Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30056)
Petitioner and Respondent — Roles
Petitioner was employed by the private complainant as a stay-out errand boy and office janitor. The People prosecuted petitioner for alleged entry by force into the complainant’s house and the taking of various personal properties.
Key Dates
Alleged offense occurred on or before May 31, 2015. Information was filed June 4, 2015. RTC rendered judgment April 27, 2018. CA decision was rendered February 24, 2021; CA resolution denying reconsideration dated November 5, 2021. Supreme Court decision rendered October 11, 2023.
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution applies (case decision after 1990). Substantive and procedural law invoked: Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code (robbery in an inhabited house by breaking wall/door/window), as affected by Republic Act No. 10951 (adjusting thresholds and penalties); Rules of Court — Rule 45 (appeal by certiorari) and Rule 131 Section 3(j) (disputable presumption regarding possession of recently taken things); and Articles 100, 105–107 of the Revised Penal Code governing civil liability, restitution, reparations, and indemnity.
Facts Established by the Prosecution
Private complainant left Pagadian City on May 30, 2015 after locking her house. Upon return on May 31, 2015 she found doors open, windowpanes removed, and the side wall of the kitchen door forcibly opened; cabinets were broken and items enumerated in the Information were missing. She reported the incident to the barangay and police. The day after, petitioner appeared ill at ease at the complainant’s office and later failed to return as instructed. Petitioner was later found at his rented boarding room; some of the complainant’s belongings were recovered in his possession. Petitioner surrendered to the police accompanied by relatives and signed an inventory of recovered items. The prosecution presented three witnesses, including the complainant and the police officer who inventoried the recovered items.
Defense and Trial Posture
Petitioner offered no testimonial evidence at trial and did not provide an explanation for how the recovered items came into his possession. He did not claim ownership of the items. At trial petitioner’s allegations included that no eyewitness identified him as the perpetrator and that, at most, the facts supported theft rather than robbery.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of robbery under Article 299(a)(2) based on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption in Section 3(j), Rule 131 that a person found in possession of things taken in a recent wrongful act is the taker. The RTC concluded the elements of robbery were satisfied: unlawful taking of personal property of another, intent to gain, and force upon things (breaking of kitchen side wall and windowpane). The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty corresponding to robbery and ordered indemnity equivalent to the total value of the items (Php325,000).
Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt for robbery under Article 299(a)(2) but reduced the imposed penalty to an indeterminate term of eight years and one day of prision mayor (minimum) to 14 years of reclusion temporal (maximum). The CA rejected claims of illegal arrest and inadmissibility of the recovered items because petitioner voluntarily surrendered and because items were returned or recovered with his consent.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were (1) whether the CA correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for robbery, given alleged insufficiency of evidence and absence of eyewitness identification; (2) whether the facts supported robbery (force upon things) rather than mere theft; and (3) appropriate penalty and civil liability given voluntary surrender and recovery of the items.
Reviewability and Limitation under Rule 45
The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 45 petitions generally do not entertain review of factual findings, as this petition raised essentially factual questions—sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and classification of the offense. The Court noted exceptions to the rule but found none shown by petitioner to justify reexamination of the factual record. The RTC findings, affirmed by the CA and supported by the record, were therefore treated as final and conclusive.
Elements of Robbery and Their Application
The Court reiterated the elements required for robbery under Article 299(a)(2): (1) unlawful taking; (2) personal property of another; (3) intent to gain; and (4) force upon things, specifically entry by breaking wall, roof, floor, door, or window. Applying the evidence, the Court found each element proved: the assorted properties were unlawfully taken and belonged to the complainant; intent to gain was evidenced by petitioner’s possession of the stolen goods; and force upon things was demonstrated by the broken kitchen side wall and removed windowpane. There was no showing petitioner was armed.
Disputable Presumption under Rule 131 Section 3(j)
The Court applied the disputable presumption that one found in possession of things taken in a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act. Petitioner failed to present a reasonable explanation for the presence of the stolen items in his boarding house; assertions that others planted the items were unsupported and implausible. The prosecution witnesses’ testimony further reinforced the presumption. Consequently, the presumption standing unrefuted tied petitioner to the commission of the robbery.
Penalty Reassessment — Voluntary Surrender and Correct Penal Provision
The Supreme Court found that the RTC and CA misapplied the degree of penalty. Given the absence of evidence that petitioner carried arms, the proper class of penalty is prision mayor (next lower degree to reclusion temporal for inhabited-house robbery where offend
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30056)
Court, Date, and Procedural Posture
- Case decided by the Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 259511, dated October 11, 2023; opinion indicated by the heading “DIMAAMPAO, J.” at the outset of the decision.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking relief from the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City Station, in CA-G.R. CR No. 01736-MIN.
- The petition challenges the CA Decision dated February 24, 2021 (which sustained conviction but modified penalty) and the CA Resolution dated November 5, 2021 (which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration).
- The underlying criminal case originated from an Information dated June 4, 2015, filed in Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pagadian City, Criminal Case No. 12114-2K15 (Records, pp. 1a2; RTC Decision dated April 27, 2018, Records, pp. 141a145).
- Procedural history summary:
- Information filed June 4, 2015 (Records, pp. 1a2).
- RTC convicting Decision dated April 27, 2018 (Records, pp. 141a145); Motion for Reconsideration denied (Order dated June 7, 2018, Records, p. 168).
- Appeal to the CA; CA Decision dated February 24, 2021 affirmed conviction but modified the penalty (CA rollo, pp. 36a58; rollo, p. 57).
- Motion for Reconsideration to the CA denied by Resolution dated November 5, 2021 (rollo, pp. 32a34).
- Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court (rollo, pp. 14a30).
Title, Parties, and Counsel of Record (as reflected in source)
- Petitioner: Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol.
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
- The CA decision relied upon was penned by Associate Justice Richard D. Mordeno with concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales (CA Decision dated February 24, 2021; rollo, pp. 36a58).
Charged Offense and Allegations (Information)
- Petitioner was indicted for Robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code (as amended), the Information dated June 4, 2015 alleging that:
- On or before May 31, 2015, in Kagawasan Village Subdivision, Pagadian City, petitioner “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, and by the use of force upon things without however carrying any arm, break the wooden wall of the kitchen or through the window[,] enter the house of DR. MARIAM ALUK ESPINOZA, and once inside, steal, take and carry away” a long list of specified items (Records, pp. 1a2).
- Enumerated stolen items in the Information (exact wording and amounts as alleged):
- a) half sack rice;
- b) One e-machine netbook with charger worth [P] 15,000.00;
- c) One firefly electric fan worth [P]3,000.00;
- d) assorted kitchen wares, assorted make-ups and perfumes, worth [P]2,000.00;
- e) one flat iron worth [P]500.00;
- f) one rice cooker worth [P]2,000.00;
- g) two pieces of extension wires worth [P]300.00;
- h) four piggy banks containing more or less [P]4,000.00;
- i) rabbit piggy bank containing [P]15,000.00;
- j) assorted gold, white and silver jewelries worth more or less [P]200,000.00;
- k) one big wallet containing [P]15,000.00 cash;
- l) oneblack [sic] wallet containing [P]35,000.00;
- m) tow[sic] sling bags, trolley luggage worth [P]17,500.00;
- n) assorted can[ned] goods and petty cash worth/amounting to [P]500.00;
- o) one unit Olympus digital camera with charger worth [P]10,000.00;
- p) One unit i-pod touch 4th[-]Gen worth [P]18,000.00;
- q) other undetermine [sic] valuables;
- Total alleged damage: more or less Php325,300.00 (Records, pp. 1a2).
Factual Narrative as Presented by the Prosecution
- Employment and relationship:
- Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza (private complainant) hired petitioner as a stay-out errand boy in March 2015, treated him as a family member, and employed him at her office as an all-around janitor (rollo, p. 38).
- Events surrounding the alleged robbery:
- Private complainant left for Manila on May 30, 2015, after requesting petitioner to assist in bringing home items from her office; before leaving she locked and secured the house (rollo, p. 39).
- On May 31, 2015, upon return she found doors open, windowpanes removed, and the side wall of the kitchen door forcibly opened; two big cabinets were broken into and the items enumerated in the Information were missing (rollo, pp. 39; Records, pp. 1a15).
- She reported the incident to the barangay and the Pagadian City Police Station; the incident was entered into the Police Blotter (rollo, p. 39).
