View full case

PEDRO C. CONSULTA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Pedro C. Consulta was convicted for the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. The incident took place on June 7, 1999, in Makati City, involving Nelia R. Silvestre, Maria Viovicente, and Veronica Amar. They were riding a tricycle when appellant and his brother Edwin Consulta blocked their path on Ambel Street. Appellant threatened Nelia, grabbed her gold necklace worth P3,500, and made insulting remarks. Nelia and her companions reported the incident to the police. Appellant claimed that the charge was fabricated due to a rental payment dispute with Nelia's family. Appellant presented witnesses testifying to his innocence. The trial court found appellant guilty, stating that there was intent to gain from the unlawful taking of the necklace. The appellate court affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the penalty. On appeal, appellant raised issues concerning his arraignment, denial of due process, commission of the crime, and sufficiency of evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not appellant was validly arraigned.

  2. Whether or not appellant was denied due process having been represented by a fake lawyer during arraignment, pre-trial, and presentation of principal witnesses for the prosecution.

  3. Whether or not appellant has committed the crime of which he was charged.

  4. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The Court resolved the first two issues in the negative. The records showed that the appellant was represented by Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyes during the early stages of the trial, albeit being a lawyer who "seems not a lawyer."

  2. With regards to the third issue, the Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons.

  3. As for the fourth issue, the Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the complainant and her companions, established the circumstances of the robbery and the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of the stolen item.

  • In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.