Ramon Amparo y Ibañez, petitioner Vs. People of the Philippines, respondents.
G.R. No. 204990
February 22, 2017
Facts:
April 26, 2007, the accused Ahmed Alcubar (Alcubar), Roberto Guarino (Guarino), Juanito Salmeo (Salmeo), and Ramon Amparo y Ibanez (Amparo) conspired and confederated together and helped one another armed with deadly bladed weapons and therefore in band, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, that is, by boarding a passenger jeepney with Plate No. DGM-407 at the comer of C.M. Recto Avenue and T. Mapua Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila and immediately poked said arms upon RAYMOND IGNACIO, and announced the holdup, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, robbed and carried away the Nokia 6680 worth Pl4,000.00 of said Raymond G. Ignacio against his will. The accused were arraigned and they pleaded "not guilty." Trial ensued.
Raymond Ignacio (Ignacio) testified that on April 26, 2007, he was riding a jeepney going to Lawton when two (2) men boarded the jeepney along T. Mapua Street. One of them sat beside him, pointed a knife at him and declared a hold-up. He was ordered to take his necklace off and hand over his mobile phone Ignacio then heard a gunshot, causing the robbers to be rattled and drop their knives on the jeepney bench.A police officer arrived and ordered the robbers to alight from the jeepney. Four ( 4) men, later identified as Alcubar, Guarino, Salmeo, and Amparo, were handcuffed and taken to the police station. Ignacio identified Alcubar as the man who poked a knife at him, and Guarino as the one who announced the hold-up. He also identified Salmeo and Amparo as the ones who sat in the front seat beside the driver. He admitted that he did not know what Salmeo and Amparo were doing at the time of the incident. However, he testified that he saw them place their knives on the jeepney bench when the police fired the warning shot.
SP03 Renato Perez (SP03 Perez) testified that on the day of the incident, he was about to report for work when he noticed a commotion inside a passenger jeepney. He then saw Alcubar embracing a man later identified as Ignacio, while pointing a "stainless one foot long double bladed fan knife" at him. 17 He followed the jeepney and fired a warning shot. Later, he arrested Alcubar. SP03 Perez ordered the other three (3) men to alight from the jeepney when the other passengers pointed them out as Alcubar's companions. Another police officer arrived and helped him make the arrest. Upon frisking the men, he recovered a balisong from Guarino, an improvised kitchen knife from Salmeo, and a fan knife from Amparo. He also testified that he invited the other passengers to the police station to give their statements but only Ignacio went with him.
On March 3, 2010, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34 rendered a Decision finding the accused guilty of robbery in band, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery in band defined and punished under Art. 294 in relation to Article 295 of the Revised Penal Code without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term ranging from four ( 4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor maximum, as maximum. The accused shall be credited with the full extent of their preventive imprisonment under Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. Their bodies shall be committed to the custody of the Director of the Bureau of Correction, National Penitentiary, Muntinglupa (sic) City thru the City Jail Warden of Manila.
All the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. Amparo, in particular, argued that he and Salmeo should be acquitted since the witnesses for the prosecution did not testify that they performed any act in furtherance of the robbery. 28 On January 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeals noted that Amparo had abandoned his earlier defense of alibi, and was arguing that there was no evidence that he actively participated in the commission of the robbery. It found, however, that he was "caught red-handed" with a weapon during the robbery, which was sufficient to establish that he had a common unlawful purpose with the rest of the accused. Amparo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in the Resolution dated November 29, 2012. Hence, the Petition for Review was filed.
Issue:
WON the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with band.
Held:
No, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not erred in finding that petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with band.
Under Revised Penal Code, Article 293. Who are Guilty of Robbery. - Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery; Article 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: 5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases; Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. - If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall be committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or by attacking a train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passengers' compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties. In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band; Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof-When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearm. Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The judgment of conviction in the Decision dated January 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33386 and Criminal Case No. 07-252654 is AFFIRMED. The imposable penalty is MODIFIED. Petitioner Ramon Amparo y Ibanez is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery in band defined and punished under Article 294 in relation to Article 295 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum to nine (9) years and four ( 4) months of prision mayor medium as maximum. Since petitioner has already served more than the penalty imposed upon him by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 07-252654, his immediate release from custody is hereby ORDERED unless he is detained for some other lawful cause. SO ORDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment