Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

113269 April 10, 2001

PEOPLE OF T E P ILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR CONDE ! LUTOC, ALLAN ATIS ! A"ET #$% ALE&ANDRO PERE', &R. ! CARSILLAR, accused, OSCAR CONDE ! LUTOC #$% ALLAN ATIS ! A"ET, accused-appellants. (UISUM"ING, J.) On appeal is the decision 1 dated December 15, 1993, of the Re ional !rial "ourt, #ranch 1$9, %aloo&an "it' findin accused Oscar "onde, (llan (tis and (le)andro Pere*, +r., uilt' of the special comple, crime of robber' -ith homicide and sentencin each of them to suffer the penalt' of reclusion perpetua -ith the accessor' penalties under the la-, and to )ointl' and severall' indemnif' the heirs of each of the victims, .u&hdev .in h and #iant .in h, in the amount of P5/,///.//. (ccused Oscar "onde, (llan (tis and (le)andro Pere*, +r., -ere arrai ned in an 0nformation -hich reads1 !hat, on or about the $5th da' of Ma', 199$ in %aloo&an "it', Metro Manila and -ithin the )urisdiction of this 2onorable "ourt, the above-named accused, conspirin to ether and mutuall' helpin one another, -ith intent to ain and b' means of threats and intimidation upon the persons of .3%2D45 .0672 8 D2(96(9 and #0(6! .0672 8 .0D23, did then and there -ilfull', unla-full' and feloniousl' ta&e, rob and carr' a-a' cash of unestimated amount and assorted merchandise such as umbrellas and beach to-els, that on the occasion of the said robber' and for the purpose of enablin them to ta&e, rob and carr' a-a' the aforementioned articles, the herein accused in pursuance of their conspirac', did then and there -ilfull', unla-full' and feloniousl' and -ith intent to &ill, attac& and stab -ith bladed -eapons upon the persons of .3%2D45 .0672 8 D2(96(9 and #0(6! .0672 8 .0D23 on the different parts of the bod', thereb' inflictin upon said victims serious ph'sical in)uries -hich caused their death on the above-specified date. "O6!R(R8 !O 9(:. $ !he accused entered pleas of not uilt'. Durin trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of (pollo Romero, PO3 Rodencio .evillano, and Dr. 7ario 7a)ardo as -itnesses. (pollo Romero, a resident of .antolan .treet, %aloo&an "it', Metro Manila, testified that on Ma' $5, 199$ at about ;1// (.M., he -as home sittin b' the -indo- and drin&in coffee -hen he sa- four men in .antolan .treet bloc& the path of t-o 0ndian nationals <bombay= on a motorc'cle. One of the men, later identified as Oscar "onde, po&ed a un at the t-o 0ndians -hile his three companions approached and stabbed the 0ndians. 2e later identified the other t-o assailants as (le)andro Pere*, +r., and (llan (tis. 2e also sa- (llan (tis ta&e the oods 3 -hich -ere bein sold b' the t-o 0ndians on installment. (fter the stabbin , the four men fled from the crime scene to-ards Mabolo .treet. !he fourth assailant remained unidentified. Romero -as about $5 to 35 meters a-a' from the place -here the crime -as committed. > PO3 Rodencio .evillano, testified that he -as assi ned -ith the 0ntelli ence and 0nvesti ation Division <00D= of the P6P, %aloo&an "it'. On Ma' $5, 199$, he -as told to investi ate the abovecited incident. On Ma' 3/, 199$, the police arrested the three accused. Police recovered the -eapons used in the robber', -hen ?elicidad Macabare, "onde@s -ife, -ent to the police station to tal& to the accused. !hese -eapons -ere discovered inside her ba after a routine inspection. .evillano admitted, ho-ever, that the' did not have a -arrant of arrest -hen the' apprehended the accused. 6or did the' have a search -arrant -hen the'

