G.R. No. 134815 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO DE JESUS Y ENRILE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered finding the accused EDUARDO DE JESUS Y ENRILE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco and Roberto Acosta in the sum of P50,000.00 each family; and to pay the heirs of SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco the sum of P500,000.00 by way of moral damages. [99] The trial court relied principally on the testimony of Dela Rapa and Del Rosario, corroborated by the other evidence on record, in convicting the appellant of the crime charged. It considered the testimony of Del Rosario on April 21, 1994 as a judicial confession, admissible in evidence not only against the confessant (Del Rosario) but also against the appellant. The appellant now assails the decision of the trial court on the following grounds: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED CRISPIN DEL ROSARIO AND IN USING THE SAME AGAINST THE OTHER ACCUSED, INCLUDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDUARDO DE JESUS, IMPLICATING THEM TO THE CRIME CHARGED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, THE AFFIDAVIT OF ACCUSED DANTE MANANSALA POINTING TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE ASSAILANT IS LIKEWISE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. HE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT CONSPIRED WITH THE OTHER ACCUSED IN COMMITTING THE CRIME CHARGED. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OUTRIGHTLY DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS CREDIBLE AND WAS CORROBORATED BY ANOTHER WITNESS. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE WAS COMMITTED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO ROBBERY ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH, AND IN NOT ACQUITTING HIM OF THE CRIME CHARGED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT FAILED TO STAND THE CRUCIBLE TEST OF REASONABLE DOUBT TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. [100] The appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. While the prosecution may have proved the killing of Acosta and Ybasco, it, however, failed to prove that the appellant divested Ybasco of P5,000. The appellant also avers that the prosecution failed to prove that he was one of the malefactors, and his precise participation in the commission of the crime charged. He asserts that absent proof of conspiracy, Del Rosarios judicial confession is admissible in evidence only against the confessant but not against him. Moreover, the appellant a