PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO SORIANO Y BRUAN @ “RUBEN,” AND SALVADOR MEJIA @ “ADONG,” ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Soriano

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Roberto Soriano and Salvador Mejia for the crime of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, arising from a nighttime killing in Bayambang, Pangasinan. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the identification of an accused against the twin attacks of an allegedly inconsistent police blotter entry and the delayed execution of sworn statements. Second, and more importantly for the bar, it is a case about the extinguishment of criminal liability by the death of the accused before judgment, and about the civil indemnity that survives the conviction of the surviving co-conspirator.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 56, tried three accused: Roberto Soriano, Salvador Mejia, and Restituto Ferrer. On April 17, 1986, it promulgated a judgment dated April 3, 1986, convicting Soriano and Mejia as co-conspirators of robbery with homicide and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, with an order to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Marcelino Corpuz, jointly and severally in the amount of 30,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. Restituto Ferrer was acquitted on reasonable doubt. Soriano was not present at the promulgation, having jumped bail earlier. Counsel filed a notice of appeal on April 29, 1986, in behalf of both Soriano and Mejia. The appeal went directly to the Supreme Court, which rendered the decision now before us.

Facts

Near midnight of August 11, 1980, Leonora Corpuz, a school teacher, was lying in bed at her home in Amangcosiling Norte, Bayambang, Pangasinan, when her dog began barking continuously. She looked out but saw nothing, so she roused her son Marcelino Corpuz and her brother-in-law Natalio Solomon, who was in the house at the time. The three went down and saw that pebbles were being thrown at her chico tree, and the dog had gone toward her camarin. After a few moments the dog returned and fell to the ground, apparently poisoned with vetsin, and they tried to revive it.

While they were thus occupied, two men suddenly appeared, brandishing firearms and saying, "Do not move." Without warning, one of them, identified by Leonora Corpuz and Natalio Solomon as Roberto Soriano, fired at Marcelino Corpuz. The other intruder, identified as Salvador Mejia, was beside Soriano, while a third, Restituto Ferrer, was farther away near a pigsty and a bathing area. Marcelino dropped to the ground, mortally wounded. Soriano and Mejia then grabbed the unconscious dog and departed. Marcelino was pronounced dead on arrival at the Emergency Hospital in Bayambang.

The following day, police investigators conducted an investigation at the scene, took photographs including the spot still stained with the victim's blood, and recovered an empty carbine shell and some dried fish into which vetsin appeared to have been introduced. Leonora Corpuz gave the investigators the names of the three persons she believed to be the perpetrators, and asked that the complaint not be filed until all the suspects had been apprehended, since they were allegedly known criminals in the locality. The last suspect, Restituto Ferrer, was arrested only on June 16, 1981. An information for robbery with homicide was filed on January 4, 1982, the dog asported being valued at 200 pesos. All three pleaded not guilty. Soriano jumped bail and was tried in absentia. It later appeared that Soriano had died from a gunshot wound in the head on December 17, 1985, a fact evidenced by an authenticated death certificate.

Issues

• Whether or not the identification of Soriano and Mejia by Leonora Corpuz and Natalio Solomon was fabricated, in light of the police blotter entry stating that the suspects were not personally known to Leonora and the fact that the affidavits of identification were executed only five months after the crime.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi may prevail against the positive identification of the accused.
• Whether or not the criminal liability of Roberto Soriano was extinguished by his death before the promulgation of judgment.
• Whether or not the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim should be increased.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were charged, provides:

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 felony of which Mejia was convicted and which fixes the penalty affirmed on appeal.

Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, on the total extinction of criminal liability, provides:

Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

This is the provision the Court applied to Soriano, whose death before promulgation extinguished his criminal liability as to both personal and pecuniary penalties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the identification cannot be overthrown. Both Leonora Corpuz and Natalio Solomon were so circumstanced as to recognize both appellants: it was a starlit night, the area was illuminated by fluorescent lamps inside the house and a 100-watt bulb outside, the dog was being examined directly under that lamp when the appellants approached, and the distance between the group and the assailants was only about two meters. Leonora recognized Soriano because he had once been her student at Bayambang National High School, and knew Mejia because she had seen him frequently in the barangay. Natalio Solomon had known Soriano for five years and Mejia for ten. Both named the two to the investigators on the following day. The police blotter entry could not prevail: the blotter was never produced in court, and the entry was not made by either of the investigators to whom the names had been confided. The tardiness of the affidavits was explained by the witnesses' fear, revealed to the investigators the day after the crime, that the suspects, who had unsavory reputations in the community, might retaliate unless already in custody.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court properly rejected the alibis, since the defense of alibi cannot stand in the face of positive identification, and in the absence of persuasive evidence demonstrating the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene at the time of the offense.

On the third issue, the Court held that no reversible error attended the conviction, but that the conviction of Roberto Soriano must be negated, he having been killed on December 17, 1985, prior to the promulgation of judgment on April 17, 1986. His criminal liability was therefore deemed extinguished as to both personal and pecuniary penalties in accordance with Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the civil indemnity payable to the heirs of the victim must be increased to 50,000 pesos, in line with current doctrine.

Doctrine

Positive identification of an accused, made by witnesses who knew them and were close to them under adequate illumination, prevails over a police blotter entry that was never produced in court and was not made by the investigators who received the names. Delay in executing sworn statements does not erode the veracity of an identification where the delay is explained by a well grounded fear of retaliation. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification absent proof of physical impossibility. Under Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the death of the accused before final judgment totally extinguishes criminal liability as to both personal and pecuniary penalties, so the conviction of an accused who dies before promulgation must be deleted. The civil indemnity for the heirs of a homicide victim is fixed at 50,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court in all respects, except that it deleted the conviction of Roberto Soriano by reason of his death and increased the indemnity payable to the heirs of Marcelino Corpuz to 50,000 pesos. Salvador Mejia's conviction stood.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that the death of the accused before final judgment extinguishes criminal liability as to both personal and pecuniary penalties, and that the civil indemnity is 50,000 pesos. Examiners use this case to test the effect of the death of an accused pending appeal, and to test identification against a police blotter entry and delayed affidavits.