G.R. No. 212151 - THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, VS. JAY HINLO A.K.A. "INDAY KABANG" - (at large), ACCUSED, RICHARD PALMA Y VARCAS A.K.A. "INDAY ATET," RUVICO SENIDO Y HAMAYBAY A.K.A. "RUBY," AND EDGAR PEDROSO Y PALASOL A.K.A. "LIBAT," ACCUSED-.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Freddie the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [16] The RTC gave credence to the testimony of Dumagat which it found to be consistent and coherent, contrary to the alibi of accused-appellants which was self-serving. Records show that they conspired and robbed the house of the Sps. Gavel, destroying the fence and forcing open the kitchen door to gain entrance therein and, on the occasion thereof, caused the death of Freddie. [17] Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. [18] The CA Ruling In a Decision [19] dated July 4, 2013, the CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction and ordered the immediate arrest of Hinlo who remains at large. [20] The CA found all the elements [21] to sustain a conviction for Robbery with Homicide to be present, which was clearly established by the testimony of Dumagat. Moreover, the positive identification which was corroborated by the pieces of evidence gathered from their escape sufficiently point to accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. [22] However, in the absence of proof to establish the actual damages and funeral expenses incurred by the family of Freddie, the CA modified the RTC ruling to include P30,000.00 as temperate damages pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code; [23] hence, the instant appeal. The Issue Before the Court The lone issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellants for Robbery with Homicide. The Court's Ruling The appeal is bereft of merit. It is settled that in criminal cases, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will evaluate the factual findings of the court below. [24] Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA. In People v. Uy , [25] the Court explained that the elements for the crime of robbery with homicide are: ( a ) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; ( b ) the property belongs to another; ( c ) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and ( d ) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide was committed. A conviction requires that the robbery is the main purpose and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. [26] In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the RTC's conclusions finding that accused-appellants were all armed with knives when they broke into the house of the Sps. Clavel, to