PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO DOMINGO ALIAS “PONCING”, ERNESTO CALDERON, CHARLITO PASCUAL ALIAS “CHARLIE”, AND DANILO PEREZ, DEFENDANTS, ERNESTO C…

People versus Domingo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Bonifacio Domingo, Ernesto Calderon, Charlito Pascual, and Danilo Perez for the crime of robbery with homicide. Only three of the four accused were arrested and tried; Bonifacio Domingo remained at large. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision several rules that examiners love: the deference owed to the trial court on questions of witness credibility, the rule that the homicide in robbery with homicide need only be produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the correct treatment of subsidiary imprisonment, and the solidary liability of principals for the civil indemnity.

Procedural History

The four accused were charged with robbery with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Nueva Ecija. Only Ernesto Calderon, Charlito Pascual, and Danilo Perez were arrested; when arraigned, all three pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court, through Judge Tirso Reyes, rendered judgment finding the three guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. Each was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 100,700 pesos, but only to the extent of one fourth each, with the remaining one fourth to be shouldered by the accused Bonifacio Domingo should he be convicted, and with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. From that judgment, the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as the sole issue.

Facts

On the evening of the first of June, 1984, Renato Garcia was inside his parents' store on Paco Roman Street in Cabanatuan City, where the family sold medical and dental supplies. A man later identified as Charlito Pascual came in and asked to buy a dental item called metal. When Renato turned his back to call his father, Juanito Garcia, who was eating at the back of the store, Pascual poked a gun at Renato's back and ordered him inside. Two other men, later identified as Danilo Perez and Ernesto Calderon, followed them in. The three identified themselves as members of the New People's Army and demanded money, telling the residents that nobody would be hurt if they followed orders.

Calderon went upstairs to check if anyone was there, while Pascual took the keys from Juanito Garcia, opened the drawers, and took about 10,000 pesos. Renato was told to lie flat on the floor. While Pascual was demanding more money and valuables, Juanito Garcia suddenly complained of dizziness, saying that he was dizzy, and collapsed on the floor. A knock was then heard at the door, and Perez and Calderon covered their faces with handkerchiefs. Calderon later removed his cover, went to the door, and brought back Flora Farfaran, the househelp who had just arrived from school.

Flora saw Juanito Garcia lying on the floor and thought he was dead. She saw the others, and she saw Perez and Pascual ransacking the place. The robbers herded the household into the comfort room and locked them in, leaving Juanito on the floor. Later, Marina Gonzales was brought out and ordered to open the safe, but she said only Juanito knew the combination. Frustrated, the robbers took whatever valuables they could, placed them in a cardboard box, and left. Renato then went to his father, who was still on the floor with blood coming from his mouth. Juanito was brought to the hospital but was dead on arrival. The autopsy found the cause of death to be cardio respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral hemorrhage, which may have been caused by severe emotional distress. Marina Gonzales listed the losses at 100,700 pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimonies of Flora Farfaran and Renato Garcia were credible enough to sustain a judgment of conviction.
• Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery with homicide although Juanito Garcia died of a heart attack during the robbery.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
• Whether or not each accused may be held liable for only one fourth of the indemnity, with the remaining one fourth reserved to the accused still at large.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were charged and convicted, 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 provision that defines and penalizes the crime and fixes the penalty imposed on the appellants.

Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, on the liability of principals, provides:

The principals of a crime shall be severally liable for the same, unless it be otherwise expressly provided by law.

This is the basis for holding the three appellants solidarily liable for the full indemnity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court unless that court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The appellants failed to show that their case fell under the exception. The alleged inconsistencies were minor: when Flora said she did not recognize the person who opened the door, she meant she did not know his name; the apparent conflict between Calderon holding a knife and later pointing a gun was no serious contradiction; and when Renato said in his sworn declaration that he did not recognize the robbers, he meant he did not know their names, so he gave a description instead. The Court added that minor discrepancies are but natural and to be expected, and they enhance credibility because they show the answers are honest and unrehearsed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly found the appellants guilty of robbery with homicide although Juanito Garcia died of a heart attack during the robbery. As former Chief Justice Ramon Aquino states, it is immaterial that death supervened by mere accident as long as the homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, because it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be considered.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering subsidiary imprisonment. With the amendment of Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code by Republic Act Number 5465, subsidiary penalty applies only to non-payment of fines, and before and after that amendment there is no subsidiary penalty when the principal penalty meted out is higher than prision correctional.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering each appellant to pay only one fourth of the indemnity and reserving the other one fourth to Bonifacio Domingo, who is yet to be tried, so that it cannot be ascertained whether he is guilty and liable. Besides, the three appellants, being all principals, are under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code solidarily liable. The Court also noted that no indemnity had been imposed for the death of Juanito Garcia, and to the 100,700 pesos should be added 30,000 pesos as indemnity for his death.

Doctrine

First, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally binding on appeal, absent a showing that the court plainly overlooked facts of substance and value that might affect the result. Minor discrepancies in testimony are natural, expected, and even enhance credibility.

Second, in robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, it is immaterial that death supervened by mere accident, as long as the homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery; only the result obtained is considered, without distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening.

Third, subsidiary imprisonment applies only to non-payment of fines, and never when the principal penalty is higher than prision correctional.

Fourth, principals are solidarily liable for the civil indemnity under Article 110, and the liability of an accused still at large cannot be reserved in the judgment against those already tried.

Disposition

The judgment appealed from was affirmed with modification: the appellants were sentenced to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim the amount of 130,700 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is immaterial that death supervened by mere accident, as long as the homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Examiners use this case for the credibility rule, for the accident rule in robbery with homicide, and for the solidary liability of principals and the limits of subsidiary imprisonment.