In the Philippines, a conviction for robbery can hinge on the testimony of a co-conspirator, even if that testimony stands alone. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle, emphasizing that if a co-conspirator’s account is straightforward and detailed, appearing free of fabrication, it can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling underscores the weight given to honest and consistent testimonies, even from those involved in the crime, in the pursuit of justice.

Breaking and Entering: Can One Man’s Testimony Seal a Robbery Conviction?

This case revolves around the robbery of a Rice-in-a-Box store in Caloocan City. Ricky “Totsie” Marquez, Roy Bernardo, and Jomer Magalong were charged with robbery with force upon things, along with Ryan Benzon, after Marlon Mallari, a co-conspirator, testified against them. Mallari’s testimony detailed how the group broke into the store and stole various items. The central legal question is whether Mallari’s uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to convict the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The factual backdrop involves Sonia Valderosa, the owner of the Rice-in-a-Box franchise, who discovered her store had been forcibly opened and robbed. Mallari, who was part of the group, confessed to his involvement and identified Marquez, Bernardo, Magalong, and Benzon as the perpetrators. He explained how Marquez initiated the plan, how they broke the store’s padlock, and how they carried away the stolen items. In contrast, the petitioners presented an alibi, claiming they were enjoying a videoke session nearby and later saw the store already opened. The trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) both gave credence to Mallari’s testimony, leading to the conviction of the accused.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, clarified that the crime committed falls under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which addresses robbery in an uninhabited place or a private building. The Court emphasized that the store was not used as a dwelling, thus distinguishing it from robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299 of the RPC. Article 302 states:

ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. – Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, provided that any of the following circumstances is present:

1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress;
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken;
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks, or other similar tools;
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken;
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if the same be broken open elsewhere.

When the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

Building on this, the Court addressed the issue of conspiracy. The testimony of Mallari was crucial in establishing that the petitioners acted in concert to commit the robbery. The Court highlighted that conspiracy exists when individuals perform specific acts with such coordination that it indicates a common purpose. In this case, Marquez proposed the robbery, provided the tool to break the lock, and, along with the others, entered the store to steal items. This coordinated action demonstrated a clear conspiracy, making all participants equally liable.

The petitioners challenged Mallari’s credibility, arguing that his testimony should be disregarded since he was a co-conspirator who was not charged in the Information. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, pointing out that the prosecution had the option to use Mallari as a state witness. The Court also reiterated the established principle that the assessment of a witness’s credibility is best left to the trial court, which can observe the witness’s demeanor. Absent any indication that the trial court acted arbitrarily, its assessment should be upheld.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ defense of alibi, stating that it is the weakest defense and can only prosper if it is proven that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. In this case, the petitioners failed to prove this impossibility, as they admitted to being in a location only 15 meters away from the store. This proximity undermined their alibi, making it insufficient to overcome Mallari’s positive identification of them as the perpetrators.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the general rule that a co-conspirator’s testimony is insufficient for conviction unless corroborated. However, it emphasized an exception: a co-conspirator’s testimony, even if uncorroborated, can be sufficient if it is given in a straightforward manner and contains details that could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought. Mallari’s testimony met this exception as it was sincere, detailed, and candid, leading the Court to conclude that it deserved full weight and credence.

Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in applying Article 299 of the RPC. Since the robbery occurred in a store and not in an inhabited house, Article 302 was the applicable provision. The Court then adjusted the prison term to reflect the correct provision, sentencing the petitioners to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and eight (8) months to four (4) years, nine (9) months, and ten (10) days of prision correccional. The order to indemnify Valderosa for the stolen goods, amounting to P42,000.00, was affirmed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator, Marlon Mallari, was sufficient to convict the petitioners of robbery. The Supreme Court ruled that it was, given the straightforward and detailed nature of Mallari’s account.
What crime were the petitioners charged with?	The petitioners were charged with robbery with force upon things, specifically for breaking into a store and stealing items worth P42,000.00. The charges were based on Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code, pertaining to robbery in an uninhabited place.
What was the role of Marlon Mallari in the crime?	Marlon Mallari was a co-conspirator who acted as a lookout during the robbery. He later confessed his involvement and testified against the other perpetrators, providing crucial details about the crime.
Why wasn’t Marlon Mallari charged as an accused?	Marlon Mallari was not charged because the prosecution chose to use him as a state witness. This is a legal option available to the prosecution when a co-conspirator is willing to testify against the others involved in the crime.
What was the petitioners’ defense?	The petitioners claimed they were at a videoke session nearby and later saw the store already opened, presenting an alibi. They argued that Mallari’s testimony was not credible and that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy.
How did the Court determine the applicable law?	The Court determined that Article 302 of the RPC was applicable because the store was not used as a dwelling, distinguishing it from robbery in an inhabited house. This clarification led to a modification of the imposed prison term.
What is the significance of conspiracy in this case?	The Court found that the petitioners acted in conspiracy, meaning they coordinated and shared a common purpose to commit the robbery. This finding made all participants equally liable, regardless of the extent of their individual actions.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification. The petitioners were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and eight (8) months to four (4) years, nine (9) months, and ten (10) days of prision correccional and ordered to indemnify the victim.

This case reinforces the principle that a detailed and honest testimony from a co-conspirator can be a powerful tool in prosecuting crimes, even without corroborating evidence. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of properly applying the relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code to ensure just and accurate outcomes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ricky “Totsie” Marquez, Roy Bernardo, and Jomer Magalong v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 03, 2012