Facts:
On September 22, 2014, the Second Division of the Supreme Court resolved an appeal by
Bobby Torres @ Roberto Torres y Nava (appellant), in a criminal case that stemmed from a robbery with homicide committed on or about September 21, 2001 in the City of Manila. An Amended Information filed January 28, 2004 charged siblings
Reynaldo Torres,
Jay Torres,
Ronnie Torres, and appellant with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide against
Jaime M. Espino. The Information alleged that the accused, armed with bladed weapons and conspiring with an unidentified malefactor whose true name was unknown, blocked Espino’s car along
C.M. Recto Avenue corner Ylaya St., Tondo, forcibly grabbed Espino’s belt-bag, and, in the course of the robbery, attacked and stabbed Espino with bladed weapons in different parts of his body, inflicting multiple stab wounds that caused his death. It further alleged that after stabbing Espino, the accused divested him of a belt-bag, wallet, necklace, watch, and ring of undetermined value. Only appellant was arrested; Reynaldo, Jay, and Ronnie remained at large. Appellant pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses
Eduardo Umali (a butcher) and
Merlito Macapar (a cigarette vendor), and
Dr. Romeo T. Salen, who testified on the cause of death based on
Medico-Legal Report No. W-658-2001. The witnesses testified that at about 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001, Espino was driving along C.M. Recto Avenue in Divisoria when Ronnie blocked his path. Espino alighted and confronted Ronnie, who attempted to grab Espino’s belt-bag; a struggle ensued over the belt-bag. At that moment, appellant and the other brothers and an unidentified companion joined and brandished bladed weapons. Appellant and his companions took turns stabbing Espino at different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held Espino by the neck. When Espino fell to the ground, the group took Espino’s belt-bag, wallet, and jewelry, and they immediately fled. Dr. Salen concluded that Espino died from
multiple stab wounds caused by sharp-bladed instruments, noting that the number and measurements of wounds indicated there were
more than one assailant. To establish the civil aspect, Espino’s daughter
Winnie Espino-Fajardo testified on the value of stolen jewelry and the expenses for burial lot and funeral services, and that Espino was 51 years old and earning P3,000.00 a day as a meat vendor. Appellant denied participation and offered alibi, testifying that from 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001 until they fell asleep and stayed until the following morning, he was drinking with his girlfriend
Merlita Hilario and with
Marilou Garcia in Villaruel, Tayuman, Manila. He claimed he only learned later that policemen were looking for him because his brothers were involved in a death incident. Merlita and Marilou corroborated the alibi. Another defense witness,
Jorna Yabut-Torres (wife of Ronnie), presented a different account: while vendors were joking in Divisoria, a car stopped, the driver asked why they were laughing, Ronnie replied, the driver later returned and stabbed Ronnie on the wrist, Jay saw the assault and hacked the driver repeatedly, and Ronnie and Jay fled. A vegetable vendor,
Ditas Biescas-Mangilya, corroborated this version. In its December 5, 2006 Decision, the
Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 27 (RTC) acquitted appellant of
robbery and convicted him of
murder, finding the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength and concluding that the prosecution failed to prove indubitably that the original design was robbery, as required for
robbery with homicide. The RTC held that appellant could only be liable for the killing and also found conspiracy among the accused, awarding civil indemnity, moral and actual damages but denying loss of earning capacity for lack of documentary evidence. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals (CA), in its July 23, 2009 Decision, modified the RTC ruling and convicted appellant of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, holding that the primary intention was robbery and that the killing was incidental thereto. The CA affirmed the civil awards as to the RTC’s amounts. Appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court raised issues on whether the CA could modify the verdict to convict him for robbery with homicide despite his acquittal of robbery by the RTC, whether his appeal was limited so as to avoid double jeopardy, and whether his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether appellant, who was acquitted by the RTC of the robbery component, could be convicted on appeal of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide without violating the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy, and whether the evidence proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for robbery with homicide.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: