People vs. Conde

To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself; otherwise, the crime is only homicide or murder. Evidence obtained through an uncounseled confession during custodial investigation is inadmissible, and all evidence subsequently derived from it is tainted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

The accused-appellants Oscar Conde and Allan Atis, together with Alejandro Perez, Jr., were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge arose from the killing of two Indian nationals, Sukhdev Singh and Biant Singh, in Kalookan City on May 25, 1992. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the eyewitness testimony of Apollo Romero and the recovery of stolen items and weapons by the police.

On May 25, 1992, at about 8:00 A.M., Apollo Romero was at his home on Santolan Street, Kalookan City, sitting by the window and drinking coffee, when he saw four men block the path of two Indian nationals on a motorcycle. One of the men, later identified as Oscar Conde, poked a gun at the two Indians while his three companions approached and stabbed them. Romero later identified Alejandro Perez, Jr., and Allan Atis as two of the other assailants. He also saw Allan Atis take the goods being sold by the two Indians on installment, consisting of one beach towel and one umbrella. After the stabbing, the four men fled towards Mabolo Street. The fourth assailant remained unidentified. Romero was about 25 to 35 meters away from the crime scene.

On May 30, 1992, five days after the incident, the police arrested the three accused without warrants of arrest. PO3 Rodencio Sevillano, assigned to the Intelligence and Investigation Division of the PNP Kalookan City, admitted that they learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain unnamed informants. The police recovered the weapons used in the robbery when Felicidad Macabare, Conde's wife, went to the police station to visit her husband; the weapons were discovered inside her bag after a routine inspection. The police also searched the house of a certain Jimmy, based on the confession of accused Alejandro Perez, Jr., who was not assisted by counsel when he confessed and led the police to the whereabouts of the stolen items. The weapons confiscated from Felicidad Macabare were not formally offered as evidence by the prosecution.

Dr. Dario Gajardo, a PNP medico-legal officer, performed the post-mortem examination and testified that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds. Biant Singh sustained stab wounds on his lower stomach, while Sukhdev Singh sustained stab wounds at the back and right portion of the ribs.

The defense presented alibi and denial. Alejandro Perez, Jr. testified that on the date of the crime he was at the Madrigal Compound in Las Piñas visiting his cousin, and later went to the Pulang Lupa Cemetery and then drank beer until late afternoon. Danilo Acutin corroborated his testimony. Oscar Conde testified that he was in Barangay Polo Street, Parañaque mending his fishing net with his wife and uncle. Allan Atis stated that he was working as a construction worker at MCU for a certain Romy Ramos. The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses and convicted all three accused.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Allan Atis argued that the prosecution failed to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators, alleging that Apollo Romero only saw him in court and had not seen him before the crime.
• Delay in Reporting: Oscar Conde argued that Romero's delay in reporting the incident made his testimony unworthy of credence.
• Illegality of Arrest: Both appellants argued that they were arrested without warrants of arrest several days after the crime, in violation of their constitutional rights.
• Admissibility of Seized Items: Oscar Conde argued that the stolen items and weapons illegally seized by the police should be disregarded as evidence.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the testimony of Apollo Romero deserves full faith and credence since the appellants failed to show any improper motive on his part, and that the testimony of PO3 Sevillano enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
• Trial Court Findings: Citing People vs. Escandor, the OSG stressed that the findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal because the trial court is in the best position to determine the witnesses' behavior and deportment during trial.

• Credibility of Identification: Whether the identification made by Apollo Romero deserves credence.
• Legality of Arrest: Whether the arrests of the appellants were illegal.
• Admissibility of Stolen Objects: Whether the alleged stolen objects, i.e., the beach towel and umbrella, can be presented in evidence.

• Credibility of Identification: Yes. The trial court's factual findings and evaluation of witness credibility are conclusive upon the Supreme Court absent a showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance. There is no legal requirement that a prosecution witness must first know the felon personally for positive identification, and delay in reporting, if sufficiently explained, does not impair credibility.
• Legality of Arrest: Yes, the arrests were illegal, but the appellants are estopped from assailing them. None of the circumstances under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure was present, as the arrests came five days after the crime and without warrants. However, the appellants failed to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment, constituting a waiver of their right to question the illegality of their arrests.
• Admissibility of Stolen Objects: No. The stolen items are inadmissible as evidence. The warrantless search of the house of a certain Jimmy was based on the confession of Alejandro Perez, Jr., who was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation, in violation of Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.

