People Vs Escote

11/1/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME400
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
603
People vs. Escote, Jr.

*
G.R. No. 140756. April 4, 2003.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE, JR. @ Jun Mantika of Sta.
Lucia, Angat, Bulacan and VICTOR ACUYAN y
OCHOVILLOS @ Vic Arroyo of Sto. Nino, Poblacion,
Bustos, Bulacan, accusedappellants.
Constitutional Law Due Process Right of Confrontation
Criminal Procedure The right to crossexamine is a constitutional
right anchored on due process The right of crossexamination has
always been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual
crossexamination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right
to crossexamine if desired.The contentions of Juan and Victor
are not meritorious. There is no factual and legal basis for their
claim that they were illegally deprived of their constitutional and
statutory right to fully crossexamine Rodolfo. The Court agrees
that the right to crossexamine is a constitutional right anchored
on due process. It is a statutory right found in Section 1(f), Rule
115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides
that the accused has the right to confront and crossexamine the
witnesses against him at the trial. However, the right has always
been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual cross
examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to
crossexamine if desired. What is proscribed by statutory norm
and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to
crossexamine. The right is a personal one and may be waived
expressly or impliedly. There is an implied waiver when the party
was given the opportunity to confront and crossexamine an
opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons
attributable to himself alone. If by his actuations, the accused lost
his opportunity to crossexamine wholly or in part the witnesses
against him, his right to crossexamine is impliedly waived. The
testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be
received or allowed to remain in the record.
Same Same Same Same The task of recalling a witness for
crossexamination is, in law, imposed on the party who wishes to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e2313516f0ce025003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/33
11/1/2016
exercise said right.The court ordered the continuation of the

trial for the crossexamination of Rodolfo on January 20, 1998 at
8:30 a.m. During the trial on January 20, 1998, Rodolfo was
present but accusedappellants counsel was absent. The court
issued an order declaring that for failure of said counsel to appear
before the court for his crossexamination of Rodolfo, Victor and
Juan waived their right to continue with the crossexamination of
said witness. During the trial set for February 3, 1998, the
counsel of Juan and Victor appeared but did not move for a
reconsideration of the
_______________
*
EN BANC.
604
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

courts order dated January 20, 1998 and for the recall of Rodolfo
Cacatian for further crossexamination. It behooved counsel for
Juan and Victor to file said motion and pray that the trial court
order the recall of Rodolfo on the witness stand. Juan and Victor
cannot just fold their arms and supinely wait for the prosecution
or for the trial court to initiate the recall of said witness. Indeed,
the Court held in Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals, et al: x x x The
task of recalling a witness for cross examination is, in law,
imposed on the party who wishes to exercise said right. This is so
because the right, being personal and waivable, the intention to
utilize it must be expressed. Silence or failure to assert it on time
amounts to a renunciation thereof. Thus, it should be the counsel
for the opposing party who should move to crossexamine
plaintiffs witnesses. It is absurd for the plaintiff himself to ask
the court to schedule the crossexamination of his own witnesses
because it is not his obligation to ensure that his deponents are
crossexamined. Having presented his witnesses, the burden
shifts to his opponent who must now make the appropriate move.
Indeed, the rule of placing the burden of the case on plaintiffs
shoulders can be construed to extremes as what happened in the
instant proceedings.
Same Same Same Same Estoppel The doctrine of estoppel
states that if one maintains silence when in conscience he ought to
speak, equity will debar him from speaking when in conscience he
2/33
11/1/2016
ought to remain silenthe who remains silent when he ought to

speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.Juan
and Victor did not even file any motion to reopen the case before
the trial court rendered its decision to allow them to cross
examine Rodolfo. They remained mute after judgment was
rendered against them by the trial court. Neither did they file any
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals for the
nullification of the Order of the trial court dated January 20, 1998
declaring that they had waived their right to crossexamine
Rodolfo. It was only on appeal to this Court that Juan and Victor
averred for the first time that they were deprived of their right to
crossexamine Rodolfo. It is now too late in the day for Juan and
Victor to do so. The doctrine of estoppel states that if one
maintains silence when in conscience he ought to speak, equity
will debar him from speaking when in conscience he ought to
remain silent. He who remains silent when he ought to speak
cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.
Criminal Law Witnesses The Court has held in a catena of
cases that it is the most natural reaction of victims of violence to
strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and to
observe the manner in which the crime was committed.The
Court agrees with the trial court. It may be true that Romulo was
frightened when Juan and Victor suddenly announced a holdup
and fired their guns upward, but it does not follow that he and
Rodolfo failed to have a good look at Juan and Victor during the
entire time the robbery was taking place. The Court has held in a
605
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
605
catena of cases that it is the most natural reaction of victims of

violence to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the
crime and to observe the manner in which the crime was
committed. Rodolfo and Romulo had a good look at both Juan and
Victor before, during and after they staged the robbery and before
they alighted from the bus. The evidence on record shows that
when Juan and Victor boarded the bus and while the said vehicle
was on its way to its destination, Romulo stationed himself by the
door of the bus located in the midsection of the vehicle. The lights
inside the bus were on. Juan seated himself in the middle row of
the passengers seat near the center aisle while Victor stood near
the door of the bus about a meter or so from Romulo. Romulo,
Juan and Victor were near each other. Moreover, Juan divested
3/33
11/1/2016
Romulo of his collection of the fares from the passengers. Romulo

thus had a facetoface encounter with Juan. After shooting SPO1
Manio, Jr. at the rear portion of the bus, Juan and Victor passed
by where Romulo was standing and gave their instructions to
him. Considering all the facts and circumstances, there is no iota
of doubt that Romulo saw and recognized Juan and Victor before,
during and after the heist.
Same Robbery with Homicide In the absence of an
explanation of how one has come into possession of stolen effects
belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed, he must
necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death of
the said person and of the robbery committed on him.When he
was accosted by SPO3 Romeo Meneses on October 25, 1997 in
Tarlac, Tarlac, Juan was in possession of the identification card of
the slain police officer. Juan failed to explain to the trial court
how and under what circumstances he came into possession of
said identification card. Juan must necessarily be considered the
author of the robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr. In People
v. Mantung, we held: x x x [T]he recovery of part of the loot from
Mantung or the time of his arrest gave rise to a legal presumption
of his guilt. As this Court has held, [I]n the absence of an
explanation of how one has come into possession of stolen effects
belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed, he must
necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death
of the said person and of the robbery committed on him.
Same Same Police LineUps There is no law or police
regulation requiring a police lineup for proper identification in
every caseeven if there was no police lineup, there could still be
proper and reliable identification as long as such identification
was not suggested or instigated to the witness by the police.
While police investigators did not place Juan and Victor in a
police lineup for proper identification by Rodolfo and Romulo, it
cannot thereby be concluded that absent such lineup, their
identification by Romulo and Rodolfo as the authors of the
robbery with homicide was unreliable. There is no law or police
regulation requiring a police lineup for proper identification in
every case. Even if there was no police lineup,
606
606

there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as

such identification was not suggested or instigated to the witness
4/33
11/1/2016
by the police. In this case, there is no evidence that the police

officers had supplied or even suggested to Rodolfo and Romulo the
identities of Juan and Victor as the perpetrators of the robbery
and the killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr.
Same Same Elements.To warrant the conviction of Juan
and Victor for the said charge, the prosecution was burdened to
prove the confluence of the following essential elements: x x x (a)
the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person (b) the property thus taken belongs
to another (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a
generic sense, was committed. x x x
Same Same In robbery with homicide, so long as the
intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery.The intent to rob must precede the
taking of human life. In robbery with homicide, so long as the
intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery. In People v. Barut, the Court held
that: In the controlling Spanish version of article 294, it is
provided that there is robbery with homicide cuando con motivo o
con ocasin del robo resultare homicidio. Basta que entre aquel
este exista una relacin meramente ocasional. No se requiere que
el homicidio se cometa como medio de ejecucin del robo, ni que el
culpable tenga intencin de matar, el delito existe segn
constanta jurisprudencia, aun cuando no concurra animo
homicida. Incluso si la muerte sobreviniere por mero accidente,
siempre que el homicidio se produzca con motivo con ocasin del
robo, siendo indiferente que la muerte sea anterior, coetnea o
posterior a ste (2 Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 1975 14th Ed. P.
872).
Same Same Even if the victim of robbery is other than the
victim of the homicide committed on the occasion of or by reason of
the robbery, nevertheless, there is only one single and indivisible
felony of robbery with homicide All the crimes committed on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated
into a single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
Even if the victim of robbery is other than the victim of the
homicide committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery,
nevertheless, there is only one single and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide. All the crimes committed on the occasion
or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a
single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. This was
the ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain on September 9, 1886, et
sequitur cited by this Court in People v. Mangulabnan, et al. We
see, therefore, that in order to determine the existence of the
5/33
11/1/2016
crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide would

result by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (Decision
607
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
607
of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26, 1892, and

January 7, 1878, quoted in 2 Hidalgos Penal Code, p. 267 and
259260, respectively). This High Tribunal speaking of the
accessory character of the circumstances leading to the homicide,
has also held that it is immaterial that the death would
supervene by mere accident (Decision of September 9, 1886
October 22, 1907 April 30, 1910 and July 14, 1917), provided that
the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons
intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken
into consideration (Decision of January 12, 1889see Cuello
Calons Codigo Penal, p. 501502).
Same Same Conspiracy Whenever homicide has been
committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty
as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take
part in the homicide, unless it appears that they endeavored to
prevent the homicide.Case law has it that whenever homicide
has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery,
all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be
held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they
did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide. In this case, the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juan and Victor conspired
and confabulated together in robbing the passengers of the Five
Star Bus of their money and valuables and Romulo of his
collections of the fares of the passengers and in killing SPO1
Manio, Jr. with impunity on the occasion of the robbery. Hence,
both Juan and Victor are guilty as principals by direct
participation of the felony of robbery with homicide under
paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by R.A. 7659, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
Same Same Aggravating Circumstances Treachery
Elements The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the
latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
6/33
11/1/2016
commission without risk to himself.The Court agrees with the

trial court that treachery was attendant in the commission of the
crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements
are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
a position to defend himself and (b) the accused consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of
attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and
thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself.
Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned
of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to
flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace. In the case at
bar, the victim suffered six wounds, one on the mouth, another on
the right ear,
608
608

one on the shoulder, another on the right breast, one on the upper
right cornea of the sternum and one above the right iliac crest.
Juan and Victor were armed with handguns. They first disarmed
SPO1 Manio, Jr. and. then shot him even as he pleaded for dear
life. When the victim was shot, he was defenseless. He was shot at
close range, thus insuring his death. The victim was on his way to
rejoin his family after a hard days work. Instead, he was
mercilessly shot to death, leaving his family in grief for his
untimely demise. The killing is a grim example of the utter
inhumanity of man to his fellowmen.
Same Same Same Same Statutory Construction In
construing the Old Penal Code and the Revised Penal Code, the
Supreme Court had accorded respect and persuasive, if not
conclusive effect, to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain
interpreting and construing the 1850 Penal Code of Spain, as
amended by Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870.It must be
recalled that by Royal Order of December 17, 1886 the 1850 Penal
Code in force in Spain, as amended by the Codigo Penal
Reformado de 1870 was applied in the Philippines. The Penal
Code of 1887 in the Philippines was amended by Act 3815, now
known as the Revised Penal Code, which was enacted and
published in Spanish. In construing the Old Penal Code and the
Revised Penal Code, this Court had accorded respect and
persuasive, if not conclusive effect to the decisions of the Supreme
7/33
11/1/2016
Court of Spain interpreting and construing the 1850 Penal Code

of Spain, as amended by Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870.
Same Same Same Same Treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of
homicide is killed by treachery, and in the application of treachery
as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide,
the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime
against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which
is a crime against property.In fine, in the application of
treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide, the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide
which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime
of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is applied
to the constituent crime of homicide and not to the constituent
crime of robbery of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its
classification as a crime against property or as a special complex
and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery is
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery
merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic
mitigating circumstance. In sum then, treachery is a generic
aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the
victim of homicide is killed by treachery.
609
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
609
Same Same Same Circumstances which consist in the

material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.On the second
issue, we also rule in the affirmative. Article 62, paragraph 4 of
the Revised Penal Code which was taken from Article 80 of the
Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870, provides that circumstances
which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the
time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. The
circumstances attending the commission of a crime either relate
to the persons participating in the crime or into its manner of
execution or to the means employed. The latter has a direct
bearing upon the criminal liability of all the accused who have
8/33
11/1/2016
knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the crime or of

their cooperation thereon. Accordingly, the Spanish Supreme
Court held in its Sentencia dated December 17, 1875 that where
two or more persons perpetrate the crime of robbery with
homicide, the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery shall
be appreciated against all of the felons who had knowledge of the
manner of the killing of victims of homicide
Same Same Same Treachery An aggravating circumstance
which was not alleged in the Information cannot be appreciated.
Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated against
Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the same was not
alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures which reads: Sec. 8.
Designation of the offense.The complaint or information shall
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the
acts or omissions constituting the offense and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it. Although at the time the
crime was committed, generic aggravating circumstance need not
be alleged in the Information, however, the general rule had been
applied retroactively because if it is more favorable to the
accused. Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the
information, treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the
crime.
Same Same Same Damages The retroactive application of
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
should not impair the right of the heirs to exemplary damages
which had already accrued when the crime was committed prior to
the effectivity of said rule.Since the penalty imposed on Juan
and Victor is reclusion perpetua, the heirs of the victim are
entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. The heirs
are also entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,
Rosemarie Manio having testified on the factual basis thereof.
Considering that treachery aggravated the crime, the heirs are
also entitled to exem
610
610

plary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This Court held in

People vs. Catubig that the retroactive application of Section 8,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should not
9/33
11/1/2016
impair the right of the heirs to exemplary damages which had

already accrued when the crime was committed prior to the
effectivity of the said rule. Juan and Victor are also jointly and
severally liable to the said heirs in the total amount of P30,000.00
as actual damages, the prosecution having adduced evidence
receipts for said amounts. The heirs are not entitled to expenses
allegedly incurred by them during the wake as such expenses are
not supported by receipts. However, in lieu thereof, the heirs are
entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P20,000.00.
VITUG, J., Separate Opinion:

Criminal Law Complex Crimes Robbery with Homicide The
rule for ordinary complex crimes as set out in Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code evidently is not in square with a special
complex crime, like robbery with homicide, where the law
effectively treats the offense as an individual felony in itself and
then prescribes a specific penalty therefor.In an ordinary
complex crime, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code expresses
that the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period. Article 48 means then
that in the imposition of the penalty for such an ordinary complex
crime, i.e., where no specific penalty is prescribed for the complex
crime itself, the composite offenses and their respective penalties
are individually factored, and it is possible, indeed warranted,
that any aggravating circumstance, generic or qualified, even if it
be peculiar to only one of the constituent crimes, can and should be
logically considered in order to determine which of the composite
crimes is the most serious crime, the penalty for which shall
then be applied in its maximum period. The rule evidently is not
in square with a special complex crime, like robbery with
homicide, where the law effectively treats the offense as an
individual felony in itself and then prescribes a specific penalty
therefor.
Same Same Same The suggestion that treachery could be
appreciated only insofar as the killing is concerned would
unavoidably be to consider and hold robbery with homicide as
being separately penalized and to thus discount its classification
under Article 294 of the Code as a distinct crime itself with a
distinct penalty prescribed therefor.There being just an
independent prescribed penalty for the offense, any circumstance
that can aggravate that penalty should be germane and generic
not to one but to both of the constituent offenses that comprise the
elements of the crime. The suggestion that treachery could be
appreciated only insofar as the killing is concerned would
unavoidably be to consider and hold robbery and homicide as
being separately penalized and to thus discount its classification
under Article 294 of the Code as a distinct crime itself with a
10/33
11/1/2016
611
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
611
distinct penalty prescribed therefor. Most importantly, such

interpretation would be to treat the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide no differently from ordinary complex
crimes defined under Article 48, where the composite crimes are
separately regarded and weighed in the ultimate imposition of the
penalty. If such were intended, the law could have easily so
provided, with the penalty for the higher of the two offenses to be
then accordingly imposed on the malefactor. In prescribing,
however, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, where
homicide results by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the law
has virtually taken into account the particularly nefarious
nature of the crime, where human life is taken, howsoever
committed, to pursue the criminal intent to gain with the use of
violence against or intimidation of any person.
Same Same Same Distinct penalties prescribed by law in
special complex crimes is in recognition of the primacy given to
criminal intent over the overt acts that are done to achieve that
intent.Distinct penalties prescribed by law in special complex
crimes is in recognition of the primacy given to criminal intent
over the overt acts that are done to achieve that intent. This
conclusion is made implicit in various provisions of the Revised
Penal Code. Thus, practically all of the justifying circumstances,
as well as the exempting circumstances of accident (paragraph 4,
Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause (paragraph 7, Article
12), are based on the lack of criminal intent. In felonies
committed by means of dolo, as opposed to those committed by
means of culpa (including offenses punished under special laws),
criminal intent is primordial and overt acts are considered
basically as being mere manifestations of criminal intent.
Paragraph 2, Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code places emphasis
on intent over effect, as it assigns criminal liability to one who
has committed an impossible crime, said person having intended
and pursued such intent to commit a felony although technically,
no crime has actually been committed. Article 134 of the same
Code, penalizing the crime of rebellion, imposes a distinct penalty,
the rebel being moved by a single intent which is to overthrow the
existing government, and ignores individual acts committed in the
furtherance of such intent.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Br. 11.
11/33
11/1/2016
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiffappellee.
Public Attorneys Office for accusedappellants.
612
612

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against
property. Nevertheless, treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is
killed treacherously. The Supreme Court of Spain so ruled.
So does the Court rule in this case, as it had done for
decades.
1
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision of
Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in
Criminal Case No. 443M97 convicting accusedappellants
Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, meting on each of
them the supreme penalty of death, and ordering them to
pay the heirs of the victim, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., the
total amount of P300,000.00 by way of actual and moral
damages and to pay to Five Star Bus, Inc., the amount of
P6,000.00 by way of actual damages.
The Facts
The antecedent facts as established by the prosecution are
as follows:
On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, Rodolfo
Cacatian, the regular driver of Five Star Passenger Bus
bearing Plate No. ABS793, drove the bus from its terminal
at Pasay City to its destination in Bolinao, Pangasinan.
Also on board was Romulo Digap, the regular conductor of
the bus, as well as some passengers. At Camachile,
Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus, including
Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were2
wearing maong pants, rubber shoes, hats and jackets.
Juan seated himself on the third seat near the aisle, in the
middle row of the passengers seats, while Victor stood by
the door in the midportion of the bus beside Romulo.
Another passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of
Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus on
his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was his
service gun bearing Serial Number 769806. Every now and
12/33
11/1/2016
then, Rodolfo looked at the side view mirror as well as the

rear view and center mirrors installed atop the drivers
seat to monitor any in
_______________
1
Penned by Judge Basilio R. Gabo, Jr.
Exhibit A.
613
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
613
coming and overtaking vehicles and to observe the

passengers of the bus.
The lights of the bus were on even as some of the
passengers slept. When the bus was travelling along the
highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly
stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a
holdup. Petrified, Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror
towards the passengers seat and saw Juan and Victor
armed with handguns. Juan fired his gun upward to
awaken and scare off the passengers. Victor followed suit
and fired his gun upward. Juan and Victor then accosted
the passengers and divested them of their money and
valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had
collected from the passengers. The felons then went to the
place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded that he show
them his identification card and wallet. Manio, 3Jr. brought
out his identification card bearing No. 00898. Juan and
Victor took the identification card of the police officer as
well as his service gun and told him: Pasensya ka na Pare,
papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo The
police officer pleaded for mercy: Pare maawa ka sa akin.
May pamilya ako However, Victor and Juan ignored the
plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right
ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained
six entrance wounds. He fell to the floor of the bus. Victor
and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated
themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain
the speed of the bus. Rodolfo heard one of the felons saying:
Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang pumapatay ng
manok The other said: Ayos na naman tayo pare. Malaki
laki ito Victor and Juan further told Rodolfo that after
they (Victor and Juan) shall have alighted from the bus, he
(Rodolfo) should continue driving the bus and not report
the incident along the way. The robbers assured Rodolfo
13/33
11/1/2016
that if the latter will follow their instructions, he will not

be harmed. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus
along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they
alighted from the bus. The robbery was over in 25 minutes.
When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga,
Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to the
police authorities. The cadaver of SPO1 Manio, Jr. was
brought to the funeral parlor where Dr. Alejandro D.
Tolentino, the Municipal Health Officer of
_______________
3
Exhibit H.
614
614

Mabalacat, Pampanga, performed an autopsy on the

cadaver of the police officer. The doctor prepared and
signed an autopsy report detailing the wounds sustained by
the police officer and the cause of his death:
Body still flaccid (not in rigor mortis) bathed with his own blood.
There were 6 entrance wounds and 6 exit wounds. All the
entrance were located on his right side. An entrance (0.5 cm x 0.5
cm.) located infront of the right ear exited at the left side just
below the ear lobe. Another entrance through the mouth exited at
the back of the head fracturing the occiput with an opening of (1.5
cm x 2 cm). Blood CSF and brain tissues came out. Another fatal
bullet entered at the upper right cornea of the sternum, entered
the chest cavity pierced the heart and left lung and exited at the
left axillary line. Severe hemorrhage in the chest cavity came
from the heart and left lung. The other 3 bullets entered the right
side and exited on the same side. One entrance at the top of the
right shoulder exited at the medial side of the right arm. The
other entered above the right breast and exited at the right
lateral abdominal wall travelling below muscles and
subcutaneous tissues without entering the cavities. Lastly
another bullet entered above the right iliac crest travelled
superficially and exited above the right inguinal line.
Cause of Death:
Shock, massive internal and external hemorrhage, complete
brain destruction and injury
to the heart and left lung caused by
4
multiple gunshot wounds.
14/33
11/1/2016
Rodolfo and Romulo proceeded to the police station of

Plaridel, Bulacan where they reported5 the robbery and
gave their respective sworn statements. SPO1 Manio, Jr.
was survived by his wife Rosario Manio and their four
young children. Rosario spent P20,000.00 for the coffin and6
P10,000.00 for the burial lot of the slain police officer.
Manio, Jr. was 38 years old 7when he died and had a gross
salary of P8,085.00 a month.
Barely a month thereafter, or on October 25, 1996, at
about midnight, SPO3 Romeo Meneses, the team leader of
Alert Team No. 1 of Tarlac Police Station, and PO3
Florante S. Ferrer were at the police checkpoint along the
national highway in Tarlac, Tarlac.
_______________
4
Exhibit E.
Exhibits A and G.
Exhibits C to C4.
Exhibit B1.
615
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
615
At the time, the BambanConcepcion bridge was closed to

traffic and the police officers were tasked to divert traffic to
the Sta. Rosa road. Momentarily, a white colored taxi cab
without any plate number on its front fender came to view.
Meneses stopped the cab and asked the driver, who turned
out to be the accused Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr., for his
identification card. Juan told Meneses that he was a
policeman and handed over to Meneses the identification
card of SPO1 Manio, Jr. and the money which Juan and
Victor took
from Manio, Jr. during the heist on September
8
28, 1996. Meneses became suspicious when he noted that
the identification card had already expired on March 16,
1995. He asked Juan if the latter had a new pay slip. Juan
could not produce any. He finally confessed to Meneses that
he was not a policeman. Meneses brought Juan to the
police station. When police officers frisked Juan for any
deadly weapon, they found five live bullets of a 9 millimeter
firearm in his pocket. The police officers confiscated the
ammunition. In the course of the investigation, Juan
admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor,
alias Victor Arroyo, staged the robbery on board Five Star
Bus and are responsible for the death of SPO1 Manio, Jr. in
15/33
11/1/2016
Plaridel, Bulacan. Meneses

and Ferrer executed their joint
9
affiavit of arrest of Juan. Juan was subsequently turned
over to the Plaridel Police Station where Romulo identified
him through the latters picture as one of those who robbed
the passengers of the Five Star Bus with Plate No. ABS
793 and killed SPO1 Manio, Jr. on September 28, 1996. In
the course of their investigation, the Plaridel Police Station
Investigators learned
that Victor was a native of Laoang,
10
Northern Samar. On April 4, 1997, an Information
charging Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan with
robbery with homicide was filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan. The Information reads:
That on or about the 28th day of September 1996, in the
municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed
accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping
each other, armed with firearms, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of (sic) gain and by means
of force, violence and intimidation, take, rob and carry away with
one (1) necklace and cash in [the] undetermine[d] amount
_______________
8
Exhibit H.
Exhibit I.
10
Exhibit F.
616
616

of one SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., to the damage and prejudice of

the said owner in the said undetermine[d] amount that
simultaneously or on the occassion (sic) of said robbery, said
accused by means of violence and intimidation and in furtherance
of their conspiracy attack, assault and shoot with the service
firearm of the said SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., thereby inflicting
serious physical injuries which resulted (sic) the death of the said
SPO1 Jose C. Manio,11 Jr.
Contrary to law.
On the strength of a warrant of arrest, the police officers

arrested Victor in Laoang, Northern Samar and had him
incarcerated in the Bulacan Provincial Jail. Assisted by
Atty. Ramiro Osorio, their counsel de parte, Juan and
Victor were duly arraigned and entered their plea of not
guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued. After the
16/33
11/1/2016
prosecution had rested its case on

August 26, 1998, Juan
12
escaped from the provincial jail. The trial court issued a
bench warrant on September
22, 1998 for the arrest of said
13
accusedappellant. In the meantime, Victor adduced his
evidence.
Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of
alibi. He testified that in 1996, he worked as a tire man in
the vulcanizing shop located in Banga I, Plaridel, Bulacan
owned by Tony Boy Negro. On one occasion, Ilarde
Victorino, a customer of Tony Boy Negro, ordered Victor to
sell a tire. Victor sold the tire but did not turn over the
proceeds of the sale to Ilarde. The latter hated Victor for
his misdeed. The shop was later demolished and after two
months of employment, Victor returned to Barangay
MuwalBuwal, Laoang, Northern Samar. On September 26,
1996, at 9:30 p.m., Victor was at the town fiesta in Laoang.
Victor and his friends, Joseph Iringco and Rickey Lorcio
were having a drinking spree in the house of Barangay
Captain Ike Baluya. At 11:30 p.m., the three left the house
of the barangay captain and attended the public dance at
the town auditorium. Victor and his friends left the
auditorium at 5:30 a.m. of September 27, 1996. Victor
likewise testified that he never met Juan until his arrest
and detention at the Bulacan Provincial Jail. One of the
inmates in said provincial jail was Ilarde Victorino. Victor
learned that Ilarde implicated him for the robbery of the
Five Star Bus and the killing of SPO1 Manio,
_______________
11
Original Records of Crim. Case No. 443M97, p. 2.
12
Ibid., p. 161.
13
Id., p. 163.
617
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
617
Jr. to hit back at him for his failure to turn over to Ilarde
the proceeds of the sale of the latters tire.
On January 14,
1999, Juan was rearrested in Daet,
14
Camarines Norte. However, he no longer adduced any
evidence in his behalf.
The Verdict of the Trial Court
17/33
11/1/2016
On March 11, 1999, the trial court rendered its Decision

judgment finding Juan and Victor guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, meted on each of them the
penalty of death and ordered them to pay P300,000.00 as
actual and moral damages to the heirs of the victim and to
pay the Five Star Bus Company the amount of P6,000.00
as actual damages. The decretal portion of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds both accused, Juan Gonzales
Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended and hereby sentences both to
suffer the supreme penalty of Death and to indemnify the heirs of
the late SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., the amount of P300,000.00 as
actual and moral damages and to pay the Five Star Bus P6,000.00
as actual damage. 15
SO ORDERED.
Assignment of Errors
Juan and Victor assail the Decision of the trial court and
contend that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RODOLFO
CACATIAN
AND
ROMULO
DIGAP,
DRIVER
AND
CONDUCTOR OF THE FIVE STAR BUS, RESPECTIVELY,
WERE ABLE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE TWO (2) MEN
WHO HELDUP THEIR BUS AND KILLED ONE PASSENGER
THEREOF AT AROUND 3:00 OCLOCK IN THE EARLY
MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1996.
_______________
14
Id., p. 179.
15
Id., p. 175.
618
618

II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE TWO (2)

ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
16
CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.

18/33
11/1/2016
16
CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
The Courts Verdict

Anent the first assignment of error, Juan and Victor
contend that the trial court committed a reversible error in
relying on the testimony of Rodolfo, the bus conductor, for
convicting them of the crime charged. They aver that
although their counsel was able to initially crossexamine
Rodolfo, the former failed to continue with and terminate
his crossexamination of the said witness through no fault
of his as the witness failed to appear in subsequent
proceedings. They assert that even if the testimonies of
Rodolfo and Romulo were to be considered, the two
witnesses were so petrified during the robbery that they
were not able to look at the felons and hence could not
positively identify accusedappellants as the perpetrators of
the crime. They argue that the police investigators never
conducted a police lineup for the identification of the
authors of the crime.
The contentions of Juan and Victor are not meritorious.
There is no factual and legal basis for their claim that they
were illegally deprived of their constitutional and statutory
right to fully crossexamine Rodolfo. The Court agrees that
the right to crossexamine
is a constitutional right
17
anchored on due process. It is a statutory right found in
Section l(f), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which provides that the accused has the right to
confront and crossexamine the witnesses against him at
the trial. However, the right has always been understood
as requiring not necessarily an actual crossexamination
but merely an opportunity
to exercise the right to cross
18
examine if desired. What is proscribed by statutory norm
and jurisprudential precept19 is the absence of the
opportunity to crossexamine. The right is a personal one
and may be waived expressly or impliedly. There is an
implied
_______________
16
Rollo, p. 70.
17
Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, 62 SCRA
258 (1975).
18
Fulgado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 182 SCRA 81 (1990).
19
People vs. Suplito, 314 SCRA 493 (1999).

619
19/33
11/1/2016
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
619
waiver when the party was given the opportunity to

confront and crossexamine an opposing witness but failed
to take
advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself
20
alone.
If by his actuations, the accused lost his
opportunity to crossexamine wholly or in part the
witnesses against 21him, his right to crossexamine is
impliedly waived.
The testimony given on direct
examination of the witness
will be received or allowed to
22
remain in the record.
In this case, the original records show that after several
resettings, the initial trial for the presentation by the
prosecution of its evidenceinchief was set on November
23
18, 1997 and December 5, 1997, both at 9:00 a.m. Rodolfo
testified on direct examination on November 18, 1997. The
counsel of Juan and Victor forthwith commenced his cross
examination of the witness but because of the
manifestation of said counsel that he cannot finish his
crossexamination, the court 24ordered the continuation
thereof to December 5, 1997. On December 5, 1997,
Rodolfo did not appear before the court for the continuation
of his crossexamination but Rosemarie Manio, the widow
of the victim did. The prosecution presented her as witness.
Her testimony was terminated. The court ordered the
continuation of the trial for the crossexamination
of
25
Rodolfo on January 20, 1998 at 8:30 a.m. During the trial
on January 20, 1998, Rodolfo was present but accused
appellants counsel was absent. The court issued an order
declaring that for failure of said counsel to appear before
the court for his crossexamination of Rodolfo, Victor and
Juan waived their right to 26 continue with the cross
examination of said witness. During the trial set for
February 3, 1998, the counsel of Juan and Victor appeared
but did not move for a reconsideration of the courts order
dated January 20, 1998 and for the recall of Rodolfo
Cacatian for further crossexamination. It behooved
counsel for Juan and Victor to file said motion and pray
that the trial court order the recall of Rodolfo on the
witness stand. Juan and Victor cannot just fold their arms
and supinely wait for the prosecution or for the trial
_______________
20
See note 16, supra.
21
People vs. Digno, Jr., 250 SCRA 237 (1995).
22
See note 17, supra.
20/33
11/1/2016
23
Original Records, p. 70.
24
Ibid., p. 86.
25
Id., p. 89.
26
Id., p. 92.
620
620

court to initiate the recall of said witness. Indeed, the

Court held in Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals, et al:
xxx
The task of recalling a witness for cross examination is, in law,
imposed on the party who wishes to exercise said right. This is so
because the right, being personal and waivable, the intention to
utilize it must be expressed. Silence or failure to assert it on time
amounts to a renunciation thereof. Thus, it should be the counsel
for the opposing party who should move to crossexamine
plaintiffs witnesses. It is absurd for the plaintiff himself to ask
the court to schedule the crossexamination of his own witnesses
because it is not his obligation to ensure that his deponents are
crossexamined. Having presented his witnesses, the burden
shifts to his opponent who must now make the appropriate move.
Indeed, the rule of placing the burden of the case on plaintiffs
shoulders can be construed
to extremes as what happened in the
27
instant proceedings.
The trial was reset to March 31, April 17 and 24, 1998, all
at 8:30 a.m. because of the nonavailability
of the other
28
witnesses of the prosecution. On March 31, 1998, the
prosecution presented Dr. Alejandro Tolentino, PO2 Rene
de la Cruz and Romulo Digap. During the trial on April 17,
1998, the counsel of Juan and Victor failed to appear.
The
29
trial was reset to June 3, 19 and 26, 1998. The trial
scheduled on June 3, 1998 was cancelled due to the absence
of the counsel of Juan and Victor. The court issued an order
appointing 30Atty. Roberto Ramirez as counsel for accused
appellants.
During the trial on August 26, 1998, Atty. Ramirez
appeared in behalf of Juan and Victor. The prosecution
rested its case after the presentation of SPO2 Romeo
Meneses and formally offered its documentary evidence.31
The next trial was set on September 23, 1998 at 8:30 a.m.
On November 11, 1998, Juan and Victor commenced the
presentation of their evidence with the testimony of
32
Victor. They rested their case on January
27, 1999
21/33
11/1/2016
32
Victor. They rested their case on January 27, 1999

without any evidence adduced by Juan.
_______________
27
See note 18, supra.
28
Original Records, p. 96.
29
Ibid., p. 107.
30
Id., p. 113.
31
Id., p. 157.
32
Id., p. 172.
621
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
621
Juan and Victor did not even file any motion to reopen the
case before the trial court rendered its decision to allow
them to crossexamine Rodolfo. They remained mute after
judgment was rendered against them by the trial court.
Neither did they file any petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals for the nullification of the Order of the
trial court dated January 20, 1998 declaring that they had
waived their right to crossexamine Rodolfo. It was only on
appeal to this Court that Juan and Victor averred for the
first time that they were deprived of their right to cross
examine Rodolfo. It is now too late in the day for Juan and
Victor to do so. The doctrine of estoppel states that if one
maintains silence when in conscience he ought to speak,
equity will debar him from speaking when in conscience he
ought to remain silent. He who remains silent when he
ought 33to speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be
silent.
The contention of accusedappellants Juan and Victor
that Rodolfo and Romulo failed to identify them as the
perpetrators of the crime charged is disbelieved by the trial
court, thus:
As can be gathered from the testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution, on September 28, 1996, the accused boarded at
around 3:00 a.m. a Five Star Bus driven by Rodolfo Cacatian,
bound to Pangasinan, in Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon City.
Twenty (20) minutes or so later, when the bus reached the
vicinity of Nabuag, Plaridel, Bulacan, along the North
Espressway, the accused with guns in hand suddenly stood up
and announced a holdup. Simultaneously with the
announcement of a holdup, Escote fired his gun upwards.
22/33
11/1/2016
Acuyan, meanwhile, took the gun of a man seated at the back.

Both then went on to take the money and valuables of the
passengers, including the bus conductors collections in the
amount of P6,000.00. Thereafter, the duo approached the man at
the back telling him in the vernacular Pasensiya ka na pare,
papatayin ka namin. Baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo. They
pointed their guns at him and fired several shots oblivious of the
plea for mercy of their victim. After the shooting, the latter
collapsed on the floor. The two (2) then went back at the front
portion of the bus behind the drivers seat and were overheard by
the bus driver, Cacatian, talking how easy it was to kill a man.
The robbery and the killing were over in 25 minutes. Upon
reaching the Mexico overpass of the Expressway in Pampanga,
the two (2) got off the bus. The driver drove the bus to the
Mabalacat Police Station and reported the incident. During the
investigation conducted by the police, it was found
_______________
33
31 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 87, p. 494.
622
622

out that the slain passenger was a policeman, SPO1 Jose C.

Manio, Jr. of the Caloocan City Police Department.
The above version came from Rodolfo Cacatian and Romulo
Digap, bus
driver and conductor, respectively, of the illfated Five
34
Star Bus.
The Court agrees with the trial court. It may be true that
Romulo was frightened when Juan and Victor suddenly
announced a holdup and fired their guns upward, but it
does not follow that he and Rodolfo failed to have a good
look at Juan and Victor during the entire time the robbery
was taking place. The Court has held in a catena of cases
that it is the most natural reaction of victims of violence to
strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the
crime and 35
to observe the manner in which the crime was
committed. Rodolfo and Romulo had a good look at both
Juan and Victor before, during and after they staged the
robbery and before they alighted from the bus. The
evidence on record shows that when Juan and Victor
boarded the bus and while the said vehicle was on its way
to its destination, Romulo stationed himself by the door of
the bus located in the midsection of the vehicle. The lights
inside the bus were on. Juan seated himself in the middle
23/33
11/1/2016
row of the passengers seat near the center aisle while

Victor stood near
the door of the bus about a meter or so
36
from Romulo. Romulo, Juan and Victor were near each
other. Moreover, Juan divested
Romulo of his collection of
37
the fares from the passengers. Romulo thus had a faceto
face encounter with Juan. After shooting SPO1 Manio, Jr.
at the rear portion of the bus, Juan and Victor passed by
where Romulo was standing and gave their instructions to
him. Considering all the facts and circumstances, there is
no iota of doubt that Romulo saw and recognized
Juan and
38
Victor before, during and after the heist. Rodolfo looked
many times on the rear, side and center view mirrors to
observe the center and rear portions of the bus before and
during the robbery. Rodolfo thus saw Juan and Victor stage
the robbery and kill SPOl Manio, Jr. with impunity:
_______________
34
Original Records, pp. 192193.
35
People vs. Ofido, 342 SCRA 155 (2000).
36
TSN, Cacatian, November 18, 1997, pp. 67.
37
TSN Digap, March 31, 1998, p. 22.
38
Ditche vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 327 SCRA 301 (2000).

623
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
623
xxx
Q So, the announcement of holdup was ahead of the firing

of the gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q And before the actual firing of the gun it was even still
said bad words before saying the holdup?
A After they fired the gun they uttered bad words, sir.
Q Mr. Witness before the announcement of the holdup
you do not have any idea that you will encounter that
nature which took place, is that correct?
A None, sir.
Q Within the two (2) year[s] period that you are plying the
route of Manila to Bolinao that was your first experience
of holdup?
A Yes, sir.
Q
24/33
11/1/2016
And the speed of above 70 kilometers per hour your

total attention is focus in front of the road, correct, Mr.
witness?
A Once in a while the driver look at the side mirror and
the rear view mirror, sir.
Q Before the announcement there was no reason for you to
look at any at the rear mirror, correct, Mr. witness?
Court:
Every now and then they usually look at the side mirror
and on the rear, that was his statement.
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q I am asking him if there was no reason for him . . . .
Fiscal:
Before the announcement of holdup, there was no

mention.
Court:
Every now and then.
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q When you said every now and then, how often is it, Mr.
witness?
A I cannot tell how often but I used to look at the mirror

once in a while, sir.
Q How many mirror do you have, Mr. witness?
A Four (4), sir.
Q Where are these located?
A Two (2) on the side mirror, center mirror and rear view
mirror, sir.
624
624

Q The two side mirror protruding outside the bus?

A Yes, sir, they are in the side of the bus, sir.
Q One of them is located on the left and the other on the
right, correct?
25/33
11/1/2016
A Yes, sir.
Q You only look at the side mirror when you are going to
over take, Mr. witness?
A No, sir.
Q Where is this center mirror located, Mr. witness?
A In the center, sir.
Q What is the purpose of that?
A So that I can see the passengers if they are already
settled so that I can start the engine, sir.
Q What about the remaining mirror?
A Rear view mirror, sir.
Q What is the purpose and where is it located?
A The rear view is located just above my head just to
check the passengers, sir.
Q So that the center mirror and the rear view mirror has
the same purpose?
A They are different, sir.
Q How do you differentiate of (sic) one from the other?
A The center mirror is used to check the center aisle while
the rear mirror is for the whole view of the passengers,
sir.
Q If you are going to look at any of your side mirrors, you
will never see any passengers, correct, Mr. witness?
A None, sir.
Q If you will look at your center mirror you will only see
the aisle and you will never see any portion of the body
of your passengers?
A Yes, sir.
Q Seated passengers?
A It is only focus (sic) on the middle aisle sir.
Q If you look at your rear mirror, you will only see the top
portion of the head of your passengers, correct?
A Only the portion of their head because they have
different hight (sic), sir.
Q You will never see any head of your passengers if they
were seated from the rear mirror portion, correct, Mr.
witness?
A Yes, sir.
625
26/33
11/1/2016
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
625

Q Before the announcement of holdup, all of your
passengers were actually sleeping?
A Some of my passengers were sleeping, some were not,
sir.
Q But you will agree Mr. witness that when you said every
now and then you are using your mirror? It is only a
glance, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And by mere glancing, Mr. witness you were not able to
identify any person on the basis of any of your mirror,
correct?
A If only a glance but when I look at him I can recognize
him, sir.
Q You agree a while ago by every now and then it is by
glancing, as a driver, Mr. witness by your side mirror?
A Not all glancing, there are times when you want to
recognize a person you look at him intently, sir.
Q The purposes of your mirror inside your Bus is mainly of
the safety of your passengers on board, Mr. witness?
A Yes, sir.
Q And as a driver, Mr. witness, you do not used (sic) your
mirror to identify the person particularly when you are
crossing (sic) at a speed of 70 kilometers per hour?
A I do that, sir.
Q How long Mr. witness can you focus your eyes on any of
these mirror before getting back your eyes into the main
road?
A Seconds only, sir.
Q When you said seconds, for how long the most Mr.
witness that you can do to fix your eyes on any of your
mirrors and the return back of (sic) your eyes into the
main road?
A Two seconds, sir.
Q At that time Mr. witness, that you were travelling at
about 70 kilometers you were glancing every now and
then on any of your mirrors at about two seconds,
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q
27/33
11/1/2016
And when you heard the announcement of holdup your

natural reaction is to look either at the center mirror or
rear mirror for two seconds, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you were instructed Mr. witness to even accelerate
your speed upon the announcement of holdup?
A No sir, they just told me to continue my driving, sir.
Fiscal:
May I request the vernacular alalay ka lang, steady ka

lang.
626
626

Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q Steady at what speed?
A 70 to 80, sir.
Q What is the minimum speed, Mr. witness for Buses
along North Expressway?
A 60 kilometers, sir.
Q Are you sure of that 60 kilometers, minimum? Are you
sure of that?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is what you know within the two (2) years that you
are driving? Along the North Expressway?
A Yes, sir.
Q And while you were at the precise moment, Mr. witness,
you were being instructed to continue driving, you were
not looking to anybody except focus yours eyes in front
of the road?
Fiscal:
May I request the vernacular. Nakikiramdam ako.
Atty. Osorio:
(to the witness)
Q Thats what you are doing?
A During the time they were gathering the money from
my passengers, that is the time when I look at them, sir.
28/33
11/1/2016
Q For two seconds, correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q Which of the four (4) mirrors that you are looking at
within two seconds, Mr. witness you said you are
nakikiramdam?
A The rear view mirror, sir.
Q The Bus that you were driving is not an air con bus?
A Ordinary bus, sir.
Q And at what time your passengers, most of your
passengers were already sleep (sic), Mr. witness?
A Most of my passengers, sir. Some of my passengers were
still sleep (sic), sir.
Q And the lights inside the Bus are off, correct Mr.
witness?
A The lights were on, sir.
Q While the passengers were sleep (sic) the light was still
on, Mr. witness, at the time of the trip.?
A Yes, sir.
627
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
627

Q Now, Mr. witness when the holdup was announced and
then when you look for two seconds in the rear mirror
you were not able to see any one, you were only sensing
what is happening inside your bus?
A I saw something, sir.
Q You saw something in front of your Bus? You can only
see inside when you are going to look at the mirror?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is the only thing that you see every now and then,
you said you were looking at the mirror?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many times, Mr. witness did you look Mr. witness
at the rear mirror during the entire occurance (sic) of
the alleged holdup?
A There were many times, sir.
Q The most that you can remember, please inform the
Honorable Court? During the occurance (sic) of the
29/33
11/1/2016
alleged holdup, Mr. witness?

A I cannot estimate, sir.
Q How long did the alleged holdup took place?
39
A More or less 25 minutes, sir.
When Rodolfo gave his sworn statement to the police

investigators in Plaridel, Bulacan after the robbery, he
described the felons. When asked by the police
investigators if he could identify the robbers if he see them
again, Rodolfo declared that he would be able to identify
them:
8. T: Natatandaan mo ba kung ano ang itsura ng
dalawang lalaki na nangholdup sa minamaneho
mong bus?
S: Halos magkasing taas, 54 o 55 katamtaman ang
pangangatawan, parehong nakapantalon ng maong
nakasuot ng jacket na maong, parehong naka rubber
shoes at pareho ring naka sumbrero.
9. T: Kung sakali bang makikita mo pa ang mga ito ay

makikilala mo pa sila?
40
S: Makikilala ko po sila.
_______________
39
TSN, Cacatian, November 18, 1997, pp. 1929.
40
Exhibit A.
628
628

When asked to identify the robbers during the trial,

Rodolfo spontaneously pointed to and identified Juan and
Victor:
Q Fiscal:
(to the witness)
xxx
Q Those two man (sic) who stated that it was a holdup

inside the bus and who fired the gun are they inside the
Court room (sic) today?
A Yes, maam.
30/33
11/1/2016
Q Point to us?
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to a man wearing red Tshirt and

when asked his name answered Victor Acuyan and the
man wearing green Tshirt
and when asked his name
41
answered Juan Gonzales.
For his part, Romulo likewise spontaneously pointed to and

identified Juan and Victor as the culprits when asked by
the prosecutor to identify the robbers from among those in
the courtroom:
xxx
Q You said that you were robbed inside the bus, how does
(sic) the robbing took place?
A They announced a hold up maam, afterwards, they
confiscated the money of the passengers including my
collections.
Q You said they who announced the hold up, whose (sic)
these they you are referring to?
A Those two (2), maam.
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to the two accused.
Public Pros.:
May we request that the accused be identified, Your

Honor.
Court:
(to both accused)
What are your names?
A Juan Escote, Your Honor. Victor Acuyan, Your Honor.

_______________
41
Ibid., pp. 89.

629
VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003
629

Public Pros.:
May we know from the accused if his name is Juan
Escote Gonzales because he just said Juan Escote. In
31/33
11/1/2016
the Information, it is one42Juan Gonzales, Jr., so, we

can change. Your Honor.
Moreover, when he was accosted by SPO3 Romeo Meneses

on October 25, 1997 in Tarlac, Tarlac,
Juan was in
43
possession of the identification card of the slain police
officer. Juan failed to explain to the trial court how and
under what circumstances he came into possession of said
identification card. Juan must necessarily be considered
the author of the robbery44 and the killing of SPO1 Manio,
Jr. In People v. Mantung, we held:
x x x [T]he recovery of part of the loot from Mantung or the time
of his arrest gave rise to a legal presumption of his guilt. As this
Court has held, [I]n the absence of an explanation of how one has
come into possession of stolen effects belonging to a person
wounded and treacherously killed, he must necessarily be
considered the author of the aggression and death of the said
person and of the robbery committed on him.
While police investigators did not place Juan and Victor in

a police lineup for proper identification by Rodolfo and
Romulo, it cannot thereby be concluded that absent such
lineup, their identification by Romulo and Rodolfo as the
authors of the robbery with homicide was unreliable. There
is no law or police regulation requiring a police lineup for
proper identification in every case. Even if there was no
police lineup, there could still be proper and reliable
identification as long as such identification was 45not
suggested or instigated to the witness by the police. In
this case, there is no evidence that the police officers had
supplied or even suggested to Rodolfo and Romulo the
identities of Juan and Victor as the perpetrators of the
robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio, Jr.
The Felony Committed by Juan and Victor
The Court finds that the trial court committed no error in
convicting Juan and Victor of robbery with homicide.
Article 294,
_______________
42
TSN, March 31, 1998, pp. 1920.
43
Exhibit H.
44
310 SCRA 819 (1999).
45
32/33
11/1/2016
33/33

People Vs Escote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Escote

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Escote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/1/2016

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

G.R. No. 140756. April 4, 2003.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

exercise said right.The court ordered the continuation of the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ought to remain silenthe who remains silent when he ought to

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

catena of cases that it is the most natural reaction of victims of

Romulo of his collection of the fares from the passengers. Romulo

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as

by the police. In this case, there is no evidence that the police

crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide would

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26, 1892, and

commission without risk to himself.The Court agrees with the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Court of Spain interpreting and construing the 1850 Penal Code

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

Same Same Same Circumstances which consist in the

knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the crime or of

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

plary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This Court held in

impair the right of the heirs to exemplary damages which had

VITUG, J., Separate Opinion:

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

distinct penalty prescribed therefor. Most importantly, such

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

then, Rodolfo looked at the side view mirror as well as the

Penned by Judge Basilio R. Gabo, Jr.

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

coming and overtaking vehicles and to observe the

that if the latter will follow their instructions, he will not

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mabalacat, Pampanga, performed an autopsy on the

Rodolfo and Romulo proceeded to the police station of

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

At the time, the BambanConcepcion bridge was closed to

Plaridel, Bulacan. Meneses

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of one SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., to the damage and prejudice of

On the strength of a warrant of arrest, the police officers

prosecution had rested its case on

Original Records of Crim. Case No. 443M97, p. 2.

VOL. 400, APRIL 4, 2003

People vs. Escote, Jr.

On March 11, 1999, the trial court rendered its Decision