RUEL POQUIZ Y ORCINE AND REY VALENCIA Y GALUTAN, PETITIONERS, VS.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

The Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari^[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision^[2] dated November 27, 2017 and the Resolution^[3]
dated April 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) inCA­ G. R. CR No.
38798 which held petitioners Ruel Poquiz y Orcine (Poquiz) and Rey
Valenciay Galutan (Valencia) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294(5) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Facts

In the Information dated September 2, 2015, Poquiz, Valencia, and Kim
Olorfenes (Olorfenes; still at-large) were charged with Robbery under
Article 293 of the RPC before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Muntinlupa City. The Information reads:

That on or about the 2^nd day of September 2015 in
the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with accused Rue! Poquiz y
Orcine armed with a knife, with intent to gain, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, and
by means of violence against or intimidation upon the person of private
complainant PIINSP BOB BELVER Y TABLIGA, who has alighted from a [b]us,
that is, by trying to stab him and punching and kicking him on the
different parts of his body, and thereafter, accused, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob, take and divest said
private complainant of his belongings to wit: a hanger bag and back
pack, containing one (1) Apple [I]phone worth Six Thousand Pesos (Php
6,000.00), one (1) Cherry Mobile phone worth One Thousand Pesos (Php
1,000.00), one (1) police flashlight, two (2) pieces of magazine of
pistol Taurus Caliber .9mm and assorted clothing worth Five Thousand
Pesos (Php 5,000.00), all in total amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (Php
12,000.00), to the damage and prejudice of said private complainant in
the said total amount of Php 12,000.00

Contrary to law.^[4]

During arraignment on September 18, 2015, Poquiz and Valencia entered a plea of not guilty. On September 21, 2015, pre-trial was conducted. Trial on the merits then ensued.^[5]

The Version of the Prosecution

On September 2, 2015, at around 1:00 a.m., private complainant Police Inspector Bob Belver y
Tabliga (Belver) was alighting from a bus in front of Bicol Express
Eatery in Alabang Viaduct, Muntinlupa City when he was approached by
three men, later identified as Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes. The
three men then declared a robbery and Valencia then snatched Belver’s
backpack while the other accused attempted to take his hanger bag, but
the latter failed to do so. During the hold-up, Belver informed Poquiz,
Valencia, and Olorfenes that he was a police officer, however, none of
them stopped and instead replied “walang pulis-pulis sa amin.”
Poquiz then attempted to thrust a knife towards Belver, but Belver was
able to evade such thrust. Olorfenes and Valencia then started punching
and kicking Belver. Acting in self-defense, Belver then took his service
pistol and fired at the feet of Valencia and Poquiz. The three men then
quickly fled and left behind their knives and Belver’s bag.^[6]

Upon hearing the gunshots, Police Officer 3 Elvi Ferranculo (PO3
Ferranculo) and Police Officer 1 John Paul Muego (PO1 Muego) arrived at
the scene of the crime. Upon learning of the robbery and mauling
incident, the two police officers brought Belver to the police station
to have a blotter report recorded. Belver was then examined by
Medico-Legal Officer Police Senior Inspector Dr. Rhea Manaba Cornelio
for his physical injuries.^[7]
Upon information from Belver’s statement, PO3 Ferranculo and PO1 Muego
proceeded to Ospital ng Muntinlupa to check any person admitted for
gunshot wounds. The two police officers then found Poquiz and Valencia
who were both being treated for gunshot wounds in their right foot and
left leg, respectively.^[8]

During his testimony, Belver positively identified Poquiz, Valencia
and Olorfenes as his assailants. Belver also identified the knives used
by the three men during the incident. Belver confirmed that he did not
lose his items as he was duly able to recover his bag when Poquiz,
Valencia and Olorfenes dropped the said items when the men fled after
drawing his service firearm.^[9]
PO3 Ferranculo testified and confirmed that he and PO1 Muego responded
to the crime scene upon hearing the sound of gunshots. PO3 Ferranculo
asserted that after accompanying Belver to the precinct to blotter the
incident, he and PO1 Muego went to the Ospital ng Muntinlupa to look for
possible victims of gunshot wounds and found Poquiz and Valencia
therein.^[10]

The prosecution also offered the following as documentary evidence: (1) Salaysay of Belver; (2) Malayang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-aresto
by PO3 Ferranculo and PO1 Muego; (3) Request for Medico-Legal
Examination; (4) Medico-Legal Report dated September 2, 2015; (5)
photograph of the items forcibly taken from Belver during the robbery;
(6) photographs of the knives used; and (7) certified true copy of the
Police Blotter. The knives used by Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes were
likewise offered as exhibits. One knife was marked with “JVM-1” while
the other knife was marked with “JVM-2.”^[11]

The Version of the Defense

The defense presented the following witnesses: (1) Poquiz; (2)
Olorfenes; (3) Joel De Asis (De Asis); and (4) Joyce Clinton Ditapat
(Ditapat). Poquiz denied the charge of Robbery against him but instead,
admitted that he punched Belver in the morning of September 2, 2015.
Poquiz claimed that he was drunk at the time he punched Belver. Poquiz
admitted that he had a quarrel with fellow tricycle driver named Omeng
and that he punched Belver after mistakenly identifying him as companion
of Omeng. Poquiz claimed that after punching Belver, Valencia tried to
pacify him and he left the area and entered an alley. Upon entering the
alley, he heard a gunshot. Poquiz claimed that he then saw Valencia was
shot. To retaliate, Poquiz then picked up a bottle and threw it towards
Belver, but missed. Belver then shot him on his left knee. After the
incident, Olorfenes then brought him and Valencia to the hospital where
they were apprehended by the two police officers. Olorfenes corroborated
Poquiz’s version of the incident.^[12]

De Asis testified that he was sitting on the pavement under the
Alabang Viaduct when he saw Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes intoxicated.
De Asis narrated that Poquiz caused a commotion after he was refused
from borrowing the tricycle of his friend. Poquiz then punched two men: a
jeepney driver and then Belver who had just alighted from a bus. De
Asis claimed that Belver was being beaten up and as a defense, he drew a
gun and fired at Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes, but Valencia blocked
Poquiz and Valencia was hit on the foot.^[13]

Ditapat testified that he was biking around the area when he
witnessed what transpired. Ditapat claimed that he saw Poquiz causing a
commotion and was quarreling with someone then he saw Poquiz hit Belver.
Belver then drew his gun and shot at the person in front of him.
Ditapat claimed that he quickly fled home because he was afraid.^[14]

The Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision^[15] dated May
18, 2016, the RTC, Branch 276, Muntinlupa City convicted Poquiz,
Valencia, and Olorfenes of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under
Article 294(5) of the RPC. The RTC ruled that the straightforward and
categorical testimony of Belver is relatively free from any serious
flaw. Neither was Belver impelled by any ill motive to impute the
commission of the crime to Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes. The RTC
found the versions of the defense to be unbelievable, improbable and
unconvincing as the testimonies of the defense witnesses were fraught
with contradictions and inconsistencies which render their testimonies
questionable.

The RTC ruled that the testimony of defense witness Ditapat supported
and even corroborated the evidence of the prosecution. Ditapat
bolstered the testimony of Belver that the latter was attacked and
repeatedly mauled while on the ground and that he fired at the attackers
after being mauled. The RTC held that the prosecution’s evidence
supports a conviction for robbery with slight physical injuries. The
violence committed and physical injuries sustained by Belver was
unquestionably present The crime of Robbery occurred because there was a
severance of the goods from the possession of the owner even for an
instant.

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds
accused RUEL POQUIZ y Orcine, REY VALENCIA y Galutan and KIM OLORFENES y
Nudalo GUILTY of the crime of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized
under Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and hereby
sentences them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and
four (4) months of prision correccional minimum, as minimum, to six (6) years and I day of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

No civil liability is imposed as the items subject of the crime were recovered.

SO ORDERED.^[16]

The Ruling of the CA

In a Decision^[17] dated
November 27, 2017, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in convicting
Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes of Robbery under Article 293 of the
RPC. The CA ruled that Poquiz and Valencia, with intent to gain
unlawfully, took Belver’s bag when he alighted from the bus. To
perpetrate the robbery, Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes used violence,
particularly they threw punches and lunged a knife on Belver. The CA
held that, in cases of robbery, taking is considered complete from the
moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. Consequently, actual gain is
irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.

The CA sustained the finding of the RTC that there were no
inconsistencies in Belver’s testimony. The CA ruled that the RTC has the
best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and that in the
absence of any showing that the RTC plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 May 2016 of the RTC is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

Accused-appellants RUEL POQUIZ y ORCINE and REY VALENCIA y Galutan
are hereby declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294 (5) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and are hereby sentenced to suffer the prison
term ranging from 4 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS of prision correccional medium,
as minimum, to 10 YEARS prision mayor medium, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.^[18]

In a Resolution^[19] dated
April 12, 2018, the CA denied Poquiz and Valencia’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Poquiz and Valencia filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court.

The Issue

The issue for resolution is whether Poquiz and Valencia are guilty of the crime charged.

The Ruling of the Court

Article 293 of the RPC states:

ART. 293. Who are Guilty of Robbery.- Any person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to
another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.

To warrant a conviction of the crime of Robbery, the following
elements must concur: 1) there is a taking of personal property; 2) the
personal property belongs to another; 3) the taking is with animus lucrandi or intent to gain; and 4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things.^[20] In their Petition, Poquiz and Valencia argue that the third element of animus lucrandi
is absent because there was no actual taking since Belver was never
totally dispossessed of his possessions. Poquiz and Valencia contend
that without unlawful taking, their animus lucrandi or intent to gain cannot be concluded.

We disagree.

In Consulta v. People,^[21] the Court held that animus lucrandi
or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through
the overt acts of the offender. The offender’s intent to gain may be
presumed from the forcible taking of useful property pertaining to
another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the
part of the perpetrator.^[22] In People v. Hernandez,^[23]
the Court held that, in cases of Robbery, the crime is considered
complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing even
if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same, to wit:

In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or
apoderamiento which is defined as the taking of items without the
consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things. Taking is considered
complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing,
even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. There is,
likewise, no need to prove the exact amount of money taken, as long as
there is proof of the unlawful taking. Intent to gain, or animus
lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act;
hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things.^[24] (Emphasis supplied)

A careful review of the records and the testimony of Belver shows
that Belver’s bag was already forcibly taken and Belver was dispossessed
of the same when Poquiz and Valencia left the scene of the crime.
Poquiz and Valencia fled in fear and dropped the bag after Belver fired
his gun. When Poquiz and Valencia unlawfully took Belver’s bag, the
crime of Robbery had been fully consummated. It is of no moment that
Belver was able to subsequently recover the items forcibly taken from
him. Such instance does not preclude the presence of intent to gain on
the part of Poquiz and Valencia.

Hence, all the aforementioned elements of Robbery under Article 293
of the RPC are present: (1) the subject property involved is one of the
bags which Belver had with him when he alighted from the bus; (2) Poquiz
and Valencia unlawfully took the bag from Belver; (3) there was animus lucrandi
or intent to gain on the part of Poquiz and Valencia in taking Belver’s
bag; and (4) Poquiz and Valencia used violence by throwing punches and
lunging a knife on Belver to perpetrate the crime. Accordingly, the
crime of Robbery was committed by Poquiz and Valencia.

The Court sustains the fmding of theCA that Belver’s testimony was
positive and credible. There are no inconsistencies in the testimony of
Belver. The Court also upholds the fmding of the RTC that Belver’s
testimony was delivered in a straightforward and categorical marmer,
free from any serious flaw. In People v. Eling,^[25]
the Court held that the finding of the trial court on the matter of
credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect
and are entitled to great weight, to wit:

The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the
demeanor of witnesses while on the stand, it can discern whether or not
they are telling the truth. The unbending jurisprudence is that its
findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the
highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. It is
well to remind appellant that when the trial court’s findings have been
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar, these are
generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. The jurisprudential
doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the
trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of
witnesses can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the
record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact
or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would
have altered the result.^[26]

The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of both the
CA and the trial court. There is no showing that the CA and the RTC
plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if
considered, might affect the result of the case. Neither is there
showing that the assessment of the RTC of Belver’s testimony and the
prosecution’s evidence was arbitrary. Hence, Poquiz and Valencia’s
conviction for the crime of Robbery under Article 293 of the RPC must
necessarily stand.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
The Decision dated November 27, 2017 and the Resolution dated April 12,
2018 of the Court of Appeals inCA-GR. CR No. 38798 are AFFIRMED. Petitioners Ruel Poquiz y Orcine and Rey Valencia y Galutan are hereby declared GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery under Article 293 and
penalized under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code and are hereby
sentenced to suffer the prison term ranging from four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, , and Rosario, JJ., concur.

---

^* Also referred to as “Rowell Russkies O. Poquiz” and

“Ruel Puquiz” in some parts of the rollo.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 12-33.

^[2] Penned by Associate
Justice Renata C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon
and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; id. at 35-48.

^[3] Id. at 50-51.

^[4] Id. at 36.

^[5] Id.

^[6] Id. at 37.

^[7] Id.

^[8] Id. at 37-38.

^[9] Id. at 38.

^[10] Id.

^[11] Id. at 38-39.

^[12] Id. at 39.

^[13] Id. at 39-40.

^[14] Id. at 40.

^[15] Penned by Presiding Judge Antonietta Pablo-Medina; id. at 67-81.

^[16] Id. at 81.

^[17] Supra note 2.

^[18] Rollo, pp. 47-48.

^[19] Supra note 3.

^[20] Consulta v. People, 598 Phil. 464, 471 (2009).

^[21] Id.

^[22] Id.

^[23] 476 Phil. 66 (2004).

^[24] Id. at 85.

^[25] 576 Phil. 665 (2008).

^[26] Id. at 675.