epublic of the Philippines B. One (1) Sharp Karaoke Tower On the following day, 29 July 2001, Mrs.

On the following day, 29 July 2001, Mrs. Panal went to

SUPREME COURT Single Player color black the OCCS for a dance practice with her students. She
Manila worth P6,000.00; and proceeded to her classroom and discovered that it was
forcibly opened, and that the karaoke, television and
THIRD DIVISION C. One (1) 3D Rota Aire Stand Fan electric fan therein were missing. She immediately
color brown worth P3,000.00; reported the incident to the police. The OCCS principal
informed her that Nico witnessed the incident. Thereafter,
G.R. No. 173876 June 27, 2008 petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc were charged with
belonging to the Ozamiz City Central School robbery.9
represented herein by MS. SELINA M. PANAL,
VALCESAR ESTIOCA y MACAMAY, petitioner,
all valued at P15,000.00, to the damage and
vs. The prosecution also submitted object evidence to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. prejudice of the said school thereof, in the
aforementioned sum of P15,000.00, Philippine buttress the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (1) a T-
Currency. shaped slightly curved iron bar, which is 10 mm. by 12
DECISION inches in size, used in destroying the padlock of Mrs.
Panals classroom and marked as Exhibit A; and (2) a
When arraigned on separate dates with the assistance of Yeti brand, colored yellow, padlock used in Mrs. Panals
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: their counsels de oficio, petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and classroom, marked as Exhibit B.
Handoc pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge.6 Thereafter,
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of trial on the merits ensued.
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of
the Rules of Court,1 petitioner Valcesar Estioca y petitioner, Bacus, Rolly Agapay (Agapay), Boniao and
Macamay prays for the reversal of the Decision2 of the The prosecution presented as witnesses Nico Alforque Handoc to refute the foregoing accusations. Petitioner
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00036 dated 30 (Nico) and Mrs. Celina M. Panal (Mrs. Panal). Their and his co-accused denied any involvement in the
June 2006, affirming with modification the Decision3 and testimonies, woven together, bear the following: incident and interposed the defense of alibi.
Order4 dated 5 April 2004 and 17 August 2004,
respectively, of the Ozamiz City Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 35, in Criminal Case No. 3054, finding On 28 July 2001 (Saturday), at about 8:00 in the Petitioner Estioca testified that on 28 July 2001, he
him guilty of robbery under Article 299, subdivision (a), morning, Nico, then eleven years old and a Grade VI cleaned his house located at Laurel Street, Ozamiz City,
student of Ozamiz City Central School (OCCS), and his from 8:00 in the morning up to 10:00 in the morning. After
number (2) of the Revised Penal Code.
cousin, Mark Alforque (Mark), went to the OCCS and cleaning the house, he ate lunch and rested. At around
cleaned the classroom of a teacher named Mrs. Myrna 3:00 in the afternoon of the same day, he went to the
Culled from the records are the following facts: Pactolin (Mrs. Pactolin). They received P30.00 each from house of his neighbor/friend, Junjun Ho (Junjun), to help
Mrs. Pactolin for the chore. Afterwards, Mark went home the latter in cleaning his houseyard. However, Junjuns
On 31 July 2001, an Information5 was filed before the while Nico stayed inside the OCCS because Mrs. father arrived, and since the father and son had to
RTC charging petitioner, Marksale Bacus (Bacus), Kevin Pactolin requested him to get some "waya-waya" and discuss important things, he decided to go home which
Boniao (Boniao) and Emiliano Handoc (Handoc) with "dapna" inside the OCCSs canal to be used as fish was about past 3:00 in the afternoon. Upon arriving
robbery, thus: food.7 home, his aunt, Myrna Macamay, told him that some
people had gone to the house looking for him. Later, two
While catching waya-waya and dapna inside the OCCSs unidentified persons, accompanied by Boniao, came to
That on July 28, 2001, at about 8:00 oclock in his house and brought him to the City Hall Police Station
the morning, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, canal, Nico saw petitioner and Bacus enter the OCCSs
premises by climbing over the OCCSs gate. Petitioner for investigation as regards the incident. 10
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent of and Bacus then proceeded to the classroom of another
gain, did then and there helping one another, teacher, Mrs. Panal, which was located near the OCCSs During the interrogation inside the police station, a
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously break, canal. Thereupon, petitioner and Bacus destroyed the certain Michael approached him and inquired as to where
destroy, and destroyed the padlock of the main padlock of the classrooms door using an iron bar and he sold the television stolen from the OCCS. He told
door of the classroom of MS. SELINA M. entered therein. Subsequently, petitioner and Bacus Michael not to accuse him of stealing as it is not a good
PANAL and once inside, the accused took, walked out of the classroom carrying a television, a joke. Michael called Bacus and Boniao who were then
stole and carried away the following: karaoke and an electric fan, and thereafter brought them standing nearby, and the two pointed to him as the one
to the school gate. They went over the gate with the who sold the television. Afterwards, one of the police
items and handed them over to Boniao and Handoc who officers therein told him to approach a certain Colonel
A. One (1) Panasonic Colored TV 14 were positioned just outside the OCCSs gate. The items Bation who was also inside the police station. Upon
worth P6,000.00; were placed inside a tricycle. After petitioner, Bacus and approaching Colonel Bation, the latter punched him in
Boniao boarded the tricycle, Handoc drove the same and the stomach causing him to kneel down in pain. Colonel
they sped away.8 Bation asked him where he sold the television but he told
him he had nothing to do with it. Colonel Bation took a
whip and smacked him with it several times on the body. quarrying gravel at Panay-ay Diot, Clarin, Misamis months of Arresto Mayor as minimum to four
An emergency hospital worker named Dennis Fuentes, Occidental, on the whole morning of 28 July 2001; that (4) years and two (2) months of Prision
who was also present, stripped him naked and burned he went back to Barangay Tinago, Ozamiz City, at about Correccional as maximum and all of the
his scrotum, chest and palm with lighter, cigarette butts 4:00 in the afternoon of 28 July 2001; that Tomas accused to suffer the accessory penalty
and matchsticks. Thereafter, he was jailed.11 Medina, the former barangay captain, arrested him and provided for by law, to indemnify the civil
took him to the City Hall; that police officers in the City liability of P15,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Bacus, a resident of Barangay Lam-an, Ozamiz City, Hall inquired as to where he sold the television stolen
declared that on the night of 27 July 2001, he slept at the from the OCCS but he replied that he had nothing to do
With respect to Kevin Boniao, the sentence
guardhouse of the Ozamiz City National High School with it; that he was repeatedly beaten by police officers imposed upon him is hereby suspended
(OCNHS) which is located in front of the OCCS. On the for denying any involvement in the incident; and that he pursuant to PD 603 as amended and he is
following day, 28 July 2001, at about 7:00 in the morning, was detained at the City Hall Jail.15 therefore committed to the Department of
he woke up and helped his mother in selling bananas Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for
beside their house which is situated in front of the After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision on 5 April 2004 reformation, otherwise if he is incorrigible, then
OCNHS. At about 11:00 in the morning of the same day, convicting petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc of the sentence shall be imposed upon him by the
while on his way to Barangay Tinago, Ozamiz City, to robbery under Article 299, subdivision (a), number (2), court. The DSWD is hereby ordered to have
buy chicken feed, a certain Michael Panal and an paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court close surveillance and supervision upon him
unidentified companion blocked his path and asked him if imposed on petitioner, Bacus and Handoc an and to constantly observe the development of
he was the one who robbed the OCCS. He told the two indeterminate penalty ranging from six years and one his behavior and to submit to the court a
that he had nothing to do with the incident. The two then day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, report/recommendation on the matter as
brought him to the nearby seashore where they were met eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as prescribed for by law.
by a group of persons headed by a certain Maning. maximum. Since Boniao was a minor (14 years old)
Thereupon, they tortured and beat him for refusing to when he participated in the heist, he was sentenced to a The Order of this court dated August 20, 2001
admit involvement in the incident. Subsequently, he was lower prison term of six months of arresto mayor as is hereby cancelled and revoked.
