View full case

PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA

FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellant Jerry Orias who was found guilty of multiple murder by the Court of Appeals (CA). The incident occurred on September 27, 1992, when Orias and Mitsuel Elarcosa, both members of the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), entered the house of the dela Cruz family. They requested supper and engaged in conversation before suddenly shooting Jose and Jorge dela Cruz. Segundina, the mother, witnessed Elarcosa and Orias searching for money and other items in a wooden chest. Rosemarie, the daughter, managed to escape and hide while her parents and brother were killed. The next morning, Rosemarie discovered the bodies and found the money and certificate of registration missing. Elarcosa, Orias, and another individual were charged with robbery with multiple homicide. Orias claimed he was at a dance hall during the incident but was convicted by the RTC based on the positive identification by Rosemarie. The RTC acquitted the other accused. On appeal, the CA affirmed Orias' conviction for multiple murder, modifying the RTC's decision. Orias appealed to the Supreme Court. Both parties were given the opportunity to file supplemental briefs but opted not to do so. Orias argues in his Brief that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the testimony of Rosemarie, the witness, is credible.

  2. Whether the alibi defense of accused-appellant Orias is valid.

  3. Whether the accused-appellant can be convicted of robbery with homicide.

  4. Whether there was conspiracy established in the commission of the crimes.

  5. Whether accused-appellant should be convicted of the complex crime of multiple murder.

  6. What is the penalty for the crime of murder?

  7. What is the penalty when there are aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime?

  8. What damages may be awarded in cases of murder and homicide?

RULING:

  1. The testimony of Rosemarie is credible. The trial court, as affirmed by the CA, found her detailed testimony to be clear, consistent, and convincing. The credibility of a witness is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to observe the demeanor and bodily movements of the witness. Unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error, the appellate court generally defers to the trial court's assessment.

  2. The alibi defense of accused-appellant Orias is not valid. To succeed in an alibi defense, the accused must prove not only that they were in another place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime. Accused-appellant Orias failed to present convincing evidence that he did not leave the dance hall, which is located in the same barangay where the crime was committed, on the evening of the incident. Additionally, alibi is an inherently weak defense that crumbles in the face of positive identification by truthful witnesses.

  3. No, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted of robbery with homicide. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove that robbery was committed, as there was no adequate independent proof that anything was stolen from the victims' house.

  4. Yes, conspiracy was established in the commission of the crimes. In the absence of direct proof, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. It does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as each of the actors incurs the same criminal liability, because the act of one is the act of all.

  5. No, accused-appellant should not be convicted of the complex crime of multiple murder. The acts of accused-appellant demonstrated the existence of conspiracy, thereby imputing collective criminal responsibility upon them. The three crimes of murder did not result from a single act but from several individual and distinct acts. Therefore, accused-appellant should be convicted of three counts of murder for the death of the three victims.

  6. The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death.

  7. When there are aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

  8. In cases of murder and homicide, the following damages may be awarded: civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim, actual or compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and interest (in proper cases). Civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 50,000 are awarded automatically in cases of murder and homicide. Exemplary damages may also be granted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Assessment of witness credibility is within the discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to observe the demeanor and bodily movements of the witness.

  • Testimonial evidence must come from a credible witness and be credible in itself. It should be in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.

  • Alibi must prove not only the absence of the accused at the crime scene, but also the physical impossibility of their presence at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. Alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.

  • Robbery with homicide requires conclusive proof of the robbery itself, in addition to the killing of the victim. If the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing may be classified as simple homicide or murder, depending on the presence of any qualifying circumstances.

  • The crime committed in this case is triple murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by the circumstance of being perpetrated in the dwelling of the victims.

  • Treachery must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and in this case, it was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected.

  • Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony, and in this case, the acts of the accused-appellant and another person evinced the existence of conspiracy.

  • Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.

  • In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim.

  • When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.

  • In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the offender.

  • Complex crime has two kinds: compound crime and complex crime proper.

  • Singularity of criminal act is required to apply the first half of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, while singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law.

  • The act of one is the act of all in a conspiracy.

  • The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.

  • When there are no aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.

  • Civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically without need for allegation and proof other than the death of the victim in cases of murder and homicide.

  • Exemplary damages may be granted in cases of murder and homicide.