Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe Tlbilippines
Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe Tlbilippines
Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe Tlbilippines
)j:-5JZ__.
p
-.~~
/7
~)
r. ', '\
":~
Oid'.'li*'
.
--r b ~ r k i r:r. ~ ,
'
<
'
'l
'
'
. .
T/'',r,\_l.f.:1
''"
. '
.,_;
', ;l
-~ ~, ~~- ~1;
1
zo,,,lti
QCourt
;!ffilanila
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff -Appellee,
- versus -
Promulgated:
C!~~---~- -- ~- -- -- -- -- -- x
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal of the May 13, 2011 Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04237 affirming the
October 21, 2009 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta
City, Pangasinan, Branch 47 in Crim. Case No. U-15476, finding accusedappellant Rodrigo Quito la y Balmonte (accused-appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide as
defined and penalized under Article 294, sub-paragraph ( 1) of the Revised
Penal Code.
On March 19, 2008, an Information3 for the special complex crime of
*
**
Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Justice Francis H. Jardeleza per raffle dated July 4,
2016.
On Wellness Leave.
Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, concurred by Associate Justices
Isaias P. Dicdican and Socorro B. lnting.
CA rollo, pp. 19-27; penned by Judge Meliton G. Ernuslan.
Records, p. 1.
Decision
10
Id.
Id. at 48.
Id. at 70.
CA rollo, pp. 70-88.
TSNs, October 9, 2008, pp. 6-7 and November 6, 2008, p. 7.
Supra note 3 at 5; Exhibit "K".
Id. at 35-37.
Decision
.....
.)
12
13
Decision
2.
14
Decision
In a Resolution 16 dated March 19, 2012, this Court required the parties
to submit their respective supplemental briefs. Both the Solicitor General
(Sol Gen.) and the accused-appellant manifested that they are adopting all
the arguments contained in their respective briefs in lieu of filing
supplemental briefs. 17
In his brief, accused-appellant assigned the following errors:
"I.
Our Ruling
Rollo, p. 13.
Id. at 20.
Id. at 21 and 24.
Decision
And were you able to interview the suspect, Rodrigo Quitola [y}
Balmonte, Madam Witness?
Yes sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
So when you were able to interview the accused, what did he tell
you if any?
I asked him if we could interview him.
A:
COURT:
Q:
Was he already inside the detention jail or still outside the
detention jail?
A:
Inside the detention jail sir.
Q:
A:
Of PNP-Urdaneta City?
Yes sir.
COURT: Proceed.
ATTY. TINI 0:
Q:
So when the accused consented to be interviewed by you, were you
able to interview the accused?
A:
Yes sir.
Q:
So what did the accused tell you during the course of the interview
18
19
Id.
Supra note 11.
Supra note 12.
20
21
Decision
A:
Q:
A:
if any?
He told me that Madam Fe arrived at early dawn.
What else did he tell you?
He said that Madam Fe entered the house and he also entered the
house.
xx xx
Q:
A:
Q:
What did this [Madame] Fe, the deceased tell the accused relative
to his request to be extended a loan?
He said the deceased did not mind him.
A:
Q:
A:
So when he told you that the deceased did not mind him, what did
he tell you afterwards?
I asked him what did he do?
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
When accused saw money inside the bag what else did he do and
tell you during the course of interview?
He said he tried to get the money inside the bag but Madam Fe saw
him getting the money.
A:
Q:
A:
At that point when the accused told you that he tried getting the
money and Ma Fe Valencia already saw him, what did you ask?
I asked him if what happened, then he told me "I do not know what
happened next dahil nagdilim na ang aking paningin."
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
xxxx
As can be gleaned from both the taped interview and the testimony of
the reporter, accused-appellant's confession was replete with details
describing the manner by which the crime was committed. This Court has
held that ''the voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its
Jr:f
~
Decision
language such that it: upon its face, the confession exhibits no sign of
suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being
replete with details which could be supplied only by the accused reflecting
spontaneity and coherence which, psychologically, cannot be associated
with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied, it maybe
considered voluntary.' 122 In the often cited case of United States v. De los
Santos, 23 We stated:
"If a confession be free and voluntary-the deliberate act of the
accused with a full comprehension of its significance, there is no
impediment to its admission as evidence, and it then becomes evidence of
a high order; since it is supported by the presumption-a very strong
one-that no person of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly
confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be a
serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience."
(2)
22
23
"4
15
?6
That accus~d together with his wife were seen by Chat Baculad in
the morning of March 15, 2008 at the Nice Place Compound in
Nancatasan, Urdaneta City, boarding a black car, which she
recognized as the service vehicle of the deceased;
Accused abandoned his duty or work as security guard of Nice
Place Compound;
Decision
(3)
(4)
(5)
2X
29
30
31
32
33
People v. Visaya, et al. 405 Phil. 384, 399 (2001), citing People v. Anda/es, 379 Phil. 67, 82
(2000).
People v. Zuniega, 405 Phil. 16, 32 (20 l l ).
People v. Altahano, 376 Phil. 57, 64 ( 1999), citing People v. Umali, 312 Phil. 20, 27 (1995).
Records, p. 35; Exhibit "J".
Id. at 291.
Id. at 305; Exhibit "L".
TSN, September 16, 2009, p. 12.
10
Decision
left for Aldan arouses suspicion. It has been ruled that flight per se cannot
prove the guilt of an accused. However, if the same is considered in the
34
light of other circumstances, it may be deemed a strong indication of guilt.
Taken altogether, these circumstances and the extra-judicial confession of
the accused, form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that accused-appellant perpetrated the crime.
We hold that the trial and appellate courts committed no error in
convicting Rodrigo Quitola of Robbery with Homicide. Article 294,
paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, reads:
"Art. 294 - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against
or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1.
35
J(,
37
38
JI)
40
41
Decision
11
Considering that the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact
amount or value involved, the prosecution is not expected to prove the actual
value of the property stolen. 42 More importantly, accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession glaringly reveals his intention to rob the deceased.
Anent the damages awarded, We find that modification is in order.
The trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, ordered accused-appellant
to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of :1250,000.00 as indemnity and
the additional sum of :1250,000.00 as moral damages. Pursuant to the recent
jurispn1dential guidelines on adjusted damages laid down by this Court in
People v. Jugueta, 43 accused-appellant shall be held liable for P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and :1275,000.00 as exemplary
damages. Actual damages were not awarded by the trial court for the
unfortunate reason that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to support
an award for actual damages. Time and again, this Court has held that only
expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have been actually
expended in connection with the death of the victims may be allowed. 44
Hence, the rulings 45 on temperate damages apply. Given that the amount of
actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be determined because no
substantiating documentary evidence was presented in court, the amount of
:1250,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. 46
SO ORDERED.
42
43
44
45
46
.
Decision
12
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, JR.
As5ociate Justice
Chairperson
,.
~e'~c?
NO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opini.k'fn of the
Court's Division.
PRESBITE
J. VELASCO, JR.
A. /ociate Justice
ThircY, ivision, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
; / ;.
'/
~~,
~/_,f
..t,i..__J
~DOV.
l, J{.(/l1..
~};isi<)n
,--"?Y
~-,.-,-
i ; ~:._. :-~
"
!TAN
Ckrk of Court
Til i nl Di vision
AUG a 1 l0t6