G.R. No. 92533. October 05, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EFREN NIMO Y NODALO AND JESSIE NIPAS (AT LARGE), ACCUSED, EFREN NIMO Y NODALO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
ROMERO, J.:
For Priscilla de Jesus, the events of the morning of March 30,
1989 were as a nightmare from which she could not seem to wake up. A 45-year-old businesswoman from Cotabato
City, Priscilla had been staying for more than two months as a guest in the
residence of Daisy Ronquillo[1] in
Calzada, Camalig, Albay, when at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of March 30, 1989,
she was awakened by a short scream and a muffled sound, much like the opening
of a bottle of wine.[2] She
immediately got up from her bed and ran out of the room towards the adjacent
kitchen. There, she saw her friend,
Daisy Ronquillo, sprawled on the floor with blood oozing from her head.
Priscilla noticed two men, one holding a gun and the other, a
knife. The man with a gun went to
Daisy’s room while the other went to her room. Priscilla tried to revive her friend, grabbing the nearest rag to
staunch the flow of blood from Daisy’s head. Her efforts proved futile. After
a few seconds, the two men came back and the one with the gun, identified by
Priscilla during the trial as Efren Nimo, poked it at her nape and demanded
that she give them a gun. Priscilla
replied that she did not know anything about a gun.
Hence, the two men searched the rooms once again. While they were busy looking for a gun,
Priscilla stood up. As she was about to
run to the half-open kitchen door to escape, the man holding the knife saw
her. He tied both of her hands with an
electric stove cord and gagged her mouth with a rag. He tried to drag her into the sala but failed to do so as Daisy’s
lifeless body was obstructing the way. The man with the knife then went back to her room and ransacked her cabinet.
With her left hand, Priscilla was able to loosen the cord tying
her hands. She got up, ran out of the
house toward the hedges and started screaming. The nearest neighbor, Elan, opened her window and so Priscilla ran to
her and asked her to call the police.
Priscilla then asked Zoe Longasa, Daisy’s cousin, to accompany
her back to Daisy’s house, all the while thinking that Daisy was still
alive. However, when they saw her,
Daisy’s face was turning black. Seeing
that nothing more could be done to help Daisy, they left and went to the house
of Antonina Mape, an aunt of Daisy, whose house was across the road. There, they waited for the police who
arrived twenty to thirty minutes later.
When the police asked Priscilla what happened, she told them that
two men had been to Daisy’s house and the latter had been shot. Priscilla also discovered that some of her
belongings were missing: a diamond ring
worth P20,000.00, three (3) wrist watches valued at P7,000.00; two (2) antique
pendants worth P15,000.00, two (2) pairs of earrings worth P1,000.00, three (3)
pieces of gold necklace worth P3,000.00, one (1) ring and earring set worth
P1,200.00, a bracelet worth P350.00, several small pendants and one white
necklace.[3]
At just about the time when the incident occurred, Sunny
Obligacion was grazing cows near the trail to the market in Calzada. He heard the gunshot from out of
nowhere. Then he saw Jessie Nipas
running towards the house of one Morco which was situated just in front of the
house of Daisy. Seconds later, Sunny
saw Priscilla coming from Daisy’s house shouting for help. All this time, Sunny was just about forty
meters away from Daisy’s house. Soon
thereafter, people began to converge outside Daisy’s house.[4]
The gory crime generated wide publicity. A columnist in a national newspaper even severely criticized the government,
specifically the police of Albay, for the occurrence of the felony. In due time, the matter was brought to the
attention of President Corazon C. Aquino who forthwith directed the Director of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to take a hand in the investigation
of the crime.[5]
An NBI team composed of Attys. Arlis E. Vela and Romulo Asis was
sent by NBI Director Antonio Carpio to Legazpi City to gather information about
the incident. As a result of their
investigation, the NBI agents were able to arrest Efren Nimo at the corner of
Taft Avenue and EDSA in Pasay City on May 5, 1989. After a check with their records, the NBI agents also discovered
that an outstanding warrant had been issued for Nimo’s arrest in connection
with another murder case. Hence, Nimo
was detained for finger-printing and further investigation.[6]
Before interrogating Nimo, the NBI agents informed him of his
constitutional rights, such as his right to remain silent, his right against
self-incrimination and his right to counsel. He accepted the NBI’s offer of the services of Atty. Jesus Delfin who
happened to be at the NBI office at the time. Thus, the investigation, which was conducted in Tagalog, a dialect known
to Nimo, culminated in the execution of Nimo’s sworn statement, reproduced
below, but only after Nimo had conferred with Atty. Delfin.[7]
06. T: Sumusumpa ka ba ng magsasabi ka ng buong
katotohanan at pawang katotohanan sa pagsisiyasat na ito?
