G.R. Nos.

95353-54 March 7, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PAUL SANDOVAL and PAULINO PAT, accused. PAULINO PAT, accused-appellant.

ROMERO, J.:p

Paulino Pat seeks the reversal of the May 18, 1990 decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, convicting him and Raul
Sandoval of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and highway robbery as
defined under Presidential Decree No. 532, hereinafter to be known as P.D. No. 532. Said decision also imposed on him the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of the heirs of Franklin Baguio in the amount of P30,000, for robbery with homicide, and the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and one (1) day, for
highway robbery (Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-8728 & CBU-8732).

These criminal cases were spawned by an incident occurring at around 1:30 in the early morning of
May 31, 1986, in Cebu City. The prosecution proved that at that time, a group of young men
composed of Romeo Laurente, Franklin Baguio, Amelito Undalok, Dirk Padilla, Erwin Tabaque and
Nemesio Dakay, together with a young woman named Judith Pabular, had decided to spend the
night in the house of Dakay after attending an amateur singing contest in Pasil. Four of them,
headed by Dakay, walked ahead to the latter's house while Laurente, Baguio and Undalok lagged
behind. They then took their snacks at the Balaga store.

While walking along the street, Undalok noticed by the light of the mercury lamp of the electric post
two persons whom he later identified as Paul Sandoval and Paulino Pat, following them about a
fathom away. Panicking, the three walked faster but Sandoval and Pat told them not to run.
2

Although they nevertheless walked faster, the two overtook them. Hastily, Sandoval went through
Baguio's pocket. Pat, who was armed with a hunting knife, frisked Laurente and divested him of his
wallet and wrist watch.

Pat then joined Sandoval who was with Baguio. Pat was around a foot away from Sandoval when he
obstructed Undalok's view. Baguio offered his wristwatch to Sandoval but the latter kept on
searching Baguio's pockets. However, Baguio covered one of his pockets with his hands so that his
wallet could not be taken. At this juncture, Laurente walked slowly away and then broke into a run.
3

Undalok started retreating to follow Laurente, when he saw Sandoval stab Baguio in the chest with a
knife by a downward thrusting of his right hand, sending the latter staggering back. 4

Subsequently, when Baguio was autopsied by Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, medico-legal officer of the PC-
INP Metrodiscom, the latter found that he sustained two abrasions each on the right elbow and on
the left leg, and two stab wounds: one on the left side of the chest which penetrated the thoracic
cavity and incised the upper lobe of the left lung, and another on the right chest which incised the
right lung. The victim died of severe hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds.
5 6

On June 5, 1986, Undalok went to the police station where, after giving his statement to the
police, he was made to peep inside a room with a policeman and Sandoval inside. He then pointed
7

to Sandoval as one of the perpetrators of the crimes. Later, the police brought Pat inside the same
8

room. Undalok was asked by the police whether Pat was Sandoval's companion, which fact he
confirmed. 9

As a result of the identification of Sandoval and Pat as the authors of the crimes, the following
informations were filed against them on June 6, 1986:
 Criminal Case No. CBU-8728 for robbery with homicide —

That on or about the 31st day of May, 1986, at about 1:30 o'clock dawn, in the City of
Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with a knife, conniving and confederating together and mutually
helping each other, with deliberate intent, with intent of gain and by means of
intimidation upon person, to wit: by pointing a knife at one Franklin Baguio and
ordering him to yield his wallet and upon refusal of said Franklin Baguio to yield his
wallet, said accused stabbed said Franklin Baguio, thereby inflicting upon him the
following physical injuries:

HEMORRHAGE, ACUTE, SEVERE SECONDARY TO STAB

WOUNDS, CHEST, ANTERIOR ASPECT

as a consequence of which said Franklin Baguio died instantaneously.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. CBU-8732 for violation of PD 532 —

That on or about the 31st day of May, 1986, at about 1:30 o'clock dawn, in the City of
Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with a knife, conniving and confederating together and mutually
helping each other, with deliberate intent, with intent of gain and by means of
violence and intimidation upon persons, to wit: by threatening one Romeo Laurente
with said knife and without the consent of said Romeo Laurente, did then and there
take, steal and carry away the following:

one (1) wristwatch

one (1) wallet
Cash in the amount of P10.00

valued in all at P710.00, while the latter was walking along A. Lopez St., a public
highway, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the amount aforestated.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned, accused Sandoval and Pat pleaded not guilty to the charges. At the trial, the
prosecution presented the aforegoing version of the commission of the crimes based on the
testimonies of three witnesses: Undalok, Dr. Cerna and Saturnino Baguio.

The defense, on the other hand, contended that another person or group of persons perpetrated the
crimes, interposing denial and alibi. Thus, while defense witness Vicente Cana, a member of the
San Nicolas Police Sub-station who was on duty at dawn of May 31, 1986, admitted that Pat and
Sandoval were "picked up right on that day, he affirmed that there were "so many suspects" and
10

one of them was a certain "Roland." Cpl. Liberato P. Lozano added that Pat and Sandoval could not
11

have been picked up on May 31, 1986 as it was only from June 1 to June 5 or 6 that the police
began "simultaneous(ly) picking up suspects." 12

Enrique Restauro, a barangay tanod, testified that at early dawn of May 31, 1986, he was on his way
home after conducting a roving patrol when, at a distance of 200 meters, he saw a person being
stabbed. From that distance, he noticed that the assailant had a "flat nose and . . . high cheek
13

bones." Notably, the defense counsel himself elicited from Restauro the fact that he "only heard
14

that that person was stabbed. He also heard from people gathered in the area that the assailant
15

was one Poland Sobrevilla, who was notoriously known as a violent person.

For his part, Virgilio Nacion, a driver-mechanic, testified that he was then repairing the carburetor of
his taxicab when he saw a homosexual being stabbed. The two assailants, whom he could identify if
he sees them, ran away when the barangay police and people arrived. One of the assailants even
asked him for a ride on his cab but he declined, saying that it was still out of order. He, too, heard
from people around that a certain "Roland" was the culprit. He admitted having known Pat and
Sandoval as they were his neighbors, clearly implying that they could not have been the felons.

Like Nacion, Wilfredo Gonzaga testified that he knew Pat and Sandoval and, without going into
specifics, declared that he knew where the two were at the time of the commission of the crimes. 16

To buttress its theory that they did not commit the crimes, the defense presented Manuel Gatis, the
father of Wilfredo Gatis or Gates who was a "police character" known by the aliases "Allan,"
"Roland" and "Tawilwil Ninja." 7 According to Manuel Gatis, at around 2:30 o'clock in the morning of
1

May 31, 1986, Wilfredo arrived at their home in A. Lopez St., Cebu City, with two companions. He
overheard one of them ask the other why he stabbed a person. The other person replied that he
stabbed their victim because of his refusal to surrender his watch and wallet. Manuel clarified that it
18

was his son, Wilfredo or Tawilwil, who said that he killed the hardheaded victim. However, Tawilwil
19

was himself killed by policemen in a shootout on March 11, 1988. 20

Bruno Zafra, erstwhile chief investigator at the San Nicolas Police Sub-station on May 31, 1986,
supported the defense theory by testifying that although it was Cpl. Aballe who was the duty
investigator, he was at the police station when a homosexual ("bayot") who was being investigated,
named a certain "Roland" and two unidentified persons as the suspects in the crimes, and revealed
that the scene of the crime was dark because the bulb at the electric post was busted. 21

Having shifted the blame on others, the defense presented the accused to prove their respective
alibis. Raul Sandoval, a 27-year-old laborer at the Seaman Trade Center who resided in 35 A. Lopez
St., Cebu City, claimed that in the evening of May 31, 1989, he slept with his friend Paulino Pat to
help the latter in his rice-and-assorted-goods store. He clarified that he slept with Pat that Saturday
night. When told that the crime for which he was being accused transpired early in the morning of
May 31, 1986, he denied having participated therein, asserting that at that time, he was sleeping
with his friend, Pat.
22

Sandoval admitted having learned of the crimes on Sunday morning and that he was investigated by
the police on June 5, 1986. He denied that at the police station, someone had pointed him out as the
person responsible for the crimes. He was made to "pose and turn around" in order that the police
could verify that "the persons who killed the homosexual was of the same build as me and had curly
hair."
23

On cross-examination, Sandoval admitted that the last time he slept in Pat's house was when he
was arrested, adding that he had slept there for seven nights before May 31. He also admitted that
24

the Balaga Store was about thirty (30) meters away from the house of his relatives with whom he
was staying and that Pat's house was around twenty (20) meters away from his relatives' house and
about fifty (50) meters away from the Balaga store. He claimed having learned of the involvement of
25

Tawilwil in the crimes but he did not report the matter to the police because of fear of retaliation from
Tawilwil and because he "had no authority to tell."26
Paulino Pat gave the same address as Sandoval's — 35 A. Lopez St. According to Pat, he was in
his store at said address, sleeping with Sandoval, when the crimes occurred. Sandoval went to his
store at around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of May 30, 1986. Upon waking up at 5:00 o'clock in the
morning of May 31, he opened his store. From then on until around 11:00 o'clock in the morning of
June 5, 1986, he was in the store.

Pat claimed that neither he nor Sandoval was known by the nicknames "Roland" or "Alan". 7 He 2

admitted that the distance between his house and that of Sandoval was sixty (60) meters and that
between his store and Balaga's Store was also sixty (60) meters, while that between Sandoval's
house and Balaga's Store was 120 meters. He also admitted that in the evening of May 30, 1988
28

until dawn the following day, A. Lopez was well-lighted. During that night, while Sandoval was his
guest, he did not offer him anything, not even beer. After talking about Sandoval's girlfriends, they
slept at around 8:30 p.m.29

From what Pat heard about the crime, Tawilwil, whom he only knew by face, was involved. It was
Tawilwil's father who used to pass by his store, who approached him and volunteered to testify.
Neither had he met nor known Amelito Undalok and therefore, he could not possibly have had any
misunderstanding with him. 30

On May 18, 1990, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE —

In Criminal Case No. CBU-8728 — finding accused RAUL SANDOVAL and

PAULINO PAT guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide, each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Franklin Baguio the sum of Thirty Thousand
(P30,000.00) Pesos, and to pay the costs.

In Criminal Case No. CBU-8732 — finding accused RAUL SANDOVAL and

PAULINO PAT guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Highway Robbery,
each is hereby sentenced to an imprisonment of from Twelve (12) Years and One (1)
Day to Twelve (12) Years, Ten (10) Months and Twenty (20) Days, and to pay the
costs.

SO ORDERED.

The two accused filed a common notice of appeal. On June 6, 1989, Pat was ordered released
31

from detention upon filing a cash bond in the amount of P20,000.00. On the other hand, counsel for
32

Sandoval filed a manifestation and motion stating that he was availing of the provision of the new
Rules on Criminal Procedure that the original bail bond shall continue to be considered as such until
the final determination of the case, and praying that should said manifestation not be favorably
considered, that he be given a 30-day period within which to put up an appeal bond. On June 11,
33

1990, the trial court gave Sandoval until June 20, 1990 within which to post an appeal bond. 34

On June 15, 1990, counsel for Sandoval filed a motion stating that, upon receipt of the Order of June
11, 1990, he called up the Seaman Trade Center where Sandoval worked and learned that
Sandoval "ha(d) been absent the last few days," and praying that said Order be served on Sandoval
himself. Granting said prayer, the court tried to serve the Order on him but it turned out that
35

Sandoval had resigned from the Seaman Trade Center a month before. Consequently, the private
36

prosecutor filed an ex-parte manifestation and motion stating that in all probability, Sandoval would
evade service of his sentence and prayed for the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. 7 Accordingly,
3
on July 9, 1990, the trial court ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against
Sandoval. Thereafter, a new counsel appeared for Pat with his conformity and his former counsel,
38 39

Atty. Gregorio Escasinas, withdrew his appearance. 40

Hence, the instant appeal of Paulino Pat raising the following as errors of the trial court: (a) appellant
should have been charged only with the complex crime of robbery with homicide and imposed only
the penalty of reclusion perpetua plus indemnity and costs; (b) motive should have been established
because both accused were gainfully employed; (c) the testimony of Amelito Undalok was unreliable
because it was full of fallacies, contradictions and biases; and (d) accused should be acquitted due
to reasonable doubt.

In contending that only the crime of robbery with homicide should have been charged, appellant
reasons out that "the other charge is already absorbed and the penalty to be imposed should be in
the maximum" of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. 41

It is basic in criminal procedure that an accused may be charged with as many crimes as defined in
our penal laws even if these arose from one incident. Thus, where a single act is directed against
one person but said act constitutes a violation of two or more entirely distinct and unrelated
provisions of law, or by a special law and the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution against one is
not an obstacle to the prosecution of the other. Such crimes should be alleged in separate
42

informations pursuant to Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which provides that a complaint
or information "must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws
prescribe a single punishment for various offenses."

In this case, the fiscal or prosecutor, upon whose direction and control the filing of criminal cases
rests, pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 110, exercised his discretion and determined that appellant and
43

Sandoval violated two distinct penal laws in robbing Laurente and Baguio, and killing the latter on a
city street. Indeed, because the City Fiscal considered the two accused to have been in conspiracy,
he charged them both with the complex crime of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized
under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with respect to the robbing and killing of Baguio and, in
a separate information, also charged them with violation of P.D. No. 532, the 1974 law against
highway robbery, as regards the robbing of Laurente. The informations filed, however, indicate that
the filing by the fiscal of two separate charges was impelled by the fact that in the same incident,
there were two victims.

This Court finds, however, that only the crime of simple robbery, not violation of P.D. No. 532, should
have been charged in Criminal Case No. CBU-8732 regarding the robbing of Laurente. In People
v. Puno, the Court explicitly held that P.D. No. 532 is a modification of Articles 306 and 307 on
44

brigandage" which is committed by more than three persons. According to the late Chief Justice
45

Ramon C. Aquino, as it is committed by a cuadrilla, brigandage is "sometimes confounded with

the robo en cuadrilla in Art. 295 of the same Code." The clear implication is that the number of
46

offenders, as well as the frequency with which they perpetrate robbery, may determine whether a
crime is simple robbery or highway robbery as defined in P.D. No. 532. 7 4

Thus, in the Puno case, the Court explained that P.D. No. 532 treats of "highway
robbery/brigandage" or "indiscriminate highway robbery" and, therefore, "(I)f the purpose is only a
particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed
participants." Citing the perambular clauses of P.D. No. 532, the Court said:
48 49

Indeed, it is hard to conceive of how a single act of robbery against a particular

person chosen by the accused as their specific victim could be considered as
committed on the "innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to
 another," and which single act of depredation would be capable of "stunting the
economic and social progress of the people" as to be considered "among the highest
forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries," and would
accordingly constitute an obstacle "to the economic, social, educational and
community progress of the people," such that said isolated act would constitute the
highway robbery or brigandage contemplated and punished in said decree.

This would be an exaggeration bordering on the ridiculous. 50

From the information in criminal Case No. CBU-8732, it is apparent that violation of P.D. No. 532
was charged simply because the crimes transpired while the victim, Romeo Laurente, "was walking
along A. Lopez St., a public highway." In this regard, in the same Puno case, the Court said:

Erroneous advertence is nevertheless made by the court below to the fact that the
crime of robbery committed by appellants should be covered by the amendatory
decree just because it was committed on a highway. Aside from what has already
been stressed regarding the absence of the requisite elements which thereby
necessarily puts the offense charged outside the purview and intendment of that
presidential issuance, it would be absurd to adopt a literal interpretation that any
unlawful taking of property committed on our highways would be covered thereby. It
is an elementary rule of statutory construction that the spirit or intent of the law
should not be subordinated to the letter thereof. Trite as it may appear, we have
perforce to stress the elementary caveat that he who considers merely the letter of
an instrument goes but skin deep into its meaning, and the fundamental rule that
criminal justice inclines in favor of the milder form of liability in case of doubt.