inspected ?elicidad@s ba and -hen the' searched the house of a certain +imm' -here the' found the stolen items. 5 Dario 7a)ardo, a doctor emplo'ed in the P6P "rime 9aborator' .ervice at .tation >, "entral Police District, Aue*on "it' performed the post-mortem e,amination on the bodies of .u&hdev .in h and #iant .in h. 2e testified that the cause of death -as cardio-respirator' arrest due to shoc& and hemorrha e secondar' to stab -ounds. #iant .in h sustained stab -ounds on his lo-er stomach -hile .u&hdev .in h sustained stab -ounds at the bac& and ri ht portion of the ribs. B !he defense presented five -itnesses1 (le)andro Pere*, +r., Oscar "onde, (llan (tis, Danilo (cutin and (nita .antos. (le)andro Pere*, +r. testified that Oscar "onde and (llan (tis -ere his to-nmates from "atbalo an, .amar. (ccordin to Pere*, on Ma' $5, 199$, at about C1// (.M., he -ent to the Madri al "ompound at 9as PiDas, Metro Manila to visit his cousin Danilo and apolo i*e for not attendin his uncle@s >/th death anniversar' and their fiesta. 3pon his arrival the' -ent to the Pulan 9upa "emeter' and visited the raves of his uncle and their randfather. ?rom the cemeter', the' -ent home -here the' dran& some beer until late afternoon. !o ether -ith Oscar "onde and (llan (tis, he -as arrested in !andan .ora, Aue*on "it' on Ma' 3/, 199$. C Danilo (cutin corroborated (le)andro@s testimon'. ; Oscar "onde testified that on Ma' $5, 199$, he -as in #aran a' Polo .treet, ParaDaEue mendin his fishin net. 2e -as -ith his -ife, ?elicidad MacabareF and his uncle, !ancio 9oto. 2e said the police arrested (le)andro Pere*, +r., (llan (tis, ?elicidad Macabare and him in !andan .ora, Aue*on "it' on Ma' 3/, 199$. 9 <9ater reports indicated, ho-ever, that ?elicidad -as not amon those arrested. 1/ = (llan (tis stated that he -as in M"3 -here he -or&ed as a construction -or&er for a certain Rom' Ramos on Ma' $5, 199$. 2e denied havin an'thin to do -ith the death of the t-o 0ndian nationals. 11 On December 15, 1993, the trial court rendered its decision, thus1 :24R4?OR4, premises considered, this "ourt finds the accused Oscar "onde ' 9utoc, (llan (tis ' (bet and (le)andro Pere*, +r. ' "arsillar uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the special comple, crime of Robber' -ith 2omicide as defined and penali*ed under (rticle $9>, para raph 1 of the Revised Penal "ode, in relation to the .olis rulin . (ccordin l', the 3 accused shall each serve the penalt' of Reclusion Perpetua, -ith all the accessor' penalties under the la-. Pursuant to .ection C, Rule 11C of the 19;5 Rules on "riminal Procedure, as amended, the 3 accused shall be credited -ith the period of their preventive detention. #' -a' of compensator' dama es, the accused shall )ointl' and severall' indemnif' the heirs, if an', of deceased .3%2D45 .0672 and #0(6! .0672 in the sum of P5/,///.// for each, -ithout subsidiar' imprisonment in case of insolvenc'. .O ORD4R4D. 1$ !he three accused appealed. 2o-ever, the counsel de parte for accused (le)andro Pere*, +r., (tt'. +ose M. MarEue*, failed to file brief for Pere*, promptin this "ourt to dismiss his appeal. !he decision of the trial court became final and e,ecutor' -ith respect to accused (le)andro Pere*, +r. 13 2ence the present appeal concerns onl' appellants (tis and "onde, -ho filed their separate briefs. (tis avers that the trial court erred1 0

. . . 06 705067 :4072! (6D "R4D46"4 !O !24 !4.!0MO68 O? !24 PRO.4"3!0O6 :0!64..4. (6D 06 D0.R47(RD067 !24 "9(0M O? !24 D4?46.4. 00 . . . 06 ?06D067 (""3.4D-(PP499(6! (99(6 (!0. 7309!8 #48O6D R4(.O6(#94 DO3#! O? !24 "R0M4 O? RO##4R8 :0!2 DO3#94 2OM0"0D4 D4.P0!4 GO?H !24 06.3??0"046"8 O? 450D46"4. 1> (tis ar ues that the prosecution failed to establish his identit' as one of the perpetrators of the crime. 2e alle es that (pollo Romero onl' sa- him in court. (tis li&e-ise claims that he -as arrested -ithout an' -arrant of arrest several da's after the crime. 15 Oscar "onde avers that the trial court erred in1 0 . . . 6O! 2O9D067 !24 (RR4.! O? !24 (""3.4D 09947(9 00 . . . (""ORD067 !24 !4.!0MO604. O? PRO.4"3!0O6 :0!64..4. (PO99O ROM4RO (6D PO3 ROD46"0O .45099(6O ?399 "R4D46"4. 000 . . . 2O9D067 !24 (""3.4D 7309!8 #48O6D R4(.O6(#94 DO3#! O? !24 "R0M4 O? RO##4R8 :0!2 DO3#94 <sic= 2OM0"0D4. 1B Oscar "onde claims that he -as ille all' arrested b' the authorities. 2e adds that the 0ndian 4mbass' -as pressurin the police to solve the murder. 2e avers that the testimon' of Romero is insufficient to sustain his conviction. 2e cites the dela' of Romero in reportin -hat he sa-, hence Romero@s testimon' is unbelievable. 9astl', "onde -ants this "ourt to disre ard as evidence the stolen items and -eapons ille all' sei*ed b' the police. 1C !he Office of the .olicitor 7eneral, for its part, filed its appellee@s brief onl' in re ard to Oscar "onde@s appeal. (ccordin to the O.7, the testimon' of (pollo Romero deserves full faith and credence since the appellants failed to sho- an' improper motive on his part. !he same is true for the testimon' of PO3 .evillano -ho also en)o's the presumption of re ularit' in the performance of his official duties. 0n conclusion, the .olicitor 7eneral pra's that the conviction of the appellants be affirmed. "itin People vs. Escandor, $B5 ."R( >>>, >>5 <199B=, the O.7 stresses that the findin s of the trial court, especiall' on the credibilit' of -itnesses, are enerall' accorded reat -ei ht and respect on appeal, because the trial court is in the best position to ma&e an honest determination of the -itnesses@ behavior and deportment durin trial.
1;

0n substance, the issues raised b' both appellants are <1= :hether or not the identification made b' (pollo Romero deserves credenceF <$= :hether or not the arrests of the appellants -ere ille alF <3= :hether or not the alle ed stolen ob)ects, i.e., the beach to-el and umbrella, can be presented in evidence. (nent the first issue, -e are in a reement -ith the submission b' the Office of the .olicitor 7eneral. ?irst, factual findin s of the trial court are conclusive upon this "ourt and its evaluation re ardin the credibilit' of -itnesses are iven reat -ei ht and respect unless there is a sho-in that the trial court had overloo&ed, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of -ei ht and substance that -ould have affected the result of the case. 19 #ein in a better position to observe the -itnesses for the prosecution as -ell as the defense, the trial court@s appreciation of their testimon', truthfulness, honest' and candor deserves the hi hest respect. $/

(llan (tis insists that it -as impossible for Romero to have identified him since Romero onl' sa- him inside the court room and that Romero had not seen him before. 2o-ever, there is nothin in la- and )urisprudence -hich reEuires, as a condition sine Eua non for the positive identification b' a prosecution -itness of a felon, that -itness must first &no- the latter personall'. $1 !he fact that Romero never sa- (tis before the crime -as committed does not detract from the credibilit' and reliabilit' of Romero@s testimon'. Oscar "onde insists that the dela' of Romero in reportin the incident ma&es his testimon' un-orth' of credence. 0t is ho-ever -ell settled in )urisprudence that dela' in divul in the names of perpetrators of a crime, if sufficientl' e,plained, does not impair the credibilit' of the -itness and his testimon'. $$ 9i&e-ise, credibilit' is not affected b' the initial reluctance of -itnesses to volunteer information. $3 0t is not uncommon for -itnesses to a crime to sho- some reluctance about ettin involved in a criminal case as, in fact, the natural reticence of most people to et involved is of )udicial notice. $> Romero cate oricall' identified both Oscar "onde and (llan (tis as t-o of the perpetrators of the crime. (ppellants failed to adduce an' improper motive on his part -hich -ould motivate him to implicate them in the said crime. (bsent such motive, the testimon' of Romero should be accorded full faith and credence as the testimon' of a disinterested part' -ho onl' -ants to see )ustice upheld. $5 !he t-o appellants interposed the ne ative defenses of alibi and denial. #ut as held in several cases, these defenses cannot overcome the strai htfor-ard testimon' and the positive identification made b' a prosecution -itness. $B :e no- turn to the appellants@ vehement assertion that the' have been ille all' arrested. !he records of the case -ill sho- that the arrests of the appellants came after the lapse of 5 da's from the time the' -ere seen committin the crime. (t the time the' -ere arrested, the police -ere not armed -ith an' -arrants for their arrests. .ection 5 of Rule 113, of the Revised Rules of "riminal Procedure $C enumerates the instances -hen an arrest can be made -ithout -arrant, namel'1 <a= :hen, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actuall' committin , or is attemptin to commit an offenseF <b= :hen an offense has in fact )ust been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal &no-led e of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed itF and <c= :hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner -ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place -here he is servin final )ud ment or temporaril' confined -hile his case is pendin , or has escaped -hile bein transferred from one confinement to another. 6one of the above circumstances is present in this case. (ppellants -ere merel' -al&in alon !andan .ora (venue and -ere not committin an' crime. 6either can it be said that the crime had )ust been committed. ?ive da's had alread' passed from the time of the robber' -ith homicide. 0t cannot also be said that the arrestin officers had probable cause based on personal &no-led e. PO3 .evillano admitted that the' learned about the suspects from (pollo Romero and certain unnamed informants. !he third circumstance is patentl' not present. !he lapse of five da's ave the police more than enou h time to conduct surveillance of the appellants and appl' for a -arrant of arrest. "learl', appellants@ ri hts provided in .ec. $, (rt. 000 of the "onstitution $; -ere violated. 3nfortunatel', appellants did not assert their constitutional ri hts prior to their arrai nment. !his is fatal to their case. (n accused is estopped from assailin the le alit' of his arrest if he failed to move for the Euashin of the 0nformation a ainst him before his arrai nment. $9 :hen the appellants entered their pleas on arrai nment -ithout invo&in their ri hts to Euestion an' irre ularit', -hich mi ht have accompanied their arrests, the' voluntaril' submitted themselves to the )urisdiction of the court and the )udicial process. 3/ (n' ob)ection, defect, or irre ularit' attendin their arrests should had been made before the' entered their pleas. 31 0t is much too late for appellants to raise the Euestion of their -arrantless arrests. !heir pleas to the information upon arrai nment constitute clear -aivers of their ri hts a ainst unla-ful restraint of libert'. 3$ ?urthermore, the ille al arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for settin aside a valid )ud ment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. 33 !he -arrantless arrest, even if ille al,

cannot render void all other proceedin s includin those leadin to the conviction of the appellants and his co-accused, nor can the state be deprived of its ri ht to convict the uilt' -hen all the facts on record point to their culpabilit'. 3> (s for the stolen ob)ects presented in evidence, their sei*ure is assailed b' appellants. :e a ree that the -arrantless search in the house of a certain +imm', based on the confession of accused (le)andro Pere*, +r., 35 is definitel' Euestionable. PO3 Rodencio .evillano cate oricall' stated that the' -ere able to recover the stolen items, i.e., the beach to-el and the umbrella, because of the confession of (le)andro Pere*, +r. -ho -as not assisted b' counsel -hen he confessed and eventuall' led the police to the -hereabouts of the said items. 3B !he use of evidence a ainst the accused obtained b' virtue of his testimon' or admission -ithout the assistance of counsel -hile under custodial investi ation is proscribed under .ections 1$ and 1C, (rticle 000 of the "onstitution. 3C 3nder the libertarian e,clusionar' rule &no-n as the Ifruit of the poisonous treeI, evidence ille all' obtained b' the state should not be used to ain other evidence because the ille all' obtained evidence taints all evidence subseEuentl' obtained. 3; .impl' put, the ob)ects confiscated at said house are inadmissible as evidence. :ithout the stolen ob)ects as evidence, -e are left -ith onl' the testimon' of (pollo Romero that he sa(llan (tis ta&e the beach to-el and the umbrella. 39 ( readin of the said testimon' -ill indicate that such -as not cate orical and strai htfor-ard, to -it1 A1 (1 A1 (1 (nd can 'ou tell us, Mr. :itness, more or less -hat did (llan (tis did <sic=J 8es, ma@m. :hatJ 2e stabbed one of the 0ndian 6ationals at the bac&.

A1 "an 'ou still recall -ith -hat instrument did (llan (tis used <sic= in stabbin the 0ndian 6ational at the bac&. (1 A1 (1 0 cannot recall an'more, ma@m. :hat about (le)andro Pere*, -hat did he doJ (llan (tis -as the one -ho too& the oods bein sold b' the 0ndian 6ationals in installment.

A1 :ho too& the oodsJ :ill 'ou please identif' the person -ho too& the oods from the 0ndian 6ationalsJ (1 !he one -earin the -hite t-shirt.

(tt'. 8son :itness pointed to a person -earin a -hite t-shirt -ho -hen as&ed ans-ered b' the name of (llan (tis. >/ !he identification of (llan (tis b' (pollo Romero as the one -ho too& the items -as more of an afterthou ht and -as not even responsive to the Euestion made b' the prosecutor. (side from this, the o-nership of the to-el and the umbrella -as not even established. 0n order to sustain a conviction for robber' -ith homicide, robber' must be proven as conclusivel' as the &illin itself, other-ise, the crime -ould onl' be homicide or murder, as the case ma' be. >1 0n this case, onl' the facts and causes of deaths -ere established -ith moral certaint'. 2ence, there can be no robber' -ith homicide. !he appellants are onl' liable for t-o counts of homicide.

On the other hand, -e find in order the search of the ba of ?elicidad Macabare, at the time she -as visitin her husband -ho -as a detainee. PO3 .evillano testified, this search is part of police standard operatin procedure, >$ and is reco ni*ed as part of precautionar' measures b' the police to safe uard the safet' of the detainees as -ell as the over-all securit' of the )ail premises. 2o-ever, the -eapons >3 confiscated from ?elicidad Macabare, -ere not formall' offered as evidence b' the prosecution, >> hence probativel' valueless. >5 :24R4?OR4, the assailed decision of the Re ional !rial "ourt of %aloo&an "it', #ranch 1$9, findin the appellants Oscar "onde and (llan (tis uilt' of robber' -ith homicide is hereb' MOD0?04D. !he' are declared uilt' onl' of t-o counts of homicide and each is hereb' sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of si, <B= 'ears and one <1= da' of prision mayor to fourteen <1>= 'ears, ei ht <;= months, and one <1= da' of reclusion temporal for each count of homicide. !he' are li&e-ise ordered to indemnif' )ointl' and severall' the heirs of each of the victims, .u&hdev .in h and #iant .in h, in the amount of P5/,///.//, and to pa' the costs. .O ORD4R4D. Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ ., concur.

