439 People v.

Carino
No. L-73876 (1988)
J. Paras / Tita K
Subject Matter: Rule 132, sec. 34 – Offer of Evidence
Summary:
Accused appellants were found guilty of the crime robbery with homicide. The accused-appellant Carino argued that conspiracy has
not been established because the trial court failed to consider the sworn statements of Jenny Arceo, Ricardo Sibay and victim
Melencio Talisic which contradicted the finding of conspiracy. WON the TC erred in finding conspiracy, the SC ruled in the negative.

Doctrines: Evidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the court. The defense did not formally offer in evidence such
sworn statements sworn of Jenny Arceo, Ricardo Sibay and victim Melencio Talisic which contradicted the finding of conspiracy. The
trial court only considered what was formally offered to it such as the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Parties:
Petitioner THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent LAURO CARIÑO y GUILLERMO, VIRGILIO DIAZ and JOHN DOE alias “BALINGIT” (At Large)
Evidence: Melncio’s (victim’s) testimony, eyewitness’ (Melencio’s wife’s) testimony, medico legal certificate, autopsy report,
toxicology report
Facts:
Cariño, Diaz and a certain Balingit who remains at large were charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide. They allegedly conspired in stabbing and hacking Lolito Talisic and Melencio Talisic with a kitchen knife and bolo.
Lolito died as a result while Melencio sustained serious injuries. At the same time, the accused conspired in stealing cash money
and used wrist watches.
According to the autopsy report, the cause of Lolito’s death was a stab wound on the chest. The toxicology report also yielded a
negative result re alcohol presence in Lolito’s blood. Meanwhile, a medical certificate was also issued certifying that Melencio
was treated for a lacerated wound and a stab wound.
Witnesses were also presented by both prosecution (i.e Melencio’s wife and Melencio himself testified in court) and defense
(not specified in the case).
Trial court finds both accused Cariño and, guilty of the crimes of robbery with homicide (killing) of Lolito Talisic and frustrated
homicide (frustrated killing of Melencio Talisic) and pursuant to Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced each of
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
Issue/s: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY IN KILLING LOLITO TALISIC AND WOUNDING
MELENCIO TALISIC AND ROBBERY. (NO)

Arguments:

It is the contention of accused-appellant Cariño that conspiracy has not been established because the trial court failed to consider
the sworn statements of Jenny Arceo, Ricardo Sibay and victim Melencio Talisic which contradicted the finding of conspiracy.

Ratio:

NO – Trial court did not err in finding that there was conspiracy.

 A perusal of the entire records of the case shows that the defense did not formally offer in evidence such sworn
statements and evidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the court. The trial court only considered what
was formally offered to it. From the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, the trial court established that the three
accused acted in concert and with a common design and purpose as shown by their simultaneous arrival at the scene of the
crime, mutually helping one another in the killing of Lolito Talisic and in the stabbing of Melencio Talisic and in the robbing
of the store and by their simultaneous flight from the scene of the crime.

Wherefore, premises considered the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the civil liability for the
death of the victim Lolito Talisic which should be increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).

Notes:
Appellant Lauro Cariño also averred that the trial court committed grave error in not giving weight to the statement of co-accused
Diaz confirming the absence of the accused Cariño at the time when the incident started.

 A cursory reading of the testimony reveals that Diaz did not actually and categorically state that Lauro Cariño was not at the
scene of the crime. Witness was merely silent on this point. Such silence did not negate Cariño’s presence at the scene of
the crime especially when the latter was positively identified as the malefactor by prosecution witness and the victim
himself, Melencio Talisic.

Appellant Virgilio Diaz contends that the lower court’s findings of facts are so riddled with inconsistencies that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 The inconsistencies pointed out, such as who stabbed whom first and the sequence of events narrated by them, are
matters which are trivial and need not impair the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses especially when such
testimonies were corroborated on material points in establishing that a crime was committed by the appellants.

Finally, appellant contends that the lower court erred in holding that the offense committed by them was the special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.

 The crime designated as Robbery with Homicide is defined under Art. 294 par. (1) of the Revised Penal Code. In order to
sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively
as any other essential element of a crime (People vs. Pacala) and that the homicide shall have been committed by reason or
on occasion of the robbery. There is robbery with homicide when there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between
the robbery and the killing, whether the killing be prior or subsequent to the robbery or whether both crimes be committed
at the same time (People vs. Hernandez).
o In the case at bar, the series of overt acts executed by the accused, in their totality, show that the intent of the
accused was not only vengeance but also robbery. After failing to get credit from Lolito Talisic, whom they stabbed
out of anger, they turned their ire on Melencio Talisic whom they had no grievance against.
o Melencio had already retreated into the store when the second set of injuries (back wounds) he sustained were
inflicted by appellant Virgilio Diaz. The accused could have, if their sole intent was to appease their grievance
against Lolito, escaped after fatally stabbing the latter and wounding Melencio outside the store.