G.R. No. 181539 - People vs. Aleman y Longhas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181539)

Charge and Information

Accused was charged with robbery with homicide for the February 10, 2003 attack on Ramon Jaime Birosel. The Information alleges that while Birosel was inside his car, the accused, in conspiracy with an unidentified accomplice, approached the vehicle, ordered it opened, stabbed the victim in the thorax causing mortal wounds and death, and thereafter took two cellular phones, a wallet, cash, a necklace and a ring.

Medico‑Legal Evidence and Cause of Death

The medico‑legal report prepared by Police Senior Inspector Elizardo Daileg (PNP Crime Laboratory) established that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds in the thorax. Autopsy findings included three penetrating stab wounds on the upper left chest piercing the upper lobe of the left lung and perforating the heart; additional stab wounds to the right eye, stomach and left forearm; and incised wounds to the left upper eyelid and left palm. The report was relied upon by the courts as physical corroboration of the eyewitness account.

Victim’s Personal Circumstances and Claimed Losses

The victim, age 55, left a surviving widow, Maria Filomena Birosel, who incurred funeral expenses totaling P477,054.30. Filomena valued the two cellular phones (Nokia 3315 and Siemens S-45) at P3,500.00 each and the necklace at P20,000.00. These amounts formed part of the civil claims adjudicated by the courts.

Eyewitness Account (Mark Almodovar)

Mark testified that on the evening of February 10, 2003, while urinating near a basketball court where five cars were parked, he observed a “fat man” (later identified as the victim) inside a car approached by two men in black bonnets. One man stood at the driver’s side with a knife; the other at the opposite side had a gun and fired once. Mark described seeing the man with the knife repeatedly stab the fat man in different parts of the body, then observed the two men take the victim’s personal belongings and leave. He followed them for a period, observed them bury the knife and later saw one culprit remove his bonnet and expose his face, which Mark positively identified as the accused. Mark provided sketches and diagrams in open court showing positions and locations.

Interpreter and Witness Competence

Mark, being deaf-mute, testified through Daniel Catinguil, a licensed sign language interpreter with formal training and teaching experience. Both trial and appellate courts assessed and found Mark competent to testify: he understood the sanctity of an oath, comprehended the facts he would testify on, and effectively communicated his observations through the qualified interpreter. The courts noted his ability to make time, spatial and distance estimations and to produce drawings illustrating what he witnessed.

Accused’s Defense: Denial and Alibi

Accused denied involvement and asserted an alibi: that on February 10, 2003 he was at a billiards hall from about 7:00 p.m. until about 10:00 p.m., playing against a person named Ruben; that his sister Hilda fetched him around 10:00 p.m.; that he went home, ate dinner, watched television and slept. He surrendered to police on February 11, 2003 and was subjected to two line‑ups on February 13, 2003. The defense introduced corroborating witnesses for the alibi: Filomena Fungo (grandmother of Ruben) and Hilda Aleman.

Line‑up Identifications and Challenges

Defense witnesses asserted Mark failed to identify the accused in the police line‑up presentations on February 13, 2003, with assertions that a police officer used a demonstrative throat‑slashing gesture and that Mark shook his head in both presentations. The record shows, however, that Mark identified the accused in a subsequent line‑up on February 18, 2003 and, importantly, made a positive in‑court identification during testimony. The trial and appellate courts treated the initial non‑identification as immaterial compared to the in‑court identification.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court, after evaluating the prosecution and defense evidence, found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1), as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and actual damages of P477,054.30, and ordered reimbursement for the two cellphones (P3,500.00 each) and the necklace (P20,000.00).

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. It held that a deaf‑mute may be a competent witness if able to understand an oath, comprehend the facts, and communicate through a qualified interpreter. It found that Mark’s testimony was credible and corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellate court rejected imputations of improper motive, found the line‑up non‑identification irrelevant once there was a positive in‑court identification, and concluded that prosecution proved all elements of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court Analysis: Competence of Deaf‑Mute Witnesses

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ factual findings and legal conclusions. Applying the rule that all persons who can perceive and make known their perceptions may be witnesses (Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 20), the Court reiterated existing jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Tuangco) setting the criteria for competence of deaf‑mute witnesses: ability to understand and appreciate the oath, comprehension of the facts, and ability to communicate via a qualified interpreter. Given the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ findings that Mark met these criteria and that Catinguil was a qualified interpreter, the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the credibility assessment.

Evidentiary Weight of Eyewitness Testimony and Physical Evidence

The Supreme Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in Mark’s testimony could be attributed to the difficulty of eliciting testimony from a deaf‑mute and that those discrepancies concerned non‑material matters. It gave weight to Mark’s positive in‑court identification and to the medico‑legal findings. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the credible testimony of a si

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 181539)

Case Caption and Procedural History

Case reported at 715 Phil. 107, First Division; G.R. No. 181539; decision dated July 24, 2013, penned by Justice Leonardo-De Castro with concurrence by Sereno, C.J., Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ.
Accused-appellant: Edwin Aleman y Longhas; Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Trial court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 76, Criminal Case No. Q-03-118348; decision dated November 16, 2005 convicting accused of robbery with homicide.
Court of Appeals: affirmed RTC decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02100 by Decision dated September 28, 2007 (authored by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring).
Supreme Court review: accused-appellant elevated appeal on same grounds rejected previously; Supreme Court rendered final decision affirming conviction with modification on awards of interest.

