Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Iloilo

P/Sr. Insp. MARCO A. JARODA, I.S. NO: ________________

Complainant,
FOR: ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
-versus- (Art. 294, par. (1), Revised Penal Code)

TITO CRUZ and VIC CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------x

RES OLUT IO N

The Respondents, TITO CRUZ and VIC CRUZ were charged of the crime of
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE in a complaint filed by Police Senior Inspector MARCO A.
JARODA.

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the following documents:

1. Joint Affidavits of Bea S. Robles and Francesca S. Campos;

2. Affidavit of Geraldine B. Demetri;
3. Affidavit of Paris J. Michaels;
4. Affidavit of Police Officer Romeo V. Benamarca;
5. Death Certificate of Joey Cruz;
6. Autopsy Report of Joey Cruz;
7. Anatomical Sketch of Joey Cruz;
8. Police Record of Events and others.

Statement of Facts

Based on the investigation conducted by the Police Investigator, PO2 JANVIC CHAN,
the facts of the case are stated hereunder:

That on or about the 24th day of May 2008, at around 12:45 in the afternoon in
Tabuc Suba, Jaro, Iloilo City, Philippines, the respondents together with the deceased
JOEY CRUZ conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
while armed with a handgun staged a “hold-up” at Iloilo Supermart, Tabuc Suba, Jaro
Branch owned and operated by JHONNY B. QUE. That while inside, the respondents
took or steal away an amount of forty eight thousand (Php 48, 000) pesos and food
stuffs from the grocery. Thereafter, they proceeded to Pototan, Iloilo to divide the loot
among themselves. While they were dividing the loot, an argument ensued between
TITO CRUZ and JOEY CRUZ which prompted TITO CRUZ to draw his gun and shot
JOEY CRUZ in the forehead, killing the latter instantly.

In the joint affidavit of witnesses Bea S. Robles and Francesca R. Campos, they
stated that on May 24, 2008 at about 12:45 in the afternoon, they were inside Iloilo
Supermart when the robbery happened. While standing in Counter 1 to pay for their
groceries, they saw a man pointing a gun at the cashier and declared a “Hold up!” while
his two companions emptied the cash registers and took some grocery stuffs.

In the affidavit of Geraldine B. Demetri, one of the cashiers on duty during the
time of the robbery, stated that while she was at Counter 1, a person pointed his gun to
her and immediately declared a “hold up!”and two other customers who were falling in
line to pay were ordered to drop on their knees. One of the robbers emptied the cash
registers while the other took some grocery stuffs.

In the affidavit of Paris J. Michaels, one of the customers during the time of the
robbery, stated that while she was standing near the cosmetics section, she heard a
person declaring a “hold up!”. The other robber forced her to join the other customers to
kneel down near counter 1. That after emptying the cash registers and taking some
groceries, one of the robbers shouted “lakat na kita!”. They immediately drove away
using a red owner type jeep.

And in the affidavit of Police Senior Inspector Romeo V. Benamarca, stated that
he was patrolling at Brgy. Mabalud, Pototan when he heard a gunshot from an
abandoned rice mill. When he proceeded to the area, he saw TITO CRUZ holding a .45
caliber pistol and the lifeless body of JOEY CRUZ lying on the ground with his own
blood, while VIC CRUZ was just standing a meter away from TITO CRUZ. He recovered
an amount of forty eight thousand (Php 48, 000) pesos inside a clear plastic bag with
printed logo of Iloilo Supermart. That he immediately arrested TITO and VIC CRUZ and
brought them to the Pototan Police Station, while JOEY CRUZ was brought to the
nearest hospital. That upon further search in the crime scene, an empty bullet shell and
three (3) live ammunitions were likewise recovered and turned over to the exhibit
custodian SPO2 Roger M. Carman.

As for the respondents, in their counter-affidavits, they vehemently denied the

accusations against them putting up self-defense and alibi as their defenses. TITO
CRUZ alleged that on May 24, 2008, he and his cousins VIC and JOEY were on a
drinking spree, which started from eight o’clock in the morning and ended at around 2
o’clock in the afternoon. That he was awakened by the shouting of his “live-in” partner
TITA and the commotion outside of his house. He then took his gun and went out.
There, he saw JOEY holding a bag with TITO’s money. Upon seeing him, while carrying
a bolo, JOEY ran towards TITO. So the latter shot the former in order to defend himself.

VIC CRUZ likewise denied the allegations against him, stating that after their
drinking spree on May 24, 2008, he went home. And at about four o’clock in the
afternoon of the said day, he was awakened by his mother telling him that there were
police officers looking for him. He then voluntarily went to the police station to answer
the charges against him.

Analyses/ Findings and Recommendations

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states:

“Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons- Penalties —Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence or intimidation of any person shall
suffer:

1. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death, when by reason or on

occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, x
x x.” (Italics Supplied)

Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a direct relation, an intimate
connection, between the robbery and the killing, even if the killing is prior to, concurrent
with, or subsequent to the robbery. (People vs.Salazar, 277 SCRA 67 [1997]).

The facts of the case before us squarely fall under the crime of Robbery with
Homicide. The time element between the consummation of robbery in Iloilo City and the
killing of JOEY in Pototan, Iloilo is of no moment since the killing may be prior to,
concurrent with, or subsequent to the robbery. The killing of JOEY was intimately
connected or necessarily related with the robbery since the subject of the argument
which ensued between JOEY and TITO was the division of the loot, which were
essentially the effects of the crime of robbery notwithstanding the fact that the robbery
took place in Iloilo City while the killing was done in Pototan, Iloilo. It is enough therefore
that the homicide resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery in order to
constitute the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

On the part of the defense of the respondent it is a settled rule that alibi is the
weakest of all defenses because it is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is
generally rejected. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was
somewhere else when the crime was committed, that he must likewise demonstrate that
it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at that time. (People vs.
Malejana, 479 SCRA 610).

Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of
the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense. Alibi like denial,
is also inherently weak and fabricated----for these defenses to justify an acquittal, the
following must be established: the presence of the accused in another place at the time
of the commission of the offense and the physical impossibility for him to be at the
scene of the crime. (People vs. Mangit-ngit, 502 SCRA 560).

As regards the alibi of the respondents, that they were not at the place when the
crime was committed, cannot be appreciated since the respondents failed to convince
the Investigating Prosecutor that they satisfy all the elements to sustain the defense of
alibi. Pototan is more or less thirty (30) kilometers away from Iloilo City, as such it can
be reached by about thirty to forty five (30-45) minutes of travel using any motorized
vehicle. Hence, the respondents failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible
for them to have been at the scene of the crime when the same was committed.

Respondent TITO CRUZ, as for his defense, admitted killing JOEY CRUZ on the
ground of self-defense. However, it is a well settled rule that once an accused has
admitted that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him in
order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. (Cabuslay vs People, 471 SCRA 241)

In order for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated, the following

requisites must concur, to wit: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.

Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his
life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary.

Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of self-defense, would presuppose an

actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of the
person---not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude---but most importantly, at the
time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor; there is aggression in
contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to
one’s life. (People vs Dagani, 499 SCRA 64)

TITO CRUZ failed to persuade the Investigating Prosecutor that the killing was
indeed done in self-defense. The element of unlawful aggression was lacking since
based on the respondent’s affidavit, the deceased JOEY CRUZ was holding a bolo and
running towards him when he decided to shot the victim. Based on the facts alleged, it
can be gleaned that there was yet no unlawful aggression as there was no actual or
imminent danger on TITO’s life and limb. The danger feared by TITO most likely was
merely imaginary. Hence, the theory of self-defense by TITO must fail.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully recommended

that an information for the crime of Robbery with Homicide be filed against the
respondents TITO and VIC CRUZ.

Iloilo City, June 4, 2008.

PLARIDEL H. MAKABAYAN
Assistant City Prosecutor

APPROVED BY:
GREGORIO T. TAROSA
Chief City Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:
(1) Tito Cruz- Brgy. Mabalud, Pototan, Iloilo
(2) Vic Cruz- Brgy. Mabalud, Pototan, Iloilo