1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Reanzares

*
G.R. No. 130656. June 29, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

**
plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ARMANDO REANZARES also known as ARMANDO
RIANZARES, accused-appellant.

Alibi; Requisites.—These attempts of the accused to discredit

Gregorio obviously cannot hold ground. Neither can they bolster
his alibi. For alibi to be believed it must be shown that (a) the
accused was in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense, and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the
crime scene.
Criminal Law; Highway Robbery; Conviction for highway
robbery requires proof that several accused were organized for the
purpose of committing it indiscriminately.—Indeed the accused is
guilty. But that the accused was guilty of Highway Robbery with
Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As held in a number of
cases, conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several
accused were organized for the purpose of committing it
indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that the
accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit highway
robbery. Neither is there proof that they attempted to commit
similar robberies to show the “indiscriminate” perpetration
thereof. On the other hand, what the prosecution established was
only a single act of robbery against the particular persons of the
Tactacan spouses. Clearly, this single act of depredation is not
what is contemplated under PD 532 as its objective is to deter and
punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants
who travel from one place to another thereby disturbing the peace
and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social
progress of the people.
Criminal Procedure; Informations; In the interpretation of an
information, what controls is the description of the offense charged
and not merely its designation.—The accused should be held liable
for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

_______________

* EN BANC.

** Accused-appellant Armando Reanzares in his handwritten letter to Judge

Flordeliz Ozaeta-Navarro dated 4 August 1994 signed his name as “Armando
Rianzares”; Records, pp. 195-196.

625

VOL. 334, JUNE 29, 2000 625

People vs. Reanzares

294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 as the

allegations in the Information are enough to convict him therefor.
In the interpretation of an information, what controls is the
description of the offense charged and not merely its designation.
Witnesses; Damages; Judicial Notice; An ordinary witness
cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only
take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of
public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration.—
The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko
wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the
absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from
the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary
witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court
can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a
matter of public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable
demonstration. The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under
either category of which the court can take judicial notice.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Tanauan, Batangas, Br. 6.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This case is with

1
us on automatic review of the 26 May
1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan,
Batangas, finding accused ARMANDO REANZARES also
known as “Armando Rianzares”2
guilty of Highway Robbery
with Homicide under PD 532 and sentencing him to the
extreme penalty of death. He was also ordered to pay the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

heirs of his victim Lilia Tactacan P172,000.00 for funeral,

burial

_______________

1 Decision penned by Judge Flordelis Ozaeta-Navarro, RTC-Br. 6,

Tanauan, Batangas; Rollo, pp. 26-36.
2 “Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974.”

626

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Reanzares

and related expenses, P50,000.00 as indemnity for death,

P1,000.00 for the cash taken from her bag, and to
reimburse Gregorio Tactacan P2,500.00 for the Seiko
wristwatch taken from him.
The facts, except as to the identity of accused Armando
Reanzares, are undisputed. Spouses Gregorio Tactacan and
Lilia Tactacan owned a sari-sari store in San Miguel, Sto.
Tomas, Batangas. On 10 May 1994 at around 8:10 in the
evening, the Tactacan spouses closed their store and left for
home in Barangay San Roque, Sto. Tomas, Batangas on
board their passenger-type jeepney. As Gregorio was
maneuvering his jeep backwards from where it was parked
two (2) unidentified men suddenly climbed on board. His
wife Lilia immediately asked them where they were going
and they answered that they were bound for the town
proper. When Lilia informed them that they were not going
to pass through the town proper, the two (2) said they
would just get off at the nearest intersection. After
negotiating some 500 meters, one of the hitchhikers
pointed a .38 caliber revolver at Gregorio while the other
poked a balisong at Lilia’s neck and ordered Gregorio to
stop the vehicle. Two (2) other persons, one of whom was
later identified as accused Armando Reanzares, were seen
waiting for them at a distance. As soon as the vehicle
stopped, the accused and his companion approached the
vehicle. Gregorio was then pulled from the driver’s seat to
the back of the vehicle. They gagged and blindfolded him
and tied his hands and feet. They also took his Seiko
wristwatch worth P2,500.00. The accused then drove the3
vehicle after being told by one of them, “Sige i-drive mo na”
Gregorio did not know where they were headed for as he
was blindfolded. After several minutes, he felt the vehicle
making a u-turn and stopped after ten (10) minutes.
During the entire trip, his wife kept uttering, “Maawa kayo
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

sa amin, marami kaming anak, kunin nyo na lahat ng

gusto ninyo.” Immediately after the last time she uttered
these words a commotion ensued and Lilia was heard
saying, “aray!” Grego-

_______________

3 TSN, 4 May 1995, pp. 1-13.

627

VOL. 334, JUNE 29, 2000 627

People vs. Reanzares

rio heard her but could not do anything. After three (3)
minutes the commotion ceased. Then he heard someone tell
him, “Huwag kang kikilos diyan, ha” and left. Gregorio
then untied his hands and feet, removed his gag and
blindfold and jumped out of the vehicle. The culprits were
all gone, including
4
his wife. He ran to San Roque East
shouting for help.
When Gregorio returned to the crime scene, the jeepney
was still there. He went to the driver’s seat. There he saw
his wife lying on the floor of the jeepney with blood
splattered all over her body. Her bag containing P1,200.00
was missing. He brought her immediately to the C.P.5 Reyes
Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
At the time of her death Lilia Tactacan was forty-eight
(48) years old. According to Gregorio, he was deeply
depressed by her death; that he incurred funeral, burial
and other related expenses, and6 that his wife was earning
P3,430.00 a month as a teacher.
Dr. Lily D. Nunes, Medical Health Officer of Sto. Tomas,
Batangas, conducted a post-mortem examination on the
body of the victim. Her medical report disclosed that the
victim sustained eight (8) stab wounds on the chest and
abdominal region of the body. She testified that a sharp
pointed object like a long knife could have caused those
wounds which must have been inflicted by more than one
(1) person, and that all those wounds except the non- 7
penetrating one caused the immediate death of the victim.
Subsequently, two (2) Informations were filed against
accused Armando Reanzares and three (3) John Does in
relation to the incident. The first was for violation of PD
532 otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974 for allegedly conspiring, with intent
to gain and armed with bladed weapons and a .38 caliber

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

revolver, to rob and carry away one (1) Seiko wristwatch

owned by Gregorio Tac-

_______________

4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 TSN, 14 July 1995, pp. 2-9.

628

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Reanzares

tacan and P1,000.00 cash of Lilia Tactacan, and on the

occasion thereof, killed her. The second was for violation of
RA 6539, An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping,
for taking away by means of violence and intimidation of
persons one (1) passenger-type jeepney with Plate No. DBP
235 owned and driven by Gregorio Tactacan and valued at
P110,000.00. Only the accused Armando Reanzares was
arrested. The other three (3) have remained unidentified
and at large. The accused testified in his defense and
claimed that he could not have perpetrated the crimes
imputed to him with three (3) others as he was in
Barangay Tagnipa, Garchitorena, Camarines Sur, for the
baptism of 8
his daughter Jessica when the incident
happened. His father, Jose Reanzares, corroborated his
story. Jose claimed that the accused borrowed P500.00
from him for the latter’s trip to Bicol although he could not
say that he 9actually saw the accused leave for his intended
destination. To bolster the alibi of the accused, his brother
Romeo Reanzares also took the witness stand and alleged
that he saw the accused off on 9 May 1994, the day before
the incident. Romeo maintained that he accompanied the
accused to the bus stop that day and even helped the latter
carry his things to the bus. He however could not
categorically state where and10 when the accused alighted or
that he in fact reached Bicol.
On 26 May 1997 the trial court found the prosecution’s
evidence credible and ruled that the alibi of the accused
could not prevail over his positive identification by
complaining witness Gregorio Tactacan. The court a quo
declared him guilty of Highway Robbery with Homicide
under PD 532 and sentenced him to death. It further
ordered him to pay the heirs of Lilia Tactacan P50,000.00
as indemnity for death, P172,000.00 for funeral, burial and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

related expenses, and P1,000.00 for the cash taken from

her bag. The accused was also ordered to reimburse
Gregorio Tactacan P2,500.00 for the

