111. PEOPLE VS.

TORRES 689
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 689
G.R. No. 189850. September 22, 2014.* People vs. Torres
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,  vs. REYNALDO TORRES, JAY are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or
TORRES, BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES y  NAVA and RONNIE total recall.”
TORRES, accused, Criminal Law; Corpus Delicti; Words and Phrases; Corpus delicti refers to the
BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES y  NAVA, accused-appellant. fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; When an accused appeals from —‘“[C]orpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the
the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom
jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered’
is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether or, in this case, [the weapons used in the commission of robbery with homicide].
favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.—“An appeal in [a] criminal case opens the ‘Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, this Court has
entire case for review on any question including one not raised ruled that even a single witness’ uncorroborated testimony, if credible may suffice to
_______________ prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be established by
*  SECOND DIVISION. circumstantial evidence.’”
688 Same; Alibi; It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was
People vs. Torres physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime
by the parties.” “[W]hen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, was committed.—Appellant’s alibi is unworthy of credence. Appellant himself testified
he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole that Villaruel is less than two kilometers away from Divisoria and that it would only
case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render take a few minutes to go to Divisoria from Villaruel. Clearly, it was not impossible for
such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant to be physically present at the crime scene during its commission.
appellant.” In other words, when appellant appealed the RTC’s judgment of conviction “For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not
for murder, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was
double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him
may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not have been placed to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed.”
twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him guilty of Same; Same; Denials; Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must
robbery with homicide as charged in the Information instead of murder. be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the
Criminal Law; Robbery With Homicide; Robbery with homicide exists when a identity of the accused.—We have always ruled that alibi and denial are inherently
homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery.—“Robbery weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and
with homicide exists ‘when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, positively ascertained the identity of the accused. Moreover, it is only axiomatic that
of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.
must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to 690
another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, People vs. Torres
as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Abuse of Superior Strength; There is abuse
robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely of superior strength when the offenders took advantage of their combined strength in
incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but order to consummate the offense.—There is abuse of superior strength when the
the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.’” offenders took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the offense.” Here, appellant and his four companions not only took advantage of their
witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed.—The inconsistencies numerical superiority, they were also armed with knives. Espino, on the other hand,
attributed to the prosecution’s eyewitnesses involve minor details, too trivial to was unarmed and defenseless. While Ronnie was wrestling with Espino, appellant
adversely affect their credibility. Said inconsistencies do not depart from the fact that and his co-accused simultaneously assaulted the latter. The unidentified companion
these eyewitnesses saw the robbery and the fatal stabbing of Espino by appellant locked his arm around the neck of Espino while appellant and his co-accused stabbed
and his cohorts. “[T]o the extent that inconsistencies were in fact shown, they appear and hacked him several times. While Espino was lying defenseless on the ground,
to the Court to relate to details of peripheral significance which do not negate or they divested him of all his valuables. Thereafter, they immediately fled the scene of
dissolve the positive identification by [Umali and Macapar of appellant] as the the crime. It is clear that they executed the criminal act by employing physical
perpetrator of the crime.” “Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are superiority over Espino.
telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses

Page 1 of 7
 Same; Same; Same; Generic Aggravating Circumstances; Penalties; Death 1  CA Rollo, pp. 145-156; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and
Penalty; The generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this
attending the killing of the victim qualifies the imposition of the death penalty on Court) and Antonio L. Villamor.
appellant. In view, however, of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, entitled “An Act 2  Records, pp. 256-262; penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.
Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines,” the penalty that 692
must be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.—The 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
presence of abuse of superior strength should not result in qualifying the offense to People vs. Torres
murder. When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of No. 02-200171. The RTC found appellant Bobby Torres @ Roberto Torres y  Nava
robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance, robbery with (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder but on appeal, the
homicide being a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the CA found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Revised Penal Code. With the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death imposed for  
committing robbery with homicide, “[t]he generic aggravating circumstance of [abuse Factual Antecedents
of superior strength] attending the killing of the victim qualifies the imposition of the On January 28, 2004, an Amended Information3 was filed before the RTC,
death penalty on [appellant].” In view, however, of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An charging siblings Reynaldo Torres (Reynaldo), Jay Torres (Jay), Ronnie Torres
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines,” the penalty that (Ronnie) and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
must be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. committed against Jaime M. Espino (Espino). The Amended Information contained
Same; Robbery With Homicide; Civil Indemnity; Moral Damages; In robbery the following accusatory allegations:
with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically without That on or about September 21, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
need of allegation and evidence accused, armed with bladed weapons, conspiring and confederating together with
691 one malefactor whose true name, real identity and present whereabouts [is] still
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 691 unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
People vs. Torres feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, to
other than the death of the victim owing to the commission of the crime.—In wit: while one JAIME M. ESPINO was onboard his car and travelling along C.M.
robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically Recto Avenue corner Ylaya St., Tondo, this City, by blocking his path and forcibly
without need of allegation and evidence other than the death of the victim owing to grabbing from the latter his belt bag; that on the occasion of the said robbery and by
the commission of the crime. Here, the RTC and CA granted civil indemnity and moral reason thereof, the herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and
damages to Espino’s heirs in the amount of P50,000.00 each. These courts were there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault, use
correct in granting the awards, but the awards should have been P100,000.00 each. personal violence and abuse of superior strength upon the said JAIME M. ESPINO
Recent jurisprudence declares that when the imposable penalty is death, the awards and that when the latter resisted, by then and there stabbing the latter with bladed
of civil indemnity and moral damages shall be P100,000.00 each. weapons on x x x different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple
Same; Damages; Exemplary Damages; The existence of one aggravating stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, and
circumstance also merits the grant of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the afterwhich, divest, take, rob and carry away a belt bag, wallet, neck-
New Civil Code.—The existence of one aggravating circumstance also merits the _______________
grant of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. Pursuant to 3  Id., at pp. 55-56.
prevailing jurisprudence, we likewise award P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to 693
the victim’s heirs. An interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all awards of VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 693
damages from the finality of this judgment until fully paid should likewise be granted People vs. Torres
to the heirs of Espino. lace, watch and ring of undetermined amount, belonging to said JAIME M. ESPINO.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. Contrary to law.4
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Only appellant was arrested. Reynaldo, Jay and Ronnie remain at-large to date.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of “not guilty.” 5 After the termination of
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant. the pre-trial conference, trial ensued.6
DEL CASTILLO, J.:  
This is an appeal from the July 23, 2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Version of the Prosecution
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02925, which modified the December 5, 2006 Decision 2 of the The prosecution presented as eyewitnesses Eduardo Umali (Umali), a butcher,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 27 in Criminal Case and Merlito Macapar (Macapar), a cigarette vendor. Also presented were Dr. Romeo
_______________ T. Salen (Dr. Salen), who testified on the cause of death of Espino. From their
testimonies,7 the following facts emerged:

Page 2 of 7
 At around 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001, Espino was driving his car along From the testimony of another defense witness, Jorna Yabut-Torres (Jorna), wife
C.M. Recto Avenue in Divisoria, Manila when Ronnie suddenly blocked his path. of Ronnie, the defense’s version of the incident emerged as follows:
Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his belt- In the evening of September 21, 2001, Jorna and Ronnie were sharing jokes with
bag. Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt bag but other vendors in Divisoria when a car stopped a few meters from their stall. The driver
the latter’s brothers, Jay, Rey, appellant, and an unidentified companion suddenly alighted and asked why they were laughing. Ronnie replied that it had nothing to do
appeared. With all of them brandishing bladed weapons, appellant and his brothers with him. The driver seemed drunk since he walked back to his vehicle in an unsteady
took turns in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified manner. Moments later, the driver returned and stabbed Ronnie on the wrist with a
companion held him by the neck. When Espino was already sprawled on the ground, knife. Jay saw the assault on his brother, Ronnie, and got a bolo which he used to
they took his belt-bag, wallet and jewelries and immediately fled. hack the driver repeatedly. Thereafter, Ronnie and Jay fled.12
_______________ Ditas Biescas-Mangilya, a vegetable vendor in Divisoria, corroborated Jorna’s
4  Id., at p. 55. version of the incident in her testimony.13
5  Id., at p. 64.  
6  Id., at p. 71. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
7  TSN, September 15, 2004, pp. 2-29; TSN, May 4, 2005, pp. 2-20; TSN, In its December 5, 2006 Decision,14 the RTC held that appellant could not have
December 7, 2004, pp. 3-15; TSN, March 29, 2005, pp. 2-5. committed robbery. It ratiocinated, viz.:
694 Prosecution witness Merlito D. Macapar testified that Ronnie took the belt bag of
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the deceased while Bobby and the rest took his wristwatch, ring and necklace.
People vs. Torres However, on cross-examination, witness admitted that he did not see who took the
Espino was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. In his ring, wristwatch and necklace because as soon as the deceased fell on the ground,
Medico-Legal Report No. W-658-2001,8 Dr. Salen concluded that Espino died of accused and companions surrounded him. Merlito’s testimony was contradicted by
multiple stab wounds caused by sharp bladed instruments. The back portion of his Eduardo Umali on a vital point. Thus, Merlito testified that there was an exchange of
head bore two stab wounds while his body suffered four stab wounds which proved heated words. There was no intimation whatsoever what the altercation was about.
fatal. Considering the number and varying measurements of the wounds, Dr. Salen He was ten meters away. No such altercation, however, took place ac-
opined that there were more than one assailant. _______________
To prove the civil aspect of the case, Espino’s daughter, Winnie Espino-Fajardo 12  TSN, June 13, 2006, pp. 2-51.
(Winnie) testified that the pieces of jewelry stolen from her father consisted of a 13  TSN, August 29, 2006, pp. 3-25.
necklace worth P35,000.00, bracelet worth P15,000.00, wristwatch worth P10,000.00 14  Records, pp. 256-262.
and two rings worth P10,000.00 each. As for their expenses, Winnie said that 696
P25,000.00 was spent for the burial lot and P37,000.00 for the funeral services. She 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stated further that Espino was 51 years old at the time of his death and was earning People vs. Torres
P3,000.00 a day as a meat vendor.9 cording to Eduardo who was barely five meters away. This tainted the testimony of
  Merlito and Eduardo with suspicion. When material witnesses contradict themselves
Version of the Defense on vital points, the element of doubt is injected and cannot be lightly disregarded.
Appellant denied any participation in the crime. He testified that at around 10:00 That was not all though. Merlito testified [that] several people witnessed the incident.
p.m. of September 21, 2001, he was with his girlfriend, Merlita Hilario (Merlita). They The stall of the victim’s daughter was about ten meters from the crime scene, which
proceeded to the house of their friend, Marilou Garcia (Marilou), in Villaruel, was a few meters from the stall of Ronnie. They both had been in their respective
Tayuman, Manila where they had a drinking session which lasted until they fell stalls for quite sometime. The principal prosecution witnesses are familiar with the
asleep. They did not leave their friend’s house until the following morning when they deceased and the accused except for the unidentified companion as they often see
went home. Thereupon, he was told that policemen were looking for him because his them at the vicinity. Thus, in all likelihood, accused and the victim are familiar if not
brothers got involved in an altercation that resulted in the death of someone. 10 Merlita know each other very well. The perpetration of robbery at the place was thus unlikely.
and Marilou corroborated appellant’s alibi in their respective testimonies.11 Even granting that the element of taking is present, still, accused cannot be held
_______________ liable for the complex crime of robbery with homicide for the reason that it was not
8   Records, p. 126. indubitably shown that the main purpose of the accused was to rob the victim. To the
9   TSN, December 6, 2005, pp. 2-12. mind of the Court, this is precisely the reason why the prosecution skipped the
10  TSN, May 30, 2006, pp. 3-18. utterances made by the protagonist[s] during the attack. To sustain a [conviction] for
11  TSN, September 5, 2006, pp. 4-15 and TSN, June 21, 2006, pp. 3-16. the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
695 culprit must be robbery and the homicide is perpetrated with a view to the
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 695 consummation of the robbery, or by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
People vs. Torres (People v. Ponciano, 204 SCRA 627.)

Page 3 of 7
 x x x x WHEREFORE, in view of foregoing, the appealed decision of the RTC Manila,
The crime of robbery not having been indubitably established, the accused cannot Branch 27 dated December 5, 2006 is hereby MODIFIED in that appellant is found
be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.15 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE and he
15  Id., at p. 260. is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court’s
The RTC thus concluded that appellant can only be liable for the killing of Espino. award to the heirs of the victim, Jaime Espino, of civil indemnity in the amount of
It held him guilty of murder after it found the qualifying circumstance of abuse of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and actual damages in the
superior amount of P62,000.00 as well as its order to appellant to pay the costs of suit, are
697 hereby AFFIRMED.
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 697 SO ORDERED.21
People vs. Torres Hence, this present appeal.
strength, which was alleged in the Information and duly established by the Assignment of Errors
prosecution. Moreover, the RTC ruled that conspiracy among the accused attended Appellant imputes upon the CA the following errors in his Supplemental Brief.22
the crime. The acquittal of the accused-appellant in the robbery charge should be left
Anent the civil aspect of the case, the RTC granted civil indemnity, actual and undisturbed as being final and executory which cannot be overturned without violating
moral damages to the heirs of Espino, but denied the claim for loss of earning the proscription against double jeopardy.23
capacity for lack of documentary evidence. _______________
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads: 20  CA Rollo, pp. 145-156.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds accused 21  Id., at p. 155.
Bobby Torres y Nava, “Guilty” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as the 22  Rollo, pp. 68-82.
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the 23  Id., at p. 69.
crime and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to 699
indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00, the additional sum of VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 699
P50,000.00 as moral damages, actual damages in the amount of P62,000.00 and to People vs. Torres
pay the costs. The appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it reviewed the entire case
Let alias warrant of arrest issue against accused Reynaldo Torres, Jay Torres despite the fact that the accused-appellant only appealed his conviction for murder.24
and Ronnie Torres. It was an error to convict the accused-appellant of the crimes charged considering
 SO ORDERED.16 that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.25
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 which was denied in an Our Ruling
Order18 dated April 10, 2007. The appeal is unmeritorious.
Hence, appellant appealed to the CA.19 In an appeal by an accused, he waives his
  right not to be subject to double jeopardy.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals  Appellant maintains that the CA erred in finding him liable for robbery with
In modifying the ruling of the RTC, i.e., finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the Amended Information. He argues that his appeal to the
homicide instead of murder, the CA CA was limited to his conviction for murder and excluded his acquittal for robbery.
_______________ And by appealing his conviction for murder, he does not waive his constitutional right
16  Id., at p. 262. not to be subject to double jeopardy for the crime of robbery. He claims that even
17  Id., at pp. 264-272. assuming that the RTC erred in acquitting him of the robbery charge, such error can
18  Id., at pp. 281-282. no longer be questioned on appeal.
19  See Notice of Appeal, id., at p. 290 and the RTC Order of July 30, 2007 which We cannot give credence to appellant’s contentions. “An appeal in [a] criminal
gave due course to the said notice of appeal, id., at case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the
p. 291. parties.”26 “[W]hen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives
698 the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such
People vs. Torres judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or
found that the primary intention of appellant and his co-accused was to rob Espino _______________
and his killing was only incidental to the robbery. The blocking of Espino’s car and the 24  Id., at p. 72.
struggle for possession of his belt bag after he alighted are clear manifestations of the 25  Id., at p. 75.
intent to commit robbery. The dispositive portion of the July 23, 2009 Decision20 of the 26  People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761,
CA reads as follows: 774.

Page 4 of 7
700 Appellant attempts to discredit Umali and Macapar by asserting that there are
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED glaring contradictions in their testimonies. He calls attention to the RTC’s observation
People vs. Torres that Macapar gave conflicting testimonies on whether he actually witnessed who
unfavorable to the appellant.”27 In other words, when appellant appealed the RTC’s among appellant and his cohorts took Espino’s valuables after he fell to the ground.
judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to Appellant asserts further that Umali’s testimony that an altercation did not precede the
invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate commission of the crime contradicts the testimony of Macapar that a heated
court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant exchange of words occurred prior to the incident. He also claims that it is contrary to
could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the human nature for Espino to alight from his car at 10:00 p.m. while in possession of a
RTC by finding him guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information large amount of money without fear of an impending hold-up.
instead of murder. _______________
Appellant is guilty of the crime 29  TSN, September 15, 2004, pp. 4-6; TSN, May 4, 2005, pp. 3-7.
of robbery with homicide. 702
 “Robbery with homicide exists ‘when a homicide is committed either by reason, 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the People vs. Torres
prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property We are not persuaded. The inconsistencies attributed to the prosecution’s
belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation eyewitnesses involve minor details, too trivial to adversely affect their credibility. Said
against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of inconsistencies do not depart from the fact that these eyewitnesses saw the robbery
homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires and the fatal stabbing of Espino by appellant and his cohorts. “[T]o the extent that
certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the inconsistencies were in fact shown, they appear to the Court to relate to details of
killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of peripheral significance which do not negate or dissolve the positive identification by
human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.’”28 [Umali and Macapar of appellant] as the perpetrator of the crime.” 30 “Inaccuracies
In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been
primary intention of appellant and his companions was to rob Espino. Umali and rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident
Macapar, the eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution, testified that at around with perfect or total recall.”31
10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001, appellant’s brother and co-accused, Ronnie,  
blocked Espino’s car at the corner of C.M. Recto Avenue and Ylaya Street. When Moreover, it is unlikely that Espino feared alighting from his vehicle at a late hour
Espino alighted while in possession of a huge amount of money since he was a vendor doing
_______________ business in the vicinity where the incident occurred. He was familiar with the people
27  Id., at p. 775. and their activities in the premises.
28  Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 590, In view of the above, the Court finds that the CA properly lent full credence to the
598. testimonies of Umali and Macapar.
701 The weapons are not the corpus delicti.
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 701  Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient for his conviction since the
People vs. Torres weapons used in the stabbing of Espino were not presented. In other words, he
from his vehicle, Ronnie attempted to grab his belt bag. A struggle for possession of asserts that it was improper to convict him because the corpus delicti had not been
the belt bag ensued. It was at this juncture that appellant and the other co-accused established.
joined the fray and stabbed Espino several times in the head and body. When Espino We disagree. ‘“[C]orpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime
fell to the pavement from his stab wounds, appellant, Ronnie and their cohorts got charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer
hold of the victim’s wallet, belt bag, wristwatch and jewelry then fled together.29 to the ransom
From the foregoing, it is clear that the primordial intention of appellant and his _______________
companions was to rob Espino. Had they primarily intended to kill Espino, they would 30  People v. Daen, Jr., 314 Phil. 280, 292; 244 SCRA 382, 390 (1995).
have immediately stabbed him to death. However, the fact that Ronnie initially 31  People v. Alas, G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 310, 320.
wrestled with appellant for possession of the belt bag clearly shows that the central 703
aim was to commit robbery against Espino. This intention was confirmed by the VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 703
accused’s taking of Espino’s belt bag, wallet, wrist-watch and jewelries after he was People vs. Torres
stabbed to death. The killing was therefore merely incidental, resulting by reason or money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered’
on occasion of the robbery. or, in this case, [the weapons used in the commission of robbery with homicide].
The testimonies of the prosecution ‘Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, this Court has
eyewitnesses are worthy of credence. ruled that even a single witness’ uncorroborated testimony, if credible may suffice to

Page 5 of 7
prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be established by 34  People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 689, 706-
circumstantial evidence.’”32 707.
In this case, the corpus delicti was established by the evidence on record. The 35  People v. Sumalinog, Jr., 466 Phil. 637, 650; 422 SCRA 55, 63 (2004).
prosecution eyewitnesses testified that appellant and his cohorts used knives to 36  Id., at p. 651; p. 63.
perpetrate the crime. Their testimonies on the existence and use of weapons in 37  People v. Ebet, supra, at p. 707.
committing the offense was supported by the medical findings of Dr. Salen who 705
conducted the post-mortem examination. Dr. Salen found that Espino sustained VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 705
several stab wounds with varying measurements which were caused by sharp bladed People vs. Torres
instruments. Appellant is therefore mistaken in arguing that the failure to present the inflicted on the victim is not the criterion for the appreciation of this circumstance.
weapons used in killing Espino was fatal to the cause of the prosecution. “There is abuse of superior strength when the offenders took advantage of their
The defenses of denial and  alibi combined strength in order to consummate the offense.” 38 Here, appellant and his
cannot prosper. four companions not only took advantage of their numerical superiority, they were
We are in complete agreement with the RTC and the CA in finding lack of merit in also armed with knives. Espino, on the other hand, was unarmed and defenseless.
appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi. While Ronnie was wrestling with Espino, appellant and his co-accused
Appellant claims that he was in a drinking session in his friend’s house in simultaneously assaulted the latter. The unidentified companion locked his arm
Villaruel, Tayuman, Manila, from 10:00 p.m. of September 21, 2001 until 1:00 a.m. of around the neck of Espino while appellant and his co-accused stabbed and hacked
the following day. He alleges to have slept at the place and went home at around 7:00 him several times. While Espino was lying defenseless on the ground, they divested
a.m. of September 22, 2001. According to appellant, he did not depart from his him of all his valuables. Thereafter, they immediately fled the scene of the crime.39 It
friend’s house from the time they started drinking until he went home the following is clear that they executed the criminal act by employing physical superiority over
morning. Espino.
_______________  
32  Villarin v. People, G.R. No. 175289, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 500, 520- The Proper Penalty
521. Nonetheless, the presence of abuse of superior strength should not result in
704 qualifying the offense to murder. When abuse of superior strength obtains in the
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic
People vs. Torres circumstance, robbery with homicide being a composite crime with its own definition
Appellant’s alibi is unworthy of credence. Appellant himself testified that Villaruel and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. With the penalty of reclusion
is less than two kilometers away from Divisoria and that it would only take a few perpetua to death imposed for committing robbery with homicide,40 “[t]he generic
minutes to go to Divisoria from Villaruel. 33 Clearly, it was not impossible for appellant aggravating circumstance of [abuse of superior strength] attending the killing of the
to be physically present at the crime scene during its commission. “For alibi to victim qualifies the imposition of the death penalty on [appellant].”41 In view,
prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to _______________
prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it 38  People v. Lacbayan, 393 Phil. 800, 808; 339 SCRA 396, 402 (2000).
must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at 39  Id.
the crime scene at the time the crime was committed.”34 40  Revised Penal Code, Article 294, paragraph 1.
The fact that appellant presented witnesses to corroborate his alibi deserves 41  People v. Villanueva, Jr., 611 Phil. 152, 178; 593 SCRA 523, 547 (2009).
scant consideration. Their testimonies are viewed with skepticism due to the very 706
nature of alibi the witnesses affirm.35 Appellant can easily fabricate an alibi and ask 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
relatives and friends to corroborate it.36 People vs. Torres
We have always ruled that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and however, of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the
must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively Death Penalty in the Philippines,” the penalty that must be imposed on appellant
ascertained the identity of the accused. Moreover, it is only axiomatic that positive is reclusion perpetua  without eligibility for parole.42
testimony prevails over negative testimony.37  
The evidence was sufficient to establish The Civil Liabilities
the presence of abuse of superior strength. In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded
Appellant argues that mere superiority in numbers does not indicate the presence automatically without need of allegation and evidence other than the death of the
of abuse of superior strength. In the same manner, appellant claims that the number victim owing to the commission of the crime.43 Here, the RTC and CA granted civil
of wounds indemnity and moral damages to Espino’s heirs in the amount of P50,000.00 each.
_______________ These courts were correct in granting the awards, but the awards should have been
33  TSN, May 30, 2006, p. 14. P100,000.00 each. Recent jurisprudence44 declares that when the imposable penalty

Page 6 of 7
is death, the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages shall be P100,000.00 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
each. People vs. Torres
In granting compensatory damages, the prosecution must “prove the actual Judgment affirmed with modifications.
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof Notes.—There is robbery with homicide when a homicide is committed either by
and the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.” 45 ‘“Receipts should support reason, or on occasion, of the robbery — conviction requires certitude that the
claims of actual damages.’ Thus, as correctly held by the [RTC] and affirmed by the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely
CA, the amount of [P62,000.00] incurred as funeral expenses can be sustained since incidental to the robbery. (People vs. Latam, 646 SCRA  406 [2011])
these are expenditures supported by receipts.”46 Abuse of superior strength is present if the accused purposely uses excessive
The existence of one aggravating circumstance also merits the grant of force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked, or if
exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. Pursuant to prevailing there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter
jurisprudence, we likewise award P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to the takes advantage of superior strength. (People vs. Del Castillo, 663 SCRA 226 [2012])
_______________ ——o0o——
42  Id. © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
43  Supra note 28 at p. 603.
44  People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508.
45  Supra note 28 at p. 604.
46  Id.
707
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 707
People vs. Torres
victim’s heirs.47 An interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all awards of
damages from the finality of this judgment until fully paid should likewise be granted
to the heirs of Espino.48
Lastly, the RTC did not err in refusing to award indemnity for loss of earning
capacity of Espino despite the testimony of his daughter that he earned P3,000.00 a
day as a meat dealer. “Such indemnity is not awarded in the absence of documentary
evidence except where the victim was either self-employed or was a daily wage
worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. Since it was
neither alleged nor proved that the victim was either self-employed or was a daily
wage earner, indemnity for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded to the heirs of
the victim.”49
WHEREFORE, the July 23, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 02925 that affirmed with modifications the December 5, 2006 Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 02-200171
is AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Bobby Torres @ Roberto
Torres y  Nava is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Jaime M. Espino,
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages. The interest rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages
awarded from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio**  (Acting CJ., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,***  Brion and Leonen, JJ.,
concur.
_______________
47  Supra note 44.
48  People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 280, 296.
49  People v. Obligado, 603 Phil. 371, 376; 585 SCRA 380, 385-386 (2009).
* * Per Special Order No. 1778 dated September 16, 2014.
* ** Designated acting member per Raffle dated September 8, 2014.
708

Page 7 of 7