taken to the Ozamiz City Hall for investigation. 12 minimum to four years and two months of prision
correccional as maximum. They were also ordered to
pay P15,000.00 as civil liability. Nonetheless, the The accused are entitled 4/5 of the time they
Agapay, an OCNHS working student and a resident of were placed under preventive imprisonment.
the said school, narrated that he knows Bacus because sentence meted out to Boniao was suspended and his
commitment to the Department of Social Welfare and
the latter resided in a house located just in front of the
OCNHS; that he and Bacus usually slept at the Development (DSWD) was ordered pursuant to The cash bond in the amount of P24,000
Presidential Decree No. 603.16 The dispositive portion of posted by accused Valcesar Estioca is hereby
guardhouse of the OCNHS; that on the night of 27 July
2001, he and Bacus slept at the guardhouse of the the decision reads: cancelled and the same is ordered released
OCNHS; and that Bacus woke up on the following day, and returned to the bondsman concerned.17
28 July 2001, at about 8:30 in the morning.13 WHEREFORE, finding accused Valcesar
Estioca y Macamay alias "Bango," Marksale Petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc filed a Motion for
Boniao, 14 years old and resident of Barangay Tinago, Bacus alias "Macoy," Emeliano Handoc y Reconsideration of the RTC Decision arguing that there
Ozamiz City, testified that on 28 July 2001, at 8:00 in the Bullares alias "Eming" and minor Kevin Boniao was no conspiracy among them and that the penalty
morning, he cleaned his parents house and thereafter guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of imposed was erroneous.18 On 17 August 2004, the RTC
watched television. On 30 July 2001, at 7:00 in the robbery defined and penalized under Article issued an Order partially granting the motion. 19 The trial
morning, he and Bacus went to the OCCS to pick up 299, subsection (a), paragraph 2 of the Revised court lowered the penalty imposed on them but affirmed
plastic bottles scattered therein. After gathering some Penal Code and upon applying Art. 64, its earlier finding of conspiracy and conviction. It also
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and ordered the DSWD to release and turn over Boniao to his
plastic bottles, he and Bacus left the OCCS. While on
their way home, a certain Leoncio apprehended him and Indeterminate Sentence Law and Privileged parents. It concluded:
Mitigating Circumstance of two (2) degrees
brought him to his parents house. Upon arriving home,
his mother beat him and forbade him to go out of the lower than that prescribed for by law (Art. 68,
par. 1) unto Kevin Boniao, a minor, who was 14 WHEREFORE, as herein modified, the
house. Subsequently, several persons went to his imposable indeterminate penalty meted to
parents house and arrested him. He was taken to a years old at the time of the commission of the
crime, this court hereby sentences them (a) accused Valcesar Estioca, Marksale Bacus and
nearby port where he was asked to identify the persons Emeliano Handoc being guilty beyond
involved in the robbery of the OCCS. When he could not Valcesar Estioca, Marksale Bacus, Emeliano
Handoc to suffer the indeterminate penalty reasonable doubt of he crime of Robbery,
say anything about the incident, he was brought to the defined and penalized under paragraph 4 of
City Hall Police Station where he was jailed. 14 ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of
Prision Mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code upon
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of applying Indeterminate Sentence Law with
Handoc, a pedicab driver residing at Barangay Tinago, Reclusion Temporal as maximum and (b) Kevin paragraph 1 of Art. 64, Revised Penal Code,
Ozamiz City, stated that he helped his brother-in-law in Boniao (minor) to suffer the penalty of six (6) ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months and
 one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum civil liability, which shall be enforced in In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the
to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision accordance with existing laws." witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-
mayor as maximum with accessory penalty settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb
provided for by law; and for minor accused the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing
WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the appeal
Kevin Boniao, the penalty of four (4) months is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some
of arresto mayor upon applying the privileged Decision and the August 17, 2004 Order are fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may
mitigating circumstance in Art. 68, paragraph 1 hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial
of the Revised Penal Code with Art. 64, that accused KEVIN BONIAO is hereby court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
paragraph 1 of the same Code. All of the ACQUITTED of the crime charged pursuant to respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to
accused shall indemnify jointly the civil liability Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344, without prejudice to examine their demeanor when they testified on the
of P15,000.00 and to pay the costs. his civil liability.22 witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear,
positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.26
As aforestated, minor accuser Kevin Boniao is On 21 August 2006, petitioner filed the instant petition on
hereby ordered released from DSWD and the following grounds: After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and
returned to the custody of his parents.20 applying the foregoing parameters to this case, we find
no cogent reason to overturn the factual finding of the
I. RTC that Nicos testimony is credible. As an eyewitness
Unsatisfied, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision and
Order before the Court of Appeals.21 Bacus, Boniao and to the incident, Nico positively identified petitioner,
WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE FACTS Bacus, Boniao and Handoc as those who robbed the
Handoc did not appeal their conviction anymore. On 30
June 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGED OCCS of an electric fan, television and karaoke on the
Decision affirming with modification the RTC Decision ROBBERY WHICH HAPPENED ON BROAD morning of 28 July 2001. His direct account of how
and Order. The appellate court held that Boniao is DAY LIGHT AND IN THE PRESENCE OF petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc helped one
exempt from criminal liability but his civil liability remains ALLEGED TWO (2) EYEWITNESSES UNDER another in robbing the OCCS is candid and convincing,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known HUMAN EXPERIENCE CAN POSSIBLY BE thus:
as The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, thus: PERPETUATED BY THE ACCUSED;
Q: Now, on July 28, 2001 at about 8:00
II. oclock in the morning, could you be kind
On a final note, considering that it is axiomatic
that an appeal opens the entire case for review enough to tell us where were you at that time?
and considering further that any decision WHETHER OR NOT ALLEGED LONE
rendered in the appeal does not bind those who WITNESS NICO ALFORQUE COULD HAVE A: We were cleaning the room of the school,
did not appeal except if beneficial to them, We POSSIBLY WITNESS[ED] THE ALLEGED sir.
hold that herein accused Kevin Boniao should ROBBERY INCIDENT.23
be acquitted and his criminal liability
Q: What particular school are you referring
extinguished pursuant to Republic Act No. to?
9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice Simply put, the Court is called upon to determine whether
and Welfare Act of 2006, which took effect on the testimony of Nico is credible given the surrounding
May 22, 2006. The pertinent provision thereof circumstances of the incident. A: At Ozamis Central School, sir.
provides, thus:
Petitioner maintains that the testimony of Nico regarding Q: Would you be able to tell us the name of
"Sec. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal the fact that the robbery was committed in broad daylight the teacher of that particular classroom you
Responsibility. A child fifteen (15) (8:00 in the morning) and in full view of Nico is against were cleaning?
years of age or under at the time of human nature. He asserts that no person would dare
the commission of the offense shall commit robbery in broad daylight and in the presence of
other people because they would be easily identified. 24 A: The classroom of Mrs. Pactolin, sir.
be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subjected
to Section 20 of this Act. Q: Why did you clean the classroom of Mrs.
Petitioner further claims that it was impossible for Nico to
see petitioner and Bacus destroy the door of Mrs. Panals Pactolin, were you being paid?
xxxx classroom because, according to Nicos own Affidavit,
Nico was inside the classroom of Mrs. Pactolin during the A: Yes sir.
incident. He insists that the walls of Mrs. Pactolins
The exemption from criminal liability herein classroom prevented Nico from witnessing the incident. 25
established does not include exemption from Q: How much?
A: P30.00 sir. A: Near the canal sir. TO COURT:

Q: Were you alone in cleaning the classroom Q: And would you be able to tell us also how We would like to request your honor that this
of Mts. Pactolin at that time? far were you when you saw these persons iron bar be marked as our Exh. "A."
climbing the gate?
A: We were two sir. COURT:
A: I was a little bit farther sir.