_______________

8 TSN, 28 September 1995, pp. 1-4.

9 TSN, 29 April 1996, pp. 2-16.
10 TSN, 13 May 1996, pp. 2-20.

629

VOL. 334, JUNE 29, 2000 629

People vs. Reanzares

11
Seiko wristwatch taken from him. But the trial court
exonerated the accused from the charge of carnapping
under RA 6539 for insufficiency of evidence.
The accused insists before us that his conviction for
Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 is
erroneous as his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. He claims that the testimony of private complainant
Gregorio Tactacan, who implicated him as one of the
perpetrators of the crime, is incredible. He maintains that
Gregorio failed to identify him because when the latter was
questioned he stated that he did not know any of the
culprits. He also claims that in the publication of Hotline
by Tony Calvento in People’s Tonight, Gregorio even asked
the readers to help him identify the malefactors.
The trial court observed that Gregorio Tactacan testified
in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank
manner, and was consistent on cross-examination. Indeed,
Gregorio might not have immediately revealed the name of
accused Armando Reanzares to the police authorities when
he was first investigated but the delay was not an
indication of a fabricated charge and should not undermine
his credibility considering that he satisfactorily explained
his reasons therefor. According to him, he did not
immediately tell the police about the accused because he
feared for the safety of his family as his neighbors told him
that they saw some people lurking around his house on the
day of the incident. Moreover, he was advised not to
mention any names until after the burial of his wife. No ill
motive could be attributed to him for implicating the
accused. If at all, the fact that his wife died by reason of the
incident even lends credence to his testimony since his
natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty
would deter him from implicating persons other than the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

real culprits, otherwise, those responsible for the

perpetration of the crime would escape prosecution.
To further undermine the credibility of Gregorio, the
accused underscores Gregorio’s refusal to be subjected to a
lie

_______________

11 See Note No. 2.

630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Reanzares

detector test. We cannot subscribe to this contention as the

procedure of ascertaining the truth by means of a lie
detector test has never been accepted in our jurisdiction;
thus, any findings based thereon cannot be considered
conclusive.
Finally, the accused chides Gregorio for supposedly
suppressing a very material piece of evidence, i.e., the
latter failed to present as witnesses a certain Renato and
his wife who allegedly saw the holduppers running away
from the crime scene. But this is only a disputable
presumption under Sec. 3, par. (e), Rule 131, of the Rules of
Court on evidence, which does not apply in the present case
as the evidence allegedly omitted is equally accessible and
available to the defense.
These attempts of the accused to discredit Gregorio
obviously cannot hold ground. Neither can they bolster his
alibi. For alibi to be believed it must be shown that (a) the
accused was in another place at the time of the commission
of the offense, and (b) it12was physically impossible for him
to be at the crime scene.
In this case, the accused claims to have left for Bicol the
day before the incident. To prove this, he presented his
father and brother but their testimonies did not meet the
requisite quantum to establish his alibi. While his father
testified that the accused borrowed money from him for his
fare to Bicol for the baptism of a daughter, he could not say
whether the accused actually went to Bicol. As regards the
claim of Romeo, brother of the accused, that he
accompanied the accused to the bus stop on 9 May 1994
and even helped him with his things, seeing the accused off
is not the same as seeing him actually get off at his
destination. Given the circumstances of this case, it is
possible for the accused to have alighted from the bus
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

before reaching Bicol, perpetrated the crime in the evening

of 10 May 2000, proceeded to Bicol and arrived there on 12
May 2000 for his daughter’s baptism.

_______________

12 People v. Macarse, G.R. No. 121780, 17 March 2000, 328 SCRA 374.

631

VOL. 334, JUNE 29, 2000 631

People vs. Reanzares

Thus the trial court was correct in disregarding the alibi of

the accused not only because he was positively identified by
Gregorio Tactacan but also because it was not shown that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime
scene on the date and time of the incident.
Indeed the accused is guilty. But that the accused was
guilty of Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532
was erroneous. As held in a number of cases, conviction for
highway robbery requires proof that several accused were
organized for 13 the purpose of committing it
indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that
the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to
commit highway robbery. Neither is there proof that they
attempted to commit similar robberies to show the
“indiscriminate” perpetration thereof. On the other hand,
what the prosecution established was only a single act of
robbery against the particular persons of the Tactacan
spouses. Clearly, this single act of depredation is not what
is contemplated under PD 532 as its objective is to deter
and punish lawless elements who commit acts of
depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to
another thereby disturbing the peace and tranquility of the
nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the
people.
Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide under 14Art.
294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 as
the allegations in the Information are enough to convict
him therefor. In the interpretation of an information, what
controls is the

_______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

13People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, 17 February 1993, 219 SCRA

85; People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, 23 February 1996, 254
SCRA 61; People v. Verzosa, G.R. No. 118944, 20 August 1998,
294 SCRA 466.
14 The crime was committed on 10 May 1994, after RA 7659 took
effect on 31 December 1993.

632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Reanzares

description 15of the offense charged and not merely its

designation.
Article 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code as
amended punishes the crime of robbery with homicide by
reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Art. 63, second par.,
subpar. 2, of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
“[i]n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
shall be observed in the application thereof: x x x 2. [w]hen
there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances
in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied,” the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is
imposed in the absence of any modifying circumstance.
As to the damages awarded by the trial court to the
heirs of the victim, we sustain the award of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity for the wrongful death of Lilia Tactacan. In
addition, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages is
ordered. Also, damages for loss of earning capacity of Lilia
Tactacan must be granted to her heirs. The testimony of
Gregorio Tactacan, the victim’s husband, on the earning
capacity of his wife, together with a copy of his wife’s
payroll, is enough to establish the basis for the award. The
formula for determining the life expectancy of Lilia
Tactacan, applying the American Expectancy Table of
Mortality, is as follows:
16
2/3 multiplied by (80 minus the age
of the deceased). Since
17
Lilia was 48 years of age at the
time of her death, then her life expectancy was 21.33
years.
At the time of her death, Lilia was earning P3,430.00 a
month as a teacher at the San Roque Elementary School so
that her annual income was P41,160.00. From this amount,

_______________

15 Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116259-60 and G.R. Nos.

118896-97, 20 February 1996, 253 SCRA 773, citing People vs. Maravilla,

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

et al, G.R. No. L-47646, 19 September 1988, 165 SCRA 392.

16 People v. Estepano, G.R. No. 126283, 28 May 1999, 307 SCRA 701.
17 See Note No. 4.

633

VOL. 334, JUNE 29, 2000 633

People vs. Reanzares

50% should be deducted as reasonable and necessary living

expenses to arrive at her net earnings. Thus, her net
earning capacity was P438,971.40 computed as follows: Net
earning capacity equals life expectancy times gross annual
income less reasonable and necessary living expenses—

Net earning = life x gross — reasonable

capacity (x) expectancy annual &
income necessary
living
expenses
x = 2 (80 - 48) x [P41,160.00 — P20,580.00]
    3        
  = 21.33 x P20,580.00    
  = P438,971.40        

However, the award of P1,000.00 representing the cash

taken from Lilia Tactacan must be increased to P1,200.00
as this was the amount established by the prosecution
without objection from the defense. The award of
P172,000.00 for funeral, burial and related expenses must
be reduced to P22,000.0018 as this was the only amount
sufficiently substantiated. There was no other competent
evidence presented to support the original award.
The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the
Seiko wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be
deleted in the absence of receipts or any other competent
evidence aside from the self-serving valuation made by the
prosecution. An ordinary witness cannot establish the
value of jewelry and the trial court can only take judicial
notice of the value of goods which is a matter of public
knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under 19
either
category of which the court can take judicial notice.

______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

18 People v. Manlapaz, G.R. No. 121483, 26 October 1999, 317 SCRA

486, citing People v. Gutierrez, Jr., G.R. No. 116281, 8 February 1999, 302
SCRA 643.
19 People v. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, 29 November 1999, 319 SCRA
422, citing People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 128892, 21 June 1999, 308 SCRA
660.

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Reanzares

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED.

Accused ARMANDO REANZARES also known as
“Armando Rianzares” is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended and is sentenced to
reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the
victim P50,000.00 as indemnity for death, another
P50,000.00 for moral damages, P1,200.00 for actual
damages, P438,971.40 for loss of earning capacity, and
P22,000.00 for funeral, burial and related expenses. Costs
de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

Judgment modified.

Notes.—In interpreting an information, what controls is

not the designation but the description of the offense
charged. (People vs. Sandoval, 254 SCRA 436 [1996])
A finding of brigandage or highway robbery involves not
just the locus of the crime or the fact that more than three
(3) persons perpetrated it—it is essential to prove that the
outlaws were purposely organized not just for one act of
robbery but for several indiscriminate commissions thereof.
(Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 [1996])

——o0o——

635

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
1/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001610cbaa9e4215720d9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12