G.R. No. 174660 ; May 30, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ricky Ladiana y Davao (at-large), Accused. Antonio Manuel Uy, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Antonio Manuel Uy, a former maintenance crew member of the Jeepney Shopping Center in Pasay City, was charged with Robbery with Homicide along with a co-accused (later identified as Ricky Ladiana, who remained at-large). The Information alleged that on or about June 27, 2001, they conspired to rob the shopping center of jewelry and a firearm valued at over ₱336,000.00, and on the occasion thereof, killed security guard Gilbert Esmaquilan, janitor Felix Arañez, and maintenance worker Delfin Biniahan. They also allegedly stole a car to facilitate their escape. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence that appellant had been ordered to vacate the employees’ quarters after conflicts with co-workers, and was heard making a threat of revenge. Days before the incident, appellant and a companion were seen peeping into the shopping center’s guardhouse late at night. On the evening of June 26, 2001, a security guard from an adjacent company saw appellant and a companion at the shopping center’s gate, peeping inside. The following morning, the three victims were found dead inside the compound, with pieces of blood-stained wood found nearby. Jewelry and a firearm were missing, and a jalousie window was broken, indicating forced entry. Appellant was arrested days later in Cavite while in possession of some of the stolen jewelry items. He denied the charges, claiming he was elsewhere at the time and that the jewelry found on him was from his own business.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Antonio Manuel Uy for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His presence at the crime scene on the night before the robbery-homicide, his motive stemming from his eviction from the employees’ quarters and his threat of revenge, and most crucially, his possession of recently stolen items (specific pieces of jewelry identified as part of the loot) shortly after the crime, constituted strong circumstantial evidence of his participation. The Court ruled that his unexplained possession of the stolen property justified the inference that he was one of the perpetrators. The defense of alibi was rejected for being weak and uncorroborated. The crime was properly classified as Robbery with Homicide, a special complex crime, as the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of each victim, plus actual damages for the stolen items, with interest on all damages awarded.