People vs. Hernandez

A witness's delay in reporting a crime does not impair credibility where the delay is sufficiently explained by fear of reprisal and threats to the witness's life and family. Additionally, aggravating circumstances must be both alleged in the information and proven by evidence to be appreciated, and the retroactive application of procedural rules requiring such allegation benefits the accused.

The appellant Lito Hernandez was married to Remedios Yuzon, a first cousin of the prosecution's eyewitness Cesar Yuzon. Cesar's father was the brother of the victim, Natividad Yuzon Mendoza, making Natividad Cesar's aunt. The appellant and his co-accused Nestor Catapang were charged under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic appeal, the penalty imposed by the trial court having been reclusion perpetua to death.

On December 19, 1994, at about 7:00 a.m., Cesar Yuzon, a forty-four-year-old sweepstakes ticket vendor, went to the Rural Health Center of Banoyo, San Luis, Batangas, for medical treatment. After receiving medication, he waited at a nearby store for a ride back to Barangay Mahabang Parang. When no public utility jeepney passed, he began walking at about 11:00 a.m. Reaching the boundary of Banoyo and Mahabang Parang at around noon, he saw his cousin-in-law, the appellant Lito Hernandez, and Nestor Catapang dragging his seventy-two-year-old aunt, Natividad Yuzon Mendoza, toward a forested area with mango and coconut trees. Cesar shouted at them, asking why they were dragging his aunt. Catapang and the appellant approached, told him not to interfere, and Catapang pointed a balisong at him. Both warned him not to reveal what he had seen, threatening to kill him and his family, including his children.

Cesar followed them and concealed himself behind a mango tree about ten arm's lengths away. He observed the appellant and Catapang forcibly taking money, a pair of earrings, and a necklace from the bag of Natividad, who was lying prostrate on the ground. The two positioned themselves at Natividad's right and left sides and strangled her with a white rope made of buri or vine string. She pleaded, "Huwag po, huwag po," to no avail. Cesar hurriedly left and kept the incident to himself out of fear. That afternoon, Natividad's son, Nemensio Mendoza, began searching for his mother. Cesar joined the search at 5:00 p.m. with the barangay captain and other residents. The cadaver was found at about 11:00 p.m., wrapped in cloth. SPO3 Ronald C. Macatangay and other police officers arrived, photographed the body, and brought it to the De Guia Funeral Parlor. Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, performed an autopsy and found injuries on the face, neck, and index finger, a hematoma on the chin possibly caused by a bladed instrument, and a ligature mark on the neck. He concluded the cause of death was asphyxia by ligature strangulation.

Cesar's fear was heightened when Catapang and the appellant repeated their threats on Christmas Eve. However, on February 7, 1995, Cesar finally told his cousin Nemensio how Natividad died and identified the perpetrators. They went to the police station and gave sworn statements to SPO3 Macatangay. The appellant was arrested on April 18, 1995. During trial, co-accused Catapang was shot dead while attempting to escape from the Batangas Provincial Jail, and trial continued against the appellant alone.

The appellant denied the charges and presented an alibi. He testified that December 19, 1994 was his birthday and that at noon he had lunch at the Fresh Food restaurant in Parañaque. He claimed to have learned of Natividad's death the following day from Juanito Yuzon and attended her wake for two nights. He only learned of Cesar's accusation when arrested. The trial court took judicial notice that December 19, 1994 was a Monday, not a Sunday as the appellant asserted, undermining his alibi. The defense presented no corroborating witness for the alibi.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The appellant contended that the trial court erred in relying on the uncorroborated, inconsistent, and contradictory testimony of Cesar Yuzon, arguing that Cesar's failure to immediately report the incident to the barangay, police, or his cousin Nemensio — despite joining the search for Natividad on the afternoon of December 19, 1994 — was contrary to human experience and rendered his testimony barren of probative weight.
• Visibility and Inconsistency: The appellant argued that Cesar could not have seen the killing from a distance of thirteen or fourteen meters because his view was blocked by tall grasses and the leaves of a mango tree, and that Cesar's testimony was inconsistent on material points, including whether the perpetrators carried the victim's money and jewelry when they left the crime scene.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Assuming guilt, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex of the victim.
• Mitigating Circumstance: The appellant argued that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether the eyewitness Cesar Yuzon's delay in reporting the crime and his alleged inconsistent testimony render his identification of the appellant unworthy of credence.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex were properly appreciated by the trial court.
• Mitigating Circumstance: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of the appellant.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty and the awards of damages imposed by the trial court were proper.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: No. The delay in reporting was sufficiently justified by fear of reprisal and threats to the witness's life and family, and the positive identification of the appellant prevailed over the defense of alibi.
• Aggravating Circumstances: No. The aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex were neither alleged in the information nor proven by evidence, and disregard of age and sex is inapplicable to crimes against property.
• Mitigating Circumstance: No. Voluntary surrender was not appreciated because the appellant surrendered only after the warrant of arrest was served upon him.
• Penalty and Damages: The penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Actual damages were reduced to P25,000 as temperate damages, and attorney's fees were deleted for lack of evidentiary basis.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: While the natural reaction of one who witnesses a crime, especially against a relative, is to report it immediately, this principle is not iron-clad. Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for delay. Cesar testified that the appellant and Catapang threatened him at knifepoint not to reveal what he saw, warning they would kill him and his family. The threats were repeated on Christmas Eve. As a forty-five-year-old farmer, Cesar could not be blamed for withholding information under such circumstances. The crime was committed in broad daylight at noon, and where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness harbors no ill motive, his testimony as to how the crime was committed and the identities of the perpetrators must be accepted. No evidence of ill motive on Cesar's part was presented. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility, made after observing demeanor and deportment, is generally not disturbed on appeal. Cesar's positive identification prevailed over the appellant's denial and alibi, which were uncorroborated and further debilitated by the trial court's judicial notice that December 19, 1994 was a Monday, not the Sunday the appellant claimed.

• Aggravating Circumstances: Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires the complaint or information to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The information in this case failed to aver abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex. Although the rule took effect on December 1, 2000, after the crime was committed, it may be applied retroactively insofar as it benefits the accused. Moreover, no evidence was presented to prove these circumstances. To establish abuse of superior strength, there must be deliberate intent to take advantage of greater number; the mere fact of two assailants against one victim is insufficient. With respect to disregard of age and sex, this may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor, not in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is principally a crime against property, homicide being a mere incident of the robbery. It was also not proven that the appellant determinedly intended to offend or insult the age and sex of the victim.

• Mitigating Circumstance: The requisites of voluntary surrender are: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. A surrender is voluntary when done spontaneously, showing intent to surrender unconditionally, either because the accused acknowledges guilt or wishes to save authorities the trouble and expense of search and capture. In this case, the appellant surrendered only after the warrant of arrest was served. The fact that he did not resist and went peacefully does not constitute voluntary surrender.

• Penalty and Damages: There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code requires application of the lesser penalty when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. Accordingly, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of P50,000 as civil indemnity for death was upheld without need of proof. Moral damages of P50,000 were awarded for the pain and sorrow suffered by the heirs. The grant of P61,000 as actual damages was not properly supported, as only a single receipt for P11,000 in funeral expenses was presented; the award was reduced to P25,000 as temperate damages. The award of P75,000 as attorney's fees was deleted for lack of evidentiary basis, as nothing on the record manifested the actual expenses incurred by the heirs for attorney's fees.

• Delay in Reporting Crime Due to Fear — The principle that a witness should immediately report a crime is not iron-clad. Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for delay in reporting. Such failure does not destroy the truth of the complaint per se and does not affect the witness's credibility. In this case, Cesar's two-month delay was justified by threats at knifepoint and repeated warnings that he and his family would be killed.

• Robbery with Homicide Under Article 294, RPC — In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design must be 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. All who took part as principals in the robbery are liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually participate in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. All conspirators are guilty as principals, although not all profited from the robbery.

• Unlawful Taking (Apoderamiento) in Robbery — Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of it. There is no need to prove the exact amount of money taken, as long as there is proof of the unlawful taking. Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking of things.

• Alibi and Denial vs. Positive Identification — For alibi to prevail over prosecution evidence, the accused must prove that he was not at the locus delicti when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Denials, as negative and self-serving evidence, do not deserve as much weight as positive and affirmative testimonies. The defense failed to satisfy these requirements, and the appellant's alibi was further weakened by the trial court's judicial notice that December 19, 1994 was a Monday, not the Sunday he claimed.

• Allegation of Aggravating Circumstances in the Information — Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires the information to specify both qualifying and aggravating circumstances. This rule may be applied retroactively when it benefits the accused. Aggravating circumstances not alleged in the information and not proven by evidence cannot be appreciated.

• Disregard of Age and Sex — Applicability — Disregard of age and sex may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor, not in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is principally a crime against property; homicide is a mere incident of the robbery. Additionally, it must be proven that the offender determinedly intended to offend or insult the age and sex of the victim.

• Voluntary Surrender — Requisites — The three requisites are: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary, meaning spontaneous and showing intent to surrender unconditionally. Surrender after service of a warrant of arrest, even if peaceful, does not constitute voluntary surrender.

• Application of Indivisible Penalties (Article 63, RPC) — When the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. In this case, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed instead of death.

• "Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting the crime to the authorities." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine on delayed reporting by eyewitnesses, a frequently litigated issue in Philippine criminal cases involving threats and intimidation.

• "Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same." — This defines the legal concept of apoderamiento in robbery, establishing that disposal of the loot is not an element of the crime.

• "When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of 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 states the rule on conspiracy liability in robbery with homicide, holding all conspirators accountable for the homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery.

• "The present rules, however, require even the aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the complaint or information." — This passage marks the application of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requiring aggravating circumstances to be specified in the information, applied retroactively when beneficial to the accused.

• People vs. Baquiran, 20 SCRA 451 (1967) — Cited for the general principle that the natural reaction of a crime witness is to report immediately, a principle the Court held is not iron-clad.
• People vs. Galido, 326 SCRA 187 (2000) — Cited for the doctrine that fear of reprisal justifies delay in reporting a crime.
• People vs. Estocada, 75 SCRA 295 (1977) — Cited for the proposition that natural hesitance of witnesses to volunteer information does not affect credibility.
• People vs. Ellasos, 358 SCRA 516 (2001) — Cited for the definition of unlawful taking (apoderamiento) and the presumption of intent to gain from unlawful taking.
• People vs. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67 (1997) — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide: the original criminal design must be robbery, with homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
• People vs. Carrozo, 342 SCRA 600 (2000) — Cited for the rule that all principals in the robbery are liable for the homicide committed on the occasion thereof.
• People vs. Palijon, 343 SCRA 486 (2000) — Cited for the principle that one who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of co-conspirators and cannot repudiate the conspiracy once materialized.
• People vs. Collado, 196 SCRA 519 (1991) — Cited for the doctrine that disregard of age and sex may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor, not in crimes against property.
• People vs. Lobrigas, 394 SCRA 170 (2002) — Cited for the requirement that abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent to take advantage of greater number.
• People vs. Otayde, G.R. No. 140227, November 28, 2003 — Cited for the rule that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information under Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
• People vs. Buayaban, 400 SCRA 48 (2003) — Cited for the principle that the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure may be applied retroactively when beneficial to the accused.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The appellant was convicted under this provision.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of indivisible penalties. When neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attend the commission of the deed and the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Applied to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Section 8, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Requires the complaint or information to state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Applied retroactively to bar appreciation of unalleged aggravating circumstances.
• Article 2208, Civil Code — Governs the award of attorney's fees as actual or compensatory damages. The Court found the award of P75,000 unsupported by evidence and deleted it.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concurred.