A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217 - Decena vs. Malanyaon

The crime charged was Robbery with Homicide committed on or about July 29, 1991, in Quezon City.
The victim, Victor Peregrino y Birangke, a taxi driver, was fatally wounded by multiple stab and incised wounds during the commission of a robbery.
The medico-legal report prepared by Dr. Florante Baltazar detailed four wounds, including three stab wounds and one incised wound, which led to cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage.

According to the Information filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor, the accused, acting in concert, attacked the victim with a fan knife during a robbery to appropriate cash money.
The act was described as deliberate, violent, and with the intent to kill, with the victim sustaining injuries that directly caused his death.
Physical evidence included a blood-stained knife (recovered from Danilo Mercado) and the victim’s wallet containing his driver’s license (recovered from Elmer de Asis).

Taxi Driver Antonio Bautista witnessed the incident while eating at a restaurant near Quezon Avenue and Speaker Perez Streets. He observed two persons exiting the taxi and identified one as Danilo Mercado (taller, holding a knife) and the other as Elmer de Asis.
Taxi Driver Rogelio Miranda corroborated Bautista’s testimony, noting similar physical descriptions and the sequence of events, including the taxi’s abrupt stop and the subsequent commotion.

Tanod Rodrigo Austero testified to hearing shouts and witnessing a chase after the taxi stopped, which led to the apprehension of Danilo Mercado.
Tanod Mariano Perez testified to chasing and apprehending Elmer de Asis, recovering the victim’s wallet containing P350.00 and the driver’s license.

A bloodstained fan knife, recovered from Mercado’s possession upon arrest.
The victim’s wallet with identifying documents, recovered from Elmer de Asis after an extended chase.

The accused-appellants were apprehended shortly after the crime by local citizens and barangay tanods.
At trial, both accused-appellants pleaded “not guilty” and raised defenses based on a denial of participation, alibi claims, and allegations of being manhandled by barangay officials into admitting the crime.
The trial court, Branch 89 of Quezon City RTC, found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, convicting them under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
In their appeal, the accused raised several issues regarding procedural errors and the credibility of the witnesses, which are addressed separately in the subsequent sections.

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in not granting the motion for preliminary investigation by the accused-appellants.
The contention that the absence of a preliminary investigation voided the proceedings, despite the accused having pleaded not guilty without invoking this right.

Whether the prosecution’s reliance on witnesses (taxi drivers Bautista and Miranda) who were not initially listed as eyewitnesses constituted an error.
Whether the identification of the accused-appellants by these witnesses was reliable, considering the environmental conditions and the claim that they were “eleventh-hour witnesses.”

Whether the alleged irreconcilable inconsistencies in the witness testimonies could weaken the prosecution’s case and cast doubt on the guilt of the accused.
How the trial court should treat minor discrepancies in the details of testimonies in the overall evaluation of credibility.

Whether the presence of the accused-appellants near the incident’s scene, as explained by the defense, could serve as a sufficient vindication or exoneration.
The significance of the physical evidence (knife and wallet) found in the immediate aftermath compared to the defense’s explanation.

Whether the failure of accused-appellant Elmer de Asis to corroborate Danilo Mercado’s account regarding being mauled en route to Sta. Teresita Hospital should be taken against the defense.
How the absence of this testimony factors into the overall strength of the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence.