Case Summary (G.R. No. 71283)
Procedural History
Chavez was charged by information with robbery with homicide arising from the death of Elmer Duque. He pleaded not guilty, was tried, and the Regional Trial Court found him guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua plus civil indemnities. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Chavez appealed to the Supreme Court, which modified the conviction to the distinct crime of homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty; the Court also addressed credit for preventive detention and other legal issues.
Facts Found by the Trial Court
On October 28, 2006, eyewitness Angelo Peñamante arrived home around 2:45 a.m. and saw a person in black clothing leaving the victim’s parlor; there was sufficient light on the scene for facial identification. Peñamante observed the person drop something and stumble while trying to close the door. At about 9:00 a.m. the victim was found dead; an autopsy performed at about 1:00 p.m. established time of death at approximately 12 hours earlier (narrowing time of death to around 1:00 a.m.). The body bore 22 wounds (21 stab wounds and one incised wound), four of which were fatal. Chavez voluntarily surrendered to police on November 5, 2006, accompanied by his mother, who turned over two cellular phones said to belong to the victim and executed a written statement describing an alleged confession by Chavez and the disposition of a knife and a necklace. A line-up identification was conducted in which Peñamante identified Chavez as the person he had seen leaving the victim’s parlor.
Issue Presented
Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Chavez committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and, if not, whether he was guilty of any distinct offense arising from the same facts.
Legal Standard for Robbery with Homicide and Circumstantial Evidence
Article 294 RPC prescribes heightened penalties where homicide occurs “by reason or on occasion of the robbery.” To convict for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove an original criminal design to take personal property that preceded or accompanied the killing; in other words, homicide must have been committed for purposes closely connected to the robbery (to facilitate robbery or escape, preserve possession of loot, prevent discovery, or eliminate witnesses). Where proof is circumstantial, conviction requires a combination of multiple proven circumstances that together produce moral certainty of guilt (Rule 133 §4).
Why Robbery with Homicide Was Not Proven
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was committed for the purpose of committing robbery. The purported confession and admissions attributed to Chavez were contained in his mother’s written statement, which the defense did not have the opportunity to confront because the mother was not presented as a trial witness; that statement is therefore hearsay and lacks evidentiary weight. The nature and extent of the victim’s injuries—21 stab wounds—were inconsistent with an original plan merely to steal and escape; the degree of overkill suggested an intention to kill rather than to incapacitate for purposes of robbery. Precedent cited by the Court holds that where homicide is not shown to have been committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide cannot stand.
Grounds for Conviction of Homicide
Notwithstanding the failure to prove robbery with homicide, the Court found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt Chavez’s culpability for the victim’s death. The factors supporting a homicide conviction were: (1) eyewitness identification by Peñamante placing Chavez at the victim’s residence at about the relevant time; (2) medico-legal evidence narrowing the time of death to approximately the hour when Chavez admitted being at the parlor; (3) recovery of a kitchen knife in a manhole near Chavez’s house with a hair strand attached, corroborating the mother’s investigatory report and circumstantial links to Chavez; and (4) the character and number of wounds indicating deliberate killing. These circumstances, taken together, satisfied the circumstantial-evidence standard for homicide.
Possession of Allegedly Stolen Property and Theft/Robbery Issues
The mother’s turnover of two cellular phones to police raised a disputable presumption that Chavez was in possession of recently taken property; however, the integrity of those items was compromised—SIM cards and batteries were removed and no inventory markings were made—undermining the evidentiary value. Given the proven close relationship between Chavez and the victim, alternative explanations (e.g., loaned possession) could not be excluded. The prosecution also failed to establish the value of the other listed missing items; valuation is essential to sustain theft-related penal consequences. Consequently, the Court found reasonable doubt as to whether the taking of property was proven as part of an original criminal design.
