l\epublit of tbt ~bilippinti

i>uprtmt Ql:ourt
fflanila

THIRD DIVISION

RUEL POQUIZ* y ORCINE and G.R. No. 238715

REYVALENCIAy GALUTAN,
Petitioners, Present:

LEONEN,J,
Chairperson,
- versus - HERNANDO,
INTING,
DELOS SANTOS, and
ROSARIO, JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. January 11, 2021

x·----------
~ \ ~~t.,~.... \t ----x

DECISION

DELOS SANTOS, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated November 27, 2017 and
the Resolution3 dated April 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
GR. CR No. 38798 which held petitioners Ruel Poquiz y Orcine (Poquiz)
and Rey Valenciay Galutan (Valencia) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294(5) of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Also referred to as "Rowell Russkies 0. Poquiz" and "Ruel Puquiz" in some parts of the rollo.
1
Rollo, pp. 12-33.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and
Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; id. at 35-48.
Id. at 50-51.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 238715

The Facts

In the Information dated September 2, 2015, Poquiz, Valencia, and

Kim Olorfenes (Olorfenes; still at-large) were charged with Robbery under
Article 293 of the RPC before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofMuntinlupa
City. The Information reads:

That on or about the 2nd day of September 2015 in the City of

Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with accused Ruel Poquiz y Orcine
armed with a knife, with intent to gain, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping and aiding one another, and by means of
violence against or intimidation upon the person of private complainant
P/INSP BOB BELVER Y TABLIGA, who has alighted from a [b]us, that
is, by trying to stab him and punching and kicking him on the different
parts of his body, and thereafter, accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously rob, take and divest said private complainant
of his belongings to wit: a hanger bag and back pack, containing one (1)
Apple [I]phone worth Six Thousand Pesos (Php 6,000.00), one (1) Cherry
Mobile phone worth One Thousand Pesos (Php 1,000.00), one (1) police
flashlight, two (2) pieces of magazine of pistol Taurus Caliber .9mm and
assorted clothing worth Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00), all in total
amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (Php 12,000.00), to the damage and
prejudice of said private complainant in the said total amount of Php
12,000.00

Contrary to law. 4

During arraignment on September 18, 2015, Poquiz and Valencia

entered a plea of not guilty. On September 21, 2015, pre-trial was
conducted. Trial on the merits then ensued. 5

The Version of the Prosecution

On September 2, 2015, at around 1:00 a.m., private complainant

Police Inspector Bob Belver y Tabliga (Belver) was alighting from a bus in
front of Bicol Express Eatery in Alabang Viaduct, Muntinlupa City when he
was approached by three men, later identified as Poquiz, Valencia, and
Olorfenes. The three men then declared a robbery and Valencia then
snatched Belver's backpack while the other accused attempted to take his
hanger bag, but the latter failed to do so. During the hold-up, Belver
informed Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes that he was a police officer,
however, none of them stopped and instead replied "walang pulis-pulis sa
amin." Poquiz then attempted to thrust a knife towards Belver, but Belver
was able to evade such thrust. Olorfenes and Valencia then started punching
and kicking Belver. Acting in self-defense, Belver then took his service

4
Id. at 36.
5
Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 238715

pistol and fired at the feet of Valencia and Poquiz. The three men then
quickly fled and left behind their knives and Belver's bag. 6

Upon hearing the gunshots, Police Officer 3 Elvi Ferranculo (PO3

Ferranculo) and Police Officer 1 John Paul Muego (POl Muego) arrived at
the scene of the crime. Upon learning of the robbery and mauling incident,
the two police officers brought Belver to the police station to have a blotter
report recorded. Belver was then examined by Medico-Legal Officer Police
Senior Inspector Dr. Rhea Manaba Cornelio for his physical injuries. 7 Upon
information from Belver's statement, PO3 Ferranculo and POl Muego
proceeded to Ospital ng Muntinlupa to check any person admitted for
gunshot wounds. The two police officers then found Poquiz and Valencia
who were both being treated for gunshot wounds in their right foot and left
leg, respectively. 8 ·

During his testimony, Belver positively identified Poquiz, Valencia

and Olorfenes as his assailants. Belver also identified the knives used by the
three men during the incident. Belver confirmed that he did not lose his
items as he was duly able to recover his bag when Poquiz, Valencia and
Olorfenes dropped the said items when the men fled after drawing his
service firearm. 9 PO3 Ferranculo testified and confirmed that he and POl
Muego responded to the crime scene upon hearing the sound of gunshots.
PO3 Ferranculo asserted that after accompanying Belver to the precinct to
blotter the incident, he and POl Muego went to the Ospital ng Muntinlupa to
look for possible victims of gunshot wounds and found Poquiz and Valencia
therein. 10

The prosecution also offered the following as documentary evidence:

(1) Salaysay of Belver; (2) Malayang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-aresto
by PO3 Ferranculo and POl Muego; (3) Request for Medico-Legal
Examination; (4) Medico-Legal Report dated September 2, 2015; (5)
photograph of the items forcibly taken from Belver during the robbery; (6)
photographs of the knives used; and (7) certified true copy of the Police
Blotter. The knives used by Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes were likewise
offered as exhibits. One knife was marked with "JVM-1" while the other
knife was marked with "JVM-2."ll

The Version of the Defense

The defense presented the following witnesses: (1) Poquiz; (2)

Olorfenes; (3) Joel De Asis (De Asis); and (4) Joyce Clinton Ditapat
6
Id. at 37.
7
Id.
Id. at 37-38.
9
Id. at 38.
IO Id.
II Id. at 38-39.
Decision 4 GR. No. 238715

(Ditapat). Poquiz denied the charge of Robbery against him but instead,
admitted that he punched Belver in the morning of September 2, 2015.
Poquiz claimed that he was drunk at the time he punched Belver. Poquiz
admitted that he had a quarrel with fellow tricycle driver named Omeng and
that he punched Belver after mistakenly identifying him as companion of
Omeng. Poquiz claimed that after punching Belver, Valencia tried to pacify
him and he left the area and entered an alley. Upon entering the alley, he
heard a gunshot. Poquiz claimed that he then saw Valencia was shot. To
retaliate, Poquiz then picked up a bottle and threw it towards Belver, but
missed. Belver then shot him on his left knee. After the incident, Olorfenes
then brought him and Valencia to the hospital where they were apprehended
by the two police officers. Olorfenes corroborated Poquiz's version of the
incident. 12

De Asis testified that he was sitting on the pavement under the

Alabang Viaduct when he saw Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes intoxicated.
De Asis narrated that Poquiz caused a commotion after he was refused from
borrowing the tricycle of his friend. Poquiz then punched two men: a
jeepney driver and then Belver who had just alighted from a bus. De Asis
claimed that Belver was being beaten up and as a defense, he drew a gun and
fired at Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes, but Valencia blocked Poquiz and
Valencia was hit on the foot. 13

Ditapat testified that he was biking around the area when he witnessed
what transpired. Ditapat claimed that he saw Poquiz causing a commotion
and was quarreling with someone then he saw Poquiz hit Belver. Belver
then drew his gun and shot at the person in front of him. Ditapat claimed
14
that he quickly fled home because he was afraid.

The Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision 15 dated May 18, 2016, the RTC, Branch 276,

Muntinlupa City convicted Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes of Robbery
under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294(5) of the RPC. The RTC
ruled that the straightforward and categorical testimony of Belver is
relatively free from any serious flaw. Neither was Belver impelled by any ill
motive to impute the commission of the crime to Poquiz, Valencia, and
Olorfenes. The RTC found the versions of the defense to be unbelievable,
improbable and unconvincing as the testimonies of the defense witnesses
were fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies which render their
testimonies questionable.

12
Id. at 39.
13
Id. at 39-40.
14
Id. at 40.
15
Penned by Presiding Judge Antonietta Pablo-Medina; id. at 67-81.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 238715

The RTC ruled that the testimony of defense witness Ditapat

supported and even corroborated the evidence of the prosecution. Ditapat
bolstered the testimony of Belver that the latter was attacked and repeatedly
mauled while on the ground and that he fired at the attackers after being
mauled. The RTC held that the prosecution's evidence supports a conviction
for robbery with slight physical injuries. The violence committed and
physical injuries sustained by Belver was unquestionably present. The crime
of Robbery occurred because there was a severance of the goods from the
possession of the owner even for an instant.

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused

RUEL POQUIZ y Orcine, REY VALENCIA y Galutan and KIM
OLORFENES y Nudalo GUILTY of the crime of Robbery under Article
293 and penalized under Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
and hereby sentences them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years and four (4) months of prision correccional minimum, as minimum,
to six (6) years and I day ofprision mayor minimum, as maximum.

No civil liability is imposed as the items subject of the crime were

recovered.

SO ORDERED. 16

The Ruling of the CA

In a Decision 17 dated November 27, 2017, the CA affirmed the

Decision of the RTC in convicting Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes of
Robbery under Article 293 of the RPC. The CA ruled that Poquiz and
Valencia, with intent to gain unlawfully, took Belver's bag when he alighted
from the bus. To perpetrate the robbery, Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes
used violence, particularly they threw punches and lunged a knife on Belver.
The CA held that, in cases of robbery, taking is considered complete from
the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. Consequently, actual gain is irrelevant
as the important consideration is the intent to gain.

The CA sustained the finding of the RTC that there were no

inconsistencies in Belver's testimony. The CA ruled that the RTC has the
best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and that in the
absence of any showing that the RTC plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC.

16
Id. at 81.
17
Supra note 2.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 238715

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The

Decision dated 18 May 2016 of the RTC is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS:

Accused-appellants RUEL POQUIZ y ORCINE and REY

VALENCIA y Galutan are hereby declared GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under
Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and are hereby sentenced
to suffer the prison term ranging from 4 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS of
prision correccional medium, as minimum, to 10 YEARS prision mayor
medium, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 18

In a Resolution 19 dated April 12, 2018, the CA. denied Poquiz and
Valencia's Motion for Reconsideration. Poquiz and Valencia filed a Petition
for Review on Certiorari before the Court.

The Issue

The issue for resolution is whether Poquiz and Valencia are guilty of
the crime charged.

The Ruling of the Court

Article 293 of the RPC states:

ART. 293. Who are Guilty of Robbery. - Any person who, with
intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon
anything, shall be guilty of robbery.

To warrant a conviction of the crime of Robbery, the following

elements must concur: 1) there is a taking of personal property; 2) the
personal property belongs to another; 3) the taking is with animus lucrandi
or intent to gain; and 4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of
persons or with force upon things. 20 In their Petition, Poquiz and Valencia
argue that the third element of animus lucrandi is absent because there was
no actual taking since Belver was never totally dispossessed of his
possessions. Poquiz and Valencia contend that without unlawful taking, their
animus lucrandi or intent to gain cannot be concluded.
18
Rollo, pp. 47-48.
19
Supra note 3.
20
Consulta v. People, 598 Phil. 464,471 (2009).
Decision 7 GR. No. 238715

We disagree.

In Consulta v. People, 21 the Court held that animus lucrandi or intent

to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of
the offender. The offender's intent to gain may be presumed from the
forcible taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. 22 In
People v. Hernandez, 23 the Court held that, in cases of Robbery, the crime is
considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the
thing even ifhe has no opportunity to dispose of the same, to wit:

In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking

or apoderamiento which is defined as the taking of items without the
consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things. Taking is considered complete
from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he
has no opportunity to dispose of the same. There is, likewise, no need to
prove the exact amount of money taken, as long as there is proof of the
unlawful taking. Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the
crime of robbery, is an internal act; hence, presumed from the unlawful
taking of things. 24 (Emphasis supplied)

A careful review of the records and the testimony ofBelver shows that
Belver's bag was already forcibly taken and Belver was dispossessed of the
same when Poquiz and Valencia left the scene of the crime. Poquiz and
Valencia fled in fear and dropped the bag after Belver fired his gun. When
Poquiz and Valencia unlawfully took Belver's bag, the crime of Robbery had
been fully consummated. It is of no moment that Belver was able to
subsequently recover the items forcibly taken from him. Such instance does
not preclude the presence of intent to gain on the part of Poquiz and
Valencia.

Hence, all the aforementioned elements of Robbery under Article 293

of the RPC are present: (1) the subject property involved is one of the bags
which Belver had with him when he alighted from the bus; (2) Poquiz and
Valencia unlawfully took the bag from Belver; (3) there was animus lucrandi
or intent to gain on the part of Poquiz and Valencia in taking Belver's bag;
and (4) Poquiz and Valencia used violence by throwing punches and lunging
a knife on Belver to perpetrate the crime. Accordingly, the crime of Robbery
was committed by Poquiz and Valencia.

21 Id.
22 Id.
23
476 Phil. 66 (2004).
24
Id. at 85.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 238715

The Court sustains the fmding of the CA that Belver's testimony was
positive and credible. There are no inconsistencies in the testimony of
Belver. The Court also upholds the fmding of the RTC that Belver's
testimony was delivered in a straightforward and categorical marmer, free
from any serious flaw. In People v. Eling, 25 the Court held that the finding
of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the
highest degree of respect and are entitled to great weight, to wit:

The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses while on the stand, it can discern whether or not they are telling
the truth. The unbending jurisprudence is that its findings on the matter of
credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and
will not be disturbed on appeal. It is well to remind appellant that when
the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in
the case at bar, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this
Court. The jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the
factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the
credibility of witnesses can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears
in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some
fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would
have altered the result. 26

The Court fmds no cogent reason to disturb the fmdings of both the
CA and the trial court. There is no showing that the CA and the RTC plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might
affect the result of the case. Neither is there showing that the assessment of
the RTC ofBelver's testimony and the prosecution's evidence was arbitrary.
Hence, Poquiz and Valencia's conviction for the crime of Robbery under
Article 293 of the RPC must necessarily stand.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on

Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated November 27, 2017 and the
Resolution dated April 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR No.
38798 are AFFIRMED. Petitioners Ruel Poquizy Orcine and Rey Valencia
y Galutan are hereby declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294(5) of
the Revised Penal Code and are hereby sentenced to suffer the prison term
ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
medium, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as
maximum.

25
576 Phil. 665 (2008).
26
Id. at 675.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 238715

SO ORDERED.

r/
EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice
Chairperson

HE
Associate Justice Associate Justice

RICA

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
Decision 10 G.R. No. 238715

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.