People vs. Aquino

When the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties for robbery with homicide and neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be applied. The Court also held that in robbery with homicide, the exact amount of property taken need not be proven with certainty, and positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over minor inconsistencies in affidavits.

On 13 November 1994, three armed men—Joey Aquino, Jose Trinidad, and Eduardo Nejal—entered the Sportsman Retreat Club and Restaurant in Bauang, La Union, and announced a hold-up. When the Australian owner, Gregory Bitmead, challenged them, Aquino shot him multiple times with an armalite, causing his death. The perpetrators then divested Bitmead and his customers of cash and jewelry before fleeing. Witnesses Stefen Slaton, Marilou Ortega, and Janet Ysip subsequently identified Aquino and Trinidad in a police line-up and in court.

• The Incident: On 13 November 1994 at 9:15 p.m., Aquino, followed by Trinidad and Nejal, entered the Sportsman Retreat Club and Restaurant, announcing a hold-up. Bitmead, the owner, shouted at the intruders. Aquino aimed an armalite at Bitmead while Trinidad and Nejal wielded handguns. Bitmead's fiancée, Stefen Slaton, embraced him and begged for his life, but Bitmead challenged the assailants. Shortly after, shots were fired, hitting Bitmead multiple times and killing him.
• The Taking: After the shooting, Aquino divested Stefen of her rings and bracelet and took Bitmead's belt bag containing P20,000. Trinidad and Nejal also took valuables from other customers. The accused fled in a maroon car.
• Identification and Arrest: Witnesses Stefen, Marilou, and Janet executed sworn statements and described the assailants to NBI cartographers. On 17 November 1994, they identified the accused in a police line-up at Camp Diego Silang. SPO1 Gamboa arrested Aquino and Trinidad without warrants on 15 November 1994, and Nejal two days later. The trial court later ruled the arrests illegal but admitted the evidence of identification.
• Medical Findings: Dr. Parado's autopsy confirmed Bitmead died of cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hemorrhagic shock from multiple gunshot wounds, opining the victim was facing the assailant at close range.
• Flight of Co-accused: Trinidad escaped from the New Bilibid Prisons on 9 April 1997 after the promulgation of the trial court's decision, but the automatic review proceeded against him pursuant to jurisprudence.

• Petitioner Aquino argued that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify him beyond reasonable doubt due to conflicting physical descriptions, an unfair police line-up, and the witnesses' nervousness. He maintained that the robbery was not proven because Stefen lacked personal knowledge of the exact amount in the belt bag and Janet did not see the taking. He asserted that the death penalty was improper absent any modifying circumstances, warranting reclusion perpetua under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. He further argued that the P200,000 indemnity lacked evidentiary basis and was rejected by the victim's father. Finally, he claimed he was denied effective assistance of counsel, warranting a remand.

• The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the eyewitnesses clearly observed the accused in a well-lit restaurant and positively identified them. The OSG argued that Stefen's inaccurate height estimate was inconsequential and the police line-up was fair and not indispensable. It maintained that the robbery was sufficiently proven, as the exact amount taken is not an element of the crime. The OSG recommended reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of modifying circumstances and fixing the death indemnity at P50,000 pursuant to jurisprudence. It opposed the remand, arguing Aquino was not deprived of counsel and his conviction rested on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the accused was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the prosecution proved the crime of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the penalty of death was properly imposed. Whether the award of P200,000 indemnity was proper.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that Aquino was not denied his right to counsel. He was assisted by counsel during trial, and any disagreement with his counsel's strategy should have been raised before the trial court. His failure to object indicated agreement with the defense's chosen strategy; moreover, his conviction was based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not the weakness of his defense.
• Substantive: The Court found the eyewitness identification credible and positive. The witnesses had a clear view of the accused in a well-lit restaurant. Minor inconsistencies in out-of-court descriptions do not discredit positive in-court identification, as witnesses typically focus on facial features. The police line-up was not unfair, and line-ups are not indispensable for proper identification. The Court held that the robbery was sufficiently proven. Stefen and Marilou testified to the taking of the belt bag and jewelry. Proof of the exact amount taken is immaterial; the unlawful taking is the material element. The nexus between the robbery and the killing was established. Conspiracy was proven, making all conspirators liable as principals regardless of individual participation. The Court ruled that the death penalty was improperly imposed. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code mandates the application of the lesser penalty (reclusion perpetua) when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties. The Court reduced the indemnity to P50,000, the jurisprudially fixed amount for death indemnity that requires no proof.

• Robbery with Homicide; Conspiracy — Whenever a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, although some did not actually take part in the homicide. The act of one conspirator is the act of all. The Court applied this to hold Trinidad equally liable as a principal despite only Aquino firing the fatal shots.
• Application of Indivisible Penalties — Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance attended the crime, the lesser penalty shall be applied. The Court applied this to reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
• Credibility of Witnesses; Positive Identification — Positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over minor inconsistencies in out-of-court statements or affidavits, which are generally considered incomplete and inferior to in-court testimony. The Court held that witnesses naturally focus on facial features rather than exact physical measurements like height.

• "In robbery with homicide, the important consideration is that there be a nexus between the robbery and the killing whether prior, subsequent to or committed at the same time."
• "Whenever a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, although some did not actually take part in the homicide."
• "An affidavit is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestions and inquiries. Its infirmity as a species of evidence is a matter of judicial experience."

• People v. Esparas, 260 SCRA 539 (1996) — Followed. Held that the automatic review in death penalty cases compels the Court to review the case even against a fugitive who has escaped detention.
• People v. Acosta, 187 SCRA 39 (1990) — Distinguished. Aquino invoked Acosta to claim the police line-up was unfair due to dissimilar appearances. The Court distinguished Acosta, noting that none of the suggestive conditions present in Acosta (e.g., distinctive clothing, sole person of a race) were present in Aquino's line-up.
• People v. Martinado, 214 SCRA 712 (1992) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that in robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element, and that all conspirators are liable as principals.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The Court applied this provision to convict the accused, noting the penalty ranges from reclusion perpetua to death.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the rules for the application of indivisible penalties. The Court applied paragraph 1 of this article to impose the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua because no modifying circumstances attended the crime.
• Section 47, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 7659) — Provides for the automatic review of death penalty cases by the Supreme Court. The Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to this provision.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr.