Case Digest (G.R. No. 204990)
Facts:
Ramon Amparo y Ibanez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204990, February 22, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Information for robbery was filed against petitioners Ahmed Alcubar y Sabiron, Roberto Guarino y Capnao, Juanito Salmeo y Jacob, and Ramon Amparo y Ibanez for an incident on April 26, 2007 aboard a jeepney in Manila. The Information alleged that the four conspired and, armed with bladed weapons, robbed the victim, Raymond G. Ignacio, of a mobile phone. The accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
At trial Ignacio testified that two men boarded his jeepney, one pointed a knife and announced a holdup, and that he was forced to surrender his belongings; he heard a gunshot, saw knives dropped on the bench, and later identified the four accused as those arrested at the scene. SPO3 Renato Perez testified he observed the commotion, fired a warning shot, arrested Alcubar, had the other passengers identify the remaining suspects, and recovered bladed weapons from Guarino, Salmeo, and Amparo upon frisking them. Petitioner Amparo claimed he was elsewhere working as a parking attendant and only saw Ignacio for the first time at the police station.
On March 3, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Manila, found the accused guilty of robbery in band and sentenced them under an indeterminate term (dispositive quoted in the record). All the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (Seventh Division), dismissed the appeal on January 31, 2012, finding that Amparo was “caught red-handed” with a weapon and that the evidence established a common unlawful purpose. Amparo's motion for reconsideration was denied by CA resolution on November 29, 2012.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court challenging his conviction principally on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his active participation and that no competent witness identified the recovery of the knife from him. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed, arguing conspiracy and common purpose could be inferred from the circumsta...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band?
- Was the penalty imposed by the trial court proper and, in light of sentence adjustments, is petitioner entitled to im...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)