Title
People vs. Comiling
Case
G.R. No. 140405
Decision Date
Mar 4, 2004
Armed men robbed Masterline Grocery, killing a policeman and injuring a bakery owner. Convicted of robbery with homicide, penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua due to improper allegations.
robbery with homicide
shooting of police officer
credibility of witness
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140405)

Factual Background

On the evening of September 2, 1995, Ysiong Chua, owner of the Masterline Grocery, and his helper Mario were about to close the store when someone knocked to buy cigarettes. When Mario opened the door, three masked armed men barged in and announced a hold-up. One of the robbers shoved Ysiong into the recesses of the grocery, threatened to kill him if he did not give them his earnings, and, after Ysiong replied he only had a small amount, the robber hit Ysiong’s thumb with the butt of his gun. Ysiong fell from a simultaneous kick. While Ysiong lay prostrate, he observed the other intruders ransacking the desk drawers. Ysiong managed to recover and immediately fled to the adjacent Good Taste Bakery, then proceeded to the Tayug Police Station to report the incident.

Police officers responded to the scene. While SPO1 Rolando Torio was outside the store, he heard gunshots coming from inside the store directed toward Bonifacio Street. PO3 Erwil Pastor, who was on the street, ran and hid behind a concrete marker and attempted to move toward the police headquarters. During his attempt to flee, Pastor was shot in the face and was brought to the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital. On September 6, 1995, Pastor died from the injury he suffered. Meanwhile, Ysiong discovered he had lost the gold necklaces and cash stated in the information.

A prosecution witness, Naty Panimbaan, later revealed what she knew about the robbery. During trial, she testified that she was present at all four meetings where the plan to rob the Masterline Grocery was hatched. She identified participants as including Comiling, Galingan, Salagubang, Calderon, Clotario, Mendoza, and two other persons known only as Paul and Rey. She testified to meetings held on June 30, 1995 at the Zariza Inn; in July 1995 at the house of a person named Lani Galingan; two more meetings in August 1995; and the final meeting on September 2, 1995 at Lani’s house, where the group received final instructions and the firearms from Comiling and Galingan. She stated that the group proceeded to Masterline Grocery at around 4:00 p.m., except for her, who stayed behind in Lani’s house. At around 8:00 p.m., she claimed she met the group in another person’s house named Joe. She added that Galingan blamed a companion for shooting the policeman and that they planned to escape to Manila. She said she and Lani were provided money for fare, and that after their arrival in Manila on September 3, 1995 they stayed with Comiling. She testified that she and Lani were hidden because Comiling did not want them around, and that while she was in hiding she ultimately mustered courage to confess to the police.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC conducted trial on the merits and ultimately convicted three accused. In its decision, the RTC acquitted Gil Salagubang and Mario Clotario. As to Maj. Emilio Comiling, Geraldo Galingan, and Ricky Mendoza, the RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, in relation to Article 63. The RTC imposed the death penalty and ordered restitution and payment of damages and costs.

Notably, on March 28, 1997, Mendoza escaped from detention, and he was thereafter tried in absentia.

The Parties' Contentions

Appellant Comiling attacked his conviction and raised several arguments. First, he contended that the killing of PO3 Erwil Pastor happened after the robbery was already accomplished, so the homicide could not have been a necessary means of committing the robbery, and the robbery likewise could not be said to have produced another offense. Second, he challenged the credibility of Naty Panimbaan, arguing that she was a “polluted source” because she was allegedly one of the conspirators. Third, he argued that he could not be held liable for robbery because he was not physically present at the Masterline Grocery and had no ostensible participation in the actual execution of the robbery.

For his part, appellant Galingan relied on alibi. He claimed he was in the house of his uncle in Novaliches, Metro Manila when the incident happened on September 2, 1995, and explained his presence in Manila by the scheduled arrival of his wife from Hong Kong on September 4, 1995. He also assailed Panimbaan’s credibility, asserting that she was a woman of ill-repute whom he allegedly paid P700 each time they had sex, that her motive was to compel him to leave his wife, and that she was a drug user, thus tainting her testimony. He likewise denied participating in the crime.

The Court noted that the case proceeded by automatic review and that Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeal briefs.

Appellate Review: Issues, Evidence, and Rulings

The Court sustained the RTC’s factual findings and credibility assessments. It held that Comiling’s attempt to disturb the conclusion that a homicide was directly related to the robbery did not warrant reversal. The Court characterized robbery with homicide as a special complex crime. It ruled that the killing need only have a direct relation to the robbery, whether the homicide occurred before, during, or because of the heist. It held that robbery with homicide was committed if the killing occurred during or because of the robbery, even if the killing was merely accidental.

On credibility, the Court refused to second-guess the trial court’s evaluation. It found nothing to suggest that the RTC was whimsical or capricious in assessing Naty Panimbaan and the other witnesses. The Court emphasized that Panimbaan testified consistently and in detail. It also noted that Panimbaan was examined multiple times under defense scrutiny and that the RTC nevertheless gave credence to her narrative.

As to the argument invoking res inter alios acta under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Court rejected Comiling’s theory that Panimbaan’s testimony could not be used against him absent independent evidence of conspiracy. The Court ruled that the rule on admissions by conspirators referred to extrajudicial declarations and not to sworn testimony given in court where the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Since Panimbaan’s implicating statements were made in open court, the Court held they could be taken as evidence against Comiling.

The Court also ruled on Comiling’s lack-of-presence theory. It held that although he was not tagged as the person who physically entered the store or shot the policeman, his participation could be established through principalship by inducement. The Court relied on testimony showing that Comiling planned the robbery as early as June 1995, presided over and led the group in the series of meetings, provided firearms and explosives, and assigned specific roles to his men. It pointed to Panimbaan’s testimony that Comiling decided to push through on September 2, gave assignments to the group members, and was identified as posting himself at the back of the bakery including Joe. The Court further found corroboration from another prosecution witness, Sonny Rimas, who testified that Comiling was planning the robbery and said, “We will enter the place of Isko,” referring to Ysiong Chua’s store. The Court concluded that Comiling acted as the acknowledged leader and undisputable mastermind of the conspiracy and therefore must be held liable as principal by inducement.

With respect to appellant Galingan, the Court rejected alibi. It held that for alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was at another place for such a period that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene at the time of commission. The Court found that Galingan failed to meet the settled requirements of time and place. It held that his alleged presence in Novaliches was not established by a positive declaration from an independent witness, and that the distance between the claimed location and Tayug could be reached within about four hours by land, making it not impossible for him to have been at the scene. The Court further deemed irrelevant the fact that Galingan allegedly met his wife upon her arrival on September 4, 1995 because it was two days after September 2, 1995, the date material to the crime.

The Court strengthened its rejection of alibi by citing the positive identification by Rimas. Rimas testified that around 6:30 p.m. on September 2, 1995 he noticed the arrival of an owner-type jeep and positively identified Galingan as its driver. The Court ruled that Galingan’s alibi was therefore contrived and inconsistent with the identification evidence.

In addressing Galingan’s attack on Panimbaan’s credibility, the Court held that his evidence did not satisfy the standards required to impeach a witness. It explained that even if a witness was of unchaste character or drug dependent, such fact did not per se affect credibility. It further stated that, to affect credibility, evidence of character must refer to the general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity in the community or neighborhood. The Court found that Galingan’s claims were based solely on his own self-serving assertions and did not reflect general community reputation. It thus upheld the trial court’s credibility determination. The Court also reiterated that credibility is primarily for the trial judge because the trial judge has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness.

Most significantly, the Court treated the testimony regarding PO3 Pastor’s dying declaration as competent evidence identifying Galingan as the assailant. It noted that Pastor, at around 7:00 p.m. on September 2, 1995 in the emergency room, moaned “I might die. I might die.” in the presence of SPO1 Conrado Hidalgo and SPO4 Emilio Nagui. It stated that Pastor’s statements were taken down by SPO1 Hidalgo, who assisted in affixing his thumbmark with his own blood. Based on the testimony, Pastor was asked who shot him, and he answered

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms