Scribd
Upload
149 views

People of The Philippines vs. Arnel Balute Y Villanueva G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015 Perlas-Bernabe, J. Facts: Balute'S Defense

The Supreme Court affirmed Balute's conviction for robbery with homicide. It found that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that Balute took SPO1 Manaois' phone, shot and killed him during the commission of a robbery. Eyewitness testimony from the victim's wife and daughter identifying Balute as the assailant was deemed more credible than Balute's alibi. The Court also determined that a homicide is considered "on occasion of robbery" if committed to facilitate the crime or escape, preserve stolen goods, prevent crime discovery, or eliminate witnesses.

Uploaded by

Arnel Mangiliman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views

People of The Philippines vs. Arnel Balute Y Villanueva G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015 Perlas-Bernabe, J. Facts: Balute'S Defense

The Supreme Court affirmed Balute's conviction for robbery with homicide. It found that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that Balute took SPO1 Manaois' phone, shot and killed him during the commission of a robbery. Eyewitness testimony from the victim's wife and daughter identifying Balute as the assailant was deemed more credible than Balute's alibi. The Court also determined that a homicide is considered "on occasion of robbery" if committed to facilitate the crime or escape, preserve stolen goods, prevent crime discovery, or eliminate witnesses.

Uploaded by

Arnel Mangiliman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

ARNEL BALUTE Y BALUTE’S DEFENSE


VILLANUEVA  Denied having any
knowledge of the
G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015 charges against him.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. He maintained,  that
on March 22, 2002,
FACTS: he was at the shop of
a certain Leticia
 On November 22, 2002, an Information was filed before Nicol (Nicol)
the RTC charging Balute of the crime of Robbery with wherein he worked
Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294(1)4 of as a pedicab welder
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. from 8:00 o’clock in
the morning until
 According to the prosecution, at around 8 o’clock in the 10:00 o’clock in the
evening of March 22, 2002, SPO1 Raymundo B. Manaois evening, and did not
(SPO1 Manaois) was on board his owner-type jeepney notice any untoward
with his wife Cristita and daughter Blesilda, and was incident that day as
traversing Road 10, Tondo, Manila. he was busy working
the entire time.
 Nicol corroborated
 While the vehicle was on a stop position at a lighted area Balute’s story, and
due to heavy traffic, two (2) male persons, later on imputed liability on
identified as Balute and a certain Leo Blaster (Blaster), Blaster and a certain
suddenly appeared on either side of the jeepney, with Intoy
Balute poking a gun at the side of SPO1 Manaois and
saying “putangina, ilabas mo!”
RTC RULING:
 Thereafter, Balute grabbed SPO1 Manaois’s mobile phone  Found Balute GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
from the latter’s chest pocket and shot him at the left side DOUBT of the crime of Robbery with Homicide
of his torso. with the aggravating circumstance of treachery
 It found that the prosecution was able to establish the
 SPO1 Manaois reacted by drawing his own firearm and existence of all the elements of Robbery with Homicide,
alighting from his vehicle, but he was unable to fire at the as it proved that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois’s
assailants as he fell to the ground. He was taken to Mary side, took his mobile phone, and shot him, resulting in
Johnston Hospital where he died despite undergoing the latter’s death. In this relation, the RTC gave credence
surgical operation and medical intervention. to Cristita and Blesilda’s positive identification of Balute
as the assailant, as compared to the latter’s mere denial
and alibi.
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to
the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the
CA RULING:
taking of human life but the killing may occur
 AFFIRMED Balute’s conviction with modification before, during or after the robbery.”
 Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on
occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed: (a)
ISSUE: to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA CORRECTLY UPHELD culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
BALUTE’S CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate
witnesses in the commission of the crime.

SC RULING  The prosecution was able to establish the fact that Balute
 Finding accused-appellant Arnel Balutey Villanueva poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois, took the latter’s mobile
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubtof the crime of Robbery phone, and thereafter, shot him, resulting in his death
with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 despite surgical and medical intervention. This is
(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is buttressed by Cristita and Blesilda’s positive
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. identification of Balute as the one who committed the
crime as opposed to the latter’s denial and alibi which
was correctly considered by both the RTC and the CA as
 In People v. Ibañez, the Court exhaustively explained
weak and self-serving, as it is well-settled that “alibi and
that:
denial are outweighed by positive identification that is
“[a] special complex crime of robbery with
categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill motive on
homicide takes place when a homicide is
the part of the [eyewitnesses] testifying on the
committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of
matter.” This is especially true when the eyewitnesses are
the robbery.
the relatives of the victim – such as Cristita and Blesilda
To sustain a conviction for robbery with
who are the wife and daughter of SPO1 Manaois,
homicide, the prosecution must prove the
respectively – since “[t]he natural interest of witnesses,
following elements: (1) the taking of personal
who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction
property belonging to another; (2) with
of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating
intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence
persons other than the true culprits.”
or intimidation against a person; and (4)
on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in
its generic sense, was committed. A
conviction requires certitude that the robbery is
the main purpose, and [the] objective of the

You might also like