S: Opo.
07. T: Sabihin mo ang iyong buong pangalan at iba
pang mga bagay na nauukol sa iyong pagkatao?
S: Ako po ay si
EFREN NIMO Y NODALO, 27 taong gulang, binata, ipinanganak noong Pebrero 13,
1962 sa Binanderahan, Camalig, Albay, dating Welder sa isang talyer at sa
kasalukuyan ay naninirahan sa Sto. Niño, Pasay City.
08. T: Noong Marso 30, 1989 humigit kumulang sa
alas 6:00 ng umaga natatandaan mo ba kung saan ka naroroon?
S: Nandoon ako sa isang bahay sa Kalsada St.,
Camalig.
09. T: Kaninong bahay iyon?
S: Hindi ko alam kung kaninong bahay iyon.
10. T: Bakit ka naroon sa bahay na iyon?
S: Kasi nga gusto kong kunin iyong baril ng
babaing may-ari ng bahay na iyon.
11. T: Bakit mayroon bang baril ang babaing may-ari
ng bahay na iyon?
S: Mayroon daw
po. Nabalitaan namin na kung minsan nga
daw kapag nag-aaway sila ng kanyang kasamahan na babai rin ay nagpapaputok raw.
12. T: May kasamahan ka sa bahay na iyon?
S: Opo. Kasama ko si JESSIE NIPAS.
13. T: Bakit gusto mong kunin ang baril ng may-ari
ng bahay na iyon?
S: Marami kasing nagbabanta sa buhay ko kaya
kailangan ko ang baril para protection ko.
14. T: Bakit mayroon bang nagbabanta sa buhay mo?
S: Kasi nga maraming
krimin ang nangyayari sa amin sa Camalig na sa akin binibintang na ang totoo ay
wala naman akong kinalaman.
15. T: Kayo ba ay nakapasok sa bahay ng babae na
sinasabi mo?
S: Opo.
16. T: Maaari bang isalaysay mo kung paano kayo
nakapasok sa bahay na iyon?
S: Binuksan ng babae ang
pinto sa likod ng bahay nila, noong makita kami niya ay pumasok siya uli sa
bahay at noong makita ko uli ay may hawak na ng kutsilyo. Pumasok kami sa loob ng bahay ay niyapos ang
aking kasamahan na si JESSIE at nag-pangagaw sila sa kutsilyo. Natumba silang dalawa at napailalim si
JESSIE. Noong ako ay lalapit tumayo
siya at sinasalubong ako ngunit ang hawak kong baril ay pumutok at bumulagta
siya. Tumuloy ako sa kuwarto at hinanap
ko ang baril pero wala akong nakuhang baril. Hindi ko naman nabuksan ang lahat na cabinet kasi nga nagmamadali na ako
kasi may tao na sa paligid. Habang ako
ay naghahanap ng baril sa cabinet ay sa hindi ko inaasahan ay pumutok na naman
ang hawak kong baril, kaya ako ay lumabas na at ako ay dumaan sa gilid ng bakod
ni MORCO. Kinaumagahan ay pumunta ako
rito sa Maynila.
17. T: Balak mo ba talagang patayin ang babaing
iyon?
S: Wala talagang
balak kaming patayin ang babaing iyon. Parang hindi ko na alam ang nangyari kung bakit pumutok at tinamaan ang
babae.
18. T: Ano naman ang ginagawa ni JESSIE NIPAS
habang ikaw ay naghahanap ng baril sa loob ng kuwarto?
S: Naghahanap din
siya sa isang kuwarto.
19. T: Nag-usap pa ba kayo ni JESSIE habang
naghahanap kayo ng baril sa mga kuwarto?
S: Hindi na po.
20. T: Noong ikaw ay lumabas sa bahay na iyon,
kasama mo rin ba si JESSIE?
S: Hindi na kami
nagkita mula noon. Nagkita na lang kami
noong isang linggo sa may rotonda sa EDSA at Taft.
21. T: Ano naman ang nangyari kung mayroon man
noong magkita kayo ni JESSIE sa EDSA noong nakaraang linggo?
S: Sandali lang po
kaming nag-usap, tinanong ko lang kung saan siya nakatira rito.
22. T: Saan daw nakatira si JESSIE?
S: Sa Las Piñas daw
sa bahay ng kapatid niyang si DALISAY.
23. T: Mayroon ka bang nakuhang pera o alahas sa
bahay na inakyat ninyo doon sa Kalsada, Camalig noong a 30 ng Marso 1989?
S: Wala po akong nakuhang maski ano.
24. T: Si JESSIE NIPAS naman, may nakuha ba siyang
baril or pera o alahas?
S: Hindi ko
po alam. Pero noong tanungin ko siya noong
magkita kami sa Rotonda sa EDSA sinabi niyang wala raw siyang nakuha maski ano.
25. T: Sino ang may-ari ng baril na ginamit mo noong
pumasok kayo sa bahay na iyon?
S: Nabili ko lang
iyan noong 1985 sa isang tao na nakilala ko lang sa pangalang “BOY.”
Hindi ko na siya nakita mula noon.
26. T: Saan ngayon ang baril na ginamit mo?
S: Ibinigay ko po sa
mga NBI noong hapon ng Biyernes, Mayo 5, 1989.
27. T: Ikaw ba ay nagkaroon na ng kaso na kriminal?
S: Hindi pa po.
28. T: Sa record ng NBI may isang EFREN NIMO ang
nakahabla sa Municipal Trial Court ng Camalig sa salang Murder, alam mo ba
iyon?
S: Hindi ko po alam
iyan. Hindi ako iyon.
29. T: Sa ngayon wala na akong itatanong sa iyo,
mayroon ka pa bang gustong sasabihin sa pagtatanong na ito?
S: Wala na po.
– KATAPUSAN NG SALAYSAY –
(Lagda)
EFREN N. NIMO
(Nagsalaysay)
WITNESS:
(Lagda)
Atty. JESUS DELFIN
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of May, 1989, at
NBI, NCR, Manila.
(Sgd.)
SALVADOR R. RANIN
Regional Director”
After Nimo’s arrest, the gun, a .38 caliber “paltik”
revolver was recovered by the NBI agents. Nimo himself had told them that it was in his friend’s house in Sto.
Niño, Pasay City where he was temporarily staying. Nimo then accompanied the NBI agents to the one-room abode of
Neri Mendiola, a security guard. Upon
arriving there, they were met by a woman who turned out to be Neri Mendiola’s
wife. After she told them that Neri
Mendiola was still at work, the NBI agents told her that Nimo wanted to give them
the gun. So, she allowed them to enter
the house. When the NBI agents asked
Nimo where he kept the gun, he pointed to a small traveling bag. Upon the agents request, Mrs. Mendiola got
the bag and handed it to them.
They then asked Nimo to open the bag but it was locked. Nimo told them that he did not have a key to
open the bag. Mrs. Mendiola suggested
that since her husband had a key, they should all take the bag to Neri Mendiola
at his workplace. They went to Neri who
gave them the key. When Mrs. Mendiola
opened the bag, they found the gun inside.[8]
Consequently, on July 11, 1989, an information for robbery with
homicide was filed against Nimo and Nipas before the Regional Trial Court at
Legazpi City.[9]
It reads:
“That on or about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of March 30,
1989, at Calzada St., Municipality of Camalig, Province of Albay, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with intent to gain and with violence and intimidation of persons, and without
the consent of the owner, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously take and carry away the following articles, to wit:
1. Diamond ring – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – P 25,000.00
2. Ladies wrist watches – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 7,000.00
3. Pendants (2 pcs.) – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – 15,000.00
4. Earrings (2 pairs) – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – 1,000.00
5. Gold necklaces (3 pcs.) – – – – – – – – – – – – 3,000.00
6. Bracelet – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 350.00
7. 1
set of ring and earrings – – – – – – – – – – – 1,200.00
valued in the amount of P52,550.00 pesos,
owned and belonging to Priscilla de Jesus y Ortuoste, whose both hands were tied
by the accused at the back and the only companion in the house of victim DAISY
RONQUILLO, and, on the occasion of such robbery, with the use of a gun, and
with intent to kill, said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack, and shoot one DAISY RONQUILLO, inflicting upon her
gun shot wound, resulting to the latter’s death, to the damage and prejudice of
her legal heirs and to the damage and prejudice of Priscilla de Jesus y
Ortuoste in the amount of P52,550.00 pesos.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Jessie Nipas evaded the law and has since remained at large. Thus, only Nimo was arraigned on August 3,
1989 where he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
After the prosecution had presented evidence proving the facts
narrated above, Nimo presented evidence consisting mainly of denial and alibi.
Nimo testified that since birth until 1981, he has resided in
Barangay Gapo in Camalig, Albay. From
1982 to 1986, he stayed with his cousin and worked as a room cleaner at the
Sunny Hotel in Pasay City. When the
hotel ceased operations in 1986, he was forced to work as a helper in a welding
shop along Katipunan Road, Quezon City, staying all the time with his brother
in Project 8, also in Quezon City.
His retrenchment
from the welding shop on April 5, 1989 brought him back to Pasay City where he
sold cigarettes and newspapers. This
time, he stayed with his friend, Neri Mendiola, in Pasay City. From the time he left Albay in 1981, he had
visited the place only twice – in December 1987 and November 1989.
According to Nimo, he was selling newspapers and cigarettes on
May 5, 1989 when he was arrested by NBI operatives. He was brought to the NBI office in Manila where he was detained,
physically maltreated and harassed by NBI agents. On May 8, 1989, at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he was
taken from his cell inside the NBI building and brought to the office of
Assistant Director Salvador Ranin. The
latter told him that a lawyer by the name of Atty. Jesus Delfin wanted to help
him. Atty. Delfin told him to sign a
previously prepared document, which turned out to be the sworn statement, Exh.
A. Nimo claimed that he was not allowed to read the document and that he
affixed his signature thereon after he was assured that no further harm would
be inflicted on him.[10]
Jane Marcelo Nimo and Priscila Nimo, sister-in-law and mother,
respectively, of Nimo, corroborated his alibi. They testified in substance that Nimo was not in Camalig, Albay on March
30, 1989 and that he has visited the place only twice between 1982 and 1989.[11]
After trial or on January 29, 1990, the lower court[12]
rendered a decision finding Nimo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, in the highest interest of justice as the scales
of justice tilt heavily in favor of the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt,
judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Efren Nimo y Nodalo of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide, as charged and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua. He shall also indemnify the heirs of Daisy
Ronquillo in the sum of thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos and return to
Priscilla de Jesus y Ortuoste all the articles mentioned under item 1 to 7 of the
information or, in case of the impossibility to do so, their equivalent values
in the total aggregate sum of fifty two thousand, five hundred and fifty
(P52,550.00) pesos all in
Philippine currency – and to pay the costs.
Efren Nimo shall be given full credit for his detention pursuant to
Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Exh. ‘B,’ the .38 caliber paltic, is ordered confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the Government and immediately turned over, under
receipt, to the Commanding Officer, Albay PC Command at Camp Bagong Ibalon,
Legazpi City, for proper disposition in accordance with Art. 45 of the Revised
Penal Code.
With respect to
accused Jessie Nipas, send the records to the archive without prejudice to the
revival of the case upon apprehension of said accused, for which purpose let an
alias warrant for his arrest issue.
SO ORDERED.”
