GR 142919; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142919 and 143876; February 4, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO NAPALIT y PARAL, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On April 3, 1996, a group of more than six armed men, including accused-appellant Ricardo Napalit, barged into the Tondo General Hospital. They announced a holdup, disarmed security guards Eric Santos and Benjamin Saclolo at the emergency room, and ordered hospital employees to lie down. Four members of the group entered the cashier’s office, took cash from the vault, and robbed the cashier of his personal money. During the incident, security guard Pio Gomez, stationed at the gate, was disarmed, pushed outside, and shot twice, resulting in his death. The perpetrators also forcibly took a Toyota Tamaraw delivery van that was stopped in traffic outside the hospital. The van was later found abandoned. Napalit was arrested over a month later and was positively identified by security guards Santos and Saclolo in a police line-up.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Napalit was guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide; and (2) whether the prosecution proved his guilt for carnapping under R.A. 6539.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but acquitted Napalit of carnapping. For robbery with homicide, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing that the positive identification by two eyewitness security guards, who had a clear view of Napalit during the robbery, was credible and sufficient to establish his participation. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. The Court ruled that the killing of Pio Gomez occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as it was committed to facilitate the crime or escape, thereby constituting the single, indivisible special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding the carnapping charge, the Court reversed the conviction. The prosecution failed to prove Napalit’s participation in the taking of the vehicle. The evidence did not show that he was one of the men who seized the van. His mere presence at the robbery inside the hospital did not establish conspiracy for the separate act of carnapping committed outside by other perpetrators. The element of taking a motor vehicle with intent to gain was not proven against him personally. Consequently, he was acquitted of this charge due to insufficiency of evidence. The penalty for robbery with homicide was modified to reclusion perpetua, and civil indemnities were awarded to the victim’s heirs.