Foo*$o*+,
1

Rollo, pp. 15-$1. Id. at 3. <1= beach to-el and <1= umbrella. !.6, (u ust 19, 199$, pp. $-$/. Id. at $9->>. !.6, October B, 199$, pp. $-$>. !.6, 6ovember $3, 199$, pp. 3-11. !.6, ?ebruar' ;, 1993, pp. 3-11. !.6, March 1, 1993, pp. 3-$1. !.6, (u ust 19, 199$, p. $1. !.6, +une 1>, 1993, pp. $-9. Rollo, pp. $/-$1. Id. at 1//. Id. at B9. Id. at CC-;1. Id. at 1>>.

>

1/

11

1$

13

1>

15

1B

1C

Id. at 1>B-155. Id. at 1CB.

1;

People vs. e!ada, 1C/ ."R( >9C, 5/1-5/$ <19;9=F People vs. "blaza, 3/ ."R( 1C3 <19B9=, People vs. #arido, 1BC ."R( >B$ <19;;=.
19

People vs. $a%ez, 3$/ ."R( ;/5, ;15 <1999=F People vs. De los $antos, 31> ."R( 3/3 <1999=F People vs. "lmacin, 3/3 ."R( 399 <1999=.
$/ $1

People vs. Bracamonte, $5C ."R( 3;/, 391 <199B=. People vs. Merino, 3$1 ."R( 199, $13 <1999=F People vs. umaru, 319 ."R( 515 <1999=. People vs. Rada, 3/; ."R( 191, $/3 <1999=. People vs. La&may, 3/B ."R( 15C, 1CC <1999=. People vs. a'op, 315 ."R( >B5, >C$->C3 <1999=F People vs. (rancisco, 315 ."R( 11> <1999=.

$$

$3

$>

$5

People vs. Patalin, Jr., 311 ."R( 1;B, $/5 <1999=F People vs. Macu'a, 31/ ."R( 1> <1999=F People vs. "&sunod, Jr., 3/B ."R( B1$ <1999=.
$B $C

!oo& effect December 1, $///.

.ec. $. !he ri ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ures of -hatever nature and for an' purpose shall be inviolable, and no search -arrant or -arrant of arrest shall issue e,cept upon probable cause to be determined personall' b' the )ud e after e,amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the -itnesses he ma' produce, and particularl' describin the place to be searched and the persons or thin s to be sei*ed.
$;

People vs. )'or, 3/C ."R( $95, 3$B <1999=F .ee also .ec. 9, Rule 11C of the Revised Rules of "riminal Procedure -hich too& effect December 1, $///.
$9 3/

$ee People vs. Del Rosario, 3/5 ."R( C>/, CB/-CB1 <1999=. People vs. Patalin, +r., 311 ."R( 1;B, $/C <1999=. People vs. Briones, $/$ ."R( C/;, C19 <1991=. People vs. De *uzman, $$> ."R( 93, 1// <1993=.

31

3$

33

People vs. Manlulu, $31 ."R( C/1, C1/ <199>=F People vs. De 7uia, $$C ."R( B1>, B$B <1993=.
3> 35

!.6, (u ust 19, 199$, p. $C. Id. at 35. People vs. Rodendero, 3$/ ."R( 3;3, 399. Ibid.

3B

3C

3;

39

!.6, (u ust 19, 199$, pp. C-;. Id. at B-C. People vs. eodoro, $;/ ."R( 3;> <199C=. !.6, (u ust 19, 199$, pp. 3>-35. One palti&, smith and -esson, 5 live ammunitions and $ da Records, pp. ;5-;B. +n& vs. #ourt o, "ppeals, 3/1 ."R( 3;C <1999=. ers.

>/

>1

>$

>3

>>

>5