Q: Would you be kind enough to tell this Mark it.
honorable court who was your companion at Q: After you saw the two persons climbing
that time? the gate, what happened after that? TO WITNESS:

A: My cousin Mark Alforque sir. A: I saw that the padlock was opened. Q: And what about the padlock, would you
be able to identify the padlock that was used
Q: Now, after cleaning the classroom of Mrs. Q: What particular padlock are you referring (sic) by these persons?
Pactolin together with Mark Alforque, what did to?
you do next? A: Yes sir.
A: I saw a padlock made of iron.
A: My cousin went home and I was left in the
Q: I am showing to you this padlock, would
classroom because I was requested by my
Q: And what particular classroom or place you kindly tell this Court what relation this
teacher to get fish food. were these persons you saw that they were padlock to the one you stated a while ago?
opening the padlock?
Q: What fish food are you talking about Mr.
A: That is the padlock used (sic) by them sir.
Witness?
A: The classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal sir.
TO COURT:
A: Wayawaya and Dapna sir. Q: Who is this Mrs. Celina Panal?
For identification purposes your
Q: While getting the fishfood for your A: A teacher sir. honor, May I respectfully request that
teacher, did you observed (sic) anything this padlock be marked as Exh. "B."
unusual that happened?
Q: Would you be able to tell us whose
classroom these persons you saw opening the COURT:
A: Yes, sir. padlock?
Mark it.
Q: Would you be kind enough to tell this A: The classroom of Mrs. Panal sir.
Court now what did you observed (sic) that time
when you were getting the fishfood? TO WITNESS:
Q: Would you be able to tell us how did they
opened (sic) the classroom of Mrs. Celina Q: Now Mr. Nico Alforque, you said that
A: I saw somebody climbed the gate sir. Panal? there were two persons who opened the
classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal, would you
xxxx kindly identify these persons if you can see
A: The room was opened with the used (sic)
of an iron bar sir. them now in court?
Q: Where were you at that time Mr. Nico
Alforque? Q: I am showing to you this iron bar, what A: Yes sir.
relation has this iron bar to the one you said a
A: I was inside the school sir. while ago? Q: Would you kindly point to them if they are
now here in court?
Q: What particular place are you referring? A: That is the one used by the persons to
open the classroom sir.
The witness is pointing to a person whom when The witness is pointing to a man whose name A: They were riding in a tricycle sir.
asked of his name declared that he is Valcesar is Kevin Boniao.
Estioca. COURT:
Q: What else did you observed (sic) at the
A: And would you kindly tell us also the gate?
Q: Whose tricycle?
companion of Valcesar Estioca?
A: I saw that there is another person.
The witness is pointing to Emeliano
The witness is pointing to a person whose Handoc.27
name is Marksale Bacus.
Q: Who was that person?
Mrs. Panal corroborated the foregoing testimony of Nico
Q: These are the persons who destroyed the on relevant points.28
The witness is pointing to accused Emeliano
padlock of the classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal? Handoc.
The foregoing testimonies are consistent with the object
A: Yes sir. Q: And what was Emeliano Handoc doing at evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the
the gate Mr. Nico Alforque? Court of Appeals found the testimonies of Nico and Mrs.
Q: After destroying the padlock Mr. Nico Panal to be truthful and unequivocal and, as such,
Alforque, what did you observed? prevailed over the denial and alibi of petitioner and his
A: He was waiting at the gate sir.
cohorts. Both courts also found no ill motive on the part
of Nico and Mrs. Panal.
A: I saw that they brought out the colored Q: Now after you saw these persons, what
TV, the Karaoke and the Electric Fan. were the two accused doing at the gate when
they passed the things to Kevin Boniao? It is not incredible or against human nature for petitioner
Q: You said that these persons after and his companions to have committed the robbery in
destroying the padlock, took the colored TV, broad daylight and in full view of Nico. There is no
A: They were riding the tricycle sir. standard behavior of criminals before, during and after
the Karaoke and the Electric Fan, where did
they go? the commission of a crime.29 Some may be so bold and
Q: Could you be able to tell us who was daring in committing a crime in broad daylight and in full
driving the tricycle? view of other persons. Others may be so cunning such
A: After taking these things, they went out of that they commit crime in the darkness of the night to
the classroom sir. avoid detection and arrest by peace officers.30
The witness is pointing to Emeliano Handoc.
Q: And after going out of the classroom In People v. Toledo, Sr.,31 we sustained the credibility of
where did they go? Q: And after seeing these persons what did the eyewitness and upheld the conviction of the accused
you observed (sic) after that? for homicide despite the circumstances existing at the
A: They went to the gate sir. crime scene -- broad daylight, full view of many persons
A: I did not see anything because I went inside the school compound, and presence of inhabited
away sir. houses. It was also ruled that crimes may be committed
Q: And at the gate, what did you observed in broad daylight and that criminals are not expected to
(sic) if any? be logical or to act normally in executing their felonious
Q: You mean to say that all those persons designs because committing a crime itself is not logical
went away when you went away? or reasonable, viz:
A: I saw that there was another person sir.

A: Yes sir. Appellant [accused] also asserts that the

Q: And what was this person doing at the
gate? testimony of Ronnie [eyewitness] was
Q: They went together, is that what you inherently improbable. He insists that
mean? the circumstances existing at the crime
A: They passed on the things through the scene -- broad daylight, full view of many
person at the gate sir. persons inside the school compound,
A: Yes sir.
presence of inhabited houses around
Q: To whom did these persons passed these the purok -- were such that a crime could not
things at the gate? Q: Are they walking or riding? be committed.
 For a number of reasons, we find no merit in A: Yes sir. open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
this contention. First, appellants premise that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and
there were many persons in the school Q: Who among them took with him the TV? elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, usually
compound is not supported by the evidence on being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons,
record. Second, crimes are known to have at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or
been committed in broad daylight within the The witness is pointing to Valcesar Estioca. for want of specific inquiries. Additionally, an extrajudicial
vicinity of inhabited houses. Third, although statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the
it would be illogical and unreasonable for Q: Aside from the TV he also carry away with affiant himself but by another who uses his own language
normal persons in full control of their him the Electric Fan and Karaoke? in writing the affiants statement; hence, omissions and
faculties to commit a crime under such misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent.
circumstances, the same does not hold true Indeed, the prosecution witnesses direct and categorical
for all, especially those under the grip of A: It was his companion sir. declarations on the witness stand are superior to their
criminal impulses. We cannot expect the extrajudicial statements.37
mind of such persons to work within the xxxx
parameters of what is normal, logical or
Since we find no error in the factual finding of the RTC,
reasonable, as the commission of a crime is as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the testimony of
not normal, logical or reasonable. Hence, Q: Now at the gate you saw how many
persons aside from that two who entered the eyewitness Nico is credible, then the judgment of
the circumstances present in this case do conviction against petitioner, Bacus, Boniao, and Handoc
not rule out appellants commission of the room of Mrs. Panal?
should be affirmed. The positive and credible testimony
crime.32 of a lone eyewitness, such as Nico, is sufficient to
A: I saw three persons sir. support a conviction.38
Besides, as aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor
General,33 it is not improbable for petitioner and his Q: Was these three persons outside the gate We shall now determine the propriety of the penalties
cohorts to have committed the robbery as narrated by or inside the gate? imposed on petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc.
Nico because it happened on a Saturday, a non-school
day in the OCCS. Apparently, petitioner and his
A: They were inside the gate sir. Article 299, subdivision (a), number (2), paragraph 4 of
companions expected that none or only few persons
would go to the OCCS on said date. the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for
Q: And that was the time you saw the TV, robbery with use of force upon things where the value of
Karaoke and Electric Fan turned over to those the property taken exceeds P250.00 and the offender
A perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes shows does not carry arms, as in this case, is prision mayor.
persons at the gate?
that Nico was in a canal located inside the OCCS Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was
catching waya-waya and dapna when he saw the
alleged and proven in this case, the penalty
incident, and was not inside the enclosed classroom of A: Yes sir.
becomes prision mayor in its medium period in
Mrs. Pactolin as alleged by petitioner.34 Nico declared
accordance with Article 64, paragraph 1 of the Revised
that he clearly saw the incident and that nothing blocked Q: After that, those three persons left the Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
his vision.35 Nico remained steadfast and consistent in place? the range of the penalty now is prision correccional in
his foregoing testimony even on cross examination, thus: any of its periods as minimum to prision mayor medium
A: Yes sir. as its maximum. Thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals
Q: From the place where you were gathering were correct in imposing on petitioner, Bacus and
fishfood at that time you cannot clearly see the Handoc, a prison term of four years, two months, and
room of Mrs. Panal, am I right? Q: What about those two persons you saw one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight
entering the room of Mrs. Panal where did they years and one day of prision mayor as maximum,
go? because it is within the aforesaid range of penalty.
A: I can see it clearly sir.

A: They went out sir.36 With regard to Boniao, who was a minor (14 years old) at
Q: You have not seen what were those
persons doing inside the room of Mrs. Panal? the time he committed the robbery, Article 68, paragraph
The alleged inconsistency between the affidavit of Nico 1 of the Revised Penal Code instructs that the penalty
and his court testimony is inconsequential. imposable on him, which is prision mayor, shall be
A: I saw them sir. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement or affidavit lowered by two degrees. The RTC, therefore, acted
and direct testimony given in open court do not accordingly in sentencing him to four months of arresto
Q: You saw them taking away the Colored necessarily discredit the witness since an affidavit, being mayor.
TV, Karaoke and the Electric Fan? taken ex parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally
regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in
Nonetheless, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known ATTESTATION
Boniao, who was barely 14 years of age at the time he as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code."
committed the crime, should be exempt from criminal I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
liability and should be released to the custody of his
Although the crime was committed on 28 July 2001 and been reached in consultation before the case was
parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as The Juvenile the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Division.
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, to wit: Boniao who was not shown to be a habitual
criminal.39 This is based on Article 22 of the Revised
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Penal Code which provides: Associate Justice
Responsibility. A child fifteen years of age Chairperson, Third Division
or under at the time of the commission of the Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws
offense shall be exempt from criminal shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
liability. However, the child shall be subjected favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a
to an intervention program pursuant to Section habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule
20 of this Act. CERTIFICATION
5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time
of the publication of such laws a final sentence
xxxx has been pronounced and the convict is Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
serving the same. and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
The exemption from criminal liability herein in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
established does not include exemption from However, as Boniaos civil liability is not extinguished of the opinion of the Courts Division.
civil liability, which shall be enforced in pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic
accordance with existing laws. Act No. 9344, Boniao should be held jointly liable with
petitioner, Bacus, and Handoc for the payment of civil REYNATO S. PUNO
liability in the amount of P15,000.00 representing the Chief Justice
Sec. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal
stolen items.
Responsibility. If it has been determined that
the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years
old or below, the authority which will have an WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
initial contact with the child has the duty to hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
immediately release the child to the custody of dated 30 June 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 00036
his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner.
thereof, the childs nearest relative. Said
authority shall give notice to the local social SO ORDERED.
welfare and development officer who will
determine the appropriate programs in
consultation with the child and to the person MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
having custody over the child. If the parents, Associate Justice
guardians or nearest relatives cannot be
located, or if they refuse to take custody, the
child may be released to any of the following: a
duly registered nongovernmental or religious WE CONCUR:
organization; a barangay official or a member
of the Barangay Council for the Protection of CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and Associate Justice
development officer; or, when and where Chairperson
appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred to
herein has been found by the Local Social MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Welfare and Development Office to be Associate Justice Associate Justice
abandoned, neglected or abused by his
parents, or in the event that the parents will not RUBEN T. REYES
comply with the prevention program, the proper Associate Justice
petition for involuntary commitment shall be
filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare
and Development Office pursuant to