Efren Nimo now comes to this Court on appeal contending that the
trial court erred in: (a) finding that
Exh. B, the .38 caliber “paltik” revolver, was his own and was the same
gun used in killing Daisy Ronquillo, (b) finding that Priscilla de Jesus had
positively identified him as the killer of Daisy Ronquillo, (c) admitting his
extrajudicial confession which was taken by the NBI agents, and (d) convicting
him although his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Insofar as the .38 caliber “paltik” revolver is
concerned, we find that indeed the trial court committed a reversible error in
giving it weight in assessing the prosecution evidence. The gun had not been properly identified and
documented. In fact, NBI agent Arlis E.
Vela himself admitted in open court that the gun surrendered to them by the
appellant on May 5, 1989, was never subjected to a ballistic examination.[13]
Neither did Vela list down the serial number of the gun.[14]
It should be noted, however, that presentation in evidence of the firearm used
in killing Daisy Ronquillo is not indispensable to prove the appellant’s guilt,[15]
there being other proofs of his culpability.
Contrary to appellant’s contention, he was positively identified
by Priscilla de Jesus as one of the intruders who killed her friend. On the stand, Priscilla unflinchingly
pointed to appellant as the killer of her friend, Daisy.[16]
Appellant, however, impugns such positive identification by
referring to Priscilla’s April 25, 1989 sworn statement before the NBI where
she stated that she was “not sure” whether she could recognize the
culprits. On cross-examination,
Priscilla had testified:
“Q. Now, on that occasion, April 25, 1989 you
stated before the NBI Investigator that you did not recognize the men who
barged into your house, am I correct?
A. I remember I told them I
am not sure.
Q. In
fact you are not sure about the identity of those persons because you said that
one of them had a bonnet on his face?
A. I did not say that.
x x x x x x x x x.
Q. Now, I
am showing to you a xerox copy of the statement you gave before the NBI Office,
NCR Manila, is this the xerox copy of that statement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what made
you say that when you were questioned, ‘Q – Do you know those two guys x x x Do
you know the reason why they killed Daisy Ronquillo?’ your answer was ‘No,
sir’, what made you say so?
A. The way I understand the question they were
my acquaintance.
Q. And when the question was asked of you, ‘can
you recognize them if you could see them again?’ and your answer was ‘I am not
sure.’
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you mean?
A. Because I was still recuperating from shock of the tragedy. The incident happened March 30, 1989 and I
was investigated April 25, 1989, nearly three weeks.
Q. Now, when you were asked to identify who was the man who poked a gun at
your nape you pointed to the accused Efren Nimo, am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you could not be sure that he was the
one who poked that gun at you the morning of March 30, 1989?
A. I was not sure.
COURT
Q. Why are you sure now?
A I have fully recovered from the shock,
sir.”[17]
Far from demolishing the prosecution’s evidence on the
identification of the appellant, said testimony erased any lingering doubt that
Priscilla had indeed positively identified him. Human memory may be temporarily paralyzed by a startling event,
especially if the same involves a person close to the witness. Eventually, however, as the witness recovers
from the trauma, memory regains its clarity. This explains the experience of Priscilla. Awakened rudely by a scream and the muffled gunshot, she rose to
find her friend bloody and sprawled on the kitchen floor. When first confronted with the culprit at
the NBI office, her memory balked, most probably from the effects of her
horrifying experience. However, at the
trial, composed as she had become, she unhesitatingly pinpointed Nimo as the
killer of Daisy.
Faced with a direct accusation, however, appellant never even
attempted to prove that Priscilla was motivated by ill-feelings as to falsely
impute to him the commission of such a serious crime. There is also the established fact that Priscilla, aside from a
fleeting glance of the appellant, got a close look at him four times more
during the incident. Worth quoting is
the portion of her testimony wherein Priscilla showed how she remembered
appellant:
“Q. Now,
when you saw Efren Nimo on March 30, 1989 that was the only time you saw him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the running of the
events of that morning, March 30, 1989 was very fast, am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you find difficulty
in identifying him because of the fast phase (sic)?
A. No, sir, because he kept
coming back to me.
Q. How many times did Efren
Nimo go back to you?
A. Four times. The longest was when he poked the gun at me.
Q. When he poked his gun he
was behind you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the fourth time?
A. The first time, sir.
Q. When was the second time
he went back to you?
A. When he asked for the
gun. He was asking for a gun and he was
asking the same question.
Q. When he was asking that
he was not in front of you?
A. At my side.
Q. You did not have any
frontal view of the accused whom you said was asking for three times the gun
from you?
A I had sir because he was
staying in the sala.”[18]
Testimony in print is no substitute for the actual proceedings in
the trial court. Hence, time and again,
this Court has ruled that appellate courts will not disturb the factual
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies. Having the advantage
of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, the trial court’s
findings command great respect and consideration by the appellate courts,
especially if they are supported by the evidence on record.[19]
In the absence of proof of misapprehension of facts, this Court can do no less
than give weight to the trial court’s stamp of credibility on Priscilla as a
witness and on her testimony positively identifying appellant as the killer of
Daisy Ronquillo. Such positive
identification of Nimo as the culprit completely demolished his alibi.[20]
That the prosecution had only one eyewitness hardly affects its
cause. There is no law which requires
that the testimony of a single witness needs corroboration except when the law
expressly mandates such corroboration. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. If credible and positive, the testimony of a single witness is
sufficient to convict.[21]
To bolster his allegation that his extrajudicial confession was
inadmissible, appellant recited a litany of alleged acts of maltreatment from
the NBI agents. As with the trial
court, this Court cannot give credence to such allegation. For one thing, no medical certificate had
been shown to prove that he did suffer inhuman treatment. Nor was there any proof that he even
initiated the filing of an administrative or criminal complaint against his
alleged tormentors. Neither did
appellant present any eyewitness to his torture. In short, his allegation, obviously self serving, hardly deserves
consideration. It bears emphasis that a
case is built, block by block, not out of unsubstantiated allegation but on
what has been proved. Thus unsupported,
appellant’s allegation of maltreatment remains what it is, that is, a mere
allegation, and nothing more.
Extrajudicial confessions, especially those which are adverse to
the declarant’s interests, are presumed voluntary, and in the absence of
conclusive evidence showing that the declarant’s consent in executing the same
has been vitiated, such confession shall be upheld.[22]
In the instant case, the allegation that the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible
is belied by these facts: (1) appellant
was assisted by counsel who later signed his sworn statement; and (2) before
appellant made his extrajudicial confession, he was first asked if he was
amenable to the services of counsel, which query he answered affirmatively.[23]
While we are morally convinced about the appellant’s culpability,
we are not in agreement with the trial court that he should be held liable for
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The original criminal design of a perpetrator of the special
complex crime defined in Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code must be
robbery. The homicide is perpetrated
with a view to the consummation of the robbery, whether by reason, or on the
occasion of, the robbery.[24]
In the case at bar, the intent to rob had been proven, not only
by the extrajudicial confession of appellant, but also by the testimony of
Priscilla that the two intruders kept on asking her for the gun which they
coveted. No such gun was taken from the
house of Daisy Ronquillo, but Priscilla lost pieces of jewelry. On this point, however, we entertain serious
doubts as to who took the jewelry.
However, the actual act of asportation by either or both of the
accused has not been proven by the prosecution, the records not disclosing any
evidence to this effect. Thus, in her
detailed testimony, Priscilla never once mentioned that she actually saw either
Nimo or Nipas or both of them carrying away anything from the house, much less
her jewelry. What is clear from the
records is that the intruders rummaged through the personal belongings of both
the victim and Priscilla in their effort to find the gun which they believed
was located somewhere in the house. It
was not even shown that they were successful in their attempt.
What is very disturbing is the fact that after realizing that her
friend was beyond revival, Priscilla left the victim’s house and stayed at a
neighbor’s house for approximately thirty (30) minutes while she awaited the
arrival of the police. During this
period of time, a number of people had converged around the house of the
victim.[25]
It is, therefore, quite probable that any of these spectators could have taken
advantage of the situation, entered the victim’s house and appropriated for himself
Priscilla’s jewelry. That Nimo and
Nipas did not take any jewelry from the victim’s house is further shown by
Nimo’s sworn statement admitting the shooting of Daisy while vehemently denying
having stolen anything from the house.
In People v. Pacala[26] wherein the accused were also charged
with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the Court considered
the following factors in determining the robbery aspect of the case: (1) that there were no eyewitnesses to the
alleged robbery, and (2) that none of the things allegedly stolen was ever
recovered. These considerations equally
apply to the case at bar, since no one actually saw either Nimo or Nipas take
jewelry from Priscilla’s room; nor was even a piece of jewelry recovered from
Nimo.
In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the element of robbery in the charge, appellant must be held
liable only for homicide. In the Pacala case aforecited, the Court said:
“It is well-settled that in order to sustain a conviction for
robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as
conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. In order for the crime of robbery with
homicide to exist, it is necessary that it be clearly established that a
robbery has actually taken place, and that, as a consequence or on the occasion
of such robbery, a homicide be committed. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing
of the victim would, therefore, be classified either as a simple homicide or
murder, depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance
and not the complex offense of robbery with homicide.”[27]
As the killing was
not qualified by any of the circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 of the Revised
Penal Code which would classify the felonious act as murder, Nimo should be
held responsible for homicide. The
aggravating circumstance of dwelling which was proven at the trial to have
attended the commission of the crime, should have been appreciated by the trial
court as an aggravating circumstance. Since the homicide was attended by one aggravating circumstance, the
imposable penalty should be the maximum period of reclusion temporal.[28]
There being no proof that appellant has been convicted of any of
the crimes enumerated in Sec. 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law so as to
disqualify him from the beneficial effects of the said law, Nimo should suffer
the indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum as minimum period to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal
maximum as maximum period. Conformably
with recent jurisprudence, he shall indemnify the heirs of Daisy Ronquillo in
the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos.
WHEREFORE, appellant Efren Nimo is hereby declared guilty
of the crime of homicide under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code. He shall suffer the indeterminate sentence
of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as the
minimum period to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum
as the maximum period, and indemnify the heirs of Daisy Ronquillo in the amount
of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.
[1]
According to the defense counsel, Daisy Ronquillo was the sister of Sheila
Ronquillo, ex-wife of Satur Ocampo (Rollo, p. 48).
[2]
TSN, August 29, 1989, p. 18.
[3]
Ibid, pp. 29-30.
[4]
Ibid, pp. 6-13.
[5]
TSN, August 31, 1989, pp. 26-27.
[6]
Ibid, pp. 4 and 32.
[7]
Exh. “A,” Records, pp. 52-54.
[8]
Ibid, pp. 21-24.
[9]
Criminal Case No. 4675.
[10]
TSN, January 4, 1990, pp. 2-6.
[11]
TSN, October 6, 1989, pp. 14-22; October 9, 1989, pp. 7-8.
[12]
Presided by Judge Gregorio A. Consulta.
[13]
TSN, August 31, 1989, p. 26.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
People v. Araja, L-24780, June 29, 1981, 105 SCRA 133, 147.
[16]
TSN, August 29, 1989, pp. 23-24.
[17]
Ibid, pp. 32-35.
[18]
Ibid, pp. 41-42.
[19]
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 77396, July 20, 1992, 211 SCRA 602.
[20]
People v. Bechayda, G.R. No. 72001, August 7, 1992, 212 SCRA 336.
[21]
People v. Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992, 209 SCRA 304, 315.
[22]
People v. Luvendino, G.R. No. 69971, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 36.
[23]
People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 84361, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 761.
[24]
People v. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991, 204 SCRA 627, 639
citing People v. Manalang, G.R. No. 67662, February 9, 1989, 172 SCRA
149.
[25]
TSN, August 29, 1989, pp. 12-13, 28.
[26]
L-26647, August 15, 1974, 58 SCRA 370.
[27]
Supra, pp. 377-378 with the Court citing U.S. v. Baguiao,
4 Phil. 110 (1905); U.S. v. Alasa-as, 40 Phil. 878 (1920); People v.
Cha and Milagrosa, 45 Phil. 137 (1923); People v. Barruga, 61 Phil. 318
(1935), and People v. Labita, 99 Phil. 1068. See: People v.
Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990, 185 SCRA 554, 569 citing People v.
Repuela, G.R. No. 85178, March 15, 1990, 183 SCRA 244, 250.
[28]
Arts. 248 & 64 (1), Revised Penal Code.