7 G.R. No.

143935 June 4, 2004 Virgilita Roca-Laureaga corroborated the eyewitness account of her father Alfredo
Roca. She also saw appellant Ulep fire his gun at her father’s hut.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs. The records show that the prosecution failed to formally offer the questioned
WILLIAM ANCHETA, EDGARDO AREOLA, ANTOS DACANAY, LITO DE LA testimonies of witnesses Alfredo Roca and Virgilita Roca-Laureaga. However,
CRUZ, FELIPE ULEP @ BOY ULEP AND ELY CALACALA, accused. appellant failed to make a timely objection, and further cross-examined the said
FELIPE ULEP @ BOY ULEP, appellant. witnesses.

FACTS Dr. Aurora Belsa, assistant provincial health officer, conducted the autopsy on the
bodies of Marjun, Benita and Febe. Her report showed that: (1) Marjun sustained
Appellant, together with William Ancheta, Edgardo "Liling" Areola, Antos Dacanay, gunshot wounds in the head, stomach and chest; (2) Benita suffered gunshot wounds
Lito dela Cruz and Ely Calacala, was charged with the crime of robbery with multiple that punctured her small and large intestines and (3) Febe’s gunshot wounds in her
homicide and frustrated murder. chest damaged her lungs, heart and liver. Dr. Belsa declared that all the gunshot
wounds sustained by the victims were fatal, causing their immediate death.
On March 20 1987, at 12:00 o’clock to 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the accused rob
and carry away thirty (30) cavans of clean palay belonging to Alfredo Roca. During Emilio Roca, 81 years old and husband of Febe Roca, testified on the civil aspect
the robbery, they fired their guns at Marjune Roca, Benita Avendaño Roca and Febe of the case. He stated that the family incurred expenses for the wake and funeral in
Roca and hurled a grenade against them leading to their deaths. They also fired upon the amount of ₱85,000. Likewise, the death of his wife, sister-in-law and grandson
Alfredo Roca with their firearms but survived due to his timely running for cover. caused him to suffer a fit of depression. He lived in fear and was forced to sell his
house.
Some of the aggravating circumstances alleged were: evident premeditation, with
treachery, disregard of the respect due the deceased Febe Roca and Benita VERSION OF THE DEFENSE
Avendaño Roca on account of their age and sex, and that the crime was committed
by a band. Appellant Ulep, a cogon-gatherer in the farm of Edgardo Areola, alleged that at
around 10:30 a.m. on March 20, 1987, he went to Areola’s farm to check whether the
All of the accused remain at large to this day except for appellant Felipe “Boy” Ulep palay crops had adequate water. The farm was located just beside Alfredo Roca’s.
who was arrested. Appellant pleaded not guilty during arraignment. When he saw that the crops were almost withered, appellant diverted the flow of
water from Alfredo’s farm to that of Areola’s. While he was beside the irrigation ditch,
VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION he noticed 10 male strangers in the vicinity of Alfredo’s hut. He saw Alfredo
attempting to throw a grenade at the other side of the canal but two women prevented
The prosecution presented Alfredo Roca, Virgilita Roca-Laureaga, Dr. Aurora Belsa him from doing so by embracing him. As a result of the struggle, Alfredo dropped the
and Emilio Roca as its witnesses. The prosecution anchored its case principally on grenade. Whereupon Alfredo immediately jumped into the irrigation canal to take
the testimony of Alfredo Roca who saw how appellant and his companions robbed cover. The grenade then exploded. He never saw his co-accused in the vicinity nor
them of 35 sacks of palay after killing his son Marjun Roca, his wife Benita Roca and did he hear any gunshots. After witnessing these events, appellant walked away and
his mother Febe Roca. continued irrigating Areola’s farm.

Alfredo Roca testified that between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. of March 20, 1987, he Federico Catalan, appellant’s neighbor and a barangay captain, testified that on
was in his farm when Alfredo noticed the arrival of an owner-type jeep which stopped that date and time, he was with appellant. At 1:00 p.m., they both went home to eat
at a spot not far from his hut. He recognized the occupants as accused Antos lunch and later returned to continue irrigating their farms up to 5:00 p.m. After work,
Dacanay, Edgardo "Liling" Areola, William Ancheta, Lito de la Cruz, Ely Calacala and they proceeded home to Villa Paraiso. He also testified that the wife of appellant was
appellant Felipe "Boy" Ulep who all alighted from the jeep. He saw Dacanay suddenly his niece. On cross-examination, he declared that he heard a gunshot at around 1:00
pull out a gun and shoot Marjun on the head. As he lay on the ground, Marjun was p.m.
again shot, this time by Areola and Ancheta. Thereafter, Ulep, de la Cruz and
Calacala started firing at Alfredo’s hut. Alfredo was not hit because he was able to get RTC: convicted the appellant Felipe "Boy" Ulep of the crime of robbery with homicide.
out of the hut and dive into the irrigation canal. However, Benita and Febe were fatally
hit by the initial volley of gunfire. Ancheta then hurled a grenade which exploded near APPELLANT: The trial court erred in admitting as evidence the testimonies of the
the hut. Then, the group load onto the trailer 35 sacks of palay, each containing an prosecution witnesses despite the failure of the prosecution to make a formal offer
average of 50 kilos valued at ₱4.50 per kilo. Alfredo owned the stolen palay. thereof in violation of Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court.
Appellant Ulep and his companions then boarded their jeep and left.
ISSUES & RULING:
1. Whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses should be given weight and considering that the latter was in a better position to resolve the matter, having heard
credence despite the failure of the prosecution to make a formal offer before the the witness and observed his deportment during trial, unless certain facts of value
witnesses testified. were plainly ignored, which if considered might affect the result of the case.

-YES. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses should be given weight and We find the trial court’s evaluation of the facts and its conclusions fully supported by
credence since the defense failed to make a timely objection when the prosecution the evidence. Alfredo and Virgilita were straightforward and categorical in their
failed to formally offer the questioned testimonies of witnesses. narration of how appellant and his cohorts killed Marjun, Febe and Benita, and
thereafter took 35 cavans of palay from their farm. Despite the grueling cross-
Under Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court: examination, they never wavered in their testimonies regarding the details of the
crime.
Sec. 34. Offer of Evidence ― The Court shall consider no evidence which
has not been formally offered. xxx. What made their testimonies even more credible was the fact that both Alfredo and
Virgilita had no ill-motive to testify against appellant and his co-accused. It has been
Corollarily, Section 35 of the same Rule 132 states that: our consistent ruling that a witness’ testimony deserves full faith and credit where
there exists no evidence to show any improper motive why he should testify falsely
Sec. 35. When to make offer. ― As regards the testimony of a witness, the against the accused, or why he should implicate the accused in a serious offense.
offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Further, the relationship of Alfredo and Virgilita to the victims all the more bolstered
their credibility as they naturally wanted the real culprits to be punished. It would be
This formal offer of testimonial evidence is necessary in order to enable the court to unnatural for the relatives of the victims in search of justice to impute the crime to
rule intelligently on any objections to the questions asked. As a general rule, the innocent persons and not those who were actually responsible therefor.
proponent must show its relevance, materiality and competence. Where the
proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible Appellant also points out the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of Alfredo and
for any reason, the latter has the right to object. But such right can be waived. Virgilita. Appellant cites the testimony of Virgilita that the assailants waited for about
Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest possible time lest silence, five minutes after they stopped firing at Marjun before they started shooting at her
when there is an opportunity to speak, operates as a waiver of the objection. father Alfredo. This, according to appellant, contradicted Alfredo’s testimony that the
perpetrators started firing at him immediately after Marjun was killed.
The records show that the prosecution failed to formally offer the questioned
testimonies of witnesses Alfredo Roca and Virgilita Roca-Laureaga. However, The alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of Alfredo and Virgilita referred only to
appellant waived this procedural error by failing to make a timely objection, i.e., when minor matters. There was no inconsistency as far as the principal occurrence and the
the ground for objection became reasonably apparent the moment said witnesses positive identification of the assailants were concerned. Both Alfredo and Virgilita
were called to testify without any prior offer having been made by the proponent. He positively identified appellant’s group as the persons who attacked and robbed them.
even impliedly acquiesced to the materiality, competence and relevance of the
prosecution witnesses’ testimonies by cross-examining them. Since appellant failed to Moreover, the testimonies of Alfredo and Virgilita were supported by the medical
raise before the trial court the issue of the prosecution’s failure to formally offer the findings of Dr. Belsa. The presence of gunshot wounds in the bodies of the victims
testimonies of its witnesses, an objection on this score raised for the first time on materially corroborated the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies that appellant and his
appeal will not be entertained. co-accused repeatedly fired their guns at their hapless victims.

2. Whether the guilt of appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant also interposes the defense of alibi. The time-tested rule is that alibi cannot
prevail over the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses, more so in this case
YES. where appellant failed to prove that he was at another place at the time of the
commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
Appellant assails the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Alfredo and Virgilita, for crime scene. Appellant’s claim that he was in Edgardo Areola’s farm from 10:30 a.m.
being unbelievable and contrary to human nature. According to appellant, the natural to 5:00 p.m. did not negate the possibility that he had gone to Alfredo’s farm between
tendency of a person being fired at is to take cover. Thus, it was inconceivable for 10:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to commit the crime, considering the fact that Areola’s farm
Alfredo to still attempt to take a look at his assailants as he was at risk of being shot was just beside Alfredo’s farm, the scene of the crime.
and killed. Besides, he could not have witnessed the killing of Marjun if he himself
was being attacked at the same time. It was, on the contrary, appellant’s alibi that was considerably weakened by the major
inconsistencies between his and Federico Catalan’s supposedly corroborating
It is apparent that appellant’s defense rests mainly on the credibility of the prosecution testimony. While appellant testified that he did not hear any gunshot the entire day on
witnesses. It is settled, however, that, when the issue of credibility of a witness is March 20, 1987, Catalan contradicted this by attesting that he heard a gunshot at
involved, the appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, about 1:00 p.m. Likewise, appellant claimed that after working in the farm, he
proceeded to the house of his in-laws in Bicos and only went home to Villa Paraiso treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely
the next day Catalan, on the other hand, stated that after work that same day, they increases the penalty for the crime conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal
went home to Villa Paraiso together. Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance.

Appellant also contends that the prosecution failed to prove the special complex In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
crime of robbery with homicide. He insists that there was no showing that the homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery.
perpetrators killed the victims in order to steal the palay.
The offense was also proven to have been executed by a band. A crime is committed
There is robbery with homicide when there is a direct relation or an intimate by a band when at least four armed malefactors act together in the commission
connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the killing takes place prior or thereof. In this case, all six accused were armed with guns which they used on their
subsequent to the robbery or whether both crimes are committed at the same time. victims. Clearly, all the armed assailants, including appellant, took direct part in the
execution of the robbery with homicide.
Based on the facts established, the Court is convinced that the prosecution
adequately proved the direct relation between the robbery and the killing. Immediately RE: DAMAGES
after shooting the victims, the assailants loaded the sacks of palay onto the trailer of
the jeep. As they did so, no conversation took place and there was no hesitation on we affirm the award of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity each for the death of Marjun, Febe
their part, indicating that they were proceeding from a common, preconceived plan. In and Benita Roca. In addition, moral damages must be granted in the amount of
fact, why would they bring a trailer if their only purpose was to massacre the Roca ₱50,000 for each of the deceased victims. The amount of ₱7,875 is also due to
family? The series of overt acts executed by appellant and his companions, in their Alfredo Roca as reparation for the 35 sacks of palay stolen from him, each valued at
totality, showed that their intention was not only to kill but to rob as well. The group ₱225. The heirs of the victims are likewise entitled to exemplary damages in the sum
tried to kill all the members of the Roca family to ensure lack of resistance to their of ₱20,000 for each of the three victims due to the aggravating circumstances that
plan to take Alfredo’s palay. Whenever homicide is perpetrated with the sole purpose attended the commission of the crime. However, the award of burial expenses cannot
of removing opposition to the robbery or suppressing evidence thereof, the crime be sustained because no receipts were presented to substantiate the same.
committed is robbery with homicide. Nonetheless, the victims’ heirs are entitled to the sum of ₱25,000 as temperate
damages in lieu of actual damages, pursuant to the case of People vs. Abrazaldo.
RE: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch
-only treachery and band were established 30, convicting appellant Felipe "Boy" Ulep of the crime of robbery with homicide and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED
There was treachery as the events narrated by the eyewitnesses pointed to the fact
that the victims could not have possibly been aware that they would be attacked by
appellant and his companions. There was no opportunity for the victims to defend
themselves as the assailants, suddenly and without provocation, almost
simultaneously fired their guns at them. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person
attacked.

We deem it necessary to reiterate the principle laid down by the Court en banc in the
case of People vs. Escote, Jr. on the issue of whether treachery may be appreciated
in robbery with homicide which is classified as a crime against property. This Court
held:

In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to

The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against
property or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because