999]; Cadua v. CA, supra.
[36]
Revised Penal Code, Art. 14 (6).
[37]
People v.
Viñalon, et al., G.R. No. 135542, July 18, 2002.
[38]
People v. Cachola, G.R. No. 135047, March 16, 2001, citing People v. Lozada, 334 SCRA 602, 623 [2000].