G.R. No. L-29993 - Torio vs. Fontanilla

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29993)

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 139, Makati City, rendered a decision on December 9, 2004 convicting appellant of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision by its April 23, 2007 decision (with modification on penalty). Appellant filed a petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rendered judgment, setting aside the Court of Appeals decision in part and convicting appellant instead of Grave Coercion (Article 286), imposing an indeterminate sentence and ordering restitution or payment for the necklace.

Factual Background as Found by the Prosecution

On June 7, 1999 at about 2:00 p.m., Nelia, accompanied by Maria and Veronica, boarded a tricycle bound for Pembo, Makati City. At Ambel Street, appellant and his brother Edwin allegedly blocked the tricycle, threatened the occupants, caused the tricycle driver to leave, shouted invectives and threats at Nelia, and appellant allegedly grabbed Nelia’s 18K gold necklace (with crucifix) valued at P3,500, kicked the tricycle and departed. Nelia and companions reported the incident to barangay and police authorities and submitted a medico-legal report nine days later.

Defense Version and Supporting Testimony

Appellant denied the robbery and asserted the accusation was fabricated due to a long-standing family and rental dispute: appellant and family had rented part of Nelia’s house; Nelia allegedly is appellant’s godmother; there had been prior complaints filed by Nelia’s family (maltreatment, grave threats, light threats) that were dismissed or resulted in acquittal. Defense witnesses Darius PacaAa and Thelma Vuesa testified to a different sequence suggesting Nelia and companions went to appellant’s house and that an encounter ensued; the defense maintained appellant was being harassed and that hostile relations explained the confrontation.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant raised four principal issues: (1) whether he was validly arraigned; (2) whether he was denied due process by being represented initially by a person who “seems not a lawyer”; (3) whether appellant actually committed the charged crime; and (4) whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Arraignment and Right to Counsel — Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court reviewed the claim that appellant was denied due process because his initial counsel was not a member of the bar. The record showed the initial counsel withdrew her appearance with appellant’s conformity on July 28, 2000 and the RTC approved the withdrawal on August 4, 2000. Thereafter the Public Defender, a member of the bar, represented appellant during the material stages of trial, including presentation of evidence. Citing People v. Elesterio, the Court concluded that later effective representation by a licensed member of the bar cured any defect and appellant could not now successfully complain of denial of due process on counsel grounds.

Elements of Robbery and Court’s Determination on Animus Lucrandi

The Court recited the elements of robbery under Articles 293 and 294(5): (1) taking of personal property; (2) property belonging to another; (3) animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (4) taking by violence against or intimidation of persons or by force upon things. The Court acknowledged the presumption that animus lucrandi may be inferred from furtive taking of useful property but found that, on the particular facts, animus lucrandi was not convincingly established. The Court emphasized the pre-existing, bitter relations and prior litigation between appellant’s family and Nelia’s family, concluding that the taking — if it occurred as alleged — was not necessarily animated by intent to gain but arose in the context of hostile relations and mutual antagonism. Because intent to gain is an essential element of robbery, the Court held robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Application of the Variance Doctrine and Conviction for Grave Coercion

Recognizing a variance between the offense charged (robbery) and the offense the evidence proved, the Court applied the Rule 120 doctrine that permits conviction for an offense necessarily included in the offense charged when the elements of one form part of the other. The Court concluded that Grave Coercion (Article 286) — which criminalizes preventing another from doing something not prohibited by law or compelling another to act against his will by means of violence, threats, or intimidation — was necessarily included in the charged offense because violence and intimidation were proven. The distinction between robbery and coercion rests on the offender’s intent (animus lucrandi for robbery versus a coercive motive without intent to gain). Given the proven threats, invectives, driving away the driver, and kicking of the tricycle, the Court fo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29993)

Procedural History

Petition to the Supreme Court arises from the Court of Appeals Decision of April 23, 2007, which affirmed the December 9, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 139, convicting Pedro C. Consulta (appellant) of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons.
Appellant filed the present petition to the Supreme Court following the appellate affirmation.
The Court of Appeals Decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Lucas P. Bersamin. [1]
The Supreme Court rendered a decision reversing the robbery conviction and instead convicting appellant of Grave Coercion, with an accompanying sentence and orders.

Accusatory Portion of the Information (Charge)

The Information alleged that on or about June 7, 1999, in Makati City, appellant, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took complainant Nelia R. Silvestre’s 18K gold necklace with a crucifix pendant, worth P3,500.00, contrary to law.
The accusatory paragraph expressly charged Robbery with Intimidation of Persons, citing intent to gain and the use of force, violence and intimidation. (Emphasis in the original, underscoring supplied) [Records, p. 1]

Facts as Presented by the Prosecution

On June 7, 1999, at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, complainant Nelia R. Silvestre (Nelia) together with Maria Viovicente (Maria) and Veronica Amar (Veronica) boarded a tricycle bound for Pembo, Makati City.
Upon reaching Ambel Street, appellant and his brother Edwin Consulta blocked the tricycle; under their threats the driver alighted and left, leaving the passengers.
Appellant and Edwin shouted invectives at Nelia, including statements in Tagalog such as: “Putang ina mong matanda ka, walanghiya ka, kapal ng mukha mo, papatayin ka namin,” and appellant additionally said, “Putang ina kang matanda ka, wala kang kadala dala, sinabihan na kita na kahit saan kita matiempuhan, papatayin kita.”
Appellant grabbed Nelia’s 18K gold necklace with a crucifix pendant, which an “alajera” in the province characterized as 18k gold and which was valued at P3,500.00.
Appellant kicked the tricycle and left while shouting additional invectives including: “Putang ina kang matanda ka! Kayo mga nurses lang, anong ipinagmamalaki niyo, mga nurses lang kayo. Kami, marami kaming mga abogado. Hindi niyo kami maipapakulong kahit kailan!”
Nelia and her companions went to Pembo barangay hall and were advised to undergo medical examination; they instead went to the Police Station, Precinct 8 in Comembo, Makati City, then to Camp Crame where they were advised to return when injuries might manifest.
Nine days later, on June 16, 1999, Nelia submitted a medico-legal report and gave her statement before a police investigator.

Defense Version and Antecedent Facts

Appellant denied the charge and claimed it was fabricated to spite him and his family.
Appellant recounted antecedent facts: his family used to rent the ground floor of Nelia’s house in Pateros; Nelia is his godmother; Nelia’s parents occupied the adjacent house and often quarreled with Nelia over rental payment recipients.
Appellant asserted Nelia’s parents disliked his family, and Nelia’s father filed a maltreatment case against him which was dismissed.
On learning of the maltreatment charge, Nelia allegedly ordered appellant and his family to move out and filed cases against him for grave threats and light threats, which were dismissed or ended in his acquittal.
Appellant claimed Nelia would track his whereabouts and cause scandal despite his frequent moves to avoid her.

Defense Witnesses and Testimony

Darius PacaAa testified that on the date of the alleged robbery, Nelia and her two companions approached him on Ambel Street while he was with Michael Fontanilla and Jimmy Sembrano and asked if he knew a bald, stout man with a big tummy and a sister named Maria.
Upon his affirmative reply, Nelia asked him to accompany them to appellant’s house; when appellant emerged and saw the group, he told them to go away to avoid trouble. Nelia reportedly retorted, “Mga hayop kayo, hindi ko kayo titigilan.”
Thelma Vuesa corroborated PacaAa’s account.

Trial Court Ruling (RTC, Branch 139)

The RTC found intent to gain (animus lucrandi) on appellant’s part “is presumed from the unlawful taking” of the necklace and disregarded appellant’s denial and his claim of harassment.
The RTC convicted appellant as principal of the felony of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons under Article 294, paragraph No. 5, in relation to Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code.
The RTC sentenced appellant under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to imprisonment from one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
The RTC ordered appellant to pay Nelia Silvestre P3,500.00 representing the value of the necklace and to pay the costs of suit. (Italics in the original, underscoring supplied)

Court of Appeals Disposition

The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated April 23, 2007, affirmed the RTC’s December 9, 2004 Decision. [1]
Appellant raised among other issues before the appellate court the alleged denial of due process due to representation by a purportedly non-lawyer counsel; the appellate court resolved these claims in the negative.
The appellate court noted that the initial counsel, Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyes, “seems not a lawyer,” withdrew her appearance with appellant’s conformity on July 28, 2000, and was approved by the RTC on August 4, 2000.
Thereafter, appellant was represented by Atty. Rainald C. Paggao of the Public Defender’s Office of Makati City, who principally handled his defense; hence, the appellate court held appellant could not now complain of denial of due process. [3]
The appellate court cited People v. Elesterio to support that subsequent representation by a member of the bar cures earlier representation defects. [4]

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition

Appellant raised the following issues in his present appeal:
- (1) Whether appellant was validly arraigned;
- (2) Whether appellant was denied due process by being represented by a fake lawyer during arraignment, pre-trial and presentation of principal prosec
...continue reading