G.R. No. 178196 - People vs. Buduhan y Bullan

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178196)

Facts:

Background and charge

On 26 August 1998, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maddela, Quirino, docketed as Criminal Case No. 38-18, charging Robert Buduhan y Bullan, Rudy Buduhan y Bullan, Boy Guinhicna, Boyet Ginyang and three John Does with Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide for events on July 24, 1998 at RML Canteen, Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino.
The Information alleged that at about 10:40 p.m. the accused, four of them armed and after conspiring, robbed Romualde Almeron of his wallet and wristwatch and Larry Erese of his wristwatch, and that the accused then shot Romualde, Larry and Orlando Pascua resulting in their instantaneous deaths and injuries to Fernando Pera and Gilbert Cortez.

Pretrial motions, arraignment and stipulations

On 20 October 1998, the accused filed a Motion to Quash alleging lack of personal knowledge by arresting officers and asserting that warrantless arrests were illegal; the RTC denied the motion on 25 August 1999 as a matter of defense proper for trial.
On 12 January 2000, appellants Rudy Buduhan, Robert Buduhan and Boyet Ginyang pleaded "Not Guilty"; counsel informed the court of Boy Guinhicna's death and moved for dismissal as to him.
The parties stipulated at pre-trial that the incident occurred at about 10:40 p.m. on July 24, 1998 in Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino, and that no firearm had been confiscated from any of the accused.
On 14 February 2000, upon submission of Boy Guinhicna's Certificate of Death, the RTC dismissed the case against him.

Prosecution evidence and witnesses

Principal eyewitness: Cherry Rose Salazar (guest relations officer at RML Canteen) testified that at about 10:40 p.m. appellants' group entered the beerhouse; she identified Robert as wearing a white Giordano T-shirt, Rudy as wearing a red T-shirt, and two companions in blue (one with a black jacket).
Cherry Rose narrated that Robert poked a gun at Larry, a man in blue poked a gun at manager Romualde Almeron and announced a hold-up; Larry handed his wristwatch to Robert; immediately all four men fired, causing Larry and Romualde to fall; she hid and identified Robert and Rudy in court.
Police testimony (SPO1 Leo Saquing and SPO4 Alex Gumayagay): at about 11:00 p.m. they went to RML Canteen after a report of a shooting, encountered four men running about 50 meters from the scene, halted and brought them to the police station, and later witnesses positively pointed to Robert, Rudy, Boy Guinhicna and Boyet Ginyang as assailants.
Medical testimony (Dr. Fernando T. Melegrito): autopsy findings for Romualde, Larry and Orlando describing gunshot wounds penetrating thoracic structures and extracting slugs/pellets; Dr. Melegrito concluded proximity and frontal position of shooter for Romualde and detailed wounds for Larry and Orlando.
Loss and expenses evidence: Myrna Almeron (widow) produced a death certificate, claimed funeral and wake expenses and asserted loss of P50,000 from wallet though presented receipt only for P26,000; Laurentino Erese (father) presented a death certificate and a receipt for funeral services for P18,000 and claimed additional wake/anniversary expenses.

Defense evidence and witnesses

Appellant Robert testified to being at a boarding house the night of July 24, 1998; claimed he slept and was later awakened by Ginyang who said Rudy was involved in a fight; they went to search for Rudy, were stopped by policemen at a highway junction, given a ride to the municipal jail and detained; police later seized shirts and took paraffin tests.
Boyet Ginyang and Rudy testified similarly, narrating they fled the beerhouse scene upon hearing gunshots, were apprehended en route, detained, and later subjected to paraffin casting and chemical examination in Santiago City; three female witnesses did not identify them at jail according to their testimony.
Forensic chemist Police Inspector Ma. Leonora Chua-Camarao produced paraffin casts and Physical Science Report No. C-25-98 showing negative paraffin test results for all four accused and explained that paraffin tests are merely corroborative and may be affected by many factors (gloves, perspiration, wind, humidity, firearm characteristics).
Eyewitness Reynaldo Gumiho testified he had seen a group of five tall men wearing jackets in the beerhouse earlier and left before the shooting; he later learned of the incident two days afterwards.

Trial court disposition and sentence

In a Decision dated 24 July 2003, the RTC convicted Robert and Rudy: found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294, par. 1, RPC) with respect to deceased Larry Erese and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua.
The RTC also found them guilty of Homicide (Art. 249, RPC) with respect to deceased Romualde Almeron and sentenced each to indeterminate penalty of 12 years prision mayor (minimum) to 20 years reclusion temporal (maximum), with credit for preventive imprisonment.
The RTC acquitted Boyet Ginyang for insufficiency of proof and ordered his release.
The RTC awarded civil indemnity, exemplary damages, actual and temperate damages to the heirs of both victims in specified amounts (P50,000 civil indemnity; P25,000 exemplary; various actual/temperate amounts).

Appellate proceedings and Court of Appeals decision

Appellants filed Notice of Appeal on 1 August 2003; Supreme Court initially accepted appeal but on 5 October 2005 transferred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v. Mateo; case docketed CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01940.
On 29 December 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification: awarded additional moral damages of P50,000 to the heirs of Erese and P50,000 to the heirs of Almeron.
The Court of Appeals advised that its judgment could be appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 124, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Elevation to the Supreme Court and appellants' assignments of error

The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court; the People chose not to file a supplemental brief; appellants filed a supplemental brief.
Appellants raised three assignments of error: (1) the trial court gave complete credence to the prosecution's principal witness despite facts tainting her credibility; (2) the court disregarded the defense corroborated by the forensic chemist (negative paraffin test); (3) failure to directly rule on the Motion to Quash asserting illegal warrantless arrests and lack of personal knowledge by arresting officers.

Issues:

Credibility and sufficiency of identification testimony

Whether the trial court and appellate court erred in crediting Cherry Rose Salazar's in-court identification and testimony despite alleged inconsistencies in her prior statements that, appellants assert, impeach her credibility and render identification doubtful.

Weight and effect of forensic paraffin test and alibi evidence

Whether the negative paraffin test results and appellants' alibi and testimonial evidence were sufficient to raise reasonable doubt and overturn the convictions.

Legality of warrantless arrests and effect on evidence

Whether the warrantless arrests of the appellants were illegal for lack of personal knowledge by arresting officers and, if so, whether such illegality tainted testimonial evidence so as to render convictions infirm.

Proper classification of criminal liability and multiple convictions

Whether the appellants should be convicted separately of Homicide for Romualde Almeron in addition to Robbery with Homicide, or whether the killings must be treated solely as occurring on the occasion of the robbery under Robbery with Homicide.

Correct awards of civil and moral damages

Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly computed and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, actual/temperate damages and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victims in light of the evidence and applicable jurisprudence.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178196)
Concise

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178196)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178196) Concise

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178196)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178196)
Concise