• Credibility of Identification: The trial court's appreciation of the witnesses' testimony, truthfulness, honesty, and candor deserves the highest respect, as it is in a better position to observe the witnesses. Romero categorically identified both Oscar Conde and Allan Atis as two of the perpetrators. The appellants failed to adduce any improper motive on his part that would motivate him to implicate them. The defenses of alibi and denial cannot overcome the straightforward testimony and positive identification made by a prosecution witness. The fact that Romero never saw Atis before the crime does not detract from the credibility and reliability of his testimony. Delay in divulging the names of perpetrators, if sufficiently explained, does not impair credibility, and it is of judicial notice that witnesses to a crime naturally show reluctance about getting involved.

• Legality of Arrest: The arrests were illegal because none of the circumstances under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure was present. The appellants were merely walking along Tandang Sora Avenue and were not committing any crime; the crime had not just been committed, as five days had already passed; and the arresting officers did not have probable cause based on personal knowledge, as PO3 Sevillano admitted they learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and unnamed informants. However, the appellants did not assert their constitutional rights prior to arraignment. An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment. By entering their pleas without invoking their rights, they voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error.

• Admissibility of Stolen Objects: The warrantless search in the house of a certain Jimmy, based on the confession of Alejandro Perez, Jr., who was not assisted by counsel, is definitely questionable. The use of evidence obtained by virtue of a testimony or admission without the assistance of counsel while under custodial investigation is proscribed under Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. Without the stolen objects as evidence, only the testimony of Apollo Romero remains, but his identification of Allan Atis as the one who took the items was more of an afterthought and was not even responsive to the prosecutor's question. The ownership of the towel and umbrella was not even established. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself; otherwise, the crime would only be homicide or murder. Only the facts and causes of deaths were established with moral certainty, hence the appellants are only liable for two counts of homicide. The search of Felicidad Macabare's bag was found to be in order as part of police standard operating procedure, but the weapons confiscated were not formally offered as evidence and are therefore probatively valueless.

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine — Evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. In this case, the stolen items recovered from the house of a certain Jimmy were excluded because they were obtained through the uncounseled confession of Alejandro Perez, Jr., rendering the subsequent search and seizure inadmissible.
• Robbery Must Be Proven as Conclusively as the Killing — To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself; otherwise, the crime would only be homicide or murder. Here, because the stolen items were excluded and the eyewitness's identification of the taking was an afterthought, the prosecution failed to establish the robbery element, resulting in conviction only for two counts of homicide.
• Waiver of Illegal Arrest by Arraignment — An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment. By entering a plea without invoking the right to question the arrest, the accused voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court and waives the right against unlawful restraint of liberty.
• Positive Identification Not Requiring Prior Acquaintance — There is nothing in law and jurisprudence which requires, as a condition sine qua non for the positive identification by a prosecution witness of a felon, that the witness must first know the latter personally. The fact that a witness never saw the accused before the crime does not detract from the credibility and reliability of the testimony.

• "Under the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the 'fruit of the poisonous tree', evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as applied to exclude the stolen items recovered through an uncounseled confession.
• "In order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself, otherwise, the crime would only be homicide or murder, as the case may be." — This states the controlling rule that led to the modification of the conviction from robbery with homicide to two counts of homicide.
• "An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment." — This establishes the procedural bar against raising the illegality of arrest after arraignment without prior objection.

• People vs. Tejada, 170 SCRA 497 (1989) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the Supreme Court unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.
• People vs. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996) — Cited for the rule that there is no legal requirement that a prosecution witness must first know the felon personally for positive identification.
• People vs. Merino, 321 SCRA 199 (1999) — Cited for the rule that delay in divulging the names of perpetrators, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness.
• People vs. Khor, 307 SCRA 295 (1999) — Cited for the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment.
• People vs. Teodoro, 280 SCRA 384 (1997) — Cited for the rule that robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Rodendero, 320 SCRA 383 — Cited for the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
• People vs. Escandor, 265 SCRA 444 (1996) — Cited by the OSG for the rule that trial court findings on credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, under which the accused were originally charged and convicted by the trial court.
• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; the Court found this right was violated by the warrantless arrests.
• Sections 12 and 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution — The rights of a person under custodial investigation, including the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination; the Court found these rights were violated when Alejandro Perez, Jr. confessed without assistance of counsel.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Enumerates the instances when an arrest can be made without warrant; the Court found none of these circumstances present in the case.
• Section 7, Rule 117, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Cited by the trial court for crediting the accused with the period of their preventive detention.

Justices Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr. concurred.