People vs. Gatarin and Quisayas

A conviction for robbery with homicide cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish the corpus delicti of robbery—the actual taking of personal property with intent to gain—as conclusively as any other element. Where the taking is not proved, the killing is classified as murder or homicide depending on the presence of qualifying circumstances. A victim’s spontaneous statement identifying the assailants, made shortly after a startling occurrence and before the declarant had time to contrive, is admissible as part of res gestae even if the requisites of a dying declaration are not satisfied.

On the evening of November 3, 2004, Januario Castillo was found lying on a street in Poblacion, Mabini, Batangas, with multiple stab wounds. Police officers on patrol had earlier encountered two men running at high speed and, after failing to catch them, discovered the wounded Castillo. He was rushed to the hospital but died from his injuries. The men seen running were later identified as Sonny Gatarin alias “Jay-R” and his uncle Eduardo Quisayas. Quisayas was arrested and charged with robbery with homicide; Gatarin remained at large. The Information alleged that the two, armed with a bladed weapon, conspired to take ₱20,000 from Castillo and, on the occasion of the robbery, stabbed him to death.

• Prosecution Evidence: On November 3, 2004, at about 8:00 p.m., eyewitness Howel Umali saw two persons mauling Januario Castillo opposite Dom’s Studio in Poblacion, Mabini, Batangas. Umali stayed near the church until the assailants ran away, pursued by policemen from a patrol vehicle.
• The Victim’s Statement to the Police: SPO3 Gregorio Mendoza and PO1 Rogelio Coronel, on routine patrol, met two men running at high speed. The men refused to answer why they were running, and the officers gave chase but failed to catch them. Shortly thereafter, the officers found Castillo lying on the street. They boarded him into the patrol vehicle and rushed him to Zigzag Hospital. Inside the vehicle, SPO3 Mendoza asked who hurt him; Castillo answered, “Jay-R and his uncle.” Jay-R was identified as Sonny Gatarin, the uncle as appellant Eduardo Quisayas. PO1 Coronel testified that the victim also said his wallet was taken, but on clarificatory questioning by the trial judge, he admitted that after asking who stabbed him and receiving the answer “Jay-R and his uncle,” no further question was asked.
• Medical Findings: Dr. Catalino Ike Rasa, Jr. attended to Castillo at Zigzag Hospital. The victim sustained three fatal stab wounds: one over the heart penetrating the heart chambers and aorta, one over the right anterior deltoid penetrating into the axilla and injuring blood vessels, and one over the right axilla penetrating the chest cavity. The immediate cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to multiple stab wounds.
• Testimony of Maria Castillo: The victim’s wife Maria testified that she was at home when policemen informed her of the stabbing. She learned from a niece that the perpetrators were Gatarin and Quisayas, and she claimed that ₱20,000—earnings from their grocery delivery business—had been taken. She was not at the scene and had no personal knowledge of the taking; no receipts, client testimony, or other evidence corroborated the presence or loss of the money.
• Defense Evidence: Appellant Quisayas denied the charge. He claimed to be a resident of Cupang, Muntinlupa City since 1987 and maintained he had never been to Mabini, Batangas. He asserted that on the date and time of the crime he was working in Muntinlupa City and did not know the victim. Rebuttal witness Bienvenido Caponpon testified that appellant was renting a house in Mabini, Batangas, and was seen there until the day of the crime.

• Lack of Robbery: Appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of robbery—the taking of personal property with intent to gain. He pointed out that the victim’s statement to the police identified only the assailants, not a robbery, and that Maria Castillo had no personal knowledge of the taking or the existence of the money.
• Alibi and Denial: Appellant argued that he was in Muntinlupa City at the time of the incident and had never been to Mabini; therefore, he could not have committed the crime. He claimed no relationship with the victim and asserted that his identification was mistaken.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People contended that Maria Castillo’s testimony regarding the stolen ₱20,000, combined with PO1 Coronel’s testimony that the victim stated his wallet was taken, sufficiently established the robbery.
• Admissibility of Victim’s Statement: The People argued that Januario Castillo’s statement to the police identifying his assailants was admissible either as a dying declaration or as part of res gestae.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: The People maintained that the attack was qualified by abuse of superior strength, given that appellant and his co-accused were two younger men armed with a bladed weapon who assaulted an older, unarmed victim.

• Proof of Robbery: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that robbery was committed, specifically the elements of taking of personal property and intent to gain.
• Admissibility of Victim’s Statement: Whether the victim’s statement to the police identifying his assailants was admissible as a dying declaration or as part of res gestae.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the killing was qualified to murder by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
• Proper Penalty and Damages: What crime was committed and the corresponding penalty and civil liability.

• Proof of Robbery: The corpus delicti of robbery was not established. Maria Castillo’s testimony revealed no personal knowledge of the taking; she was informed of the incident by the police and was not present at the scene. Although she claimed ₱20,000 was stolen, no receipts, business records, or client testimony were presented to prove that the victim actually had that amount in his possession at the time. PO1 Coronel’s initial statement that the victim mentioned his wallet was contradicted by his own clarificatory testimony that he asked no further question after learning the identities of the assailants. SPO3 Mendoza’s testimony referred only to the stabbing, not a robbery. Consequently, the element of taking of personal property with intent to gain was unproven. Without proof of robbery, the conviction for robbery with homicide could not be sustained, and the killing had to be classified as either homicide or murder.
• Admissibility of Victim’s Statement: The victim’s statement did not qualify as a dying declaration. The prosecution failed to show that Januario Castillo made the statement under a consciousness of impending death; no questions were asked to establish that he had abandoned all hope of survival. However, the statement was admissible as part of res gestae. It was a spontaneous reaction to the startling occurrence of the stabbing, made immediately after the attack while the victim was being transported to the hospital. There was no opportunity to contrive or fabricate, and the declaration was directly connected to the principal fact—the killing. Through this statement, corroborated by eyewitness Howel Umali’s testimony, the identity of the assailants was sufficiently established.
• Qualifying Circumstance: The killing was qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength. The Information alleged that appellant and his co-accused acted with abuse of superior strength. The evidence showed that the victim was 54 years old, while the assailants (aged 40 and younger) were both younger; they were two in number, armed with a bladed weapon, and attacked an unarmed victim who offered no defense. They inflicted three fatal stab wounds. This notorious inequality of strength—numerical, age-related, and armed versus unarmed—was deliberately taken advantage of to consummate the offense. Thus, the crime fell under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death.
• Proper Penalty and Damages: With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua. The civil liability was adjusted: civil indemnity of ₱50,000 and moral damages of ₱50,000 were awarded, as required by jurisprudence for murder. Exemplary damages of ₱30,000 were imposed in view of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Actual damages of ₱35,300, representing hospital and funeral expenses duly supported by receipts, were also granted. Interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum was imposed on all sums from the date of finality of the decision until full payment.

• Corpus Delicti in Robbery — The corpus delicti of robbery refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed and, specifically, requires proof of the actual taking of personal property with intent to gain. The existence of the property and the taking must be established by the prosecution as conclusively as any other essential element. Where the element of taking is not proved, a conviction for robbery with homicide cannot stand.
• Dying Declaration — A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule only when: (a) it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) it is made under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) it is offered in a case involving the declarant’s death. The crucial test is whether the declarant had abandoned all hope of survival and believed death to be imminent. The rapid succession of death in point of fact is not enough.
• Res Gestae — Res gestae refers to declarations that grow out of the main fact, are spontaneous and contemporaneous with the startling occurrence, and exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The test of admissibility is whether the statement is so interwoven with the principal event that it forms part of the transaction itself and clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. In this case, the victim’s identification of his assailants, made in the vehicle immediately after the stabbing and in answer to a police question, met the requisites and was admitted even though it did not qualify as a dying declaration.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — Abuse of superior strength is a qualifying circumstance for murder. It exists when there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, and the aggressor deliberately takes advantage of that superiority. It is present where two younger assailants, armed with a bladed weapon, attack an older, unarmed victim who is unable to defend himself, inflicting multiple mortal wounds.
• Proof of Intent in Robbery with Homicide — A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that robbery was the principal purpose and the killing was merely incidental. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, though the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. Mere speculation or probability cannot substitute for proof; the prosecution must establish the offender’s primary motive to rob.

• “In order for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist, it must be established that a robbery has actually taken place and that, as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, a homicide be committed.” — Establishes the foundational requirement that robbery must be independently proved.
• “Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing of Januario would be classified either as a simple homicide or murder, depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not the crime of robbery with homicide.” — Articulates the rule for reclassification when robbery is unproven.
• “The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending.” — Defines the critical test for admitting a dying declaration.
• “Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.” — The Court’s definition of res gestae, central to the admissibility of the victim’s statement.
• “It is not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient.” — Emphasizes the standard of proof for the intent element in robbery with homicide.

• People v. Algarme, G.R. No. 175978, February 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 601 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide and the requirement that the intent to rob be firmly established, as well as the standard of scrutiny in reclusion perpetua cases.
• People v. Latam, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 406 — Followed for the same elements of robbery with homicide.
• People v. Orias, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 417 — Applied for the principle that the robbery must be proven as conclusively as any element, and that where evidence does not prove robbery, the killing is classified as homicide or murder.
• People v. Rarugal, G.R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013, 688 SCRA 646 — Cited for the requisites of a dying declaration.
• People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501 — Relied upon for the definition and requisites of res gestae.
• People v. Calpito, 462 Phil. 172 (2003) — Referenced for the definition of abuse of superior strength.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The provision penalizes murder with reclusion perpetua to death and includes “taking advantage of superior strength” among the qualifying circumstances. The Court applied this article after finding that the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength and that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances existed, imposing the minimum penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred.