G.R. No. L-42666 - People vs. Barut

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-42666)

Factual Background

Shortly after sundown on June 15, 1969, Marcelino Grospe observed Herminio Barut, Alejo Ramiscal, Ernesto Quebral, Juan Agustin and Castor Acson proceed toward the camarin of octogenarian Francisco Lazaro in Sitio Basilio, Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. Acson was armed with a carbine and at gunpoint took from Lazaro twenty-three pesos. The other malefactors ransacked the hut and took carpentry tools valued at one hundred pesos and parts of a carbine; those items were later recovered and introduced as Exhibits B to F. Grospe alerted neighbors, who formed a rescue party consisting of Lorenzo Soriano, Saturnino Sales, Maximo Saludares, Alejandro Tuvera and Evaristo Tuvera and confronted the raiding party from concealment. A brief exchange of fire occurred. Acson was killed in the encounter. Evaristo Tuvera sustained a gunshot wound to the chest that penetrated his heart and right lung and exited at the right scapular region; he was the lone fatality among the rescuers. Alejandro Tuvera observed the malefactors fleeing the scene.

Investigative and Pretrial Proceedings

The Constabulary investigated the incident and obtained affidavits from Grospe, Lazaro, Alejandro Tuvera and Lorenzo Soriano sworn before the municipal judge of Roxas on June 23, 1969. A Constabulary investigator filed a complaint for robbery in band with homicide against the five named persons in the municipal court of Roxas on July 7, 1969. The municipal judge conducted a preliminary examination in July 1969 and later took additional statements in December 1973. Warrants of arrest for Barut, Quebral and Ramiscal were not served until December 30, 1972, August 27, 1973 and December 31, 1973, respectively. The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance on January 9, 1974, and the fiscal filed an information for robbery in band with homicide dated February 19, 1974.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

The Court of First Instance of Isabela tried the case and, after hearing prosecution and defense evidence, convicted Barut, Ramiscal and Quebral of robbery with homicide and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The trial court ordered the return to Francisco Lazaro of the recovered articles and imposed solidary indemnity of P12,000 in favor of the heirs of Evaristo Tuvera. The trial court found that the offense was not robbery by band and rejected the defendants’ alibis as lacking credibility. One co-accused, Juan Agustin, remained at large and Castor Acson was dead.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The appellants contended that the trial court’s decision failed to state the ultimate facts supporting conviction. They further argued that the investigation should have been conducted by the police and not by Constabulary soldiers, and they relied on alibis asserting they were working and residing in distant barrios for several years after the incident. The prosecution maintained that the trial court adequately stated facts in conformity with Sec. 2, Rule 120, Rules of Court and constitutional requirements, that members of the Constabulary are competent peace officers to investigate crimes under Sec. 2, Rule 110, Rules of Court and the Revised Administrative Code, and that the positive identification by Grospe, together with the recovery of the stolen articles, proved the robbery beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution also argued that the homicide was occasioned by the robbery and thus constituted robbery with homicide under Art. 294(1), Revised Penal Code.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the trial court’s decision met the requirement to state clearly the facts proven or admitted upon which the judgment rested. The Court ruled that members of the Constabulary qualified as peace officers competent to file criminal complaints and to investigate crimes. The Court found the appellants’ alibis uncorroborated and implausible in view of their close association with the other malefactors and their prolonged absence from their barrio, which the Court treated as consistent with flight. The Court concluded that the robbery was proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the homicide of Evaristo Tuvera was sufficiently connected with the robbery to constitute Art. 294(1) robo con homicidio. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, and it modified the judgment to order the appellants to pay solidarily to Francisco Lazaro the sum of twenty-three pesos (P23) which had been taken from him. Costs were imposed against the appellants.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the trial court’s opinion properly summarized evidence and made explicit the facts upon which it relied, thereby complying with Sec. 2, Rule 120, Rules of Court and the cited constitutional provisions. The Court rejected the contention that the Constabulary lacked competence, citing Sec. 2, Rule 110, Rules of Court and secs. 825, 826, 831 and 848, Revised Administrative Code, which charged the Constabulary with preservation of peace, law and order and with crime investigation. The Court applied established doctrine that an accused’s uncorroborated alibi has no exculpatory value when positive identification by an unimpeached witness is credible. The recovery at the scene of the stolen articles provided further corroboration of the robbery. On the relation between robbery and homicide, the Court interpreted Art. 294(1), Revised Penal Code to requ

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-42666)

Parties and Procedural Posture

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE prosecuted the case in the trial court and on appeal.
HERMINIO BARUT, ALEJO RAMISCAL AND ERNESTO QUEBRAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Isabela of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The trial court ordered the appellants to pay solidarily P12,000 to the heirs of Evaristo Tuvera and to return recovered articles to Francisco Lazaro.
One co-accused, Agustin, remained at large and was not convicted.
The appellate Court reviewed the conviction and affirmed the judgment with a slight modification concerning restitution.

Key Factual Allegations

On June 15, 1969, shortly after sundown, Marcelino Grospe observed a group including the accused proceeding to the camarin of octogenarian Francisco Lazaro in Sitio Basilio, Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela.
Castor Acson was armed with a carbine and at gunpoint took P23 from Lazaro while his companions ransacked Lazaro's hut and took carpentry tools valued at P100 and parts of a carbine.
Grospe and neighbors formed a rescue party and engaged the malefactors in a brief exchange of fire near banana plants.
Acson was killed in the encounter and Evaristo Tuvera sustained a fatal gunshot wound that penetrated his heart and right lung and exited the right scapular region.
The robbers fled and left the stolen articles at the scene, and those articles were later recovered.

Evidence and Exhibits

The autopsy report on Evaristo Tuvera was received as Exh. A and established the entrance and exit wounds described by the medical witness.
Recovered personal and carpentry articles and parts of a carbine were introduced as Exh. B through Exh. F.
Affidavits of Grospe, Lazaro, Alejandro Tuvera, and Lorenzo Soriano were sworn before the municipal judge on June 23, 1969 and were part of the investigative file.

Procedural History

Affidavits were taken June 23, 1969 and a Constabulary investigator filed a complaint for robbery in band with homicide on July 7, 1969.
A preliminary examination occurred on July 16 and 17, 1969 before the municipal judge.
Warrants of arrest were served on the three appellants only years later on December 30, 1972, August 27, 1973 and December 31, 1973 respectively.
The municipal judge completed the second stage of the preliminary investigation and took statements in December 1973, and the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance on January 9, 1974.
The fiscal filed the information dated February 19, 1974 and the trial court ultimately convicted the appellants in Criminal Case No. IV-202-74.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court's decision sufficiently stated the ultimate facts supporting conviction.
Whether members of the Constabulary were competent to investigate and file the criminal complaint.
Whether the evidence proved robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the killing was connected with the robbery within the meaning of Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the appellants' alibis and claimed discrepancies in the prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt.
Whether the presence of a band constituted an aggravating circumstance.

Contentions of the Parties

HERMINIO BARUT, ALEJO RAMISCAL AND ERNESTO QUEBRAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS contended that the trial court's decision failed to state ultimate facts and that the Constabulary should not have investigated the case.
The appellants asserted