G.R. No. 174658 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARLON DELA CRUZ @ "DAGUL,"* ADRIANO MELECIO, JESSIE REYES @ "PISO," AND JEPOY OBELLO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Court finds accused MARLON DELA CRUZ alias "Dagul" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the felonies of robbery with Homicide AND Violation of R.A. No. 6539 (An act preventing and penalizing carnapping) and in conformity with law, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in each case. Accused JESSIE REYES is ordered acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. Further, accused is ordered to pay the victim's wife the following to wit: P50,000.00 as indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; P31,234.00 representing funeral/burial miscellaneous expenses; P17,000.00 representing victim's money intended to pay two (2) months installment of his new motorized tricycle; Be it stressed that victim's carnapped motorized tricycle was recovered. The BJMP of Dagupan City is ordered to commit the person of the accused to the National Penitentiary immediately and without unnecessary delay. SO ORDERED . [8] On appeal before the Court of Appeals, de la Cruz faulted the trial court I X X X IN RELYING HEAVILY ON SUPPOSITIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICTION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT MARLON DELA CRUZ SINCE THERE WAS NO EYEWITNESS TO THE CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THE PERSON OF TEOFILO TAMIN, SR. II X X X IN BELIEVING THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS ANNA DATLAG DESPITE THE REMARKABLE MOTIVE BEHIND HER ACT OF PINNING DOWN ACCUSED-APPELLANT MARLON DELA CRUZ. [9] III XXX IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA FOR EACH CASE . IV XXX IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE SANS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME . [10] (Underscoring supplied) The Court of Appeals affirmed de la Cruz's conviction, but modified the penalty in light of the following observations: [11] x x x [T]he trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in both cases, for the crime of carnapping, considering that the information only alleged that DELA CRUZ committed the crime by means of violence or intimidation against persons and did not allege that the victim was killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on occasion thereof . In the same way that recidivism cannot be appreciated against DELA CRUZ notwithstanding his admission in court that he was priorly convicted of theft, a crime punished under the same title of the Code as the crime of robbery with homicide, and was just released from Muntinlupa at the time of the trial of the second case. Said aggravating circumstances were not alleged in the information in consonance with the requirement of Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also, while the Court acknowledges that certain losses and expenses were actually incurred by the wife of the victim and her family, the Court notes that except for the amount of P13,000.00 representing the payment made to Funeraria Dagupan, the other expenses for funeral/burial of the victim were not properly substantiated by receipts