G.R. No. 178196 - People vs. Buduhan y Bullan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178196)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner/Prosecution: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff‑Appellee).
Respondents/Accused‑Appellants: Robert and Rudy Buduhan (Defendants‑Appellants).

Key Dates

Incident: night of 24 July 1998 (about 10:40 p.m.).
Information filed: 26 August 1998.
Motion to quash filed: 20 October 1998; denied by RTC on 25 August 1999.
Arraignment and pre‑trial events: 12 January 2000 and subsequent pre‑trial stipulations.
Trial court decision (RTC): 24 July 2003.
Court of Appeals decision: 29 December 2006 (modified RTC award to add moral damages).
Supreme Court resolution/automatic review and final disposition: rendered in 2008 (decision cited was decided in 2008; applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution).

Applicable Law and Authorities

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990).
Revised Penal Code: Article 294 (Robbery with Homicide), Article 249 (Homicide), Article 29 (credit for preventive imprisonment as amended by R.A. No. 6127).
Republic Act No. 7659 (amendment of penalties referenced).
Rules of Court: Rule 113 §5 (warrantless arrests — grounds), Rule 124 §13(c) of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (appeal procedures).
Rules on Evidence: Rule 132 §13 (impeachment by inconsistent statements).
Civil Code Article 2230 (exemplary damages).
Controlling jurisprudence cited in the decisions (examples within record): People v. Mateo; People v. Salazar; People v. Villanueva; People v. de Guzman; People v. Lara; People v. Cabbab, Jr.; People v. Jabiniao; People v. Opuran; People v. Piedad; People v. Rubiso; People v. Villanueva; People v. Fuertes; People v. Gavina; People v. Ponce.

Factual Background (prosecution version)

Cherry Rose Salazar testified that at about 10:40 p.m. on 24 July 1998, while entertaining Larry Erese and his companions at the RML Canteen, Robert Buduhan (white Giordano T‑shirt) approached and poked a gun at Larry; another assailant in a blue T‑shirt poked a gun at manager Romualde Almeron and announced a hold‑up. Larry surrendered his wristwatch. Immediately thereafter the four men fired their guns, causing fatal wounds to Larry and Romualde and injuries to others; some victims fled. Cherry Rose hid and later identified the accused in court.
Police testimony: investigating officers found four males running about 50 meters from the scene and subsequently brought them to the station; witnesses later identified those individuals as the assailants.
Autopsy findings (Dr. Melegrito): detailed fatal gunshot wounds to Romualde Almeron and Larry Erese consistent with close range shots; Orlando Pascua’s autopsy showed massive lung disruption from a gunshot (no prosecution witness testified to circumstances of Pascua’s death at trial).
Paraffin tests (for defense): paraffin casts were taken and chemically examined, yielding negative results for gunpowder residue for all four accused; the forensic chemist testified that paraffin tests are merely corroborative and subject to many environmental and procedural limitations.

Factual Background (defense version)

The accused asserted an alibi/alternative narrative: Robert testified he was at the boarding house and asleep; Rudy and Boyet corroborated that after hearing gunshots they fled; police intercepted and took them to the municipal jail where paraffin tests were later performed and shirts were confiscated. Defense witnesses claimed the three female witnesses who were brought to the jail did not recognize the accused on one occasion; testimonies about dates/times of identification differed among defense witnesses (showing inconsistencies in their alibi story).

Procedural History

Information for Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide filed; motion to quash (claiming lack of personal knowledge by arresting officers) denied by RTC; arraignment and trial followed. One accused (Boy Guinhicna) was dismissed on proof of death. Trial court convicted Robert and Rudy: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide for death of Larry Erese (reclusion perpetua each) and guilty of Homicide for Romualde Almeron (indeterminate punishment). Court awarded civil indemnity, exemplary, actual and temperate damages. Boyet Ginyang was acquitted. Appellants appealed. The Supreme Court initially accepted appeal but, consistent with People v. Mateo, transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review; the CA affirmed with modifications (adding moral damages). The Supreme Court reviewed the CA decision on automatic review and rendered the final disposition.

Issues on Appeal (as argued by appellants)

Whether the trial court erred in giving complete credence to the principal prosecution witness (Cherry Rose) despite alleged inconsistencies in her prior statements.
Whether the courts below erred in disregarding the defense, which was assertedly corroborated by the negative paraffin test results.
Whether the RTC erred in not ruling directly on the motion to quash on the ground of illegal warrantless arrests due to lack of personal knowledge by arresting officers.

Trial and Appellate Findings

Trial court: credited the testimony of Cherry Rose, found the elements of Robbery with Homicide proven as to Larry Erese and found homicide as to Romualde Almeron; found conspiracy and concerted action; convicted Robert and Rudy and imposed penalties and damages; acquitted Boyet Ginyang.
Court of Appeals: affirmed RTC decision with modifications — awarded moral damages of P50,000 to heirs of each deceased victim in addition to the RTC awards.
Supreme Court (final analysis): largely affirmed the factual findings and legal conclusions that the elements of Robbery with Homicide were established; found error, however, in convicting appellants separately of Homicide for Romualde Almeron (instead held both deaths to constitute Robbery with Homicide counts); adjusted damages awards; addressed issues of credibility, paraffin tests, and illegal arrest assertions.

