Title
People vs. Torres y Nava
Case
G.R. No. 189850
Decision Date
Sep 22, 2014
Espino was stabbed and robbed by Bobby Torres and accomplices in Manila. Despite alibi claims, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for robbery with homicide, affirming credible witness testimonies and rejecting double jeopardy arguments.
special complex crime
robbery with homicide
appeal
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189850)

Filing of the Amended Information and Charges

On January 28, 2004, an Amended Information was filed before the RTC charging the accused siblings and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, committed against Espino. The Information alleged that, on or about September 21, 2001, in Manila, the accused, armed with bladed weapons, conspired with an unidentified malefactor whose identity remained unknown, to block Espino’s path and forcibly grab his belt-bag. It further alleged that during the robbery, and in pursuance of their conspiracy, the accused attacked Espino with intent to kill and stabbed him with bladed weapons in different parts of his body, causing multiple stab wounds that directly and immediately resulted in his death. After the killing, the Information alleged that the accused divested Espino of valuables including a belt-bag, wallet, necklace, watch, and ring of undetermined value.

The records showed that only appellant was arrested; Reynaldo, Jay, and Ronnie remained at large.

Arraignment and Trial

During arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. After the termination of the pre-trial conference, the trial proceeded and the prosecution and defense presented their respective versions of the events leading to Espino’s death.

Prosecution’s Version: Blocking, Stabbing, and Taking of Valuables

The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Eduardo Umali (Umali), a butcher, and Merlito Macapar (Macapar), a cigarette vendor, together with Dr. Romeo T. Salen (Dr. Salen), who testified on Espino’s cause of death. According to their testimony, at around 10:00 p.m. on September 21, 2001, Espino drove along C.M. Recto Avenue in Divisoria, Manila when Ronnie blocked his path. Espino alighted and approached Ronnie, who attempted to grab Espino’s belt-bag. Espino resisted and struggled for possession of the belt-bag.

As the struggle continued, the prosecution witnesses testified that Espino was joined by appellant and his brothers Jay and Reynaldo, and also by an unidentified companion. All of them allegedly brandished bladed weapons. Appellant and his brothers allegedly took turns stabbing Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held Espino by the neck. Once Espino was sprawled on the ground, the group allegedly took Espino’s belt-bag, wallet, and jewelries and then fled. Espino was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. Dr. Salen’s medico-legal report concluded that Espino died of multiple stab wounds caused by sharp bladed instruments, with the head bearing two stab wounds and the body bearing four stab wounds that proved fatal. Based on the number and varying measurements of the wounds, Dr. Salen opined that there were more than one assailant.

To support the civil aspect, Espino’s daughter Winnie Espino-Fajardo (Winnie) testified on the value of the jewelry allegedly taken and on burial and funeral expenses.

Defense’s Version: Denial, Alibi, and Alleged Different Incident

Appellant denied participation in the crime. He testified that at around 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001, he was with his girlfriend, Merlita Hilario (Merlita), and they went to the house of their friend, Marilou Garcia (Marilou), in Villaruel, Tayuman, Manila, where they had a drinking session lasting until they fell asleep and did not leave until the following morning. Appellant stated that he was later informed that policemen were searching for him because his brothers had allegedly been involved in an altercation that resulted in someone’s death. Merlita and Marilou corroborated appellant’s claimed alibi.

The defense also presented Jorna Yabut-Torres (Jorna), Ronnie’s wife, who testified that in Divisoria, a car stopped near their stall and the driver appeared drunk. Jorna testified that the driver stabbed Ronnie on the wrist with a knife, after which Jay hacked the driver with a bolo and both Ronnie and Jay fled. Another defense witness, Ditas Biescas-Mangilya, a vegetable vendor in Divisoria, corroborated Jorna’s account.

Findings of the RTC: Murder, Conspiracy, and Rejection of Robbery

In its December 5, 2006 Decision, the RTC held that appellant could not be convicted of robbery. It noted inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses. It observed that Macapar admitted on cross-examination that he did not see who took Espino’s ring, wristwatch, and necklace because the victim had fallen and the accused and companions surrounded him. It also highlighted discrepancies concerning whether a heated altercation preceded the incident, stating that Macapar testified to heated words while Umali testified that no such altercation occurred and further noted their distances from the alleged exchange.

The RTC further reasoned that the prosecution did not indubitably show the accused’s main purpose was robbery. It cited that to convict for robbery with homicide, the original criminal design must be robbery and the homicide must be perpetrated as a means to consummate the robbery or by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. As it found the element of robbery not indubitably established, it concluded that appellant could only be liable for killing.

Despite its ruling on robbery, the RTC found appellant guilty of murder. It found that abuse of superior strength was present as a qualifying circumstance, and it also ruled that conspiracy attended the killing. On civil liability, the RTC awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages, while denying indemnity for loss of earning capacity for lack of documentary proof. It imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for murder, as reflected in the RTC’s dispositive portion, and ordered the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest against the other accused who remained at large.

Appellant’s Appeal to the CA and the CA’s Modification

Appellant moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on April 10, 2007. Appellant then appealed to the CA.

The CA modified the RTC’s judgment. Instead of murder, the CA found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It held that the primary intention of appellant and his co-accused was to rob Espino, and that the killing was only incidental to the robbery. It treated the blocking of Espino’s car and the struggle for possession of the belt-bag as clear manifestations of intent to commit robbery. The CA affirmed the RTC’s civil awards for civil indemnity and moral and actual damages, adjusting the criminal conviction and corresponding basis accordingly.

Issues Raised by Appellant in the Present Appeal

In this appeal, appellant argued that his alleged acquittal on the robbery charge should stand as final and executory, and that overturning it on appeal would violate the proscription against double jeopardy. He also contended that the CA exceeded its jurisdiction because appellant allegedly appealed only his murder conviction and not the robbery acquittal. Finally, appellant argued that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of conviction.

Waiver of Double Jeopardy Upon Appellate Review

The Court held the appeal unmeritorious and rejected appellant’s double jeopardy argument. It ruled that when an accused appeals in a criminal case, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. It emphasized that an appeal by an accused opens the entire case for review, including questions not raised by the parties. When appellant appealed the RTC’s conviction for murder, he abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy, making it the duty of the appellate court to correct errors in the appealed judgment, whether favorable or unfavorable to the accused. Consequently, the Court held that appellant could not be placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the RTC’s ruling by convicting him of robbery with homicide as charged.

Robbery with Homicide: Elements and Proof of Primary Intent to Rob

The Court then addressed the sufficiency of the evidence for robbery with homicide. It reiterated that robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It outlined the elements required for conviction: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) intent to gain; (3) use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) that the homicide was committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. It also stressed that conviction requires certitude that robbery was the malefactor’s main purpose and that the killing was merely incidental to the robbery. It stated that the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, though the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the primary intention of appellant and his companions was to rob Espino. It relied on the testimony that Ronnie blocked Espino’s car, Espino alighted, Ronnie attempted to grab the belt-bag, and a struggle ensued. It noted that at that point appellant and the others joined the fray and stabbed Espino several times in the head and body. When Espino fell, appellant and Ronnie and their cohorts allegedly took Espino’s wallet, belt-bag, wristwatch, and jewelries before fleeing. The Court reasoned that had the primary intention been to kill, appellant and his companions would have immediately stabbed Espino to death. It treated the initial struggle for possession of the belt-bag and the subsequent taking of valuables as proof that the central aim was robbery, making the killing incidental and occurring by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.

Credibility of Eyewitnesses Despite Alleged Inconsistencies

Appellant attacked the credibility of Umali and Macapar by pointing to inconsistencies that the RTC earlier found significant. The Court held those inconsistencies involved minor details of peripheral significance and did not undermine the witnesses’ posit

...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