527 Phil. 599
That on or about the 9th day of August 1993, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with alias Jose and alias Gil, whose true identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away cash money amounting to P1.3 million and three (3) caliber paltik firearms in the total amount of P18,000.00, belonging to Pilipinas Bank represented by Juan Iglesia y Orgil and Lanting Security Agency represented by Edgar Lucero y Iribayen, respectively, to the damage and prejudice of the complainants in the aforementioned amount of P1.3 million and P18,000.00, respectively.Upon being arraigned, all the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Trial commenced thereafter.
WHEREFORE, premises considered:
1. And finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Bonifacio Capila, Deogenes Caparoso, and Dimas dela Cruz beyond reasonable doubt, they are hereby acquitted.
2. And finding Pepito Capila guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery defined under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294 par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, with the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, use of a firearm, and betrayal of trust, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prision term of from EIGHT (8) years as minimum to TEN (10) years as maximum.
Pepito Capila is also ordered to pay:1. Lanting Security Agency the sum of P18,000 for the value of the three firearms not recovered and belonging to said agency;
2. The sum of P1,292,991.12 to Pilipinas Bank, the amount taken and not recovered.
With costs against accused Pepito Capila.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated January 3, 1995) of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 148) in Makati, Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. 93-7217 is hereby AFFIRMED with costs against the accused-appellant.Hence, the instant petition for Review on Certiorari.
SEC. 42. Part of the res gestae. - Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.For the admission of the res gestae in evidence, the following requisites must be met: (1) that the principal act or the res gestae be a startling occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous or was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and the statement is made during the occurrence or immediately or subsequent thereto; and (3) the statement made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
First. The principal act is a startling occurrence which is the robbery in question.We are in accord with the Court of Appeals in its conclusion that all the requisites of the rule on res gestae are present. The principal act, which by any measure is undoubtedly a startling occurrence, is the robbery of which petitioner is being charged. Immediately after the robbery, Dimas dela Cruz, the security guard then on duty, informed Ariel that one of the perpetrators is herein petitioner. Dimas likewise reported at once the incident to the police and to the security agency. When questioned by SPO4 Maximo, Dimas, who was still shocked, named petitioner herein as one of the robbers. His statements to Ariel and SPO4 Maximo were made before he had the time and opportunity to concoct and contrive a false story. We note that Dimas personally knows petitioner considering that both worked in the same security agency and assigned in the same office.
Second. Dimas Dela Cruz informed the investigating officers that it was appellant who robbed the Meralco office immediately after the incident occurred and before he had the time to contrive a story.
The robbery happened at around eight o'clock in the evening of August 9, 1993 (p. 4, TSN, February 24, 1994). Immediately after the incident, dela Cruz called up the police station (p. 17, TSN, January 31, 1994). In ten minutes, SPO4 Maximo and his companion were in the Meralco office where they immediately conducted an investigation (pp. 3-9, TSN, February 24, 1994). During this investigation, DELA Cruz pointed to appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
Further, immediately after the robbers fled, dela Cruz informed Ariel Arellano (the bank representative detailed at the Meralco office) that appellant was one of those who robbed the office (pp. 15-17, TSN, January 31, 1994).
In other words, statement of dela Cruz was spontaneous as correctly observed by the trial court.
Third. The statement of dela Cruz refers to the robbery or incident subject matter of this case.
Sec. 32. Admission by silence . - An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.Another factor that militates against petitioner's innocence is his flight to Samar after the commission of the crime. Obviously, such flight is an indication of guilt.