People of the Philippines vs. Abdul Aminola y Omar and Mike Maitimbang y Abubakar

A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of (1) taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons, (2) property belonging to another, (3) animo lucrandi, and (4) homicide by reason or on the occasion of the robbery; alibi and denial cannot overcome positive identification absent proof of ill motive. An objection to the legality of a warrantless arrest is waived when the accused submits to arraignment without objection.

Abdul Aminola y Omar and Mike Maitimbang y Abubakar were among several accused charged with robbery with homicide for the August 31, 1999 killing of Nestor Aranas Gabuya in Taguig, Metro Manila. Aminola was separately charged with illegal possession of firearms. The charges were jointly tried, and the case involved the special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code and the application of Republic Act No. 8294 on the use of an unlicensed firearm.

In the afternoon of August 31, 1999, at around five o’clock, Nestor Gabuya closed shop at his motorcycle and bicycle spare parts store located in Upper Bicutan, Taguig, and headed home on his bike. Unbeknownst to him, Abdul Aminola and Alimudin Laminda were observing him from a nearby basketball court. Aminola followed Gabuya, caught up with him, put his arms around him, and wrestled for the bag Gabuya was carrying. When Gabuya refused to let go of his bag, Aminola pulled out a gun and shot him. Gabuya fell to the ground but still resisted, prompting Aminola to take another shot.

Mike Maitimbang then approached and took something from the fallen Gabuya. Maitimbang shot Gabuya behind and fled toward the direction of eyewitness Jesus Oliva. Joel, Gabuya’s caretaker, gave chase but was fired upon by Maitimbang. Oliva testified that he saw the incident while he was on Genera Valdez Street in Purok V, Upper Bicutan. That same afternoon, Regina, Gabuya’s wife, reported the incident; based on her information, Police Major Rolando Migano formed a team to investigate the crime.

Later that evening, an informant known as “Abdul” told the police that he had witnessed what happened to Gabuya and could tell them where the suspects could be found. Abdul led Major Migano and his men. A blocking force was organized while Col. Bernido formed a team to make the arrests. In the evening of September 1, 1999, Major Migano’s team once again went to the hideout, where Abdul identified four of Gabuya’s assailants. Aminola was found in possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber gun with one magazine and two ammunitions. The four arrested—Aminola, Laminda, Datu Ban Ampatuan, and Abdulan Sandaton—were brought to the Criminal Investigation Division at Camp Crame, Quezon City for further investigation. On September 2, 1999, Maitimbang was also arrested.

The post-mortem examination of Gabuya, conducted by Dr. David, showed that he had four gunshot wounds with three entry wounds and one exit wound. Two slugs were recovered from Gabuya’s body, one from the brain and the other from his lungs.

According to the defense, Maitimbang testified that he was arrested on September 2, 1999 after arriving home from work due to a grenade found in his possession. At the police precinct, he was not informed that his arrest was in connection with the death of Gabuya; only during the inquest did he see his fellow accused for the first time. He averred that Gabuya’s widow pinpointed him as one of the suspects when she learned he was a Muslim, and he claimed his name was only included and superimposed on the list of suspects. Laminda narrated that he was nabbed together with his cousin Sandaton in the early morning of September 1, 1999 at their house on Rogan Street, Maharlika Village, Taguig. He disavowed any knowledge of the reason for their arrest and claimed that the arresting police officers had neither a warrant of arrest nor a search warrant. He denied acting as a lookout in the robbery resulting in Gabuya’s death, attested that he was a tricycle driver, and said that on August 31, 1999 he was ferrying passengers on his usual route of Maharlika-Triumph-Signal. He denied having fellow accused Ampatuan as a passenger and only came to know Aminola because the latter was also a tricycle driver. Mymona Quirod corroborated Laminda’s story: she testified that she boarded Laminda’s tricycle at around 5:10 in the afternoon of August 31, 1999 and got off at exactly six in the evening; she was in Davao when she heard that Laminda had been implicated in Gabuya’s death and felt compelled to return to help him.

Sandaton narrated that it was only during the inquest proceedings that he learned of the criminal charge against him; he denied knowing Oliva and being a lookout while Gabuya was being robbed and killed. Aminola testified that he was at home on September 1, 1999 when policemen suddenly entered and arrested him and brought him to the police station in Maharlika Village, Taguig, together with Ampatuan, Sandaton, and Laminda. He denied knowing Oliva but admitted knowing Laminda and Ampatuan as acquaintances. SPO2 Bero Saud Lukman was presented to establish Aminola’s whereabouts at about the time of Gabuya’s killing; according to SPO2 Lukman, at around half past five in the afternoon of August 31, 1999, he was talking to Aminola outside the latter’s house until six in the evening. Instead of testifying for his defense, Ampatuan filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The trial court found no proof of Ampatuan’s involvement in the robbery with homicide and granted the demurrer. After trial, the trial court found no sufficient proof of conspiracy as to Sandaton and Laminda. It also found that the distance from Rogan Street to Bonifacio Street was only five to ten minutes, so SPO2 Lukman’s testimony did not preclude Aminola from being at the place of the crime at the time of its commission, and it relied on Oliva’s positive identification of Maitimbang.

• Alibi of Aminola: Accused-appellant Aminola maintained that he could not have committed the crime because he was at home talking with SPO2 Lukman at the time of the incident; he claimed the appellate court erroneously disregarded this alibi, which was corroborated by SPO2 Lukman.
• Innocence and Improper Identification of Maitimbang: Accused-appellant Maitimbang reiterated his innocence, claiming that there was no reason for his arrest other than the fact that a grenade was found in his possession; he asserted that he was merely included in the list of suspects with his name superimposed on the list, and that he should have been identified as a suspect at the onset of the investigation if he were really one of the perpetrators.
• Illegality of Warrantless Arrests: Accused-appellants questioned the legality of their warrantless arrest, arguing that there was no hot pursuit because there was no indication that they were committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers or that they had just committed an offense; they claimed that a considerable period of time had elapsed between their arrest and the commission of the crime, thus necessitating a warrant of arrest.
• Reasonable Doubt: In their Supplemental Brief, accused-appellants averred that they were erroneously convicted despite the existence of reasonable doubt.

• Hot Pursuit Arrests: The OSG countered that what transpired were hot pursuit arrests, for the arresting team’s investigation and the data gathered from informant Abdul were sufficient reasonable grounds to believe that accused-appellants indeed robbed and killed Gabuya.
• Brief Interval: The OSG argued that the fact that Aminola was arrested a day after the incident while Maitimbang was arrested two days later would bring the arrests within the purview of hot pursuit arrests, made as they were within a brief interval between the actual commission of the crime and the arrests effected.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
• Alibi: Whether Aminola’s alibi, corroborated by SPO2 Lukman, should have been credited.
• Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrests of accused-appellants were illegal and affected the proceedings.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty and damages imposed should be modified in light of Republic Act No. 9346 and current jurisprudence.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The CA did not err; the prosecution established all four elements of robbery with homicide through Oliva’s positive identification and the post-mortem report.
• Alibi: No. Alibi is the weakest defense; Aminola failed to prove physical impossibility of being at the crime scene, and SPO2 Lukman’s testimony did not preclude his presence there. Denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification absent ill motive.
• Warrantless Arrest: No. A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect; any objection is waived when the arrested person submits to arraignment without objection, as accused-appellants did before raising it first on appeal.
• Penalty and Damages: Modified. The penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA 9346; civil indemnity and moral damages are increased to PhP 75,000 each, with exemplary damages of PhP 30,000.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The special complex crime of robbery with homicide requires: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. Proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, is essential, whether the killing be prior or subsequent to the robbery or whether both are committed at the same time. The prosecution established the first three elements when Oliva testified that he saw, and positively identified, accused-appellants taking Gabuya’s property by force and both shooting Gabuya. Gabuya’s death resulting from their attack proved the last element, as confirmed by the post-mortem report. The totality of the prosecution’s evidence thus supported the conviction.
• Alibi: Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. To establish alibi, an accused must prove (1) that he was present at another place at the time the crime was perpetrated; and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. SPO2 Lukman’s corroboration of Aminola’s testimony did not, without more, strengthen Aminola’s alibi. SPO2 Lukman did not categorically specify the time he was with Aminola on the date of the incident, and his testimony did not preclude the possibility of Aminola perpetrating the crime after their meeting. The trial court observed that the time interval from Rogan Street to Bonifacio Street was just five or ten minutes, so the distance did not preclude Aminola from being at the place of the crime at the time of its commission. Maitimbang’s defense likewise could not overcome Oliva’s positive identification; Oliva testified under oath that he saw Maitimbang take Gabuya’s property and shoot Gabuya at the back while already prone on the ground. Denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of a witness identifying a person as the perpetrator absent proof of ill motive. No reason or motive was given for Oliva to falsely testify against accused-appellants on such a serious crime. The trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor and candor of witnesses, and its findings, affirmed by the appellate court, are deferred to.
• Warrantless Arrest: The CA correctly ruled on the legality of the warrantless arrests. A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and any objection to it is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any objection. Accused-appellants questioned their arrest for the first time on appeal and are therefore deemed to have waived their right to the constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches.
• Penalty and Damages: Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when, by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed. The RTC sentenced both accused-appellants to death, but the CA reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. While the reduction was legally correct, the CA omitted to state that accused-appellants shall be ineligible for parole. Section 2 of RA 9346 provides that sentences reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law shall not be eligible for parole; thus, the sentence was modified accordingly. As to pecuniary liability, civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 is given without need of proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused’s responsibility for it. If the commission of robbery with homicide is attended by a qualifying aggravating circumstance, such as the use of an unlicensed firearm, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be PhP 75,000. Moral damages of PhP 50,000 must also be increased to PhP 75,000 pursuant to current jurisprudence. The exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 was correctly awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code because the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

• Robbery with Homicide — A special complex crime requiring (1) taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) property taken belongs to another; (3) taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. There must be a direct relation or intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. The Court applied this doctrine because Oliva’s testimony established the taking and shooting, and the post-mortem report confirmed Gabuya’s death.
• Alibi — A defense that must prove (1) the accused was present at another place at the time the crime was perpetrated, and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the two places and the facility of access. The Court rejected Aminola’s alibi because SPO2 Lukman’s testimony did not specify the time and did not preclude Aminola’s presence at the crime scene, especially given the five-to-ten-minute distance.
• Denial — A defense that cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of a witness identifying the accused as the perpetrator absent proof of ill motive. The Court applied this against Maitimbang, whose denial could not overcome Oliva’s positive identification.
• Waiver of Objection to Warrantless Arrest — A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect; any objection to its legality is waived when the arrested person submits to arraignment without objection. The Court applied this because accused-appellants raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
• Penalty and Damages in Robbery with Homicide with Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance — Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Under Section 2 of RA 9346, a sentence reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law is not eligible for parole. If a qualifying aggravating circumstance, such as use of an unlicensed firearm, attends the crime, civil indemnity is PhP 75,000; moral damages are PhP 75,000; and exemplary damages may be awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code. The Court applied these rules in modifying the penalty and damages.

• "The following elements must be established for a conviction in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide: 1. The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; 2. The property taken belongs to another; 3. The taking is animo lucrandi; and 4. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed." — This passage states the elements of robbery with homicide, the core substantive doctrine affirmed in the case.
• "Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove." — This passage articulates the Court’s standard for evaluating alibi, which it applied to reject Aminola’s defense.
• "A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection to it is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any objection, as in this case." — This passage states the procedural rule on waiver of objections to warrantless arrests, which disposed of accused-appellants’ challenge.
• "Section 2 of RA 9346 provides that sentences "which will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for parole."" — This passage supplies the basis for modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• People vs. Esoy, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide and for the definition of physical impossibility in the defense of alibi.
• People vs. Quemeggen, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 94 — Cited for the requirement of a direct relation or intimate connection between the robbery and the killing.
• People vs. Guillera, G.R. No. 175829, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 161 — Cited for the rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses; the decision also cites People vs. Bonbon and People vs. Caraang through this case.
• People vs. Bulasag, G.R. No. 172869, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 245 — Cited for the rule that denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive and categorical testimony identifying the accused absent proof of ill motive.
• People vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 740 — Cited for the rule that a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and objection is waived upon arraignment without objection.
• People vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 177741, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 299 — Cited for waiver of the right to constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches when the issue is raised for the first time on appeal.
• People vs. Berondo, Jr., G.R. No. 177827, March 30, 2009, 582 SCRA 547 — Cited for the rule that civil indemnity is awarded without need of proof other than the fact of death and the accused’s responsibility; it cites People vs. Whisenhunt.
• People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 187152, July 22, 2009, 593 SCRA 523 — Cited for the increased civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 when a qualifying aggravating circumstance attends robbery with homicide, and for the increased moral damages; it cites People vs. Sambrano.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery with homicide and imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 8294 — Applied by the RTC in imposing the death penalty due to the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm; the Supreme Court referred to the use of an unlicensed firearm as a qualifying aggravating circumstance requiring the death penalty.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 9346 — Provides that sentences reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law shall not be eligible for parole; the Court used this to modify the penalty.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Allows exemplary damages when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances; the Court affirmed the PhP 30,000 exemplary damages.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice, Chairperson); Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura; Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Jose Portugal Perez. The decision notes that Justice Nachura was an additional member per the September 6, 2010 raffle.