Case Digest (G.R. No. 195243)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Raul Beriber y Fuentes @ Jerry Fuentes y Ignacio @ Gerry Beriber @ Bong @ Raul Fuentes, G.R. No. 195243, August 29, 2012, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The respondent-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the appellant (convict) is Raul Beriber y Fuentes (alias set as in the caption).On March 22, 2001 a Second Amended Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City (Criminal Case No. 12621‑SP (00)) charging appellant with Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294, Revised Penal Code) for the October 3, 2000 killing of Ma. Lourdes Vergara and the alleged taking of P2,000.00 from the Vergaras’ house. Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on April 17, 2001. Trial ensued where the prosecution presented six witnesses and documentary evidence including a necropsy report; the defense waived cross‑examination (except for the medico‑legal witness) and declined to present evidence or a memorandum.
The RTC initially rendered judgment on October 22, 2001 convicting appellant and imposing the death penalty with damages awarded. The case went on automatic review to the Supreme Court, which in G.R. No. 151198 (June 8, 2004) set aside the RTC Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, following renewed hearings in which appellant again refused to present evidence and reiterated his waiver when placed on the stand, the RTC on July 7, 2005 convicted appellant of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua (applying Art. 63(2), RPC) and awarded damages.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 01623 affirmed the RTC judgment with modification of the damages in a Decision dated July 9, 2010. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court (he “filed his Appeal with us”); both parties d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery with Homicide based on the circumstantial evidence presented?
- Was the element of robbery (the unlawful taking with animus lucrandi) sufficiently established under the evidence to sustain the co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)