People vs. Diu

The positive identification of the accused by a surviving victim-eyewitness, whose testimony is categorical, straightforward, and free from any showing of ill motive, prevails over the defense of denial and is sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, even without presentation of the weapon used, provided the fact and manner of the victim's death are duly established by other evidence.

Accused-appellants Welvin Diu y Kotsesa and Dennis Dayaon y Tupit, together with Cornelio de la Cruz, Jr. alias "Jay-Ar de la Cruz," were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide arising from an incident on October 3, 2003 along Colorado Street in Villasol Subdivision, Angeles City, where the Salvador sisters — Perlie and Nely — were accosted, robbed, and Nely was fatally stabbed. Only Diu and Dayaon were arrested and tried; De la Cruz remained at large. The case was originally filed as an Information charging only Diu and Dayaon, but was subsequently amended on March 28, 2005 to include De la Cruz as a co-accused pursuant to a resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Angeles City.

Perlie and Nely Salvador were sisters employed as waitresses at Halla Hotel in Angeles City. On the night of October 3, 2003, at around 10:30 in the evening, the sisters were walking home from work along Colorado Street in Villasol Subdivision. As they walked, they noticed three men — later identified as accused-appellants Welvin Diu and Dennis Dayaon, and their co-accused Cornelio de la Cruz, Jr. — about two to three meters away, facing the wall and urinating, approximately one and one-half feet apart. The street was well-lit, with streetlamps casting light that Perlie described as being "like sun rays," enabling her to see the profiles and even the facial expressions of the three men. Perlie also observed that the men had red eyes and appeared to be under the influence of drugs.

As soon as the sisters passed by, the three men accosted them simultaneously. Diu embraced Perlie while Dayaon and De la Cruz held on to Nely. Perlie was able to break loose by elbowing Diu, but Diu grabbed her shoulder bag, which contained her work uniform, personal effects, and ₱1,800.00 in cash — her salary from the hotel. Perlie ran away to seek help from people nearby. Meanwhile, Dayaon and De la Cruz were embracing Nely from behind. When Perlie tried to go near Nely, she saw Dayaon and De la Cruz stabbing Nely, passing a double-bladed knife approximately seven inches long to each other. After the stabbing, Nely was left lying face down on the ground, covered in blood. The entire incident lasted about two minutes. Two men helped Perlie bring Nely to Ospital Ning Angeles, where Nely was pronounced dead on arrival. Perlie recovered Nely's bag and discovered that ₱50.00 was missing. Perlie herself sustained wounds on her left elbow and left hip when she fell to the ground while trying to escape from Diu.

On October 7, 2003, Police Inspector Medardo M. Manalo, then commander-in-charge of intelligence, investigation, and operations of Police Kabayan Center No. 51, witnessed police officers of PKC No. 52 questioning Diu regarding the homicide. Diu named Dayaon, residing in Daang Bakal, Balibago, as the other suspect. P/Insp. Manalo organized a raiding team and, with Diu, proceeded to Daang Bakal. After waiting four to seven minutes, Dayaon stepped out of a house, and Diu pointed him out, saying "That's him in the red t-shirt." Dayaon stepped back inside, and the raiding team rushed in. With no other exit, Dayaon sat on the floor and asked "why, what." Diu again identified Dayaon as the other suspect.

Both accused-appellants took the witness stand and denied participation, blaming De la Cruz. Diu claimed he and Dayaon were walking home from a carnival when they encountered De la Cruz, who suddenly embraced the two girls. Diu claimed he tried to help but Dayaon stopped him, warning they might be implicated. Diu admitted embracing and pushing Perlie, but claimed it was to protect her. He then left the scene, went to Manila for two days, and returned to Plaridel II. Dayaon, for his part, testified that Colorado Street was very dark with only one streetlight, contradicting Perlie's account of bright illumination. Dayaon claimed he saw De la Cruz about 15 meters away approaching people he could not identify, heard women screaming, and went home. His testimony was riddled with inconsistencies — at times saying it was too dark to see anything, then claiming he saw De la Cruz and the girls from varying distances. The defense also presented Eduardo and Esther Mekitpekit, who testified that De la Cruz admitted to Eduardo that he stabbed the girl because "the girl fought back." However, Esther acknowledged that De la Cruz did not state he acted alone.

