578 Phil. 853
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
That on July 28, 2001, at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent of gain, did then and there helping one another, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously break, destroy, and destroyed the padlock of the main door of the classroom of MS. SELINA M. PANAL and once inside, the accused took, stole and carried away the following:When arraigned on separate dates with the assistance of their counsels de oficio, petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge.[6] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.belonging to the Ozamiz City Central School represented herein by MS. SELINA M. PANAL, all valued at P15,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the said school thereof, in the aforementioned sum of P15,000.00, Philippine Currency.
- One (1) Panasonic Colored TV 14 worth P6,000.00;
- One (1) Sharp Karaoke Tower Single Player color black worth P6,000.00; and
- One (1) 3D Rota Aire Stand Fan color brown worth P3,000.00;
WHEREFORE, finding accused Valcesar Estioca y Macamay alias "Bango," Marksale Bacus alias "Macoy," Emeliano Handoc y Bullares alias "Eming" and minor Kevin Boniao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery defined and penalized under Article 299, subsection (a), paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and upon applying Art. 64, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and Indeterminate Sentence Law and Privileged Mitigating Circumstance of two (2) degrees lower than that prescribed for by law (Art. 68, par. 1) unto Kevin Boniao, a minor, who was 14 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, this court hereby sentences them (a) Valcesar Estioca, Marksale Bacus, Emeliano Handoc to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and (b) Kevin Boniao (minor) to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of Arresto Mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of Prision Correccional as maximum and all of the accused to suffer the accessory penalty provided for by law, to indemnify the civil liability of P15,000.00 and to pay the costs.Petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Decision arguing that there was no conspiracy among them and that the penalty imposed was erroneous.[18] On 17 August 2004, the RTC issued an Order partially granting the motion.[19] The trial court lowered the penalty imposed on them but affirmed its earlier finding of conspiracy and conviction. It also ordered the DSWD to release and turn over Boniao to his parents. It concluded:
With respect to Kevin Boniao, the sentence imposed upon him is hereby suspended pursuant to PD 603 as amended and he is therefore committed to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for reformation, otherwise if he is incorrigible, then the sentence shall be imposed upon him by the court. The DSWD is hereby ordered to have close surveillance and supervision upon him and to constantly observe the development of his behavior and to submit to the court a report/recommendation on the matter as prescribed for by law.
The Order of this court dated August 20, 2001 is hereby cancelled and revoked.
The accused are entitled 4/5 of the time they were placed under preventive imprisonment.
The cash bond in the amount of P24,000 posted by accused Valcesar Estioca is hereby cancelled and the same is ordered released and returned to the bondsman concerned.[17]
WHEREFORE, as herein modified, the imposable indeterminate penalty meted to accused Valcesar Estioca, Marksale Bacus and Emeliano Handoc being guilty beyond reasonable doubt of he crime of Robbery, defined and penalized under paragraph 4 of Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code upon applying Indeterminate Sentence Law with paragraph 1 of Art. 64, Revised Penal Code, ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum with accessory penalty provided for by law; and for minor accused Kevin Boniao, the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor upon applying the privileged mitigating circumstance in Art. 68, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code with Art. 64, paragraph 1 of the same Code. All of the accused shall indemnify jointly the civil liability of P15,000.00 and to pay the costs.Unsatisfied, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision and Order before the Court of Appeals.[21] Bacus, Boniao and Handoc did not appeal their conviction anymore. On 30 June 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC Decision and Order. The appellate court held that Boniao is exempt from criminal liability but his civil liability remains pursuant to Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, thus:
As aforestated, minor accuser Kevin Boniao is hereby ordered released from DSWD and returned to the custody of his parents.[20]
On a final note, considering that it is axiomatic that an appeal opens the entire case for review and considering further that any decision rendered in the appeal does not bind those who did not appeal except if beneficial to them, We hold that herein accused Kevin Boniao should be acquitted and his criminal liability extinguished pursuant to Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, which took effect on May 22, 2006. The pertinent provision thereof provides, thus:On 21 August 2006, petitioner filed the instant petition on the following grounds:"Sec. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to Section 20 of this Act.WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Decision and the August 17, 2004 Order are hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that accused KEVIN BONIAO is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344, without prejudice to his civil liability.[22]
x x x x
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws."
Simply put, the Court is called upon to determine whether the testimony of Nico is credible given the surrounding circumstances of the incident.I.
WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGED ROBBERY WHICH HAPPENED ON BROAD DAY LIGHT AND IN THE PRESENCE OF ALLEGED TWO (2) EYEWITNESSES UNDER HUMAN EXPERIENCE CAN POSSIBLY BE PERPETUATED BY THE ACCUSED;II.
