G.R. No. 171449 - People vs. Lara

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171449)

Factual Background

The prosecution established that Chito B. Arizala served as a security guard and officer-in-charge of a security detachment assigned to guard the premises of the Sanchez Estate in Manalite II, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City. On 27 January 1997, Arizala worked under Taurus Security Agency and Allied Services. The record showed that among the security guards under Arizala was Nonilio Marfil, Jr., and that Arizala carried a service shotgun issued under the security agency’s mission orders, with firearm particulars and licenses later presented in evidence.

The first civilian witness, Benjamin Alino, testified that at about six o’clock in the evening of 27 January 1997, he met Arizala at the latter’s workplace to collect a debt. After Alino had been paid and was about to leave, Lara arrived, and an argument ensued with Arizala concerning the entry of construction materials brought in by squatters, which Arizala opposed. Without warning, Lara punched Arizala, causing him to fall. Arizala’s shotgun slid from his shoulder to the ground. Lara then grabbed and cocked the shotgun. Alino shouted for Arizala to run. Arizala fled toward the security guards’ barracks. Lara could not fire because people were in the direction where the two were heading. Alino later learned that Arizala had been killed.

The second security guard witness, Nonilio Marfil, Jr., testified that on 27 January 1997, while assigned at Sanchez Estate guarding construction materials, he waited for his reliever at their barracks when Arizala arrived and asked for Marfil’s shotgun after Arizala’s own gun had been taken by Lara. Marfil obliged because Arizala was his superior and officer-in-charge. Arizala instructed the guards to follow him. Arizala proceeded ahead carrying Marfil’s service shotgun until reaching the corner of a concrete wall. Marfil heard a gunshot, saw Arizala slowly falling, and later heard two more shots as Arizala fell supine. Marfil attempted to approach to get the shotgun and help, but another shot compelled him to move back about ten meters. He then saw Lara emerge behind the concrete wall, take the shotgun lying on top of Arizala’s chest, and, fearing immediate danger, Marfil ran back to the barracks and notified Arizala’s family upon returning with Arizala’s wife. Photographs of the victim and crime scene were taken and an investigation followed.

The witness Roque D. Ogrimen testified that shortly before six-thirty in the evening of 27 January 1997, he heard three gunshots from inside his house and went outside. He saw Lara at a distance of about twenty-five meters. He stated that he witnessed Lara belting a handgun, taking Arizala’s shotgun while Arizala lay supine, cocking the shotgun, stepping backward, and firing two shots at the fallen Arizala. Ogrimen then saw Lara walk away holding the shotgun.

Trial Court Proceedings and Appellant’s Flight

While the prosecution was presenting its evidence, Lara escaped from detention, prompting the trial court to grant the prosecution’s motion to declare him to have waived his right to present evidence and to treat him as a fugitive from justice.

In its Decision dated 3 March 2003, the RTC found Lara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all charges in Criminal Case Nos. 97-13706, 97-13707, and 97-13708. It imposed the death penalty for Robbery with Homicide, a penalty of prision mayor minimum period under the firearm law for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm, and an indeterminate imprisonment term for Robbery. The RTC also ordered substantial awards to Arizala’s heirs and indemnities to Taurus Security Agency and Allied Services.

Because the death penalty was imposed, the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Supreme Court denied a motion to dismiss based on Lara’s loss of the right to appeal, following its ruling in People v. Mateo, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further action.

Court of Appeals Disposition

On 22 December 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. It upheld Lara’s conviction for Robbery with Homicide and Robbery, but acquitted him for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm in Criminal Case No. 97-13707. It adjusted the corresponding penalties and awards to the victim’s heirs, including reduction or re-computation of civil indemnity, indemnity for lost earnings, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages. It also sustained the indemnity to Taurus Security Agency and Allied Services for the stolen firearms, albeit in a modified amount. The Court of Appeals certified and elevated the records for review to the Supreme Court pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03 SC, effective 15 October 2004.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Before the Supreme Court, Lara presented a lone assignment of error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the existence of reasonable doubt. He contended that the trial court relied on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Ogrimen, Marfil, and Alino, notwithstanding alleged glaring inconsistencies.

As to Ogrimen, Lara argued that Ogrimen testified on direct examination that he saw Lara pick up the shotgun from Arizala’s chest, but on cross-examination Ogrimen admitted that he did not mention such fact in his affidavit dated 27 January 1997. As to Marfil, Lara argued that the direct testimony allegedly gave the impression that Lara shot the victim, but on cross-examination Marfil admitted he did not actually see Lara shoot the victim. Finally, as to Alino, Lara argued that Alino described an argument before the shooting on direct examination, but on cross-examination Alino stated that he ran away without seeing Lara actually shoot the victim. Lara maintained that such contradictions and omissions eroded credibility.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Witness Credibility

The Supreme Court rejected Lara’s challenge to credibility. It held that Ogrimen’s failure to include in his affidavit that he saw Lara pick up the shotgun from the victim’s chest constituted, at most, the omission of a minor and insignificant detail that did not substantially contradict Ogrimen’s courtroom testimony that Lara shot the victim twice with the victim’s shotgun. The Court emphasized that affidavits taken ex parte are often inaccurately reflective of an affiant’s account, considering that they may be prepared by others and written using the questioner’s language, with omissions and misunderstandings occurring under conditions of haste or impatience. The Court further noted that Ogrimen satisfactorily explained that the omission resulted from his only answering the questions asked by the policemen.

On Marfil’s alleged inconsistency, the Supreme Court found no contradiction. It clarified that Marfil never testified on direct examination that he saw Lara shoot Arizala. Marfil had stated that he heard gunshots, saw Arizala slowly falling, heard two more shots, and observed Arizala fall supine. Marfil then attempted to approach but heard another shot, after which he retreated. Only afterward did he see Lara emerge behind the wall and take the shotgun from atop Arizala’s chest. The Court treated this testimony as internally consistent and faithful to what Marfil actually observed.

As to Alino, the Court found no inconsistency. It explained that Alino’s direct testimony regarding an argument before the shooting and his cross-examination statement that he ran away without seeing the actual shooting did not contradict each other because Alino did not claim to witness the firing itself. The Court also reiterated the principle that factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court deserve great weight and are binding absent arbitrariness, oversight, or a similar exception. It held that no reason existed to depart from those findings in the present case.

The Court further held that Lara adduced no defense evidence because he had escaped detention, which the Court treated as a strong indication of guilt when done to evade authorities or prosecution.

Determination of the Proper Crimes

Having affirmed the established guilt as the assailant who took two shotguns from the victim and was responsible for the killing, the Supreme Court proceeded to determine what crimes Lara committed.

Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm (Crim. Case No. 97-13707)

The Court sustained Lara’s acquittal for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm. It reasoned that with the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8294 on 6 July 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder was no longer treated as a separate offense. It became only a special aggravating circumstance. Accordingly, an accused could no longer be charged with the former two separate offenses of homicide or murder and qualified illegal possession of firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866, when the firearm was used in the homicide or murder. Since the amended law was favorable to Lara and the record did not show that he was a habitual delinquent, the Court applied the amendatory law retroactively consistent with Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

Robbery with Homicide (Crim. Case No. 97-13706)

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ view that Lara committed Robbery with Homicide. It recited that robbery with homicide, classified primarily as a crime against property, requires the prosecution to prove: (a) taking of personal property with use of violence or intimidation; (b) the property belonged to another; (c) the taking was characterized by intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery, homicide occurred. It emphasized that the prosecution must show that the accused had the principal purpose of committing robbery, with the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. It stressed that intent to rob must precede the taking of human life and that the original design must have been robbery. The killing should have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a view to co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171449)

The case arose from the review of a Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01140 that affirmed with modification the conviction of accused-appellant Jose D. Lara @ Jose Kalbo for Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm, and Robbery.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction following the automatic review of a death sentence and the remand ordered pursuant to People v. Mateo.
The accused-appellant assigned as error the trial court’s alleged grave error in convicting despite claimed reasonable doubt.

Informations and Consolidation

The prosecution charged the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 97-13706 for Robbery with Homicide, alleging that on or about January 27, 1997 at Antipolo, Rizal, he unlawfully took a NORINCO 12 Gauge Shotgun from Chito B. Arizala, a security guard, without consent, with intent to gain, and then shot Arizala with treachery and evident premeditation, causing death.
The prosecution charged the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 97-13707 for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm, alleging unauthorized possession of a still unknown pistol and a NORINCO 12 Gauge Shotgun with Serial No. 9600947, and that he used the firearms in killing Arizala.
The prosecution charged the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 97-13708 for Robbery, alleging that on the same date and place he robbed Arizala while the latter was performing duties, taking the NORINCO 12 Gauge Shotgun with Serial No. 9600947 and live ammunition valued at P11,900.00 without consent.
The public prosecutor moved to consolidate Criminal Cases Nos. 97-13707 and 97-13708 with Criminal Case No. 97-13706, and the RTC ordered consolidation before Branch 71.
The cases were later transferred to Branch 73, the branch designated to try heinous crimes.

Arraignment and Trial Conduct

Upon arraignment on June 3, 1999, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel de oficio.
The parties terminated pre-trial on July 27, 1999 by agreement, and the cases were thereafter jointly tried.
During the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, the accused-appellant escaped from detention.
After the prosecution rested, the RTC granted the prosecution’s motion to declare him to have waived the right to present evidence and to consider him a fugitive from justice.

Prosecution Evidence Summary

Benjamin Alino, a friend of the victim, testified that around 6:00 p.m. on January 27, 1997, he collected a debt from the victim at the victim’s work site and, when he was about to leave, a bald man (the accused-appellant) arrived, argued with Arizala over entry of construction materials, then without warning punched Arizala.
Alino testified that after Arizala fell, the victim’s shotgun slid down, and the accused-appellant immediately grabbed and cocked the shotgun.
Alino testified that Arizala ran toward the security guards’ barracks, while Alino ran toward home, and the accused-appellant could not fire then because people were in the direction of the escape routes.
Alino testified that later he learned Arizala was killed and that, in court, the accused-appellant was not present, so he identified the accused-appellant through a picture.
Nonilio Marfil, Jr., another security guard, testified that he was assigned to guard construction materials at Sanchez Estate, with Arizala as superior and Officer-in-Charge.
Marfil testified that around 6:15 p.m., Arizala asked for Marfil’s shotgun because the one assigned to him had been grabbed and taken by the accused-appellant, and Marfil obliged because Arizala was his superior.
Marfil testified that he followed Arizala until Arizala reached the corner of a concrete wall, where he heard a gunshot, saw Arizala fall to the ground, heard additional shots, and saw Arizala fall supine.
Marfil testified that when another shot was fired, he stepped back about ten (10) meters; thereafter he saw the accused-appellant emerge from behind the concrete wall, take the shotgun lying on top of the victim’s chest, and retreat to the barracks in fear.
Roque D. Ogrimen testified that around 6:20 p.m., after hearing three (3) gunshots, he saw the accused-appellant at a distance of about twenty-five (25) meters in a well-lighted area and witnessed what he did to Arizala.
Ogrimen testified that when he first saw Arizala, the latter was already lying supine; he saw the accused-appellant holding a handgun, belting it, taking the shotgun from on top of Arizala’s body, cocking it, stepping backwards, and firing two (2) shots at the fallen victim.
Ogrimen testified that after firing, the accused-appellant walked away holding the shotgun he used to shoot Arizala, and Ogrimen reported the incident to the police.
SPO1 Reynaldo Anclote testified on scene investigation and recovery: he recovered spent shotgun shells and bullets from the crime scene, arranged ballistic examination requests, and supervised picture-taking.
P/Sr. Insp. Abraham Pelotin testified on ballistic examination findings that the pellet examined measured 3.3 millimeters, appearing to have come only from a 12-gauge shotgun, though he admitted similarity with a 9-gauge is possible and that no striation on two bullets would be alike.
SPO2 Wilfred Tagola testified on document authenticity showing that two 12-gauge Norinco shotguns with specific serial numbers were duly licensed and registered to the security agency at the time of shooting, and that the accused-appellant was not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber.
Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr., the medico-legal officer, testified that autopsy findings showed gunshot wounds and shotgun wounds, described the fatal nature and locations, and concluded that shotgun firing was probably from a close range based on tattooing.
The heirs’ witnesses testified on loss of earnings, funeral and burial expenses, and related damages supported by documentary evidence.

Defense Theory and Credibility Disputes

The accused-appellant did not present evidence after escaping and being treated as a fugitive who waived the right to present evidence.
On appeal, the accused-appellant argued that prosecution witnesses’ testimonies contained fatal inconsistencies that should create reasonable doubt.
The accused-appellant claimed Ogrimen failed to mention in his affidavit that he saw the accused-appellant pick up the shotgun from the victim’s chest.
The accused-appellant claimed Marfil’s testimony suggested on direct examination that he saw the accused-appellant shoot the victim, but on cross-examination Marfil admitted he did not actually see the shooting.
The accused-appellant claimed Alino alleged an argument before the shooting on direct examination, but on cross-examination he stated that he ran away without seeing the accused-appellant actually shoot.
The Court held that Ogrimen’s omission in the affidavit concerned a minor detail, and it treated affidavit inaccuracies as common where affidavits are ex parte and prepared by others.
The Court found that Marfil’s direct testimony did not actually claim he saw the accused-appellant shoot the victim, and it read his testimony as describing gunshots and observing the accused-appellant taking the shotgun after the victim fell.
The Court found no inconsistency in Alino’s account regarding the argument and the fact that he left the scene without seeing the actual shooting.
The Court emphasized the RTC’s credibility assessment as entitled to great weight due to the trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Disposition

The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges and imposed death for Robbery with Homicide in Criminal Case No. 97-13706.
The RTC imposed Prision Mayor minimum period pursuant to P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8292, plus a fine, for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm in Criminal Case No. 97-13707.
The RTC imposed an indeterminate prison term for Robbery in Criminal Cas