G.R. No.

212932 January 21, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ARNEL BALUTE y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal filed by accused-appellant Arnel Balute y Villanueva (Balute)
1

assailing the Decision dated February 3, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
2

05649 which affirmed the Decision dated June 11, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
3

Branch 18 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 03-211951, finding Balute guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.

The Facts

On November 22, 2002, an Information was filed before the RTC charging Balute of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code
4

(RPC), as amended, the accusatory portion of which reads: 5

Crim. Case No. 03-211951

"That on or about March 22, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating together with one whose true name, real identityand present whereabouts are still
unknown and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, to wit: by then and there poking a gun at one SPO1 RAYMUNDO B. MANAOIS, forcibly
grabbing and snatching his Nokia 3210 cellular phone, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, rob and carry away the same valued at ₱6,000.00 against his will, to the damage
and prejudice of the said SPO1 RAYMUNDO B. MANAOIS in the aforesaid amount of ₱6,000.00
Philippine Currency; thereafter shooting said SPO1 RAYMUNDO B. MANAOIS with an unknown
caliber firearm, hitting him at the back, and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal gunshot wound
which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

According to the prosecution, at around 8 o’clock in the evening of March 22, 2002, SPO1
Raymundo B. Manaois (SPO1 Manaois) was on board his owner-type jeepney with his wife Cristita
and daughter Blesilda, and was traversing Road 10, Tondo, Manila. While the vehicle was on a stop
position at a lighted area due to heavy traffic, two (2) malepersons, later on identified as Balute and
a certain Leo Blaster (Blaster), suddenly appeared on either side of the jeepney, withBalute poking a
gun at the side of SPO1 Manaois and saying "putang ina, ilabas mo!" Thereafter, Balute grabbed
SPO1 Manaois’s mobile phone from the latter’s chest pocket and shot him at the left side of his
torso. SPO1 Manaois reacted by drawing his own firearm and alighting from his vehicle, but he was
unable to fire at the assailants as he fell to the ground. He was taken to Mary Johnston Hospital
where he died despite undergoing surgical operation and medical intervention. 6

In his defense, Balute denied having any knowledge of the charges against him. He maintained,
1âwphi1

inter alia, that on March 22, 2002, he was at the shop of a certain Leticia Nicol (Nicol) wherein he
worked as a pedicab welder from 8:00 o’clock in the morning until 10:00 o’clock in the evening, and
did not notice any untoward incident that day as he was busy working the entire time. Nicol
corroborated Balute’s story, and imputed liability on Blaster and a certain Intoy. 7

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision dated June 11, 2012, the RTC found Balute guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
8

crime of Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, and accordingly,
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in lieu of the
death penalty, as well as ordered him to pay the heirs of SPO1 Manaois the amounts of ₱50,000.00
ascivil indemnity, ₱6,000.00 as compensatory damages for the value of the stolen mobile phone,
and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum (p.a.)
from the filing of the Information.
9

It found that the prosecution was ableto establish the existence of all the elements of Robbery with
Homicide, as it proved that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois’s side, took his mobile phone,
and shot him, resulting in the latter’s death. In this relation, the RTC gave credence to Cristita and
Blesilda’s positive identification of Balute as the assailant, as compared to the latter’s mere denial
and alibi.10

Aggrieved, Balute appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision dated February 3, 2014, the CA affirmed Balute’s conviction with modification in that:
11

(a) the aggravating circumstance of treachery was no longer considered as the prosecution failed to
allege the same in the Information; (b) the civil indemnity was increased to ₱75,000.00 in view of
12

existing jurisprudence; (c) the ₱6,000.00 compensatory damages, representing the value of the
mobile phone, was deleted in the absence of competent proofof its value, and in lieu thereof, actual
damages in the aggregate amount of ₱140,413.53 representing SPO1 Manaois’s hospital and
funeral expenseswas awarded to his heirs; and (d) all the monetary awards for damages are with
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) p.a. from the date of finality of the CA Decision until fully
paid.13

Hence, the instant appeal.

The Issue Before the Court

The lone issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Balute’s
conviction for Robbery with Homicide.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal is bereft of merit.

It must be stressed that in criminalcases, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded
great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial
evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked
material and relevant matters, that the Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the
court below. Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the
14

RTC’s factual findings, as affirmed by the CA.

In People v. Ibañez, the Court exhaustively explained that "[a] special complex crime of robbery
15

with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason,or on the occasion, of the
robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the
use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
the crime of homicide, as usedin its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude
that the robbery is the main purpose, and [the] objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely
incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may
occur before, during or after the robbery." Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on
16

occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed: (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. 17

In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the RTC’s finding that the prosecution was able to
establish the fact that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois, took the latter’s mobile phone, and
thereafter, shot him, resulting in his death despite surgical and medical intervention. This is
buttressed by Cristita and Blesilda’s positive identification of Balute as the one who committed the
crime as opposed to the latter’s denial and alibi which was correctly considered by both the RTC and
the CA as weak and self-serving, as it is well-settled that "alibi and denial are outweighed by positive
identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the
[eyewitnesses] testifying on the matter." This is especially true when the eyewitnesses are the
18

relatives of the victim – such as Cristita and Blesilda who are the wife and daughter of SPO1
Manaois, respectively – since "[t]he natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in
securing the conviction of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating persons other than
the true culprits."
19

In sum, the RTC and the CA correctly convicted Balute of the crime of Robbery with Homicide as
defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the RPC, as amended. However, the Court deems it
appropriate to adjust the award of moral damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00 in order to
conform with prevailing jurisprudence. Further, the Court also awards exemplary damages in the
20

amount of ₱30,000.00 in favor of the heirs of SPO1 Manaois due to the highly reprehensible and/or
outrageous conduct of Balute in committing the aforesaid crime. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal
21

is DENIED. The Decision dated February 3, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05649 finding accused-appellant Arnel Balute y Villanueva GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that he is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and is ordered to pay the heirs of SPOl
Raymundo B. Manaois the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱140,413.53 as actual
damages, and ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice