PP vs. Labagala
PP vs. Labagala
PP vs. Labagala
;ffianila l 0)1
FIRST DIVISION
Present:
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
-versus - Acting Chairperson,*
DEL CASTILLO,
LEONEN,**
TIJAM,and.
GESMUNDO, *** JJ.
ALVIN J. LABAGALA and
ROMEO LABAGALA, Proinul~ated: .
Accused-Appellant. JUL .:S 0 2018 !J,., _,..,.,./
x------------------------------------------------~fW.NJll!.",x
DECISION
Assailed in this appeal is the June 27, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06040 which affirmed the November 15,
2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Cabanatuan City,
finding appellants Alvin J. Labagala and Romeo Labagala guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
That on or about the 12th day of June, 2002 in Cabanatuan City, Republic
of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court[,] the
above-named accused, armed with a deadly weapon, with intent [to] gain and by
means of force, violence and intimidation on the person of one MARIO P.
LEGASPI, SR., conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding and abetting with
one another[,] did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal
and carry away the following: 2 big rings, necklace, watch, cash money and a
licensed 9 MM Jericho pistol with Serial No. 95305683[,] more or less in the
total amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00),
Philippine Currency, owned by and belonging to said Mario Legaspi[,] Sr., to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Mario Legaspi[,] and on the occassion
[sic] of the said robbery, the above-named accused[,] with intent to kill, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal
violence upon the person of Mario Legaspi[,] Sr. by hitting him on the head and
stabbing him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him
serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.
Upon being arraigned, appellants entered a plea of not guilty to the offense
charged in the Information. 4 Trial thereafter ensued.
On June 12, 2002, at around 7:30 p.m., Jun Alberto5 (Jun) was having
dinner with the victim under the mango tree at the latter's residence when Salve
entered the yard to buy a pack of cigarettes. 6 As he was attending to Salve, he
noticed four men enter the premises. 7 Jun identified two of them in open court as
appellants Alvin and Romeo Labagala. 8 Jun saw Alvin poke a gun at the victim
and whip him with a gun9 while the other three held him in place. 10 Alvin then
took the victim's jewehy consisting of two rings, a necklace and a wristwa~
4
See Order dated July 25, 2008, id. at 73.
Referred to as June Alberto in some parts of the records.
TSN, April 24, 2009, pp. 10-1 I and 12-13.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 7-8.
Id. at 8.
10
Id. at 16.
11
Id. at 9.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 221427
Afteiwards, Jun witnessed the victim being dragged inside the house by
12
Alvin. At the time, he was cornered at the backyard by one of Alvin's
companions. 13 There was a commotion inside the house and he heard someone
moaning. 14 Alvin and his companions immediately ran away. 15 When he went
inside the house, he found the victim already dead. 16
In its Decision dated November 15, 2012, the RTC convicted appellants of
the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 293, in relation to Article 294,
par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code. However, it acquitted Salve of the crime
charged for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt 18
while the case against Pablito and ~~l was archived and alias warrants of
arrest were issued against them./P-d"~
i2 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
is Id.
16 Id.
17
CA rollo, p. 25.
18
Id. at 44-45.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 221427
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish that appellants had
conspired with each other to commit the crime against the victim, 19 viz. :
On this point, the RTC noted that "conspiracy and mutual aid to one
another was crystal clear from the acts of [appellants] whose conduct during the
commission of the crime clearly indicated that they had the same purpose and
were united in its execution."21
In its Decision dated June 27, 2014, the CA affirmed the assailed RTC
Decision in toto. 24
The CA found that the prosecution was able to prove that the overri:;~ ~
intention of appellants was to rob the victim, and the victim's killing was me, vv<~
19
Id. at 39.
20
Id. at 42.
21 Id.
22
Id. at 41-42.
23
Id. at 44-45.
24
Rollo, p. 12.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 221427
incidental thereto, resulting by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. 25 Like the
RTC, it found Jun's testimony to be positive and credible, and enough to sustain a
judgment of conviction. 26
The Issues
First, whether the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove the elements
of the crime of robbery with homicide, considering that Jun's testimony narrating
the incident was uncorroborated by another witness; 29
25
Id. at 7.
26
Id. at 8.
27
Id. at 11.
2s Id.
9
2 CA rollo, pp. 27-28.
30
Id. at 28-30.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 221427
A thorough review of the records shows that the prosecution was able to
prove all the elements of the crime of robbery with homicide through the
testimony of Jun, who was an eyewitness to the incident, viz.:
Q: Now, you mentioned that when accused Salve Pascual entered the yard
of [the victim] to buy cigarett~[s,] th~~used also entered the
yard, what happened after that?/~~ .
31
"The word 'homicide' is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and
infanticide." See People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 427 (2004).
32
People v. Madrelejos, G.R. No. 225328, March 21, 2018.
33
People v. De Jesus, supra.
34 Id.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 221427
Q: And when you say Abel[,] you are referring to accused Alvin Lagabala
[sic], [are you] not?
A: Yes, [s]ir.
Q: And what happened after accused Alvin Lagabala [sic] poked a gun [at
the victim]?
A: After he poked a gun, he whipped [the victim] with his gun and then
he took away his jewelries .•.
Q: And what are those jewelries that accused Alvin Labagala took away
from [the victim]?
A: Two (2) rings, necklace and one wrist watch.
Q: And after accused Alvin Lagabala [sic] took away the pieces of jewelries
from [the victim], what happened after that?
A: He dragged the victim inside the house.
Q: And after [the victim] was brought inside the house, what happened after
that?
A: There was a commotion and they ran away.
We agree with the court a quo in upholding the detailed, clear and
straightforward testimony of Jun. 36 That said testimony is uncorroborated by
another witness is of no moment. After all, "the testimony of a single witness, if
positive and credible, is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction xx x."37
35
TSN, April 24, 2009, pp. 8-9.
36
Rollo, p. 8.
37
People v. Navarro, 357 Phil. 1010, 1030 (1998).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 221427
show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court
overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case."38
In this case, we find no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the
trial court, as they are not clearly arbitrary or unfounded,39 and said findings were
affirmed by the CA on appeal. 40
We likewise uphold the CA's conclusion that appellants, together with their
co-accused who are still at large, acted in conspiracy in committing the crime
charged. 41
Per the records, it was established that appellants, together with their co-
accused, entered the victim's yard where they took the victim's personal effects by
means of force, and with an obvious intent to gain. 44 That they cooperated with
each other to achieve this purpose was plainly manifested by their actions, vfu~ ~
38
People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 814 (2009). Italics supplied.
39
See People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562-563 (2008).
40 Id.
41
Rollo, p. 11.
42
Supra note 31.
43
Id. at 428.
44
TSN, April 24, 2009, p. 6-9.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 221427
[COURT:]
Q: So you said it was this Alvin Labagala who poked a gun on [the victim]
and who whipped a gun on him. How about the other companions[,]
what were they doing when Alvin Labagala ganged the old man?
A: While Alvin Labagala was whipping the old man, they were holding
[the latter in place].45 (Emphasis supplied)
Since it was not shown that appellants had endeavored to prevent the
victim's killing, they are both liable as principals of the crime of robbery with
homicide.
(a) the amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages are increased from
PS0,000.00 to P75,000.00 each;
(c) appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, jointly and severally,
the amount ofP75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and,
(d) all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
finality of this Decision until fully p~~
45
Id. at 16.
46
People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 846-848 (2016).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 221427
SO ORDERED.
A~·
~C. DEL CAS~LO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
l~~g~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
..\,
'f
NOEL ~\Ll~ TUAM
iat;~Jkice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
'~ ~ ~tu;/MJ
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
Decision 11 G.R. No. 221427
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
Acting ChiefJustice
/#I