People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Monterey y Quindoza

The conviction stands where the trial court's credibility findings are not shown to rest on material inconsistencies, treachery is established by the sudden and unexpected attack on defenseless victims, and the aggravating circumstances are correctly characterized — recidivism for the murders and habituality/reiteration for the robbery.

Rolando Monterey y Quindoza was charged with robbery and two murders arising from incidents at the Marcopper Golf Club Canteen and nearby Green No. 3 in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. The victims, Reynaldo Penaverde, 16, and Simeon Padolina, 12, were caddies at the golf course. Monterey had a prior final murder conviction in Criminal Case No. 7-82 for the killing of Gavino Perilla and was on parole, facts that later bore on the aggravating circumstances and penalty. Abner Montero and Marion Mirasol were originally co-accused; Montero was later discharged as a state witness, and Mirasol testified as a hostile witness.

On February 14, 1992, a drinking spree began at Sammy Monterero's house in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, where Abner Montero found Marion Mirasol, Arnold Quindoza, Marcelo Ricohermoso, Patricio Daganon, appellant Rolando Monterey, and Monterero. Daganon invited them to continue at the Marcopper Golf Canteen; except Monterero, the group went. At the canteen, where a Valentine's party was being held on the second floor, Daganon ordered half a case of San Miguel beer and a small bottle of Ginebra San Miguel for appellant. Angel Ricarro and Roberto Penaverde later joined. Montero tried to leave but was prevailed upon to stay. Before the group left, appellant said the drinking would resume at Green No. 3.

Ricarro, Penaverde, and Montero had dinner at Montero's house, then proceeded to Green No. 3, where they found Quindoza alone. Shortly after, Reynaldo Penaverde and Mirasol arrived carrying two cases of beer, followed by appellant with five bottles of Gilbey's gin and two bottles of San Miguel gin. Mirasol opened the beer. Because there was no pulutan, appellant told Mirasol and Reynaldo to get pulutan at the canteen, saying it was already prepared. After drinking Gilbey's gin, appellant followed them to the canteen. When the three returned, Reynaldo carried five opened canned goods and placed them on the ground. They continued drinking; Daganon and Ricohermoso later arrived. As it grew late, Quindoza, Roberto Penaverde, Ricarro, Ricohermoso, and Daganon left. Appellant, Reynaldo, Mirasol, and Montero remained. Simeon Padolina, 12, passed by; Reynaldo invited him to join. Simeon asked why there was plenty of beer and pulutan and where these came from. Appellant said, "Ayaw kong mapapahiya sa ganitong bagay lang." Montero remarked, "Bakit ka magsasalita ng ganyan tayo-tayo lamang ang nakakaalam sa pagkawala sa Marcopper Golf Canteen." Appellant replied, "Basta ayaw kong mapapahiya."

According to Montero, appellant then took Reynaldo aside about four meters away and spoke with him for more than a minute. When they rejoined, appellant drank a bottle of beer, called Simeon, and said, "Toy kakausapin lang kita sandali." Montero took a bottle of beer; after consuming half, he turned toward appellant and Simeon and saw Simeon leaning on a coconut tree, head bowed, blood oozing from his neck. Appellant stood beside him holding a bloodied bolo. Mirasol asked, "Tol, bakit naman ganoon?" Appellant said, "Huwag kayong mag-aalala pinatulog ko lang iyan, dinasalan ko na iyan, sige diretso ang inom walang tatakbo." Appellant returned, tucked a bottle of Gilbey's gin in his back, went to Reynaldo, and squeezed Reynaldo's neck with his left hand. Reynaldo freed himself, but appellant hit him with the gin bottle, sending him to the ground. Montero stood up and turned his back; when he faced appellant again, appellant was washing a bloodied bolo at the faucet, and Reynaldo was bathed in blood gushing from his neck. Appellant approached Montero and delivered a stabbing blow with his "29" knife. Mirasol ran toward Montero, who ran behind Mirasol as a shield. Appellant opened a bottle of beer and sprinkled its contents on Mirasol and Montero. Mirasol told Montero to run; Mirasol ran in the opposite direction.

Mirasol, who testified as a hostile witness, gave a version of the robbery and killings. He admitted participating in the drinking sessions. At the canteen, he noticed appellant and Reynaldo huddling at another table. As the group was leaving, Mirasol saw Reynaldo in the ladies' room; when he asked why, appellant told him to keep quiet because he ought to know what was going on. After the others left, Reynaldo opened the canteen door, and appellant climbed over the fence. Mirasol joined appellant and Reynaldo in forcibly opening the second door by kicking it. Appellant told Mirasol to act as lookout; Mirasol entered only after appellant instructed him to help Reynaldo carry two cases of beer to Green No. 3. Mirasol obeyed because appellant was a known "tough guy" whose orders must be obeyed. Appellant followed, carrying bottles of Gilbey's gin. Later, appellant asked Mirasol and Reynaldo to return to the canteen for pulutan. They placed canned goods in a box; on the way back, appellant met them, removed his maong jacket, wrapped some canned goods in it, and told Mirasol to bring the canned goods to his house while ordering Reynaldo back to Green No. 3. At appellant's house, Mirasol placed the box on the floor; appellant said he would follow after arranging the canned goods. At Green No. 3, Mirasol joined the drinking group and, following appellant's instruction, told no one about the earlier events. Later, appellant joined and talked with Reynaldo about two meters from the group. After they rejoined, Simeon passed by; Reynaldo offered him beer, Montero said minors were not allowed, and Simeon replied he had done nothing wrong. Daganon, Roberto Penaverde, and Quindoza then left, leaving Mirasol, appellant, Reynaldo, Simeon, and Montero. A few minutes later, appellant and Reynaldo walked about eight meters away. When they returned, Reynaldo sat beside Mirasol. Suddenly, appellant grabbed Simeon's hair, pulled him about four meters away, and slashed his neck with a bolo. Appellant said, "Huwag ninyong intindihin iyan, pinatulog ko na iyan, dinasalan ko na iyan." He returned, squeezed Reynaldo's neck, hit him with a Gilbey's gin bottle, chased him, unsheathed his bolo, and slashed Reynaldo's neck. Reynaldo lurched forward. Appellant washed his bolo at the faucet. When Mirasol asked "Tol, bakit ganoon?", appellant answered, "Ayaw kong mapapahiya." He then pulled out his "29" knife and lunged at Montero, who ran behind Mirasol. Mirasol elbowed Montero and told him to run; Mirasol also ran, leaving his yellow rubber slippers behind. That same night, Mirasol took his family to his aunt's house; the next morning, he asked his father-in-law to fetch a policeman and voluntarily went with the police to the Kilo-kilo detachment, where he gave a statement.

SPO3 Mario Penaverde testified that on February 15, 1992, he reported for work earlier than usual because of a summon for help. With Station Commander Barretto, investigator Ernesto Ravanera, and Nolasco Regis, he went to the golf course, where they found the bodies of Simeon Padolina and Reynaldo Penaverde about a hundred meters from the canteen. At Green No. 3, they found scattered one case of beer, unopened and empty bottles of beer, broken bottles, packs of cigarettes, and canned goods. Another case of beer with both unopened and empty bottles was found near appellant's house. To preserve fingerprints, Ravanera placed black powder and tape on the articles. The police gathered the articles, placed them in two cases of beer, and brought them to the Mobile station. There they questioned Mirasol, who admitted that he, together with Reynaldo Penaverde and Montero, robbed the canteen. Mirasol also said that, upon appellant's instruction, he brought some canned goods to appellant's house, where they could still be found. He accompanied the police to appellant's house. Finding no one there, they proceeded to the house of appellant's parents, where they found appellant's wife, Adelaida. Adelaida denied that there were stolen goods in her house. After the police told her that Mirasol could prove that stolen canned goods were under the bed, Adelaida told them to get the articles themselves. When the police declined to enter, Adelaida relented and brought out the goods herself. The stolen articles were inside a box. Adelaida signed a certification that she voluntarily surrendered thirty-one canned goods to the police.

Imelda Mandapat, treasurer of the Marcopper Golf Center Club, learned of the robbery on February 15, 1992, when she and Club President June Reynes went to the canteen. She discovered that the first door was not destroyed but the lock of the second door was forcibly opened. She signed the inventory of goods taken, which had been prepared by a member of the Fund Raising Committee. Wilfredo Penaverde testified that his 16-year-old son Reynaldo worked twice a week as a caddie, earning thirty pesos a day; he learned of the killers through affidavits executed by Mirasol, Montero, and appellant; on February 15, 1992, he saw appellant kibitzing at the place where Reynaldo was killed; and he spent P14,000 for the wake, burial, and nine-day novena prayers for Reynaldo, who died of severe hemorrhage secondary to a hack wound. Narcisa Padolina testified that her 12-year-old son Simeon also worked as a caddie twice during schooldays and on weekends, earning twenty to fifty pesos a day; she learned of his death from her eldest son Anastacio, who had been told by the golf course security guard; she saw her dead son at Green No. 3; a doctor and a nurse showed her Simeon's neck wound; his death certificate showed that he died of severe hemorrhage secondary to a hack wound; and she spent P39,000 for Simeon's burial.

Appellant denied participation in the robbery and the near decapitation of the two young men. He admitted joining the three-part drinking spree. He added that at 9:00 in the evening, after the group had consumed half a case of beer at the canteen, he went home with Ricohermoso, Quindoza, and Mirasol while the others went to the second floor of the canteen to watch the party. He and Mirasol went to his parents' house after he found no one at his own home. At about 10:30 p.m., as he and Mirasol watched television, Montero arrived and invited them to have more drinks at the golf course. At the golf course, appellant found Simeon Padolina and Reynaldo Penaverde drinking beer with canned goods as pulutan; they also had cigarettes and three bottles of Gilbey's gin. They sat in a circle. While drinking, he asked Montero where all the drinks and pulutan had come from, and Montero replied that they came from the canteen. Being a parolee and fearing that he might get involved in the taking of goods from the canteen, he asked the group's permission to go home. Montero refused to let him go, saying they should continue drinking. Montero whispered to him that the small boy, Simeon, saw them robbing the canteen. He repeated to Montero that he might get involved in the crime, but Montero assured him that he would take care of everything. When Simeon and Reynaldo were already drunk, Montero slashed Simeon's neck with a bolo. Appellant once again tried to leave, but Montero told him that the drinking session was not over yet. Montero also slashed Reynaldo's neck with the same bolo. After seeing the crime being perpetrated, he went home with Mirasol. The trial court found the prosecution's version credible and described appellant as "husky and with well-developed muscles."

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant alleged as his sole error that the trial court erred in finding accused Rolando Monterey guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery committed against the Marcopper Golf Club Canteen and for the double murder of victims Reynaldo Penaverde and Simeon Padolina.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Appellant contended that there were inconsistencies between the testimonies of Montero and Mirasol, thus affecting their credibility.
• Denial and Defense: Appellant denied participation in the robbery and the near decapitation of the two young men, and maintained that Montero was the one who slashed Simeon and Reynaldo.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of Montero and Mirasol affected their credibility.
• Identification: Whether appellant was sufficiently identified as the perpetrator of the robbery and the two murders.
• Treachery: Whether the killings of Simeon Padolina and Reynaldo Penaverde were qualified by treachery.
• Recidivism in Murder Cases: Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was established in the two murder cases.
• Nocturnity in Robbery: Whether nocturnity aggravated the robbery.
• Habituality/Reiteration in Robbery: Whether habituality or reiteration, rather than recidivism, aggravated the robbery.
• Penalty for Robbery: Whether the trial court imposed the correct penalty for robbery.
• Penalty for Murder: Whether the correct penalty was imposed for the two murders.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The only inconsistency was minor and explained; it strengthened credibility by negating rehearsed testimony.
• Identification: Yes. Appellant was pinpointed by drinking companions who were his barangay mates, one a fellow culprit, and there was sufficient moonlight.
• Treachery: Yes. The victims were suddenly attacked after being enticed away, with no opportunity to defend or retaliate; the method was deliberately adopted.
• Recidivism in Murder Cases: Yes. A certified true copy of the May 13, 1983 decision in Criminal Case No. 7-82 convicting appellant of murder for killing Gavino Perilla was offered.
• Nocturnity in Robbery: No. Nocturnity was not deliberately sought; the robbery was impelled by arrogance and need to impress drinking partners and would have been committed regardless of time.
• Habituality/Reiteration in Robbery: Yes. The robbery was aggravated by habituality/reiteration under Article 14(10), not recidivism under Article 14(9), because the prior murder was not embraced in the same title as robbery.
• Penalty for Robbery: Modified. The penalty is four years, nine months and eleven days to six years of prision correccional maximum, with no benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because appellant was a parolee.
• Penalty for Murder: Affirmed. Reclusion perpetua for each murder, because although the death penalty would be the maximum under Article 64(3), it was proscribed at the time of the crimes.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court applied the rule that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of eyewitnesses because of its unequaled opportunity to observe demeanor and detect truthfulness. Appellant alleged inconsistencies between Montero and Mirasol but failed to point them out with specificity. The record showed only one "inconsistency" on the killing of Simeon: Montero testified that after appellant summoned Simeon, the next time he saw the boy was when he was already bloodied under the coconut tree, while Mirasol testified that appellant first grabbed Simeon by the hair and took him from the group. This was explained by Montero's admission that he had concentrated on his drinking and had his back turned, while Mirasol watched appellant rejoin the group until he slashed Simeon. The inconsistency strengthened rather than weakened credibility because it negated rehearsed testimony.

• Identification: The prosecution's evidence was solid. Appellant was pinpointed by his drinking companions, who were his barangay mates, with one being a fellow culprit in the robbery. There was a moon bright enough for the witnesses to see what transpired on the night of February 14, 1992. The condition of visibility being favorable, the eyewitnesses' testimonies on identification and specific acts should be accepted.

• Treachery: The trial court correctly considered the killings qualified by treachery. The conditions were established: (a) employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts, no opportunity being given to the victim to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the means, method or manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted. In each murder, appellant enticed the victims to move away from their companions; the two unsuspectingly obeyed and were suddenly hacked at their necks. The victims, one 12 and the other 16, were no match to the 35-year-old appellant, described as husky and with well-developed muscles.

• Recidivism in Murder Cases: In both murder cases, recidivism under Article 14(9) was established. The prosecution offered a certified true copy of the May 13, 1983 decision in Criminal Case No. 7-82 of the RTC of Marinduque, Branch XXXVIII in Boac, imposing on appellant the indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum and payment of P12,000 indemnity and P10,000 moral damages for the murder of Gavino Perilla. Under Article 64(3), only one aggravating circumstance may suffice to warrant the maximum penalty in the absence of any mitigating circumstance. The maximum penalty is death, but because the death penalty was proscribed at the time of the commission of the crimes, appellant shall suffer reclusion perpetua for each murder.

• Nocturnity in Robbery: Article 302(2) penalizes robbery in a private building with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods if the value of property taken exceeds 250 pesos. The information alleged nocturnity and habituality under Article 14(6) and (10). As an aggravating circumstance under Article 14(6), nocturnity should have been deliberately sought by appellant and his group to facilitate the robbery. The Court did not agree that such deliberateness was present although the offense was committed at nighttime. By the circumstances established by the prosecution, the robbery was impelled by appellant's arrogance and need to impress his drinking partners; the crime would have been committed regardless of the time of day or night.

• Habituality/Reiteration in Robbery: The robbery was aggravated by habituality or reiteration under Article 14(10), not recidivism under Article 14(9) as ruled by the trial court. Habituality requires that the offender "has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty." Unlike recidivism, where the offender has been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code, in reiteration the previous crime must not belong to the same title of the Code as the second offense. To prove reiteration, it is necessary to present certified copies of the sentence rendered against the accused, except when the defendant pleads guilty to an information alleging reiteration. A certified true copy of the decision in Criminal Case No. 7-82 convicting appellant of murder for the killing of Gavino Perilla was presented.

• Penalty for Robbery: By the presence of habituality and no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. The trial court should have divided the penalty of prision correccional in its medium to maximum periods into three equal portions in accordance with Article 65 and imposed the maximum period thereof, or four years, nine months and eleven days to six years of prision correccional maximum. Being a parolee, appellant shall not benefit from the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Penalty for Murder: The trial court's decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 23-92 and 25-92 is affirmed. The penalty for murder under Article 248 is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With recidivism and no mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty would be death under Article 64(3), but because the death penalty was proscribed at the time of the commission of the crimes, reclusion perpetua was imposed for each murder.

• Credibility of eyewitnesses; trial court's assessment — Appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of testimonies because of its unequaled opportunity to observe demeanor and detect truthfulness. Applied: the Court upheld the trial court's credibility findings; the alleged inconsistency was minor and explained.
• Treachery (alevosia) — Requisites: (a) employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts, no opportunity being given to the victim to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the means, method or manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted. Applied: appellant enticed the victims away and suddenly hacked their necks; the victims were unsuspecting, and the age and size disparity confirmed the absence of opportunity to defend.
• Recidivism under Article 14(9), Revised Penal Code — The offender has been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Applied: the prior murder conviction for Gavino Perilla established recidivism in the two murder cases.
• Habituality or reiteration under Article 14(10), Revised Penal Code — The offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty; the previous crime must not belong to the same title as the second offense. Applied: the prior murder conviction aggravated the robbery as reiteration, not recidivism.
• Nocturnity under Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code — Nocturnity must be deliberately sought to facilitate the commission of the offense. Applied: it did not aggravate the robbery because it was not deliberately sought; the robbery was impelled by arrogance and the need to impress drinking partners.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — A parolee shall not benefit from the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Applied: appellant was a parolee, so the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not applied to the robbery penalty.
• Article 64(3), Revised Penal Code — Only one aggravating circumstance may suffice to warrant the maximum penalty in the absence of any mitigating circumstance. Applied: recidivism in the murder cases; because the death penalty was proscribed at the time of the crimes, reclusion perpetua was imposed.
• Article 65, Revised Penal Code — When the penalty has three periods, it is divided into three equal portions, and the maximum period is imposed when an aggravating circumstance is present and no mitigating circumstance offsets it. Applied: the robbery penalty was divided and the maximum period imposed.

• "We apply the rule that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment of the testimonies of eyewitnesses by the trial court because of its unequaled opportunity to observe on the stand their demeanor and manner of testifying and to detect whether they are telling the truth or not." — States the standard of review for credibility findings, which controlled the disposition of appellant's challenge to the eyewitness testimonies.
• "The trial court correctly considered the killing of Simeon and Reynaldo as qualified by treachery. The following conditions of treachery were established: (a) the employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means, method or manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender." — Sets out the canonical requisites of treachery as applied to the sudden hacking of the two victims.
• "The robbery was aggravated by habituality or reiteration under Article 14(10) not recidivism under Article 14(9) as ruled by the trial court. Habituality requires that the offender 'has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.' Unlike in recidivism where the offender has been 'previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title' of the Revised Penal Code, in reiteration, the previous crime must not belong to the same title of the Code as the second offense." — Distinguishes recidivism from habituality/reiteration and corrects the trial court's characterization of the aggravating circumstance in the robbery case.
• "As an aggravating circumstance under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code, nocturnity should have been deliberately sought by the appellant and his group in committing the robbery to facilitate its commission." — States the rule on nocturnity, which the Court applied to reject the trial court's finding that nocturnity aggravated the robbery.

• People vs. Magalong, 244 SCRA 117 (1995) — Cited for the rule that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of eyewitness testimonies because of its unequaled opportunity to observe demeanor and detect truthfulness.
• People vs. Bongadillo, 234 SCRA 233 (1994) — Cited in support of the Court's discussion of the conditions of treachery.
• People vs. Mendoza, 236 SCRA 666 (1994) — Cited in support of the Court's discussion of the conditions of treachery.
• People vs. Empacis, 222 SCRA 59 (1993) — Cited for the rule that nocturnity, as an aggravating circumstance, must be deliberately sought to facilitate the commission of the robbery.
• People vs. Munoz, 170 SCRA 109 (1989) — Cited by the trial court relative to the imposable penalty for murder.
• U.S. vs. Ramos, 1 Phil. 192 (1902); People vs. De Mesa, 7 Phil. 729 (1907); People vs. Scott, 62 Phil. 553 (1935); People vs. De la Cruz, 63 Phil. 874 (1936) — Cited in Aquino's treatise for the rule that proof of reiteration requires certified copies of the sentence rendered against the accused, except when the defendant pleads guilty to an information alleging reiteration.

• Article 302(2), Revised Penal Code — Robbery in a private building; penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos. Applied: appellant was convicted of robbery, and the penalty was modified to the maximum period.
• Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code — Nocturnity. Applied: it did not aggravate the robbery because it was not deliberately sought to facilitate the commission of the offense.
• Article 14(9), Revised Penal Code — Recidivism. Applied: it was established in the two murder cases by appellant's prior final murder conviction.
• Article 14(10), Revised Penal Code — Habituality or reiteration. Applied: the robbery was aggravated by habituality/reiteration, not recidivism, because the prior murder was not embraced in the same title as robbery.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Murder; penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applied: appellant was convicted of two murders, and reclusion perpetua was imposed for each because the death penalty was proscribed at the time of the crimes.
• Article 64(3), Revised Penal Code — Only one aggravating circumstance may suffice to warrant the maximum penalty in the absence of any mitigating circumstance. Applied: recidivism in the murder cases.
• Article 65, Revised Penal Code — Division of the penalty into three periods. Applied: the robbery penalty was divided into three equal portions, and the maximum period was imposed.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — A parolee shall not benefit from the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Applied: appellant was a parolee, so the law was not applied to the robbery penalty.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.