Information and Criminal Charge

Accused charged by Information with robbery with homicide committed on or about February 10, 2003, in Quezon City.
Allegations recited that accused, in conspiracy with an unidentified companion, forcibly approached victim Ramon Jaime Birosel while the latter was inside his car and, after ordering him to open the door, stabbed him in the thorax, inflicting serious and mortal wounds causing his death, and took the victim’s personal properties.
Items listed in the Information as taken: two (2) Nokia cellular phones, one (1) brown leather wallet, undetermined amount of cash, one (1) necklace, one (1) men’s ring, all of undetermined value and belonging to the victim.
Accused pleaded not guilty when arraigned; pre-trial was conducted and trial ensued.

Victim, Losses, and Funeral Expenses

Victim: Ramon Jaime Birosel y Villa, 55 years old at time of death, occupation: real estate broker.
He was survived by his widow, Maria Filomena Birosel; the marriage produced no children.
Widow’s funeral-related expenditures established at P477,054.30.
Widow’s valuation of stolen items: Nokia 3315 and Siemens S-45 cellular phones each valued at P3,500.00; necklace valued at P20,000.00.

Medico-Legal Evidence and Cause of Death

Medico-legal report prepared by Police Senior Inspector Elizardo Daileg of the PNP Crime Laboratory (Medico Legal Report No. M-0425-03).
Cause of death: hemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds in the thorax.
Specific injuries: three penetrating stab wounds on the upper left portion of the chest, one wound piercing the upper lobe of the left lung and perforating the heart; additional stab wounds to the right eye, stomach and left forearm; incised wounds to the left upper eyelid and left palm.
Report and physical evidence corroborated the violent nature of the attack and the lethal result.

Prosecution’s Eyewitness: Mark Almodovar — Direct Examination

Mark’s account: on February 10, 2003, at about 7:00 p.m. he went to play at a basketball court; he played and by about 9:00 p.m. stopped to urinate near an area where five cars were parked.
He observed a “fat man” walking toward a car while talking on a cellular phone, then two men following the fat man into a parked car; the followers separated to each side of the car.
He drew diagrams in court (identified as Exhibits aLa and aMa) depicting the car and positions of the two men and the place where the knife was buried.
He observed the man at the driver’s side holding a knife and the other man holding a gun; he witnessed the man with the knife repeatedly stab the fat man at different parts of his body while the man with the gun fired once.
After the stabbing, the two men took the victim’s personal belongings, including ring, watch, wallet, and cellular phone, and left.
He followed the two men to a place described as “far” where he saw them bury the knife and cover it with soil; he then followed them to another place “near” where one of the men removed his bonnet, enabling Mark to recognize his face — Mark identified this person as the one who went to the left side of the car and stabbed the victim; Mark later identified this person as the accused Edwin Aleman.
Mark returned home at about 11:00 p.m.; he went back to the scene at about 8:00 a.m. the next morning and, with the help of a woman he described as a “chubby girl,” requested police assistance; he then accompanied police to a house in a “far place” but no one was there.
He provided sketches in open court (Exhibit aOa series including aO-1a through aO-4a) showing the basketball court, the parked cars, the exact spot where he urinated, and the victim’s car.
He testified that the light near the flowing water where the accused removed his bonnet came from a light bulb and that the courtroom distance represented how far he was from the accused when the bonnet was removed.
During the events he estimated distances and durations: kept about eight to ten meters distance while following; followed them about nine minutes before they removed their bonnets and followed them about thirty minutes in total; the men removed the bloodstained white t-shirt and bonnet and discarded them into flowing or running water; at about 10:00 p.m. the two boarded a motorcycle driven by the gunman and left.

Mark Almodovar — Personal Attributes, Interpreter, and Competence

Mark was 14 years old at the time of his testimony and is a deaf-mute.
He was assisted by Daniel Catinguil, a licensed sign language interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, who has been teaching at the Philippine School for the Deaf since 1990 and had completed a five-year course at the Philippine Normal University with a degree in teaching special education children.
Trial court determined Mark was not mentally deficient, could tell time, space and distance, and could draw and make sketches in open court to show relative positions as perceived.
With the interpreter’s assistance Mark was able to recount the sequence of events, identify specific actions and persons, and make in-court identifications.

Cross-Examination of Mark and Impeachment Matters

On cross-examination, Mark stated he did not receive death threats.
He gave a chronology of events surrounding his movements after the incident: in 2003 he attended his grandfather’s wake in Nueva Ecija and stayed until he was fetched by relatives on September 12, 2003; he stayed at a house in Antipolo until December 10, 2003 when he initially testified in court.
He acknowledged there was no sign language interpreter in the relative’s house where he stayed.
He admitted relatives of the victim gave him money, which he used to buy two shirts, two pants and a pair of shoes — a fact later advanced by accused-appellant as impeaching his testimony.
He explained certain matters such as his familiarity with Sikatuna Bliss area but not specific buildings fronting the five parked cars.
He conceded this was the first time he saw the victim and the two masked men.
He stated some details to police were omitted initially (e.g., he did not tell police when giving statements that the knife was buried under the ground).

Accused-Appellant’s Testimony and Defenses