PEOPLE VS PULUSAN

FACTS:

-4 men held a robbery of a passenger jeepney along the Bulacan-Pampanga highway, divesting all
passengers of their valuables. 4 of the jeepney’s passengers were killed by the robbers and the only
female passenger raped repeatedly.

-The appellants were charged with the crime of highway robbery attended with multiple
homicide and multiple rape for robbing a passenger jeepney on January 20, 1986, killing four of
the passengers therein and raping the only female passenger repeatedly
-herein appellants pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

-After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision finding Pulusan and Rodriguez guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced each of them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

- In their appeal before the Court, appellants contend that the court a quo erred in giving
credence and credibility to the evidence and testimonies presented by the prosecution.

IMPORTANT POINTS:
Appelants Defense Alibis:
Rodriguez
=testified that he was a nephew of co accused Pulusan, denied the knowledge of the crime charged
against him, He asserts he has not committed any crime and in fact was able to get an NBI
clearance as a requirement for his work as a driver in Iraq
=” Kabo ng Jueteng” guy, he would collect bets 3 times a day, the last jueteng draw being at 9:30
in the evening, be home in 11:30 and 12 midnight as on the night of Jan. 20,1986
=Presented on the court to corroborate his alibi fellow “kabo” Oscar Nocum, jueteng collector
named Sara Lee and a jueteng bettor Marilou Garcia
*Oscar Nocum* Rodriguez was with him from about 9:30 in the evening on Jan. 20, 1986, which was
the time of the last Jueteng draw until midnight
*Sara Lee*lived 9 houses from Rodriguez, testified that on the night of Jan. 20, 1986, she saw
appellant Rodriguez then came back to her house bet. 10:30 and 11 bec. She invited him to her
Bday’s daughter celebration and because they expected to hear him the results of the jueteng
draw
*Marilou Garcia*, lived 6 houses away, she placed a bet with Rodriguez at his house at around 8
oclock to 8:4 in the evening at around 10:30 to eleven oclock when he passed by Garcia’s house
where a bingo game was in progress

WHEN ARRESTED AT HIS HOUSE, RODRIGUEZ WAS WITH HIS 2 CHILDREN UNCLE EDUARDO PULUSAN
AND JUETENG COLLECTOR, ONE OF WHICH IS ROLANDO TAYAG, ONE OF THOSE CHARGED WITH
PULUSAN AND RODRIGUEZ’S HOUSE TO INVITE THE LATTER TO THEIR TOWN FIESTA
APPELANT EDUARDO PULUSAN
=on Jan. 20,1986, he was repairing his house in preparation for the coming fiesta, helper was
“tony”, following day he stayed at home to help his father clean the fishpond
=He did not leave his house until around 1:30 PM on Jan. 23 1986 when he went to the house of his
nephew, Rolando Rodriguez to invite him to the fiesta
=presented his mother,agapita and Antonio Libid, the carpenter who allegedly repaired his house,
to corroborate his alibi( both testified that he didn’t leave the house on the night of Jan. 20,1986)
=Professed his innocence bec. He had never been implicated in a crime, not even vagrancy, denied
the testimony of prosecution witness Sgt. Dulin that he once had a rape case against him.
RTC of Bulacan Branch 12 at Malolos sentenced them guilty= Rape, jointly and severally, pay the
amount of 60 K, pay moral damages to the respective heirs of the deceased, 20K, 20K and 40 k,
reimburse the heirs of the funeral victims, TOTAL=Php 21 830,10 170K 11K and return the items
they have taken during the robbery or reimburse
ROLANDO TAYAG and OTHER JOHN DOE alias EFREN

CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED:

Pulusan=TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO HIS IDENTIFICATION BY PROSECUTION
WITNESS AS ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME; IN GIVING EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE
“INCREDIBLE, UNRELIABLE AND INCONSISTENT IF NOT CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESS AND IN CONVICTING HIM EVEN IF HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT”

Rodriguez= TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM AND IMPOSING ON HIM THE PENALTY OF
RECLUSION PERPETUA and IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION

ARGUMENTS OF PULUSAN AND RODRIGUEZ= ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY

ISSUE:

W/N the court a quo erred in giving credence and credibility to the evidence and testimonies
presented by the prosecution?

RULING:

MATTERS OF ASSIGNING VALUES TO DECLARATIONS ON THE WITNESS STAND IS BEST AND MOST
COMPETENTLY PERFORMED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE= CAN WEIGH SUCH TESTIMONY IN THE LIGHT OF
THE DECLARANT’S DEMEANOR, CONDUCT AND ATTITUDE AT THE TRIAL IS HEREBY PLACED IN A
MORE COMPETENT POSITION TO DISCRIMINATE BET. TRUE AND FALSE

TRIAL COURT’S FINDING ON THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES ARE ENTITLED TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE
OF RESPECT AND WILL NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL

NO SHOWING IN THE INSTANT CASE OF AN OVERSIGHT,MISUNDERSTANDING OR MISAPPLICATION OF

FACTS ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT MAY WARRANT REVERSAL OF THE COURT’S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Pulusan AVERS THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’ IDENTIFICATION OF HIM AS ONE OF THE
ROBBERS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO HURDLE THE TEST OF CERTAINTY=GLANCING WHILE SITTING AT THE
BACK, ALTHOUGH AFRAID, HE GLANCES AND TRIES TO RECOGNIZE THEM

GOMEZ ALTHOUGH WAS GRIPPLED IN FEAR WAS ABLE TO LOOK AND SEE THE MALEFACTORS,
ALTHOUGH HE HAD ONLY OCCASIONAL GLANCES AT THE ROBBERS, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE
CAN’T RECOGNIZE THEM, NATURAL REACTION OF VICTIMS OS VIOLENCE IS TO STRIVE TO SEE THE
APPEARANCE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME AND OBSERVE WHILE THE CRIME WAS ON
COMMITTED

TESTITMONY WAS CORROBORATED BY MARILYN MARTINEZ WHO AFFIRMED THAT WHEN THE 4 MEN
BOARDED THE JEEP, THE LIGHTS OF THE JEEP WAS STILL ON; ABLE TO RECOGNIZE WHO BOARDED
THE JEEP ONE BY ONE AND EVEN IF THE LIGHTS ARE OFF, BEC. THEY TRAVELLED QUITE A
DISTANCE,LIGHTS FROM THE VEHICLES FOLLOWING THEM PROVIDED ENOUGH ILLUMINATION.

-ARRIVED AT TALAHIBAN, THE ROBEBERS TURNED ON THE HEADLIGHTS, EVEN AFTER THE REPEATED
RAPE, THE HEADLIGHTS WERE STILL ON, FURTHERMORE APPELLANT RODRIGUEZ WHO WAS THE
FIRST TO RAPE MARILYN, DRAGGED HER IN THE “TALAHIBAN” BY PASSING INFRONT OF THE JEEP’S
HEADLIGHT AND WAS PLEADING FOR MERCY

=RELATIVE WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF EVIDENCE= ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND AT THE

TRIAL COURT

=FACTOR OF VISIBILITY WAS IN FAVOR OF THE EYEWITNESSES

PULUSAN ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE WITNESSES:

(1) Gomez and Marilyn testified he poked a knife at Gomez while Pagtalunan said that he was
holding a sumpak;
(2) Gomez testifed that it was Pulusan who brought Marilyn to the talahiban while according to
Marilyn, it was
Rodriguez who brought her first to that place;
(3) Gomez testified that they went to the PC headquarters the day following January 20, 1986
while Pagtalunan testified that they did
so four days later; and
(4) Gomez contradicted his testimony on direct examination that the crime transpired on January
20, 1986 by his testimony on cross-examination that the
incident happened on February 20, 1986.

SC reason:alleged contradictions too trivial to affect the prosecution’s case, fact indicative of
veracity, WITNESSES TESTIFYING ON THE SAME EVENT DO NOT HAVE CONSISTENT DETAIL, TOTAL
RECALL OR PERFECT SYMMETRY IS NOT REQUIRED AS LONG AS THE WITNESSES CONCUR ON
MATERIAL POINTS
PULUSAN’S AND RODRIGUEZ ALIBIS CANNOT PROSPER, THEY SITUATED THEMSELVES IN PLACES NOT
TOO FAR FROM THE CRIME SCENE, NO PROOF THAT IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO
HAVE BEEN AT THE LOCUS CRIMINIS DURING ITS COMMISSION,THEIR RESPECTIVE ALIBIS COLLAPS IN
THE FACE OF THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THEM AS THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME
Trial Court was correct in sentencing them with”highway robbery attended with multiple homicide
with multiple rape.

" Highway robbery or brigandage is defined in Sec. (2)of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise
known as the "Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974,"

(t)he seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful

Purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon things or other unlawful means,
committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.

-TC was correct in finding that the trial court guilty GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE AGGRAVATED BY RAPE UNDER ART.294 OF THE RPC
-CONTROLLING IS NOT THE DESIGNATION BUT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED,
PULUSAN AND RODRIGUEZ ARE LIABLE UNDER THE AFORESTATED ART. OF THE PENAL CODE
=regardless of the number of homicides committed on the
occasion of a robbery, the crime is still robbery with homicide. In this special complex
crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty
prescribed in Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. 3355
There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the said Code. The same crime is
committed even if rape and physical injuries are also committed on the occasion of said crime.
Moreover, whenever the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven to have been
committed, all those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals therein although they did
not actually take part in the homicide. 3377
Rape had not been proven to be the original intention of the appellants, the crime
having been committed simply because there was a female passenger in the jeep. Hence,
rape can only be considered as an aggravating circumstance and not a principal offense.
3388
Under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide is punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the attendance of rape as a generic aggravating
circumstance, the maximum penalty of death should be imposed.
However, by reason of
Section 19 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which proscribes the imposition
of the death penalty and considering further that at the time the crime was committed,
Republic Act No. 7659 entitled "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes" reimposing the death penalty had not yet been enacted, the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua. Because reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the same shall be imposed regardless of
the attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances.