GR L 32900; (Febuary, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32900 February 25, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DARWIN VELOSO Y MILITANTE ALIAS “CARLITO VILLAREAL”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of May 21, 1970, armed and masked men, including accused-appellant Darwin Veloso, forcibly entered the Odiamar residence in Naga City to commit robbery. During the incident, Veloso shot and killed Hermenegildo Odiamar, who was pleading for his mother’s life. Veloso and his accomplices also inflicted serious physical injuries on Hermenegildo’s parents, Felimon and Sotera Odiamar, before ransacking the house and fleeing with cash, jewelry, and firearms. The stolen items and a firearm were later recovered from Veloso’s associates. After his arrest, Veloso executed an extrajudicial confession admitting his participation.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction despite the alleged lack of preliminary investigation; (2) whether Veloso’s extrajudicial confession was admissible; and (3) whether the evidence sufficiently established his liability for the complex crime of robbery with homicide and double serious physical injuries.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that any irregularity in the preliminary investigation did not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the case, as jurisdiction is conferred by law and the filing of the information. Regarding the extrajudicial confession, the Court found it admissible, noting that Veloso failed to present convincing evidence of force or intimidation during its execution and that his detailed narration of events indicated voluntariness. On the merits, the Court held that the prosecution evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and the recovery of stolen items, conclusively proved that the killing and injuries were perpetrated by Veloso and his companions in the course of the robbery. The complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed whenever a homicide results from or on the occasion of the robbery, regardless of who directly inflicted the fatal wound, provided it was done by the robbers. The serious physical injuries were absorbed into the complex crime. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s factual findings and the penalty imposed.