People of the Philippines vs. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 92167-68, July 14, 1995

People of the Philippines vs. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 92167-68, July 14, 1995

Nature:  Appeal from the consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 124, Kalookan City, for double murder and for violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act), finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with double homicide.

Keywords:  Right to be informed; Jeepney, carnapping; double murder

Summary:  This is an appeal from the consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court,Branch 124, Kalookan City, in Criminal Case No. C-28760(87) for double murder and Criminal Case No. C-28761(87) for violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act), finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with double homicide. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The cases were jointly tried and after trial, the court rendered a consolidated decision

QUIASON, J.

Facts: 

Jose Abales owned a passenger jeepney. On January 7, 1987, his son, Ronaldo, drove the jeepney to service the Novaliches-Bagong Silang route in Kalookan City. Ronaldo was accompanied by Ariel Heloma, as conductor. At around 9:45 p.m., Dominico Mirasol, a friend of Ronaldo, rode the jeepney.

While the jeepney was waiting for passengers, appellant Teody Pamela approached Ronaldo and offered to hire said jeepney. Thereafter, appellant Pamela, together with accused Manuel Torres and Cresencio Palacio, boarded the jeepney. Mirasol alighted before the jeepney reached its terminal. At that time, there were about seven other passengers, including appellants, Torres and Palacio.

When Ronaldo failed to go home that night, Jose Abales started a search for him. At about 2:30 a.m. of the following day, a patrol of the San Jose City police noticed a jeepney parked along the shoulder of the road. Suddenly, the jeepney started and sped away. A chase ensued and two gunshots were fired from the direction of the vehicle. Notwithstanding the warning shots fired by the police, the jeepney refused to stop. The police then radioed their headquarters for assistance. A road block was placed along the route of the jeepney, forcing it to stop. Appellants, Torres and Palacio were then placed under arrest.

The jeepney was that owned by Jose Abales. The police recovered from it a .38 caliber paltik, a 10.5-inch dagger (Exh. "G") with blood stains and a hand grenade. The driver's license of Ronaldo Abales (Exh. "H") was found in the possession of Torres.

The bodies of Ronaldo Abales and Ariel Heloma were found that morning in Camarin, Kalookan City. Abales had a single stab wound while Heloma suffered multiple stab wounds. Both their hands were tied behind them.

Dr. Rodolfo Lezondra, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, conducted the autopsy. In his reports (Exhs. "P" and "T"), he concluded that Abales and Heloma died of hemorrhage, secondary to stab wounds which could have been caused by a single bladed weapon.

After trial, the court a quo convicted all the accused.

Hence, this appeal.

Issue: 

1.    Whether or not accused-appellants were denied of their right to due process.

2.   Whether or not accused-appellants were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

Held: 

1. No. Appellants’ conviction is based on the positive testimonies of the witnesses, the investigation conducted and the evidence.The circumstantial evidence found by the trial court is sufficient to convict appellants. We may likewise add that appellants failed to provide any explanation to the following circumstances: (1) the recovery of the dagger (Exh. "G") stained with blood from the jeepney at the time of the arrest; and (2) Torres' possession of the driver's license of the deceased Ronaldo Abales (Exh. "H"). The requisites provided for in Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence have been complied with. Appellants' defense of denial and alibi are inherently weal especially when only appellants testified as to said defenses. Appellant Legaspi also claimed that he was denied his right to counsel during the custodial investigation. However, the trial court did not consider any evidence taken during the custodial investigation of appellants.

2. YES. The accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14[2]).

We find merit in appellant Pamela's assertion that they were wrongly convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with double homicide.

Appellants were charged with two separate informations, one for double murder (Criminal Case No. C-28760 [87]) and the other for violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Criminal Case No. C-28761 [87]). Their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of the offense, as alleged in the information (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487 [1990]). While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them .

Ruling:  WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants are found guilty of: (1) double murder and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; and (2) violation of R.A. No. 6539 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. They are directed to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Ronaldo Abales and the heirs of Ariel Heloma the amount of P50,000.00 each.