- Subsequent developments and recovery of items:
- The day after the incident, private complainant met petitioner at her office; he appeared ill-at-ease and speechless; she instructed him to return at 12 noon but he failed to return (rollo, p. 39).
- Private complainant contacted petitioner’s aunt, Abelita Almogera (Almogera), who, together with petitioner’s brother Nhorkhan, located petitioner at his rented room in a boarding house in San Pedro District where items belonging to private complainant were found in his possession (rollo, p. 39).
- Almogera probed petitioner; he hugged her and cried. Almogera coordinated with private complainant; petitioner, accompanied by Almogera and Nhorkhan, went to the office bringing some of the stolen items and asked for forgiveness; private complainant stated she would first seek legal advice (rollo, p. 39).
- PO1 Renjie Narciso of Pagadian City Police Station, together with Almogera, Nhorkhan, and petitioner, went to petitioner’s boarding house and found some of the stolen belongings; an inventory was prepared and signed by petitioner and Almogera (rollo, pp. 39a40; Records, p. 6).
- Petitioner, accompanied by Almogera and Nhorkhan, proceeded to the Pagadian City Police Station to surrender and apologize; private complainant identified and recovered the stolen items (rollo, p. 40; Records, pp. 8a15).
Prosecution Evidence and Proof of Valuation
- Prosecution presented testimony of three witnesses and documentary evidence:
- Affidavit of Complaint, Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Inventory List of Recovered Items, and Inquest Resolution among the records (Records, pp. 1a15; Records, pp. 3, 6, 8a15).
- Private complainant’s testimony included valuation of the stolen items totaling P325,000.00 as found credible despite rigorous cross-examination (RTC Decision, Records, p. 144; rollo, p. 40).
- The RTC and the CA relied on the totality of the circumstantial evidence, the recovery of stolen items from petitioner’s possession, and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131, as applied to possession of recently stolen items (RTC Decision, Records, pp. 142a145; CA Decision, rollo, pp. 49, 55).
Defense and Petitioner’s Position at Trial and on Appeal
- At trial, petitioner did not present evidence and submitted the case for decision (Records, p. 142).
- Petitioner’s arguments on appeal and in the petition:
- He challenged the sufficiency of prosecution evidence to establish culpability and to classify the offense as robbery rather than theft, alleging absence of eyewitnesses and asserting that the prosecution failed to prove he used “force upon things” or broke the wooden wall (rollo, pp. 23, 25).
- He contended that recovery of items in his possession did not conclusively show he was the perpetrator, suggesting the possibility that someone else placed the items in his room or that others (lessor/aunt) planted the items (rollo, pp. 23a24).
- He claimed, in the petition, that not every possibility of innocence had been excluded and that the crime might be theft not robbery (rollo, pp. 23, 25).
RTC Findings and Judgment
- RTC Decision dated April 27, 2018 (Presiding Judge Dennis P. Vicoy) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery under Article 299 RPC and imposed an indeterminate penalty described in the fallo as:
- “an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years of prison mayor in its medium period to seventeen (17) [years] and four (4) months of reclusion temporal in its medium period” (Records, pp. 141a145; fallo quoted).
- RTC ordered petitioner to indemnify the total value of the items taken in the amount of Php325,000.00 (Records, p. 144; RTC Decision).
- RTC’s basis for conviction:
- Conviction largely rested on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 that a person found in possession of things taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act (Records, pp. 142a145; RTC Decision).
- The RTC concluded all elements of robbery were established and that petitioner failed to explain how the stolen items came into his possession or to claim ownership (Records, pp. 142a144).
CA Decision and Rationale
- Court of Appeals Decision dated February 24, 2021 (CA rollo, pp. 36a58) summarized findings and affirmed petitioner’s guilt but modified the penalty:
- CA’s disposition: appeal PARTLY GRANTED; RTC Decision affirmed with modification imposing indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day (8 years and 1 day) prision mayor as minimum to 14 years reclusion temporal as maximum (CA rollo, p. 57).
- CA’s principal rulings and reasoning:
- Rejected petitioner’s claim of illegal arrest and inadmissibility of evidence; clarified that petitioner voluntarily surrendered and thus exclusionary rule did not apply (CA rollo, pp. 43a44, 46a47).
- Found st