WHETHER OR NOT ALLEGED LONE WITNESS NICO ALFORQUE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WITNESS[ED] THE ALLEGED ROBBERY INCIDENT.[23]
| Q: | Now, on July 28, 2001 at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning, could you be kind enough to tell us where were you at that time? |
| ||
| A: | We were cleaning the room of the school, sir. |
| ||
| Q: | What particular school are you referring to? |
| ||
| A: | At Ozamis Central School, sir. |
| ||
| Q: | Would you be able to tell us the name of the teacher of that particular classroom you were cleaning? |
| | |
| A: | The classroom of Mrs. Pactolin, sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Why did you clean the classroom of Mrs. Pactolin, were you being paid? |
| | |
| A: | Yes sir. |
| | |
| Q: | How much? |
| | |
| A: | P30.00 sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Were you alone in cleaning the classroom of Mts. Pactolin at that time? |
| | |
| A: | We were two sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Would you be kind enough to tell this honorable court who was your companion at that time? |
| | |
| A: | My cousin Mark Alforque sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Now, after cleaning the classroom of Mrs. Pactolin together with Mark Alforque, what did you do next? |
| | |
| A: | My cousin went home and I was left in the classroom because I was requested by my teacher to get fish food. |
| | |
| Q: | What fish food are you talking about Mr. Witness? |
| | |
| A: | Wayawaya and Dapna sir. |
| | |
| Q: | While getting the fishfood for your teacher, did you observed (sic) anything unusual that happened? |
| | |
| A: | Yes, sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Would you be kind enough to tell this Court now what did you observed (sic) that time when you were getting the fishfood? |
| | |
| A: | I saw somebody climbed the gate sir. |
| | |
| | x x x x |
| | |
| Q: | Where were you at that time Mr. Nico Alforque? |
| | |
| A: | I was inside the school sir. |
| | |
| Q: | What particular place are you referring? |
| | |
| A: | Near the canal sir. |
| | |
| Q: | And would you be able to tell us also how far were you when you saw these persons climbing the gate? |
| | |
| A: | I was a little bit farther sir. |
| | |
| Q: | After you saw the two persons climbing the gate, what happened after that? |
| | |
| A: | I saw that the padlock was opened. |
| | |
| Q: | What particular padlock are you referring to? |
| | |
| A: | I saw a padlock made of iron. |
| | |
| Q: | And what particular classroom or place were these persons you saw that they were opening the padlock? |
| | |
| A: | The classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Who is this Mrs. Celina Panal? |
| | |
| A: | A teacher sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Would you be able to tell us whose classroom these persons you saw opening the padlock? |
| | |
| A: | The classroom of Mrs. Panal sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Would you be able to tell us how did they opened (sic) the classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal? |
| | |
| A: | The room was opened with the used (sic) of an iron bar sir. |
| | |
| Q: | I am showing to you this iron bar, what relation has this iron bar to the one you said a while ago? |
| | |
| A: | That is the one used by the persons to open the classroom sir. |
| | |
| TO COURT: | |
| | |
| | We would like to request your honor that this iron bar be marked as our Exh. "A." |
| | |
| COURT: | |
| | |
| | Mark it. |
| | |
| TO WITNESS: | |
| | |
| Q: | And what about the padlock, would you be able to identify the padlock that was used (sic) by these persons? |
| | |
| A: | Yes sir. |
| | |
| Q: | I am showing to you this padlock, would you kindly tell this Court what relation this padlock to the one you stated a while ago? |
| | |
| A: | That is the padlock used (sic) by them sir. |
| | |
| TO COURT: | |
| | |
| | For identification purposes your honor, May I respectfully request that this padlock be marked as Exh. "B." |
| | |
| COURT: | |
| | |
| | Mark it. |
| | |
| TO WITNESS: | |
| | |
| Q: | Now Mr. Nico Alforque, you said that there were two persons who opened the classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal, would you kindly identify these persons if you can see them now in court? |
| | |
| A: | Yes sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Would you kindly point to them if they are now here in court? |
| | |
| | The witness is pointing to a person whom when asked of his name declared that he is Valcesar Estioca. |
| | |
| A: | And would you kindly tell us also the companion of Valcesar Estioca? |
| | |
| | The witness is pointing to a person whose name is Marksale Bacus. |
| | |
| Q: | These are the persons who destroyed the padlock of the classroom of Mrs. Celina Panal? |
| | |
| A: | Yes sir. |
| | |
| Q: | After destroying the padlock Mr. Nico Alforque, what did you observed? |
| | |
| A: | I saw that they brought out the colored TV, the Karaoke and the Electric Fan. |
| | |
| Q: | You said that these persons after destroying the padlock, took the colored TV, the Karaoke and the Electric Fan, where did they go? |
| | |
| A: | After taking these things, they went out of the classroom sir. |
| | |
| Q: | And after going out of the classroom where did they go? |
| | |
| A: | They went to the gate sir. |
| | |
| Q: | And at the gate, what did you observed (sic) if any? |
| | |
| A: | I saw that there was another person sir. |
| | |
| Q: | And what was this person doing at the gate? |
| | |
| A: | They passed on the things through the person at the gate sir. |
| | |
| Q: | To whom did these persons passed these things at the gate? |
| | |
| The witness is pointing to a man whose name is Kevin Boniao. | |
| | |
| Q: | What else did you observed (sic) at the gate? |
| | |
| A: | I saw that there is another person. |
| | |
| Q: | Who was that person? |
| | |
| The witness is pointing to accused Emeliano Handoc. | |
| | |
| Q: | And what was Emeliano Handoc doing at the gate Mr. Nico Alforque? |
| | |
| A: | He was waiting at the gate sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Now after you saw these persons, what were the two accused doing at the gate when they passed the things to Kevin Boniao? |
| | |
| A: | They were riding the tricycle sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Could you be able to tell us who was driving the tricycle? |
| | |
| The witness is pointing to Emeliano Handoc. | |
| | |
| Q: | And after seeing these persons what did you observed (sic) after that? |
| | |
| A: | I did not see anything because I went away sir. |
| | |
| Q: | You mean to say that all those persons went away when you went away? |
| | |
| A: | Yes sir. |
| | |
| Q: | They went together, is that what you mean? |
| | |
| A: | Yes sir. |
| | |
| Q: | Are they walking or riding? |
| | |
| A: | They were riding in a tricycle sir. |
| | |
| COURT: | |
| | |
| Q: | Whose tricycle? |
| | |
| | The witness is pointing to Emeliano Handoc.[27] |
Appellant [accused] also asserts that the testimony of Ronnie [eyewitness] was inherently improbable. He insists that the circumstances existing at the crime scene -- broad daylight, full view of many persons inside the school compound, presence of inhabited houses around the purok -- were such that a crime could not be committed.Besides, as aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General,[33] it is not improbable for petitioner and his cohorts to have committed the robbery as narrated by Nico because it happened on a Saturday, a non-school day in the OCCS. Apparently, petitioner and his companions expected that none or only few persons would go to the OCCS on said date.
For a number of reasons, we find no merit in this contention. First, appellant's premise that there were many persons in the school compound is not supported by the evidence on record. Second, crimes are known to have been committed in broad daylight within the vicinity of inhabited houses . Third, although it would be illogical and unreasonable for normal persons in full control of their faculties to commit a crime under such circumstances, the same does not hold true for all, especially those under the grip of criminal impulses. We cannot expect the mind of such persons to work within the parameters of what is normal, logical or reasonable, as the commission of a crime is not normal, logical or reasonable. Hence, the circumstances present in this case do not rule out appellant's commission of the crime.[32]
| Q: | From the place where you were gathering fishfood at that time you cannot clearly see the room of Mrs. Panal, am I right? |
| ||
| A: | I can see it clearly sir. |
| ||
| Q: | You have not seen what were those persons doing inside the room of Mrs. Panal? |
| ||
| A: | I saw them sir. |
| ||
| Q: | You saw them taking away the Colored TV, Karaoke and the Electric Fan? |
| ||
| A: | Yes sir. |
| ||
| Q: | Who among them took with him the TV? |
| ||
| The witness is pointing to Valcesar Estioca. | |
| ||
| Q: | Aside from the TV he also carry away with him the Electric Fan and Karaoke? |
| ||
| A: | It was his companion sir. |
| ||
| x x x x | |
| ||
| Q: | Now at the gate you saw how many persons aside from that two who entered the room of Mrs. Panal? |
| ||
| A: | I saw three persons sir. |
| ||
| Q: | Was these three persons outside the gate or inside the gate? |
| ||
| A: | They were inside the gate sir. |
| ||
| Q: | And that was the time you saw the TV, Karaoke and Electric Fan turned over to those persons at the gate? |
| ||
| A: | Yes sir. |
| ||
| Q: | After that, those three persons left the place? |
| ||
| A: | Yes sir. |
| ||
| Q: | What about those two persons you saw entering the room of Mrs. Panal where did they go? |
| ||
| A: | They went out sir. [36] |
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.Although the crime was committed on 28 July 2001 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who was not shown to be a habitual criminal.[39] This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
x x x x
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
Sec. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal 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 initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. If the parents, 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 organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code."
Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.However, as Boniao's civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344, Boniao should be held jointly liable with petitioner, Bacus, and Handoc for the payment of civil liability in the amount of P15,000.00 representing the stolen items.