Vidar vs. People

A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof that the taking of personal property belonging to another was attended by violence or intimidation, with intent to gain, and that homicide was committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery; positive eyewitness identification, even if preceded by photographic identification and delayed reporting, may sustain conviction where the totality of circumstances shows reliability. The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the conviction.

Petitioners Armando Vidar, Norberto Butalon, and Sonny Marbella were charged with robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code for the death of Sgt. Julio D. Dioneda. The prosecution's principal witnesses were Dioneda's widow, Florecita Dioneda, and his sister, Niña Dioneda Elemanco. The offense is defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, and the imposition of the death penalty was later affected by Republic Act No. 9346.

At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of April 30, 2001, Sgt. Julio D. Dioneda was at his house at Sitio Burabod, Barangay Poblacion, Bacon District, Sorsogon City. His wife Florecita Dioneda and sister-in-law Niña Dioneda Elemanco were inside watching television, while Dioneda was taking a bath outside the house. Three armed men suddenly barged inside. One of them, later identified as Sonny Marbella, poked a gun at Florecita while the other two ransacked the house, taking a wallet, a crash helmet, and a .45 caliber firearm with its magazine, all belonging to Dioneda.

Florecita and Niña followed the three men when they went out. At the yard, they saw the three men together with more or less ten other persons surrounding Dioneda, who was lying facing the ground. Despite Florecita's pleas not to kill her husband, Marbella and Armando Vidar still fired a volley of shots, causing Dioneda's instantaneous death. The three then boarded Dioneda's motorcycle and fled the area. Niña corroborated the material details of the robbery and killing and testified that she could not forget the faces of the three malefactors, as she was certain they were the ones who barged inside the house and later killed her brother.

According to the prosecution, Niña later described the physical appearance of petitioners to the policemen, although no cartographic sketch was presented. Petitioners were identified from among four photographs presented at Camp Escudero. The incident occurred on April 30, 2001, while the Information in the record is dated July 8, 2002.

Petitioners vehemently denied the accusations. Marbella averred that he did not know Dioneda and that he was in his house in Lungib, Pilar, Sorsogon on April 30, 2001. Vidar asserted that he had no knowledge of the killing of Dioneda. Butalon, on the other hand, professed his innocence, claiming that he also did not know Dioneda and that he was in his house at Omoroy, Legaspi City on April 30, 2001. Collectively, they alleged that the possible motive behind the charge against them was that they were known members of the New People's Army.

The Regional Trial Court relied on the credible and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, rejected the defense interposed by petitioners, and found all of them guilty of robbery with homicide. The Court of Appeals gave credence to the eyewitnesses' account of the victim's death and the identity of petitioners, and affirmed the trial court's findings.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioners contended that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court despite the absence of proof adduced before the court below establishing beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Delay in Filing Charges: Petitioners maintained that the delay of almost a year in filing formal charges against them cast serious doubt on the intention and motive of the complainant, noting that while the incident took place on April 30, 2001, formal charges were filed only in February 2002.
• Suggestive Identification: Petitioners argued that their identification by the prosecution witnesses was attended with irregularity because they were identified merely from among four photographs presented at Camp Escudero, which they characterized as an incredible suggestive procedure.
• Rebellion: Petitioners asserted that robbery and homicide were committed in furtherance of rebellion, as admitted by both the prosecution and the defense witnesses that the victim was killed by reason of his being a member of the Philippine Army and in the performance of his duty, and that the assailants were members of the New People's Army of which petitioners were also members even up to the time of their arrest.
• Denial and Alibi: Petitioners denied the accusations; Marbella and Butalon claimed they were in their respective houses on April 30, 2001, while Vidar asserted no knowledge of the killing; collectively they alleged the charge was motivated by their known NPA membership.

