View full case

RICKY “TOTSIE” MARQUEZ v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

This case involves the robbery of a Rice-in-a-Box store in Caloocan City. The accused, Ricky "Totsie" Marquez, Roy Bernardo, Jomer Magalong, and Ryan Benzon, were charged with the crime of Robbery With Force Upon Things. The accused were alleged to have confederated to rob the store by destroying the door lock and taking various items inside, which belonged to the complainant, Sonia Valderosa.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of Marlon Mallari, who stated that he was with the accused on the night of the robbery. Mallari claimed that Marquez suggested robbing the Rice-in-a-Box store and that Magalong and Bernardo used a lead pipe to destroy the padlock. Mallari acted as the lookout while the accused entered the store and took the stolen items. The stolen items were then brought to Benzon's uncle's house. Mallari later informed his brother and Valderosa about his involvement in the robbery.

The accused presented a different version of events, claiming that they were having a videoke session until 2:00 a.m. and decided to eat lugaw at a rolling eatery before going home. They passed by Mallari, who was standing in front of the Rice-in-a-Box store, on their way to the lugawan. When they saw the store already opened, they did not report the incident.

The trial court found the accused guilty based on Mallari's identification and narration of their participation in the robbery. The court disregarded the accused's denial and alibi, stating that it was not physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, leading the accused to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioners argued that their defense of denial and alibi should have been considered and that Mallari's testimony was not credible. The prosecution argued that Mallari was a credible witness and his testimony was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the robbery with force upon things was committed in an inhabited house or uninhabited place.

  2. Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the penalty imposed by the trial court.

  3. Whether the CA erred in applying the wrong provision of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in convicting the petitioners

  4. Whether the petitioners, acting in conspiracy, committed the crime of robbery as charged

  5. Whether the credibility of witness Mallari was adversely affected by his non-inclusion as an accused in the Information.

  6. Whether Mallari's positive identification of the petitioners as the perpetrators of the robbery prevails over their denial and alibi defenses.

RULING:

  1. The Information and the trial court's judgment of conviction did not specify whether the robbery with force upon things was committed in an inhabited house or uninhabited place. However, the appellate court erred in discussing robbery in an inhabited house and applying the penalty under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. As such, the Court finds that the robbery in this case should be considered as robbery in an uninhabited place under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. The Court points out the error made by the appellate court in affirming the penalty imposed by the trial court. The correct penalty to be imposed for the crime of robbery in an uninhabited place is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos.

  3. The CA erred in applying Article 299 of the RPC. The establishment allegedly robbed by the petitioners is not an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as defined under Article 301. The applicable provision in this case is Article 302 of the RPC.

  4. The petitioners, acting in conspiracy, committed the crime of robbery. The testimony of Mallari, a co-conspirator, establishes that all the petitioners participated in the commission of the crime. They planned the robbery, destroyed the store's padlock and broke into the store, took various items, and intended to sell and share the stolen proceeds among themselves. The responsibility of conspirators is collective, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations.

  5. Mallari's credibility was not adversely affected by his non-inclusion as an accused in the Information. The prosecution exercised its legal option to utilize him as a state witness instead of charging him as a co-conspirator. The trial court's assessment of the witness's credibility is given deference unless there is arbitrariness or misapplication of facts, which is not present in this case.

  6. Mallari's positive identification of the petitioners as the perpetrators of the robbery, along with the absence of any ill-motive on his part, prevails over their denial and alibi defenses. Alibi is the weakest defense and can easily be fabricated, and the petitioners failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. Moreover, the testimony of a co-conspirator can be considered sufficient for conviction if given in a straightforward manner and contains details that could not have been a deliberate afterthought.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Robbery may be committed with violence against or intimidation of persons, or by the use of force upon things.

  • Robbery in an inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to worship and robbery in an uninhabited place or private building are defined and penalized under specific articles of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The elements and circumstances for robbery in an inhabited house or robbery in an uninhabited place are enumerated in the Revised Penal Code.

  • The penalty for robbery in an uninhabited place is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos.

  • Robbery committed in an uninhabited place or a private building, with certain circumstances such as breaking walls, roof, floor, or outside door or window, is penalized under Article 302 of the RPC.

  • Conspiracy in criminal law requires that all conspirators perform specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the crime. The responsibility of conspirators is collective, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations.

  • The assessment of witness credibility is best made by the trial court.

  • Alibi is the weakest defense and must show not only that the accused were in another place at the time of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene.

  • The testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, will be considered sufficient if given sincerely and contains details that could not have been fabricated.