Supreme Court Analysis — Credibility of Eyewitness

The Court emphasized that testimony given in open court deserves primacy over statements made during preliminary investigation because the latter are summary in nature; inconsistencies in preliminary statements do not automatically impeach testimony unless confronted properly in court and the witness afforded an opportunity to explain (citing Rule 132 §13).
The court observed that the defense did not comply with the procedural requirements to impeach Cherry Rose by prior statements during trial and that the alleged contradictions were not related to material facts of identification in a manner that would negate her credibility. Cherry Rose in court positively identified Robert and Rudy and described the sequence that established robbery and the subsequent shooting.
Because the judge who authored the RTC decision did not personally hear the prosecution witnesses, the usual deference to trial court credibility findings was not invoked; nonetheless, after full review of the record the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with the trial court’s factual conclusions.

Supreme Court Analysis — Paraffin Tests and Alibi

The Court reiterated that paraffin (gunpowder residue) tests are only corroborative and not conclusive; negative results can be affected by many factors (gloves, perspiration, wind, barrel length, etc.). Consequently, negative paraffin findings did not exculpate appellants in the face of positive eyewitness identification and other circumstantial facts.
On alibi, the Court reiterated the strict proof required: an alibi must show physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene. The appellants’ own testimony admitted they were en route or in the vicinity when intercepted by police, and their accounts contained material inconsistencies (e.g., differing dates/times when witnesses allegedly identified them), weakening their alibi claim.

Supreme Court Analysis — Warrantless Arrests

Appellants renewed a constitutional challenge that their arrests were warrantless and without the arresting officers’ personal knowledge of the commission of the crime. The Court acknowledged the claim but held that even if arrests were illegal, the eyewitness testimonies given in open court were not “fruits of the poisonous tree” such that they became inadmissible. The convictions could be sustained on the basis of testimonial evidence admissible in court; thus the motion to quash did not require reversal.

Legal Elements Applied — Robbery with Homicide

Article 294 (par. 1) requires: (1) taking of personal property with violence or intimidation; (2) property belongs to another; (3) animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (4) homicide committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The Court applied these elements to the record: the announcement of a hold‑up, the poking of guns, Larry’s surrendering of his wristwatch, and the immediate firing that killed Larry and Romualde satisfied the statutory prerequisites for Robbery with Homicide. The Court also emphasized that the original design must have been robbery and that the homicide must have been related to or perpetrated to consummate the robbery; these conditions were found satisfied. Conspiracy was inferred from the unity of design and concerted actions before, during, and after the offense.

Error Corrected by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found that the separate conviction for Homicide (Article 249) as to Romualde Almeron was inconsistent with the doctrine that when homicide occurs by reason or on the occasion of robbery it forms part of the special complex crime of Robb

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178196)

Citation and Court

583 Phil. 331, Third Division, G.R. No. 178196, August 06, 2008.
Decision penned by Justice Chico-Nazario; Court composed with concurring and separate judges as indicated in the source.
Case reached the Supreme Court after decision of the Regional Trial Court, Maddela, Quirino (Branch 38) and modification by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01940).

Parties and Procedural Posture

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Defendants-Appellants: Rudy Buduhan y Bullan and Robert Buduhan y Bullan; also originally charged were Boy Guinhicna, Boyet Ginyang and 3 John Does.
Criminal Information filed 26 August 1998 (docketed Criminal Case No. 38-18) charging Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide arising from events of 24 July 1998.
Trial court (RTC Maddela) rendered decision 24 July 2003 finding Robert and Rudy guilty (special complex crime of robbery with homicide as to Larry Erese and homicide as to Romualde Almeron) with awards of civil, exemplary, actual and temperate damages; Boyet Ginyang acquitted.
Appellants filed Notice of Appeal 1 August 2003; appeal transferred to Court of Appeals; CA rendered decision 29 December 2006 affirming with modification (added moral damages of P50,000 each to heirs).
Case elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review and decided 6 August 2008; Supreme Court modified portions of the CA decision and rendered final dispositive.

Accusatory Allegations (Information)

Date and place: about 10:40 p.m., 24 July 1998, Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino.
Alleged acts: four accused, four of them armed, after conspiring, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob Romualde Almeron of his wallet and wristwatch and Larry Erese of his wristwatch; the accused, armed with firearms, shot and fired upon Romualde Almeron, Larry Erese and Orlando Pascua resulting in their instantaneous death, and caused injuries to Fernando Pera and Gilbert Cortez.
Crimes charged: Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide (as set forth in the information).

Motion to Quash and Trial Court Ruling on Jurisdiction

Accused filed Motion to Quash 20 October 1998, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to warrantless arrests and absence of personal knowledge by arresting officers.
RTC Order 25 August 1999 denied motion, holding that alleged lack of personal knowledge by arresting officers is a matter of defense to be raised at trial, not on motion to quash.

Arraignment, Pleas, and Pre-trial Stipulations

Arraignment 12 January 2000: Rudy Buduhan, Robert Buduhan and Boyet Ginyang pleaded "Not Guilty" with counsel de oficio.
Counsel informed court of Boy Guinhicna's death; motion for dismissal filed and granted upon submission of death certificate; case dismissed against Boy Guinhicna 14 February 2000.
Pre-trial conference terminated same date with stipulation of facts: incident occurred about 10:40 p.m. on 24 July 1998 in Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino; no firearm was confiscated from any of the accused.

Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence Presented

Main eyewitness and principal witness: Cherry Rose Salazar, employee/guest relations officer at RML Canteen (the establishment where the incident occurred).
Investigating police: SPO1 Leo Saquing (with SPO4 Alex Gumayagay) — reported arrival on scene and later apprehension of four men running about 50 meters from scene; brought to Maddela Police Station; witnesses later identified the four persons as assailants.
Medical examiner: Dr. Fernando T. Melegrito — conducted autopsies on Romualde Almeron, Larry Erese, and Orlando Pascua; provided wound descriptions and conclusions on range and effects.
Victim relatives: Myrna Almeron (wife of Romualde Almeron) and Laurentino Erese, Sr. (father of Larry Erese) — testified on funeral expenses and alleged missing cash.
Other prosecution witnesses referenced: Maureen Pasion and Marveloza Lopez (witnesses who reportedly identified suspects at the police station); note that some prosecution witnesses were not presented at trial due to fear or absconding.

Defense Witnesses and Evidence Presented

Appellants as witnesses: Robert Buduhan and Rudy Buduhan testified to an alibi-defensive narrative of being at a boarding house, drinking, sleeping, later being taken by police for questioning and detained; accounts that Rudy and Boyet later went out earlier without knowledge of Robert and Guinhicna.
Accused Boyet Ginyang testified consistently with appellants’ alibi narrative and described police apprehension, paraffin testing and shirt confiscation.
Forensic chemist: Police Inspector Ma. Leonora Chua-Camarao (PNP Crime Laboratory) — testified on paraffin casting and paraffin examination (diphenyl amine test) and presented Physical Science Report No. C-25-98 yielding negative results for all four accused; explained limitations and corroborative nature of paraffin tests; introduced paraffin casts and documentary requests.
Eyewitness for defense: Reynaldo Gumiho — testified he observed a group earlier at the beerhouse, described accents, jackets and related that he left prior to incident; later learned of the shooting two days after leaving.

Prosecution Narrative (Cherry Rose Salazar)

Employment: guest relations officer at RML Canteen (beerhouse and videoke bar).
Presence and seating: two groups present that night — appellants’ group first (Robert in white Giordano T-shirt, Rudy in red T-shirt, a man in blue T-shirt, and another in blue T-shirt with black jacket), and the second group of Larry Erese with Gilbert Cortez and Fernando Pera.
Sequence of events at about 10:40 p.m.:
- Robert approached and poked a gun at Larry; man in blue approached manager Romualde Almeron and poked a gun, announcing a hold-up.
- Larry handed his wristwatch to Robert.
- Immediately, all four men from Robert’s group fired their guns at Larry and Romualde causing them to fall.
- Abe (Gilbert) and Nanding (Fernando) fled; Cherry Rose hid under table.
Identification in court: Cherry Rose positively identified Robert as the white Giordano T-shirt man and Rudy as the person in red; described arms distance for firing, estimated caliber types, and testified that all four fired.

Police Investigation and Apprehension

SPO1 Saquing and SPO4 Gumayagay were detailed as duty investigators; at about 11:00 p.m. they responded to report of shooting at RML Canteen.
Approximately 50 meters from scene they encountered four males running; halted and apprehended them after inconsistent answers; brought to Maddela Police Station for identification and questioning.
Witnesses subsequently went to police station and positively pointed to the four persons later identified as Robert, Rudy, Boy Guinhicna and Boyet Ginyang.
Shirts worn by group were later confiscated and paraffin testing performed in Santiago City.

Autopsy Findings and Medical Evidence

Romualde Almeron: gunshot wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm one inch above right nipple, perforated fourth rib, penetrated right lung, aorta and left lung, exited back two inches below left scapula; conclusion that victim was near and in front of assailant when shot (Autopsy Report, Exhibit D).
Larry Erese: gunshot wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm in sternal region between third left and right rib, perforated arch of aorta, penetrated subcutaneous tissue of left lower back at level of seventh rib with bullet extracted (Autopsy Report, Exhibit F).
Orlando Pascua: gunshot wound 1 x 1 inch, perforated midportion of fourth left rib, macerated three-fourths of left lung, pellets extracted from back (Autopsy Report, Exhibit G); circumstances of Orlando’s death not testified by prosecution witnesses at trial (preliminary investigation witness Maureen Pasion narrated those facts but was not presented at trial).

Damages Evidence (Funeral and Expenses)

Myrna Almeron: claimed funeral expenses P38,000 and wake expenses P25,000; alleged Rom