PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICKY GALIT Y ADAMERO, INTOY LUCINDO Y REBADULLA, MARLON GALIT Y ADAMERO, AND RAQUEL TAGALOG Y ROTAMULLA, ACCUSED, INTOY LUCIN…

On October 15, 1990, an information for robbery with homicide
(Criminal Case No. 90-88018) was filed against accused Ricky Galit y Adamero,
Intoy Lucindo y Rebadulla, Marlon Galit y Adamero, and Raquel Tagalog y
Rotamulla before the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region,
Branch 47, Manila, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about October 8, 1990, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and helping
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person, to wit: by then and there suddenly entering VIRGIE’s
STORE, owned by AVELINO MATULAC y
TRINIDAD, announcing it was a hold-up, take, rob and carry away cash money
amounting to P45,000.00, Philippine Currency; That on the occasion of the
commission of the crime of robbery and by reason thereof, the herein accused,
in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence
upon the said AVELINO MATULAC y TRINIDAD, owner of the said store, by then and
there stabbing him on the chest with a bladed weapon, and as a result thereof,
he sustained a mortal/stab wound which was the direct and immediate cause of
his death.

“Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 8).

After trial, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and likewise ordered
to indemnify the heirs of Matulac the sum of P103,168.80 for actual damages,
and P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, the trial court suspended the sentence with respect to Raquel
Tagalog and Ricky Galit on the ground of minority pursuant to Article 189 of
P.D. 603. The dis­positive portion of
the trial court’s decision dated January 11, 1991 reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused
Ricky Galit y Adamero, Intoy Lucindo y Rebadulla, Marlon Galit y Adamero and
Raquel Tagalog y Rotamulla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide charged in the Information and hereby sentences them to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, and all the accessories
provided for by law. They are further
ordered to pay jointly and severally the costs of this suit and to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the victim Avelino Matulac the sum of
P103,168.80, Philippine Currency for actual damages, and the further sum of
P50,000.00, Philippine Currency as moral damages. The sum of P900.00 recovered from the accused by police
authorities are hereby ordered returned to Mrs. Virginia Matulac, the widow of
the victim Avelino Matulac.

“However, accused Raquel Tagalog y Rotamulla and Ricky Galit y
Adamero having been found to be youthful offenders as defined in Art. 189 of PD
603, are entitled, to the mind of the Court, to the suspension of their
sentence. Considering the reports of the Social Worker of this Court
that the herein minors appear to have no confirmed delin­quent tendencies, are
first offenders and respon­sive to constitutional lifestyle that could enhance
their inner growth, perhaps, giving them a chance to undergo treatment program
while under suspended sentence would redound to their future betterment, this
Court hereby orders their commitment to the care and custody of Mrs. Florcelia
Rosas, Officer In-Charge of the National Training School for Boys, Camp
Capinpin, Tanay, Rizal for rehabilitation until they shall have reached twenty-one
(21) years of age or for a period as the Court may deem prop­er. Said Head Social Worker is directed to submit to the Court every four
(4) months a written report on the conduct of said youthful offenders as well
as the intellectual, physical, moral, social and emotional progress made by the
accused, conformable with Art. 195 of PD 603 and to recommend to the Court,
before the accused reach the age of majority whether this case against them
should be discharged or the accused shall suffer the imposable penalty as
hereinabove indicated.

“SO ORDERED.”

Claiming innocence, accused-appellants Marlon Galit and Intoy
Lucindo now interpose this appeal.

The facts of the case as summarized in the People’s Brief are as
follows:

“On October 8, 1990, at about 7:45 p.m., Avelino Matulac was
watching television inside his grocery store – Virgie’s Mini-Grocery – located
at 826 Matimyas St., Sampaloc, Manila, with sales­ladies, Josefina Lucena and
Anita Andales (TSN., October 31, 1990, pp. 14, 33).