Custodial Warnings, Voluntary Surrender and Hearsay Concerns
The Court reiterated constitutional and statutory protections (Miranda and RA 7438) applicable when a suspect is subject to custodial investigation or when an “invitation” or voluntary surrender places the person in a custodial setting. A valid waiver of right to counsel must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. The records showed Chavez voluntarily surrendered with his mother and asserted his right to remain silent in the booking sheet; the mother executed a written statement despite warnings from police. The Court emphasized that statements by third parties (here, the mother) are hearsay when not presented in court and should not be relied upon to supply critical elements of the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted the contextual pressures that may accompany a voluntary surrender and the importance of proper advisals and safeguards.
Sentencing and Credit for Preventive Detention
Because the special complex crime of robbery with homicide was not established, Chavez’s conviction was modified to homicide. The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty with the minimum of eight years and one day of prision mayor and the maximum of seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal. The Court directed that Chavez’s prevent
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 71283)
Case and Decision Identifiers
- G.R. No. 207950; Second Division; Decision penned by Justice Leonen; date of decision: September 22, 2014; reported at 743 Phil. 587.
- Final disposition: Judgment of the trial court modified by the Supreme Court to convict accused-appellant Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor alias "Noy" of the separate and distinct crime of HOMICIDE; sentence imposed and ancillary rulings described below.
- Concurrence: Justices Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concurred.
Parties and Caption
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor alias "Noy".
- Original information charged Chavez with the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
Information and Criminal Charge
- Date of information: November 8, 2006.
- Charge alleged: On or about October 28, 2006, in the City of Manila, with intent to gain and by force/violence/intimidation, and with intent to kill, accused stabbed Elmer Duque y Oros (nicknamed "Barbie") repeatedly with a kitchen knife, inflicting mortal stab wounds that caused his death, and on the said occasion or by reason thereof took/robbed and carried away: one Nokia cellphone, one Motorola cellphone, six ladies' rings, two necklaces, one bracelet, and undetermined amount of money—items of undetermined value and belonging to the victim; charged as robbery with homicide contrary to law.
Procedural History
- Chavez pleaded not guilty at arraignment on December 4, 2006; trial ensued.
- Trial court (RTC, Branch 41, Manila; decision penned by Presiding Judge Hon. Rosalyn D. Mislos-Loja) found Chavez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide on August 19, 2011 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; ordered to pay heirs P75,000 for death indemnity and P75,000 for moral damages.
- Court of Appeals, Eighth Division (Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla) affirmed the trial court decision on February 27, 2013.
- Chavez filed notice of appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; parties elected to adopt their Court of Appeals briefs for supplemental briefs.
Witnesses and Parties' Presentation at Trial
- Prosecution witnesses: Angelo Peaamante; P/Chief Inspector Sonia Cayrel (PCI Cayrel); SPO3 Steve Casimiro; Dr. Romeo T. Salen (forensic pathologist); Raymund Senofa (also cited as Raymond Seno[f]a).
- Defense witness: Accused Mark Jason Chavez testified as sole defense witness.
- Other persons involved in investigative acts: PO3 Rex Maglansi (photographer), PO1 Joel Pelayo (sketcher), fingerprint technician; Administrative Officer Alex Francisco subscribed a statement for Chavez's mother.
Factual Findings by the Trial Court (as recited)
- Timeline of events as found:
- October 27–28, 2006: Chavez sent text messages to Barbie seeking to talk and to settle a misunderstanding about Barbie's suspicion that Chavez had a relationship with Barbie's boyfriend, Maki.
- Around 1:00 a.m., October 28, 2006: Chavez allegedly went to Barbie's house/parlor at 1325 Tuazon Street; Barbie allowed him entry; they talked but did not reconcile; Chavez left and went home, according to his testimony.
- Around 2:45 a.m., October 28, 2006: Angelo Peaamante, returning home from work and standing near his house at 1326 Tuazon Street (approximately six meters from Barbie's parlor), saw a person in a black long-sleeved shirt and black pants holding something while leaving Barbie's house/parlor; there was light allowing Peaamante to see the person's face and clothes; the person could not close the door, dropped something, fell, then walked away; Peaamante could not identify the object at that time.
- Approximately 9:00 a.m.: Barbie was found dead inside his parlor; SOCO arrived after 10:00 a.m.; SOCO noted disarray, took photographs, collected fingerprints and evidence including 155 hair strands clutched in the victim's left hand; evidence turned over to Western Police District Chemistry Division.
- Autopsy performed by Dr. Salen at about 1:00 p.m. on October 28, 2006, who estimated time of death to be roughly 12 hours prior to examination (narrowing time of death to about 1:00 a.m. on October 28); autopsy revealed 22 injuries—21 stab wounds in various parts of the body and one incised wound; four stab wounds were fatal.
- Identification and police procedures:
- November 5, 2006: Chavez (age 22) voluntarily surrendered to SPO3 Casimiro at the police station, accompanied by his mother, who said she wanted to help her son; she also surrendered two cellular phones belonging to Barbie and a baseball cap owned by Chavez.
- November 6, 2006: Peaamante was summoned to a line-up and positively identified Chavez as the person he saw leaving Barbie's parlor at about 2:45 a.m.; Peaamante executed a written statement thereafter.
- Chavez's mother gave a written statement (dated November 7, 2006) reporting that Chavez admitted involvement, surrendered two cellphones, stated he had used a kitchen knife from their house and disposed of it in a manhole in front of their house after the incident, that one necklace had been pawned, that Chavez's slippers left marks at the scene, that Chavez was wounded in his own hand, and that Chavez told her he had no intention to kill Barbie but only to rob; the trial court and Court of Appeals quoted this statement.
- Physical evidence discovered:
- Two cellular phones turned over by Chavez's mother.
- A kitchen knife recovered from a manhole near Chavez's house with a hair strand on it.
- 155 hair strands in victim's left hand.
- No markings placed on the cellular phones by police; SIM cards and batteries missing.
- No DNA or fingerprint results presented at trial for the knife or hair strands; police officers testified they handled the knife with bare hands.
Defense Account and Arguments on Appeal
- Chavez's testimony:
- Admitted he visited Barbie at around 1:00 a.m. on October 28, 2006 to patch up a misunderstanding; was allowed to enter and left later; learned later that Barbie was dead.
- Asserts an alibi that still places him near or at the scene at relevant times but denies intent to rob or kill.
- Grounds raised on appeal to the Supreme Court:
- Invocation of presumption of innocence and that the trial court overlooked or misapplied material facts that could have altered the verdict.
- Emphasis that the prosecution relied on purely circumstantial evidence; conviction must rest on moral certainty of guilt.
- Peaamante did not indicate that Chavez acted suspiciously when leaving Barbie's house.
- Chavez's mother's statement should be inadmissible hearsay because she was not presented for cross-examination.
- Dr. Salen's testimony allowed for possibility of two assailants and thus that Chavez may not have been the sole perpetrator; the assailants could have acted after Chavez left.
- Multiple possible explanations consistent with Chavez's innocence should be favored.
Prosecution's Position on Appeal
- Argued that direct evidence is not indispensable; circumstantial evidence at trial formed an unbroken chain of events pointing to Chavez's guilt for robbery with homicide.
- Emphasized that the trial court did not rely on the mother's statements, and that Dr. Salen testified both to possibility of two assailants and possibility of only one.
Legal Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether Chavez was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
- Whether the evidence sufficed to prove original criminal design to commit robbery antecedent to the killing (an essential element of robbery with homicide).
- Whether circumstantial evidence, eyewitness identification, physical evidence, and other factual findings support conviction for homicide as a separate offense.
- Evidentiary questions concerning the admissibility and probative value of Chavez's mother's statement, and the effect of investigative lapses (lack of forensic results, handling of physical evidence).
- Miranda/constitutional rights and application of RA 7438 concerning custodial investigation in the context of Chavez's voluntary surrender and his mother's statement.
- Appropriate sentence and crediting of preventive detention under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Governing Legal Provisions and Authorities Cited by Court
- Revised Penal Code, Art. 294 (Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — penalty where homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery).
- Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 4 (circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction if multiple circumstances are proven and together produce moral certainty beyond reasonable doubt).
- Artic