G.R. No. 259511 . October 11, 2023
Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol was charged with Robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or before May 31, 2015, in Pagadian City, petitioner, with intent to gain and by the use of force upon things, broke the wooden wall of the kitchen or entered through the window of the house of Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza and stole various items valued at approximately Php325,300.00. Dr. Espinoza had hired petitioner as a stay-out errand boy in March 2015. On May 30, 2015, she left for Manila, having previously secured her house. Upon her return on May 31, 2015, she found her house ransacked, with doors open, windowpanes removed, and the kitchen wall forcibly opened, and the enumerated items missing. She reported the robbery. The next day, at her office, petitioner appeared ill-at-ease and failed to return after being instructed to do so. Dr. Espinoza contacted petitioner’s aunt, Abelita Almogera, who, together with petitioner’s brother Nhorkhan, found petitioner at his boarding house in possession of the stolen items. Petitioner, accompanied by his aunt and brother, went to Dr. Espinoza’s office, brought some stolen items, and asked for forgiveness. Police Officer 1 Renjie Narciso investigated petitioner’s boarding house upon coordination with Dr. Espinoza and found more stolen items, for which an inventory was prepared and signed by petitioner and Almogera. Petitioner then voluntarily surrendered at the police station. The prosecution presented three witnesses. Petitioner opted not to present evidence and submitted the case for decision. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner based on circumstantial evidence and the presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, medium period, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, medium period, and ordered him to indemnify Php325,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for the crime of Robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction. The petition, being a Rule 45 petition, generally bars a review of factual issues, and petitioner failed to show any exception. The findings of fact by the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive when supported by evidence. Reviewing the record, the Court found all elements of Robbery under Article 299(a)(2) present: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) the taking was with intent to gain; (3) the taking was accomplished by means of force upon things, specifically by breaking the wooden wall/kitchen door to enter the house; and (4) the robbery was committed in an inhabited house. The totality of circumstantial evidence—including petitioner’s possession of recently stolen items, his behavior before and after the discovery of the robbery, and his failure to explain his possession—unerringly points to his guilt. The presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 applies. Petitioner’s claim that the crime was merely theft, not robbery, fails as the evidence clearly shows force was employed to enter the house. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated by the CA, justifying the penalty modification. The award of civil liability in the amount of Php325,000.00 as actual damages stands.