People vs. Paraiso

Robbery with homicide is established when personal property belonging to another is taken with violence or intimidation and intent to gain, and homicide is committed on the occasion of the robbery; positive identification by four eyewitnesses prevails over alibi, and dwelling and abuse of superior strength justify the death penalty under Article 294 as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

Roland Paraiso was a neighbor of Lolita Alipio Tigley and her family for about seven years and had bought items from her store. He had also come to the victim’s house on June 6, 1995 to apply as a driver, but Lolita declined because her jeepney had many defects. The case was prosecuted under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which penalizes robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons with reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery.

At around 1:30 in the afternoon of June 11, 1995, Sheila Marie Alipio, then 18 years old and the niece of Lolita Alipio Tigley, went to her aunt’s house in Barangay Lipata, Minglanilla, Cebu, to deliver a one-gallon water container. At the main door, she saw two men, including Roland Paraiso, standing about a meter away. She rang the doorbell, and after a while Lolita opened the door. One of the two men suddenly pushed Sheila inside; she stumbled and, looking back, saw one of them pointing a gun about 8 to 10 inches long at Lolita’s right temple. The gunman wore navy blue maong pants, a sky-blue round-neck t-shirt, red rubber shoes, and a black cap; he was fair-complexioned with somewhat sunken cheeks, and Sheila later identified him in court as Paraiso. The other man was armed with a Batangas fan knife, which he poked at Sheila’s right side.

Sheila and Lolita’s children Epifanio Tigley, Jr., Ferdinand Tigley, and Kim Tigley were herded upstairs into one of the rooms. Paraiso held Lolita and asked for the key; he ordered her to open the cabinet and ransacked and searched it. He asked where the money was, and Lolita took P200.00 from her pocket and handed it to him, saying it was all she had. Paraiso also took jewelries, a wristwatch, and a video camera. Paraiso and his companion brought Lolita to the bathroom and ransacked the cabinet there. Paraiso later ordered his companion to cover Sheila and her cousins with pillows; Sheila peeped through the pillows and saw Ferdinand being tied up. Lolita pleaded with the perpetrators not to harm the children. Later, Sheila saw her aunt being taken to the children’s room, but Lolita came back bloodied and clutching her breast; she collapsed after looking at each of them, and the accused and his companion were no longer there.

Epifanio, Jr., then 15 years old, identified Paraiso in court as one of the two men who robbed and killed his mother. He testified that on June 27, 1995, he and his siblings went to the NBI office where a cartographic sketch was drawn of one of the suspects, and that on April 19, 1996, he and his brothers Ferdinand and Kim and cousin Sheila went to the Chief of Police at the Minglanilla Municipal Building to inform him that the suspects in the robbery case in Argao were not the ones who robbed and killed his mother. He recalled that the robbers ordered them to stay inside their mother’s room; upon demand, his mother gave Paraiso only P200.00 because she had not yet received her allotment from her husband; Paraiso then asked for the key to the box and took out jewelries such as a wristwatch and necklace. Ferdinand, then 17, corroborated the eyewitnesses and testified that he was hogtied by Paraiso’s companion with a t-shirt taken from the victim’s cabinet. He stated that the robbers took a wristwatch, necklace, telescope, and video camera aside from the P200.00; the total value of the items taken was P179,800.00 as shown in a list marked Exhibit “F,” which was made by his father who came home for the burial, and burial expenses amounted to P47,600.00 as evidenced by a list marked Exhibit “G.” Ferdinand also testified that when his mother was killed, he felt anguish and pain, and when asked if his feelings could be translated into cash, he said that “(G)rief and anguish is not a business proposition to be given monetary value, not even a million will suffice.”

Kim, then 13 years old and the youngest son of the victim, identified Paraiso in court as one of the persons who entered their house; he exploded in anger and banged his fist on the armchair of the witness box. He recalled that after Paraiso took out the jewelries, wristwatch, telescope, and camera, and while Ferdinand was hogtied by Paraiso’s companion, his mother pleaded with the robbers to take all the things they wanted but not to harm Ferdinand; with the gun pointed at his mother’s head and the knife poked at her, the two robbers held her and brought her into the other room where she was killed. Adelaida Alipio, the victim’s sister-in-law, testified that Paraiso came to the victim’s house on June 6, 1995 to apply as a driver, but the victim declined because her jeepney had many defects. Dr. Juan Zaldarriaga identified the Necropsy Report and testified that the cause of death was “Hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wounds of the chest,” with stab wounds on the chest, among other findings.

For the defense, Estacio Sayson, Lilia Abellana, Thelma Moneva, Rodliza Alforque, Raul Pable, Eric Pasilan, Rosita Paraiso, and Paraiso himself testified; the defense theory was alibi and denial. Paraiso lived with his in-laws at Pakigne, Minglanilla, Cebu, whose house was just three electric posts or five houses away from the victim’s house, and his father-in-law testified that Paraiso was at home during the fatal incident. The defense also claimed that Paraiso had a look-alike in Roger Camus, now deceased, who was a suspect in another robbery case; it showed a picture of Jeffrey Ramil, who had a standing warrant of arrest for robbery in another case, but Sheila insisted that Ramil was not the man holding the Batangas knife and that Camus was not the man holding the gun. Epifanio, Jr. said that while the cartographic sketch resembling Paraiso (Exhibit “B”) and the picture of Camus (Exhibit “3”) both had a sunken face, the man in Exhibit “B” was Paraiso. Paraiso argued that he never hid or left his father-in-law’s residence, which was only five houses away from the victim’s house.

Immediately after the incident, on June 13, 1995, the victim’s minor children and Sheila were invited to the NBI office in Cebu City, where they gave the description of the man with the knife; on June 27, 1995, they returned to the NBI and another cartographic sketch was made describing the man with the gun, and the cartographer made a sketch closely resembling Paraiso’s features. On April 19, 1996, the children went to the Chief of Police at the Minglanilla Municipal Hall to inform him that the persons arrested in Argao were not the ones who robbed the victim; when they saw Paraiso at the police station, the children were frightened, and Kim clasped his fists and trembled in anger. The RTC credited the four prosecution eyewitnesses who were present at the scene and identified Paraiso, and rejected the alibi because his in-laws’ house was only three electric posts or five houses away from the victim’s house.

• Overlooked Facts: Appellant Paraiso argued that the lower court overlooked facts and circumstances of weight and value which, if considered, would have materially altered the result of the case.
• Unsupported Factual Conclusions: He argued that the lower court made conclusions of fact not supported by the evidence on record.
• Flimsy and Unreliable Evidence: He argued that he was convicted despite the flimsy and unreliable evidence presented by the prosecution.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: He argued that the lower court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
• Alibi and Non-flight: He maintained that he was at home with his in-laws during the incident, that he never hid or left their residence, and that his non-flight indicated innocence.
• Delayed Reporting: He contended that if the eyewitnesses had actually seen and recognized him, they would have reported him, a neighbor, to the police immediately or within a reasonable time; instead, it took them ten months to identify him, and the prosecution gave no plausible reason for the delay.
• Mistaken Identification: He argued that the eyewitnesses may have been mistaken in identifying him, pointing to Roger Camus, now deceased, as a look-alike and to a photograph of Jeffrey Ramil, who had a standing warrant for robbery in another case.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in crediting the prosecution eyewitnesses and convicting accused-appellant despite the alleged flimsy and unreliable evidence.
• Alibi: Whether accused-appellant’s alibi can prevail over the positive identification made by four eyewitnesses where his in-laws’ house was only three electric posts or five houses away from the victim’s house.
• Delay in Reporting: Whether the eyewitnesses’ ten-month delay in identifying accused-appellant renders their testimonies false or incredible.
• Mistaken Identification: Whether the eyewitnesses may have mistaken accused-appellant for another person.
• Non-flight: Whether accused-appellant’s failure to flee or hide proves his innocence.
• Robbery with Homicide: Whether accused-appellant’s guilt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether dwelling, abuse of superior strength, and disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of her sex may be appreciated to impose the death penalty.
• Damages: Whether the awards of civil indemnity, actual damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages are proper.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court’s credibility findings are entitled to great respect, and the SC found no reason to overturn them; four eyewitnesses positively identified Paraiso.
• Alibi: No. Alibi was not physically impossible because Paraiso’s in-laws’ house was only three electric posts or five houses away from the victim’s house, and positive identification prevailed.
• Delay in Reporting: No. The delay did not render the testimonies false or incredible; it was explained by the witnesses’ NBI visits and cartographic sketches and by natural reticence.
• Mistaken Identification: No. Sheila gave a vivid description and rejected the photographs of Ramil and Camus, while Epifanio, Jr. identified the sketch as Paraiso; the perpetrators were in the house long enough to be observed.
• Non-flight: No. There is no law or principle guaranteeing that non-flight is proof of innocence.
• Robbery with Homicide: Yes. The prosecution proved the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, intent to gain, ownership by another, and homicide on the occasion of the robbery.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Yes as to dwelling and abuse of superior strength; No as to disregard of sex. Death was proper under Article 294 as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and Article 63.
• Damages: Partly. Civil indemnity was fixed at P50,000.00; actual damages were reduced to P200.00; moral damages to P100,000.00; and exemplary damages to P50,000.00.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The SC applied the settled rule that an appellate court will generally not disturb the trial court’s findings on credibility unless some facts and circumstances were overlooked that could affect the result, because the trial judge is in a superior position to observe the witness’s conduct and demeanor while testifying. The SC examined the records and found nothing to justify overturning the trial court’s findings. The prosecution presented four eyewitnesses—Sheila Marie Alipio, Epifanio Tigley, Jr., Ferdinand Tigley, and Kim Tigley—who were all present at the scene and positively identified Paraiso as one of the robbers. The SC thus rejected the claim that the evidence was flimsy and unreliable.

• Alibi: The SC held that alibi is the weakest of all defenses; for it to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Paraiso lived with his in-laws at Pakigne, Minglanilla, Cebu, whose house was just three electric posts or five houses away from the victim’s house, and his father-in-law testified that he was at home during the incident. The second element was not proved. The SC also noted that alibi becomes unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused himself and his relatives, and that a positive identification by prosecution eyewitnesses prevails over alibi. Four eyewitnesses identified Paraiso.

• Delay in Reporting: The SC ruled that the witnesses’ delayed reporting of what they knew about the crime did not render their testimonies false or incredible, because the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. Failure to immediately reveal the identities of the perpetrators does not affect, much less impair, the credibility of witnesses, especially if the delay is adequately explained; there is no standard behavior for a person confronted with a shocking incident. The SC found the delay explained: on June 13, 1995, the victim’s minor children and Sheila were invited to the NBI office in Cebu City and gave the description of the man with the knife; on June 27, 1995, they returned and another cartographic sketch was made describing the man with the gun, and the sketch closely resembled Paraiso; on April 19, 1996, the children went to the Chief of Police at the Minglanilla Municipal Hall to inform him that the persons arrested in Argao were not the ones who robbed the victim.

• Mistaken Identification: The SC rejected the claim of mistaken identification. Sheila gave a vivid description of the perpetrators: the man holding the Batangas knife was dark-skinned, with a protruding Adam’s apple, scars on his face and forearms, a flat-top haircut, and a somewhat regular nose. When the defense showed a picture of Jeffrey Ramil, who had a standing warrant of arrest for robbery in another case, Sheila insisted that he was not the man holding the Batangas knife; when shown the picture of Roger Camus, who was confined at the Cebu Provincial Jail but escaped on May 28, 1995, she insisted that he was not the man holding the gun. Epifanio, Jr. testified that while the cartographic sketch resembling Paraiso (Exhibit “B”) and the picture of Camus (Exhibit “3”) both had a sunken face, the man in Exhibit “B” was Paraiso. The SC also noted that the perpetrators were in the victim’s house for several minutes, giving the children sufficient time to develop familiarity with their faces, and that a violent incident may serve as a catalyst to memory. Children of sound mind are likely to be more observant of incidents within their view and make good witnesses because of their power of observation and recall as well as their innocence.

• Non-flight: The SC held that there is no law or principle which guarantees that non-flight per se is proof, let alone conclusive proof, of one’s innocence. Paraiso’s failure to hide or leave his father-in-law’s residence, which was only five houses away from the victim’s house, did not exculpate him.

• Robbery with Homicide: The SC applied Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and the essential elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, used in a generic sense, was committed. The evidence showed that Paraiso and his companion, armed with a gun and a knife, took personal properties belonging to the victim with intent to gain, and on the occasion thereof the victim was killed. The trial court was therefore correct in finding Paraiso guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: The SC held that dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house; the law accords sanctity to human abode, and he who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. Here, the robbery was committed in the victim’s house without provocation on her part. The SC also held that abuse of superior strength may be considered when there is an inequality of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor, and there must be a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the latter in the commission of the crime; what matters is not that there were three, four, or more assailants as against one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense. Abuse of strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority or there is a notorious inequality of forces, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. Here, the victim was totally helpless against two perpetrators armed with a gun and a knife. The SC, however, held that the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the victim by reason of her sex cannot be appreciated, because it can be considered only in crimes against persons and honor, while robbery with homicide is a crime against property; moreover, nothing in the record showed that Paraiso deliberately intended to offend or insult the age or sex of the victim, and such circumstance would be absorbed by abuse of superior strength. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is composed of two indivisible penalties; under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that should be imposed is death, the maximum provided by law, in the absence of any mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of superior strength. These aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in the information because they are mere generic aggravating circumstances that increase the penalty to the maximum period.

• Damages: The SC held that P50,000.00 should be awarded as civil indemnity for the death of the victim, no other proof being necessary than the fact of death and the accused’s responsibility therefor. Moral damages were in order because the victim’s children witnessed the crime and felt anguish and pain; the SC reduced the amount from P200,000.00 to P100,000.00 because the purpose of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings. The presence of aggravating circumstances justified exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code after proof that the offended party is entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages; the SC reduced the award from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. As to actual damages, the SC held that actual damages are premised on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable. The list of stolen properties was prepared by the victim’s husband, who was not presented as a prosecution witness, and Ferdinand merely testified thereon; an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry, and the value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration. In the absence of receipts or other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution, the SC could not award reparation for the stolen jewelry; there was also no evidence to establish the value of the telescope and video camera because no description as to kind or model was given. The burial expense list was prepared by Linda Alipio, who was not presented as a prosecution witness, so Ferdinand’s testimony thereon was hearsay under Section 36 of Rule 130. The SC thus reduced actual damages to P200.00, the only amount sufficiently proved.

• Robbery with Homicide — A special complex crime with four elements: (1) taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide is committed. The SC applied it because Paraiso and his companion took the victim’s property with a gun and knife and killed her on the occasion of the robbery.
• Credibility of Witnesses — Appellate courts generally do not disturb the trial court’s credibility findings absent overlooked facts, because the trial judge observes the witness’s demeanor and is in a vantage position to determine credibility. The SC found no reason to overturn the trial court’s crediting of the four eyewitnesses.
• Alibi — Alibi is the weakest defense; it requires proof that the accused was elsewhere when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. It cannot prevail over positive identification and is unworthy when established mainly by the accused and his relatives. Paraiso failed to prove physical impossibility because his in-laws’ house was only three electric posts or five houses away.
• Delay in Reporting — Delay in reporting a crime or revealing the identities of perpetrators does not by itself render a witness’s testimony false or incredible; it may be explained by natural reticence, fear, or abhorrence to involvement in a criminal case, and there is no standard behavior for a person confronted with a shocking incident. The SC found the delay explained by the NBI visits, cartographic sketches, and the April 19, 1996 report to the Chief of Police.
• Non-flight — Non-flight is not proof of innocence; no law or principle guarantees that an accused’s failure to flee or hide is conclusive proof of innocence. Paraiso’s staying near the scene did not exculpate him.
• Dwelling as Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party without provocation, or when the victim is killed inside his house; in robbery with violence or intimidation, dwelling is aggravating because the crime may be committed without trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house. The SC applied it because the robbery was committed in the victim’s house without provocation.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — Abuse of superior strength requires an inequality of comparative force and a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the aggressor; it is not enough that there are several assailants, and it may be present when the offender uses a powerful weapon out of proportion to the defense available to the victim. The SC applied it because the victim was helpless against two perpetrators armed with a gun and a knife.
• Disregard of Respect Due to Sex — This aggravating circumstance applies only in crimes against persons and honor; it cannot be appreciated in robbery with homicide, which is a crime against property, and it is absorbed by abuse of superior strength. The SC rejected it.
• Penalty for Robbery with Homicide — Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, imposes reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Under Article 63, when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and there is no mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty—death—is imposed if aggravating circumstances are present; generic aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in the information. The SC imposed death.
• Actual Damages — Actual damages require competent proof and the best evidence obtainable; an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry, and hearsay lists prepared by persons not presented as witnesses cannot support an award. The SC reduced actual damages to P200.00, the only amount sufficiently proved.
• Moral and Exemplary Damages — Moral damages compensate injuries to feelings and are not meant to enrich the heirs; exemplary damages may be awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code when aggravating circumstances are present and moral, temperate, or compensatory damages are proved. The SC awarded P100,000.00 moral and P50,000.00 exemplary damages.
• Civil Indemnity for Death — P50,000.00 is awarded as civil indemnity for the death of the victim without need of proof other than the fact of death and the accused’s responsibility therefor. The SC awarded this amount to the victim’s heirs.

• “The essential elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide are: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and, (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.” — This defines the elements of the special complex crime and anchors the conviction.
• “For alibi to prosper as a defense, one must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.” — This is the rule used to reject Paraiso’s alibi because his in-laws’ house was only three electric posts or five houses away.
• “The witnesses' delayed reporting of what they know about the crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.” — This rejects the argument that the ten-month delay destroyed the eyewitnesses’ credibility.
• “Abuse of strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.” — This supports the appreciation of abuse of superior strength against the helpless victim.

• People vs. Ligan, 152 SCRA 419 — Followed; cited for the rule that the trial court’s credibility findings are entitled to great respect.
• People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 122746, January 29, 1999 — Followed; cited for the requirement that alibi must prove physical impossibility to be at the scene.
• People vs. Midtomod, 283 SCRA 395 — Followed; cited for the rule that positive identification by prosecution eyewitnesses prevails over alibi.
• People vs. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331 — Followed; cited for the rule that delayed reporting does not render a witness’s testimony false or incredible.
• People vs. George de la Cruz y Cervada, G.R. No. 111704, March 17, 1999 — Followed; cited for the rule that a violent incident may serve as a catalyst to memory and etch the assailants’ faces in the witnesses’ minds.
• People vs. Rafael Olivares, Jr., and Danilo Arellano, G.R. No. 77865, December 4, 1998 — Followed; cited for the elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Antonio Marcos y Obo, G.R. No. 128892, June 21, 1999 — Followed; cited for the rule that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry, and for dwelling as aggravating and exemplary damages.
• People vs. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207 — Followed; cited for the rule that robbery with homicide is a crime against property, so disregard of respect due to sex cannot be appreciated.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons and imposes reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery; applied to convict Paraiso and impose death.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of indivisible penalties; applied to impose death as the maximum penalty because there was no mitigating circumstance and dwelling and abuse of superior strength were present.
• Article 83, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Requires forwarding certified copies of the decision and records to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power upon finality; applied in the dispositive portion.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Allows exemplary damages when an aggravating circumstance is present and moral, temperate, or compensatory damages are proved; applied to award P50,000.00 exemplary damages.
• Section 36, Rule 130 — Limits a witness to facts of personal knowledge derived from his own perception; applied to reject the lists of stolen properties and burial expenses testified to by Ferdinand but prepared by persons not presented as witnesses.