If the mere fact that the offense charged was committed on a highway would be the
determinant for the application of Presidential Decree No. 532, it would not be far-
fetched to expect mischievous, if not absurd, effects on the corpus of our substantive
criminal law. While we eschew resort to a reductio ad absurdum line of reasoning, we
apprehend that the aforestated theory adopted by the trial court falls far short of
the desideratum in the interpretation of laws, that is, to avoid absurdities and
conflicts. . .
51

Prescinding from the Court's elucidation on the crime of highway robbery under P.D. No. 532, the
unavoidable conclusion is that, while the information in Criminal Case No. CBU-8732 is for violation
of P.D. No. 532, appellant may only be held liable for simple robbery as defined in Article 293
considering that it alleges facts which correspond to the elements of the latter crime. We need not
belabor the rule that in interpreting an information, what controls is not the designation but the
description of the offense charged. 52

The elements of robbery as defined in Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a)
53

that there be personal property belonging to another; (b) that there is unlawful taking of that property;
(c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and (d) that there is violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things. These elements alleged in the information are present in Criminal
54

Case No. CBU-8732. A wristwatch and a wallet valued at P710.00 belonging to Romeo Laurente
were proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been taken by appellant by intimidating the victim
with a hunting knife. Appellant's intent to gain or animo lucrandi is presumed in the allegation, duly
proven, that the appellant appropriated to himself the things taken. 55

With respect to Criminal Case No. CBU-8728, this Court cannot agree with the lower court that
appellant and Sandoval committed robbery with homicide. By the testimonial account of eyewitness
Undalok, Baguio was killed by Sandoval because he resisted the latter's efforts at searching his
pockets. Undoubtedly, as shown by their overt acts, the intent of both Sandoval and appellant was to
rob Franklin Baguio. However, under the same account of the said eyewitness, it is not clear
whether appellant or Sandoval succeeded in taking Baguio's wallet. What has been indubitably
proven is that Sandoval stabbed Baguio to death because of the latter's refusal to surrender his
wallet. Worth emphasizing is the fact that even the information does not allege that Sandoval
succeeded in taking Baguio's wallet. It merely alleges that Sandoval pointed a knife at Baguio,
ordered the latter "to yield his wallet and upon refusal of said Franklin Baguio to yield his wallet, said
accused stabbed" Baguio resulting in injuries which caused his death. Moreover, not even the
victim's father, Saturnino Baguio, had testified that any personal item was missing from the body of
his son. While it was conclusively proven by their overt acts that their intention was to rob Baguio, it
was not shown that Baguio's wallet was taken. From the evidence presented, the crime committed
was attempted robbery with homicide.

Since only Sandoval stabbed Baguio and committed the crime of homicide, appellant may be held
responsible therefor only upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of conspiracy between them. In a
long line of cases, the court has held that when homicide is committed as a consequence of or on
the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not
actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the
homicide. In the case at bench, appellant showed unity of purpose with Sandoval in attempting to
56

rob Baguio when, even after he had taken Laurente's wristwatch and wallet, he still searched Baguio
with a clear purpose of asporting personal property from him. Having conspired with Sandoval in the
attempt to rob Baguio, appellant may not escape liability for the resulting homicide because he was
not shown to have prevented its commission.

In an attempt at exoneration, appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of the crimes charged
because he had no motive to commit them, considering that he had a means of livelihood and that,
by the nature of the crimes committed, only young drug addicts with a string of criminal records
could have perpetrated them. As this Court has time and again held, proof of motive is not
indispensable to conviction 7 especially if the accused has been positively identified by an
5

eyewitness and his participation therein has been definitely established. Ordinary human
58 59

experience shows that even a normal person who is perceived by others to have no reason at all to
commit a crime may, in fact, commit an act violative of the law and be held liable therefor, as long as
he is identified beyond reasonable doubt as the perpetrator of the crime.

What is pivotal in this case is the credibility of the sole eyewitness to the crimes, Amelito Undalok.
The jurisprudentially-embedded rule in this regard is that when the issue of credibility of a witness is
concerned, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. In this case,
60

notwithstanding his gruelling eight days at the witness stand which were punctuated by snide
remarks on his sexuality by defense counsel, Undalok remained unswerving about his story and,
61

according to the trial court, "maintained his frank and open manner (and) straightforward
declaration" on appellant's culpability.
62

Appellant's contention that Undalok's testimony should not merit credence because of certain
inconsistencies therein deserves scant consideration, it appearing that such "inconsistencies"
concerned minor
details. Moreover, the absence of evidence to show any improper motive why Undalok should
63

testify falsely against appellant and implicate him in such grave crimes, indicates that there is no
such motive and that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.64
Parenthetically, appellant's identity as one of the perpetrators of the crimes is bolstered by the
affidavit of Romeo Laurente which corroborates Undalok's positive identification of appellant. While
65

said affidavit was not offered by the prosecution as an exhibit, and Laurente himself was not
presented as a witness, the sole testimony of Undalok on appellant's identity and culpability, being
clear and straightforward and found worthy of credence by the trial court, suffices to
convict. Laurente's affidavit and testimony would have served no more purpose than to corroborate
66

Undalok's testimony. 7
6

Appellant's complicity in the crimes having been established beyond reasonable doubt, in criminal
case No. CBU-8728 for attempted robbery with homicide under Art. 297, he shall serve the
indeterminate penalty within the range of prison mayor in its maximum period and reclusion
temporal in its maximum period in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and
68

indemnify the heirs of Franklin Baguio in accordance with law. In Criminal Case No. CBU-8732 for
the crime of robbery under Arts. 293 and 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code where no aggravating
and mitigating circumstances likewise attended its commission, he shall be imposed the
indeterminate sentence within the range of prison correccional in its medium period and prison
mayor in its minimum period.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 7 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City in Criminal case
Nos. CBU-8728 and CBU-8732 is hereby modified. Appellant Paulino Pat is hereby found guilty of
the following crimes and imposed the corresponding penalties:

(a) In Criminal Case No. CBU-8728, he is convicted of the crime of attempted robbery with homicide
for which he shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prison
mayor maximum, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one day (1) of reclusion
temporal maximum, as maximum penalty.

(b) In Criminal Case No. CBU-8732, he is convicted of the crime of simple robbery and accordingly
imposed the indeterminate sentence of four (4) years of prison correccional medium, as minimum, to
eight (8) years of prison mayor minimum, as maximum penalty and shall reimburse Romeo Laurente
the amount of seven hundred ten pesos (P710.00).

The indemnity for the death of Franklin Baguio is hereby increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.

Service of these sentences shall be in accordance with Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

A copy of this Decision shall be served upon the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau
of Investigation to immediately effect the arrest of Raul Sandoval so that he may serve the penalties
imposed upon him by Law.

Costs against accused-appellant Paulino Pat.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Penned by Judge Leonardo B. Canares.

2 TSN, September 23, 1986, p. 7.

3 Ibid., pp. 22-23.

4 Id., pp. 11-14.

5 TSN, October 18, 1988, pp. 5-6.

6 Exhs. "C" and "E."

7 Exh. "A."

8 TSN, July 20, 1987, pp. 9-10.

9 TSN, October 5, 1987, p. 10.

10 TSN, February 6, 1989, p. 4.

11 Ibid., p. 6.

12 TSN, February 7, 1989, p. 5.

13 TSN, April 5, 1989, p. 2.

14 Ibid., p. 6.

15 Id., p. 3. Defense counsel was Atty. Gregorio Escasinas.

16 TSN, May 22, 1989, p. 4.

17 TSN, September 6, 1989, pp. 3-4.

18 TSN, September 5, 1989, pp. 2-3.

19 TSN, September 6, 1989, p. 5.

20 TSN, September 5, 1989, p. 4.

21 TSN, April 3, 1990, p. 4.

22 TSN, December 12, 1989, pp. 4-5.

23 Ibid., p. 7.

24 Id., pp. 11-12.

25 Id., p. 15.

26 TSN, February 21, 1990, p. 8.

27 Ibid., p. 5.
28 TSN, March 21, 1990, pp. 3-5.

29 Ibid., pp. 7-8.

30 Id., pp. 14-19.

31 Record, p. 458.

32 Ibid., p. 461.

33 Id., p. 462.

34 Id., p. 463.

35 Id., p. 467.

36 Id., p. 468.

37 Id., p. 469.

38 Id., p. 471.

39 Id., p. 474.

40 Id., p. 476.

41 Appellant's Brief, p. 3.

42 People v. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 368, 379 citing People v.
Doriguez, L-24444-45, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 163, 171.

