G.R. No. 195243 - People vs. Beriber y Fuentes

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195243)

Factual Background

The prosecution established that on October 3, 2000, appellant was employed by the Vergaras as a helper in their rice mill, and he was housed in the family’s premises in such a manner that his personal belongings were kept under the bamboo bed where Ma. Lourdes Vergara was later found. Henry Vergara testified that he and Ma. Lourdes hired appellant in September 2000, and that appellant kept his belongings under the bamboo bed inside their home.

Henry testified that at about 6:00 a.m. of October 3, he left for their store in Dolores, Quezon, leaving appellant, Ma. Lourdes, and Henry’s family in their home in San Cristobal. Henry remembered leaving P2,000.00 inside a drawer in the rice mill. When he returned at around 11:00 a.m., he discovered the door slightly open and entered. He found Ma. Lourdes lifeless and bloodied on a bamboo bed and saw drawers and coins scattered on the floor. Henry noticed that the drawer containing the P2,000.00 was pulled out and the cash was no longer found.

Police investigation and medical evidence supported that the victim died from stab wounds. Dr. Lucy Andal Celino, a physician who examined the remains, testified that she conducted a necropsy on October 3, 2000 at 4:15 p.m. and prepared a necropsy report stating that the victim died of shock and hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds. She also testified that the distribution and nature of wounds indicated that the victim struggled and that the perpetrator used two kinds of pointed instruments.

Sequence of Appellant’s Movements on October 3, 2000

Two prosecution witnesses described appellant’s comings and goings on the day of the killing. Neville Bomiel, a neighbor residing about fifteen to twenty meters from the Vergaras’ house, testified that appellant lived with the Vergaras and that he saw appellant leave in the morning at about 10:00 a.m. Appellant told Bomiel that he was going to Batangas for medical treatment. Bomiel later saw appellant return, leave again, and return a third time. Bomiel characterized appellant’s demeanor as restless (balisa at hindi mapakali) on that day, and Bomiel testified that he last saw appellant during the third return.

Rolando Aquino corroborated appellant’s stated intention to go to Batangas and further testified to appellant’s changing appearance and restlessness. Aquino recalled that on October 3, he first saw appellant at the house of the victim’s mother, and later saw him at different times. Aquino testified that around 11:30 a.m., he learned that Lourdes had been killed. He rushed to the house of the Vergaras and saw the victim on the bamboo bed drenched in blood. Aquino then noted that appellant’s personal belongings, which had been kept under the bamboo bed, were no longer there. Aquino also stated that he did not see appellant return to San Cristobal after October 3.

Appellant’s Absence and Discovery of Missing Property

Henry testified that appellant was supposed to have gone to Batangas for medical treatment on the same day but never came back. Henry further stated that appellant’s personal effects previously under the bamboo bed were gone when the incident was discovered.

Avanzado, the victim’s brother, testified that after he saw Henry running toward his own house and heard him shout the victim’s nickname, he proceeded to the Vergaras’ home. He saw the victim’s bloodied body on the bamboo bed. Police were called after the victim’s death was confirmed, and pictures were taken and an investigation conducted. Avanzado stated that he knew appellant was a helper of the Vergaras. He testified that residents informed him that they saw appellant leaving the scene with a bag. Avanzado also testified to assisting police for appellant’s apprehension. He traveled with police to Talisay, Batangas to search for appellant, but appellant was not found there. Avanzado later learned that appellant was apprehended in Capiz but was released because police feared they would be charged with illegal detention. Avanzado then sought assistance from the ABS-CBN program Kabalikat, and appellant was eventually apprehended and brought back to San Pablo City.

Trial Court Proceedings After Remand

Appellant was convicted initially by the RTC on October 22, 2001, but the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 151198, dated June 8, 2004 (as described in the record), vacated and set aside the RTC’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings and reception of evidence, with directions regarding appellant’s transfer and detention during trial proceedings.

Upon remand, hearings were conducted. Appellant’s counsel again manifested waiver of the right not to adduce evidence, but appellant himself steadfastly refused to testify and chose not to present any evidence. The RTC thereafter resolved the case based solely on the prosecution evidence. In a Judgment dated July 7, 2005, the RTC convicted appellant of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It ruled that, given the absence of aggravating circumstances warranting the maximum penalty of death and applying Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua.

The RTC’s Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence

The RTC treated the case as one proven by circumstantial evidence. It enumerated circumstances supporting guilt, including that appellant was at the locus criminis around the time of the stabbing; that witnesses saw him enter and leave the victim’s house during the perpetration; that appellant claimed he was going to Batangas for medical treatment but was not found there when police and the Barangay Chairman searched for him; that immediately after the incident appellant’s belongings kept under the bamboo bed were gone, though his stated intention was medical treatment; that appellant disappeared and did not return after the killing; that when confronted by the victim’s husband he could not explain his involvement; and that appellant used multiple aliases to hide his identity.

Appellate Proceedings and Appellant’s Assigned Error

The CA, in a decision dated July 9, 2010, affirmed appellant’s conviction for Robbery with Homicide but modified the awards of damages. Specifically, it ordered that the heirs of Ma. Lourdes Vergara be paid: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P2,000.00 as actual damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

Appellant’s lone assignment of error before the Supreme Court alleged that the trial court erred in finding him guilty despite the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant argued that conviction for Robbery with Homicide required proof of robbery itself as conclusively as the other elements, and he maintained that the RTC’s circumstantial evidence could be reduced to his presence at the scene and his alleged flight. He contended that presence was natural because he resided with the victim’s family. As to flight, appellant claimed witnesses testified that he said he was going to Batangas for medical check-up, and he argued that even assuming flight, it was insufficient standing alone to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Basis and the Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court treated Robbery with Homicide as a special complex crime against property. It reiterated that the crime exists when the homicide is committed either by reason of, or on occasion of, the robbery. It restated the onus probandi for conviction: the prosecution must establish (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation; (b) that the property belongs to another; (c) that the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi or intent to gain; and (d) that on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide—committed in the generic sense—was carried out.

The Court acknowledged that there was no direct evidence to establish appellant’s commission of the crime. It held that conviction may still rest on circumstantial evidence, provided the requisites under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court are met: there must be more than one circumstance; the facts from which the inferences are derived must be proven; and the combination of circumstances must be such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated the established requirement that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others.

Applying these standards, the Court agreed with the RTC and the CA that the circumstances, taken together, sufficiently established appellant’s guilt. The Court emphasized the proven narrative that Henry left appellant and the victim in the house at around 6:00 a.m.; that appellant was seen leaving and returning to the house in the morning and making statements about going to Batangas; that by 11:00 a.m. the victim was found dead due to multiple stab wounds, with drawers disturbed and the P2,000.00 cash missing; and that appellant never came back as allegedly intended. The Court also noted that appellant’s belongings that were kept under the bamboo bed were no longer there when the body was discovered.

The Court further found that appellant’s actions after the incident reflected flight and concealment. It pointed out that when the victim’s brother went to appellant’s uncle’s house in Batangas to search for him, appellant was not there, and when appellant was apprehended in Capiz he was released due to concerns that police would be liable for illegal detention. The Court highlighted that appellant knew he was being arrested for robbery with homicide but did not present himself to the authorities or to the victim’s family to assert innocence. It also relied on the timeline that Henry saw appellant at the police station only after appellant had been apprehended again and brought back to San Pablo City.

The Court treated flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, as a circumstance from which an i

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195243)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case involved an appeal by appellant Raul Beriber y Fuentes @ Jerry Fuentes y Ignacio @ Gerry Beriber @ Bong @ Promulgated: Raul Fuentes from a Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, San Pablo City finding him guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC conviction with modification on damages through a Decision dated July 9, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01623.
The appeal reached the Supreme Court through automatic review after the RTC judgment and after the earlier remand for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the CA decision and left the conviction standing.

Charge in the Information

The Second Amended Information charged appellant with Robbery with Homicide for acts committed on October 3, 2000 in San Pablo City, within the RTC’s jurisdiction.
The accusatory portion alleged that appellant, with intent to gain, unlawfully entered the premises of Spouses Henry and Ma. Lourdes Vergara, took cash amounting to P2,000.00 belonging to the spouses, and attacked Ma. Lourdes Vergara with a bladed weapon.
The Information alleged that appellant’s attack caused her death, and that the homicide was committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery.
The case proceeded upon appellant’s plea of not guilty upon arraignment.

Trial Events and Evidence

Appellant was arraigned on April 17, 2001 with counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.
The defense waived cross-examination for all prosecution witnesses except Dr. Lucy Andal Celino, and later waived the presentation of defense evidence.
The RTC and the Supreme Court records reflected that both parties failed to file their memoranda despite orders, and the RTC resolved the case based on the prosecution evidence.

Prosecution Witnesses and Proof

The prosecution presented six witnesses and documentary evidence to establish the elements of the offense through both testimonial and circumstantial evidence.
Dr. Lucy Andal Celino testified that she conducted a necropsy on October 3, 2000 and that the victim died of shock and hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds.
Celino testified that the wounds indicated the victim struggled and that the perpetrator used two kinds of instruments—a sharp-pointed instrument and a pointed rounded instrument.
Police Officer Armando Demejes testified that at the crime scene he found a cadaver on a bamboo bed and that the house was in disarray, with drawers and coins scattered.
Demejes testified that he observed an open drawer containing coins, another drawer pulled out and left on a couch, a blue tote bag on the table, and a passbook on the bed, and he prepared a sketch of the scene.
Neville Bomiel testified that appellant worked for the Vergaras and resided at their rice mill, that appellant left in the morning for Batangas for medical treatment, returned to the victim’s house, and left and returned multiple times before the last time Bomiel saw him.
Bomiel testified that appellant appeared restless and that after the incident Bomiel no longer saw appellant.
Rolando Aquino testified that appellant told him he was going to Batangas for medical treatment, that Aquino later learned Lourdes was killed, and that Aquino noticed appellant’s personal belongings underneath the bamboo bed were no longer there.
Henry Vergara testified that appellant was hired as a helper, that appellant kept personal belongings under the bamboo bed where the victim’s body was later found, and that Henry left for his store at about 6:00 a.m. and returned at about 11:00 a.m.
Henry testified that he found the door slightly open, saw that drawers and coins were scattered, found Lourdes dead and bloodied, and discovered that P2,000.00 earlier left in a drawer was no longer found.
Henry further testified that appellant did not return from Batangas, and that appellant’s belongings under the bamboo bed were no longer there when Henry discovered the death.
Avanzado, the victim’s brother and barangay chairman, testified that he found the victim’s lifeless, bloodied body, called for police assistance, and coordinated for appellant’s apprehension.
Avanzado testified that residents informed him they saw appellant leaving with a bag, that he helped search for appellant in Talisay, Batangas, that appellant was later apprehended in Capiz but was released due to fears of illegal detention, and that appellant was later apprehended again and brought back to San Pablo City.

Issue on Appeal

Appellant’s lone assignment of error alleged that the courts erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove guilt.
Appellant argued that for robbery with homicide the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as the other essential elements, and he claimed this was not established.
Appellant contended that the RTC’s eight (8) circumstantial evidence items could be reduced to two general circumstances: presence at the scene and flight afterward.
Appellant maintained that his presence was natural because he lived with or in connection with the victim’s household.
Appellant argued that the finding of flight lacked sufficient basis because witnesses testified that he said he was going to Batangas for medical treatment.
Appellant further asserted that even assuming flight, such