Case Digest (G.R. No. 259511)
Facts:
Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 259511, October 11, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol was charged by Information dated June 4, 2015 with robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code for an incident that occurred on or before May 31, 2015 at the house of private complainant Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza in Pagadian City. The Information alleged forcible entry (breaking of a kitchen side wall and removal of a window pane) and enumerated numerous items taken, valued in the aggregate at PhP325,300.00.
The prosecution's story was that petitioner, a hired errand boy/attendant treated as family by Dr. Espinoza, was seen ill-at-ease after the complainant returned from Manila and discovered the burglary. Petitioner's aunt and brother located him in his rented room where several recovered items were found; petitioner allegedly returned some items to the complainant and later accompanied relatives to the police station to surrender. A police inventory of recovered property, signed by petitioner and his aunt, was made. Petitioner presented no evidence at trial.
Branch 20, RTC, Pagadian City convicted petitioner on April 27, 2018, relying on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption in Section 3(j), Rule 131 (person found in possession of recently taken thing is the taker), and sentenced him to an indeterminate term (as expressed in the trial court's fallo) and ordered indemnity of PhP325,000.00. The RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in a Decision dated February 24, 2021, affirmed guilt but modified the penalty downward; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied in a Resolution dated November 5, 2021. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court. The CA had held petitioner voluntarily surrendered (not illegally arrested) and that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable because items were either returned by petitioner or recovered with his consent.
Issues:
- Did the petition under Rule 45 properly raise substantial questions warranting this Court's reexamination of factual findings?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code?
- Was the RTC's award of civil indemnity of PhP325,000.00 proper despite restitution/recovery of the stolen items?
- Was the penalty imposed by the lower courts correct in light of RA No. 10951 and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)