The RTC credited Perlie's testimony over the defense, finding her positive identification of accused-appellants credible and free from ill motive, and found conspiracy among the three perpetrators. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, though it declined to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime for not having been alleged in the Information.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Accused-appellants contended that the RTC heavily relied on Perlie's testimony, the certainty and veracity of which on material points are highly questionable, arguing that the crime happened late at night so it was very dark and Perlie could not have clearly seen the culprits' faces.
• Lack of Prior Acquaintance: Accused-appellants argued that Perlie had not seen them before so she could not have recognized them instantly.
• Doubtful Identification of Weapon: Accused-appellants maintained that it would have been impossible for Perlie to identify the exact knife used in Nely's stabbing, and that she was only led to believe she was being presented with the very same knife by the police officers' suggestive remarks.
• No Police Line-up Identification: Accused-appellants asserted that Perlie was merely informed by police officers that the men who assaulted her and Nely had been apprehended, but she was not required to identify them.
• Insufficient Proof of Robbery: Accused-appellants argued there was no proof, other than Perlie's own statements, that robbery took place, and that the original police investigation only focused on homicide.
• Illegal Arrest: Accused-appellants claimed they were illegally arrested without warrants.
• Lack of Conspiracy: Accused-appellants maintained that except for the fact that they were at the scene of the crime, there was no other positive and convincing evidence of conspiracy.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether the testimony of the prosecution's key witness, Perlie Salvador, is sufficiently credible to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Proof of Robbery: Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the element of robbery, given that the only evidence of the taking was Perlie's testimony.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among accused-appellants and De la Cruz was sufficiently established.
• Validity of Arrest: Whether the alleged illegal warrantless arrest of accused-appellants warrants acquittal or reversal of conviction.
• Proper Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals are proper.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Yes. Perlie's testimony was categorical, straightforward, and worthy of credence, and as a surviving victim she had a natural penchant for remembering her attackers' faces; no ill motive was shown for her to falsely accuse accused-appellants.
• Proof of Robbery: Yes. The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction when clear, straightforward, and credible; Perlie consistently testified that Diu grabbed her bag containing ₱1,800.00, her salary, and she had reported the hold-up in her sworn statement the day after the incident.
• Conspiracy: Yes. The coordinated and complementary acts of the three perpetrators — accosting the sisters simultaneously, with Diu embracing Perlie and grabbing her bag while Dayaon and De la Cruz held and stabbed Nely — demonstrated spontaneous agreement and active cooperation sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility.
• Validity of Arrest: No, the objection was waived. Accused-appellants failed to question the legality of their arrests before entering their pleas of not guilty during arraignment, and are thus estopped from assailing any irregularity; at any rate, an invalid warrantless arrest does not negate the validity of a conviction based on sufficient evidence.
• Proper Penalty and Damages: Yes. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code; damages were modified in line with recent jurisprudence, with exemplary damages deleted for absence of aggravating circumstances.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The issue of witness credibility is best addressed by the trial court, which is in a better position to observe the witness's demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination. Factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect, unless facts of weight were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. Perlie was more than an eyewitness — she was a surviving victim. Her testimony was described by the RTC as "categorical and straightforward." She positively identified both accused-appellants and described the specific role each played. No evidence of ill motive was adduced by the defense to explain why Perlie would falsely accuse them. Both accused-appellants admitted being present at the scene, and Diu even admitted physical contact with Perlie. Diu's conduct after the incident — leaving without reporting to police, going to Manila for two days — was highly suspicious and inconsistent with his claim of trying to help. Dayaon's testimony was riddled with internal inconsistencies, particularly regarding the lighting conditions and what he could see, undermining his credibility. The defense witnesses Eduardo and Esther hardly helped, as it was difficult to believe De la Cruz would readily and publicly admit to the killing, and Esther herself acknowledged that De la Cruz did not say he acted alone.

• Proof of Robbery: The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward, and worthy of credence by the trial court. Perlie's trustworthiness was bolstered by the consistency and detail of her account. In her sworn statement executed on October 4, 2003 — only a day after the incident — she already reported that she and her sister were victims of a "hold-up" and that her shoulder bag containing ₱1,800.00 cash and her work uniform was taken. The ₱1,800.00 was not a random amount but her salary from the hotel. The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or the amount stolen. The fact of asportation, once established beyond reasonable doubt, justifies conviction even if the property is not presented in court. It was also immaterial that the police originally investigated only homicide; nothing precludes the police from subsequently expanding the investigation, and prosecutors have wide discretion in determining what and whom to charge.

