GR 125936; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125936 February 23, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO DELA CRUZ alias Pawid, et al., accused, RICARDO DELA CRUZ alias Pawid, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Ricardo Dela Cruz, was charged with Robbery with Homicide for the killing of tricycle driver Glicerio Cruz and the taking of his motorcycle on May 11, 1993. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of eyewitness George Taylan. Taylan testified that on the night of the crime, he saw a tricycle matching the victim’s description speeding past, driven by an accused-at-large. He then saw the same tricycle, followed by another driven by Danilo Dela Cruz with Ricardo Dela Cruz as a passenger. Taylan witnessed the group, including Manuel Dela Cruz, dismantle the sidecar of the stolen tricycle in a field. The motorcycle was later recovered in a cannibalized state. The victim was found dead with multiple fatal injuries.
The defense presented alibi, claiming Ricardo Dela Cruz was elsewhere. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ricardo Dela Cruz of Robbery with Homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. He appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Ricardo Dela Cruz for the crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted Ricardo Dela Cruz of Robbery with Homicide but convicted him of the separate crime of Qualified Theft. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish the elements of Robbery with Homicide, particularly the direct nexus between the robbery and the killing. The eyewitness account only placed the appellant at the scene of dismantling the stolen motorcycle after the fact. There was no evidence presented that he participated in the actual violent taking of the property or in the killing of the victim. The prosecution failed to prove that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
However, the Court found the appellant guilty of Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. His presence during the dismantling of the stolen motorcycle, his subsequent act of leading police to its recovery, and the lack of a credible explanation for his possession of the recently stolen property constituted circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove his participation in the felonious taking of the motorcycle. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen years, two months, and twenty-one days of reclusion temporal as maximum, with an order to indemnify the heirs for the value of the motorcycle. The awards for civil indemnity and damages for the death were deleted.