View full case

PEOPLE v. EFREN VILLENA

FACTS:

The case involves four accused who were charged with robbery with homicide. The crime occurred on September 28, 1996, at the Orjalo residence in Barangay Estanza, Lingayen, Pangasinan. The prosecution witnesses testified that on that day, at around 1:30 p.m., the spouses Josefina and Herminio Orjalo, Sr. were having lunch in their kitchen together with their housemaid, laundrywoman, and grandson. They heard someone call out from the store beside their house and saw the four accused inside. Josefina went to the store and encountered the accused Villena, Tinio, and Clemente, who introduced themselves as CIS agents. The accused had firearms and showed Josefina a photocopy of a warrant of arrest. Josefina returned to the kitchen and showed the warrant to her husband, Herminio. They tried to talk to the accused, but it was futile. Josefina suggested going to the police station, but the accused refused. Josefina and Herminio returned to the house to change clothes, followed by the accused. Josefin found Herminio lying face down on the floor when she returned to the living room. She was then ordered to do the same. The accused Clemente went to the kitchen and told the housemaid to join them in the living room. The caretaker and the laundrywoman were also ordered to join them in the living room. One of the accused announced a holdup, and Josefina was made to lead them to the master's bedroom where the accused took jewelry. Accused Villena warned the household to be quiet, but Herminio disregarded the warning and tried to leave. Accused Villena shot him, and accused Clemente fired another shot at him. Herminio was hit in the thigh and hip and slumped to the ground. Josefina and the other witnesses sought help from their neighbors and brought Herminio to the hospital.

On September 8, 1996, Herminio Orjalo Sr. was shot and killed by unidentified gunmen while he was tending to his farm in Lingayen, Pangasinan. Herminio sustained gunshot wounds on his hip and left thigh and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The cause of death was a heart attack, precipitated by the gunshot wounds.

After the incident, Josefina Orjalo, the wife of the deceased, returned to her house to find that her housemaids were no longer there. She learned that the Lingayen police investigators had taken them to the station for statements. Josefina herself was later fetched by the policemen for investigation.

On October 1, 1996, Josefina and her housemaid Jocelyn were invited by the PNP provincial command of Lingayen for a follow-up investigation. They were shown three pictures and asked if they recognized any of the men. They pointed to the pictures of accused Villena and Tinio and identified them as the culprits.

Josefina and Jocelyn then executed a supplemental sworn statement before the Pangasinan PNP provincial command, identifying accused Tinio and Villena as the culprits. Jocelyn stated that it was Tinio who called her while she was washing dishes and Villena who fired the first shot at Herminio Orjalo Sr.

On October 23, 1996, Josefina, Jocelyn, and another housemaid Teodorica were brought to the PNP Crime Investigation Group (CIG), Provincial Field Office, Dagupan City, for a show-up identification. They identified suspect Arnaldo Clemente as one of the malefactors.

On October 24, 1996, Clemente was included as an accused in the criminal complaint filed by Josefina Orjalo. A preliminary examination was conducted by Judge Hermogenes Fernandez on October 29, 1996, and a warrant for the arrest of Clemente was issued. Clemente immediately surrendered to the CIG.

The accused Villena, Tinio, and Clemente claimed that they were not at the scene of the crime when it happened. Villena testified that he was working as a taxi driver for Mr. Rodrigo Yarisantos in San Mateo, Rizal at the time of the incident. He claimed that his wife learned about a job vacancy and convinced him to apply for the position. He presented a logbook maintained by Yarisantos to support his claim.

Accused Villena further testified that he drove the taxi on September 28 and October 9, 1996, and that he and his wife borrowed the taxi from Yarisantos to go to Pangasinan on October 9, 1996. Upon arriving in Pangasinan, they were arrested by the police for allegedly running over a man in Marikina. Villena was detained in the provincial jail of Lingayen.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the accused can be held liable for robbery with homicide.

  2. Whether or not the accused can be positively identified as the perpetrators of the crime.

  3. Whether the newly discovered evidence presented by accused Tinio warrants a new trial.

  4. Whether the identification made by the prosecution witnesses is reliable and sufficient to convict appellants Villena and Clemente.

  5. Whether the mug shot shown to the prosecution witnesses was unduly suggestive.

  6. Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses erode their credibility.

  7. Whether the presence of appellant Clemente at the crime scene was positively established by the eyewitnesses' account.

  8. Whether the inconsistencies in the declarations of the witnesses affect their credibility.

  9. Whether the acquittal of accused Tinio on the basis of newly discovered evidence can be invoked by appellant Clemente.

  10. Whether the actions of the malefactors warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING:

  1. The accused are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Robbery with Homicide and are sentenced to death. The trial court recommended the grant of executive clemency to the accused due to their lack of intent to kill the victim.

  2. The accused were positively identified as the perpetrators of the crime. Accused Villena's distinguishing marks were not mentioned by any of the prosecution witnesses, but this does not render their testimonies unreliable. Accused Clemente and Tinio were positively identified by the prosecution eyewitnesses.

  3. The trial court acquitted accused Tinio based on the newly discovered evidence presented, which established his presence in a shooting competition during the time of the crime. The newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial for Tinio.

  4. The identification made by the prosecution witnesses was found unreliable and insufficient to convict appellant Villena. The mug shot shown to the witnesses was unduly suggestive, as it focused attention on Villena by displaying information about a similar crime he was being investigated for. Appellant Villena was acquitted.

  5. Appellant Clemente's complicity in the crime was established by the prosecution beyond moral certainty. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements only referred to minor points and did not erode their credibility.

  6. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements do not erode their credibility as eyewitnesses.

  7. The presence of appellant Clemente at the crime scene was positively established by the eyewitnesses' account.

  8. The inconsistencies in the declarations of the witnesses do not affect their credibility.

  9. The acquittal of accused Tinio on the basis of newly discovered evidence cannot be invoked by appellant Clemente.

  10. The actions of the malefactors do not warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Identification of the accused is crucial in a criminal case and the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime carries great weight in the determination of their guilt.

  • Lack of intent to kill may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the imposition of the death penalty, which may lead to the grant of executive clemency.

  • Eyewitness identification is often decisive in the conviction or acquittal of an accused.

  • Identification procedures should avoid impermissible suggestion, such as displaying photographs that focus attention on a single person.

  • Inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that refer only to minor points do not necessarily erode their credibility.

  • In case of conflict between an affidavit and a testimony of a witness in court, the latter commands greater weight.

  • Court testimonies are generally viewed as more reliable as they are subjected to extensive cross-examination from the opposing counsel and incisive queries from the trial judge.

  • Lack of corroborating evidence significantly weakens a self-serving defense.

  • The determination of the degree of malice in a crime is essential in imposing the appropriate penalty.