Scribd
Upload
144 views2 pages

People Vs Tejero

The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Antonio Marcos Y Obo for the crime of robbery with rape. Three eyewitnesses positively identified Marcos as one of the robbers who entered two homes, stole cash and jewelry, and raped one of the victims. The Court rejected Marcos' alibi defense, finding the eyewitness testimony to be more credible. However, the Court modified the order for reparation, finding that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of stolen jewelry without receipts or other competent evidence.

Uploaded by

Goody
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
144 views2 pages

People Vs Tejero

The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Antonio Marcos Y Obo for the crime of robbery with rape. Three eyewitnesses positively identified Marcos as one of the robbers who entered two homes, stole cash and jewelry, and raped one of the victims. The Court rejected Marcos' alibi defense, finding the eyewitness testimony to be more credible. However, the Court modified the order for reparation, finding that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of stolen jewelry without receipts or other competent evidence.

Uploaded by

Goody
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
PEPITO TEJERO Y CARANZO, ANTONIO MARCOS Y OBO, EDGAR DEL MONTE Y
ALEYA, SONNY CARANZO, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, accused, ANTONIO
MARCOS Y OBO, accused-appellant.

Nature:

For automatic review is the Decision1 dated March 13, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court
of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31 in Criminal Case No. 0320-SPL finding the accused-
appellant Antonio Marcos Y Obo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to indemnify
the victims.

Facts:

On March 12, 1996, at about 11:00 o'clock in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of
Laguna, Antonio Marcos (MARCOS), Sonny Caranzo (CARANZO), Pepito Tejero
(TEJERO) and Edgar del Monte (DEL MONTE) armed with handguns entered the
residence of Arnold and Aileen Orodio through the back door which was left open by
Anthony Abino after answering a call of nature. The four men ransacked the house
taking with them cash and jewelry. Thereafter, MARCOS and CARANZO proceeded to
the residence of Magdalena Ventura located within the same compound as the house of
the Orodios and robbed Magdalena and Arnold taking cash and jewelry belonging to
Arnold, Magdalena and the Orodio Junk Shop. On occasion of the robbery, CARANZO
and MARCOS raped Magdalena. Aileen, Arnold and Magdalena were then brought to
the other house, tied and herded into the master's bedroom where TEJERO and DEL
MONTE were guarding Anthony Abino, Salvador Castillo, Celia Villanueva, Joselito
Ibana and May An Sevilla. All the accused then left using the Elf van of the victims as a
getaway vehicle.

The Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Robbery with Rape in an
information, and with the exception of CARANZO who is still at large, pleaded not guilty
to the crime charged upon arraignment.

The Regional Trial Court rendered its decision, and established beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of accused.

The case is now before this court on automatic review insofar as it concerns the
imposition of the death penalty on Antonio Marcos.

Accused-appellant assails the decision of the trial court and claims that the prosecution
has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He admits that his defense of alibi
is weak but that the evidence of the prosecution must be able to stand by itself in order
to convict him.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the judgment of conviction should be affirmed
2. Whether or not an ordinary witness can establish the value of jewelry for the
reparation of the same

Held:

1. The evidence of the prosecution consisting primarily of the testimonies of the three
eyewitnesses convinces us that the guilt of the accused-appellant has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant's defense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to


contrive and difficult to prove.14 A positive identification of the accused made by an
eyewitness prevails over such a defense. 15 In the present case, not one, but three
eyewitness identified him as one of the robbers.

Moreover, for alibi to prosper as a defense, one must not only prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also show that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. 16 We are not
convinced that the accused-appellant proved this with his assertion that he was asleep
in his house when the crime occurred. It would not have been physically impossible for
him to be at the crime scene since the crime was committed in San Pedro, Laguna
which is the same municipality where his house is located.

Neither can his denial prevail over the categorical testimony of MAGDALENA that
accused-appellant raped her after CARANZO ransacked her room and raped her. It was
not alleged or proven that she was motivated to falsely implicate the accused in the
commission of such a heinous crime. The absence of evidence showing any improper
motive on the part of the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to
sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists, and that their testimonies
are worthy of full faith and credit.

We cannot sustain accused-appellant's argument that the prosecution suppressed vital


and material evidence when it failed to present DAZZLE during the trial. The
prosecution has discretion to decide on who to call as witness during trial and its failure
to do so did not give rise to the presumption that "evidence willfully suppressed would
be adverse if produced"20 since the evidence was merely corroborative or cumulative
and was not proven to be willfully suppressed.

2. Lastly, we modify the order for the reparation of the stolen cash and jewelry. An
ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry 44 and the trial court can only take
judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of public knowledge or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration 45. The value of jewelry is not a matter of
public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the absence
of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self serving valuation made by
the prosecution witnesses, we cannot award the reparation for the stolen jewelry.

You might also like