443 Phil. 268
CORONA, J.:
That on or about August 22, 1995 at Brgy. Sampiruhan, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain and while conveniently provided with a baby armalite rifle and by means of violence and intimidation against one MAURICIO LANZANAS, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away two (2) handheld radios having a total value of P25,000.00 owned and belonging to the said Mauricio Lanzanas, after the latter was attacked, assaulted and shot by the said accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforementioned amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND (P25,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.The second case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4668-96-C,[3] charged appellant for killing Mauricio Lanzanas, as follows:
Contrary to law.
That on or about August 22, 1995 at Brgy. Sampiruhan, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, while conveniently provided with a baby armalite rifle, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, inflict personal violence and shot one MAURICIO LANZANAS, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious and mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said MAURICIO LANZANAS.Upon arraignment on October 21, 1998 for both charges, appellant separately entered the plea of not guilty.[4] During the trial on the merits of both cases, the appellant escaped from detention and remains at-large to the present. Hence, trial proceeded in absentia against him.
That in the commission of the offense, the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were in attendance.
Contrary to law.
ACCORDINGLY, in Criminal Case No. 4668-96-C, this Court finds accused Felix Lopez y Javier GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH.After the death penalty was imposed by the trial court, the records were elevated to us for automatic review. Regardless of whether appellant has withdrawn his appeal or has escaped, automatic review is mandatory in death penalty cases.
Accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Mauricio Lanzanas the sum of P100,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
In Criminal Case No. 4667-96, this Court finds accused Felix Lopez y Javier GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional as minimum, to Ten (10) Years of Prision Mayor as maximum.
Accused is further directed to indemnify the heirs of the victim Mauricio Lanzanas the value of the two (2) radios subject of the offense in the sum of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND (P18,000.00) PESOS.
With costs against the accused in both cases.
So Ordered.
Prosecution witness Bonifacio Lansanas had ample opportunity to see appellant at close range from the time the latter arrived at the scene of the crime until after the shooting incident. Appellant even stared at him before firing the last shot at his father. Hence, the possibility that he could have been mistaken as to appellant’s identity was practically nil. Besides, his testimony was corroborated by his half-brother, Richard, thus:
FISCAL MASA: Q Mr. Witness, do you recall where you were more or less at 7:10 in the morning of August 22, 1995? A I was in the shop, sir. Q Where is that shop where you said you were in that morning of August 22, 1995? A In front of the barangay hall of Brgy. Sampiruhan, Calamba, Laguna. Q What kind of shop is it? A “Gawaan ng pinto at cabinet.” Q Why were you there in that shop in that morning of August 22, 1995? A I am working in that shop. Q Who owns that shop where you said you were then working? A My father, sir. Q What is the name of your father? A Mauricio Lanzanas, sir. Q While you were there in the shop of your father in that morning of August 22, 1995, do you recall of any unusual incident that you witnessed or you personally saw? A Yes, sir. Q Please tell the Court what is that unusual incident that you personally witnessed? A A man suddenly came. Q Where did he come from? A In the front of the shop, sir. Q The shop where you said you were then working? A Yes, sir. Q And that man whom you said came to your shop, what did he do? A When the man arrived in the shop he leaned on a place where the wood are (sic) being placed. My father then approached him and nodded him after that I did not mind him anymore, sir. Q Why? Where was your father when this person came? A In front of the shop, sir. Q And what happened after you said you saw this man and your father? I I was working when I heard three successive shots. Q And when you heard these three successive shots, what did you do? A So, I looked at them and saw my father lying on the ground. Q Now, you said that you looked at them and you said that your father was already lying on the ground when you take a look at them, please tell the court who are these “them” that you are referring to? A My father and the man who shot my father. Q What did you notice on (sic) the person who shot your father at the time you looked at them? A Nothing sir. Q And after you said that you take a look at them meaning to your father and to the other person who came and shot your father, what did that man do next, if any? A I was afraid because he was staring at me, sir. Q And that you said you became afraid, what did you see else (sic), if any when you said you became afraid? A I just vowed (sic) and while vowing (sic) I was looking at him, sir. Q And what did that man do after your father was already lying down? A He approached my father and again shot my father. Q What kind of firearm was used by that person in shooting your father? A Baby armalite, sir. Q That man whom you said shot your father, if you will see him again will you be able to identify or recognize him? A Yes, sir. Q If that man who shot your father is inside the courtroom, will you kindly point to him? A Yes sir. Q Please point to him. A That man, sir wearing stripe t-shirt. INTERPRETER: Witness pointed to a man inside the courtroom who when asked gave his name as Felix Lopez. FISCAL: Q And after the person of the accused whom you just pointed to us as the person who shot your father, what else did he do after your father was shot again? A He proceeded to the front of the shop and looked at me. When he looked at me I stooped and then he immediately took my father’s two radios. Q These two radios, where were they located at that time when you said the accused took it? A It was hanging, sir. Q Where? A “Banse.” Q Can you demonstrate to this Court the actuation of the accused before he took these two radios. A He hurriedly left the place after taking the two radios. Q Now, you said that before the accused took the two radios he was looking at you, was there anything that he did while looking at you before taking the radios? A No more, sir. Q And you said that these two radios which the accused took belongs to your father, why did you know that these two radios belongs to your father? A Because I’ve been seeing those radios in his possession and he told me that those radios are from him (sic).
While there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the interval of gunshots, the discrepancies concern minor details that do not affect the veracity of their testimonies. Different persons have different reflexes that may produce varying reactions, impressions, perceptions and recollections. Differing physical, mental, emotional and psychological conditions may also affect their ability to recall details of the incident. No two individuals are alike in terms of powers of observation and recollection. Each may give a different account of what transpired. A testimony may be replete with details not found in another. But taken as a whole, the versions must concur on material points.[9]
FISCAL MASA Q Now, can you tell the court where you were at around 7:00 o’clock in the morning of August 22, 1995? A I was at the barangay, sir. Q When you said that you were then in a barangay, to what barangay are you referring to? A I was at the barangay hall of Brgy. Sampiruhan, sir. Q Calamba, Laguna? A Yes, sir. Q Now, were you alone while you were there at the barangay hall of Brgy. Sampiruhan, Calamba, Laguna? A Yes, sir. Q What were you doing there at the barangay hall of Brgy. Sampiruhan, Calamba, Laguna? A I was just standing near the barangay hall. Q While you were there at the barangay hall standing, do you recall of (sic) any unusual incident that you witnessed or you personally saw? A Yes, sir. Q Please tell the Court that unusual incident that you said you witnessed while you were there near the barangay hall? A When my father was shot, sir. Q Now you said that the unusual incident that you recalled and witnessed was when your father was shot, can you tell us the name of your father whom you said was shot on that date? A Mauricio Lanzanas, sir. Q Who shot your father Mauricio Lanzanas? A Felix Lopez, sir. Q Now, how were you able to see and identify Felix Lopez as the person who shot your father Mauricio Lanzanas? A I was then at the barangay hall when I heard two shots so I decided to go home. When I was on my way home, I saw my father lying on the ground and he shot again my father. After shooting my father, he looked around and then left the place. Q Now, you said that while you were going home, you heard two shots and then you saw your father already lying on the ground faced up (sic) and then he was shot again, who shot your father whom you saw? A Felix Lopez, sir. Q What kind of firearm did Felix Lopez use in shooting your father? A It was a baby armalite, sir. Q And you said that your father was already lying down faced up (sic) when Felix Lopez shot him again twice, what did you do when you saw again that your father was shot by Felix Lopez while lying down faced up (sic)? A I went home to tell my mother. Q This Felix Lopez who shot your father, is he in court now? A Yes, sir. Q Will you please point to him. A That man, sir. xxx xxx xxx INTERPRETER: Witness tapped the shoulder of a man inside the courtroom who when asked gave his name as Felix Lopez.
There appears to be no reason to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. They clearly and affirmatively gave a full account of what actually transpired on the night of November 27, 1985. They were consistent in their respective narrations on the witness stand, except for Freddie dela Cruz who testified that he heard four gunshots that night as against the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses that they only heard three gunshots. But, the divergence of his perception can be explained by the shot that one may experience immediately after hearing the ostensible first two shots. Besides, we have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details cannot destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor.Likewise, the fact that the two prosecution witnesses were sons of the victim is not sufficient reason to disregard their testimonies since they had no improper motive to testify falsely against the appellant. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim did not per se render their otherwise clear and positive testimonies less worthy of full faith and credit. On the contrary, their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty party would deter them from implicating persons other than the culprits for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity.[11]
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.The evidence on record shows that appellant had already shot the victim before unlawfully taking his two handheld radios. Thus, the probability was that the unlawful taking was merely an afterthought. We find no evidence to prove that appellant originally planned to commit robbery. Any conclusion on his primary intent based on the proven facts is therefore speculative and without basis.[17]
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft – Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. x x xSince the value of the personal property taken from the victim, as fixed by the trial court, amounted to P18,000, the penalty imposable is the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by Article 309 which is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty for this particular theft is anywhere from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional medium period to 6 years of prision correccional maximum period, as minimum, to anywhere from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years of prision mayor medium period.
Art. 309. Penalties – Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
- The penalty of prision mayor in the minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceed the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and for purposes of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.