“At that time four men, later identified as appellants Ricky
Galit, Intoy Lucindo, Marlon Galit and Raquel Tagalog, approached the grocery
store. Marlon Galit and Tagalog posted
themselves at the entrance. Ricky Galit
and Lucindo entered the store and announced a hold-up. Ricky Galit approached Lucena and boxed her
twice on the stomach while Lucindo threatened Matulac with a knife. Matulac did not resist and offered them
everything that they wanted, while Andales panicked and hid inside the comfort
room (TSN., October 31, 1990, pp. 13-15; 32-39).

“In the course of the hold-up Lucindo stabbed Matulac. Lucena panicked and ran outside the gro­cery store towards a nearby
beauty parlor also owned by Matulac. Raquel Tagalog, who stayed outside as a lookout, chased her but failed
to catch up with her (TSN., October 31, 1990, pp. 16-17).

“Andales, hearing Matulac’s cries for help – ‘May saksak ako,
may saksak ako, tulungan ninyo ako’ – came out of the comfort room and saw the
bloodied Matulac. Ricky Galit and
Lucindo then scooped up about FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P45,000.00) from the
cash box and fled. Andales shouted for
help and together with an employee of the beauty parlor, they rushed Matulac to
the University of Sto. Tomas Hospital (USTH) where he later expired (TSN.,
October 31, 1990, pp. 13-20; 32-39) because of:

‘Penetrating stab wound, epigas­trium, piercing the right lobe of
the liver, diaphragm and inferior vena cava.’

(Exhibit “A”, TSN., October 24, 1990, p. 6)

“During the incident, the cries for help of the victims did
not go unnoticed. Raul P. Salvatierra,
a Barangay Tanod of Barangay 525, Zone 52, was with friends near the crime
scene when they heard the cries for help and saw a man with a knife (Tagalog)
running past them. Salvatierra and two
(2) companions gave chase. They caught
up with Tagalog and subdued him after a brief struggle. Salvatierra turned Tagalog over to a
policeman. He was later transferred to
Precinct 4 of the Western Police District (TSN., November 8, 1990; pp. 6, 9,
13).

“During the investigation at Precinct 4, WPD, Tagalog
identified his companions as his co-appellants herein and led the police to
their hideout somewhere in Camachile, Quezon City. The police, however, failed to find his companions there. Tagalog then led the police to the house of
one Reynaldo Villanueva at Joan of Arc, Gulod, Novaliches where the Galit
brothers and Lucindo were arrested. The
police recovered from them four (4) knives and NINE HUNDRED PESOS (P900.00)
cash in different denominations (TSN., November 7, 1990, pp. 7-15).

The defense presents a different version: Appellants allege that no robbery was
committed. The stabbing of the victim
was admitted by accused-appellant Intoy Lucindo, but the other three (3)
accused denied participation therein. Accordingly, on October 8, 1990, Lucindo and the three (3) other accused
were at the house of Reynaldo Villanueva in Joan of Arc, Gulod, Novaliches,
Quezon City. The latter employed
accused-appellants as vendors in his barbecue business. At around twelve noon, while preparing the
barbecue to be sold that afternoon, the four (4) of them got to talking about
how to earn more. They agreed that in
order to have more income, it was best that they have their own capital to start
their own barbecue business. Thus, they
decided to secure a loan from a certain Cion Capoquiam, who lived in Espana,
Manila, which was near the scene of the crime.

They sold barbecue at their respective stands from three o’clock
to six o’clock that day. After work,
the four of them met at the Welcome Rotonda and proceeded to the residence of
Capoquiam. On their way to Capoquiam’s
place, they passed by the Virgie’s Mini-Grocery Store, for snacks. It was around seven o’clock in the
evening. The group ordered some bread
and softdrinks. Lucindo ate inside the
store while his three (3) companions remained outside the store. They paid their bill to Matulac but
according to Lucindo, the change the former handed to him was short. Lucindo complained to Matulac and an
altercation ensued. According to
Lucindo, Matulac’s loud voice put him to shame and he lost control of his
temper. He stabbed Matulac once with a
kitchen knife which he allegedly found in the store. Lucindo claims he threw the knife while he ran away from the
scene of the crime (TSN, November 9, 1990, pp. 51-52). His three (3) companions scampered to
different directions while Lucindo proceeded to Camachile, Quezon City. At around eight o’clock that evening, the police arrived at Lucindo’s
hideout and apprehended Lucindo (TSN, November 9, 1990, pp. 6-25) in Camachile.

Accused Raquel Tagalog corroborated the testimony of Lucindo on
all points, except that according to Tagalog, after they took their snacks, he
and Marlon Galit walked across the street, about twenty-five (25) meters away
from the store of Matulac, while Lucindo and Ricky Galit remained at the
store. Later, he saw Lucindo running,
passing near the place where he stood with Marlon Galit. Lucindo was holding a knife and shouted at
them: “Tumakbo na kayo” (TSN,
November 26, 1990, pp. 11-13). Whereupon, Tagalog ran towards the direction of the Welcome
Rotonda. He was chased and subsequently
apprehended by the Barangay Tanod and the police. He denied being in possession of a knife, as alleged by the
prosecution. He also denied that he
chased salesgirl Lucena when the latter sought refuge at the nearby beauty
parlor of the victim’s wife.

Accused Ricky Galit also corroborated the testimonies of Intoy
Lucindo and Raquel Tagalog. He
testified that while they were eating their snacks, he told Lucindo that
Matulac was a very cruel person. He
recounted to Lucindo how Matulac had dropped a case of beer on his head when he
was still employed at Matulac’s store. After the snack, he, together with his brother Marlon and Tagalog,
crossed the street while Lucindo went inside the store of Matulac. His narration regarding the flight of
Lucindo tallied with the version of the other accused-appellants.

Marlon Galit’s testimony also corroborated the testimonies of the
other accused-appellants on all points, save for that portion where he
testified that after eating their snacks, he and Raquel Tagalog crossed the
street (Marlon Galit did not mention his brother, Ricky).

Reynaldo Villanueva, witness for the defense, testified that the
Galit brothers were in his house at Joan of Arc, Gulod, Novaliches, in the
evening of October 8, 1990. At around
nine o’clock that evening, the police arrived at the aforementioned residence
and arrested Villanueva and the Galit brothers. They searched the house and found cash amounting to nine hundred
pesos (P900.00), as well as three (3) kitchen knives. The three men, together with Lucindo and Tagalog, were
subsequently brought to Station 4 of the Manila Police, where several members
of the media, and two women, who later turned out to be salesgirls at the
Virgie’s Store, were waiting. The
accused-appellants, together with Villanueva, were presented to the media and
to the two women. The police asked the
women to point to the persons who announced the “hold-up”, and who
stabbed Matulac. The women, whose hands
were held by the police, pointed to Lucindo as the one who stabbed Matulac, and
Ricky Galit as the one who entered the store. The following day, Villanue­va and the accused-appellants were transferred
to the Homi­cide Section of the Western Police District (TSN., November 8,
1990, pp. 39-67).

All four accused were found guilty, hence, this appeal, ascribing
to the trial court the following errors:

“I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE CRIME REPORT
(EXH. ‘D’) AS SOLE BASIS OF CONVICTION, HENCE, SAID COURT HAS COMMIT­TED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION;

“II. THE COURT BELOW LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLD­ING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED AMONG
THE ACCUSED IN THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AS CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION;

“III. THE TRIAL COURT ALSO ERRED IN
CONCLUD­ING THAT ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION WAS
COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED;

“IV. THE TRIAL JUDGE FURTHER ERRED IN
NOT HOLDING THAT ACCUSED INTOY LUCINDO Y REBADULLA STABBED AVELINO MATULAC IN
DEFENSE OF SAID ACCUSED’S HONOR;

“V. THAT FINALLY THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN FINDING ACCUSED RICKY GALIT Y ADAMERO, INTOY LUCIN­DO Y REBADULLA, MARLON GALIT
Y ADAMERO, AND RAQUEL TAGALOG Y ROTAMULLA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.”

(Rollo, p. 54, Brief of
Accused-Appellants).

It is significant to note that while only two of the four
convicted accused, namely: Marlon Galit
and Intoy Lucindo filed a notice of appeal (Rollo, p. 34), the Brief of
accused-appellants filed by counsel (Rollo, p. 54) argued on behalf of all the
four accused-appellants and prays for the acquittal of “all the
accused”.

We find the first assignment of error questioning the validity of
the trial court’s decision convicting the herein accused-appellants, allegedly
solely on the basis of the crime report and post-mortem examination, without
merit. The trial court’s decision was
not based solely on the said documents. The trial court took into consideration the facts as narrated in the
Crime Report as well as the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Josefina
Lucena y Liwag, Anita Andales y Barrio, Ludy Neric and Raul P. Salvatierra,
which testimonies confirmed the veracity of the aforemen­tioned crime report
(Decision dated January 11, 1991, p. 8). The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
credible.

It is well-settled that the trial court is the best judge of whether or not a witness is credible. Its find­ings on the credibility of a
witness are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal unless some facts or circumstances were overlooked that will affect the
outcome of the case (People vs. Moreno, 208 SCRA 86 [1992]). In the case at bar, We do not find any
circumstance which was overlooked in the appreciation of the facts. More than that, the trial court’s decision
was reached after accused-appellant Lucindo admitted during the direct
examination in open court that he had indeed stabbed victim Matulac, thus:

“Q Going back to you, you said you lost your temper, what transpired next,
Mr. witness?

“A I stabbed him.

“Q How many times, Mr. witness?

“A Only once, sir.” (TSN, November 9, 1990, p. 23).

Anent the assailed finding of conspiracy by the trial court, we
see no cogent reason to overturn the same. A conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. Proof of previous agreement to commit a
crime is not essential to establish conspiracy. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused. The conduct of the accused-appellants
before, during and after the commission of the crime may be considered to show
the existence of conspiracy. It is
sufficient that the accused be shown to have acted in concert pursuant to the
same objectives. And where a conspira­cy
is proven, a showing as to who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal wound
is not required to sustain a conviction (People vs. Pinzon, 206 SCRA 93 [1992];
citing People vs. Abueg, 145 SCRA 622; People vs. Cabiltes, 25 SCRA 112; People
vs. Tala, 141 SCRA 240).

The acts of the accused clearly established conspiracy among
them. Thus, they were together in going
to the store of the victim that evening. Intoy Lucindo and Ricky Galit entered the store, while Marlon Galit and
Raquel Tagalog acted as look-outs (by posting themselves at the entrance). Inside the store, Ricky Galit boxed
salesgirl Lucena, to prevent her from giving aid to Matulac, who was then being
subdued by Lucindo. As Lucena ran to
the beauty parlor nearby, Tagalog chased her. After Lucindo had stabbed the victim, and Ricky Galit had scooped the
money from the cash box, both ran out to the street and shouted at Marlon Galit
and Tagalog to run away. All four of
them ran in different directions. The
fact that accused Ricky Galit, Marlon Galit and Raquel Tagalog ran away from
the scene of the crime together with Intoy Lucindo the assailant, even though
they did not stab the victim, is indicative of their conspiracy and guilt. Flight is indicative of guilt. Such behavior cannot be anything but
positive and convincing evidence of their consciousness of guilt (People vs. Lorenzo,
200 SCRA 207 [1991]). Upon apprehension
of Lucindo and the Galit brothers at the residence of Reynaldo Villanueva, nine
hundred pesos (P900.00), part of the loot, and three (3) kitchen knives, were
recovered from them.

Appellant Lucindo attempts to extricate himself from criminal
liability by invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense. This argument is untenable.

There is no criminal liability when a person acts in defense of
his person or rights, provided the following circumstances are present: 1) unlawful aggression; 2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; 3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself (Art. II, par. 1,
R.P.C.). The foremost requirement of
self-defense in order to be appreciated is unlawful aggression which is a
sudden, unprovoked attack against the person defending himself. The person attacked must face a real threat
to his life, safety or rights and the peril must be imminent or actual. If no unlawful aggression attributable to the victim is established, there
can be no self-defense, either complete or incomplete (People vs. Ganut, 118
SCRA 35 [1982]). In the case at bar,
there was no actual or imminent assault on appellant Lucindo by the
victim. The victim was not even
armed. All that the victim did was to
raise his voice during the altercation with appellant Lucindo which, accord­ing
to the said appellant, put him to shame. There was no unlawful aggression whatsoever on the part of the
victim. Unlawful aggression presupposes
an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof and not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude (People vs. Rey, 172 SCRA 149
[1989]).

With respect to the suspension of the sentence of accused Raquel Tagalog and Ricky
Galit who are said to be youthful offenders, pursuant to Article 189 of P.D.
603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), we find the same to be erroneous.

As aforesaid, however, accused Ricky Galit and Raquel Tagalog did
not appeal from the judgment of the trial court. Neither did the People question the suspension of their
sentence. The benefits of suspension of
sentence are not available where the youthful offender has been convicted of an
offense punishable by life imprisonment or death. The last paragraph of section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1210,
which amended certain provisions of P.D. 603, provides:

“The benefits of this article shall not apply
to a youthful offender who has once enjoyed
suspension of sentence under its provisions or to one who
is convicted of an offense punishable
by death or life imprisonment or to one who
is convicted for an offense by the Military Tribunals.” (Par. 4, Sec. 2,
P.D. No. 1179, as amended by P.D. No. 1210; underscoring supplied)

The offense charged in this case, Robbery with Homicide, is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death (Art.
294(1), R.P.C.). As a matter of fact,
the herein appellants were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the suspension of sentence as
provided under Art. 192 of P.D. 603, as amended, does not apply to accused Raquel
Tagalog and Ricky Galit.

Nonetheless, considering that the decision against accused Ricky
Galit and Raquel Tagalog had become final, this Court can no longer alter the
judgment rendered by the trial court however erroneous it may have been. This Court has no jurisdiction to pass
judgment on an accused who did not appeal the sentence of conviction imposed by
the trial court (People v. Medrano, 122 SCRA 586 [1983]).

This brings us to the manifestation dated April 17, 1993 filed by
counsel for accused Ricky Galit praying for his release from the National
Training School for Boys (NTSB) as recommended in the Final Report submitted by
the Senior Officer of the NTSB on the ground that Ricky Galit had com­plied
with the conditions of his rehabilitation.

In his Comment dated October 15, 1993, the Solicitor General
interposed no objection to the final release of Ricky Galit from the custody of
the NTSB, DSWD, Tanay, Rizal, provided accused Galit’s civil liability is not
extinguished as provided in Articles 198 and 201 of the Child and Youth Welfare
Code.

Be that as it may, it is not the responsibility of this Court to
order the release of accused Ricky Galit without the benefit of a review of the
recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare by the trial court. Art. 196 of PD 603 provides:

“Art. 196. Dismissal
of the case. – If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the
youthful offender whose sentence has been suspended, has behaved properly and has
shown his capability to be a useful member of the community, even before
reaching the age of majority, upon recommendation of the Department of Social
Welfare, it shall dismiss the case and order his final discharge.”

It is therefore clear that in cases where the DSWD recommends the
discharge of a youthful offender, it is the trial court before whom the report
and recommendation is subject to judicial review. Recommendation alone is not sufficient to warrant the release of
a youthful offender. In reviewing the
DSWD’s recommendation, the trial judge must not base his judgment on mere
conclusions but should seek out concrete, material and relevant facts to
confirm that the youthful offender has indeed been reformed and is ready to
re-enter society as a productive and law-abiding citizen.

Caution, however, is given to the trial court. To begin with, the youthful offender is not
to be tried anew for the same act for which he was charged. The inquiry is not a criminal prosecution
but is rather limited to the determination of the offender’s proper education
and rehabilitation during his commitment in the Training Center and his moral
and social fitness to re-join the community.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with respect to
accused/appellants Marlon Galit and Intoy Lucindo. In view of the favorable recommendation for the release of
accused Ricky Galit by the Senior Social Welfare Officer of the NTSB, DSWD,
Tanay, Rizal, the court a quo is hereby directed to review the
same and to pronounce judgment thereon as it may deem proper under the
circumstances without prejudice to any civil liabilities accused Ricky Galit
may have incurred by reason of his conviction.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.