• Affirmation of Conviction: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, refuted petitioners' contention, reiterated the ruling of the court a quo, and sought the affirmation of the assailed decision.
• Prior Brief: The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief stating that it had already exhaustively argued all the issues relevant to the case in its Appellee's Brief dated October 17, 2005.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery with homicide.
• Delay in Filing Charges: Whether the delay of almost a year in filing formal charges weakened the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
• Identification: Whether the out-of-court identification of petitioners from four photographs was irregular and suggestive, and whether it invalidated their identification.
• Rebellion: Whether the crime was committed in furtherance of rebellion rather than as robbery with homicide.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing.
• Denial and Alibi: Whether petitioners' defenses of denial and alibi should be credited over the prosecution witnesses' positive identification.
• Damages: Whether the damages awarded by the trial court as modified by the Court of Appeals were substantiated and warranted.
• Death of Accused: Whether the death of Norberto Butalon pending appeal extinguished his criminal and civil liability.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The prosecution established all the elements of robbery with homicide: taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, with violence or intimidation against a person, and homicide committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
• Delay in Filing Charges: No. Delay alone does not work against the witness; the delay was consistent with normal human behavior and fear of reprisal, and no improper motive was shown.
• Identification: No. The totality of circumstances showed no irregularity; the in-court identification cured any defect, and petitioners failed to prove suggestiveness.
• Rebellion: No. Petitioners' position that the crime was in furtherance of rebellion was a judicial admission that they committed the crime and cannot be changed on appeal.
• Treachery: Yes. The sudden and successive attack without opportunity to defend qualified the crime with alevosia.
• Denial and Alibi: No. These defenses fail against positive identification; positive testimony prevails over negative.
• Damages: Yes. The amounts awarded by the trial court as modified by the Court of Appeals were duly substantiated and warranted.
• Death of Accused: Yes. The death of Norberto Butalon pending appeal extinguished his criminal liability and civil liability based solely on conviction, requiring dismissal of his petition.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court reiterated that robbery with homicide requires (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) intent to gain; (3) use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) homicide committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The prosecution witnesses Florecita and Niña testified that armed men entered the Dioneda house, took a wallet, crash helmet, and .45 caliber firearm, and then shot Dioneda. Their testimonies established the taking with violence, ownership, animo lucrandi, and the killing on the occasion of the robbery. The Court found these elements proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Delay in Filing Charges: The Court held that the delay did not weaken the witnesses' credibility. It reasoned that after a tragic incident, bereaved persons may avoid provoking reprisals, and personal safety takes priority. The witnesses' fear of reprisal was reinforced by their honest belief that petitioners were NPA members. The Court cited People vs. Gornes that delay alone does not work against the witness, and People vs. Belon and People vs. Carizo. No improper motive was shown; the witnesses were the victim's widow and sister, and their interest in putting the killers behind bars was not improper.
• Identification: The Court applied the totality of circumstances test from People vs. Sinco: opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty, length of time, and suggestiveness. The witnesses had an unobstructed view because petitioners did not wear masks, there was no darkness, and one petitioner poked a gun at them while others ransacked the house. Niña described their physical appearance to police. Although time elapsed, they never wavered. The Court cited People vs. Rivera that in-court identification cures any flaw in out-of-court identification, and a police line-up is not essential. Petitioners failed to prove the photographic identification was unduly suggestive.
• Rebellion: The Court treated petitioners' insistence in the trial and appellate courts that the crime was committed in furtherance of rebellion as a judicial admission that they committed the crime. A judicial admission conclusively binds the party and cannot be contradicted absent palpable mistake. Moreover, a party cannot change theory on appeal. Thus, the rebellion theory did not exonerate them.
• Treachery: The Court found treachery duly proven. The victim was taking a bath, unaware of the planned attack, and the sudden and successive actions of petitioners did not allow him any opportunity to defend himself. The attack was executed in a manner that made defense or counterattack impossible, qualifying the crime with alevosia. Cited People vs. Pallarco.
• Denial and Alibi: The Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and must fail against positive identification. Positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. Cited People vs. Torres and People vs. Corpuz.
• Damages: The Court found the amounts awarded by the trial court as modified by the Court of Appeals, including civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages, and loss of earning capacity, duly substantiated and warranted. No cogent reason to reverse.
• Death of Accused: The Court noted the Penal Superintendent's report that Butalon died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital on October 21, 2004. Consistent with People vs. Bayotas, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability and civil liability based solely on conviction. The petition of the late Norberto Butalon was therefore dismissed.

• Robbery with homicide — A special complex crime under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code requiring: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) intent to gain; (3) use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) homicide committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The robbery must be the main purpose and the killing merely incidental; intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, though the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. The Court applied this to affirm conviction because the prosecution proved the taking and the killing on the occasion of the robbery.
• Totality of circumstances test — In ascertaining whether out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, courts consider: (1) witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) degree of attention at that time; (3) accuracy of any prior description; (4) level of certainty at identification; (5) length of time between crime and identification; and (6) suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The Court applied the test and found no irregularity in the identification from four photographs, especially since the witnesses had an unobstructed view and later identified petitioners in court.
• Delay in reporting a crime — Delay alone does not impair a witness's credibility; it may be consistent with normal human behavior, especially where fear of reprisal exists and the crime occurs in a rural area. The Court applied this to excuse the nearly one-year delay in filing charges, given the witnesses' fear of NPA reprisal.
• Judicial admission and theory of the case — A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. A party who adopts a theory in the lower court cannot change it on appeal. The Court applied this to petitioners' claim that the crime was in furtherance of rebellion, which amounted to an admission that they committed the act and foreclosed their later denial.
• Treachery (alevosia) — Treachery qualifies a killing when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. The Court found the sudden, unprovoked attack on an unarmed victim taking a bath, with no opportunity to defend himself, qualified the crime.
• Denial and alibi — Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court rejected petitioners' defenses because the prosecution witnesses positively identified them.
• Death of accused pending appeal — The death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the conviction. The Court applied this to Norberto Butalon, dismissing his petition.
• Credibility of witnesses — Assessment of witness credibility is best left to the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe demeanor, and when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, findings are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. The Court relied on this in upholding the conviction.
• Relationship of witness to victim — Relationship per se does not taint a witness's testimony absent improper motive; the victim's widow and sister were the most aggrieved parties and their motive to put the killers behind bars was not improper. The Court applied this to uphold the witnesses' credibility.

• "To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed." — This passage states the elements of robbery with homicide, the core substantive rule applied to affirm the conviction.
• "In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: 1) the witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) the witness's degree of attention at that time; 3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; 5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and 6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure." — This passage defines the totality of circumstances test used to evaluate the photographic identification of petitioners.
• "In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we believe that the delay in reporting to the police authorities the attendant facts of the crime for which the petitioners have been charged is consistent with normal human behavior considering that after a tragic incident, the last thing that the bereaved would want is to provoke further reprisals from the perpetrators of the felonious act." — This passage explains why the delay in filing charges did not impair the prosecution witnesses' credibility.
• "the death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon" — This passage states the rule applied to dismiss the petition of Norberto Butalon after his death during the pendency of the appeal.

• People vs. Gornes, G.R No. 104869, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 270, 279 — Cited for the rule that delay in reporting or initiating charges does not by itself work against the witness; the Court relied on it to reject petitioners' delay argument.
• People vs. Rivera, 458 Phil. 856, 876-877 (2003) — Cited for the rule that an in-court identification cures any flaw in an out-of-court identification and that a police line-up is not essential; applied to uphold petitioners' identification despite the photographic procedure.
• People vs. Sinco, 408 Phil. 1, 13 (2001) — Cited as the source of the totality of circumstances test for out-of-court identification; applied to find no irregularity.
• People vs. Bayotas, G.R No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 241 — Cited for the rule that death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on conviction; applied to dismiss Butalon's petition.
• People vs. Pallarco, 351 Phil. 391, 410 (1998) — Cited on treachery; applied to qualify the killing with alevosia.
• People vs. Torres, G.R No. 176262, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 654, 665 — Cited for the rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has positively identified the accused; applied to reject petitioners' defenses.
• People vs. Lara, G.R No. 171449, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 137, 154 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide; applied to affirm conviction.
• People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, July 3, 2009 — Cited at the outset for the elements of robbery with homicide and the requirement that intent to rob precede the taking of life; applied to the case.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide. The Information charged petitioners under this provision, and the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals convicted them under it; the Supreme Court affirmed that the elements were proven.
• Article 63, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Applied by the Regional Trial Court in relation to Article 294, paragraph 1, in imposing the death penalty. The Court of Appeals later modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to Republic Act No. 9346.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and repealed Republic Act No. 7659. The Court of Appeals applied it to sentence each accused to reclusion perpetua instead of death, and the Supreme Court affirmed the modified penalty.

Justice Carpio (Chairperson), Justice Corona, Justice Brion, and Justice Perez concurred. Justice Corona sat in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, who was on leave per Special Order No. 812 dated January 4, 2010.