Case Summary (G.R. No. 259511)
Background and Charges
Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol was charged with robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The charge stemmed from an incident where petitioner allegedly broke into the wooden side wall and window of the kitchen of the house of Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza in Pagadian City. Petitioner allegedly took various personal properties valued at approximately Php325,300.00. The crime was alleged to have been committed without the use of any weapon and with intent to gain.
Facts Established During Trial
Dr. Espinoza employed the petitioner as a stay-out errand boy and office janitor and trusted him as a family member. On May 30, 2015, she left for Manila and secured her house. Upon returning on May 31, she found her house forcibly entered, ransacked, and valuable items missing. She reported the incident to authorities.
The day after the incident, petitioner was found at his boarding house with some of the stolen items in his possession. Upon confrontation, he emotionally admitted wrongdoing and voluntarily surrendered with his relatives, bringing along some stolen goods. Police Officer 1 Renjie Narciso verified the stolen items in petitioner’s boarding house, prepared an inventory, and petitioner consented to the search. Petitioner was charged accordingly.
Proceedings in the Trial Court and Court of Appeals
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of robbery beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten years and imprisonment to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal. The RTC relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence, which presumes a person found possessing recently stolen items to be the offender, provided no explanation is given.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The CA rejected petitioner’s allegation of illegal arrest, ruling he voluntarily surrendered and emphasizing that the stolen items were either returned by petitioner or recovered with his consent, thus excluding any application of the exclusionary rule.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The core issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner’s guilt of robbery under Article 299(a)(2) RPC, focusing particularly on (1) the sufficiency of evidence to prove petitioner’s identity as the perpetrator and (2) the proper classification of the crime as robbery rather than theft.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis on Evidence and Presumption of Guilt
The Court emphasized that under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Rules of Court, appeals under Rule 45 generally preclude re-examination of factual issues unless a substantial legal question is involved. Petitioner’s arguments, centered on insufficiency of evidence and classification of offense, involved factual issues beyond the scope of such review.
Nonetheless, the Court verified that all elements of robbery by breaking into an inhabited house were proven beyond reasonable doubt: unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, effected by forcibly breaking the side wall and window of the house.
The valuation of stolen items amounting to Php325,000.00 was confirmed by the testimony of the private complainant. The petitioner was unarmed during the commission of the offense.
Importantly, the Court underscored the application of the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131, which presumes that a person found in possession of recently stolen property is the taker and doer of the wrongful act unless satisfactorily explained. Petitioner failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the possession; his claim that the items were planted by others was unsubstantiated and illogical.
The Court held that the cumulative circumstantial evidence and testimonies support the conviction and the determination of petitioner’s guilt.
Civil Liability and Indemnity Award
The Court found that the RTC erred in ordering petitioner to indemnify the full value of the stolen items despite these items being recovered. Civil indemnity ex delicto under Philippine law serves as monetary compensation for damages resulting from the offense and is separate from reparations or actual damages, which require proof.
Since restitution of the stolen items was made, awarding the full value as civil indemnity was improper. The award did not account for the absence of proven consequential damages and risked unjust enrichment of the private complainant. This error was corrected by
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 259511)
Procedural History and Case Background
- The petition arises from the conviction of Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol (“petitioner”) for robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01736-MIN.
- The Information dated June 4, 2015 charged petitioner with willful, unlawful, and felonious entry into the house of Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza by forcibly breaking the kitchen’s wooden wall or window pane and stealing various personal properties valued at approximately PHP 325,300.00.
- Petitioner was initially hired as a stay-out errand boy in March 2015 and was treated as a family member. Dr. Espinoza left for Manila on May 30, 2015, securing her house prior to departure.
- Upon her return on May 31, 2015, Dr. Espinoza discovered forced entry and multiple items missing. She filed a barangay and police report promptly.
- Petitioner was found the next day at his rented boarding house with several stolen items in his possession. He voluntarily accompanied relatives and private complainant to surrender and apologize, bringing some recovered items.
- An inventory of stolen properties was made; petitioner did not present evidence in his defense and submitted the case for the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision.
Trial Court Findings and Decision
- The RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of medium prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of medium reclusion temporal.
- The trial court relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Evidence—that possession of recently stolen goods usually indicates guilt.
- Petitioner failed to explain how the stolen items were found in his possession nor claimed ownership thereof.
- The RTC ordered petitioner to indemnify Dr. Espinoza for the total value of stolen items amounting to PHP 325,000.00.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications
- The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty, imposing an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal maximum.
- The CA rejected claims of illegal arrest and inadmissibility of evidence, clarifying that petitioner voluntarily surrendered and items were retrieved consentingly.
- The CA held the prosecutorial evidence and testimonial accounts sufficiently established all elements of robbery.
- The presumption in Section 3(j), Rule 131, that possession of stolen goods implies guilt applied correctly.
- The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender warranted reduction of the penalty.
- Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.
Issues Presented for Supreme Court Review
- Petitioner contended the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator, citing lack of eyewitness testimony.
- He further argued that the offense charged should have been theft rather than robbery, as no evidence showed use of force or breaking of the victim's kitchen wall by him.
- The Court was tasked with determining whether the CA correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the RPC.
Supreme Court’s Examination of the Petition
- The Court noted the petition was a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, which generally precludes review of factual issues, unless exceptional circumstances apply—which petitioner failed to show.
- The Court emphasized