G.R. No. 142532 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOHNNY M. QUIZON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Johnny Quizon is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. "Accused Johnny Quizon is further ordered to pay the heirs of Mrs. Marietta Suarez the sum of P34,133.10 as actual damages and to pay the heirs of Conchita M. Pasquin the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity." [2] In his appeal to this Court, Johnny M. Quizon raised the lone assignment of error that - "THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT GUILTY OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE WITHOUT HIS GUILT HAVING BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT." [3] The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an appellee's brief, submitted to the Court a well-ratiocinated manifestation and motion averring that the existence of every bit of circumstantial evidence was not satisfactorily established. The OSG maintained: "Appellant should be acquitted and released. The prosecution miserably failed to meet the requirements of circumstantial evidence necessary for conviction. "First. The trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Miclat that appellant was the last person who was with the victim before she died. The trial court similarly blundered in debunking the testimony of both Sicangco and the appellant that after appellant had left the office, other persons entered the victim's office [TSN, January 7, 1999, pp. 8-10, Testimony of Roel Sicangco; TSN, May 25, 1999, pp. 12-13, Testimony of Johnny Quizon]. However, there was nothing in Miclat's testimony that directly refuted the testimony of Sicangco that there were other persons who entered the office afterwards. Miclat declared that she did not see whether or not the man with the collector's bag returned after they left the office. Miclat's testimony went: "Q I'm only concern [sic] with the better administration of justice. I know that you want to cooperate so much by your testimony. Now, you are supposed to be a star witness for the presence of the accused in that office. My question is, you did not see the accused doing anything to the victim, is that correct? "A Yes, sir. "Q You did not also see whether that man with a collector's bag went back or not in that office? "A No sir. "Q But you know in every office it is usually visited by several persons because of their papers or transaction? "A Yes, sir. "Q And in that office it is usually visited by several persons because of their papers or transaction? "A Yes, sir. [TSN, September 9, 1998, pp. 17-18] "Sicangco, on the other hand, testified to the circumstances after they left the travel agency, and whose declaration was never rebutted by Miclat. He stated: "Q How do you know that Johnny Quizon arrived at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 5, 1997? "A Dahil sa estimate ng pagdating namin sa office at saka iyong interval. "Q When you left the office together with your live-in-partner, where was Johnny Quizon then? "A Noong papa