G.R. No. 213380 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -, VS. ROMAN ESPIA, ACCUSED-,JESSIE MORANA, REX ALFARO, RODRIGO AZUCENA, JR., AND RENANTE ABISADO ACCUSEDDECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the accused Roman Espia having been found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of robbery with homicide, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the victim[s] Melberto and Estela Ganzon the following amount of P50,000.00 each for Melberto and Estela Ganzon as death Indemnity; P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P500,000.00 as actual damages and to return the jewelry and valuables to the heirs of spouses Ganzon or to pay its value in the amount of P1, 000,000.00." [11] Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals sustained the appellant's conviction. It was fully convinced that there is no ground to deviate from the findings of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, 6 th Judicial Region, Iloilo City, dated May 11, 2006, in Criminal Case No. 36127 is hereby AFFIRMED. [12] Appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Notice of Appeal was given due course and the records were ordered elevated to this Court for review. In a Resolution [13] dated 20 August 2004, this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. Both parties manifested that they are adopting all the arguments contained in their respective briefs in lieu of filing supplemental briefs. [14] In his Brief, [15] appellant assigned the following errors: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S GUILT; THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE BIASED IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTBY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES; THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES. Our Ruling We find that the degree of proof required in criminal cases has been met in the case at bar. Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are bereft of merit. Elements of Robbery with Homicide Were established The trial and appellate courts committed no error in convicting appellant of Robbery with Homicide. Article 294, paragraph (1) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, reads: Art. 294 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. To warrant a conviction for Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution must prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken thus belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi ; and (4) on occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime