Case Digest (G.R. No. L-864)
Facts:
El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Mariano Patricio, G.R. No. L-864. September 16, 1947, the Supreme Court En Banc, Briones, M., writing for the Court. The prosecution (El Pueblo de Filipinas) charged Mariano Patricio (appellant/accused) and Jorge Ortilla with robbery with homicide for an incident on the night of May 16, 1945, in Campahoyan, Talisay, Batangas.At the trial before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia of Batangas the court found that about 11:00 p.m. two armed men forced entry into the Petate family hut, demanded the family's bull, and—after untying and leading the animal away—fired multiple shots toward Arcadio Petate and the house. Bonifacia Petate suffered a gunshot wound through the abdomen and died the next day. The trial court positively identified the assailants as Mariano Patricio and Jorge Ortilla, but Ortilla escaped custody; Patricio alone stood trial and was convicted of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to pay P2,000 to the heirs, and to pay costs.
The conviction rested largely on three prosecution witnesses who identified the accused: Roman Petate (father), Arcadio Petate (brother of the victim), and neighbor Zacarias Talatala. Their testimonies described opportunity to observe (light in the hut, proximity, prior acquaintance) and prompt reporting to municipal authorities. The defense advanced an alibi; it also attacked the credibility of identification and pointed to inconsistencies (hours of treatment and death, who accompanied the victim for treatment, and the fact that the bull was recovered the following morning near the scene).
The trial court rejected the defense, held that the robbery was consummated when the bull was untied and taken even though it was later abandoned and recovered, and concluded that while nocturnity was present it was not shown to be deliberately chosen to facilitate the crime. The Public Prosecutor urged additionally that an involuntary abortion charge might attach because the victim was pregnant, and argued for nocturnity and residence (morada) as aggravating circumstances.
Patricio appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Brio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the identification of the appellant by prosecution witnesses sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can the appellant be held liable for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code where the fatal shot cannot be shown to have been fired by a particular accused but occurred in the course of a jointly executed robbery?
- Was the robbery consummated despite the fact that the stolen animal was recovered the next morning, and do the facts support treating nocturnity and dwelling as aggravating circumstances?
- May the Court punish the accused for an additional offense of involuntary a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)