GR 140227; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140227 ; November 28, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ERWIN T. OTAYDE, JIMMY B. QUINTANA, CABAGUE MAMA and KUMAYOG M. PANANSARAN, appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of March 29, 1997, in Barangay Keytodak, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, a group of armed men arrived at the residence of Barangay Captain Eduardo Cejar. The men, which included the appellants, ordered Civilian Volunteers Organization (CVO) members present to drop their weapons. They then threatened Cejar’s wife, Evelyn, who handed over a piggy bank containing ₱3,000, her wallet with ₱200, and a radio. When Barangay Captain Cejar arrived at the scene and identified himself, he was immediately shot and killed by the armed men. The assailants also took his wristwatch, .38 caliber revolver, and ₱12,500 in cash before fleeing.
Appellants were charged with robbery with homicide and assault upon a person in authority. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Elizer Moniva, who positively identified four of the assailants, including the appellants, when a motorcycle’s headlights illuminated their faces. The trial court convicted appellants as charged and imposed the death penalty, prompting this automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants of robbery with homicide and assault upon a person in authority and in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty and the civil liabilities. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Moniva, who had a clear view of the appellants’ faces, to be credible and sufficient to establish their participation beyond reasonable doubt. The robbery and the killing of the barangay captain, a person in authority, constituted a single, indivisible felony of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of assault upon a person in authority was already absorbed in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Thus, the separate conviction for assault upon a person in authority was improper. Furthermore, the death penalty could not be imposed as the information did not specifically allege the qualifying circumstance of the victim being a person in authority to qualify the homicide for the death penalty under the law at the time. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the civil awards, deleting actual damages for lack of receipts but awarding temperate damages, civil indemnity, and ordering restitution for the stolen cash.