43 People v. Vergara, G.R. Nos. 101557-58, April 28, 1993, 221 SCRA 560, 568.

44 G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 85.

45 Ibid., at p. 96. Art. 306 of the Revised Penal Code states: "Who are brigands; Penalty. —
When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing
robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain
ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall
be deemed highway robbers or brigands.

Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prison mayor in its medium period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them are not
punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such higher penalties.

If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be
presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of conviction the
penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.

Art. 307 of the Code defines aiding and abetting a band of brigands.
46 AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Vol. III, 1988 ed., p. 170.

47 In cases charging violation of P.D. No. 532 which were decided prior to the promulgation
of the Decision in the Puno case, the offenders were six (6) in People v. Ocimar (G.R. No.
94555, August 17, 1992, 212 SCRA 646) and five (5) in People v. Nebreja (G.R. No. 92447,
October 17, 1991, 203 SCRA 45). However, in People v. Chanas (G.R. No. 90802, August 4,
1992, 212 SCRA 65), only two (2) persons were convicted of said crime while in the 1981
case of People v. Matilla (G.R. No. 53570, July 24, 1981, 105 SCRA 748), the only one (1)
accused was convicted thereof.

48 Ibid., at p. 97.

49 WHEREAS, reports from law-enforcement agencies reveal that lawless elements are still
committing acts of depredations upon the persons and properties of innocent and
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another, thereby disturbing the peace,
order and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the
people;

WHEREAS, such acts of depredations constitute either piracy or highway

robbery/brigandage which are among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the
penal statutes of all countries; and

WHEREAS, it is imperative that said lawless elements be discouraged from perpetrating

such acts of depredations by imposing heavy penalty on the offenders, with the end in view
of eliminating all obstacles to the economic, social, educational and community progress of
the people;

50 People v. Puno, supra, at p. 98.

51 Ibid., p. 99.

52 People v. Aczon, G.R. No. 93029, August 10, 1993, 225 SCRA 237; Avecilla v. People,
G.R. No. 46370, June 2, 1992, 209 SCRA 466.

53 Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.

54 People v. Puloc, G.R. No. 92631, September 30, 1991, 202 SCRA 179, 185.

55 AQUINO, supra, at p. 99.

56 People v. Macam, G.R. Nos. 91011-12, November 24, 1994, 238 SCRA 306,
317 citing People v. Veloso, L-32900, February 25, 1982, 112 SCRA 173; People v. Bautista,
49 Phil. 389 (1926) and U.S. v. Macalalad, 9 Phil. 1 (1907). See also: People v. Escosio,
G.R. No. 101742, March 25, 1993, 220 SCRA 475; People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 102063,
January 20, 1993, 217 SCRA 283.

57 People v. Cadag, G.R. No. 93899, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 781.

58 People v. Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992, 209 SCRA 304.
59 People v. Caranzo, G.R. No. 76743, May 22, 1992, 209 SCRA 232.

60 People v. Flores, G.R. No. 80914, April 6, 1995, 243 SCRA 374; People v. Pama, G.R.
Nos. 90297-98, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 385.

61 TSN, October 17, 1986, p. 4, 13; November 11, 1987, pp. 3-5.

62 Decision, p. 13.

63 People v. Jacolo, G.R. No. 94470, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 631.

64 People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 47; People v.
Pama, supra.

65 Record, p. 4.

66 People v. De Roxas, G.R. No. 106783, February 15, 1995, 241 SCRA 369.

67 See: People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107, January 26, 1995, 240 SCRA 624, 638 where
the Court held that "(t)he presumption laid down in Section 3(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court that 'evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced' does not apply when
the testimony of the witness not produced would only be corroborative, or when the said
witness is available to the defense because then the evidence would have the same weight
against one party as against the other."

68 People v. Alay-ay, G.R. No. 94310, June 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 62, 74.