• Conspiracy: Based on Perlie's testimony, the three men were all facing the wall, appearing to urinate, and when the sisters passed, they accosted them at the same time — Diu embracing Perlie and taking her bag, while Dayaon and De la Cruz held and stabbed Nely. These actuations were clearly coordinated and complementary. Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility. The absence of proof that accused-appellants attempted to stop Nely's killing, combined with the finding of conspiracy, makes them liable as principals for robbery with homicide. Under the doctrine that all those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same, accused-appellants' liability was established.

• Validity of Arrest: Nothing on record shows that accused-appellants questioned the legality of their arrests prior to entering their pleas of not guilty during arraignment. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of arrest if he fails to raise this issue or move to quash the information on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. The fatal flaw of an invalid warrantless arrest becomes moot in view of a credible eyewitness account.

• Proper Penalty and Damages: The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that when the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties, and the crime is neither attended by mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. The Court of Appeals correctly refused to consider the aggravating circumstance of nighttime since it was not alleged in the Information. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, reclusion perpetua was appropriately imposed. Damages were modified in line with recent jurisprudence: ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages to Nely's heirs; ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱1,800.00 as restitution to Perlie. Exemplary damages were deleted for absence of any aggravating circumstance. Legal interest at 6% per annum was imposed on all damages from the date of finality of the decision.

• Trial Court's Credibility Findings — Factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of witness credibility, the probative weight of testimonies, and conclusions drawn from factual findings, are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. These findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition.

• Positive Identification vs. Denial — The positive identification of the accused by a credible eyewitness, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the witness, prevails over the defense of denial. The natural interest of a victim of criminal violence in seeing the faces and features of attackers and remembering them is recognized in jurisprudence. Where no evidence shows that prosecution witnesses were actuated by ill motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.

• Sole Eyewitness Testimony — The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward, and worthy of credence by the trial court.

• Elements of Robbery with Homicide — The prosecution must prove: (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. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during, or after the robbery. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense, including murder, parricide, and infanticide. All those who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.

• Non-Presentation of Weapon — The presentation of the murder weapon is not indispensable to the prosecution of an accused. The non-identification or non-presentation of the weapon used is not fatal to the prosecution's cause where the accused was positively identified and the fact and manner of the victim's death were duly established by other evidence.

• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of arrest if he fails to raise this issue or move to quash the information on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. An illegal arrest is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.

• Conspiracy by Coordinated Acts — Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility. Coordinated and complementary acts demonstrating a concerted effort to commit the crime constitute proof of conspiracy.

• "In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery." — This passage articulates the essential nature of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, establishing that the primordial intent must be to rob, with homicide committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery.

• "All those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same." — This defines the principle of collective liability in robbery with homicide, making all co-principals in the robbery liable for the homicide unless they actively tried to prevent it.

• "Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility." — This establishes the standard for proving conspiracy through contemporaneous coordinated acts rather than prior agreement, a doctrine frequently invoked in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• "The fatal flaw of an invalid warrantless arrest becomes moot in view of a credible eyewitness account." — This pronouncement clarifies that even a concededly invalid warrantless arrest cannot overturn a conviction supported by credible eyewitness testimony, underscoring the primacy of evidentiary sufficiency over procedural defects in arrest.

• People vs. Maxion, 413 Phil. 740 (2001) — Cited for the rule that the trial court is in the best position to assess witness credibility, having heard the witness and observed demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination; its findings are accorded great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent overlooked or misapprehended facts.

• People vs. Pabillano, 404 Phil. 43 (2001) — Followed for the principle that where no ill motive is shown for prosecution witnesses to falsely accuse the defendants, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit, and that victims of criminal violence have a penchant for remembering their attackers' faces.

• People vs. Fernandez, 434 Phil. 224 (2002) — Applied for the doctrine that non-presentation or non-identification of the murder weapon is not fatal to the prosecution's case where the accused was positively identified and the fact and manner of death were established by other evidence.

• People vs. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405 (2004) — Extensively cited for the elements and nature of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, including the rule that all principals in the robbery are liable as principals of robbery with homicide even if they did not participate in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it.

• Rebellion vs. People, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010 — Followed for the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise the issue before arraignment, and that an illegal arrest does not negate the validity of a conviction.

• People vs. Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, Nov. 16, 2011 — Cited for the pronouncement that the fatal flaw of an invalid warrantless arrest becomes moot in view of a credible eyewitness account.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied as the substantive basis for convicting accused-appellants; with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.

• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties and the crime is attended by neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Applied to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua rather than death.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Referenced as the reason the RTC could not impose the death penalty despite appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.