People v. De Jesus
GR No. 134815
May 27, 2004
Facts:
SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco was a policeman who worked for a money changer after his tour of duty. He delivered money for his employer every afternoon and uses a bicycle for the job. Sometime in February 1994, Dante Manansala, Eduardo de Jesus, and Crispin Del Rosario agreed to stage a robbery on March 7, 1994. Their financier was Christopher Nash, a British national.
They performed the robbery using a car owned by Nash. They confronted Ybasco and told him that he had a warrant of arrest. They grabbed Ybasco, handcuffed him, and dragged him to the car. Roberto Acosta, a roving security guard, saw the incident and pulled out his gun. As Del Rosario managed to wrest possession of the gun from Acosta, Manansala ordered Del Rosario to shoot, and the latter obeyed. Acosta expired.
The accused drove to Cabuyao, Laguna. They took the plastic bag containing the money, but instead of the $250,000 they expected, it contained only Php5,000. They then transported Ybasco to a sugar farm and told him he would be freed. Believeing that Ybasco would be freed, Del Rosario took Php80 from Ybasco’s wallet but returned Php50 for the latter’s fare. However, De Jesus suddenly shot Ybasco on the head.
De Jesus denied involvement in the robbery because he said he was not in the area as he was working as a tricycle driver at that time. The only reason why he was indicted was because Del Rosario, who was his brother-in-law, had held grudges against him. De Jesus said he only fled when he found out that there was a warrant of arrest against him because he was told that the other accused were physically tortured by the police.
The event was witnessed by Yolanda Dela Rapa, who knew the victim Ybasco because she sold cigarettes to him regularly.
Issue:
Is De Jesus guilty of robbery with homicide?
Ruling:
Yes. His alibi are intrinsically weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward identification made by Del Rosario. Alibi is easy to concoct and hard to disprove. His flight from justice works against him. According to the Supreme Court, flight is an indication of guilt. His reason that he feared for his life has no basis.
The Supreme Court also discussed the nature of robbery with homicide. In such crime, the original design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.
It's a Ping Thing 