sample of Resolution

Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR City of Iloilo P/Sr. Insp. MARCO A. JARODA,  ________________  Complainant,

I.S.

NO:

FOR: ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE (Art. 294, par. (1), Revised Penal Code)

-versus TITO CRUZ and VIC CRUZ, Respondent. x--------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION

 The Respondents, TITO CRUZ and VIC CRUZ were charged of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE in a complaint filed by Police Senior Inspector MARCO A. JARODA. In supp support ort of his his comp complai laint nt,, the here herein in compla complain inan antt attac attache hed d the following documents: 1. Joint Affidavits of Bea S. Robles and Francesca S. Campos; 2. Affidavit of Geraldine B. Demetri; 3. Affidavit of Paris J. Michaels; 4. Affidavit of Police Officer Romeo V. Benamarca; 5. Death Certificate of Joey Cruz; 6. Autopsy Report of Joey Cruz; 7. Anatomical Sketch of Joey Cruz; 8. Police Record of Events and others. Statement of Facts

Based on the investigation conducted by the Police Investigator, PO2  JANVIC CHAN, the facts of the case are stated hereunder:  That on or about the 24th day of May 2008, at around 12:45 in the afternoon in Tabuc Suba, Jaro, Iloilo City, Philippines, the respondents together with the deceased JOEY CRUZ conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, whil while e arme armed d with with a hand handgu gun n stag staged ed a “hol “holdd-up up” ” at Iloil Iloilo o Superm Supermart, art, Tabuc abuc Suba, Suba, Jaro Jaro Branch Branch owned owned and operate operated d by  JHONNY B. QUE. That while inside, the respondents took or steal away an amount of forty eight thousand (Php 48, 000) pesos and food food stuff stuffs s from from the the groc grocery ery. Ther Therea eafte fter, r, they they proc proceed eeded ed to Pototan, Iloilo to divide the loot among themselves. While they were dividing the loot, an argument ensued between TITO CRUZ and JOEY CRUZ which prompted TITO CRUZ to draw his gun and shot JOEY CRUZ in the forehead, killing the latter instantly. In the joint joint affid affidavi avitt of witne witness sses es Bea S. Robles obles and and France rancesca sca R. Campos, they stated that on May 24, 2008 at about 12:45 in the afternoon, they they we werre insi inside de Iloi Iloilo lo Supe Superm rmar artt when when the the robb robber ery y happ happen ened ed.. Whil While e standing in Counter 1 to pay for their groceries, they saw a man pointing a

gun at the cashier and declared a “Hold up!” while his two companions emptied the cash registers and took some grocery stuffs. In the affidavit of Geraldine B. Demetri, one of the cashiers on duty during the time of the robbery, stated that while she was at Counter 1, a person pointed his gun to her and immediately declared a “hold up!”and two other customers who were falling in line to pay were ordered to drop on their knees. One of the robbers emptied the cash registers while the other took some grocery stuffs. In the affidavit of Paris J. Michaels, one of the customers during the time of the robbery, stated that while she was standing near the cosmetics section, she heard a person declaring a “hold up!”. The other robber forced her to join the other customers to kneel down near counter 1. That after emptying the cash registers and taking some groceries, one of the robbers shouted “lakat na kita!”. They immediately drove away using a red owner type jeep. And in the affidavit of Police Senior Inspector Romeo V. Benamarca, stated that he was patrolling at Brgy. Mabalud, Pototan when he heard a gunshot from an abandoned rice mill. When he proceeded to the area, he saw TITO CRUZ holding a .45 caliber pistol and the lifeless body of JOEY CRUZ lying on the ground with his own blood, while VIC CRUZ was just standing a meter away from TITO CRUZ. He recovered an amount of forty eight thousand (Php 48, 000) pesos inside a clear plastic bag with printed logo of Iloilo Supermart. That he immediately arrested TITO and VIC CRUZ and and brou brough ghtt them them to the Pototan ototan Police olice Statio Station, n, while while JOEY JOEY CRUZ CRUZ was was brought to the nearest hospital. That upon further search in the crime scene, an empty bullet shell and three (3) live ammunitions were likewise recovered and turned over to the exhibit custodian SPO2 Roger M. Carman. As for the respon respondent dents, s, in their their counter counter-affi -affidavi davits, ts, they vehement vehemently ly denied the accusations against them putting up self-defense and alibi as their defenses. TITO CRUZ alleged that on May 24, 2008, he and his cousins VIC and JOEY were on a drinking spree, which started from eight o’clock in the morning and ended at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon. That he was awakened by the shouting of his “live-in” partner TITA and the commotion outside of his house. He then took his gun and went out. There, he saw JOEY holding a bag with TITO’s money. Upon seeing him, while carrying a bolo,   JOEY ran towards TITO. So the latter shot the former in order to defend himself. VIC CRUZ likewise denied the allegations against him, stating that after their drinking spree on May 24, 2008, he went home. And at about four o’clock in the afternoon of the said day, he was awakened by his mother telling him that there were police officers looking for him. He then voluntarily went to the police station to answer the charges against him.  Analyses/ Findings and Recommendations

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states: “Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons- Penalties —Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence or intimidation intimidation of any person shall suffer:

Reclusion Perpetua Perpetua to death reason on or on 1. The The pena penalt lty y of  Reclusion death,, when when by reas occasion of the robbery , the crime of homicide shall have been committed, x x x.” (Italics Supplied)

Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a direct relation, an intimate connection, between the robbery and the killing, even if the killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the robbery. (People vs.Salazar, 277 SCRA 67 [1997]). The The fact facts s of the the case case befo before re us sq squa uare rely ly fall fall unde underr the the crim crime e of  Robbery with Homicide. The time element between the consummation of  robbery in Iloilo City and the killing of JOEY in Pototan, Iloilo is of no moment  since sin ce the killing killing may be prior prior to, concur concurren rentt with, with, or subsequ subsequent ent to the robbery. The killing of JOEY was intimately connected or necessarily related  with the robbery since the subject of the argument which ensued between  JOEY and TITO was the division of the loot, which were essentially the effects of the crime of robbery notwithstanding the fact that the robbery took place in Iloi Iloilo lo City City whil while e the the kill killin ing g was was done done in Poto Potota tan, n, Iloi Iloilo lo.. It is enou enough gh therefore that the homicide resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery in order to constitute the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

On the part of the defense of the respondent it is a settled rule that alibi alibi is the weakes weakestt of all defen defense ses s beca becaus use e it is facil facile e to fabric fabricate ate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, that he must likewise demonstrate that it was impossible for him him to have have been been at the the scen scene e of the the crim crime e at that that time time.. (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Malejana, 479 SCRA 610). Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense. Alibi like denial, is also inherently weak and fabricated----for these defen defense ses s to justif justify y an acqu acquitt ittal al,, the the follow followin ing g must must be estab establis lishe hed: d: the presence of the accused in another place at the time of the commission of  the offense and the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime. (People vs. Mangit-ngit, 502 SCRA 560).  As regards the alibi of the respondents, that they were not at the place when hen the the crime ime was was comm ommitt itted, ed, canno annott be appre ppreci ciat ate ed sinc since e the the respondents failed to convince the Investigating Prosecutor that they satisfy  all the elements to sustain the defense of alibi. Pototan is more or less thirty  (30) kilometers away from Iloilo City, as such it can be reached by about  thirty to forty five (30-45) minutes of travel using any motorized vehicle. Henc Hence, e, the the resp respon onde dent nts s fail failed ed to demo demons nstr trat ate e that that it was was phys physic ical ally  ly  impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime when the same was committed.

Respondent TITO CRUZ, as for his defense, admitted killing JOEY CRUZ on the ground of self-defense. However, it is a well settled rule that once an accused has admitted that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying cir circums cumsta tanc nce e clai claime med d by him him with with clea clear, r, sati satisf sfac acto tory ry and and conv convin inci cing ng evidence. (Cabuslay vs People, 471 SCRA 241) In orde orderr for for the the just justif ifyi ying ng cir circums cumsta tanc nce e of self self-d -def efen ens se to be appr appreci eciat ated, ed, the follow following ing requ requisi isites tes must must concur concur,, to wit: wit: (1) (1) Unla Unlawfu wfull

aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Aggress Aggression ion presu presuppos pposes es that the person person attacke attacked d must must face a real real threat to his life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Unlawf Unlawful ul aggr aggres essio sion, n, a primo primord rdia iall elemen elementt of self self-de -defen fense se,, woul would d presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the the life life and and limb limb of the perso person-n---no -nott a mere mere threa threaten tening ing or intimi intimidat dating ing attitude---but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor; there is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. (People (People vs Dagani, 499 SCRA 64) TITO CRUZ failed to persuade the Investigating Prosecutor that the killing was indeed done in self-defense. The element of unlawful aggression was lacking since based on the respondent’s affidavit, the deceased JOEY  CRUZ was holding a bolo and running towards him when he decided to shot  the victim. Based on the facts alleged, it can be gleaned that there was yet  no unlawful aggression as there was no actual or imminent danger on TITO’s life and limb. The danger feared by TITO most likely was merely imaginary. Hence, the theory of self-defense by TITO must fail. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an information for the crime of Robbery with Homicide be filed against the respondents TITO and VIC CRUZ. Iloilo City, June 4, 2008. PLARIDEL H. MAKABA MAK ABAY YAN

Assistant City Prosecutor APPROVED APPR OVED BY: BY: GREGORIO T. TAROSA

Chief City Prosecutor Copy Furnished: (1) Tito Cruz- Brgy. Mabalud, Pototan, Iloilo (2) Vic Cruz- Brgy. Mabalud, Pototan, Iloilo